Renewable energy, the example of China?

[Christophe]

China is becoming more and more virtuous in the production of renewable energies ... an example to follow here!

This will offset, a little, the hundreds thousands of coal-fired Chinese power stations that have been running for years ...

[moinsdewatt]

China now has 189 GW capacity in wind.

Total installed wind power capacity reached 189 GW by the end of March in China
April 29, 2019 evwind

[adomanim]

It now appears that China is almost three years ahead of schedule. As reliable as the official figures may be, they nonetheless indicate a fall in coal consumption in 2016 for the third consecutive year, the main factor in China's carbon emissions. The country has understood that this decision in favor of the reduction of coal is in its own interest (the fuel feeds a large part of its heavy industry and produces electricity); This trend is likely to continue despite the abandonment on the part of the United States, under the Trump administration, of the program dedicated to the climate of former President Obama, as well as the Paris Agreements.

[realistic ecology]

Yes, China is more and more virtuous in terms of the production of renewable energies. But there is an urgent need to change the software: fossil fuels must indeed be replaced, but not only by intermittent low-carbon, "fatal" renewable energies, but more broadly by all low-carbon energies that we have on hand.
This is what China is doing by investing in renewable energy and also in nuclear. The example to follow is that of China, and not that of Germany, which has invested in renewable energies, but by reducing the share of nuclear power: as a result, Germany is not reducing its CO2 emissions.

Regarding the United States: despite Trump, the CO2 emissions of the United States are falling, since the exploitation of gas and oil from shale.

The energy transition

[Janic]

This is what China is doing by investing in renewable energy and also in nuclear.

they also want their Fukushima, they have always envied Japan! Even at that price?

The example to follow is that of China, and not that of Germany which has invested in renewable energies, but by reducing the share of nuclear power: the result, Germany is not reducing its CO2 emissions.

Ah, the fun! On a global scale, coal in Germany represents a rabbit pet. Fires throw out a lot more! So the more they make RES, the more they will reduce their CO2, them! And they won't bury their nuclear waste, them!

[GuyGadebois]

Regarding the United States: despite Trump, the CO2 emissions of the United States are falling, since the exploitation of gas and oil from shale.

Firstly it is false *, and secondly, thanks to this same exploitation of whole regions are devastated and poisoned.
https://reporterre.net/L-exploitation-d ... Etats-Unis

* https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/ ... _3244.html

[adomanim]

As for the United States: despite Trump, the United States' CO2 emissions have fallen since the exploitation of shale gas and oil.

[GuyGadebois]

As for the United States: despite Trump, the United States' CO2 emissions have fallen since the exploitation of shale gas and oil.

Evolution by region

China: + 2,5% (i.e. +230 Mt CO2);
India: + 4,8% (i.e. + 102 Mt CO2). Despite this increase, CO2 emissions per capita in India remain low, representing only 40% of the world average [the IEA does not provide more details on CO2 emissions per capita in its inventory];
United States: emissions were down from 2015 to 2017. In 2018, emissions are certainly still lower (-14%, or -800 Mt) than in 2000, the year when they reached their peak but they experienced a significant increase between 2017 and 2018 (+ 3,1%);
Europe [broadly]: -1,3% (-50 Mt CO2), with:
Germany: sharp drop (-4,5%) following a significant decrease in the consumption of coal and oil. The share of renewable energies in electricity production in Germany reached the unprecedented level of 37%.
United Kingdom: record level of renewable energies (35%) while the share of coal fell there to 5%, the lowest level ever reached. As a result, UK CO2 emissions have declined for the 6th year in a row. According to provisional 2018 data (source: BEIS, 28/03/2019), CO2 emissions were 364 Mt in 2018 (i.e. -39% compared to 1990), the lowest level since 1888 [excluding strikes national (source: Carbon Brief)];
France: sharp drop in emissions [figure not specified by the IEA] linked to less recourse than in 2017 to coal and gas power stations for the benefit of nuclear and hydroelectric electricity.

[realistic ecology]

Regarding the United States: despite Trump, the CO2 emissions of the United States are falling, since the exploitation of gas and oil from shale.

Firstly it is false *, and secondly, thanks to this same exploitation of whole regions are devastated and poisoned.

You cite an article that advertises in a misleading headline "CO2 emissions on the rise in the United States despite the closure of coal plants" … But in reality the article discusses an increase in CO2 emissions in the US between two years, only these two years. It's a good way to drown the fish, to hide a trend. If we change glasses to see a little wider, we see the trend, here it is:


Source: after CO2 emissions from fuel combustion - Highlights - 2018

I know the environmental nuisances of shale gas exploitation (it was not the subject). But then again, you have to change your glasses to see further than the tip of your nose, to see wider. Shale gas development creates problems producers (*). But the exploitation of shale gas makes it possible to slow down global warming which is a problem for it overall for the planet.
We must have the common sense to compare the fields of shale gas exploitation with the effects of global warming, the gigantic fires in Amazonia, in Siberia, in Australia, the floods and droughts elsewhere. And this is just the beginning.
You must not have your nose glued to images of shale gas extraction sites, you must not be mistaken in combat, the enemy to be defeated is global warming, and in this war the gas of schist is our ally.

Apart from that, nuclear power in China ... are you in favor?

(*) To show it you quote an article which is not afraid of the ridiculous by titling "The exploitation of the shale gas devastates the United States"
Definitely! It devastates all the United States ! !
Since you are citing this article, could you enlighten us by giving the surface area of all the United States which is concerned with shale gas exploitation. To see if it's an informational title or a propaganda title.

The energy of tomorrow; renewable energies, coal, nuclear

[GuyGadebois]

You should go back to your stupid site instead of pouring your liquid manure on it forum without even reading the WHOLE articles posted.