Where's the coal gone?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:41 pm

This one too. It also explains why the deniers and assholes keep trying to talk about Poland and not any one else in Europe

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:13 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:This one too. It also explains why the deniers and assholes keep trying to talk about Poland and not any one else in Europe

Hi IT, have you got a version that shows absolute numbers per country - and another that shows per capita numbers?

These figures, I'm guessing, are just showing fuel used for power generation. What about the rest of the energy usage and carbon emissions?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:14 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi IT, have you got a version that shows absolute numbers per country - and another that shows per capita numbers?

These figures, I'm guessing, are just showing fuel used for power generation. What about the rest of the energy usage and carbon emissions?

I got it from the Guardian article. The source is at the base of the image.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:25 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I think (though not sure) that Ferrybridge in Yorkshire is now 100% biomass but I'm going of hazy memory so apologies if its wrong.

I have no idea if its shipped in from the US though!

Some data on biomass here, Lancs.

https://www.drax.com/sustainability/bio ... d-control/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:33 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:That link proves my point

"The target is for the country’s coal-fired capacity to continue to grow until peaking in 2030."

When something peaks what do you think then happens to the thing that peaked? Does it continue to grow, or does it do the opposite of continuing to grow?
If you're stuck then ask the class for some help.

Hi IT, can I explain how you've got this wrong - it does not do "the opposite of continuing to grow."

If China expands its coal-fired capacity until 2030, let's assume that capacity at this date is X. Most coal-fired generation plants have a 40 year life. So, depending on the upward sloping capacity curve, we can assume that China's capacity will be at X or close to X for maybe another 10 years - and then start to decline slowly while the older coal-fired plants are closed down.

The only thing that will change that is economics, i.e. a market approach to carbon emissions reduction making the cost of burning coal higher than the alternative generation fuels - plus the cost of air pollution.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:37 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Some data on biomass here, Lancs.

https://www.drax.com/sustainability/bio ... d-control/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And here is better information
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39053678" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.chathamhouse.org/publicatio ... al-climate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:54 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:And here is better information
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39053678" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.chathamhouse.org/publicatio ... al-climate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why is it better info, IT?

I understand it argues against wood pellets - and I understand that Drax burns wood pellets. But, why is one point of view better than the other?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:14 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Why is it better info, IT?

I understand it argues against wood pellets - and I understand that Drax burns wood pellets. But, why is one point of view better than the other?

Because the independence and impartiality of a research paper written by a senior fellow at a not-for-profit and non-governmental think tank as well respected as Chatham House is much, much more trustworthy when it comes to the subject of the impact of biomass on our climate than the website of a corporation that earns its money from the use of biomass.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:00 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Because the independence and impartiality of a research paper written by a senior fellow at a not-for-profit and non-governmental think tank as well respected as Chatham House is much, much more trustworthy when it comes to the subject of the impact of biomass on our climate than the website of a corporation that earns its money from the use of biomass.

Hi IT, I didn't have time to respond properly earlier. I appreciate you finding a Chatham House research paper. Agree, good stuff to read - hence my "Like."

Better than my link to Drax? I'm not sure, Drax provided the facts on wood pellets - which is the question I was responding to.

Chatham House makes interesting comments about how "green" wood pellets are - and that it is only politicians (I think the IPCC is criticised) who have chosen that wood pellets are "zero carbon emissions" - whereas that is debatable, at best.

Of course, we all class wind turbines as green - while we ignore how much steel and concrete is required to build the turbines...

Or, maybe you have a research paper that has looked at all the "collateral" carbon emissions prior to the generation of "zero carbon" electricity.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:28 am

Stayingup wrote:So does Germany whi h has seven out of the top eight arbon emmiters in Europe. And still Emma Thompson hasnt gone to tell them about it.

Why do you make stuff up when it's so easy to disprove?
It just reveals your prejudices and destroys any argument that you are trying to make.
The opposite of what you claim is the actual reality.It's not expanding at all, in fact Germany has massively reduced its dependence on coal and fossil fuels.
It has a clear plan / costed policy to not only close all 84 of its remaining coal-powered electricity plants within 20 years, but also to invest 45 billion to support regions that will be hit by this.
But It is the 75th anniversary of D-Day, so let's just put out fake news about the "enemy" eh?
(Sad thing is that the several on here would just swallow what you wrote unless it was pointed out to them)
Incidentally they've already committed to closing all their nuclear capacity as well and aim to be using 80% renewables by 2040. It's already risen above 40%. A massive rise since reunification in 1990.

1968claret · Post by **1968claret** » Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:03 am

dsr wrote:The still unanswered question is, what makes up the other 27% of the last fortnight's power that wasn't from UK coal fired power stations, and wasn't from gas, nuclear, and wind?

I think you will find that it is from the hot air and wind generated on this forum

Where's the coal gone?

Re: Where's the coal gone?

Re: Where's the coal gone?

Re: Where's the coal gone?

Re: Where's the coal gone?

Re: Where's the coal gone?

Re: Where's the coal gone?

Re: Where's the coal gone?

Re: Where's the coal gone?

Re: Where's the coal gone?

Re: Where's the coal gone?

Re: Where's the coal gone?