How've you all been enjoying the brownouts that were promised if we reduced fossil fuel use?
Maybe we should re-open the coal mines.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48473259" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Our tiny little Island has stopped using coal...Meanwhile China races ahead using more and more and building coal fired power stations both in China and abroad.

China and Poland digging it out of the ground like there was no tomorrow and if they don't stop there will be no tomorrow.
However where we used to burn coal we now burn gas and oil. Still good to see the recent use of solar power accounting for 25% from the Grid but that won't last the year for obvious reasons.
Still have a pretty shaky energy policy when it comes to supply and demand.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Yep. China are using more coal. But non stupid people knows that when you have an economy that's growing like China's you can just suddenly go cold turkey on your energy sources, which is why their plan for reducing their output in the long term is more important than their increase in the short term. Any idiot should be able to work that out.

"The largest power producers in China have asked the government to allow for the development of between 300 and 500 new coal power plants by 2030 in a move that could single-handedly jeopardise global climate change targets."

The Chinese government has not adopted the industry proposal, but it is under consideration.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/0 ... 0-climate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


PeOple wHo ThInK ChiNa DoNt PlAn To ReDuCe tHeIr cOaL dEpEnDence aRe IdIoTs

ClaretMoffitt wrote:"The largest power producers in China have asked the government to allow for the development of between 300 and 500 new coal power plants by 2030 in a move that could single-handedly jeopardise global climate change targets."

The Chinese government has not adopted the industry proposal, but it is under consideration.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/0 ... 0-climate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


PeOple wHo ThInK ChiNa DoNt PlAn To ReDuCe tHeIr cOaL dEpEnDence aRe IdIoTs

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.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:"The largest power producers in China have asked the government to allow for the development of between 300 and 500 new coal power plants by 2030 in a move that could single-handedly jeopardise global climate change targets."

The Chinese government has not adopted the industry proposal, but it is under consideration.

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/0 ... 0-climate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


PeOple wHo ThInK ChiNa DoNt PlAn To ReDuCe tHeIr cOaL dEpEnDence aRe IdIoTs

Are you mad telling Charlie he has something wrong ?

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.

So they plan to grow the sector by hundreds of plants until 2030 (11 years) and then suddenly go in the total opposite direction, do they?

Think this is more what IT was referring to (ie long term planning)

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2018082 ... lar-energy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:Are you mad telling Charlie he has something wrong ?

But i haven't, as i've already proven. The article itself says that coal capacity is expected to peak in 2030 even if this plan is adopted (sooner if it's not, obviously), which fits with what i said about China having a plan to reduce their coal dependence.

Let's be realistic, we'll not stop it with fossil fuels until we've burn't every last lump of coal and squeezed the last drop of oil and gas from under what's left of the ice caps. We know we should, but we won't.

Maybe we'd be better throwing our time and money at projects like that one in Canada where they're sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere or some madcap scheme a British company is working on about making clouds over the poles.

Because humans are always going to be shortsighted and selfish - let's just accept that - but we're also marvellously inventive. Particularly when we're all about to die in some environmental armageddon.

NottsClaret wrote:Let's be realistic, we'll not stop it with fossil fuels until we've burn't every last lump of coal and squeezed the last drop of oil and gas from under what's left of the ice caps. We know we should, but we won't.

Maybe we'd be better throwing our time and money at projects like that one in Canada where they're sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere or some madcap scheme a British company is working on about making clouds over the poles.

Because humans are always going to be shortsighted and selfish - let's just accept that - but we're also marvellously inventive. Particularly when we're all about to die in some environmental armageddon.

Yeah. We're definitely ******. But I enjoy reminding those who denied the science and were opposed to action to prevent the worst of it that we were right and they were wrong.

She was in the x factor audience last nite the mucky cow

Lancasterclaret wrote:Think this is more what IT was referring to (ie long term planning)

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2018082 ... lar-energy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

China just seem to be throwing the kitchen sink at any and all types of energy farming, be it nuclear, solar or fossil fuels. I don't really see any evidence that they are trying to buck their act up with regards to emissions and environmental disruption. Its easy to come up with "plans" to appease world leaders that may try to pressure them into going greener but I believe in deeds, not words; and to me, spending the next 10 years building more of something you say you want to move away from isn't all that convincing.

Imploding Turtle wrote:How've you all been enjoying the brownouts that were promised if we reduced fossil fuel use?
Maybe we should re-open the coal mines.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48473259" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

40% gas (which is a fossil fuel), 20% nuclear, 13% wind - where did the rest come from? 27% is a big hole to bury "other". Imports, perhaps? Coal-fired imports, perhaps?

ClaretMoffitt wrote:China just seem to be throwing the kitchen sink at any and all types of energy farming, be it nuclear, solar or fossil fuels. I don't really see any evidence that they are trying to buck their act up with regards to emissions and environmental disruption. Its easy to come up with "plans" to appease world leaders that may try to pressure them into going greener but I believe in deeds, not words; and to me, spending the next 10 years building more of something you say you want to move away from isn't all that convincing.

No doubt they want massive growth CM, but they are not daft, the pollution in places like Shanghai can't be blamed on "western imperialistic spies"

And the Chinese are brilliant at thinking long term ( certainly by western standards) and they are no more likely to want to die in a ball of fire than the rest of us.

But all we can do as a country is do the best we can do, be that climate change or whatever. We really have no excuse and going "There isn't any point because of China or India" doesn't help.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:China just seem to be throwing the kitchen sink at any and all types of energy farming, be it nuclear, solar or fossil fuels. I don't really see any evidence that they are trying to buck their act up with regards to emissions and environmental disruption. Its easy to come up with "plans" to appease world leaders that may try to pressure them into going greener but I believe in deeds, not words; and to me, spending the next 10 years building more of something you say you want to move away from isn't all that convincing.

Again, you clearly didn't read the article you linked.


"It comes as coal-fired power capacity additions in 2018 slowed to their lowest rate since 2004, both in China and globally, though carbon emissions from the sector continued to rise, according to the International Energy Agency."

It might not be adequate, but it's not nothing.

A certain thing called "biomass" is helping us claim to have boosted are renewable energy resources.

Essentially we're burning wood which we buy from America and have it shipped over the Atlantic ocean.

What this thread appears to be light on (which is odd for an IT thread) is some FACTS.

dsr wrote:40% gas (which is a fossil fuel), 20% nuclear, 13% wind - where did the rest come from? 27% is a big hole to bury "other". Imports, perhaps? Coal-fired imports, perhaps?

Solar and biomass are probably the main other two with some imports (maybe 5%) from France, Ireland and the Netherlands. I think France is mainly nuclear, not sure about the others.

Rowls wrote:A certain thing called "biomass" is helping us claim to have boosted are renewable energy resources.

Essentially we're burning wood which we buy from America and have it shipped over the Atlantic ocean.

What this thread appears to be light on (which is odd for an IT thread) is some FACTS.

So far as I understand biomass was more waste materials (including waste wood) but I am no expert.

Can you provide some more FACTS on biomass please.

Rowls wrote:A certain thing called "biomass" is helping us claim to have boosted are renewable energy resources.

Essentially we're burning wood which we buy from America and have it shipped over the Atlantic ocean.

What this thread appears to be light on (which is odd for an IT thread) is some FACTS.

Your post is light on sources.

I've no problem with this thread becoming a wider discussion on the types of fuel used to produce our energy, in fact I welcome it. But this is how you can tell Rowls is a hypocrite. If you go on the antisemitism thread and ask him why he's not talking about antisemitism in other parties he'll tell you it's because the thread is about antisemitism in the Labour party and that if you want to talk about it in other parties then you should start a thread about the other parties. But here he is in a thread that is clearly about coal complaining that i'm not talking about wood.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I've no problem with this thread becoming a wider discussion on the types of fuel used to produce our energy, in fact I welcome it. But this is how you can tell Rowls is a hypocrite. If you go on the antisemitism thread and ask him why he's not talking about antisemitism in other parties he'll tell you it's because the thread is about antisemitism in the Labour party and that if you want to talk about it in other parties then you should start a thread about the other parties. But here he is in a thread that is clearly about coal complaining that i'm not talking about wood.

More specifically, you have started a thread saying that 73% of our fuel for the last fortnight came from gas, nuclear, and wind, and 27% came from other non-UK coal sources. The source of the other 27% is critical to the discussion, because if it is imported electricity made by coal, then the original link was a sink of hypocrisy; and even if it was wood transported from America, it's a dubious claim to "greenness".

dsr wrote:More specifically, you have started a thread saying that 73% of our fuel for the last fortnight came from gas, nuclear, and wind, and 27% came from other non-UK coal sources. The source of the other 27% is critical to the discussion, because if it is imported electricity made by coal, then the original link was a sink of hypocrisy; and even if it was wood transported from America, it's a dubious claim to "greenness".

So what you're saying is that i made a good point. Rowls is a hypocrite for demanding this thread have the kind of wider discussion that he refused to engage in in the other thread.

dsr wrote:More specifically, you have started a thread saying that 73% of our fuel for the last fortnight came from gas, nuclear, and wind, and 27% came from other non-UK coal sources. The source of the other 27% is critical to the discussion, because if it is imported electricity made by coal, then the original link was a sink of hypocrisy; and even if it was wood transported from America, it's a dubious claim to "greenness".

We import a lot of nuclear generated electricity from France. There are several high power transmission cables running between the 2 countries on the bed of the English Channel. Most of the power needs of the South-East are met this way

Imploding Turtle wrote:So what you're saying is that i made a good point. Rowls is a hypocrite for demanding this thread have the kind of wider discussion that he refused to engage in in the other thread.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Your post is light on sources.

So we have two people (you and me) simply stating stuff.

Neither of us is refuting the UK isn't burning much coal (and didn't burn any for quite a while) but what are we burning in it's place?

And where is it coming from?

Is it any better than burning coal?

These are the questions a sensible person would be asking.

Rowls wrote:So we have two people (you and me) simply stating stuff.

Neither of us is refuting the UK isn't burning much coal (and didn't burn any for quite a while) but what are we burning in it's place?

And where is it coming from?

Is it any better than burning coal?

These are the questions a sensible person would be asking.

Provide your source or I (and everyone else who doesn't automatically just believe something because climate science denier online said so) can reasonably assume you're just making it up.

Coal is decayed and compressed wood !!!

Imploding Turtle wrote:Provide your source or I (and everyone else who doesn't automatically just believe something because climate science denier online said so) can reasonably assume you're just making it up.

The source of my questions is me.

And yes, I am making them up myself. I chose those questions using my brain and used my fingers to tap them out for you to read.

Rowls wrote:Neither of us is refuting the UK isn't burning much coal (and didn't burn any for quite a while) but what are we burning in it's place?

And where is it coming from?

Is it any better than burning coal?

Source: My brain

Rowls wrote:The source of my questions is me.

And yes, I am making them up myself. I chose those questions using my brain and used my fingers to tap them out for you to read.

Please point to the questions in this post

Rowls wrote:A certain thing called "biomass" is helping us claim to have boosted are renewable energy resources.

Essentially we're burning wood which we buy from America and have it shipped over the Atlantic ocean.

What this thread appears to be light on (which is odd for an IT thread) is some FACTS.

Too ******* easy!

Rowls wrote:The source of my questions is me.

And yes, I am making them up myself. I chose those questions using my brain and used my fingers to tap them out for you to read.

These weren't really questions that I was asking for FACTS about:

A certain thing called "biomass" is helping us claim to have boosted are renewable energy resources.

Essentially we're burning wood which we buy from America and have it shipped over the Atlantic ocean.

What this thread appears to be light on (which is odd for an IT thread) is some FACTS.

I assumed you had sources for what percentage of biomass that is being burnt in the UK is wood, is it waste wood (and how is waste defined), what percentage is being shipped over from America, what is the carbon impact compared to coal, gas, solar, etc? (These are questions).

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!

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!

Not sure about Ferrybridge but according to this link Drax is burning the most: https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2013/biomass-faq-2/#C11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ferrybridge 'C' is closed, awaiting demolition.

Imploding Turtle wrote:How've you all been enjoying the brownouts that were promised if we reduced fossil fuel use?
Maybe we should re-open the coal mines.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48473259" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No doubt being a leftie, you'd love that!

"Proper jobs"!!

tarkys_ears wrote:No doubt being a leftie, you'd love that!

"Proper jobs"!!

No. lol. That's a pretty stupid opinion to hold.

jrtod61 wrote:Ferrybridge 'C' is closed, awaiting demolition.

Defo a new biomass plant there though now, certainly drove past it a couple of weeks ago

aggi wrote:I assumed you had sources for what percentage of biomass that is being burnt in the UK is wood, is it waste wood (and how is waste defined), what percentage is being shipped over from America, what is the carbon impact compared to coal, gas, solar, etc? (These are questions).

Bad assumption but good questions, aggi. Exactly the sort of questions we need to be posing before celebrating not burning coal.

Not sure why you're posing them at me as if we are in some kind of opposition though.

Rowls wrote:Bad assumption but good questions, aggi. Exactly the sort of questions we need to be posing before celebrating not burning coal.

Not sure why you're posing them at me as if we are in some kind of opposition though.

Are you not going to bother providing a source to the claims you made earlier? If not then let me know so that i don't have to keep expecting them.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Are you not going to bother providing a source to the claims you made earlier? If not then let me know so that i don't have to keep expecting them.

What, for a post starting with "So far as I understand...."

No.

No I am not.

Are you going to disprove what I believe?

Knock yourself out, turtleboy

Rowls wrote:What, for a post starting with "So far as I understand...."

No.

No I am not.

Are you going to disprove what I believe?

Knock yourself out, turtleboy

No, dipshit. this one.

Rowls wrote:A certain thing called "biomass" is helping us claim to have boosted are renewable energy resources.

Essentially we're burning wood which we buy from America and have it shipped over the Atlantic ocean.

What this thread appears to be light on (which is odd for an IT thread) is some FACTS.

Rowls wrote:Bad assumption but good questions, aggi. Exactly the sort of questions we need to be posing before celebrating not burning coal.

Not sure why you're posing them at me as if we are in some kind of opposition though.

Ah, I assumed that when you said Essentially we're burning wood which we buy from America and have it shipped over the Atlantic ocean. that this was based on some kind of source and that you would then be able to provide some more specific detail on the above assertion as otherwise it's a bit meaningless. For instance if we're burning a ton a year that's not much to get excited about.

aggi wrote:Ah, I assumed that when you said Essentially we're burning wood which we buy from America and have it shipped over the Atlantic ocean. that this was based on some kind of source and that you would then be able to provide some more specific detail on the above assertion as otherwise it's a bit meaningless. For instance if we're burning a ton a year that's not much to get excited about.

I'm just assuming he made it up. There's got to be a reason he is resisting providing a source, and I assume it's because either he hasn't got one, or he's worried that it won't stand up to scrutiny.

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?

Solar, tidal and Hydro?

I guess anyway

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?

1% hydro
9% biomass
8% solar
6% france (mainly from Nuclear).
2% dutch

https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Post 38. The new power plant at Ferrybridge burns waste, which would otherwise go to landfill.

randomclaret2 wrote:Our tiny little Island has stopped using coal...Meanwhile China races ahead using more and more and building coal fired power stations both in China and abroad.

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.

This chart is pretty.