http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...dents-told-to-stay-inside-as-smog-levels-soarBeijing residents told to stay inside as smog levels soar
Air pollution in the Chinese capital has reached more than 15 times the safe level as smog engulfs large parts of the country
Saturday 28 November 2015 17.21 AEDT
Beijing’s residents have been advised to stay indoors after air pollution in the Chinese capital reached hazardous levels.
The warning comes as the governments of more than 190 nations gather in Paris to discuss a possible new global agreement on climate change.
China, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, is suffering from serious air pollution, largely attributed to smog from coal-fired power plants.
The onset of winter and the need for more heating of homes means the problem has intensified in the capital, which has an estimated population of 20 million.
At noon on Saturday, the US embassy in Beijing reported the level of the poisonous, tiny articles of PM2.5 at 391 micrograms per cubic metre.
The World Health Organisation considers the safe level to be 25 micrograms per cubic metre of the particulates.
Since Friday, the city had been shroud in grey smog, reducing visibilities to a few hundred metres.
I retain my view that we need an orderly, gradual transition to energy sources that do not emit significant CO2 but that a panic response would, at best, lead to a raft of unintended consequences that won't be nice.
And Bjorn Lomborg agrees.basilio .. go and read post #6817 by Smurf1976. He sums it up the best
I'm firmly in the "truth is somewhere in the middle" camp on the whole issue.
Changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere likely would have an effect on something, that's just commonsense, and the best scientific knowledge suggests that the effect would most likely be an increase in temperature.
On the other hand, we're not going to burn in hell by the end of next week. And even if we were, closing a coal mine or two won't stop it.
I retain my view that we need an orderly, gradual transition to energy sources that do not emit significant CO2 but that a panic response would, at best, lead to a raft of unintended consequences that won't be nice.
Any sensible action on CO2 also needs to focus attention on the many other environmental problems we face. Turning crops and forests into fuel is a truly terrifying prospect if done on a large enough scale. Then there's all the non-energy things and we've got a lot of very real problems there already and some are likely more urgent than CO2
Slavish submission to the free enterprise ideology is robbing this country of advancement, we wouldn't have had the Snowy Mountains scheme or Telstra if everything was left to the private sector.
In recent years, Esbjerg has adopted a new role and has developed into Europe’s leading port for shipping offshore wind turbines. The port has accounted for two thirds of the 3 GW (gigawatts) of offshore wind power so far installed in Europe. 65 percent of all Danish wind turbines have been shipped from Esbjerg, which has also been used to ship components to a number of offshore wind farms including the UK’s Lincs, Gunfleet Sands and London Array.
There are currently more than 2,262 solar companies at work throughout the value chain in California, employing 54,700 people.
In 2014, California installed 4,316 MW of solar electric capacity, ranking it 1st nationally.
The 11,535 MW of solar energy currently installed in California ranks the state first in the country in installed solar capacity. There is enough solar energy installed in the state to power 2,891,000 homes.
In 2014, $11.773 billion was invested on solar installations in California. This represents a 66% increase over the previous year, and is expected to grow again this year.
Average installed residential and commercial photovoltaic system prices in California have fallen by 5% in the last year. National Prices have also dropped steadily- by 6% from last year and 53% from 2010.
The CEO of Chinese solar giant Yingli Green Energy has told analysts that China’s solar target of 100GW installed by 2020 could be viewed as a minimum, due to the number of factors currently driving demand in the developing country.
The comments were made in a conference call with analysts, after Yingli – now ranked as the world’s second-largest solar panel producer, behind compatriot Trina Solar – reported its 14th consecutive quarterly loss.
In response to a question from Roth Capital’s Philip Shen, Yingli chairman and CEO Liansheng Miao said that China’s continued demand for new energy capacity, its ongoing battle against air pollution and energy poverty, and its focus on economic development, meant the 100GW solar target set in Beijing’s last Five-Year Plan “could be treated as the bottom.”
The World Bank has devised a $16bn (£10.6bn) strategy designed to help Africa adapt to climate change and prevent millions of people from sliding into poverty.
By fast-tracking clean energy, efficient farming and urban protection, the measures promise to greatly increase renewable energy across the continent, bolster food production and lead to the planting of billions of trees. It is also hoped that the scheme will improve life in cities and reduce poverty, migration and conflict.
The continent of nearly 1 billion people, which emits just 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, will be affected more than anywhere else by even the smallest rise in global temperatures, said Jim Yong Kim, the bank’s president, who will launch the Africa climate business plan at the UN climate talks in Paris next week.
The stooopid part about this is we are actually transitioning to eco friendly, tree hugging, planet saving, not Co2 polluting, solar passive generation of energy TS
Dead right TS. I agree that there is significant movement in the right direction. It is also very relevant that the costs of producing renewable energy are falling rapidly. (But that still doesn't stop the Government trying to say that moving to 45% renewable by 2030 is "heroically expensive.")
My observations, which simply echo all the experts in the field, is that we have reached a point where we have to accelerate this change at a rate that has never been seen short of a war time mobilisation program. That is certainly the message coming into the Paris meetings.
I hope we have collective insight to understand why we have to make the change and the capacity to redirect resources so we are successful. Certainly the process of going in that direction would create a strong sense of purpose in our society.
http://www.theclimatemobilization.org/
Maybe something like this ?
And Bjorn Lomborg agrees.
Even that argument isn't accurate if we get down to the logic of it. New investments mean new jobs, new industries might be created out of that incentive and drive to alternative sources; not having people die early death due to smog and pollution might be priceless to some people... then the thought of saving a precious, finite resource millions of years in the making, saving that for later generations to see what they can do with it rather than just burn the thing.
This comment probably won't win me too many supporters on as stock market forum but I'll go one step further and say that renewables are cheaper outright if we measure in terms of the material and labour inputs required.
Hydro, brown coal, wind, solar and geothermal all have something in common. They require lower human inputs overall than oil, most black coal, most natural gas and most biomass (there are exceptions but in the main it is true). So with the exception of brown coal, fossil fuels are most certainly more expensive than renewables.
It is modern accounting, which has only really been applied in this context for 20 - 25 years, that makes renewables (and low grade coal) more expensive than high grade fossil fuels. From a pure engineering perspective they're cheaper for sure.
Which as with all these energy debates then leads back to an argument about capitalism versus socialism since it is the "return on investment" concept which separates what is cheap from what is expensive. Drop the rate of return and it swings the balance in favour of renewables and brown coal. Raise the rate of return and it swings first to black coal and then to gas and oil as the rate is increased.
If you want renewables to be cheaper then all you need to do is use pre-1990's accounting and industry structures to do the sums. As I said, that argument won't likely find too much support on a stock market forum though (and fair enough all things considered).
Smurf1976 said:This comment probably won't win me too many supporters on as stock market forum but I'll go one step further and say that renewables are cheaper outright if we measure in terms of the material and labour inputs required.
Dead right TS. I agree that there is significant movement in the right direction. It is also very relevant that the costs of producing renewable energy are falling rapidly. (But that still doesn't stop the Government trying to say that moving to 45% renewable by 2030 is "heroically expensive.")
My observations, which simply echo all the experts in the field, is that we have reached a point where we have to accelerate this change at a rate that has never been seen short of a war time mobilisation program. That is certainly the message coming into the Paris meetings.
I hope we have collective insight to understand why we have to make the change and the capacity to redirect resources so we are successful. Certainly the process of going in that direction would create a strong sense of purpose in our society.
http://www.theclimatemobilization.org/
Maybe something like this ?
AUSTRALIA'S GDP is forecast to double to almost $3.5 trillion in the next 15 years, according to a league table of global economies.
The latest World Economic League Table, released by the Centre for Economics and Business Research, showed the nation's 2013 GDP of $1.66 trillion would jump to $3.48 trillion by 2028.
This comment probably won't win me too many supporters on as stock market forum but I'll go one step further and say that renewables are cheaper outright if we measure in terms of the material and labour inputs required.
The infrastructure required for solar, wind and water energy production and energy storage to power up the whole country would be massive?
Why so ?
Surely investors are after good deals, so why wouldn't people invest in inexhaustable clean energy rather that limited and polluting fossil fuels all things considered ?
Several large investors overseas are pulling out of fossil fuel investments and going to clean energy because they know where the future lies.
I intend to do the same, as soon as batteries become cost-competitive so I don't have to rely on Government subsidies.Yep, create a lot of jobs.
My Brother recently disconnected from the grid using solar, wind and recycling water with a windmill which also drives a generator. He can also recharge a battery on a bycycle frame in half an hour and excercise at the same time. He does have a petrol driven generator but has only used it a couple of times during early teathing problems.
But the indusries, petrol etc hate the simplicity of our understanding and the taking away thier control of us.
Even more so, the Government hates people who get something useful tax-free. If the barstuds could find a way to tax citizens for sunshine and the air we breathe, they'd implement it on some twisted logic "for the greater good".
Domestic power consumption is being transformed as you noted but the greater power consumption for medium to large industry and night time is something you have a solution for? No wind periods, no sun periods and night time is when energy storage becomes critical. Might need a few of your bro's mates to crank up their dynamo's for the neighborhood.So you are talking rubbish. We could change over in a flash with Government backing and force the industry players to assist or perish.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?