OT: China halts over 100 coal power projects

Oops. Must have read the 22,500 MW as it were written in Dutch, where the comma would be the decimal point. Silly of me.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Yeah, a single thermal solar plant in South Africa (in the Kalahari) that will generate 450MW. Pretty impressive even- from 10km away you can see lighting-like stuff going on above the tower (probably reflections from intense light hitting the turbulent air)

There is a similar sized (392MW) 'eye of Sauron' one in the Mojave (California) that almost melted itself recently.

I think the Chinese had to move well over 1,000,000 people to build 3 gorges. They have already recovered the full cost after only a few years of full operation (they say).

--sp

--
Best regards,  
Spehro Pefhany 
Amazon link for AoE 3rd Edition:            http://tinyurl.com/ntrpwu8

Not to mention the overall pollution and (*horrors*) CO2 released by all of these local backup generators.

That flames a lot of birds. And doesn't make nameplate power. And uses a lot of natural gas.

The people were cheap.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Even a modest business would need megawatt-hours of storage.

Diesel particulates are really nasty. CO2 is mostly good stuff.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Yes, less than $5,000 USD per person, though that was a LOT more money (in China) 20+ years ago when it was happening, and it was a very undeveloped area. Maybe equivalent to $50K then and $8-10K now in purchasing power.

--sp

--
Best regards,  
Spehro Pefhany 
Amazon link for AoE 3rd Edition:            http://tinyurl.com/ntrpwu8

olar-Power-Project/

The bird will learn - or a least those that survive.

It's a development facility and it is getting closer to nameplate power.

And it's as half-way house. The serious thermal solar power plants store th e heat in molten salts, and can have big enough - and well-insulated enough - tanks of it to keep on generating steam overnight, wihtout any help from natural gas to get the steam generation going every morning.

The three Gorges Dam is as much a flood prevention and flow-control device as it is a power generation system.

Without it, there was serious downstream flooding from the Yangtze River ab out once per decade. The dam should be able to reduce that to about once a century (providing that climate change doesn't mess up the statistics).

The dam is actually allowed to drain - from 175 metres of water depth to 14

5 metres - during the dry season from December to March to make room for ra infall, and to keep up the flow in the Yangtze.

Moving 1.3 million people was a big deal, but so was saving ten of millions from downstream flooding.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The frequent blackouts would seem to be hypothetical.

Or a fairly large back-up diesel generator.

No. Which is why national economies include enough dispatchable power in their generating mix to prevent frequent blackouts. Friedman in

suggested that parked electric car batteries and electronically network-negotiated switching off of devices that didn't need power all the time might form part of the final mix.

John Larkin swallows the whole "CO2 is good for plants" lie peddled by the denialist propaganda sites. It's specious nonsense, but John Larkin is too ignorant and too gullible to spot the flaws.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Must be false, since you say so. But why do owners of greenhouses spend money to add CO2 to the atmosphere in their greenhouses? I guess they are being paid by the denialist propagandists.

Dan

Everyone but Bill is being paid by them. It's like the Truman show. Apparently.

Nobody has paid Bill to do anything for a very long time.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

What works for greenhouses - where the plants have all the water and nutrients they need - doesn't work so well in nature.

Plants adapt to higher CO2 levels by shrinking the number of stomata on their leaves so they can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less water. Check geological history.

More CO2 helps in the greenhouse but it's not a growth-limiting nutrient in nature.

This isn't the only spurious nonsense that gullible suckers - like you - fall for on denialist web-sites, but it's a fairly representative sample.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Not since May 2003. It's irritating. I had my fist job interview in years a few months ago, but my wife thinks that it was just an employer who wanted to say that they had interviewed somebody older than 65.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney 
>  
>  
> --  
>  
> John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
>  
> lunatic fringe electronics

Denialist web-sites represent only a proportion of the web-sites offering information about climate change. Those that aren't being supported by the fossil-carbon extraction industry (as documented by Sourcewatch) supply rather different information.

What apparent about tabb is that he doesn't know much and can't think straight.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

What's apparent is your mental failings, and your ego driven attempts to justify them. Classic stuff really.

Due to the vocal alarmists, fossil CO2 is now commonly considered the _only_ pollutant. In practice, burning any matter fossil _as_well_as_ renewables will produce various kinds of pollution, such as sulphur and nitrogen oxides, small particles etc., which will have bad effects on the environment.

Driving a car burning some liquid fuel in a city center will have some bad effects regardless if the fuel is renewable or not. The only exception would be a car using hydrogen or electricity, but even in this case you still have to do the primary production somewhere but at least it can be done outside the city centers,

One other problem with biofuel is the environment problems such as sugarcane or palm oil farms crated into the jungle.

Each form of energy production will have their own good and bad features and should be treated according to all these issues, not just accordingly the fossil CO2 issue.

One of the last job interviews I had I was asked why I was interviewing for a job. I guess they felt anyone with experience working for themselves would just keep doing that. There is something to be said for a steady paycheck if they don't torture you too much.

Whatever. This last year was so good I likely won't work again, ever.

--

Rick C

Burning hydrogen may not produce much hydrocarbons, but it still produces nitrogen compounds. I suppose they can run the mixture a bit rich since a small amount of unburned H2 won't be the problem the hydrocarbons are. Still, you will always get nitrogen compounds, it's just a question of how much. If hydrogen is used in a fuel cell, then I don't believe it produces any real pollutants.

--

Rick C

Mother Nature smiles and accepts your "gift" without a word, while sitting across from you with a loaded gun.