DescentBB

first off, this really got me going when i first read/heard about this. (ref 1) ive heard nothing but stick and absolute tosh about carbon emissions for a while now, and this one has really made me want to go on a rant. also im not massively against what china is doing in any way cos theres not really much one can do about it, its just the other people who are.

This is the FIRST new gas power station sinse the 90s in britain pretty much and the first major power station in 5 years. Now, greenpeace, and friends of the earth and all those amateur do-gooders are out in their uncounted hundreds protesting this, handing out flyers and putting anti power plant stickers on my car when im at work.

this is all very well (well stickers on the car isnt, but . . .), but i see this in a different light.

(ref 2) China, is pumping out 2 major coal/gas/oil power stations A WEEK. thats right, 2 a week.

now my only question to those protesters is, if your goal truly is to save the planet/ reduce emissions, save the world etc.

are your efforts best spent ?

ref 1 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5085904.stm

ref 2 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 769743.stm

I just love the naivete of this statement:

He said there was no point blaming China for rising global CO2 emissions.

Rich nations had to set an example of low-carbon development for China to follow, Mr Ashton told the BBC.

As if China is going to stop their plans to rule the world and say \"Wow, Britain is holding off building their infrastructure out of concern for the environment so I guess we will do the same\"

The intellectuals at the root of these movements are scary stupid!!

Will Robinson wrote:The intellectuals at the root of these movements are scary stupid!!

Quite so.

A pollution map of the world (four year old data, too). Really shows where a lot of the problem is really at.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM340NKPZD_index_0.html

If anyone can come up with a similar map but with more current data, I'm interested.

tris wrote:first off, this really got me going when i first read/heard about this. (ref 1) ive heard nothing but stick and absolute tosh about carbon emissions for a while now, and this one has really made me want to go on a rant. also im not massively against what china is doing in any way cos theres not really much one can do about it, its just the other people who are.

This is the FIRST new gas power station sinse the 90s in britain pretty much and the first major power station in 5 years. Now, greenpeace, and friends of the earth and all those amateur do-gooders are out in their uncounted hundreds protesting this, handing out flyers and putting anti power plant stickers on my car when im at work.

this is all very well (well stickers on the car isnt, but . . .), but i see this in a different light.

(ref 2) China, is pumping out 2 major coal/gas/oil power stations A WEEK. thats right, 2 a week.

now my only question to those protesters is, if your goal truly is to save the planet/ reduce emissions, save the world etc.

are your efforts best spent ?

ref 1 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5085904.stm

ref 2 - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 769743.stm

That gas power station shouldn't be built, but yes the Chinese are one of the major problems. I really have no idea what we are supposed to do about China... build a giant dome around it?

I agree, gas power is retarded.

Lets start employing some more nuke engineers and build a few more nuke plants, the ones we have now are deprecated and need to be replaced.

Dakatsu wrote:I really have no idea what we are supposed to do about China... build a giant dome around it?

Stop buying things from it.

Yes, I know it's almost unavoidable. But we have to realize at some point that every cheap Wal-Mart purchase is a shot to our collective foot - more economically than environmentally, though.

Part of me is actually gleeful whenever that Olympic torch gets diffused.

Kyouryuu wrote:Stop buying things from it.

Ahahahah! Yeah, as if people would be willing to give up cheap labour. Good one.

TIGERassault wrote:

Kyouryuu wrote:Stop buying things from it.

Ahahahah! Yeah, as if people would be willing to give up cheap labour. Good one.

How true, people in this country want to make a high wage for their labor, but on the other hand they want to pay very little when they buy someone else’s.

if the dollar gets any lower, nike will surely open a factory in america

TechPro wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The intellectuals at the root of these movements are scary stupid!!

Quite so.

x3. Bears repeating; again and again and again ..........

China knows it has a problem, and is trying to fix it, they are bringing in emissions guidelines that are tougher than USA.
USA is as usual, languishing. Bush is an insessant roadblock.

There's this interesting way to think about it: The Developed First-World has emitted a lot of emissions and polution along it's way to get where we are today. Any newly developing country will likely naturally follow a similarly destructive path. Unfortunately as a planet we probably can't afford to let them do that. That's totally not fair though. So we are trying to develop ways of helping them develop an INSTANTLY environmentally friendly solution, bypassing the dirty technology evolution process. We essentially want to rush the greenest of energy options through the technology pipeline and into the hands of these developing countries ASAP. Otherwise as they expand they will do it destructively (just like the First World did all those decades ago).
Basically, the First World has a lot of mess to clean up - before we can lecture other countries (who's growing emissions impact is going to be HUGE, ie: China/India). And we'd better do it fast. Coz they need energy, and if we can't help them develop clean energy right off the bat then it's not goign to be good.

Will Robinson wrote:As if China is going to stop their plans to rule the world

don't be an idiot, China is trying to rule the world? Qualify your statement.

ccb056 wrote:I agree, gas power is retarded.

Lets start employing some more nuke engineers and build a few more nuke plants, the ones we have now are deprecated and need to be replaced.

i totally agree

the risk from Global warming is much worse than Nuclear - which by today's reactor designs is next to non-existant. I wish Greenys would understand this. I can't stand it how they bad-mouth Nuclear.

ironically, Coal mining and the emissions from Coal plants kill thousands of people every year.
Also burning Coal releases TONS of radioactive particles into our atmosphere. Much MUCH more than even exploding nuclear reactors.
People have the risks all backwards in their head, ppl really need to know the true risk analysis.

roid wrote:the risk from Global warming is much worse than Nuclear - which by today's reactor designs is next to non-existant. I wish Greenys would understand this. I can't stand it how they bad-mouth Nuclear.

Very true. Nuclear power conjures up images of Chernobyl, but with more modern designs, the risk of a "meltdown" is very slim.

The main concern I have about nuclear power is the disposal of the radioactive material, not the risk of a meltdown.

Foil wrote:The main concern I have about nuclear power is the disposal of the radioactive material, not the risk of a meltdown.

Which IS what bothers the "Greenys" about nuclear power.

They can bake (?) radioactive material into solid rock blocks now. IIRC this is what they do in Europe. They don't leach, they are much like granite, iirc they are not even very radioactive. To get to the radioactive waste you effectively have to \"mine\" the rock again.

Also, with modern breeder reactors they can recycle much of their waste - reducing the small of actual waste by a factor or 2.

iirc coal power plants effectively disperse the equivalent nuclear waste into our atmosphere. If you want something radioactive to worry about - worry about that.

You can actually fuel nuclear reactors from the radioactive emissions from coal plants. It has been suggested our efforts to capture and sequester CO2 from coal plants will actually pan out in this way - it'll be a source of nuclear fuel that can be fed into nuclear plants.

roid wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:As if China is going to stop their plans to rule the world

don't be an idiot, China is trying to rule the world? Qualify your statement.

They call their country Zhongguo which is middle kingdom or center of the universe...their dynasties rose and fell under the Mandate of Heaven which meant whoever ruled did so because god wanted him to and anytime a ruler lost his rule it was because god deemed him to be unworthy of continuing his dynasty...
The Mandate of Heaven is their ancient philosophy that rationalizes and justifies their relentless struggle to conquer all.
That is the historical foundation for my statement. They have centuries of wars where they would attack neighboring kingdoms and grow their territory into what we now call China.

So I took that understanding of their culture and figured in the numerous comments and actions by their current leadership/generals who say 'It isn't a question of if China will go to war with the United States but when....

Threats to ship a nuclear weapon into Los Angeles harbor...

Testing their long range nuclear capable missiles by launching them into Alaskan coastal waters...

Turning their whole economy and population into nothing more than an engine to build the worlds biggest military force...

Seriously, you would be the idiot, not me, to ignore the Chinese in their long range pursuit. Their patience and narrow focus on the goal is unsurpassed by any culture I have ever learned about. One day the rest of the world will go to war with them and it will make all other wars look like a school cafeteria foodfight!

WOW!

Either that’s the dumbest thing I ever heard, or the scariest.

roid wrote:China knows it has a problem, and is trying to fix it, they are bringing in emissions guidelines that are tougher than USA.

Yea right. A new coal plant is being built in China every week. No exaggeration.

roid wrote:They can bake (?) radioactive material into solid rock blocks now. IIRC this is what they do in Europe. They don't leach, they are much like granite, iirc they are not even very radioactive. To get to the radioactive waste you effectively have to "mine" the rock again.

I... have no idea what the heck you're talking about now. And apparently, neither does Wikipedia.

Lol, that’s what you get for using Wikistupidia in the first place…

The nuclear waste solidification processes i'm talking about are Vitrification and the even better alternative: Synroc.

Here's a picture of a vitrification experiment for the study of nuclear waste disposal at Pacific Northwest National Labs. That molten mass will solidify into a block of solid glass that will never leech.


Here is a very informative transcript for a short TV segment about Synrock.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/sto ... 494179.htm

I wasn't able to find any videos about the impressive Synroc process (although i have seen some on Aussie TV).
But i was able to find some videos about a Vitrification plant.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=n ... itesearch=

Top Wop wrote:

roid wrote:China knows it has a problem, and is trying to fix it, they are bringing in emissions guidelines that are tougher than USA.

Yea right. A new coal plant is being built in China every week. No exaggeration.

With few other options, what other choice do they have? Their economy is growing incredibly fast, they need energy. They also produce a lot of solar panels, but they don't export them - they are used to produce energy in China. Their growing industry and cities have such a fast growing appetite for energy it's hard to keep up, that's why clean technologies are being pushed through the pipeline so quickly - it's somewhat desperate.

Given the way things are panning out - with China now running around in space. I wonder if China will be the first to construct and use massive space-based solar power stations that beam their power back to earth.


Although i have a vague recolection of them having plans to do something about smog as a whole... IIRC the emissions standards they are bringing in are for vehicles - as with China's increasing economy they are going to have an increasing amount of private cars. Also IIRC a great deal of their smog is from 2 stroke engines - so i have a vague recollection about the Chinese government specifically trying to tackle the abundance of 2-strokes.
All of this will pan out.

roid wrote:The nuclear waste solidification processes i'm talking about are Vitrification and the even better alternative: Synroc.

Here's a picture of a vitrification experiment for the study of nuclear waste disposal at Pacific Northwest National Labs. That molten mass will solidify into a block of solid glass that will never leech.


Here is a very informative transcript for a short TV segment about Synrock.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/sto ... 494179.htm

This vid made me chuckle. I read about this a little over a year ago. Pretty cool stuff. But what they don't tell you is that all this waist has been leaking into the ground for several DECADES and It nearly erupted several years ago. Yes.. erupted. There is a very volatile stew in those tanks and the gases cracked one tank iirc and a "small" amount made it into the atmosphere. ...who know really how much got out... So they needed something VERY quick.

Something I don't get is why they didn't mention that the glass will be stored there. They are building huge containment area. Also, for those who don't know, this is the site where the first A bombs were made; and much of our plutonium during the Cold War. this is a much welcomed solution around here and a pretty nifty one at that.

hehe, yeah maybe the video would make the presented case for vitrification even stronger if they mentioned how badly we had been storing liquid nuclear waste. They did mention how 1/3rd of them leak though - it's kinda cool how they are primarily going through all of the OLD stores of liquid nuclear waste - vitrifying the lot, effectively cleaning up our old problems.

But i guess they don't want to go too far with animosity towards the old-days, they probably don't want make enemies

Will Robinson wrote:

roid wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:As if China is going to stop their plans to rule the world

don't be an idiot, China is trying to rule the world? Qualify your statement.

They call their country Zhongguo which is middle kingdom or center of the universe...their dynasties rose and fell under the Mandate of Heaven which meant whoever ruled did so because god wanted him to and anytime a ruler lost his rule it was because god deemed him to be unworthy of continuing his dynasty...
The Mandate of Heaven is their ancient philosophy that rationalizes and justifies their relentless struggle to conquer all.
That is the historical foundation for my statement. They have centuries of wars where they would attack neighboring kingdoms and grow their territory into what we now call China.

So I took that understanding of their culture and figured in the numerous comments and actions by their current leadership/generals who say 'It isn't a question of if China will go to war with the United States but when....

Threats to ship a nuclear weapon into Los Angeles harbor...

Testing their long range nuclear capable missiles by launching them into Alaskan coastal waters...

Turning their whole economy and population into nothing more than an engine to build the worlds biggest military force...

Seriously, you would be the idiot, not me, to ignore the Chinese in their long range pursuit. Their patience and narrow focus on the goal is unsurpassed by any culture I have ever learned about. One day the rest of the world will go to war with them and it will make all other wars look like a school cafeteria foodfight!

China is surrounded by a number of nucular powers with long range missile technology (India, Pakistan, & Russia being the most obvious.) I don't doubt China has an agressive stance in world politics, and yes it is a police state - and yes, it does everything it can to enforce its views on the world culturally, economically and politically. But I reckon its immediate neighbours would have quite a bit to say about China making any further moves to expand its territories - even an incursion into Taiwan would be foolhardy given US support for the nation ...and the Chinese know it.

Gekko71 wrote:...China is surrounded by a number of nucular powers with long range missile technology (India, Pakistan, & Russia being the most obvious.) I don't doubt China has an agressive stance in world politics, and yes it is a police state - and yes, it does everything it can to enforce its views on the world culturally, economically and politically. But I reckon its immediate neighbours would have quite a bit to say about China making any further moves to expand its territories - even an incursion into Taiwan would be foolhardy given US support for the nation ...and the Chinese know it.

I doubt the U.S. would go to war over Taiwan, I've heard some members of congress imply that position recently, and I bet if Obama or Clinton become president China quickly puts herself on a 4 year plan to achieve the takeover.

Do a little Googling of China+nuclear+submarine or China+military and you'll find some very unsavory food for thought.

And as for China implementing stricter standards on clean air than the U.S....Heh, I seriously doubt it. Maybe they would feign something in some narrow non strategic area of industry to give themselves some political ammo to wag in the face of the U.S. or they will shut down factories during the Olympics but net bottom line test results of their overall performance will not support the contention that they are "trying to fix it", or that "they are bringing in emissions guidelines that are tougher than USA."
They will concern themselves with the environment only to the degree that their soldiers can't march if they are choking on bad air!

got it from this
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/04/recent ... -cafe.html

China has rather high MPG targets. Not emissions, but close.
Compare to USA which is currently shuffling it's feet all it can - of course.

and an earlier post http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/04/curren ... iency.html

roid,
In the graph you posted they list China's proposed goal and contrast it with the actual average achieved by the U.S., well China can propose any standard it wants to, just because they propose a higher standard than the U.S. currently achieves doesn't mean they are trying to do anything but posture!

Your perspective reminds me of why so many people loved Bill Clinton, he'd look into the camera, bite his lower lip, bat those puppy dog eyes and proclaim to feel our pain..then he'd lie like no one else can about what he will do to solve the problem...
Posturing is not a result, it's a political tactic designed to keep the stupid people on your side.

Bush refused to sign Kyoto because, overall, it wasn't a reasonable goal. Most, if not all, of the countries that signed it failed miserably to live up to the goals set out in Kyoto.
In my eyes Bush was more realistic and the others were willing to blow smoke up your collective butts but I guess for many the mere display of posturing was all they needed.

Why do you suppose China doesn't have actual averages on that graph? Certainly they can capture the data like the other countries did!
Why do think China, and others, were exempt from the Kyoto requirements? Is it possible that Chinese pollution doesn't really harm anything?!? Or do you think there is a political reason?

They’re going to hit 43 mpg in a year…good luck to that.

Europe and Japan have high standards already in place, are they meeting them?

Don’t bash me, I’m just curious, because I would like to see success on this.

China is going to have so many cars in the future American standards and others wont mean as much.

Spidey wrote:China is going to have so many cars in the future American standards and others wont mean as much.

Don't you mean China is going to have so many RAN OUT OF OIL KTHXBYE in the future American standards and others wont mean as much.

I said what I meant, and I meant what I said.

Will Robinson wrote:roid,
In the graph you posted they list China's proposed goal and contrast it with the actual average achieved by the U.S., well China can propose any standard it wants to, just because they propose a higher standard than the U.S. currently achieves doesn't mean they are trying to do anything but posture!

Yeah i guess if you want to, you can say that your gut instinct is telling you that China of just pretending.
On the other hand, you don't need to rely on gut instincts to show you that Bush IS visibly trying to undermine the ability of states to mandate their own BETTER emissions standards.

Did you miss that bit? You talk about the Kyoto protocol as if Bush didn't think it was a reasonable goal. When he's actively undermining the ability of other states to reduce their own emissions - effectively actively PUSHING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION - you have no leg to stand on.

Your perspective reminds me of...

Your perspective reminds me of a typical American nationalist. Obviously.

"Our god like leader can do no wrong, i admit no wrongdoing, i follow until death"

roid wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:roid,
In the graph you posted they list China's proposed goal and contrast it with the actual average achieved by the U.S., well China can propose any standard it wants to, just because they propose a higher standard than the U.S. currently achieves doesn't mean they are trying to do anything but posture!

Yeah i guess if you want to, you can say that your gut instinct is telling you that China of just pretending.

Well my instinct is fueled by watching what they actually do compared to what they say they will do so it isn't some kind of wild ass guess, it's most likely going to be the way I predict it will be...
My take on it is certainly more sensibly grounded than your assertion that 'China is trying to fix things'!

roid wrote:On the other hand, you don't need to rely on gut instincts to show you that Bush IS visibly trying to undermine the ability of states to mandate their own BETTER emissions standards.

Did you miss that bit? You talk about the Kyoto protocol as if Bush didn't think it was a reasonable goal. When he's actively undermining the ability of other states to reduce their own emissions - effectively actively PUSHING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION - you have no leg to stand on.

I didn't miss it but I don't know that what California is trying to accomplish is reasonable so Bush's resistance might be warranted. California is the source of many many stupid government mandates!
Show me that what they want is reasonable and I'll add Bush's resistance to it as one more of his many screw ups but given the choice between Bush's point of view and typical California legislation it's a pretty even match in the game of short sighted over-reaching execution.

roid wrote:

Your perspective reminds me of...

Your perspective reminds me of a typical American nationalist. Obviously.

"Our god like leader can do no wrong, i admit no wrongdoing, i follow until death"

If there is a god he certainly must be something more impressive than G.W.Bush but as far as my being a "typical nationalist" it's hard to be humble when your so damn good most of the time that almost every other culture wants to copy us and since our inception they all move here versus any other place by a large margin

It just saddens me that, despite having the advantage of being able to start fresh with modern knowledge of environmentally friendly(er) ways of doing things, China looks like it'll just end up repeating our mistakes.