COP26 (UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties) Discussion

[Northernlights]

American heavy lift aircraft been circling RAF Lossiemouth for the last two days presumeably to pick up the vehicles used in POTUS "s  cavalcade!!!!!

[Wheezer]

While COP26 keeps its audience from going berserk... and then there's China

 

[Skullzrulerz]

Twenty countries pledge end to finance for overseas fossil fuel projects | Cop26 | The Guardian

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

UK among countries at Cop26 vowing to divert funds to low-carbon energy

This is expected to be announced tomorrow.

[Skullzrulerz]

More positive news coming though tonight.

Government press release here.

End of coal in sight as UK secures ambitious commitments at COP26 summit - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

---

The end of coal – the single biggest contributor to climate change – is in sight thanks to the UK securing a 190-strong coalition of countries and organisations at COP26, with countries such as...

 

 

 

 

 

[knocker]

China Skipped COP Meeting, but Roars Ahead on Decarbonizing

China has over the course of the year revealed the extensive scope of its plans for nuclear, an ambition with new resonance given the global energy crisis and the calls for action coming out of the COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow. The world’s biggest emitter, China’s planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35. The effort could cost as much as $440 billion; as early as the middle of this decade, the country will surpass the U.S. as the world’s largest generator of nuclear power.

The government’s never been shy about its interest in nuclear, along with renewable sources of energy, as part of President Xi Jinping’s goal to make China’s economy carbon-neutral by mid-century. But earlier this year, the government singled out atomic power as the only energy form with specific interim targets in its official five-year plan. Shortly after, the chairman of the state-backed China General Nuclear Power Corp. articulated the longer-term goal: 200 gigawatts by 2035, enough to power more than a dozen cities the size of Beijing.

https://climatecrocks.com/2021/11/04/china-skipped-cop-meeting-but-roars-ahead-on-clean-energy/

[cheeky_monkey]

3 hours ago, knocker said:

China Skipped COP Meeting, but Roars Ahead on Decarbonizing

China has over the course of the year revealed the extensive scope of its plans for nuclear, an ambition with new resonance given the global energy crisis and the calls for action coming out of the COP26 Climate Summit in Glasgow. The world’s biggest emitter, China’s planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35. The effort could cost as much as $440 billion; as early as the middle of this decade, the country will surpass the U.S. as the world’s largest generator of nuclear power.

The government’s never been shy about its interest in nuclear, along with renewable sources of energy, as part of President Xi Jinping’s goal to make China’s economy carbon-neutral by mid-century. But earlier this year, the government singled out atomic power as the only energy form with specific interim targets in its official five-year plan. Shortly after, the chairman of the state-backed China General Nuclear Power Corp. articulated the longer-term goal: 200 gigawatts by 2035, enough to power more than a dozen cities the size of Beijing.

https://climatecrocks.com/2021/11/04/china-skipped-cop-meeting-but-roars-ahead-on-clean-energy/

my question is why doesn't everyone go nuclear? seems the obvious solution to me

[Bristawl Si]

8 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

my question is why doesn't everyone go nuclear? seems the obvious solution to me

Yep. I used to advocate the N option many years ago in the now defunct politics thread. The French  have their heads screwed on. I think nuclear accounts for c70% of their energy/power needs (sure i read that only the other week).

And as i've also mentioned before i cannot for the life of me fathom out why the UK hasnt made more use of the seas that surround us, investing in hydro power. The tidal range near here, Severn estuary/Bristol channel, is huge.

And on the hydro front Norway utilise this form of power despite their oil and gas reserves. In fact their oil reserves only account for a few% of their overall power consumption.

[cheeky_monkey]

42 minutes ago, Bristle boy said:

Yep. I used to advocate the N option many years ago in the now defunct politics thread. The French  have their heads screwed on. I think nuclear accounts for c70% of their energy/power needs (sure i read that only the other week).

And as i've also mentioned before i cannot for the life of me fathom out why the UK hasnt made more use of the seas that surround us, investing in hydro power. The tidal range near here, Severn estuary/Bristol channel, is huge.

And on the hydro front Norway utilise this form of power despite their oil and gas reserves. In fact their oil reserves only account for a few% of their overall power consumption.

Nuclear power plants are way more efficient than any other forms of power generation...also nuclear power plants work at full capacity 92% of the time. For comparison, consider the operating times for other energy-generating sources: coal plants (54%), natural gas plants (55%), wind generators (37%) and solar plants (27%).

[Mixer 85]

10 hours ago, cheeky_monkey said:

Nuclear power plants are way more efficient than any other forms of power generation...also nuclear power plants work at full capacity 92% of the time. For comparison, consider the operating times for other energy-generating sources: coal plants (54%), natural gas plants (55%), wind generators (37%) and solar plants (27%).

Modern thorium reactors can also run on recycled spent waste from older reactors. The entire US electricity grid could be powered for 100 years on current stocks of spent waste. I believe it also neutralises the waste.

[Midlands Ice Age]

4 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

Modern thorium reactors can also run on recycled spent waste from older reactors. The entire US electricity grid could be powered for 100 years on current stocks of spent waste. I believe it also neutralises the waste.

These reactors are theoretically the best way forward.

The problem is that  they have been for quite a long time.

Let us all hope that they can be moved from the academic/theoretical  stage, to pre-production, and finally into worthwhile main stream producers of energy in just a few more years. 

I understand that China and the US are racing ahead, and that we are also examining the processes, but nothing definite yet.

 Anyone got any recent updates?

 MIA. 

[Wheezer]

While the west try to appease the pavement squatters, China continues to sense the kill.

Source: S&P global market intelligence.

Chinese companies are snatching up lithium projects worldwide, ensuring access to supplies of the metal amid worsening global shortages and surging prices.

The nation’s mining and battery companies acquired 6.4 million tonnes of lithium in reserves and resources in 2021, as of Oct. 18, nearly matching the 6.8 Mt of lithium acquired by all companies in 2020. China-based mining and battery giants have placed winning bids on five development-stage lithium projects valued at $1.58 billion, not including off-take and royalty deals, according to an analysis by S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Although China leads in global lithium processing and refining, it still sources the bulk of raw lithium products beyond its borders, including from Australia, Chile and Argentina. China’s buying spree, which stretches from Africa to South America, will safeguard access to lithium resources as COVID-19 disruptions and geopolitical tensions test the fragility of international supply chains. Global deficits in lithium supplies may also surge more than 60-fold to 950,000 tonnes in 2030, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, as rising sales of electric vehicles spur demand for the battery-making metal.

"Chinese companies have done the math and realized how much lithium they’re going to need to meet either battery or EV growth plans and have decided to try to secure that by going after some of the most promising junior projects in development," said Seth Goldstein, a senior equity analyst at Morningstar.

 

[Climate Man]

2 minutes ago, Wheezer said:

While the west try to appease the pavement squatters, China continues to sense the kill.

Source: S&P global market intelligence.

Chinese companies are snatching up lithium projects worldwide, ensuring access to supplies of the metal amid worsening global shortages and surging prices.

The nation’s mining and battery companies acquired 6.4 million tonnes of lithium in reserves and resources in 2021, as of Oct. 18, nearly matching the 6.8 Mt of lithium acquired by all companies in 2020. China-based mining and battery giants have placed winning bids on five development-stage lithium projects valued at $1.58 billion, not including off-take and royalty deals, according to an analysis by S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Although China leads in global lithium processing and refining, it still sources the bulk of raw lithium products beyond its borders, including from Australia, Chile and Argentina. China’s buying spree, which stretches from Africa to South America, will safeguard access to lithium resources as COVID-19 disruptions and geopolitical tensions test the fragility of international supply chains. Global deficits in lithium supplies may also surge more than 60-fold to 950,000 tonnes in 2030, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, as rising sales of electric vehicles spur demand for the battery-making metal.

"Chinese companies have done the math and realized how much lithium they’re going to need to meet either battery or EV growth plans and have decided to try to secure that by going after some of the most promising junior projects in development," said Seth Goldstein, a senior equity analyst at Morningstar.

 

As I have stated several times in the Net Zero thread. Russia,  China and India are going to use this to shift the world balance of power whilst we are removing glue. Scares me far more than climate change. 

[cheeky_monkey]

1 hour ago, Climate Man said:

As I have stated several times in the Net Zero thread. Russia,  China and India are going to use this to shift the world balance of power whilst we are removing glue. Scares me far more than climate change. 

finally somebody else sees the real danger to the planet in the next 50 years ..and its not climate change that's the least of our worries 

[Climate Man]

37 minutes ago, cheeky_monkey said:

finally somebody else sees the real danger to the planet in the next 50 years ..and its not climate change that's the least of our worries 

Thanks, I said last week in the other thread.  The three countries mentioned and a few others, will use the relatively cheap conventional energy to strengthen both their economies and military.  They will also control many of the materials needed for renewable energy.  They will have a stranglehold over the west. We are already seeing Russians start to flex their muscles.  Not only this but they will have an even longer reservoir of carbon based fuel as the West phases them out. I think Australia's proximity to China  explains their harder line on Net Zero.

[Derecho]

I personally think those countries that rely on fossil fuels too much to contribute to their GDP will be the ones left behind:
 

Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

$11tn fossil fuel asset crash could cause 2008-style financial crisis, warns new study

Whilst those who are sharpest with the transition to green technologies and the major importers of fossil fuels will benefit most (as they will decline in value so it becomes cheaper)

 

[Climate Man]

25 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

I personally think those countries that rely on fossil fuels too much to contribute to their GDP will be the ones left behind:
 

Half world’s fossil fuel assets could become worthless by 2036 in net zero transition

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

---

$11tn fossil fuel asset crash could cause 2008-style financial crisis, warns new study

Whilst those who are sharpest with the transition to green technologies and the major importers of fossil fuels will benefit most (as they will decline in value so it becomes cheaper)

 

Not worthless to them though. Cheap and easy and in plentiful supply. At the same time controlling many of the materials we need. Scale of 1 to 10 worry for me.  Climate change 5. New world order 10.

By the way.  It's good to debate with you compared with some of what goes on in other threads!

 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Climate Man

[Derecho]

31 minutes ago, Climate Man said:

Not worthless to them though. Cheap and easy and in plentiful supply. At the same time controlling many of the materials we need. Scale of 1 to 10 worry for me.  Climate change 5. New world order 10.

By the way.  It's good to debate with you compared with some of what goes on in other threads!

 

I would personally say climate change 9 and the decline of the west an 8, though I feel if we keep relying on old technologies then we are essentially shooting ourselves in the foot further.

I guess there will be countries that will be able to get fossil fuels cheaply as a result of these sweeping changes but we'll also be reaping some benefits of renewable supplies too. I suspect the winners will be those who switch to green technologies best but also to an extent which you imply, countries willing to consume fossil fuels on the cheap. There will be a tipping point when demand for fossil fuels drops to such an extent that it changes the dynamics of the world economy as the Guardian article indicates.

I guess the big question is what will those countries be and how much will their populations grow? If those consumers have a relatively small population and don't increase so much, then that wouldn't be too damaging. I believe at some point renewables will improve to such an extent that it becomes a better option for these countries too. However, if the population of these countries that consume fossil fuels on the cheap rapidly increase then that would become a big problem when it comes to achieving net zero.

Also as I've mentioned before, those arguing for tidal and nuclear I believe also have a point. Everyone probably gathers that I'm a keen advocate for new technologies but the more diverse our energy sources the better.

Thanks, policies relating to climate change are of course a developing area and the debate is never as simple for 1 side of the argument as it appears. Though for someone who is much more concerned about climate change I very much lean on the progressive side.

Changing times indeed.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Quicksilver1989

[Derecho]

1 hour ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

but the more diverse our energy sources the better.

Renewable energy sources!

[Bristawl Si]

Sky News today:

Australian minister for resources Keith Pitt said the country will continue to sell coal while demand remains for the fossil fuel.

His comments come after more than 40 nations pledged to eliminate coal use within decades during the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow.

Australia did not sign up to the pledge, alongside China and the US.

"We have said very clearly we are not closing coal mines and we are not closing coal-fired power stations," Mr Pitt told ABC.

He said Australia has some of the world's highest quality coal, adding demand for the fossil fuel is expected to rise until 2030.

[Ross90]

On 04/11/2021 at 19:55, cheeky_monkey said:

my question is why doesn't everyone go nuclear? seems the obvious solution to me

Probably not helped by the small but fairly vocal anti nuclear lobby that has been around for decades. Nuclear is far safer than all other clean energy projects other than wind and solar and it's easily more efficient than both of those but some people just can't get past the handful of accidents.

[Mixer 85]

Surprisingly, nuclear is apparently  safer than renewables…..

 

[Ross90]

I'm guessing the wind farm and solar deaths are mostly from workers falling or being electrocuted. 

[Mucka]

'I couldn't ski for three days': Team GB snowboarder on climate change.

 

yes this a real BBC headline.

But don't worry the BBC have interviewed that well known climate clown Ocasio-Cortez "pushing the bounds on climate," I should coco.

Meanwhile insider trading billionaire Pelosi has arrived, she may not be as wealthy as some of the other elite who have told us how we need to live like 3rd world peasants while they live in opulence and rule over us, but she is no less the "philanthropist" dedicating her life to the betterment of herself at the cost of others. At least I think that is what a philanthropist is given who the media label philanthropic.

I have been most moved thus far by Bezos who had his climate epiphany while floating above Earth in his personal rocket ship. People like him understand that to be a true humanitarian you must pay your staff such low wages they need tax payer subsidies and food stamps to sustain them while he swans around on a fleet of private jets, and sales on his super yacht to his private island and stays in his multi billion complexes to rest his poor weary soul.

Those speaking at Cop26 own over 2/3 of the entire worlds wealth between them and plan to make that 100%.

Blackrock, Vanguard, Morgan Chase and the central banks who basically run the world have been a little shy though, not sure why since wealth and power are clearly the most important criteria  on who gets to issue diktats in this world technocratic governance, oh I mean talk at the climate conference.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Mucka

[Yarmy]

23 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

Surprisingly, nuclear is apparently  safer than renewables…..

 

Sort of...but that's talking about safety in the workplace, whereas Joe Public is more worried about Chernobyl 2. If a wind turbine collapses it's not going to spread radioactive material across the country.

Still, modern reactors are much safer, and so I'm pro-Nuclear, but we shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket. Wind, tidal, solar are all worth investing in. And Fusion could be viable by the end of this decade, which would be a complete game-changer.

[Methuselah]

As they 'dispose' of the West's rubbish and thereby emit tons of CO2 on our behalf thorium reactors could help China reduce its emissions? Whatever. Anything, so long as we don't have to get rid of our own garbage and count our own CO2!

China prepares to test thorium-fuelled nuclear...

WWW.NATURE.COM

---

If China’s experimental reactor is a success it could lead to commercialization and help the nation meet its climate goals. If China’s experimental reactor is a success it could lead to commercialization and help the...

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Ed Stone