EdEarl Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 CNN Money: Quote China is preparing to put the brakes on gasoline and diesel cars. The country, home to the world's largest auto market, is working on a plan to ban the production and sale of vehicles powered solely by fossil fuels, officials say. The Chinese government is following in the footsteps of countries like India, France, Britain and Norway, which have already announced plans to ditch gas and diesel cars in favor of cleaner vehicles in the coming years. China is capitalizing on mistakes made by the fossil fuel feudalists who reign over both parties in the US. It puts China on moral high ground compared to the US. It signals the demise of the fossil fuel industry. And, the effects on climate change are good.
bimbo36 Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 Now this is seriously kind of cool and effective in bringing down pollution.
EdEarl Posted September 17, 2017 Author Posted September 17, 2017 True. China recently started writing contracts for oil, which previously has been done only in US currency, and called petrodollars. Not long before that, China started selling solar panel installations to power companies with cost per KWH lower than coal fired power plants. The political and economic implications of these moves by China are huge. The campaign against climate change by the Koch brothers seems destined to end as EVs begin to replace fossil fuel clunkers and solar farms replace coal power plants.
StringJunky Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 Thinking about it , if China gets the lead on this, the US, Russia and the Middle East are possibly going to see quite a power shift away from them through the shift in energy sources. Energy is a critical currency. I can't see that being a bad thing, even though China is communist. 1
EdEarl Posted September 17, 2017 Author Posted September 17, 2017 I think tags such as communist and democratic for a country are misleading. For example, many people think the US is democratic; however, it is not. From the beginning it has been a republic. However, the 1% now own the Congress and Senate, effectively making an oligarchy. The US uses its military power to terrorize some people, including its own population--highest rate of incarceration in the world. According to the Guardian, "US police kill more in days than other countries do in years." Mao was communist, but modern China is complicated. They are more Capitalist than Communist at this time, and are more pragmatic than dogmatic.
StringJunky Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, EdEarl said: I think tags such as communist and democratic for a country are misleading. For example, many people think the US is democratic; however, it is not. From the beginning it has been a republic. However, the 1% now own the Congress and Senate, effectively making an oligarchy. The US uses its military power to terrorize some people, including its own population--highest rate of incarceration in the world. According to the Guardian, "US police kill more in days than other countries do in years." Mao was communist, but modern China is complicated. They are more Capitalist than Communist at this time, and are more pragmatic than dogmatic. Yes, in practice they are becoming increasingly pragmatic. I buy quite a bit of consumer stuff from China and the service is indistinguishable from their Western counterparts. I am quite happy that they are engaging more and playing their part in the world at large. It is an evolving country. I think they are going the right way, changing as circumstances permit; evolution not revolution. Edited September 17, 2017 by StringJunky
EdEarl Posted September 17, 2017 Author Posted September 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, StringJunky said: Yes, in practice they are becoming increasingly pragmatic. I buy quite a bit of consumer stuff from China and the service is indistinguishable from their Western counterparts. I am quite happy that they are engaging more and playing their part in the world at large. It is an evolving country. I think they are going the right way, changing as circumstances permit; evolution not revolution. They seem destined to be the next super power. Unfortunately, power corrupts. What will the future bring?
StringJunky Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 1 minute ago, EdEarl said: They seem destined to be the next super power. Unfortunately, power corrupts. What will the future bring? Well, it'll take some power away from those I mentioned and may make things more stable globally. Western greed unwittingly supports wealth redistribution by them buying the cheapest goods and exploiting those countries... our greed empowers them in the end. I'm of the belief this is a good thing because it leads to a more level playing field.
EdEarl Posted September 17, 2017 Author Posted September 17, 2017 I agree, their recent moves are good for the world at this time. Best of all, it's like kicking Trump for abandoning the Paris Climate Accord. LMAO I'm too old to roll on the floor.
StringJunky Posted September 17, 2017 Posted September 17, 2017 Petrodollars may well move to solardollars. Africa could do well with that sort of currency and help reduce the grinding problems there. Your OP is a hopeful post in the right direction from where I'm standing right now.
EdEarl Posted September 17, 2017 Author Posted September 17, 2017 Earlier this year the Koch brothers threatened Republicans that they would not fund their campaigns if the tax cut bill, the one that would give Koch enterprises $50B. Some pundits say that tax cut will not happen. I hope that PAC money is withheld. The fossil fuel industry must be hustling to react in light of China's move toward EVs, production of low cost solar arrays, and against the petrodollar.
jimmydasaint Posted September 20, 2017 Posted September 20, 2017 (edited) On 17/09/2017 at 1:04 PM, StringJunky said: Thinking about it , if China gets the lead on this, the US, Russia and the Middle East are possibly going to see quite a power shift away from them through the shift in energy sources. Energy is a critical currency. I can't see that being a bad thing, even though China is communist. In my opinion, SJ, China have undergone an Industrial revolution similar to ours a few hundred years ago and are moving on to "post-Industrial Revolution days". I anticipate that they will lead the world in non-fossil technology and make it more accessible for countries that they border, causing a new revolution in non-fossil fuel power. Any country that can raise 640 million people out of poverty deserve to be noticed. They seem to be a complex capitalist/socialist society rather than Communist, and good luck to them! However, my question would be: is the energy too dilute to be useful to bring electricity to large towns? Do we all have to significantly change our lifestyles to accommodate a low fossil-fuel future? I am cynical, and hope I am wrong.... Edited September 20, 2017 by jimmydasaint
StringJunky Posted September 20, 2017 Posted September 20, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said: In my opinion, SJ, China have undergone an Industrial revolution similar to ours a few hundred ears ago and are moving on to "post-Industrial Revolution days". I anticipate that they ill lead the world in non-fossil technology and make it more accessible for countries that the border, causing a new revolution in non-fossil fuel power. Any country that can raise 640 million people out of poverty deserve to be noticed. They seem to be a complex capitalist/socialist society rather than Communist, and good luck to them! However, my question would be: is the energy too dilute to be useful to bring electricity to large towns? Do we all have to significantly change our lifestyles to accommodate a low fossil-fuel future? I am cynical, and hope I am wrong.... How do you mean "Too dilute"? The other important parallel technology is rechargeable batteries. Analogously, fossil fuel s a disposable battery which, up to now, has a higher energy density. Edited September 20, 2017 by StringJunky
jimmydasaint Posted September 20, 2017 Posted September 20, 2017 I was thinking about the efficiency of solar panels and unpredictable wind energy to power towns and cities, rather than solar powered cars. Quote DS1's solar panels convert 22% of their available energy into electrical power. This may not sound very good, but it is much better than most solar panels. Most solar panels on people's houses, for example, are fairly inefficient. Less than 14% of the energy that reaches them will be converted to electricity. http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/power/2-how-efficient-are-solar-panels.html In regard to cars, I am considering that the cars would be using sources of power that can be renewed from non-fossil fuel sources, like the batteries you mentioned.
StringJunky Posted September 20, 2017 Posted September 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said: I was thinking about the efficiency of solar panels and unpredictable wind energy to power towns and cities, rather than solar powered cars. http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/power/2-how-efficient-are-solar-panels.html In regard to cars, I am considering that the cars would be using sources of power that can be renewed from non-fossil fuel sources, like the batteries you mentioned. The main problem atm is storing energy which can carry a place through the period when solar or wind is not available, Batteries need to be higher density. The point I'm getting at is power requirements are becoming discrete and less centralised... self-powering through using batteries.
jimmydasaint Posted September 20, 2017 Posted September 20, 2017 I get your point about batteries, and agree that it is a sensible way forward, but recharging them would still need the high energy provided from fossil fuel power stations, IMO. I tried to find a comparison of energy outputs from fossil fuel burning and "cleaner" sources but could not find the info in ten minutes of searching. I did find this though: Quote Fossil Fuel Heat Content Renewable Fuel Heat Content (non-renewable) kJ g-1 MJ tonne-1 kJ g-1 MJ tonne-1 natural gas 54 54 000 petrol (gasoline) 48 48 000 E10 (gasohol) 44 44 000 diesel 45 45 000 biodiesel 42 42 000 black coal 34 34 000 bioethanol 30 30 000 brown coal 16 16 000 biogas 26 26 000 http://www.ausetute.com.au/fuelenergy.html It is a pity that I couldn't find direct efficiencies for each fuel but fossil fuels kick ass for energy output compared to other sources.
Recommended Posts