Great Balls of Fire - China sets new world record for Fusion, 100 MILLION C

[Mihle]

On 11/16/2018 at 12:57 AM, Amazonsucks said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/

 

Even though the USA is reducing carbon emissions more than any other country? How is that throwing stones in a glass house?

But at the same time the total % of energy produced greenly is higher in Europe because we started producing green energy earlier.

[Curufinwe_wins]

13 hours ago, Amazonsucks said:

 

Well, if you want to believe that, but i believe that results are admirable, not "effort".

 

http://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-in-2017-us-had-largest-decline-in-co2-emissions-in-the-world-for-9th-time-this-century/

 

China increased their CO2 output by 120 million tons as the US reduced theirs by over 40 million tons. 

 

And since this is all about fusion research, here's a list of fusion research facilities in the US.

 

https://www.usiter.org/fusion/us-fusion-research-sites

 

And in regards to what you were saying about plasma pressure, the US set a record for pressure in 2016 interestingly enough.

 

http://news.mit.edu/2016/alcator-c-mod-tokamak-nuclear-fusion-world-record-1014

 

Plus, now that the USA has both the #1 and #2 fastest supercomputers on the Top500(funny how that didnt make the news here) it will definitely increase our ability to make admirable efforts there as well.

 

https://www.olcf.ornl.gov/summit/

 

https://insidehpc.com/2017/02/xgc-fusion-code-selected-3-pre-exascale-supercomputers/

Dude. Do you realize/understand that I am a Nuclear Engineer who literally does world-leading research in my field, with most projects being funded by the US government? You don't need to tell me about new fusion records or how much research the US still does... 1. I already know. 2. I posted earlier that temperature records by itself are pretty much meaningless, and that everyone should calm down about how big this article itself is.

 

I understand this. And yes the US reduced coal. By increasing a shitload of Natural Gas. Which is a "better" but still awfully polluting fuel source. Natural Gas is not available in quantities in China like here, and it sure as hell isnt cheaper than coal (like it is here, and that is the only reason it's being used).

 

Also the energy market massively (in context) contracted during the recession and it took 7 years for energy demand to return to pre-recession levels. Pretty easy to not increase emissions if you dont need more energy, don't you think? Unlike 9% annual growth abroad.

 

 

Here is US consumption. Graphically. Turns out... we are ~17% "clean" (nuclear + non-biofuel renewables). Remember when you were upset about China adding power that was 67% clean???? Please continue.

 

 

Of course, it should be self-apparent why being one of the highest countries in per-capita energy consumption, we shouldn't really give ourselves a pat on the back on our decade-ish of stagnant use. And likewise, even though China is increasing total energy use like crazy, their per capita is still a tiny fraction of our own, so telling them to reduce is not helpful.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

 Natural Gas is not available in quantities in China like here,

 

And that's why Australia makes so much money exporting gas to china.

[Curufinwe_wins]

If you really want to rage at a country for their energy policies, might I suggest Germany?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/10/10/why-arent-renewables-decreasing-germanys-carbon-emissions/#6b1f18c068e1

 

One of many decent articles on the subject. Of course the instant those plants complete their forced shut down, good old mineral oil and lignite are going to skyrocket and wipe away all the gains of the last two decades. Congrats, Germany!

[Amazonsucks]

2 hours ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Here is US consumption. Graphically. Turns out... we are ~17% "clean" (nuclear + non-biofuel renewables). Remember when you were upset about China adding power that was 67% clean???? Please continue.

 

 

Of course, it should be self-apparent why being one of the highest countries in per-capita energy consumption, we shouldn't really give ourselves a pat on the back on our decade-ish of stagnant use. And likewise, even though China is increasing total energy use like crazy, their per capita is still a tiny fraction of our own, so telling them to reduce is not helpful.

As you pointed out earlier, hydroelectric(which constitutes the vast majority of China's "clean" power) is actually quite environmentally destructive.

 

Its also misleading to say that the US produces 17% clean(in quotes) power, then mention that China is adding 67% clean power. How much of that 67% is environmentally destructive hydroelectric? How much is biofuel?

 

Then there's the matter, again, of results. Dude.

 

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/04/chinas-renewable-energy-growth-isnt-as-good-as-it.aspx

 

China's per capita energy consumption is also growing at a massive rate, as you pointed out. So they wont be a "tiny fraction" of US per capita consumption, which is actually closer to 40%(not a tiny fraction at all) for long at this rate.

 

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/electricity-consumption-per-capita

[Curufinwe_wins]

37 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

As you pointed out earlier, hydroelectric(which constitutes the vast majority of China's "clean" power) is actually quite environmentally destructive.

 

Its also misleading to say that the US produces 17% clean(in quotes) power, then mention that China is adding 67% clean power. How much of that 67% is environmentally destructive hydroelectric? How much is biofuel?

 

Then there's the matter, again, of results. Dude.

 

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/04/chinas-renewable-energy-growth-isnt-as-good-as-it.aspx

 

China's per capita energy consumption is also growing at a massive rate, as you pointed out. So they wont be a "tiny fraction" of US per capita consumption, which is actually closer to 40%(not a tiny fraction at all) for long at this rate.

 

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/electricity-consumption-per-capita

1/3rd of the "clean" power in the US is hydro. So yeah. And actually over the time period stated in that 67% article... none of the new was hydro. The most recently completed dam in China was 2014. They were already at full power. Hydro is baseload generation. The next ones scheduled for completion are in 2020 with the next superdam being done in 2021.

 

Biofuels I dont know. Honestly. But they are very expensive (only sorta cost efficient here due to massive agricultural subsidies), China also is a net importer of the products used for biofuels so its hard to imagine they make much of it.  (The US is by far the largest corn producer in the world and also doesn't consume that much for itself so conversion into biofuel makes more economic sense).

 

Edit: found an article... due to food constraints the Chinese Gov banned expansion of biofuels back in 2007. That ban still is in place. So not from biofuel.

 

Edit2: please for the love of sanity... dont be using the fool as an actual source of technical information. And sure, from their data (assuming they aren't cherry picking the sources) they still produced 40% more renewable energy than we did. Go US!

 

 

Oh btw? Remember how both of us mentioned claims and actually following up on them? Well China claimed they would be 15% renewable in a decade (in 2009). Well current (2017) estimates put them at 26% of production (nearly 40% capacity). With nuclear the US is currently better in total green energy, but our nuclear isnt growing, and their nuclear is skyrocketing (also that 26% did not include nuclear), so clearly the derivatives (direction) of change for both are rather different.

https://www.brookings.edu/2018/05/18/utility-of-renewable-energy-in-chinas-low-carbon-transition/

 

[Amazonsucks]

22 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

so clearly the derivatives (direction) of change for both are rather different.

The article you posted before showed the US outpacing China in VRE production in projections to 2022 as well. You know, the same one with the chart showing Denmark being the leader by a large margin.

 

Whether those projections come true is another thing but its from the article you linked.

[Curufinwe_wins]

18 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

The article you posted before showed the US outpacing China in VRE production in projections to 2022 as well. You know, the same one with the chart showing Denmark being the leader by a large margin.

 

Whether those projections come true is another thing but its from the article you linked.

Yeah... Denmark, that tiny country that can afford (both in cash and in infrastructure) for one day to import 90% of its energy and another day export 150%. 

 

Please remind me how that is a viable model for either the US or China? (Btw 10% under supply for the US would require literally the total power production from Mexico to make up the difference).

 

But regardless. That one is a small piece of the puzzle. Even if the projections are right and the US and China end up by that time with similar but not dramatically different Variable Renewable Energy shares (which means Wind and Solar), but China has way more hydro (which is not particularly enviromentally good, but at least is super low in carbon intensity)... and projects to have at least 2x the nuclear (assuming current projections for China and best case for the US where we don't keep closing working plants), how much less clean would the US be?

 

It's funny really. In the end, the differences between the country emissions will be the battle between nuclear + natural gas (for the US) and nuclear + hydro + goal (for China).

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I tend to think the differing paths on nuclear will decide the victor.

 

[Amazonsucks]

2 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Yeah... Denmark, that tiny country that can afford (both in cash and in infrastructure) for one day to import 90% of its energy and another day export 150%. 

 

Please remind me how that is a viable model for either the US or China? (Btw 10% under supply for the US would require literally the total power production from Mexico to make up the difference).

 

But regardless. That one is a small piece of the puzzle. Even if the projections are right and the US and China end up by that time with similar but not dramatically different Variable Renewable Energy shares (which means Wind and Solar), but China has way more hydro (which is not particularly enviromentally good, but at least is super low in carbon intensity)... and projects to have at least 2x the nuclear (assuming current projections for China and best case for the US where we don't keep closing working plants), how much less clean would the US be?

 

It's funny really. In the end, the differences between the country emissions will be the battle between nuclear + natural gas (for the US) and nuclear + hydro + goal (for China).

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I tend to think the differing paths on nuclear will decide the victor.

 

I wasn't saying anything about the viability of Denmark, which also doesnt have to worry about a defense budget since the US handles it, in terms of their model or comparing it to the US or China. I was just specifying which chart i was talking about...

 

But regardless of which mix of VRE it ends up being, the chart you linked to from your reputable source shows the US producing and projected to produce a larger portion of its electricity with VRE than China, correct?

 

 

[Curufinwe_wins]

8 minutes ago, Amazonsucks said:

I wasn't saying anything about the viability of Denmark, which also doesnt have to worry about a defense budget since the US handles it, in terms of their model or comparing it to the US or China. I was just specifying which chart i was talking about...

 

But regardless of which mix of VRE it ends up being, the chart you linked to from your reputable source shows the US producing and projected to produce a larger portion of its electricity with VRE than China, correct?

 

 

That projection does indeed. Cannot disagree with that.

 

2017 data has US at ~5.8% VRE, China at 5.3%

 

(14% total 'renewable' vs 26.4%)

[williamcll]

last time I remember, power stations in china are about to switch to natural gas.

[grayperview]

did we learn nothing from Spider-man 2?

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, grayperview said:

did we learn nothing from Spider-man 2?

Nope, it was a terrible movie so we erased it from our memories.

[williamcll]

16 hours ago, grayperview said:

did we learn nothing from Spider-man 2?

Yes, do not put AI on killer robots.

[grayperview]

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

Nope, it was a terrible movie so we erased it from our memories.

You sir have no taste!