You said I used "coal statistics". I didn't. The end. You made the claim and then spent a week trying to find a way to not admit error. And failed.

My point about the emissions was that the reason for lauding renewables is that it reduces emissions. And clearly that's wrong, at least in the case of China. But that seems to be too hard for you to fathom.

I've been trying to work out if you're a joker or a knave. The I realised it doesn't matter

Aw, maze.

So now that you don't have your distraction anymore, you're going to take your ball and go home?

Sooky lala.

It's about performance for you, isn't it? Never substance.

Let's address this now, mhaze:

//My point about the emissions was that the reason for lauding renewables is that it reduces emissions. And clearly that's wrong, at least in the case of China.//

That’s a false test.

The point of renewables is to displace fossil generation. If energy demand is growing faster than clean build-out, total emissions can still rise, but they’re lower than they would have been without those renewables. That’s the difference between “slowing the increase” and “not making a difference.”

China’s electricity data show this directly: coal’s utilisation rate is falling, carbon intensity per kWh is dropping, and wind and solar are taking ever-larger shares of new generation. That’s renewables doing exactly what they’re supposed to.

By your logic, if China built zero renewables and its emissions were even higher, that would somehow make renewables look better. That’s absurd.

Lauding renewables isn’t about pretending totals have magically fallen overnight - it’s about recognising the transition under way, measured by intensity and capacity growth. Those numbers are unambiguous: China leads the world in renewable build-out, and its grid is getting cleaner because of it.

What say you, mhaze?

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif

Hi John,

The Trumpster is full of it!

"My point about the emissions was that the reason for lauding renewables is that it reduces emissions. And clearly that's wrong, at least in the case of China" That is such a dumb statement Trumpster.

It is like saying Man A and Man B having identical cars, Man A drives his car 5,000 km per year and consumes 500 lt of petrol, Man B drives his car 20,000 km per year and consumes 2,000 lt of petrol. Therefore Man A's car is 4 times more fuel efficient than Man B's car.

OR Trumpster could say, we should all be doing what the country of Palau is doing to reduce CO2 emissions, after all in 2022 Palau had one of the lowest rates of CO2 emissions in the world at 1.3 million tones, Australia on the other hand produced 393 million tones. What are we doing wrong? I know Trumpster will tell me, we should be following the example of Palau!

Here's some more statistics that you and your sidekick can misunderstand.

Wind and solar together accounted for about 17% of the U.S.'s large-scale power generating capacity in 2024 and provided 14% of total electricity produced.

Wind and solar made up about 37% of China's total installed power generation capacity by the end of 2024 and produced 18% of total electricity produced.

Its not much use installing all those renewables if it's so inefficient.

Just to help out poor innumerate Paul, when I was talking about emissions, I was comparing the changes in the US and China over time. China installing more renewables yet emissions going up. The US installing comparatively less but emissions gong down.

But I wouldn't feel too embarrassed Paul. The ramifications of that went over JD's head as well.

Your analogies were bang-on, Paul!
___

That’s not “inefficiency,” mhaze, it’s capacity factor.

//Wind and solar made up about 37% of China's total installed power generation capacity … and produced 18% of total electricity.//

Every energy source has one: coal and nuclear run near 70–85%, gas around 50%, wind and solar ~20–35%. That’s physics and operating profile, not failure. Calling it “inefficient” is like saying a bicycle is bad transport because it doesn’t carry bricks.

//Its not much use installing all those renewables if it's so inefficient.//

On the contrary, it’s useful because each MWh they generate displaces fossil power. China’s coal utilisation rate has been dropping for years - because of those renewables. The fact that demand is still growing doesn’t erase that contribution.

//China installing more renewables yet emissions going up. The US installing comparatively less but emissions going down.//

Cherry-picking again.

You’re comparing two countries with vastly different economic growth, industrial profiles, and baselines. The US has flat electricity demand and shifted off coal mostly to gas. China’s demand is exploding, yet its carbon intensity per kWh is falling thanks to renewables. That’s exactly what “success” looks like when you’re building at scale.

The “ramifications” you keep pointing to are just an optical illusion built on totals. Anyone serious about energy transition looks at intensity, mix, and trends. By those measures, China’s renewables aren’t “inefficient” - they’re historic.

You were more of an English person at school, weren't you?