Trumpster, what about Palau? BTW Palau, like many of the Pacific Islands have old diesel generators, and rely on imported oil to produce electricity. Palau per capita is the worlds highest producer of CO2 emissions. Power costs relative to wages is very high. In Fiji our "Family" was paying about FJ$60 a month for electricity, and they use bugger all power in the house.

Its an interesting hole JD and his innumerate sidekick have talked themselves into.

It used to be that we all thought that the main purpose of renewables and the like was to reduce the level of emissions that the alarmists keep telling us are going to destroy the planet 12 years from next Tuesday week. (Its always 12 years and has been for the past 30 years!!).

But in their anxiety to exonerate China of any duplicity, they are desperately seeking to find other reasons to install renewables. So the process is to look for some statistics that look favourable for China and then declare that that area was the real purpose for renewables. It doesn't much matter what this new purpose is and whether it makes the slightest sense, since the aim is to boost China, not be logical.

So here we are in Australia, madly installing renewables are economy destroying rates with the aim of getting to net-zero when all along according to our two Sinophiles the aim was.... well whatever makes China's numbers look good.

And this is how they think we save the planet!

mhaze,

The only “hole” here is the one you dug by insisting renewables don’t count unless China’s total emissions fall overnight.

//It used to be that we all thought that the main purpose of renewables and the like was to reduce the level of emissions…//

Still is. But you keep rewriting the test.

The purpose is to displace fossil generation and reduce carbon intensity in the power sector. That’s exactly what’s happening: coal utilisation down, renewables’ share up, emissions per kWh falling. That’s how every IEA pathway, every AEMO plan, every CSIRO scenario is framed.

//China installing more renewables yet emissions going up…//

That’s what happens when demand grows faster than even the world’s biggest clean buildout. The point isn’t that renewables are “useless” until totals fall, it’s that they’re lowering the emissions trajectory compared to where it would otherwise be.

Ignoring that is just arithmetic avoidance.

//So the process is to look for some statistics that look favourable for China…//

Projection again.

You cherry-picked totals to ignore intensity, ignored capacity factors, and ducked utilisation trends. Now, because those numbers cut against you, you switch to motives, “Sinophiles,” and “12 years from Tuesday.” That’s not analysis, that’s performance.

By your logic, China building zero renewables and having even higher emissions would make renewables look “better.”

That’s the absurdity of your standard - it collapses under its own weight.

Here's the thing that you either don't get or refuse to get and would refuse to admitting getting even if the lights miraculously came on... China builds gigantic amounts of windmills and solar panels using coal to do so. (Let's not even get into the emissions from concrete etc).

So what you want to do is look at a sliver of the process and swoon over that part, because its suits your Sinophilia. But when you look at the entire process that is required to construct these renewables that you want to swoon over, we find that, rather than reduce emissions, total nation-wide emissions rise dramatically. The numbers are there even if you don't want them to be.

But as I said, there's all sorts of reasons why you'll never acknowledge that.

"“Sinophiles,” and “12 years from Tuesday.” That’s not analysis, that’s performance."

No that's observation.

You’ve moved the posts again, mhaze.

//China builds gigantic amounts of windmills and solar panels using coal to do so… rather than reduce emissions, total nation-wide emissions rise dramatically.//

So now it’s not enough to judge renewables by how much fossil power they displace once running - you fold their construction into China’s current fossil-heavy economy so they “fail” by definition. By that standard, nothing passes until the entire global supply chain is already fossil-free. That’s a perfect circular trap: renewables can never “count” until the transition is already over.

And the irony?

By your logic, even coal plants wouldn’t “count,” since they’re also built with coal-fired steel and concrete. Gas plants too. Nuclear as well. Yet somehow the veto only ever lands on wind and solar.

That’s not a standard, it’s a double standard.

//So what you want to do is look at a sliver of the process and swoon over that part…//

No, I look at the operating data: carbon intensity per kWh, coal utilisation, renewable share. That’s how every credible energy body measures progress. You’re the one ignoring that “sliver” because it’s the part that contradicts your narrative.

//But as I said, there’s all sorts of reasons why you’ll never acknowledge that.//

That’s not an argument, it’s a pre-emptive excuse. A way of saying “if you don’t agree, that proves me right.” Self-sealing rhetoric, not evidence.

//No that’s observation.//

No, it’s theatre.

“Sinophiles” isn’t an observation, it’s a smear. “12 years from Tuesday” isn’t analysis, it’s a punchline. You’ve slipped from numbers into narrative because the numbers stopped working for you.

"You’ve moved the posts again, mhaze.

....

So now it’s not enough to judge renewables by how much fossil power they displace once running - you fold their construction into China’s current fossil-heavy economy so they “fail” by definition."

That's what I've been saying all along. Read my very first post in this thread. But you were so distraught by someone saying bad things about China and renewables (oh the humanity!!) that you failed to see the point. I've been saying from the outset that renewables need to be evaluated in relation to the entire economy. But things look bad for renewables if that's done, so you refuse to do it. Its the same thinking as the discussion over total power costs per country. It proved that renewables are the most expensive form of power and therefore you refused to see it.

So now you're saying I'm moving the goalposts when in fact I'm making the same argument I made from the outset while you've been flailing around for a week now trying to find a way to not not see the forest for the trees.

"By your logic, even coal plants wouldn’t “count,” since they’re also built with coal-fired steel and concrete. Gas plants too. Nuclear as well. Yet somehow the veto only ever lands on wind and solar."

Making up my views for me again, JD? Thanks but I can do that myself. I agree that nuclear needs to be evaluated based on the full cycle cost. I've made that point before. Ditto coal plants and gas plants and gerbils running on wheels. Its why I pointed to the economy-wide costs that you so want to not see. When evaluating which is cheaper the full costs need to be incorporated. But with renewables, the advocates for it just want to count the costs AFTER construction and BEFORE deconstruction. We all know why.