China is Building Coal-fired Power Plants in Other Countries

..300 new Tokomak reactors might be a little premature.

Supply and demand?

The other places aren't very polluted?

There is a demand for reducing CO2 output, but China is not very responsive. They have a lot of coal plants listed here:

wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal_power_stations

Third world countries are understandably receptive to such opportunities to expand their electrical power supply in the short future. They get (another?) power plant and China gets another trading partner.

But, in the long run, those third world countries will tend to become economically beholden to China, and even more resentful of the U. S. for not having provided more (assistance) sooner...

It's gonna get even lonelier for us at the ''top'', by China's long-term design...

To those third world countries, I say they should beware of (strangers) bearing such appealing ''gifts'', while they still can...

That's all well and good and very insightful, but look at how our country started with meager means during the industrial revolution? We weren't paying top dollar for labor or materials.

In the US very few entities can afford to consume US made products. Unless you're in health care or the military you probably are buying most of your equipment from off shore.

I'm sure there are others I'm just generalizing but I can't see how these smaller countries could afford to do business with us directly despite our continued aid.

You couldn't be more correct.

Speck and plank comes to mind.

I would love to see the USA take a lead in sustainable energy.

They did it with the 'space race' and pioneered multiple new technologies - why not with energy?

Good question.

Yes, indeed. Why not the U.S.?

China is very smart to (economically involve themselves) with such mostly second world countries, as indicated in the two links, because those countries are less likely to default on the loans needed to build such coal-operated power plants...

Down the road, China will be able to further profit from efforts to ''save the day'' by providing gas-powered replacements and/or ''clean(er)'' upgrades...

Third world countries will be greatly enticed to follow the growth-patterns of their increasingly affluent neighbors, in order to more economically compete. The critical factor is to avoid ''lining'' as many unnecessary local ''pockets'' in the process, as possible...

The cost of not actually partnering with such third world economies is more de-stabilizing consequences of (local polito-social) unrest...

China is racing to (affect) foreign local resourses as quickly as it can. Can the U.S. ''afford'' to ''just sit around'' and watch?...

As an aside, just what is specifically (meant/included/excluded/etc.) by ''speck and plank'' ?

'Speck and plank/beam' refers to pointing to a fault in others before sorting out ones own. See Matthew 7 v3-5.

Thanks. Now, I know too.

I think you are correct about intentions of selling conversions to natural gas in the future.

In 2018, China exported less than $800 million in coal while importing almost $20 billion.

China may also be wary of creating too much demand for natural gas in the near tern as it is a large importer of natural gas currently (so doesn't wish to spike the price) even though it is generally believed China has large unproven recoverable reserves and China is actively growing its natural gas production capacity.

There is a fairly straight forward way to make US goods more competitive both here and abroad. It involves leveraging the fact that we are the greatest consumers in the world. The short answer is to swap out current tax system (that discourages earnings) for a consumption tax, such that instead of those who earn income and pay income being ask to solely support the infrastructure, defense, bureacracy,, medical care and retirement plans of the nation, any good sold in the US would help to fund those things, wherever it is produced. Not only would this make our goods more competitive here, it would remove the tax built in to goods we sell over seas.

Massive bureaucracy increase...? The cost of compliance would be staggering, enforcement impossible...that might be the worst idea I have ever heard....Sorry no disrespect but I don't think you have thought this one through...Don't forget we don't play on a level playing field, Chinese goods are government subsidized, and their currency is manipulated....If the government was paying everybody to produce and shipping it for free, we would also have an advantage...but it's a house of cards...

The only reason people are building coal power plants is to support the infrastructure necessary to develop their natural gas reserves...coal is only a stepping stone...

"... Massive bureaucracy increase...? The cost of compliance would be staggering, enforcement impossible..."

Yet, still less bureaucracy and cost than the current system. Enforcement is not really that tricky.

You have heard of a salea tax, right? Even small municipalities can manage those. Pretty straight forward., really.

You suggest I might not have thought this through, but I:m not certain you have given it any thought at all.

Look of course the playing field is uneven. That doesn't mean we should give up on trying to make it better

You are certainly not the first to suggest a consumption tax, the idea has been around for years, and yes I thought it sounded good at first, but the devil is in the details...It's easy to say things, it's the doing that becomes complicated...We don't need or want any more taxes, and implementing this consumption tax would no doubt end up increasing taxes, it's nothing more than a ploy to raise taxes...No change in government revenue methods ever saves people money...that's just the sales jargon, it always becomes a bait and switch operation....

This from 2005...

https://www.brookings.edu/on-the-record/the-pros-and-cons-of-a-consumption-tax/

".... We don't need or want any more taxes, and implementing this consumption tax would no doubt end up increasing taxes, it's nothing more than a ploy to raise taxes...."

.

Okay, you aren't even arguing against the idea itself, rather you are suggesting that implementation will be flawed and lead to additional taxation. By that same logic,continuing with the current system could just as easily be flawed in the same way and lead to additional taxation. Therefore, by the same logic, support for retaining the current system is nothing more than a ploy to raise taxes!

I intend to ignore that silliness when I read your link from the Brookings Institute.

Taxes go up nearly every year by about $20 billion...

https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_taxation_in_the_United_States

Okay, so that isn't an argument against a new system, that's an argument against the status quo.

.

On a different note, how does the increase in taxes track with the increase in population? It seems like the increase in revenue is not an increase in the rate so much as an effect of increasing GDP.

The US population is growing at about 2.5 million a year...

GDP is growing about 4 trillion dollars every 10 years....or $400 billion every year....on average

Okay I read the link.

Pretty quick read of what appears to be a very limited review of the idea.

There is absolutely no consideration of the effect of making US good more competitive both domestically and abroad.

There is also some hand waving about some disincentive to keeping older workers in the workforce.

The preferences of the published interview are quite clear and it doesn't provide for a good review of the strengths of such a proposal.

2019/11/27/china-claims-it-has-met-its-carbon-reduction-goal-early

I am sorry to inform you but it´s the USA the biggest polluter... even more when we compare the population of both countries.

Nope not per capita and not by total...

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/sustainable-earth/pictures-ten-countries-with-the-biggest-footprints/

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/pollution-by-country/

that would be helpfull if the site actually allow visitors... I prefer the television, it is still the best way to get informed!

"... I prefer the television, it is still the best way to get informed! ..."

.

Suddenly, the mystery of how you might have arrived at your claims disappears, being replaced by utter clarity.

.

If I were to ask you about your source for the claim 'television' is the best way to get informed', that wouldn't happen to be from that same reliable source of information, television, would it?

So in your opinion is the web? there´s a thing that is called reporters, you know, and they really have to be in the places to get informed!

The web at least has the possibility of being, IMHO.

The content on the web can disappear from a moment to another... But lets stay on topic and use the poster websites (at least one). In one, theres a list of countries that are planing to build coal plants. In the site tens for each (and not big countries) !

where will they put the power produced? where do they get the water (plants need water)? Who will buy the power? Where do they get the coal?

In doubtful cases we reduce to absurd, here its an absurd...they say hundreds but they could say a million, it would be the same.

CBS News is a TV broadcaster. Here is one of their reports:

"Officials also said this year they would shut down more than 1,000 underperforming mines, though hundreds of new coal plants are also under construction."

cbsnews.com/news/china-mine-explosion-leaves-miners-trapped-hubei-province/

If their report is on the web, it's also been on TV somewhere.

Your argument appears to have morphed somewhat. If I misunderstood somewhere along the line, please correct me:

Your initial claim was that the US is the largest polluter.

SE gave an appropriate rebuttal and supplied links to reference to support the counter claims. You responded calling into question the reliability of web based references, claiming the best way to vet informed is from television.

I queried you as to how you arrived at the peculiar idea that television was the ultimate way to gather information.

Your rebuttal seems to be something akin to 'tv is better because reporters' (I am paraphrasing so let me know if there is somethin subtle yet crucial I missed).

After one more incredulous back and forth, your argument appears to have changed to something new. I need some help here, are you now claiming that the construction of plants, the use of the electricity produced as well as the supply of fuel and water are not actually real?

I dont believe it. So it´s true that coal is a vanishing resource! The poster claim was that China is the biggest polluter, and I refute saying that it was the USA based not only in TV programs, news, but also from what we learn from schools...

Not only coal is a vanishing resource but to invest in tens of power plants on the same country is very unlikely. The investment is massive, the changes in the power grid as well, and you cant distribute the power in a economic viable manner (theres no costumers)

The point is that the information is very likely unreal!

And i am not the lawyer to TV stations(they are not perfect), but in they´r defense I have to praise the investigation made by them! They not only go to places but they also have privileged access to all sorts of documentation. And all updated to the minute. But you actually have to see it to be informed (not illuminated).

ps: You are taking this all very personal.

To help avoid the condition of being sorry, restrict the things of which you 'inform' others to factual claims.

no sorryes! USA is (or was) the biggest polluter.

ADMIN: content redacted

This post was partially edited to remove political commentary.

There is a fundamental difference between 'is' and 'was'.

'The Spanish Navy is the most powerful in the world.' is not true. That the Spanish Navy once was the moat powerful in the world does not alter that fact.

If you had stuck to the high ground and not jumped straight to calling the President a barn yard animal, your argument might have been better received. As it is you are only feeding into an irrational popularity contest that ultimately sways no ones opinion.

<...the world's biggest polluter...>

By what measure, please?

Why is mankind in total not so labelled?

Just considering the amount of energy produced/consumed, and they earn the place.

But mankind is not inocent, thats true.

Electronick,

You seem to continue with your claim that the US is the largest polluter, unabated.

You have not linked to any reliable resource backing your claim. Additionally, when presented with links to reliable resources, you make vague references to the powers of journalism that you suggest only apply to television journalists. You further assert without backing that power production in other countries is not feasible because there are no customers.

Your argument is shoddy at best. Can you do any better? You know most tv stations also publish on the web, perhaps you can find some documentation for your claims on the web site of your favorite news show.

Since you are so interested in the matter,I took the time to browse a bit to reply you.

It seams that China is the biggest polluter in total but the USA is the bigger per capita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions.

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html

But the USA as the second place, still in the podium...

As far as the poster claim (that China is gonna build hundreds of coal power plants) I can only say that it is unsound. I dont know if you have seen the list of countries planed to construct but just to start I doubt that many have the money to construct one or two,so much for tens. And yes they must have consumers (critical demand in a power project), and I dont see the population to triple in the coming months.To me is a fake new.It wold be a hit in all the news in all the world if that was true!

And I have a few channels to see (I´m from Europe and we have access to channels from all around) but I like CNN, and RTP.But they dont youtube most of the programs.

Hope that this will help!

"... It seams that China is the biggest polluter in total but the USA is the bigger per capita ..."

.

...and yet the US is not the biggest consumer of electricity per capita in the world. Lichtenstein, Norway, UAE, Bahrain, Sweden, and Canada are all countries with higher electricity consumption per capita, (which is what you were basing your pollution per capita estimated on)

The US consumes a little over half the total electricity China consumes and it is produced with less pollution.

This means calling the US the largest polluter in the world is completely without merit by any metric you could conjure, and as such effectively debunked.

Consumption of electricity is not the only way to produce carbon, my friend. And like you told USA consumes about half the amount that China does. (but only about a quarter of the population)

Have no doubts that if the USA had the same population it would pollute much more by far... Like did in the past. It happens that China is geting richer and automobile is available to more and more persons.

ps: RTP (Radio e Televisão de Portugal)

China's electricity consumption is also far more polluting per KWhr. Over 60% of China's electricity is produced from Coal. Under 30% of the US's electricity production is from coal.

...and the coal plants we do have are held to higher standards.

This discussion is somewhat like watching a group of morbidly obese people arguing over who is the fattest.

It would be better if they were encouraging each other to cut back consumption and lose weight.

We are definitely fatter. They are more dirty.

When you wrote RTP, to what organization do you refer? It wouldn't be Russia Times would it?

True - It would be better if they were encouraging each other to cut back consumption and lose weight . . . . and have a shower.

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-20/china-set-for-massive-coal-expansion-in-threat-to-climate-goals

"Last year, coal consumption in the United States hit the lowest level in nearly 40 years, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration."

cbs4indy.com/2019/12/03/china-leads-in-coal-and-clean-energy-in-climate-paradox/

First we need to separate CO₂ from the list of pollutants, because like oxygen, it is necessary for life to exist....Pollutants should be those things that are harmful to life, like toxins and hazardous materials that exist in our consumables or bio-accumulate in the food chain, things that cause illness and disease and generally detract from the quality of life, like threats to our well being....False claims that are meant to disrupt our way of life and threaten prosperity is a more virulent form of pollution known as dis-information...that's the real threat....

I absolutely agree. Also CO₂ is necessary for human health.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29729130

"... Pollutants should be those things that are harmful to life.."

.

"All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison."-Paracelsus

Though a bit dated, it is none the less reliable.

Even oxygen can be toxic at high concentration especially at increased pressure. CO2 is more dangerous comparatively as death is a real concern when atmospheric concentration is even just 10% with normal O2 levels.

'Alle Ding sind Gift und nichts ohn' Gift; allein die Dosis macht, das ein Ding kein Gift ist.

Is it your position then that CO₂ is at, or approaching, toxic levels? ...because I think that's only true if you put a plastic bag over your head...

That is not my position. CO2 is essential for most life afaik. It is also toxic at high concentrations. We are not near those levels in the atmosphere.

I am merely pointing out that the rule you laid out for pollutants is too simplistic and doesn't actually exclude CO2.

Just because I offer criticism for one particular point, does not mean I disagree with other points you have made. Disagreeing with you on one point does not mean I oppose you and all you have to say. Ther are so many shades of grey, some approximate the real light level mor accurately than others. There is no prohibition on switching shades when that becomes obvious.

"The Center for Disease Control has designated 100,000 ppm of carbon dioxide as life-threatening, or "immediately dangerous to life." More recently, Dr. Peter Harper of Health and Safety Executive has determined that exposure to lower levels, starting at 84,000 ppm for 60 minutes or more, will also result in fatality."...

Saying we are near or approaching toxic levels at 400 ppm is like saying rats are an endangered species...

I would say that CO₂ is clearly not to be considered a polluting gas...It is clearly no danger to human life at this level...This is technically correct, not simplistically stated...The level of exposure of many things determines toxicity....as the levels of those things approaches a toxic level of exposure in the environment, it becomes a pollutant...

Your assumptions about my position seems to have incapacitated your reading comprehension.

".... Saying we are near or approaching toxic levels at 400 ppm is like saying rats are an endangered species......"

You seem so convinced that I am against you, that you failed to see I agree.

"... CO2 is essential for most life afaik. It is also toxic at high concentrations. We are not near those levels in the atmosphere. ..."

What I'm trying to show you is that the specific way you've proposed to deal with the problem isn't even self-consistent. You proposed that only things toxic or harmful to people should be regulated. I'm telling you that that's not an effective way to regulate something and it doesn't actually avoid regulating CO2 because CO2 is harmful to people over certain concentration.

Now I realize that you were already keying in again on the concentration part. You seem to be suggesting that there shouldn't be regulation for polluting with substances unless the substance was already at the concentration in the environment that it would do harm to people. That is fairly idiotic. That means that any substance no matter how poisonous if it wasn't already in the environment in quantities just below that which would cause it to be harmful to people that you would be okay with dumping it into the environment.

The dose really does make the poison. It's all about concentration and not just for CO2. so saying you're not going to regulate something because it's not above some toxic level yet it's pretty inane.

Also there are more ways for something to be harmful than for it to present as a biological toxin. An example would be the dumping of fertilizers into the rivers causing algae blooms. The resulting andoxic zones downstream from fertilizer runoff can kill whole sections of what otherwise would be productive waterways producing food that feeds people in a whole lot more. It would be stupid not to regulate fertilizer on off even though the concentrations of fertilizer aren't strong enough be worrisome directly.

You've got a powerful brain, but you've been swept up into this derision to the point that your brain isn't being affectively utilized. Put down the combat of stance; stop being so reactionary; stop trying to make enemies; and If you can, make room for the possibility that your perspective might not be exactly right on every point, that your idea is might have room for improvement.

Why are you trying to twist my words into these ridiculous assumptions? The only thing I said is that CO₂ is not toxic nor is it approaching toxic levels anytime in the foreseeable future...

That is not all you said.

You wrote this...

"... .The level of exposure of many things determines toxicity....as the levels of those things approaches a toxic level of exposure in the environment, it becomes a pollutant..."

.

The contrapositive of the last stretch of that is unambiguously 'if a substance has not approached toxic levels of exposure in the environment, then it is not a pollutant.'

We are discussing classification and regulation, so this would be a very bad way to define pollution. Essentially, as long as toxic levels were not build up in the environment, it wouldn't be regulated as a pollutant. Hydrogen Cyanide? Not No yet at toxic levels so feel free to release it. Mustard gas? No problem! Chlorine trifluoride? You bet!

Your words were not twisted, They were merely evaluated. If you did not intend the consequences pf your assertions, that is understandable, and quite common. It is also easy to remedy.

Solar Eagle,if you breathe just CO2 you would die!In excess is toxic. It´s very simple!

I live in the Philippines and in my work as an instrumentation contractor, I've installed several CEMS (Continuous Emissions Monitoring System) at a few Chinese-built coal-fired power plants. They do follow the rules with regards to building these things so that they are much less polluting than they used to be. Their stacks hardly emit any visible smoke.

That being said, some of those plants that have been completed are experiencing failures due to substandard parts being used. And problems with parts having manuals and labels in Chinese are not helping any. A lot of instrumentation suppliers and contractors are making a killing replacing the China parts with the more reliable brands. (",)