Coal is not the exclusive source of “energy” in China. Please do some research. In addition to renewable sources such as wind and solar, there is also significant hydro and rapidly growing nuclear — these are not fossil fuel-derived. There are many statistics showing the steadily diminished role of thermal coal in the energy mix.
You could also study the sun itself as the source of energy, not only radiant energy, within our “solar system”.
Thank you for replying and your suggestions. Please note:
There is no such thing as renewables or renewable energy according to the First Law which governs energy flow in our physical reality.
The Second Law teaches that most processes are irreversible and tend towards disorder. We can only be more efficient.
Wind and solar are intermittant forms of electricity generating devices. They last 20 years at best, and then must be discarded. Their manufacture depends on primarily on coal in China. Further, wind and solar cannot provide the proper grid inertia for stable baseload generation.
With regards to China's energy sources please see this fascinating link. Note that most of China's industrial hubs are located near coal plants and other reliable baseload energy generators such as nuclear. This is the norm for industry worldwide.
I regret not being able to take anyone seriously who repeats simplistically a formulation from almost 350 years ago — a lot of scientific thinking has taken place since then, across multiple disciplines including quantum theory and cosmology. Of course, if one believes that God Almighty created the universe, then of course, any developments or empirical data will seem irrelevant. No need to respond to this.
Please provide citations regarding definitive proof that falsifies the Conservation of Energy / Conservation of Mass and Energy hypothesis. BTW, "scientific thought" is a linguistic diversion. "Science" refers to the scientific method, which requires the statement of a falsifiable hypothesis, followed by a credible attempt to falsify it.
I’m not engaging in the charade of mental onanism that is too often resorted to by people claiming to have read “articles” by PhDs. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I’m sure I’ve had closer collaborations with “PhDs” than you could ever dream of. And, no, I’m not sending a list of my peer-reviewed articles to anyone who’s skimmed a Wikipedia article on Popper.
Recently, 2 experienced PhDs, 1 in physics and 1 in chemistry, in collaboration with an energy industry professional, wrote this article which may be of aid. Please take a look.
It must be exciting covering "PROGRESS" and not having to dishonestly spin negatives as positives (cause it could have been worse) as all too much in the West deteriorates. Of course, the US has black-listed Huawei going so far to have its vassal, Canada, arrest one of its top Executives, in transit.
US Regs/sanctions made Huawei develop its own chips, just like they made Russian companies were forced to innovate faster to be able to assume the function of the gaps left by fleeing Western countries.
If there was an Academy Awards show for Industrial/business innovations, when multiple Chinese Industrial Execs go to the podium to humbly accept their awards, besides thanking their families for their support, they would be thanking the US hegemon and its vassals for the tough love.
Quite interesting. I wonder if the Chinese considered gasifying the coal itself to fuel the trucks? That would appear to afford significant advantages. Of course, if the consumption exceeded a small fraction of the carrying capacity, there would be no point. I would also observe that the electric truck alternative might show far less financial benefit in a country that has its own ample petroleum resources, such as Russia (or the US if oppressive regulations are eased).
Fascinating article. Clever use of automation and not being beholden to diesel fuel.
However, regarding battery powered trucks, the energy to make the batteries and charge them comes primarily from coal fired power plants in China.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed or RENEWED, only transformed.
Coal is not the exclusive source of “energy” in China. Please do some research. In addition to renewable sources such as wind and solar, there is also significant hydro and rapidly growing nuclear — these are not fossil fuel-derived. There are many statistics showing the steadily diminished role of thermal coal in the energy mix.
You could also study the sun itself as the source of energy, not only radiant energy, within our “solar system”.
Hello J,
Thank you for replying and your suggestions. Please note:
There is no such thing as renewables or renewable energy according to the First Law which governs energy flow in our physical reality.
The Second Law teaches that most processes are irreversible and tend towards disorder. We can only be more efficient.
Wind and solar are intermittant forms of electricity generating devices. They last 20 years at best, and then must be discarded. Their manufacture depends on primarily on coal in China. Further, wind and solar cannot provide the proper grid inertia for stable baseload generation.
With regards to China's energy sources please see this fascinating link. Note that most of China's industrial hubs are located near coal plants and other reliable baseload energy generators such as nuclear. This is the norm for industry worldwide.
Baker Institute China Energy Map:
https://www.bakerinstitute.org/map-chinas-energy-infrastructure
Stop by my substack when you get a chance
Regards,
TC
I regret not being able to take anyone seriously who repeats simplistically a formulation from almost 350 years ago — a lot of scientific thinking has taken place since then, across multiple disciplines including quantum theory and cosmology. Of course, if one believes that God Almighty created the universe, then of course, any developments or empirical data will seem irrelevant. No need to respond to this.
Please provide citations regarding definitive proof that falsifies the Conservation of Energy / Conservation of Mass and Energy hypothesis. BTW, "scientific thought" is a linguistic diversion. "Science" refers to the scientific method, which requires the statement of a falsifiable hypothesis, followed by a credible attempt to falsify it.
I’m not engaging in the charade of mental onanism that is too often resorted to by people claiming to have read “articles” by PhDs. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I’m sure I’ve had closer collaborations with “PhDs” than you could ever dream of. And, no, I’m not sending a list of my peer-reviewed articles to anyone who’s skimmed a Wikipedia article on Popper.
Skim this then:
https://www.alinabas.com/blog/the-expert-syndrome-dealing-with-people-who-already-know-everything
Thank you for your comments.
Recently, 2 experienced PhDs, 1 in physics and 1 in chemistry, in collaboration with an energy industry professional, wrote this article which may be of aid. Please take a look.
Renewable Energy Does Not Exist
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/renewable-energy-does-not-exist
It must be exciting covering "PROGRESS" and not having to dishonestly spin negatives as positives (cause it could have been worse) as all too much in the West deteriorates. Of course, the US has black-listed Huawei going so far to have its vassal, Canada, arrest one of its top Executives, in transit.
US Regs/sanctions made Huawei develop its own chips, just like they made Russian companies were forced to innovate faster to be able to assume the function of the gaps left by fleeing Western countries.
If there was an Academy Awards show for Industrial/business innovations, when multiple Chinese Industrial Execs go to the podium to humbly accept their awards, besides thanking their families for their support, they would be thanking the US hegemon and its vassals for the tough love.
Quite interesting. I wonder if the Chinese considered gasifying the coal itself to fuel the trucks? That would appear to afford significant advantages. Of course, if the consumption exceeded a small fraction of the carrying capacity, there would be no point. I would also observe that the electric truck alternative might show far less financial benefit in a country that has its own ample petroleum resources, such as Russia (or the US if oppressive regulations are eased).