For individuals that don't know 'Electricity Output' from 'Electricity Generation'
[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3089037]No need to lie, unless individuals don't understand the difference between [B]Capacity vs Generation[/B][/QUOTE]Well if you think that's what I was doing, you'd be wrong! However, then by the same token, there's no need for you to lie either, unless individuals don't understand, there is no difference between, [B]"electricity output"[/B] and [B]"electricity generation"[/B].
If a reader doesn't understand the difference, between electricity [B]Capacity vs Generation[/B], that is on them to seek understanding. For those folks that read the article, it's should be very clear.
But clearly some folks, couldn't make it past the article's headlines [B]"China's Solar Capacity Set to Overtake Coal This Quarter",[/B] and jumped to conclusions and either don't know, or have forgotten how to read a simple report on energy and how various 'words' in the industry are used to convey the same meaning.
So while the article reported on the uptick in solar capacity, [U]it also clearly reported[/U] on the historic milestone "this week", where for the first-time coal's [B]"electricity output",[/B] (not capacity) fell below 50%, making non-fossil fuels the majority energy generation. As I clearly also [U]underlined this[/U] in my post.
[QUOTE=Spidy;3089025] "Official Chinese data showed earlier this week that [b][u]the share of coal in China's electricity output fell in the first half of 2026 to below 50%,[/u][/b] for the first time on record, in a landmark achievement of the Chinese policy to boost non-fossil power sources."[/QUOTE][U]The undisputed FACTS:[/U]
It's not a "lie" or a "lie by omission", when those, that don't know how to read a simple article on energy and understand the words that are being written. It's on them to seek understanding (or ask for clarification), given the many tools available today, it shouldn't be that hard.
To make my point [U]perfectly clear,[/U] here is another article, that uses YOUR very same words, [B]"coal-fired generation"[/B], to describe the very same historical milestone event described in the first article China's Solar Capacity Set to Overtake Coal This Quarter, July 24th, 2026. [URL]https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Chinas-Solar-Capacity-Set-to-Overtake-Coal-This-Quarter.html#1[/URL], that used "electricity output".
[B]China's coal-fired generation falls below 50% for first time, signalling structural shift in Asia's largest power market,[/B] 31st, Jul 2026. [URL]https://www.bigmint.co/insights/detail/chinas-coal-fired-generation-falls-below-50-for-first-time-signalling-structural-shift-in-asias-largest-power-market-775498#1[/URL].
The [B]Undisputed FACTS[/B] are, that as of June 2026, China's non-fossil fuel sources of energy, now make-up the majority of electricity power generation (ie. Electricity output) on their electricity grid. PERIOD. FULL STOP!
[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3089037]"Every man is entitled to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. " - [B]Bernard Baruch[/B].[/QUOTE]Ditto! Right back at ya!
Co-signed "Stupidity"?
[QUOTE=Canada;3089019][b]Stupidity[/b]
Rhode Island is not very smart. Wyoming on the other hand is looking at building the data centers and building mini nuclear plants to power them. Construction has started on the nuclear plants. Get rid of commercial wind and solar and go nuclear. Only makes sense.[/QUOTE]Yes, it would be if that is what Rhode Island did with their 7 to 10 data centers, according to you and your co-signer, Elvis 2008's MAGA math. You said it, "stupidity", again exemplified when one MAGA co-signs another, without knowing and understanding discussion or debate, especially when it comes to propaganda MAGA math.
BTW, I wish Wyoming the best of luck, with their mini nuclear plants. You should keep us abreast of said project! And BTW, when are they set to come on line, in Wyoming?
Less MAGA Propaganda and more REAL world math and FACTS, please!
[QUOTE=Canada;3089022]There is no MAGA in Alberta. Only a conservative province being run by a socialist government. Alberta has enough hydroelectric power to easily supply Alberta with no high cost wind and solar that drives our costs up. But Alberta was forced by the socialists to go green. Yes stupidity at its finest. Solar is not efficient with 2 feet of snow and ice on it and windmills produce nothing when it is 40 below. Would you live in Northern Alberta with only wind power in the winter. Is anyone that dumb? Probably only a socialist that lives in a warm climate would be that dumb.[/QUOTE]I'm beginning to wonder if you really come from Alberta or not. I mean, your knowledge on Alberta (that anyone can easily Google and investigate / research) is IMHO historic and woefully bad reporting here on ISG.
According the to FACTS investigated, Alberta hydro is [B]a puny 2% to 3%[/B] of their electricity generation. While renewables (solar, wind, biomass) are 18-19% of Albert's electricity generation.
So does that mean, "shit-ton" of Alberta hydro, Canada says they have, when operating in [I]-40C winter conditions[/I] and under 2-feet of snow, can only produce 2-3%, while renewables in Alberta [B]under the same conditions[/B] [I]6x to 9x times more[/I].
[LIST]Note: I said "electricity generation" for those that still confused.[/LIST]Either the FACTS are lying or Canada is. I wonder which one it is? Or maybe Canada, is confused with British Colombia, Canada, where their hydro is like 89-91%.
So you see, once readers push past the MAGA propaganda and the MAGA math, by either co-signing MAGA posters on Alberta (neither of which seem to know anything about Alberta, although one claims to be from Alberta, while the other just chimes-in nonsensically), may I suggest do a little research and provide real would facts, rather than the usual MAGA propaganda and math.
If you need to win. Not going to happen with me! Continue to ignore my facts!
[QUOTE=Spidy;3089234]Well if you think that's what I was doing, you'd be wrong! However, then by the same token, there's no need for you to lie either, unless individuals don't understand, there is no difference between, [B]"electricity output"[/B] and [B]"electricity generation"[/B].[/QUOTE]Yep, continue your word play like the Registered Democrat that lives in Bangkok, Thailand that ignores the difference between correlation and causation. I am wrong because [B]Spidy[/B] says I am wrong. Yes, I understand that.
[QUOTE=Spidy;3089234]If a reader doesn't understand the difference, between electricity [B]Capacity vs Generation[/B], that is on them to seek understanding. For those folks that read the article, it's should be very clear.[/QUOTE]Only a closed minded reader insists that a individual interprets the facts in exact the same way. It is like a jury trial. Why have them? If the facts are always interpreted the same way, then why not just have a judge decide all cases like they do in Thailand?
[QUOTE][b]China's Solar Capacity Set to Overtake Coal This Quarter[/b]
The share of coal averaged 49.7% of China's total electricity output in the first half of this year, official data showed on Thursday. Despite the milestone of reducing coal power output to below 50% of total generation for the first time ever, China continues to rely on coal for power for industry and to maintain the reliability of the power grids.[/QUOTE][URL]https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Chinas-Solar-Capacity-Set-to-Overtake-Coal-This-Quarter.html[/URL]#1.
[QUOTE=Spidy;3089234]But clearly some folks, couldn't make it past the article's headlines [B]"China's Solar Capacity Set to Overtake Coal This Quarter",[/B] and jumped to conclusions and either don't know, or have forgotten how to read a simple report on energy and how various 'words' in the industry are used to convey the same meaning.[/QUOTE][B]Spidy[/B] you need to actually read the article you posted. You also need to allow for the interpretation of others of the information you present.
[QUOTE=Spidy;3089234]So while the article reported on the uptick in solar capacity, [U]it also clearly reported[/U] on the historic milestone "this week", where for the first-time coal's [B]"electricity output",[/B] (not capacity) fell below 50%, making non-fossil fuels the majority energy generation. As I clearly also [U]underlined this[/U] in my post.[/QUOTE]Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah like Charle Browns teacher.
[QUOTE=Spidy;3089234][U]The undisputed FACTS:[/U][/QUOTE]The undisputed fact is that coal is still a MAJOR component of [B]China's[/B] energy generation.
[QUOTE=Spidy;3089234]It's not a "lie" or a "lie by omission", when those, that don't know how to read a simple article on energy and understand the words that are being written. It's on them to seek understanding (or ask for clarification), given the many tools available today, it shouldn't be that hard.[/QUOTE]I disagree with you. You are also a member of the Democratic Party. Party mentality does not allow for dissent.
[QUOTE=Spidy;3089234]To make my point [U]perfectly clear,[/U] here is another article, that uses YOUR very same words, [B]"coal-fired generation"[/B], to describe the very same historical milestone event described in the first article China's Solar Capacity Set to Overtake Coal This Quarter, July 24th, 2026. [URL]https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Chinas-Solar-Capacity-Set-to-Overtake-Coal-This-Quarter.html#1[/URL], that used "electricity output".[/QUOTE]If you wish to argue with me about use of the English Language you got the wrong person. Read the articles you post. If I read the EXACT same article and come to a different conclusion then that is that. Your need to win is quite a irritation to me. There is nothing to win [B]Spidy[/B]. Especially since you have never played the sport. ROTFLMAO!
[QUOTE=Spidy;3089234][B]China's coal-fired generation falls below 50% for first time, signalling structural shift in Asia's largest power market,[/B] 31st, Jul 2026.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.bigmint.co/insights/detail/chinas-coal-fired-generation-falls-below-50-for-first-time-signalling-structural-shift-in-asias-largest-power-market-775498#1[/URL]
[QUOTE]The [B]Undisputed FACTS[/B] are, that as of June 2026, China's non-fossil fuel sources of energy, now make-up the majority of electricity power generation (ie. Electricity output) on their electricity grid. PERIOD. FULL STOP![/QUOTE][U]Undisputed fact[/U]
[QUOTE]Despite the milestone of reducing coal power output to below 50% of total generation for the first time ever, China continues to rely on coal for power for industry and to maintain the reliability of the power grids.[/QUOTE][U]What I am going to do[/U]
[QUOTE]"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." - [b]Winston Churchill[/b] June 1, 1940[/QUOTE]
The Undeniable FACTS in both articles (in plain English) speak for themselves
[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3089248]Yep, continue your word play like the Registered Democrat that lives in Bangkok, Thailand that ignores the difference between correlation and causation. I am wrong because [B]Spidy[/B] says I am wrong. Yes, I understand that.
Only a closed minded reader insists that a individual interprets the facts in exact the same way. It is like a jury trial. Why have them? If the facts are always interpreted the same way, then why not just have a judge decide all cases like they do in Thailand?
[URL]https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Chinas-Solar-Capacity-Set-to-Overtake-Coal-This-Quarter.html[/URL]#1.
[B]Spidy[/B] you need to actually read the article you posted. You also need to allow for the interpretation of others of the information you present.
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah like Charle Browns teacher.[/QUOTE]I expected much better argument from you than "blah, blah, blah", but I guess when the undeniable and UNDISPUTED FACTS, in just one (1) but two (2) articles, clearly show China has turned the corner and its non-fossil fuel energy sources is the MAJORITY make-up, in it electricity grid mix, it's hard for some folk to believe.
[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3089248]The undisputed fact is that coal is still a MAJOR component of [B]China's[/B] energy generation.[/QUOTE]49.7% to be exact. But the MAJOR component of non-fossils fuels make-up 50.3%, to be exact. But yes, coal still play a significant but diminishing role, as China tends to marches forward.
[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3089248]I disagree with you. You are also a member of the Democratic Party. Party mentality does not allow for dissent.
If you wish to argue with me about use of the English Language you got the wrong person. Read the articles you post. If I read the EXACT same article and come to a different conclusion then that is that. Your need to win is quite a irritation to me. There is nothing to win [B]Spidy[/B]. Especially since you have never played the sport. ROTFLMAO![/QUOTE]Oh, sorry brother, you don't get that crutch with me! I said before, it is on [U]the reader to seek understanding (or ask for clarification[/U]), given the many tools available today, it shouldn't be that hard. As far as I can tell, most of the article is written in plain English [URL]https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Chinas-Solar-Capacity-Set-to-Overtake-Coal-This-Quarter.html#1[/URL], and the other article used your exact words of [B]"coal-fired generation"[/B], to describe the milestone event.
California's, 1 GWh power plant, out of thin-air? Who the fuck needs land?
[QUOTE=Elvis2008;3088264]And of course, you miss the obvious downsides with solar and wind, The amount of land required to produce enough electricity for 1,000 households per year at a natural gas power plant is just 0. 18 acres, including the land required both for the power plant itself and for the production and transportation facilities to supply natural gas to the plant.
...
And just as natural gas and fossil fuels kick battery's ass when it comes to storage space, cost, and weight, nuclear kicks fossil fuels ass in that regard.[/QUOTE][I]But, but, but...[/I]who needs MAGA propaganda fossil fuels "bug-a-boo" land arguments and math, when you can essentially create a near 1 GWh power plant and additional new energy to the grid, essentially [B][i]"out of thin-air?[/i][/B].
Yes, California, essentially just got a new power plant on their existing grid (with no addition fossil fuel fallacy "land", needed or required, although many brain-washed MAGA would have you believe otherwise), as nothing was physically built and no "lands" were expropriated.
A California Tesla irtual Power Plant (VPP) officially broke records by delivering a peak of 601 megawatts (MW) of power and 932 megawatt-hours (MWh) of total energy to the grid.
This massive grid-support event occurred during peak energy demand on October 6, 2026. [URL]https://www.pge.com/en/newsroom/currents/future-of-energy/power-to-the-people--california-s-biggest-battery-test-ever-just.html[/URL].
The scale of the event, saw a traditional, centralized power station, create this "invisible" power plant, that was stitched together using software:
[LIST]85,774 homes equipped with Tesla Powerwall batteries participated simultaneously.
634 MW was the absolute peak reached when counting the entire fleet (including some non-participating standby units).
$2 per kWh is the compensation rate participating California homeowners receive through utility programs like PG&E for feeding electricity back when the grid is strained.[/LIST]
I'm kidding, but really [I]...who the fuck needs land?[/I] Ya got to luv the power of renewables! Best of all about this story, is that taxpaying, hard working, [I]"woke" Californians got paid ($$$)[/I].
2026 The Year of the Battery.
Why does energy generation in China matter?
I wrote a post addressing energy security. What was the response?
[QUOTE=EihTooms;2226161]Crickets?[/QUOTE]I care about the Dis United States of America. [B]China controls over 80% of global solar manufacturing capacity[/B]!
[QUOTE]Energy security today extends well beyond securing fuel supplies. It increasingly encompasses securing access to clean energy technologies themselves. Countries that rely heavily on imported solar components risk exposure to pricing volatility, trade disruptions, export controls, and geopolitical uncertainties. Consequently, governments are increasingly viewing domestic solar manufacturing as a strategic capability rather than merely an industrial investment.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/07/24/the-geopolitics-of-solar-manufacturing-and-how-can-india-build-a-china-alternative-supply-chain/[/URL]
[B]Why anyone want to make the Dis United States of America dependent upon a hostile foreign power to supply it's energy is beyond me?[/B]
The United States produces sufficient fossil fuels to power its electrical power plants, as it is a net exporter of energy. Fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, and coal) account for approximately 75% of total USA Energy production and 57-60% of electricity generation.
[URL]https://usafacts.org/articles/what-are-the-top-energy-production-sources-in-the-us/[/URL]
[B]Neither Party is Mine![/B]
2 photos
Where do these assumptions come from?
[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3089279]I suspect the current Article 2 leader of the Dis United States of America thought he could conclude the [I]illegal undeclared military action against Iran[/I] and take a victory lab before the midterms. He was listening to his boy Putin. Who made the same miscalculation. That is what happens when your advisors don't tell you the truth or you are too hard headed to listen to them when they do.[/QUOTE]That is a puzzling conclusion similar to the one everybody in Winger Media makes about Trump and almost everybody in Mainstream Media makes about him; that he is interested in and [I]trying[/I] to Make America Great, interested in and [I]trying[/I] to accomplish positive results for the USA economy, the American people, world peace and starving children everywhere. But that, darn it all, he keeps making these blatantly obvious policy mistakes, miscalculations and clumsy blunders that everyone with a working brain can predict would produce the exact disastrous results they are producing. And that if we just gently advise him to adjust his methods in a more intelligent way he might surely change everything about him that has been who he is since the first day anyone outside of his immediate family ever heard of him. LOL.
Serious question; what in the world would support such a conclusion?
Trump ran for office as a Repub because he observed for decades that is the Party for deadbeat charlatans whose only skill and mission is to con as much money and power out if as many dumb Repub hillbilly suckers in the vicinity as possible and that even a lousy con man can squeeze out of them.
There is no "justification" for his Iran War other than at that particular moment it seemed like a nifty idea to him to use the power, standing, blood and money of America to pay back Netanyahu for being the single most important reason he squeaked out a razor-thin win in 2024 and an opportunity to stay out of prison while conning billions of dollars out of Americans and trade American assets for billions more from America's enemies.
Whatever would happen after he plunged America into that Repub Forever War of Choice Based on Repub Lies is of zero interest to him. Whatever the fallout, he is poised and ready to con whatever he can con out of that situation as well. Good news for him or bad news for him, it doesn't matter one whit. He has a con to fit every situation or outcome to benefit him at the great expense of everyone else. He has devoted his life to that skill and mission.
The same for the midterms. Trump doesn't give a shit how the midterms turn out. His only interest now is to go on another Trump Brand Infomercial Tour to scoop up whatever accolades and money he can pluck out of however many dumb Repub hillbillies are still dumb enough to show up.
Otherwise, Trump is way past Stage 9 of The Big Con, the steamer trunk is packed with conned billions and it is being loaded on the ship that is about to sail. Of course, that doesn't mean he won't be scoring any and every con he thinks he has the power to score on the way to the dock. He will. And it is entirely possible that the most damaging of them for everyone else is yet to come no matter how effective the incoming Dem Conressional Majority / ies are at stifling his pathological drive to con everyone out of everything.
[QUOTE][b]The 9th Stage of the Big Con:[/b]
9. Blowing him off: "Cooling out" the markmanaging their reaction or cutting contact so they realize too late they've been robbed.[/QUOTE]
