You keep making comments making it sound like you have a better view of the world than the people you're responding to, but just making personal attacks. The person you're responding to, for that specific point, is referring to: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/us/politics/troops-iran-h...
“Flee and reside in hotels” not equal to relocate and continue mission. The major operational staff at these bases still work there. Support was relocated not fleeing.
you say this as if massive corporations with extremely well-compensated executives don't regularly employ Deloitite and other worthless consultancies to do all sorts of work ineptly?
yeah, GP completely fails to realize that Cloudflare has always played both sides. that is their entire business model, and it was transparent from the beginning that they would absolutely do the same here.
1. There are coordination issues that have caused them to overestimate the need for such plants, which have been running at low capacity. There have also been perverse incentives to build plants that weren't needed, in order to placate the relevant stakeholders.
2. Battery storage (including pumped hydro) is being pursued aggressively, specifically (among other things) to address the reliability concerns that motivated the recent new coal plant construction. Government policy, furthermore, is clearly focused on "new energy", i.e. not fossil fuels.
3. Coal power generation in China has been level or declining for a little while now. Generation from new renewable plants is outstripping the overall increase in demand for power. There is a graph titled "New coal power has no predictive value for future coal power generation".
4. Historical, global evidence shows a persistent trend of capacity reduction lagging behind generation reduction. As should be expected. It takes effort (= money) to decommission a power plant, and an inactive (or less-active) one is a safety net. "In most cases, what ultimately stopped new coal power projects in those countries was not a formal ban, but the market reality.... In China, the same market signals are emerging: clean energy is now meeting all incremental demand and coal power generation has, as a result, started to decline."
5. As a share of total power generation, coal power in China has dropped substantially (from nearly 3/4 to scarcely half) over the last decade or so. In absolute terms, it is likely near or even past the peak.
6. The article concludes: "While China’s coal power construction boom looks, at first glance, like a resurgence,it currently appears more likely to be the final surge before a long downturn. The expansion has added friction and complexity to China’s energy transition, but it has not reversed it."
You asked:
> So are China, generally shifting away from coal?
Your own source clearly argues that they are, in fact, shifting away from coal. Presenting an article that refutes you as if it supported you, while employing this style of repeated "pointed" questions, is disingenuous and obnoxious.
Not sure how this refutes my rhetorical question whether China are building more coal power stations. Nothing disingenuous about giving an answer deliberately picked from a source favourable to the carbon scare mongerers. As for obnoxious, I replied in the manner the question was asked.
Do you understand that whether or not "China are still building coal power stations" is completely and utterly irrelevant to answering the question you asked in that comment?
What have you assumed was my original position and why is that relevant when my next rhetorical question was a follow up to being asked if I had any other questions?
This is getting tedious now. The basic facts are China has something like 1200 coal powered stations and is still building more.
I would not congratulate myself just because my cigarette to beer ratio was dropping if only because I was drinking alot more beer but hadn't increased my smoking by as much.
The only conflation is coming from you - the first question was not rhetorical, the second was, hence the link sent with it. If asking questions is obnoxious, I suggest you get out more. I am finished explaining.
Not exactly the same, but "sb." and "sth." are common abbreviations in dictionaries, e.g. "to meet sb." or "to pick sth. up". To those familiar with this convention, "s.o." can generally be inferred from context.
if you truly can't clock that this is AI written, you probably need to desperately develop this skill as soon as possible, because everything outside of the first sentence is so very, very clearly slop.
There are few types of people more annoying and less successful at changing anyone’s mind than those who are condescending while failing to understand the point being made.
Developing the skill to recognise when you’re being one is paramount to having fruitful conversations.
Unless, of course, one just cares about sounding right, not actually understanding the conversation and reaching a truthful conclusion.
reply