February 13

Based on statistics on electricity production from this page, it looks like coal fired electricity as a percentage of electricity production dramatically dropped in China in just one year. But this is such a steep drop it seems virtually impossible considering how much electricity China produces in a year?

• 2015: 73%
• 2016: 65%

Muzzleflash (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised; China like almost all (non-U.S.) countries has been transitioning hard towards renewable and non-carbon-based energy sources. If you look at

Energy in China, you see that China between 2010 and 2015, China saw a drop of 1/5 in CO2 output; that's primarily through the shuttering of coal plants, the increase in energy efficient technology, and the shifting towards renewables and non-carbon-based energy sources. You can see in that same article that coal consumption peaked in 2014, and has been falling precipitously since. --Jayron32 18:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note that China is still seeing reasonable increases in both electricity generation capacity and electric power generation e.g. this source [1] says 8.2% and 5.2% respectively. So even without shuttering or reducing electricity generation from coal plants, you will still see a reasonable decrease in the percentage coming from coal if the new generation and capacity is from sources other than coal. Nil Einne (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, in China's case the drop in "% of energy from coal" began a few years earlier than the "total coal consumed", but in both 2015 and 2016, according to sources cited above, BOTH numbers are dropping in China; that is China gets not only a lower percentage of their power from coal, the absolute consumption of coal has also decreased recently. --Jayron32 16:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

China installed 34.54 Gigawatt of new solar panels in 2016. Half of the whole worlds grow. Similar china is world leader with 19.3 GW of new wind generators to a total capacity of 149 GW in 2016. Second was the united states with +8.6 GW to 74.4 GW in the same year. Additionally china is currently building 20(!) new nuclear power stations. The Chinese are building up brand new, modern infrastructure like no one else in the world, including highly advanced, innovative High temperature reactors which where originally invented in Germany in the 1960 but never build as commercial reactors there. China builds up its industrial base in record speed and thus its no wonder they manage such unbelievable rate of reduction in fossil fuel use. --Kharon (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See China aims to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions through trading scheme (Nov. 2017). Alansplodge (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The

Cap-and-trade idea to reduce emissions never worked effective but that seems to be exactly what economic policy everywhere wants. Looks like China wants to "kick the can down the road" in emission prevention too now. --Kharon (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

In the energy drink wiki page it says that, "Coffee, tea and other naturally caffeinated beverages are usually not considered energy drinks. Other soft drinks such as cola may contain caffeine, but are also not energy drinks."; why are coffee, tea, and especially cola, not considered energy drinks? The first sentence of the article says "An energy drink is a type of beverage containing stimulant drugs, usually including caffeine, which is marketed as providing mental and physical stimulation (marketed as "energy", but distinct from food energy)." I feel like many colas, coffee, and tea are marketed as providing mental and physical stimulations, yet they are not considered energy drinks? I myself would not personally call a cola, coffee, or tea an energy drink, but at the same time I couldn't really explain why they aren't considered energy drinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.120.110.134 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a ref for this, but I think the answer is pretty clear: It's because "energy drink" is a made-up category, designed specifically for marketing. There is no incentive for the marketers to include coffee or tea; that would just dilute the brand. --Trovatore (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See here Key words seem to be "usually carbonated" and "caffeine and other added ingredients". --Jayron32 17:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other added ingredients part seems to be the key. Everything I've seen called an energy drink has Taurine, Guarana, and B vitamins in addition to caffeine. If it didn't have those things, it wasn't called an energy drink. I've seen some that aren't carbonated (got one next to me right now) and some with caffeine levels lower that an equal amount of black coffee (but still higher than most sodas). I've seen a few that use glucose or even Isomaltulose for sweeteners instead of HFCS or cane sugar. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the word "usually" has meaning, and was included for a reason. --Jayron32 17:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna say that 'usually' implies carbonation is more the norm than a common option, though looking on the availability of non-carbonated energy drinks, it seems that markets in my area are an anomaly in stocking comparable amounts of carbonated and non-carbonated. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per 100g or 0.1 liters Coca Cola contains 8 mg, red bull 30 mg caffeine. Tea has 10mg, Coffee 40-50 mg and cappuccino/espresso 60mg in the same weight/volume. Energy drinks are additionally very sweet and often have a strong taste of a candy - like a fluid bonbon.

Oddly red bull does not spend to much into marketing, atleast compared to Coca Cola, who is #1 in marketing spending with a huge lead[2]. --Kharon (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsico, and as such it spends much more on brand-awareness marketing. Pepsico is a diversified food-and-beverage company with a wide array of products and services. The Coca-Cola Company sells sugary drinks. For that reason, being less diversified, it needs to spend a greater portion of its revenue on brand awareness, as its fortunes rest pretty much entirely on the success of its beverage brands. Regarding Red Bull, Red Bull GmbH is a tiny company that basically produces just Red Bull drinks. It's going to have a much smaller marketing budget for that reason. Also, Red Bull markets very differently than Coca Cola, using event and sports team sponsorships to a much greater extent. --Jayron32 19:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I remember visiting a cave in the Caribbean when I was a child. It was a long hike up a path up a mountain. A stream came out of the cave and made cascading waterfalls down the side of the mountain. It turned into the major river for the island. I remember it being closer to Venezuela, but this was about 20 years ago and I was very young. I can't ask my parents (both passed away). Is this unique enough that it describes only one or two river heads in the area? I'm trying to put together where I went because I'd like to visit it again. 156.143.240.137 (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would help greatly if you had a better idea of where this is. Since you can't ask a relative, it's worth checking if you can find your old passport as it seems likely this would have been required for wherever you went. 20 years ago suggests it's unlikely you could have traveled using a parent's passport. As it seems like you are from the US and so I guess probably a US citizen and maybe only a US citizen, if you didn't need a passport to travel wherever it was, this would probably tell you something as well e.g. in current time [3]. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might you be thinking of the

ABC islands. -- ToE 00:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]