China keen on action in global efforts against climate change

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2011-12/17/c_131312271.htm

[font face=Times,Serif][font size=5]China keen on action in global efforts against climate change[/font]
[font size=3]English.news.cn 2011-12-17 14:29:51
by Xinhua writers Zhu Shaobin and Mou Xu

BEIJING, Dec. 17 (Xinhua) -- The world's second largest economy and major energy consumer believes in real actions in energy conservation and emissions reduction in addition to international talks and cooperation in climate change.

In China's capital city of Beijing, the nation's top leaders in the past week have stressed the importance of speeding up the elimination of outdated industrial production capacities and enhancing energy conservation and emissions control in a key annual economic conference that concluded on Wednesday.

In local regions, provincial governments are also on the move. The government of eastern Jiangxi province said it will strictly control and halt the approval of investment projects in areas where local authorities fail to eradicate outdated capacities according to schedule.

In the southern powerhouse of Guangdong, the provincial government has signed administrative liability papers for emissions reduction targets with municipal governments.

…[/font][/font]

[kristopher]

1. FYI, your formatting on DU3 seems to yield a different result

I always look forward to your articles, but my tired old eyes are having trouble reading the small text size in the body of your excerpts. I presume you are using a standardized formatting but now it is all (header also) much smaller than what was appearing on DU2.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Noted

In the past, I was using standard heading tags e.g. <H3> <H2>

Currently, these do not work, so I have been using FONT tags instead e.g. <FONT SIZE="5"> For the body text, I’ve been using the default size (whatever that is.)

I’ve been using a Serif typeface, because I find them more readable than sanserif, and I feel it helps to differentiate between my thoughts, and the articles I’m citing.

I’ll try bumping up the font size for the body text.

The above article has now been adjusted accordingly.

[font face=Times,Times New Roman,Serif][font size=5]<font size=5>[/font]
[font size=4]<font size=4>[/font]
[font size=3]<font size=3>[/font][/font]

[kristopher]

3. Thanks, it's great.

[kristopher]

4. 30 years ago who could have imagined...

30 years ago who could have imagined that China was going to be our best hope to save the world from a global environmental disaster?

[FBaggins]

5. You do seem to run hot and cold on China, don't you?

Torn between their most agressive expansion of solar and wind, but trying hard to ignore their also-most-agressive expansion of nuclear power.

And, of course, we're all just turning a blind eye to the fact that they're expanding their coal and natural gas generation pretty agressively as well.

While we're on the subject. What's your take on their equally-agressive hydro expansion? Pro or con?

[kristopher]

8. No, I don't.

I tend to see things more as events in a stream than static points in time. What I see with China is a recent (2007-2009) awakening of their domestic renewable potential. Prior to that they had bought into the classic IEA/World Bank roadmap to energy for developing nations - fossil fuels and nuclear.

Since the awakening they have been steadily scaling back or slowing down the classic approach and rolling their huge incoming cash flow into both positioning themselves for the coming global market in renewable technology and meeting their own needs with renewables. They tend to plan in 5 year increments so we'll know more as 2015 approaches.

As to hydro I haven't looked too much at that. It is a (limited) large scale resource that they have the right to develop as they see fit. The scale of 3 Gorges is something that troubles me in much the same way that nuclear does, however. The probability of catastrophic failure is low, but the consequences should it happen would be a nation-altering event for them.

[FBaggins]

9. You seem to have a creative memory.

Since the awakening they have been steadily scaling back or slowing down the classic approach and rolling their huge incoming cash flow into both positioning themselves for the coming global market in renewable technology and meeting their own needs with renewables.

What a convenient blind spot that you have. The reality is that they continued to increase their reliance on nuclear power right up until Fukushima... the only result of which appears to be a one-year hiccup.

You've tried this nonsense before. Remember your claims that it was really a single corrupt official who was responsible for their nuclear daliances... and once the projects that were already underway were completed, they would be stepping back out? How many days did it take for that one to die?

The reality is that they have the most agressive nuclear expansion program in the world... yet you allow yourself to play 3Monkeys and sing their praises as a model for the world.

As to hydro I haven't looked too much at that. It is a (limited) large scale resource that they have the right to develop as they see fit. The scale of 3 Gorges is something that troubles me in much the same way that nuclear does, however. The probability of catastrophic failure is low, but the consequences should it happen would be a nation-altering event for them.

Now there's an odd reaction. Tell me... what would you estimate the consequences would be of a worst-case scenario?

[kristopher]

11. And you are making things up out of whole cloth.

I suppose that fabricating things works best when the world isn't going your way...

They started seeing the global possibilities around 2007, and they accomplished their first domestic renewable resource assessment in 2009. Since then they have made a radical change of direction where "they have been steadily scaling back or slowing down the classic approach and rolling their huge incoming cash flow into both positioning themselves for the coming global market in renewable technology and meeting their own needs with renewables."

The fact that their nuclear program was already rolling and that it possessed inertia for some additional growth doesn't negate my observations since the rate of planned new growth in the nuclear program had already slowed to a crawl before Fukushima. All of the new build you are pointing to had already been planned before they did their renewable resource assessment and there has been almost no additional expansion announced since.

My comments about the corrupt official were not as you allege. I pointed to that incident as proof of the FACT that nuclear is subject to the type of corruption that negates the claims by you and your cohorts that nuclear power is somehow exempt from the problems that plague other human endeavors. It was proof positive that the level of safety for nuclear plants was subject to compromise and couldn't possibly meet the level the nuclear industry has led the public to believe exists.

I'm sick of your lack of ethics, Baggins.

[joshcryer]

12. They plan to have 400 GWe by 2050.

That's 10GWe a year from now until then.

[kristopher]

15. When was that "plan" announced?

As I wrote, in contrast to the path charted by their initial long term plans, the short term planning has been shifting dramatically towards renewables. And I'll repeat again the key sentence - we will have a much clearer picture of the dynamics by the time 2015 rolls around. Until then there isn't enough information to draw definitive conclusions.

[joshcryer]

20. It's been on the table for a few years now, I think 2007? In any event...

....they reiterated that the plan is still in effect so it's not like things have changed. India is going to build out even more nuclear in the long term picture.

Moving the goalposts won't help though. "By the time 2015 rolls around" I'm sure that the new target will be 4.0C. Then I expect geoengineering to start gaining traction internationally.

[kristopher]

23. What happens if by 2015 the price of solar generated electricity is far less than nuclear?

And if it is expected to continue to decline?

Do you think they will still waste money on a technology that isn't as effective and comes with a host of external costs and safety issues?

[joshcryer]

28. Probably not.

Assuming they haven't already tapped out their available solar space by then.

China is growing all forms of technology, solar, wind, hydro (almost tapped), coal, nuclear. They have no real focus on the environment.

[kristopher]

32. What a chauvanistic, arrogant claim.

[joshcryer]

34. Got any data to suggest otherwise?

I'm looking at WEO 2011, it's not looking good.

[pscot]

6. I'm still having a hard time

imagining it. I hope they mean it.

[Dead_Parrot]

7. I'll believe it when I see it

Xinhua has a lot more freedom than they used to, but AFAIK they still report to the Communist party's "information" office. YMMV, but I take everything they say with a pinch of salt.

[joshcryer]

10. 30 years ago, who could've imagined 3.0C was actually a "reasonable" target?

[kristopher]

13. Your meaning is...?

[joshcryer]

14. The goalposts keep moving?

China ain't going to stop burning coal until there's none left to burn.

And neither are we.

[kristopher]

16. That is possible.

But I doubt it.

Can you tell us what the *net increase* in their coal generating capacity is after you account for retiring plants? I saw the numbers somewhere but can't recall where at the moment.

[joshcryer]

18. Retiring plants are being retired for inefficiency, not to phase out coal. They will double coal...

...by 2030, by then global coal production will be peaking.

[kristopher]

21. How about some hard numbers from a reputable source?

It makes it easier to have a legitimate discussion. The increased efficiency in the new plants do serve to significantly lower the carbon intensity of their economy but I can't remember where it leaves them relative to the amount of increased consumption.

[joshcryer]

22. Here:

Peak coal: http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf

Higher than expected production (despite mine closures): http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/coal_bohai_report.pdf

Not sure what constitutes a "reputable source" to you since policy analysts tend to take money from whatever group will pay them.

The best source is WEO 2011: http://www.iea.org/weo/

[kristopher]

24. I'm looking for hard data to tell you and me what is happening in China

Your imagination is good, but it isn't a basis for actual understanding. And trotting out 4 year old generalized reports tell us almost nothing about the rapidly shifting market dynamics of energy in China that are the subject of discussion.

ETA: All your reply really says is that you have no solid basis for your claims. China is making major moves in the direction you claim you want the world to go, and all you can do is criticize without even knowing what is actually happening.

[joshcryer]

26. WEO supports my claim. Let's see support for your claims.

Show us all where "China is making major moves in the way I claim the I want the world to go." It's far worse than you are making it out to be, the Durban summit set a baseline for 3.0C at the minimum with no hard commitments. More like "We'll come back to this some other time."

[joshcryer]

27. BTW, I knew you'd shit on the sources rather than refute them.

Typical.

[kristopher]

31. What was I supposed to refute?

You linked to websites and large documents with tens of thousands of facts. What specific data are you using?

[joshcryer]

33. You are claiming I am wrong or that my statements aren't supported.

I supported "peak coal" and I supported "China going beyond projections."

You respond with "out of date."

Let's see something "not out of date."

Otherwise I will consider my statements accurate.

[NickB79]

25. It appears they have closed 71 GWe of old coal-fired plants since 2006

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

"These capacity increase figures are all the more remarkable considering the forced retirement of small inefficient coal-fired plants: 26 GWe of these was closed in 2009 and 11 GWe in 2010, making 71 GWe closed since 2006, cutting annual coal consumption by about 82 million tonnes and annual carbon dioxide emissions by some 165 million tonnes. China is well advanced in developing and deploying supercritical and ultra-supercritical coal plants, as well as moving quickly to design and deploy technologies for integrated (coal) gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants."

However, this link gives data that implies their coal consumption is still increasing despite the closure of inefficient coal plants: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/01/21/for-china-coal-is-still-king/

"Since 2000, China’s coal consumption has grown by 12 percent per year. The country now consumes 46 percent of the world’s coal consumption, compared with 13 percent for the United States.[viii] In 2009, China’s coal consumption was almost 3.5 billion short tons, up 16 percent from the year before, while the United States consumed 1.0 billion short tons in 2009, down 11 percent from the year before.[ix]"

[kristopher]

29. Thanks but an associated note of caution

From your second source at their home page:

For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON D.C. — The Institute for Energy Research announced today its full support for immediate development of the Keystone XL pipeline, and has placed on the organization’s website a ticker representing the money that President Obama’s delay …

Not saying their figures are wrong, but I've seen some unreliable things out of that site in the past. The contrast between the two sources highlights a real problem, however, trustworthy data on China is hard to come by. I wish I could remember where I was looking at their coal figures...

[joshcryer]

30. Let's see your sources, please.

[NickB79]

35. Thanks for the warning. I found the info through Google, so I wasn't familiar with the source. nt

[joshcryer]

37. The source they use is EIA, which has historically underestimated China.

We can throw out their source and go directly to the EIA, however, kristopher has had a problem with the EIA in the past.

The EIA fully supports what I have said: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/

China's coal is going to explode: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/coal.cfm

Coal use in China's electricity sector increases from 28.7 quadrillion Btu in 2008 to 63.4 quadrillion Btu in 2035, at an average rate of 3.0 percent per year. In comparison, coal consumption in the U.S. electricity sector grows by 0.2 percent annually, from 20.5 quadrillion Btu in 2008 to 21.6 quadrillion Btu in 2035. At the end of 2008, China had an estimated 557 gigawatts of operating coal-fired capacity. To meet increasing demand for electricity that accompanies the relatively strong outlook for China's economic growth, the IEO2011 Reference case projects a need for 485 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity additions (net of retirements) from 2008 through 2035. The substantial amount of new capacity represents, on average, 18 gigawatts of new coal-fired capacity additions per year, which is a considerably slower rate of construction than occurred during the 5-year period ending in 2008, when coal-fired capacity additions averaged 55 gigawatts per year. Coal's share of total electricity generation in China declines from 80 percent in 2008 to 66 percent in 2035 (Figure 69), as generation from nuclear, renewables, and natural gas each grows more rapidly than generation from coal.

These are energy producers we should aspire toward.

[Bob Wallace]

17. No 100% guarantee...

But it looks like climate change has already changed our weather and is bringing us a lot of extreme, deadly events. We can't hang a tag on a specific event and declare that without a doubt global warming caused it.

But we can look at the frequency of major weather events and see that they are becoming more frequent.

Now that we're starting to work our way back out of the Bush Recession and getting our troops out of the Bush Oil Wars people are likely to pay more attention to what's happening with our weather. Give us a couple more years of increasing extreme weather and an Arctic summer melt out and I think we're going to see major pushes to get carbon off our electrical grid.

What will really help move away from coal is the fact that solar is becoming very affordable. And it looks like we may have some storage solutions in the works.

Give us a more motivated public and a reasonable cost alternative and I think we'll let coal go.

In the meantime, do what you can to get people to understand how expensive coal-electricity really is. Keep the drum beat of coal's hidden costs going....

[joshcryer]

19. Yes, the externalized costs of coal will be solved with geoengineering.

Do not expect your grandchildren to see blue skies, as such a concept will be foreign to them.

The Arctic ocean will be largely ice free during the summer in the next 5 years. The feedbacks from that will be enormous, as it will change the albedo of the planet, and that's why the long term plans of the globalists is geoengineering.

[joshcryer]

36. Russian fossil exports to China WEO 2011: