From John Droz’s newsletter with a hat-tip to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. for bringing it to my attention and via the “I can hear Joe Romm’s head exploding” department and Electric Light and Power comes this story:
CHINA TO DROP SOLAR ENERGY TO FOCUS ON NUCLEAR POWER
Asia Pulse
China will accelerate the use of new-energy sources such as nuclear energy and put an end to blind expansion in industries such as solar energy and wind power in 2012, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao says in a government report published on March 5.
China will instead develop nuclear power in 2012, actively develop hydroelectric power, tackle key problems more quickly in the exploration and development of shale gas, and increase the share of new energy and renewable energy in total energy consumption.
The guidance indicates a new trend for new-energy and renewable energy development in China from 2012. Analysts believe that the development of the solar and wind power industries will stabilize while hydropower will have the top priority in renewable energy development in China.
— Hydropower to contribute two-thirds of renewable energy
According to China’s development plan for 2011-2015, China aims to increase the share of renewable energy consumption to 11.4 per cent of total energy consumption in China by the end of 2015.
Full story here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is hardly surprising since the Politburo is dominated by engineers who can actually do math and some of whom have actual experience in power generation. This puts them way ahead of lawyers that can’t figure out the tip on a restaurant check without a calculator.
“China will instead develop nuclear power in 2012, actively develop hydroelectric power, tackle key problems more quickly in the exploration and development of shale gas, and increase the share of new energy and renewable energy [meaning, primarily, hydropower] in total energy consumption.”
Wow, sounds like a very sensible energy policy. Any chance we can get that in the US?
Nuclear is very polluting. What will they do with nuclear waste? Who sold them the technology? Smart decision?
The report says that:
China aims to increase the share of renewable energy consumption to 11.4 per cent of total energy consumption in China by the end of 2015.
Am I reading this wrong? or is China still interested in renewable energy enough to keep increasing its use? Is that because that’s what they want to do? or is that because they have this multi-decade plan to lure westerners into it?
If the CAGW alarmists actually believed their own baloney they would be shouting this decision joyfully from the roof tops.
One other thing. Installed capacity is a meaningless way to compare power sources. Wind, solar and even hydro all have capacity hugely larger than they have actual production. Using installed capacity as a comparison is a method used by the BS artists to distract from the fact that those methods are not producing and will not produce the needed power. For example world wide the installed capacity for wind power is always at least 5 times the actual production. Meanwhile for nuclear power installed and actual are essentially synonyms.
Only be reading between the lines can you see that China has given up on renewables. At face value, they are going to expand them, but at the same time go more coal and nuclear.
Peculiar: wind systems at 148% of last year, output essentially the same. Solar up 3X by system, output down.
There was a report before of wind turbines being built but not connected to the grid, but they still got the subsidy. Maybe what we see is the logical expansion of a corrupt power generation group.
When the economics don’t make sense in China, with its low manpower cost, where can they work?
Hydropower to contribute two-thirds of renewable energy
This is a very important point. Often the term “renewable energy” is thought to mean only those dead-end, science-projecty things like large scale solar panel or windmill industrial power generation facilities (euphemistically called “farms”). The implication being that only the wind and sun are renewable. But hydro electric is also renewable… the rivers keeps flowing and water keeps running through the turbines.
So when someone says that some government is successful at creating X% of their electrical needs from renewable sources, you should ask how much of that comes from good old fashioned hydro-power, and how much comes from inefficient, unreliable wind and solar.
Re Chinese energy: We are often told China commissions a new coal-fired power plant every two weeks. Well, that sounds like a lot of new capacity. However, coal-fired plants do not last forever. How many of those new plants are replacing an old, inefficient Mao-era plant? A sensible power management policy is not only about new plants, it is about clearing out the inefficient old ones and increasing their total generating capacity at the same time.
Coal costs money. At some point it is worth replacing old equipment even if it is not worn out yet. Yes, I expect the ‘new plants’ meme has been used to promote alarm, so what is the real change in the total number of coal-fired generating stations? The air quality in Beijing has improved a great deal as the old plants have been removed.
A couple of points of interest. China’s premier Wen Jiabao states that China is to drive up consumer demand. Looks like the Greenie dream of everyone living in a Yurt has been blown. With the Chinese population being encouraged to become consumers there is no hope of a reduction in their emissions per capita. Secondly China will trial cap and trade, so whether they are genuinely in the carbon tax meme or just paying lip service is debatable. As others have said I don’t see where China has stated that they are dropping wind and solar, just that they are controlling the rampant expansion of production in these fields. Possibly to stabilise prices. (” We will prevent blind expansion in our capacity to manufacture solar energy and wind power equipment”).
Wow. And I just read this unusual statement:
“With those levels of prices, solar PV (and solar thermal) are already much cheaper than “new-build” nuclear and new-build clean coal (clean is purely a marketing moniker, not actually clean). If you assume reasonable escalation rates for natural gas, renewables are also competitive with new natural gas electricity plants when considering long term costs, not just the short term view.”
At this site: http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2012/04/07/clean-energys-pursuit-of-an-empty-prize/2/
Someone sure screwed up – and for some reason, I don’t think it is the Chinese. I’ve been doing engineering too long, and looking for reasonable power options out in the boonies. Stringing power lines from ConEd is still sooooo much cheaper than renewable – in the desert, no less.
LazyTeenager says:
April 8, 2012 at 1:15 am
The Chinese do not make off-hand or casual remarks. They are telling you that the demand for solar power is weakening and they will make the necessary adjustments. Otherwise they would have said “demand for solar and wind power remains strong” or “we are increasing our investment in solar and wind because demand is increasing”. So suck it up.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Al Gore and Thomas Friedman shriek in rage.
The above plus the great efforts of the CAGW scammers will hasten the drive of Western Civilization into steady, genteel decline. Jobs have and are moving from California eastwards then Far eastwards. I’m lost for words.
The Chinese gubment might be communist, but unlike the DOE, they have a firm grasp of basic math skills. They also know that the health and welfare of any society is directly related to the cost and availability of inexpensive and reliable energy. Nuclear power defines inexpensive
and reliable (especially when you take DOE/NRE out of the equation). With nearly one billion citizens being dirt poor, the Chicoms are fully aware they do not have the luxury of taxing the crap out of their population to pay for wasteful and unproductive green science projects.
Of course, this begs the following observation, it appears that the Chinese communists actually care about their country,,
@Steve from Rockwood
This assumes that you know what they meant. But they meant is not exactly they said. My take is that once you start reading between the lines, you start reading your own lines too and… that is, at the very least is a tricky proposition.
An interesting paper on the Chinese “goals” is “au/acsc/171/2000-04” found using google. Pay attention to parts 2 & 3. This is dated april 2000 but is AFAIK very far from a joke & 12 years later prove still valid.
The way the Chinese “bleed to death” the US economy is frightening, & the way US is falling into this trap & spending itself aways is even more disturbing…
The US way: Hey let’s chase bearded boogy man & create ennemy everywhere at the same time, destroy every principles upon our nation was built, turn against our own people, print money like crazy & burn it in hopeless “green” projet. Oh & don’t forget to let all of our production capability evaporate to the benefit of China…
The Chinese way: Hey let’s the invincible giant digest himself from within, provide him w/t what is required to complete the job. It can take long time for completion but we are patient as our political system is not based on short term showbussiness. Oh & when they come to flex their big muscles in our vicinity, it will consolidate our peoples against the ennemy & effectively make inexistent any possible dissention…
Could any one please give me some numbers regarding the economic effect of the ongoing Climategate (in terms of GDP)?
I buy the idea that there is some degree alarmism and rash/misguided/ideologigical decisions that have been made regarding energy… but that said, what are we talking about? I know billlions and billions but how much in a given year, over next 10 years and what is the worst, mid and best case scenario we’re facing?
I would really want to make sure that the boggeyMan is not ideological on both sides…
To be more precise regarding OP, China use ‘demand based production’ to develop it’s infrastructure. It does not need to believe in any future for PV cells. As long the demand is present it will be mfg.
The objective is to get China ASAP out of “medieval era”. Think of all the engineer, technician & production worker’s job that are created. They even built cities out of nowhere just to keep the wheel turning.
When it come to real “hard” energy production we see that the trend is more in the direction of hydro & nuclear for them.
I have been saying for a few years that pragmatic China and India will finally lead us out of the wilderness created by our tolerance of the renewable idiocies and the political correctness that underlies it.
Right now, China has 14 nuclear reactors in service and 25 under construction. Government planning expects a total of between 50 and 80 reactors in service by 2020. By 2050, China expects to have in service approximately 400-500 reactors. Right now, nearly all of these reactors are pressure vessel types. However, China has indicated strong interest in variable fuel cycles. That means they will be doing more with heavy water, natural uranium fueled reactors, of which they already have two.
The vast majority of China’s reactors are being and will be built in the southern half of the country which is experiencing the most rapid growth. Most of China’s coal reserves are found in Manchuria. Expansion of nuclear power at such a rate is not optional for China. Transportation infrastructure cannot meet the requirement for southern China if it was forced to rely on coal. The quantity of coal required also prohibits large imports as well due to limited harbour and docking capacity. China is essentially caught in the same dilemma as was France in the late 1960s, early 1970s. The volume of coal required has simply become too large to move over the distance required.
The same situation prevails in India. Most of its coal is in Assam in the northeast. But most of India’s rapid economic growth is taking place elsewhere. The Indian rail network is already heavily overloaded and cannot handle any increase in coal shipments.
In sum, the Asian giants have no choice. It’s build nuclear or do without electricity. Hydro cannot begin to keep up with demand. Vast as Three Gorges is, its construction only met about six months of China’s electricity demand growth. Conservation will do nothing. China is effectively rationing electricity now in large parts of the country.
@Mike Wryley and Toby, whatever China is, it is NOT communism. Communism is a system of economics in which no private property is allowed, and everything is owned by the state. That is not what prevails in China today.
In fact, the current Chinese system, the way it delegates authority down to provincial and municipal levels, far more resembles the old Imperial mandarinate. It is a massive reversal of Maoism in that the current system actively represses the rise of charismatic leaders. About the only difference from the old Imperial system is the absence of an emperor.
cgh,
Actually, if the gubment wants your property, you get a new postal code.
Communism in theory and practice have always been two differenent animals, the state has immense comtrol over most industry, and can pretty much put a bullet in your head any time they
see fit. If you have a better term, let me know, I’m open to suggestions. Maybe Sinoprogressive ?
Mike, the fact that the government wants your property is not unique to communism. Communism is unique in that it wants ALL property. All governments use power to seize property in some fashion or other. It’s also not unique that the government can execute its citizens for what the government deems undesirable political activity (Pinochet, Franco, the Argentine Junta, assorted African and Middle-East dictators, etc.)
Fact is, China’s political situation fits nothing well with its distinctive mix of private enterprise, which is totally abhorrent to communism, and oligarchic rule. Moreover, the Little Red Book and the various tracts of Marx and Engels have been thoroughly banished to the rubbish bin. Any analysis based on traditional left-right Western politics simply fails. What’s taking its place? A revival of Confucianism. It’s not back to the future; in a sense it’s forward to the past.
As I said before, it most closely mirrors the Empire before 1902. So the best term for it is simply The Mandarinate.
chg,
I can’t argue with you very hard here, as my previous comment about Chinese communists
“caring” about their country was supposed to be a sarcastic commentary on our US communists,
Or fascists, or bureaucrats, or whatever you want to call them, and the disservice they perform on this country. And the abuse of eminent domain, and then there was that thing down in Waco,,,,
You have to give it these chaps, they have become the world’s bankers, they do not waste cash on nonsense, their politicians get it wrong, they are OUT, unlike ours.