Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: But, but, but, China....  (Read 85911 times)

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1937
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #400 on: May 29, 2017, 10:08:56 PM »
So---
We now wait one year?
My point is that doing nothing is about as bad a choice as we can make.
If we started a few HSR projects, we'd have the use of these even if some years down the line HL proves to be better. We can do both if need be, but we can't continue to do neither.
Terry

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #401 on: May 29, 2017, 11:46:29 PM »
Depends, Terry.

If some countries want to take the risk then they can get going with HSR.  Up to them.

IMO, it's a lot like watching Georgia and South Carolina starting to build new nuclear reactors when it was obvious to many of us that wind and solar prices were coming down so fast that expensive new nuclear was a major economic mistake.  And it's proven out to be so.

YMMV.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9035
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #402 on: May 30, 2017, 04:21:02 PM »
"Growth of large-scale solar power plants that are located far from the cities have slowed as the transmission infrastructure to move that electricity must be further developed. As such – Installations atop factories, malls and airports are likely to surge sixfold to almost 40 gigawatts by the end of 2020 and 125 gigawatts by 2040. That’s a lot of volume."
- Electrek


China Pushes Solar to the Roof as Bigger Plants Stay Idle
May 25, 2017
China is seeking to boost demand for solar panels mounted to roofs of homes and businesses as the market for larger utility-scale plants dries up.

Installations atop factories, malls and airports are likely to surge sixfold to almost 40 gigawatts by the end of 2020 and 125 gigawatts by 2040, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That would give China roofs installed capacity roughly equal to the entire solar market in the U.S. at the end of 2016.

The move would help manufacturers led by JinkoSolar Holding Co. and Trina Solar Ltd. weather a slump in demand for bigger projects far from cities, where a lack of grid connections and a flood of new projects has depressed power prices and prompted regulators to seek slower growth from the industry. Rooftop projects currently account for 9 percent of China’s solar market, compared with about 35 percent for commercial and residential solar in the U.S.
...
https://about.bnef.com/blog/china-pushes-solar-to-the-roof-as-bigger-plants-stay-idle/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1937
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #403 on: May 30, 2017, 10:14:08 PM »
Depends, Terry.

If some countries want to take the risk then they can get going with HSR.  Up to them.

IMO, it's a lot like watching Georgia and South Carolina starting to build new nuclear reactors when it was obvious to many of us that wind and solar prices were coming down so fast that expensive new nuclear was a major economic mistake.  And it's proven out to be so.

YMMV.


Since the US and Canada still don't have HSR decades after that technology was proven I doubt very much that they will try Hyperloop should it ever prove itself.
Face it - We live in backward countries that don't even try to compete.
I live in a community that was promised high speed transportation for decades, when the plans were finally unveiled it turned out that we're getting high speed express buses. Buses that will get us to the nearest city in less than twice the time than the aged electric rail took in 1908.


Terry

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #404 on: May 31, 2017, 03:25:34 AM »
In Ontario, Canada there is talk again about HSR - from Toronto to Windsor. Maybe by 2032!

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1937
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #405 on: June 01, 2017, 06:00:24 PM »
Depends, Terry.

If some countries want to take the risk then they can get going with HSR.  Up to them.

IMO, it's a lot like watching Georgia and South Carolina starting to build new nuclear reactors when it was obvious to many of us that wind and solar prices were coming down so fast that expensive new nuclear was a major economic mistake.  And it's proven out to be so.

YMMV.


So---
America leads us into the 21st Century, but only after others have tested the waters.
It is possibly prudent to let the others forge ahead, but shows timidity in anyone claiming a leadership role.


China, apparently is willing to risk something in order to gain huge rewards. I'd argue that their risk is already paying huge dividends & that Canada and the US are already paying through the nose for their lack of courage. When a have-not country ponders whose influence they want to be under I suspect that they will be influenced by the progress they see in China rather than the provincial proclivities that the America's evidence.


The Eu has been into HSR for decades, linkage with the New Silk Road just makes sense. If HL does work as advertised it will augment the millions of miles of HSR already in place. The American dream of linking countries through maritime dominance faces the need to rebuild every salt water port due to sea level rise & huge freight planes do so much damage to the atmosphere that their days are surely numbered. When faced with the need to rebuild a gigantic freight port every time the ocean rises above a certain point, or to enhance your rail system to handle modern HSR, won't most opt for the second alternative?


With Asia, Europe, England, Africa and India linked by rapid, clean transport. What need is there to spend trillions upgrading ports that will only serve as links to Australia and the Americas? Already the Eu is contemplating laws that restrict dirty ships from their waters. Running a freighter on relatively clean #1 Diesel adds hugely to the costs of maritime trade, and even now they suffer when compared to HSR.


Britain ran an Empire from a small island, America attempts the same from an isolated continent. China will run her version from the worlds largest landmass, with little need of maritime might or trade. Unconnected islands and continents will simply become backwater regions. Trading between themselves with the now outmoded, dirty, expensive and slow ships that once brought glory to the British Empire.


At one time barge traffic was dominant, and towns along the canals grew. Steam Rail ended that. Then Diesel Rail and roadways came into their glory, fed by maritime trade. Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York & London, Paris, in Asia every safe harbor blossomed & all was well with the world.
Then High Speed Rail raised it's streamlined head. First linking the old port cities, then expanding inland and connection former backwaters until they bloomed. The old port cities now show signs of aging, overcrowding and are pricing themselves out of most markets. The brightest opted for Silicon Valleys regardless of their local, businesses prefer stable, low tax environments with great schools, great healthcare and a decent climate. Transportation isn't high on their list because HSR connects everywhere to everywhere - as long as you're connected. Huge cities are sprouting along the main lines just as cities had once gravitated to sites along the canal, or along the tracks, or beside the freeway.
This wont stop unless climate change or an atomic apocalypse closes everything down.
If the Hyperloop does prove itself, who will be the first to exploit it's advantages? Certainly not cultures that haven't yet entered the HSR age.


Terry

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #406 on: June 01, 2017, 06:07:49 PM »
Well said Terry! Great point about transport by rail when the sea ports will be constantly forced to rebuild/move by sea level rise.

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1937
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #407 on: June 01, 2017, 06:41:37 PM »
In Ontario, Canada there is talk again about HSR - from Toronto to Windsor. Maybe by 2032!
WoW!
Imagine, in my grandson's generation it may be possible to get from Waterloo to Windsor 21 minutes faster than I now can. He could drive to Toronto and park in 1:10 then take the next High Speed Rail to Windsor in only ~1:20. By 2032 he'll be able to cut the 2:51 journey down to 2:30, if he is able to time the Toronto departure perfectly.
While the human body may be capable of these extreme speeds, the human mind may crumble. Jet lag without the Jets. Arriving in Windsor without a car. Paying for Toronto parking while on a walking tour of Windsor. Trying to explain to everyone why you wanted to go to Windsor. All of these combined could take a huge bite out of one's mental health.  :-\
Terry

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1937
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #408 on: June 01, 2017, 06:49:32 PM »
Well said Terry! Great point about transport by rail when the sea ports will be constantly forced to rebuild/move by sea level rise.
Thanks!
I wonder what effect SLR will have on the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Panama Canal, and the Suez Canal?
Terry

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #409 on: June 01, 2017, 11:54:27 PM »
Sea level rise would be an assist to the Panama Canal. 

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1376
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #410 on: June 02, 2017, 12:54:29 AM »
Re: Panama Canal.

Got to rebuild locks of 90 odd feet

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #411 on: June 02, 2017, 01:05:19 AM »
Re: Panama Canal.

Got to rebuild locks of 90 odd feet

Nope, bottom lock has to fill/empty less to reach sea level if the sea level rises.

If the sea level rises enough then just leave the bottom lock gates open.  The total lift is around 90' with each lock doing about a third of the life/drop.

Took my sailboat through the Canal several years back.  Quite an experience.  Especially when I got a large plastic bag wrapped around the prop and lost all power/steerage while on a collision course with a very large ship. 

I quickly hauled up the jib while the required onboard Canal pilot screamed at me that sailing was not allowed in the canal.  Told him to quit being an ass and jumped over with a knife to cut the bag free.

He apologized once he realized what had happened....

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #412 on: June 02, 2017, 03:02:50 AM »
Saint Lawrence seaway tends to be above sea level. Was an expensive misuse if funds as containerization pretty much killed the need for ships to go far inland.

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1376
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #413 on: June 02, 2017, 06:47:38 AM »
Re: Panama Canal

I was advised by marine engineer with degree in geology that Panama would need extensive reengineering including locks. So would the London flood barrier, Netherlands Zuider Zee dikes, but not so much Suez. Tokyo Bay was another. Apparently depth matters for footings. I dunno why, will have to ask him next time i see him.

sidd


Pmt111500

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1035
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #414 on: June 02, 2017, 07:21:21 AM »
 The costs of the reworking of the dikes and the Suez is of course a legal matter. Parties involved with these should sue the largest emitters of pollution in US for compensation.
A quantity relates to a quantum like camel's back relates to camel's _______ ? (back, vertebra, vertebral tendon, spinal disc, paralysis)

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #415 on: June 02, 2017, 07:50:59 AM »
Re: Panama Canal

I was advised by marine engineer with degree in geology that Panama would need extensive reengineering including locks. So would the London flood barrier, Netherlands Zuider Zee dikes, but not so much Suez. Tokyo Bay was another. Apparently depth matters for footings. I dunno why, will have to ask him next time i see him.

sidd


I fail to see how footings would be impacted since they already sit in saturated soil.  (Most likely on bedrock.)  The lower lock footings on the Pacific and Atlantic sides are always underwater.  The water in the lower locks never falls below sea level.

My way of thinking is that if the lowest locks now raise ships 21 feet and the sea level rises 10 feet they will still function the same way but their lift would be only 11 feet.  There would actually be less pressure on the lower lock gates.

The higher locks would not be impacted unless the water rose more than 21 feet. 

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #416 on: June 05, 2017, 12:08:02 AM »
China, the King of Coal, Is Getting Gassy

"Though gas remains a small and expensive component in China’s fuel mix, demand is rising faster than expected for domestic and imported supplies. In April, consumption was 22 percent higher than the same month in 2016, and the total for the first four months of the year is up more than 12 percent, data from the National Development and Reform Commission show."

"The results are encouraging analysts to upgrade their demand forecasts and may signal the government is on track to reach its goal of getting as much as 10 percent of its energy from gas by 2020. It’s also bolstering the outlook for hundreds of billions of dollars in possible investments by companies as far away as Russia, Australia and the U.S. to build gas pipelines and export infrastructure to feed the growing Chinese market."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-25/coal-king-s-shift-to-more-gas-wins-believers-as-china-use-surges

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #417 on: June 14, 2017, 07:27:54 PM »
China Huadian joins Blackgold's 600 MW coal-fired project in Indonesia

More building of coal plants in foreign countries by Chinese companies.

https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/china-huadian-joins-blackgolds-600-mw-coal-fired-project-indonesia.html

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9035
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #418 on: June 28, 2017, 03:28:49 PM »
Six Million People in China Just Went 100% Renewable for a Week
It's the first major test of renewable energy on the grid in China.
...
“Clean energy is the ultimate way,” Han Ti, general manager of the Qinghai grid company told local news outlet Xinhua. “We need to reduce reliance on fossil fuel, improve our energy structure, and reduce carbon emissions.”

The Qinghai province has 19.7 million kW of renewable energy installed, and makes up a little over 82 percent of all the energy production in the province. Qinghai is the fourth largest province in China, spanning the northeast part of the Tibetan plateau and has the headwaters of the two largest rivers in China, the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers. Most of the energy during the test week was produced by hydro-electric power, thanks to the major rivers. Because of its renewable energy output, and the fact that it is one of the most sparsely populated regions of China, it is the ideal place to test the using only green energy.
...
https://www.inverse.com/article/33426-china-renewable-energy-seven-days
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #419 on: August 30, 2017, 10:05:42 PM »
China Becomes World’s Third-Largest Shale Gas Producer

Not a good thing for China: take away the climate-dimming SO2, then add fugitive emissions to the CO2 to make it much worse than the coal you are replacing. As the climate dimming effect is localized, the temperature effect will be much greater in China itself. Of course, the measured CO2 emissions will go down whilst the fugitive methane is under-counted/ignored and the reduction in dimming is ignored.

Production to go from 8 billion cubic metres in 2016, to increase to 30 billion by 2020 and 80-100 billion by 2030. Looks like they are ramping natural gas usage the same way that they ramped coal usage earlier.

"China has become the world’s third-largest shale gas producer, after only the U.S. and Canada, Iran’s PressTV reports, adding that last year, China pumped almost 8 billion cubic meters of shale gas. The annual result was a 76.3-percent improvement on 2015, China’s Ministry of Land and Resources said – a record amount. Investments in shale gas exploration reached US$1.3 billion.

Shale gas production in China has continued to grow this year, as it seeks to move away from crude oil and bets increasingly on gas as the cleaner fuel amid government efforts to reduce pollution levels. ...

 ... This year, however, Beijing announced plans to increase the proven reserves of shale gas in the country to more than 1.5 trillion cubic meters by 2020. This would involve some major investment in recovery technology as well as infrastructure. Production is also slated to expand to 30 billion cubic meters by 2020, according to the Ministry, and further to 80-100 billion cubic meters by 2030."

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/China-Becomes-Worlds-Third-Largest-Shale-Gas-Producer.html

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: But, but, but, China....
« Reply #420 on: August 31, 2017, 05:16:07 AM »
Things are more complex than "Gas bad.  Coal pollution good?"

Coal pollution is killing a lot of people - right now.  And coal pollution is making a lot of people ill - right now.  Cutting coal pollution means healthier air for hundreds of millions of people.

As you point out, cutting coal pollution will allow more heat from the Sun to reach the Earth and warm us up faster.

But those coal particles in the air over China are really cutting down on the performance of their solar panels.  Which means that they have to burn more fossil fuel.
 
We have forest fires in my area right now, the haze is almost nothing compared to the polluted skies of China but my solar panel output is greatly attenuated.  I'm having to run my generator every 2-3 days to make up for what my panels are not producing.  On a clear day my batteries would be full by lunchtime.

Then there's the dispatchability issue.  Gas plants are much easier (quicker) to cycle off and back on.  Coal plants take a lot longer.  China may not yet have enough wind and solar online to allow significant amounts of fossil fuel use to be suspended when renewables are pumping it out, but they will get there before long at the rate they are going.

Good or bad?  It would take some serious study to figure that one out.