Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Alignment/Conflict between Geopolitics, Energy Security and Climate Mitigation  (Read 21229 times)

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
1. Renewables are cheaper than 75% of US coal plants which are pretty much all subcritical highly inefficient ones and it wont be until 2025 until renewables are cheaper than all US coal plants (from the reference below):


Subcritical does not equate to highly inefficient.  The gains from much higher pressures are small and the efficiencies overlap. e.g. the most efficient subcritical plant in the US is more efficient than the most efficient ultrasupercritical in the US despite being over 40 years older.

The extent to which pollution is controlled and whether that control is counted as a loss of output (and hence lower efficiency) or not is rather more important to reported efficiencies than the operating pressure is.

I am comparing Chinese plants to US ones. The latest Chinese regulations for coal-fired electricity generation efficiency (i.e. the minimum efficiency level), in full force by 2020, could not be met by the top US plants. So renewables may be cost effective with the bottom 75% of plants in the US, but not with the average plant in China. I accept that not all super critical plants may be more efficient than subcritical ones, there are other variables, but the relative position of US and Chinese fleets is real. China has also been consolidating and automating its coal fields, reducing the marginal cost of coal.

They are fully committed to coal for at least the medium term, and building new coal-fired plants with assumed 40 year economic lives. They may be wrong, but thats the way they are going.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
rboyd, have you read Rachel Maddow's latest book already? Seems very relevant to your research.

Rachel used to be quite a good progressive journalist, but in the past few years she has fully swallowed the "Putin Derangement" and "Trump Derangement" syndromes, like much of the, if not all of the, MSM (it seems the gig pays $very$ well). I am no fan of either Putin or Trump, but the level of "making shit up" and outright innuendo driven propaganda is just off the charts. Not even at the height of the Cold War with the USSR did we vilify major foreign leaders like this and label major heads of state meeting together as collusion.

I find Stephen Cohen, a man who has studied Russia for decades to be a reasonable voice that has had the courage to stick to his position in the face of much vilification. We need less hotheads and chicken hawk warrior neocons, and more pragmatist realists (Mearsheimer is good in this respect). A bit of history also comes in very useful.

For light relief I use Jimmy Dore, you have to laugh otherwise your should be crying with the ridiculous level of what passes for intelligent comments on the MSM.

I will read the book, I just hope that it is not full of the kind of made up crap and unsupported innuendo that she fills her show with.

Got to page 43 and couldn't stomach it any more "Khordokovsky (biggest Oligarch) Wonderfully Good" / "Putin Bad", the usual black/white BS. You have a head of state reigning in the robber barons (who stole/embezzled/cheated for much of what they had, including Khordokovsky) who Yeltsin basically worked for, to reassert the state's authority. That's why Khordokovsky was taken down, to rebalance power between the state and these oligarchs who were using the state for their own benefit right through the 1990s. Putin also reasserted the authority of the central state against many regional politicians who were creaming off money for themselves. A modern nation cannot run effectively without a strong state apparatus. Yukos (Khodokovsky's company) was also in talks to sell 40% of itself to Exxon, handed strategic asset to US corporations. This is something that no nation (including the US) would willingly accept.

The writing style is just like her shows unfortunately....constant pissy insults, innuendo and blatantly factually incorrect and slanted. Reminds me of a child rather than someone supposed to be an accomplished journalist.

Putin is not a "good guy" but her characterization of him is a simplistic caricature.


« Last Edit: November 23, 2019, 02:00:02 AM by rboyd »

Richard Rathbone

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1738
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 24
1. Renewables are cheaper than 75% of US coal plants which are pretty much all subcritical highly inefficient ones and it wont be until 2025 until renewables are cheaper than all US coal plants (from the reference below):


Subcritical does not equate to highly inefficient.  The gains from much higher pressures are small and the efficiencies overlap. e.g. the most efficient subcritical plant in the US is more efficient than the most efficient ultrasupercritical in the US despite being over 40 years older.

The extent to which pollution is controlled and whether that control is counted as a loss of output (and hence lower efficiency) or not is rather more important to reported efficiencies than the operating pressure is.

I am comparing Chinese plants to US ones. The latest Chinese regulations for coal-fired electricity generation efficiency (i.e. the minimum efficiency level), in full force by 2020, could not be met by the top US plants. So renewables may be cost effective with the bottom 75% of plants in the US, but not with the average plant in China. I accept that not all super critical plants may be more efficient than subcritical ones, there are other variables, but the relative position of US and Chinese fleets is real. China has also been consolidating and automating its coal fields, reducing the marginal cost of coal.

They are fully committed to coal for at least the medium term, and building new coal-fired plants with assumed 40 year economic lives. They may be wrong, but thats the way they are going.

The difference between US and China being down to the technology isn't convincing, because the gap between modern US and modern Chinese is just as big as the gap between ancient US and modern Chinese.

The US and China report different things to different standards, and my reading of the research notes provided on them does not convince me that the estimates based on the US figures are for the same thing as the official Chinese figures they are being compared to.

Modern US ought to be a lot closer to the modern Chinese if its a technology effect. I do not find the size of that gap to be credible for an apples/apples comparison, but it is credible for the US figures being plant efficiencies and the Chinese ones being cycle efficiencies. However I can't read the Chinese standards and I'm not familiar with how the Chinese industry interprets them so its not something I've been able to check.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
FWIW
A local who I was acquainted with ~ a decade ago had been the chief engineer responsible for building a very large coal plant in Indonesia. Babcock & Wilcox was his employer, and while awaiting his next assignment he regaled us with tales of past successes and failures.


The Indonesian project was presented as a mixture of success and failure. It apparently ran as designed and burned coal extremely efficiently, lots of kW/tonne. The plant could also run very cleanly, with emissions that were competitive with CH4 fired plants.
The downside was finding storage for the captured CO2, and the inefficiencies that their "clean coal" design required.


According to Matt the plant was run for <1 month in "clean" mode as it was found to lose ~ 1/3 of its efficiency, & the owners were looking for a profitable solution.
If China has developed coal plants that can retain their efficiency while reducing emissions to ~ the level of modern gas fired plants then they're far ahead of where large western engineered plants were as recently as 10 years ago.
 
The giant B&W facility in Indonesia was representative of the most advanced designs available in the west at that time, and it would have to be seen as a very expensive failure.
Apparently the plants China has designed for domestic use, and those that they are building abroad have overcome these deficiencies.
Terry

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
I am no expert on coal plant efficiency. The average US plant is 39 years old, while the 15 years old which may speak to the relative efficiency. Understood that US and Chinese measures may be using different metrics, it would be good to find some clean, direct comparisons.

Florifulgurator

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 745
  • Virtual world alter ego / अवतार of Martin Gisser
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 368
For light relief I use Jimmy Dore, you have to laugh otherwise your should be crying with the ridiculous level of what passes for intelligent comments on the MSM.
You find Jimmy's comments intelligent? Serious intelligence requires substance. Dore is bad on the evidentiary side of epistemology. He has long jumped the shark, https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jimmy_Dore ...now even officially working for Russia Today. Leftist GOP propagandist. (It is now official that the GOP is channeling Putin disinformation.)

Quote
Khordokovsky
Yes. Back then.
Quote
Putin also reasserted the authority of the central state.
Yes. He is the central state now. Good job. Some call it a mafia state.

Anyhow I appreciate your criticism of Maddow's book. I guess you won't get around reading the whole darn thing. :)
« Last Edit: November 27, 2019, 09:31:51 PM by Florifulgurator »
"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or committed communist, but rather people for whom the difference between facts and fiction, true and false, no longer exists." ~ Hannah Arendt
"Вчи українську це тобі ще знадобиться" ~ Internet

Florifulgurator

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 745
  • Virtual world alter ego / अवतार of Martin Gisser
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 368
Yukos (Khodokovsky's company) was also in talks to sell 40% of itself to Exxon, handed strategic asset to US corporations.
(My emph.) Meanhile it is stranded assets. That's what the whole world-wide conundrum is about. And meanwhile Exxon almost got a different big deal in Russian assets. My impression is, Putin's whole strategy (economical and geopolitical, e.g. Ukraine) is based on such assets.

--------------
I'd like to think of Exxon as a corporation in itself, not a specifically U.S. corporation. We have to stop thinking of THE U.S. as a heterogeneous predictable entity - as the Kurds had to learn again these days... Just like Putin's Russia isn't Russia herself.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2019, 09:56:27 PM by Florifulgurator »
"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or committed communist, but rather people for whom the difference between facts and fiction, true and false, no longer exists." ~ Hannah Arendt
"Вчи українську це тобі ще знадобиться" ~ Internet

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10233
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3517
  • Likes Given: 754
The U.S. Army Versus a Warming Planet: The Strange Case of the Disappearing Report
https://www.redanalysis.org/2019/11/12/us-army-versus-warming-planet/

In August 2019, the Centre for Climate and Security published an article about a recent publication by the U.S Army War College. The document, entitled “Implications of Climate change for the U.S Army”, however, cannot be found anymore on the “publications” page of the U.S Army War College.

The version posted by the Centre for Climate and Security has neither foreword, nor commissioning letter, nor date of publication. However, according to the CCS, it would have been “commissioned by then-Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley (who is now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff)”.

Despite the atypical character of its appearance, this report is quite interesting, in as much as it is written by military staff and researchers, based on a dense corpus of research papers published by civil as well as by national security organizations since 2003, and for the Chief of Staff. A such, it opens a window on a way the U.S military thinks about climate change.

In the very words of its authors,

Quote
“ … , if climate change is occurring and we choose to do nothing, we invite catastrophe, though we cannot know just how bad this payoff would be … Prudent risk management therefore suggests that we should work to avoid the catastrophic outcome and prepare for and mitigate climate change. Based on this argument, this report accepts as a core assumption the reality of climate change and climate-change related global warming, and therefore focuses on what the Army should do to prepare itself”.

Report: https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― anonymous

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Yukos (Khodokovsky's company) was also in talks to sell 40% of itself to Exxon, handed strategic asset to US corporations.
I'd like to think of Exxon as a corporation in itself, not a specifically U.S. corporation. We have to stop thinking of THE U.S. as a heterogeneous predictable entity - as the Kurds had to learn again these days... Just like Putin's Russia isn't Russia herself.

The large transnational US corporations are connected at the hip with the US state. There is an excellent book that looks at the social networks of the US state foreign policy community and finds an incredibly tight overlap between US TNCs, think-tanks funded by those TNCs and the US mega-rich, and the policy community. In addition, the major fossil fuel TNCs have coordinated with the US state again and again in foreign policy decsions that affect their profitability.

American Grand Strategy and Corporate Elite Networks: The Open Door since the End of the Cold War

https://www.amazon.com/American-Grand-Strategy-Corporate-Networks-ebook/dp/B0171ZQSTS/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=apeldoorn&qid=1575316191&s=books&sr=1-3

Also, a good paper by the same authors on the Chinese corporate elite and state networks, its in an academic journal so you may not have access:

US--China relations and the liberal world order: contending elites, colliding visions?

And a book they wrote on the EU elite/business linkages

Transnational Capitalism and the Struggle over European Integration

https://www.amazon.com/Transnational-Capitalism-Struggle-Integration-Political-ebook-dp-B000PLXBUA/dp/B000PLXBUA/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1575316523

The books are expensive, but you can get second hand copies quite cheap (like $9 for the last one). I am an academic, so I can get them from the library (or another university's library). Having no limit on the amount of books I can take out, and access to all the publications for free, is a wonderful gift!




vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10233
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3517
  • Likes Given: 754
Choose Your Own Climate and Energy Policies
https://www.axios.com/choose-your-own-climate-and-energy-adventure-9020127b-727c-451d-bbc9-f340655f599f.html

A new simulator out today empowers readers to choose their own path when it comes to tackling climate change.

https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/

Why it matters: The tool, created by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and think tank Climate Interactive, underscores the grand challenge of employing technologies and policies to tackle climate change.

What’s new: This simulator is the first of its kind designed for politicians and others who care about climate change and energy, but aren’t researchers accustomed to arcane models.

  • From this simulator, which is still quite detailed, we curated an even more simplified interactive (see below) presenting nine questions on everything from carbon dioxide prices to land management.
  • At the end, it shows how your choices affect annual greenhouse gas emissions, global temperature rise and energy costs over the next 80 years.

... The bottom line: The biggest upshot of the simulator shows that cutting emissions needs to be first about reducing the world’s use of fossil fuels, instead of merely ramping up cleaner forms of energy. Global energy demand keeps increasing, so wind and solar are being added on top of fossil fuels in most places around the world.
Quote
... “It takes a long time for clean energy to displace the coal, oil and gas that is being planned. We need policies that more directly keep those fuels in the ground."

— Andrew Jones, co-founder, Climate Interactive
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― anonymous

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Yukos (Khodokovsky's company) was also in talks to sell 40% of itself to Exxon, handed strategic asset to US corporations.
(My emph.) Meanhile it is stranded assets. That's what the whole world-wide conundrum is about. And meanwhile Exxon almost got a different big deal in Russian assets. My impression is, Putin's whole strategy (economical and geopolitical, e.g. Ukraine) is based on such assets.

During the 1988 to 2000 depression that hit the USSR, and then Russia, the economy lost most of its heavy industry and did not develop the light industry that was so lacking under Soviet rule. Putin took back some state control of the major resource assets upon which the Russian economy is now based (oil, gas, coal, iron ore, nickel) and form the overwhelming majority of the country's exports.

This is the hand that was provided at the turn of this century, and the nation has been unable to move away from it. Add some positives in arms production and nuclear power and thats about it. Russia is trapped in a fossil fuel orientation, and that is why it allies with states such as Saudi Arabia at the UN climate change meetings. Cutting emissions = economic contraction for Russia, which will delegitimize the state, so its not an option. It would also mean reducing the wealth of a lot of powerful people in Russia.

Assets aren't stranded until the world gets real about cutting emissions, in the meantime the fossil fuel elites will try to keep the fossil fuel game that enriches them going for as long as possible, thinking that they can get off before the others do.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
I am more and more coming to the conclusion that China will not accelerate its move away from fossil fuels too much in order to protect Russia, as China needs the Russian military (and military technology) and Russian oil and gas if a hot war breaks out (cutting off Chinese oil and gas imports). The last thing China needs is a declining Russia with internal crises due to an inability to earn the foreign exchange needed to buy all the manufactured goods that Russia doesn't make.

China will be "not too hot" (to hurt Russia) and "not too cold" (to impact green industrial policy and international reputation) in the energy transition. Not a happy conclusion ...

Now, if the shale boom is coming to a real end in the US that would change everything ...

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
A very good discussion with Noam Chomsky on the lack of action on climate change, a US global dystopia, as well as many other topics.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/noam-chomsky-america-has-built-a-global-dystopia/

Florifulgurator

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 745
  • Virtual world alter ego / अवतार of Martin Gisser
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 368
China needs the Russian military (and military technology) and Russian oil and gas if a hot war breaks out (cutting off Chinese oil and gas imports).
I doubt both. China is the least stupid economy on the planet. Unlike Putin's oiligarchs, no fossil fools. It is highly implausible they would make themselves dependent on Russia.

Russian land forces are still quantitatively superior. But then, how is their new miracle tank doing? Can they even manufacture it completely within Russia, let alone in quantity? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-14_Armata

China's navy is meanwhile superior to Russia's. E.g. Russia's only aircraft carrier currently is not working. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov
And that seems the most important strategic point - the South China Sea, where most hydrocarbon imports go through. Russian oil and gas imports is some 15%. Looks like Russia's fossil economy is more dependent on exports than China's modern economy is dependent on Russian imports.

https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_Russia_vs_China
https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-comparison-detail.asp?form=form&country1=russia&country2=china&Submit=COMPARE
https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-weakened-military-now-surpassed-by-chinas-2018-8
(I take these sources with a grain of salt, of course.)

----------------------
P.S.: The more I look at it, the more me worries: Putin has cornered Russia into a bygone century. He will soon get truely desperate and Trump won't be able to help him out for long.  Last stand of the fossil fools.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 04:30:25 AM by Florifulgurator »
"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or committed communist, but rather people for whom the difference between facts and fiction, true and false, no longer exists." ~ Hannah Arendt
"Вчи українську це тобі ще знадобиться" ~ Internet

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
China IS dependent upon Russia for energy security, and military backup (as well as support for the BRI), for now. Give it another 10 years Russia could easily become a very junior partner.

It takes many years to build up the kind of military knowledge and technology that Russia has, China has only recently become a modern military power. The Russian nuclear umbrella also helps protect China, with the Chinese being able to keep a relatively small nuclear force. China will take what it needs as the senior partner in the relationship, and build its own capabilities with Russian help. The energy links to Russia act as a deterrence to an energy embargo, as they make it easier for China to withstand one.

Over time China becomes less and less dependent upon Russia, and the latter becomes more and more of a Chinese client state unless Putin starts to develop a new non-fossil fuel economy (not a lot of hope of that I think).

PS - Russia has also become a significant food exporter, useful for fulfilling China's growing needs as  its population get richer and eat more meat etc.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 07:42:04 AM by rboyd »

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5


The Russian Federation's economy has done very well under Putin. :)


A decade out is an eternity. Under peaceful conditions Russia's nimble response to rapid global changes speak well for the future.
Russia's debt is miniscule and she has moved her wealth from American Dollars to gold, (which gained 18% in value in the last year). China still stores most of her wealth in American Dollars, and has mountains of debt.


If the Petrodollar holds its value China will be the big winner, and Russia will be a very junior partner. Should the Dollar losses much of her value in the coming decade Russia's gamble will pay dividends & the Sino-Russian partnership will be more equitable.


I'm not convinced that America will keep her weapons holstered as her influence wanes. :'(
Terry
[Edit
If the clathrate high temp superconductors prove viable all predictions are off the table.
[/Edit
« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 12:22:13 AM by TerryM »

Florifulgurator

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 745
  • Virtual world alter ego / अवतार of Martin Gisser
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 368
The Russian Federation's economy has done very well under Putin. :)
Not according to the attached charts (made by Google). And it looks like it's due to the oil price (2008/9 2014/15 drops) and not the sanctions.

 
« Last Edit: January 17, 2020, 01:00:32 AM by Florifulgurator »
"The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or committed communist, but rather people for whom the difference between facts and fiction, true and false, no longer exists." ~ Hannah Arendt
"Вчи українську це тобі ще знадобиться" ~ Internet

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6325
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 22

PS - Russia has also become a significant food exporter, useful for fulfilling China's growing needs as  its population get richer and eat more meat etc.

This is no surprise to those of us who followed the events leading to the demise of the USSR.

Gorbachev changed the rules to allow strips of land on the edges of the huge collective fields to be farmed for personal profit.  Russia went from food scarcity to a food exporter in a few short years.

Where communist collective had failed, pure self interest thrived.

Now that Russia is being run for profit, there is scope for massive food exports.  Also the proximity of Russia to the warming arctic means that the fields will remain more fertile and less prone to desertification.

When food becomes more important than energy, Russia is well placed.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sciguy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1972
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 188
The impacts of the Coronavirus in China may expose the economic weakness in the overall Chinese economy that the Government has been struggling to hide for years.  This in turn could result in a shortage of funds for the Belt and Road Initiative which is the most prominent public face of China's geopolitical strategy.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Brace-For-A-Global-Crisis-In-2020.html

Quote
Brace For A Global Crisis In 2020
By Gregory R. Copley - Feb 04, 2020

The year 2020 could emerge as the start of the era of relative global chaos or major upheaval. It is the era we have been anticipating, as the impact of core population decline meets economic dislocation, and security and structural uncertainty.

Quote
A broad-brush landscape view of 2020 must include at least the following:

The People’s Republic of China and the BRI Framework:

The Communist Party of China (CPC) should be expected to face unprecedented challenge in 2020-21, not only for its control of the economy of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), but to its ability to project the PRC’s physical power in its immediate region, and across its suzerain empire, expressed through the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) network of states.

The PRC economy has been faltering for several years, and growth in gross domestic product (GDP) figures have only been sustained by artificial construction transactions, which are now becoming unsustainable. It is now estimated that the PRC was in actual economic decline at a time, which will lead to a faltering in its foreign investment and loan capacity to sustain the BRI program.

The BRI concept has become an ideology for the projection of the CPC’s influence, far more than an economic platform, but it is one which has a real financial cost to the PRC and which is expressed in monetary terms. It was created as a de facto ideology to buy strategic space globally when traditional maoist-marxist ideology could not make any meaningful penetration.

Quote
The PRC has extensive foreign exchange holdings and holdings of US debt paper, but these are now beginning to erode as Beijing is forced to now expand its imports of foreign foodstuffs. The reason for the PRC’s total capitulation to the US in the so-called trade war with the signing of “Phase One” of January 15, 2020 was (a) for the PRC to begin to cope with its growing food and economic crises, and (b) to ensure, for US Pres. Donald Trump, that the PRC’s economy would not completely collapse in 2020, the year of pivotal US elections.

So the PRC was already on economic life-support by the time the coronavirus pandemic began to become known by the end of January 2020. It was clear that the CPC was already well aware of the reality that the coronavirus had begun its broad contagion - with the consequent impact on the PRC economy - when it signed the “trade deal” with Pres. Trump.

All of this, coupled with the economic impact of the revolt of Hong Kong against the PRC - effectively removing Hong Kong as one of the key economic contributors to the PRC’s “economic miracle” - meant that the PRC’s already-delicate economic condition was now in an unavoidable and dramatic decline. At the same time, the Hong Kong example meant that Beijing’s steady pressure to dominate the elections in the Republic of China (ROC: Taiwan) collapsed, resulting in a severe loss of prestige for the CPC.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Russia in 2000-2014 repeated what the USSR did from the late 60's to the early 80's, growth powered by increasing oil and gas revenues. The extra oil and gas revenues hid the underlying malaise of the Soviet economy, and allowed the leaders to buy the food, technology and consumer goods that the USSR could not produce rather than deal with the problems.

Same with Russia now, but even worse because it was highly de-industrialized during the 1990s. Russia also has half the population of the USSR but got about 100% of the fossil fuel assets, so fossil fuels are an even larger part of the economy. Wind and solar also provide well under 1% of domestic energy.

Natural gas and food exports bring nowhere near the profits that oil does, so the Russian economy is basically a derivative of the oil price. Their only hope is that they can sell lots to China (fossil fuels, weapons, and food) and have China build some of their factories in Russia, and maybe manage some import substitution. Within a decade China may have leapt up the weapons manufacturing learning curve, and be less dependent on Russian fossil fuels. If fracking in the US has peaked, maybe they get a few more years before ongoing decline sets in. Russia may become to China what Canada is to the US.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
Interesting to see the gains in "soft power" that China is making as it is seen as both successfully combating COVID-19 and is helping out many, many other countries. The displayed incompetence and infighting in the US, together with its partisanship (e.g. trying to get exclusive rights on a German research team's output and reinforcing sanctions on Iran and Venezuela) is doing the exact opposite for that country.

From the Guardian:

Quote
Last week, Italy’s foreign minister Luigi Di Maio posted a video of himself on Facebook watching live footage of a plane of supplies and medics from China, noting that China was the first to send aid. Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić said in a press conference this week that he believes in his “brother and friend Xi Jinping”. He said: “The only country that can help us is China.”

The Guardian does try to diminish the positives by using an ex Australian diplomat and a spokesman from the German Marshall Fund (which has the avowed aim of reinforcing US/Europe relations) by calling it propaganda. Yes China will use it as propaganda, but it is based on the reality of their competence in containing COVID-19 and their position as a major manufacturer of critical health supplies (outsourced to them by other countries).

Quote
There is nothing wrong with China helping European and other countries, especially now that it has gained the upper hand in containing the coronavirus at home. But it is also clear that [Beijing] sees its aid as a propaganda tool,” said Noah Barkin, senior visiting fellow at the German Marshall Fund.

Quote
“Now we see Chinese officials and state media claiming that China bought the world time to prepare for this pandemic,” said Natasha Kassam, a research fellow at the Lowy Institute in Sydney and a former Australian diplomat.
... They actually did Natasha.

If the US doesn't get control of the outbreak quickly their international political position could be seriously compromised. It doesn't help the the "Satan" Putin is also shipping supplies to Italy and other countries. This is blocked by a Poland that will not open up its airspace or its overland routes, seriously undermining the EU.

Populations remember who helped, and who didn't, in a crisis for a long time.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/19/china-positions-itself-as-a-leader-in-tackling-the-coronavirus

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
^^
Ramen!!


With Xi and Putin wearing white surgical masks as well as white hats, it may be difficult for Trump to keep his sanctions in place. Europe may discover that inexpensive Russian gas burns every bit as clean as the expensive American LNG. This could hurt Trump with his base come November and might make the world a safer place if the Democrats can control the mighty MIC. :)


People will have long memories of those who rode through the night to rescue them, and their memories of those who forced the rescuers to make a long detour could last even longer.


Poland has done itself no favors.
Terry

Sciguy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1972
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 188
Many governments and corporations are re-thinking their over-reliance on China and its impact on the global supply chain.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-The-Oil-Industry-Can-No-Longer-Rely-On-China.html

Quote
Why The Oil Industry Can No Longer Rely On China
By Cyril Widdershoven - Apr 25, 2020

The global oil sector is reeling from a combination of negative oil prices, storage overload, demand destruction, and calls for a renewable energy revolution in the post-COVID-19 era.

US and European oil market analysts appear to be pinning their hopes on a rebound in oil demand from Asia. Even international financial institutions, such as the IMF, WB, ECB and OECD indicate that the future of economic and energy demand growth is inextricably linked to the future of China and, increasingly, India.

Quote
The true extent of the damage caused by COVID-19 is yet to be seen, mainly due to the trillions of dollars of government support that has been given to businesses. But geopolitical relations and trade routes have already changed drastically. China’s web of influence is now unraveling as it has become clear just how dangerous it is to rely so heavily on just one country for international trade and security. The lack of resilience in the global economic system, especially when it comes to production and trade, is going to very negatively impact China in the coming years.  A new resilience based on a diverse economic system will be needed to confront and mitigate future international crises or pandemics. For oil producers, especially the Arab OPEC producers and Russia, relying on China to consume a majority of their future production is a dangerous game. Just as US shale is far too heavily reliant on Cushing storage and paid the price when WTI prices crashed into negative territory as Cushing hit capacity, Arab producers have been hit hard by Chinese demand destruction.

Sciguy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1972
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 188
China's Belt and Road initiative has been the foundation of their geopolitical strategy for the past few decades.  It's fraying badly because China primarily financed the loans to countries that were used to pay Chinese contractors to build projects in those countries.  With the Covid-19 recession, countries are unable to repay the loans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/business/china-loans-coronavirus-belt-road.html

Quote
Poor Countries Borrowed Billions from China. They Can’t Pay It Back.

Nations want Beijing to forgive or renegotiate loans as their economies suffer. Doing so would be costly. Saying no could hurt China’s global image.

By Maria Abi-Habib and Keith Bradsher
May 18, 2020

As the coronavirus spread around the globe, Pakistan’s foreign minister called his counterpart in Beijing last month with an urgent request: The country’s economy was nose-diving, and the government needed to restructure billions of dollars of Chinese loans.

Similar requests have come flooding in to Beijing from Kyrgyzstan, Sri Lanka and a number of African nations, asking to restructure, delay repayments or forgive tens of billions of dollars of loans coming due this year.

With each request, China’s drive to become the developing world’s biggest banker is backfiring. Over the last two decades it unleashed a global lending spree, showering countries with hundreds of billions of dollars, in an effort to expand its influence and become a political and economic superpower. Borrowers put up ports, mines and other crown jewels as collateral.

Quote
China faces difficult choices. If it restructures or forgives these loans, that could strain its financial system and infuriate the Chinese people, who are suffering under their own slowdown. But if China demands repayment when many countries are already angry with Beijing over its handling of the pandemic, its quest for global clout could be at risk.

Quote
At the forefront of the spree is the Belt and Road Initiative, President Xi Jinping’s $1 trillion program to finance infrastructure projects across the world and pick up allies in the process. Since the initiative started in 2013, China has lent up to $350 billion to countries, about half of them considered high-risk debtors.

Quote
Belt and Road had become a sensitive subject before the outbreak. Chinese officials worried whether too many banks and companies were pouring money into the same countries with scant coordination. China’s financial system is already straining under debt accumulated by state-run companies and local governments to keep growth humming.

Quote
But an anti-China backlash has grown in recent years as countries struggled to pay off debts. Belt and Road projects have often proven unprofitable, leaving taxpayers with hefty bills. When Beijing seized a strategic seaport in Sri Lanka as collateral, debtor nations watched with concern.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
An excellent, and balanced, discussion of what the rise of China means.

"What China Will Be Like As A Great Power" : Martin Jacques Keynote (32nd Annual Camden Conference)



Some real stand out statistics that he mentions:
- China forecast to become 34% of global GDP (at purchasing power parity) in 2030, versus 20% now
- India forecast to become 19% of global GDP (PPP) in 2030, versus 8% now.

- US forecast to become 15% of global GDP (PPP) in 2030, versus 15% now.
- EU28 to become 13% of global GDP (PPP) in 2030, versus 16% now

What happens in China and India (and other fast growing nations such as Indonesia) will be many times more important for climate change than what happens in the EU28 and the US, over the next decade.

In just 10 years from now, China is forecast to have an economy twice the size of the US. Its GDP per capita (PPP) will go from 1/3 of the US today to about 55%. Given the population differences (350 million vs 1.4 billion) China will most probably have a subset of its population that is equal in size to the US population with at least the same average income. If these forecasts become true, the US becomes the junior partner.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20578
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5304
  • Likes Given: 69
An excellent, and balanced, discussion of what the rise of China means.

"What China Will Be Like As A Great Power" : Martin Jacques Keynote (32nd Annual Camden Conference)

Some real stand out statistics that he mentions:
- China forecast to become 34% of global GDP (at purchasing power parity) in 2030, versus 20% now
- India forecast to become 19% of global GDP (PPP) in 2030, versus 8% now.

- US forecast to become 15% of global GDP (PPP) in 2030, versus 15% now.
- EU28 to become 13% of global GDP (PPP) in 2030, versus 16% now

What happens in China and India (and other fast growing nations such as Indonesia) will be many times more important for climate change than what happens in the EU28 and the US, over the next decade.
And is China's march to sole superpower status to be achieved in a sustainable eco-friendly etc etc manner,  or is there a faint chance that this is the Long March to oblivion?

And does this well-balanced etc etc discourse consider the fate of our increasingly unhappy  planet at all? If it does not, then well-balanced his discourse is not.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 226
  • Likes Given: 52
If the forecasts are correct China is going to add the equivalent of the US economy in a 10 year period. The scale of the additional energy and material throughput is mind-boggling, and probably a disaster for the global ecology. Same of India meets its forecast growth in the next 10 years.

2.8 billion people doubling their economies in a decade, adding the equivalent of the US+EU28. We have never seen growth on this scale in such a short period. We could be tripping over many ecological tipping points, not just climate change, in the next decade. Will Steffen pretty much agrees that the 2020's will be when the proverbial hits the fan.

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 128
"The great challenge in applying these lessons is that, until disaster actually strikes, a country won’t really know whether it is a resilient power. “We cannot say when we have truly achieved resilience, since part of resilience is the capacity to react to change,” Hynes and his colleagues told me, “and one will never know in advance in a world of unknown unknowns who is best equipped” to do so.

Then again, a country never really knows the strength of its military, either, until it’s tested on the battlefield. What countries can do, Hynes and his colleagues added, is endeavor to identify and remedy “potential single points of failure.”

As Grossman reminded me, “Resilience is not the absence of vulnerability.” It is, instead, “the ability to manage existing or new vulnerabilities in ways that do not allow them to overwhelm us to the point where we just fold.” Americans haven’t historically folded. And they don’t have to now."

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/11/pandemic-revealing-new-form-national-power/170061/?oref=d1-earthbox-post

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8315
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2051
  • Likes Given: 1988
Chinese Factories Want to Make Climate-Friendly Air Conditioners. A US Company Is Blocking Them

Underwriters Laboratories enacted “safety” standards limiting the use of propane refrigerants. The U.N. suggests the real beneficiary may be the U.S. chemical industry.

...

Stretching the length of a football field, the assembly line in Wuhu was retooled in 2016 to produce hundreds of thousands of climate-friendly air conditioners per year, funded with money from the United Nations. The goal was to help reduce a class of key climate super-pollutants.

Air conditioners now use fluorinated chemical refrigerants. While each air conditioner contains only a small amount of refrigerant, the chemicals eventually make their way into the atmosphere, as the devices slowly leak or are destroyed at the end of their useful life. Those emissions add up and wreak havoc.  As greenhouse gases they are hundreds to thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide in warming the planet.

The U.N. money allowed Midea and other manufacturers across China to use propane as a refrigerant instead, a climate- and ozone-friendly hydrocarbon alternative that is also less expensive.

The Environmental Protection Agency approved its use in air conditioners in 2015. Propane is 3.3 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, giving it an “ultra-low” global warming potential, relative to other refrigerants.

But an Inside Climate News investigation found that those U.N. efforts to encourage propane-cooled air conditioners have largely been stymied by safety standards set by Underwriters Laboratories, now known  as “UL” in the United States, a private company that provides independent safety certifications for thousands of consumer products. 

The standards were devised to protect profits for the U.S. chemical industry, environmentalists in the U.S. and Europe, and Chinese manufacturers told Inside Climate News.

In the investigation, which included reviews of U.N. documents and peer reviewed studies,  environmentalists, manufacturers and other experts said in interviews that there was little  evidence that a fire risk in propane air conditioning units merited a reduction in the allowable quantity of the gas from 1 kilogram to 114 grams, as UL determined when it enacted a strict new standard in July 2015, just months after the EPA green-lighted propane’s use. 

While UL standards are technically voluntary, they hold enormous sway over what products are sold in the United States. If a product does not meet UL safety standards, the manufacturer could be held liable for damages if anything were to go wrong.

“Safety is just an excuse,” said one Chinese industry expert who asked not to be quoted by name, voicing similar concerns to that of a 2017 report by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel of the United Nations Environment Programme.

“The United States does not want hydrocarbon refrigerants to be used prematurely in the United States,” he said. “It hopes to buy some time for its fluorochemical companies to try new alternatives.”

Using propane instead of fluorinated refrigerants, explained Daniel Colbourne, an independent refrigeration technology consultant, pulls “the rug from under the feet of the chemical industry” because propane is not patented and is much cheaper, more efficient and has a “negligible global warming impact.”

Project Drawdown, an international group of researchers that ranks potential climate solutions, lists reducing emissions of fluorinated refrigerants as one of the most important things that can be done to limit future warming, alongside building wind farms and installing solar power.

...

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20122020/chinese-factories-air-conditioning-refrigerants/
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6783
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: propane as refrigerant

Some newer freezers use cyclopentane, seems to do the job. I havent had any blowups yet.

sidd

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6325
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 22
The Grenfell tower disaster was started when a fridge freezer caught fire.

One can only imagine the conflagration if it had 1kg of propane in it.  Or all the other fridges and freezers in the tower.

If it were impossible for them to catch fire, fine.  But to have a potential bomb, in the event of a fire from other causes, right inside your home, is a very high risk.

It is one thing for a single detached home to have one, but tower blocks would represent an incredible density of explosive gas.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

P-maker

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 0
NeilT,

Please try to keep proportions intact in this debate.

Recalling numerous pictures from wildfires in California and Australia over the past few years, I should think that 10 and 20 pound LPG tanks used for grill and various warming aggregates close to houses may also have added considerably to the hazards and consequences observed.

Apparently, in the US alone, more than 10,000 fires each year are caused by gas grills.

A proper tax on LPG  for recreative purposes might do the trick to reduce fire hazards from propane.

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6325
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 387
  • Likes Given: 22
I am.

Propane tanks are usually outside the home.  Fridges and freezers are right inside the home. Right now, in the UK, gas is banned from tower blocks for this very reason.  Agreeing to propane as a refrigerant would re-introduce that problem back again.

There are valid concerns for this, over and above protectionism for polluting businesses.  I'm not saying that they are not protecting their own interests, I'm saying that there are some good reasons for not going this route.  That then makes a convenient lever to levy a blanket ban.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

P-maker

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 0
Propane-driven air conditioners should by no means be allowed anywhere near high-rise buildings.

I once heard a distinguished chinese professor make the claim, that chinese people were - in their behaviour - very much aware of energy efficient solutions. Apparently, during heatwaves, the whole family would gather in the one room, which had an air conditioning apparatus mounted outside the window. Thus, no need to cool the whole appartment ( > 75 % energy savings! ).

High-rise buildings, if they are heated by central district heating during cold winters, should be equally well prepared for central district cooling during hot summers ( removing the risk of gas explosions from the dwellings ).

The path of individual short-term solutions should by all means be avoided.

Sciguy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1972
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 188
The energy transition is reshaping the geopolitical considerations.

https://www.ft.com/content/a37d0ddf-8fb1-4b47-9fba-7ebde29fc510

Quote
How the race for renewable energy is reshaping global politics
As the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy gathers speed, what does it mean for the balance of power?

Leslie Hook and Henry Sanderson
3 February 2021

Quote
But as the energy system changes, so will energy politics. For most of the past century, geopolitical power was intimately connected to fossil fuels. The fear of an oil embargo or a gas shortage was enough to forge alliances or start wars, and access to oil deposits conferred great wealth. In the world of clean energy, a new set of winners and losers will emerge. Some see it as a clean energy “space race”. Countries or regions that master clean technology, export green energy or import less fossil fuel stand to gain from the new system, while those that rely on exporting fossil fuels — such as the Middle East or Russia — could see their power decline.

Quote
The question of which countries will end up ahead is still subject to debate. But there is broad consensus that change is happening. Pascal Lamy, former head of the World Trade Organization, compares the global shift from one energy system to another with the advent of the industrial revolution. “There is an inflection taking place,” he says, from behind the frames of his red glasses in a video interview. “If you compare the world today to the world 18 months ago, the big difference is that . . . only 25 per cent of the world had a decarbonisation horizon. Today, 75 per cent of the world economy has a decarbonisation horizon. This is a major shift.”

The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated the trend. Last year, new renewable power hit a record 200 gigawatts, while the rest of the energy sector shrank. Amid the recession triggered by the pandemic, demand for oil fell 8.8 per cent and demand for coal 5 per cent, compared to the year before, according to the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based oil watchdog. Clean energy was the only part of the energy sector that had growth in 2020. The pace and scale of the transition to renewables have already shot past the most optimistic projections.

Quote
The Irena report found three ways for countries to exert influence in the new system. One is by exporting electricity or green fuels. Another is by controlling the raw materials used in clean energy, such as lithium and cobalt. The third is by gaining an edge in technology, such as electric vehicle batteries. With renewable resources so readily available, Van de Graaf believes that it is technology which will end up being the biggest differentiating factor.

A tally of countries’ activities in clean energy found one racing far ahead of the rest. “We have one country in pole position,” he says. “China.”

vox_mundi

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 10233
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3517
  • Likes Given: 754
AI-powered Energy Simulation Tool for U.S. Defense Department
https://www.tdworld.com/smart-utility/data-analytics/article/21154101/aipowered-energy-simulation-tool-for-us-defense-department

The Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI) and RUNWITHIT Synthetics (RWI) recently unveiled an AI tool that U.S. Defense department officials can use to simulate the impact new energy technologies, regulation and economic policy decisions can have on people, assets and operations at military installations worldwide.

Named "Your Synthetic Base," the single synthetic environment (SSE) unveiled at the AFWERX Challenge Reimagining Energy Showcase presents a complete, digital, geospatially accurate view of energy resources and assets — existing and new energy technology, customer and base energy choices, barriers to deployment, power grid ties and housing stock — and deploys AI and machine learning to fill gaps in the model to predict the outcome of myriad scenarios.

-------------------------------------------

https://afwerxchallenge.com/energy

... the DoD is one of the largest single consumers of energy globally, and the Air Force is the largest user of fuel energy in the US Government. The way we generate, transmit, store, and use this enormous amount of energy today is both a paramount combat enabler and a potentially crippling vulnerability.

In the future, fossil fuels, the world's primary energy source, will become scarcer, while our energy needs grow. Our continued reliance on fossil fuels will lead to physical and geopolitical challenges in the security landscape, while alternative sources pose other risks of their own. And as the Department continues to reorient itself for great-power competition, the need to build more resilient infrastructure and supply chains has become more urgent. The time has come to reimagine our usage, generation, transportation, and storage of energy.

We are soliciting proposals for six individual challenge topics, each with its own evaluation team. The challenge topics are listed below. ...

... - Fixed and Mobile Energy Generation

- Energy Transmission and Distribution

- Fixed and Mobile Energy Storage

- New Warfighting and Operational Equipment

- Data Availability for Improved Planning and Decision Making

- Energy Culture, Policy, and Education


The outcomes that we are hoping to achieve from this challenge include:

- Energy availability when and where needed for mission effectiveness and quality of life

- More effective warfighting and humanitarian missions less reliant on fossil fuels

- Increased ability to rapidly respond to humanitarian crises

- Leveraging all energy sources for military use such as wind, water, nuclear, hydrogen, thermal, etc.

- Creation of new industries and capabilities inspired by the U.S. DoD

- Leveraging energy from space


We also have two aspiration targets from this challenge:

- Elimination of all fossil fuel dependency

- Carbon negative DoD
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― anonymous

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late