Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Policy and solutions => Topic started by: Bob Wallace on August 12, 2014, 08:16:19 AM

Title: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on August 12, 2014, 08:16:19 AM
Some people love to argue that it would do no good to clean up the US/wherever grid because China is not going to do anything to curb their GHG emissions.  Let me chop and quote the parts about China from a Renewable Economy piece....

 
Quote
Just one week after Beijing confirmed plans to phase out the use of coal and close coal-fired power plants by 2020, the head of China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) has suggested that the country might begin implementation of a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).chinawind

... an RPS for China could include specific quota’s for power or capacity from the country’s utilities, purchase specifications for the grid companies, and renewable use by end customers, according to Deutsche Bank.

... China’s National Development and Reform Commission announced the creation of a committee of experts to oversee expanding the existing seven ETS pilot programs into a unified national program.

....

“China is showing increasing evidence of long term sustainable plans for multi-year solar installs, and we view (NEAhead) Wu Xinxiong’s statement as solid evidence of the country’s increasing commitment to solar and wind,” Deutsche analyst Vishal Shah said in a research note.

Already, the country has a goal of 15 per cent renewable generation by 2020 (echoing the European 20/20 renewables goals). In 2012, Chinese companies invested $65 billion in renewable energy projects, a 20 per cent improvement on 2011 numbers, and they plan to spend $473 billion on clean energy investments between 2011 and 2015, according to the country’s most recent Five-Year Plan.

Shah says that implementation of an RPS in China would strongly encourage ongoing solar installations and we see benefit to vertically integrated Chinese manufacturers and installers, as well as spurring development of “even larger scale projects for the companies most well positioned in the country.”


http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/china-looks-to-renewables-target-as-australia-looks-to-hobble-ret-76234 (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/china-looks-to-renewables-target-as-australia-looks-to-hobble-ret-76234)

BTW, China now leads the world in wind generation and installed 10 GW of solar in 2013.  That's about the same amount of solar that the US has installed - over all years.  In 2014 China is on track to install another 13 to  14 GW of solar.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on September 21, 2014, 01:16:01 AM
Here is a lengthy article on Secretary of State John Kerry's recent visit to China, discussing the country's evolving environmental issues.

Quote
The final reason for hope, paradoxically, is China's relentless demand for energy. China is in the midst of a profound economic and social transformation, trying to reinvent itself from an economy based on selling cheap goods overseas to an economy based on selling quality consumer goods at home, while keeping growth rates high and cutting dependence on fossil fuels. Energy demand is expected to double by 2030, and at that pace, there is not enough oil, coal and gas in the world to keep their economy humming. So China's ongoing energy security depends on the nation developing alternative energy sources in a big way. "We need more of everything," says Peggy Liu, a sustainability leader who works across China. "Wind, solar, a modernized grid. We need to leapfrog over the past and into a clean-energy future."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/china-the-climate-and-the-fate-of-the-planet-20140915 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/china-the-climate-and-the-fate-of-the-planet-20140915)

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on September 22, 2014, 07:52:22 AM
China seems on route to peak coal by 2016 and a decline thereafter.

Quote
For China’s electricity system, 2014 is a clear turning point. Having seen a consistent 8% compound annual growth in thermal coal demand since 2000, thermal coal demand in China has slowed to 4% pa over 2012-2013 and has clearly hit a plateau in 2014. The Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) forecasts an absolute peak in China’s thermal coal demand by 2016, with a gradual decline thereafter.

In the last twelve months, China has installed 29.2GW of new hydro electricity, a 20% expansion of total hydro installations across China in a single year. And China has commissioned another 15GW of wind farms, taking total installs up 21.7% year-on-year to 84GW in total (net connections to the grid). IEEFA estimates China has also commissioned 13.1GW of new solar installations in the last year, lifting China’s total solar installations by 80.5% in a single year.

A 16% increase in Coal-Fired Power Plant Efficiency over a Decade: Figure 2 details the gains made in the thermal efficiency of coal-fired power stations across China in the last decade. The amount of coal required to generate a kilowatt hour of electricity has fallen by 16% from 378g/kWh in 2003 to 317g/kWh in the first half of 2014. Any plan to curb low quality coal that is high in ash content and sulphur could accelerate this trend.

IEEFA forecasts that by 2020, coal-fired power generation production will fall below 60% of China’s total, down from 79% in 2012, 77% in 2013 and our forecast of only 73% in 2014. Given the size of the installed electricity system in China, this is a staggering rate of diversification away from coal.





http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/move-peak-coal-china-48548 (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/move-peak-coal-china-48548)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 22, 2014, 07:26:54 PM
Per the linked reference (see also the two associated attached images) China's present and future growth will have a large impact on the GHG budget:

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/14/files/GCP_budget_2014_v1.0_lowres.pdf (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/14/files/GCP_budget_2014_v1.0_lowres.pdf)

See also:

P. Friedlingstein, R. M. Andrew, J. Rogelj, G. P. Peters, J. G. Canadell, R. Knutti, G. Luderer, M. R. Raupach, M. Schaeffer, D. P. van Vuuren, & C. Le Quéré, (2014), "Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets", Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2248

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2248.html (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2248.html)


Abstract: "Efforts to limit climate change below a given temperature level require that global emissions of CO2 cumulated over time remain below a limited quota. This quota varies depending on the temperature level, the desired probability of staying below this level and the contributions of other gases. In spite of this restriction, global emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and cement production have continued to grow by 2.5% per year on average over the past decade. Two thirds of the CO2 emission quota consistent with a 2 °C temperature limit has already been used, and the total quota will likely be exhausted in a further 30 years at the 2014 emissions rates. We show that CO2 emissions track the high end of the latest generation of emissions scenarios, due to lower than anticipated carbon intensity improvements of emerging economies and higher global gross domestic product growth. In the absence of more stringent mitigation, these trends are set to continue and further reduce the remaining quota until the onset of a potential new climate agreement in 2020. Breaking current emission trends in the short term is key to retaining credible climate targets within a rapidly diminishing emission quota."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on September 22, 2014, 08:55:22 PM
If China continued to grow their GHG emissions as they have in the past then the world would be in a world of trouble.

The Chinese government has repeatedly stated that they are going to act responsibly and bring down GHG emissions.

We are seeing what appears to be a slowing, even plateauing of coal use.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 23, 2014, 05:21:20 PM
Coal-fired power plants (which I believe that China will cut-back on in order to reduce air pollution) are not the only source of Chinese GHG emissions.

The first linked article and associated extracts indicate that that China's plan to build 50 new coal to gas projects will increase CO₂ emissions (compared to coal fired power plants), will increase radiative forcing by a reduction of reflected solar radiation associated with aerosols (produced by current coal-fired power plants), while still producing large amount of NOX that will still damage the health of local Chinese (it seems difficult to imagine a worse policy from a climate change, and a public health, point of view):

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/china%E2%80%99s-planned-coal-gas-emit-over-1-billion-tons-co2 (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/china%E2%80%99s-planned-coal-gas-emit-over-1-billion-tons-co2)

Extract: "There could be 50 coal-to-gas projects operational within the next decade, producing 225 billion cubic metres of synthetic natural gas [SNG] per year, if all of the planned ones go ahead, according to comprehensive new research by Greenpeace China.
These 50 would emit around 1.087 billion tons of CO2 per year if they are developed, according to the new analysis. To put this in perspective, it is around one eighth of China’s CO2 emissions in 2011 (8.71 billion tons), and much more than the CO2 cuts from coal control measures by 2020 (655 million tons).
….
But researchers at Tsinghua University have warned (Report on China’s Low-carbon Development, 2014 [in Chinese]) that the coal-to-gas technology may not effectively lower the emission of air pollutants such as NOx  - the main contributor to China’s smog problem."

See also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/world/asia/greenpeace-says-chinas-energy-plans-exacerbate-climate-change.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/world/asia/greenpeace-says-chinas-energy-plans-exacerbate-climate-change.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0)



The second linked article indicates that the increasing use of refrigeration (particularly in China) is a major source of concern with regards to anthropogenic GHG emissions (and could account for up to 50% of GHG emissions by 2050 if not adequately regulated [I am sure that China says that they will regulate these super greenhouse gas refrigerants; however, we will need to see how effective any regulations are that they decide to implement):

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/what-do-chinese-dumplings-have-to-do-with-global-warming.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/what-do-chinese-dumplings-have-to-do-with-global-warming.html?_r=0)

Extracts: "Calculating the climate-change impact of an expanded Chinese cold chain is extremely complicated. Artificial refrigeration contributes to global greenhouse-gas emissions in two main ways. First, generating the power (whether it be electricity for warehouses or diesel fuel for trucks) that fuels the heat-exchange process, which is at the heart of any cooling system, accounts for about 80 percent of refrigeration’s global-warming impact (measured in tons of CO2) and currently consumes nearly a sixth of global electricity usage.
But the other problem is the refrigerants themselves: the chemicals that are evaporated and condensed by the compressors in order to remove heat and thus produce cold. Some of that refrigerant leaks into the atmosphere as a gas — either a little (roughly 2 percent a year from the most up-to-date domestic refrigerators) or a lot (on average, 15 percent from commercial refrigerated warehouses). In addition, different refrigeration systems use different refrigerants, some of which, like ammonia, have a negligible global-warming impact. But others, like the hydrofluorocarbons that are popular in China, are known as “supergreenhouse gases,” because they are thousands of times more warming than CO2. If current trends in refrigerant usage were to continue, experts project that hydrofluorocarbons would be responsible for nearly half of all global greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 23, 2014, 05:37:48 PM
We also need to be concerned about China's plan to use hydrofracking to develop their recoverable shale gas, which are the largest reserves in the world and which are estimated to be 70% larger than the reserves in America.  While the following linked article indicates that China will not meet there ambitious plans to develop 60 billion to 100 billion cubic meters of shale gas by 2020, they will develop 30 billion cubic meters by then, and in the meantime they have contracted to get gas from Russia which will encourage the EU to develop more shale gas to off-set their reduced import (sent to China) from Russia.  Also, with Chinese ingenuity they will likely over-come their technical challenges to develop shale gas after 2020; and due to methane leaks shale gas can have a larger Global Warming Potential, GWP, than coal-fired power plants.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21614187-china-drastically-reduces-its-ambitions-be-big-shale-gas-producer-shale-game (http://www.economist.com/news/business/21614187-china-drastically-reduces-its-ambitions-be-big-shale-gas-producer-shale-game)

Extract: "In 2012 China’s main planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission, declared that the country would produce 60 billion-100 billion cubic metres of shale gas a year in 2020. It needed those forecasts to be accurate.

They weren’t. Wu Xinxiong, the director of China’s National Energy Administration, recently predicted that only 30 billion cubic metres a year will come on stream by 2020. That would barely meet 1% of China’s energy needs now, let alone in 2020.

This is profoundly disappointing. With more than 30 trillion cubic metres of recoverable shale gas, China has the largest reserves in the world, almost 70% more than in America, home of the shale-gas revolution. It is also a setback to the country’s efforts to reduce pollution. Dirty coal now makes up about 70% of energy consumption and, despite fast growth in renewable energy, gas is the only cleanish energy source that could displace enough coal to rein in carbon emissions quickly."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 23, 2014, 06:36:08 PM
Not to express undue concern about the effectiveness of China's actual plans to reduce GHG emissions in the coming decades.  The following linked article questions whether China's plans will actually result in any reduction in CO2 emissions before 2030 (not to mention methane and HFC emissions):

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2014/0923/Missing-in-action-at-UN-climate-summit-world-s-top-polluter (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2014/0923/Missing-in-action-at-UN-climate-summit-world-s-top-polluter)

Furthermore, as China's air pollution is a significant negative feedback factor, as they clean-up their air (say due to reduced use of coal-fired power plants), we can expect mean global temperatures to rise more rapidly.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wili on September 25, 2014, 12:49:07 AM
China Says It Will Peak Emissions ‘As Early As Possible'

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/24/3571380/summit-china-peak-emissions/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/24/3571380/summit-china-peak-emissions/)

Quote
When it was his turn to speak, Zhang told the United Nations gathering that China will “try” to achieve a peak in its carbon emissions “as early as possible.” He did not provide further information on the timeline for that peak. He also pledged to provide $6 million for efforts by the U.N. to promote South-South cooperation on climate change among developing countries.

“As a responsible major developing country, China will make an even greater effort to address climate change and take on international responsibilities that are commensurate with our national conditions,” said Zhang.

After Zhang’s announcement, China’s top climate official, Xie Zhenhua, said China would see a 45 percent drop in carbon emissions intensity — carbon emissions per unit of GDP — by 2020 based on 2005 levels.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on September 25, 2014, 12:58:53 AM
Thoughts?

China will peak out on coal use and then drop use.  China will move to renewables.

China will first have to slow coal use (which seems to be happening), then stop increasing, and then cut.  We'll likely see peak by ~2016 with gradual and then accelerating decline as we approach 2020.

That's what I think will happen.  China's government is not run by climate change deniers as are some other countries.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 25, 2014, 02:27:39 AM
The linked article indicates that China's CO₂ emissions are expected to grow by at least 33% from 2015 to 2020, and that is not considering how much its CH4 and HFC emissions will increase.  Therefore, I believe it will be several decades before China's GHG emissions peak:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/global-co2-emissions-will-be-over-40.html (http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/global-co2-emissions-will-be-over-40.html)

Extract: "China has pledged to reduce its carbon emission intensity, namely emissions per unit of GDP, by 40 percent to 45 percent by 2020 from the 2005 level. It will also aim to bring the proportion of non-fossil fuels to about 15 percent of its total primary energy consumption. By the end of last year, China had reduced carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 28.56 percent from 2005, which was equivalent to saving the world 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, Xie said.

NBF - China is targeting to reduce emissions per unit of GDP by 12-17%. If China increases GDP by 7% per year then GDP would increase by 50% from 2015 to 2020. Achieving 17% reduction would still mean 33% more emissions or about 4 billion tons of carbon or 14.7 billion tons of CO2. CO2 weighs 3.67 time more than carbon."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on September 25, 2014, 03:56:03 AM
If you wish to believe that China will not get its GHG emissions under control until several decades from now then you have to take the position that the Chinese government is lying to the world.

You're free to believe that, of course.  And there's no way to prove you right or wrong except with the passage of time.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 25, 2014, 05:33:28 AM
Quote
When it was his turn to speak, Zhang told the United Nations gathering that China will “try” to achieve a peak in its carbon emissions “as early as possible.” He did not provide further information on the timeline for that peak. He also pledged to provide $6 million for efforts by the U.N. to promote South-South cooperation on climate change among developing countries.

“As a responsible major developing country, China will make an even greater effort to address climate change and take on international responsibilities that are commensurate with our national conditions,” said Zhang.

After Zhang’s announcement, China’s top climate official, Xie Zhenhua, said China would see a 45 percent drop in carbon emissions intensity — carbon emissions per unit of GDP — by 2020 based on 2005 levels.

Nothing that I posted disputes what China's representatives say in the quote above; therefore, I have most certainly have not said that China is lying to the world.  I agreed that China is cutting back on new coal-fired power plants, but they are increasing their dependence on fossil fuels over-all.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on September 25, 2014, 01:59:43 PM
The severe drought in China is affecting coal and gas production.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/drought-worsens-chinas-long-term-water-crisis-n210736 (http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/drought-worsens-chinas-long-term-water-crisis-n210736)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on September 25, 2014, 03:00:56 PM
"We are doing it for our own sake."

Andrew Freedman on the Chinese emissions statement.
http://mashable.com/2014/09/23/china-carbon-emissions-climate-summit/ (http://mashable.com/2014/09/23/china-carbon-emissions-climate-summit/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 25, 2014, 05:45:46 PM
"We are doing it for our own sake."

Andrew Freedman on the Chinese emissions statement.
http://mashable.com/2014/09/23/china-carbon-emissions-climate-summit/ (http://mashable.com/2014/09/23/china-carbon-emissions-climate-summit/)

A quote from that article is:
"Xie said China recognizes that it needs to act based on its own best interests due to climate change impacts and air pollution hazards it is already experiencing."

However, I would like to note that there is a significant difference between reducing air pollution and reducing radiative forcing, because air pollution is a negative feedback mechanism, and thus accelerating the cleaning-up of Chinese air pollution will actually accelerate global warming.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 25, 2014, 06:22:16 PM
The linked article indicates that it is likely that Russia will soon become a major supplier of natural gas to China (see extract below).  The methane leaks from such pipeline deals will mean that GHG radiative forcing will not decrease, but air pollution in China will be decreased, which will accelerate global warming:

http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/russia-uses-its-natural-gas-to-play-the-china-card-again/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 (http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/russia-uses-its-natural-gas-to-play-the-china-card-again/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0)

Extract: "Ahead of a key meeting of global leaders in Beijing, Russian officials say that negotiations are heating up with China for a possible second major energy deal this year. If signed, the pact would authorize a new pipeline that could double the amount of natural gas Russia is scheduled to export to China and elevate Russia into a major supplier there."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on September 25, 2014, 08:44:15 PM
Should we automatically assume leaky pipes?

In the US, and I assume other places, we have a very leaky NG distribution system but that's old pipes that haven't been maintained properly.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 25, 2014, 10:14:30 PM
Bob,

You make a valid point that I do not have a crystal ball, and thus I cannot say how much leakage there will, or will not, be for these new gas developments.  Furthermore, I do not know how much of any such leakage would be assigned to Russia during its drilling and collecting activities, and how much leakage would be assigned to China during the transport and distribution activities.  But I am sure that developing new fossil fuel development will mean that peak for China's (and Russia's) GHG emissions (not just leakage but also using/burning methane) will be delayed by such new developments.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on September 25, 2014, 10:31:28 PM
China uses a lot of coal for heating and a fair amount for cooking.  If leaks are minimized and the NG used to replace coal then that's a net gain.

And if the NG is used as a fill-in for wind and solar, allowing more coal generation to be closed that's a larger net gain.

Moving from coal to NG is not the permanent fix we would want but any cuts in emissions help.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 25, 2014, 11:14:53 PM
When the Tropomi (see extract below) is launched in early 2016 (not in 2014 as cited below); we will be able to measure methane leaks on Earth from the Sentinel-4/5 satellite.  Then we will be able know how much methane China (and other nations) is (are) leaking into the atmosphere, as right now my guess is no better than your guess:


http://www.tropomi.eu/TROPOMI/Home.html (http://www.tropomi.eu/TROPOMI/Home.html)

Extract: "The TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) is a spaceborne nadir viewing spectrometer with bands in the ultraviolet, the visible, the near infrared and the shortwave infrared. TROPOMI is the payload for the ESA/GMES Sentinel 5 Precursor mission, planned for launch in 2014 with 7 years design lifetime. The objective of the mission is to provide high-quality and timely information on the global atmospheric composition for climate and air quality applications. TROPOMI will make daily global observations of key atmospheric constituents, including ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, formaldehyde and aerosol properties. The Sentinel-5 Precursor mission will extent the current data records from OMI (Ozone Monitoring Instrument) on NASA EOS Aura and SCIAMACHY (SCanning Imaging Absorption spectroMeter for Atmospheric CartograpHY) on ESA Envisat and is the link between the current scientific missions and the operational Sentinel-4/-5 missions.

TROPOMI is an initiative from the Netherlands and is developed in cooperation with ESA. KNMI is the Principal Investigator institute for TROPOMI and SRON is the co-PI institute. The Netherlands Space Office (NSO) manages the TROPOMI project in the Netherlands."


See also
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/satellites-and-simulations-track-missing-methane (http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/satellites-and-simulations-track-missing-methane)

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on September 25, 2014, 11:57:31 PM
Quote
In response to a number of policy measures, such as the G20 committing to progressively phase down HFCs and the European Union effectively banning R134a under the MAC Directive, the industry is developing new mobile air conditioning (MAC) systems designed to use low-GWP (global warming potential) refrigerants.
 
Johanna Gloël of GIZ Proklima presented research findings that demonstrate that under a wide range of Chinese climate conditions, environmentally friendly MAC systems using natural refrigerants, particularly R744, proved more energy efficient than synthetic refrigerant alternatives. With the implementation of natural refrigerants in MAC systems, GHG emissions could be reduced by 30% in China.

http://www.r744.com/news/view/5722 (http://www.r744.com/news/view/5722)


Anyone knowledgeable about refrigerants?  Can a 30% reduction in GHG be accurate?  Or is this 30% of non-CO2 GHG or something else?

Sounds like a fairly simple fix. 
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 01, 2014, 11:13:46 PM
China uses a lot of coal for heating and a fair amount for cooking.  If leaks are minimized and the NG used to replace coal then that's a net gain.

And if the NG is used as a fill-in for wind and solar, allowing more coal generation to be closed that's a larger net gain.

Moving from coal to NG is not the permanent fix we would want but any cuts in emissions help.

The attached plot provides the number of years before switching from coal to natural gas results in any net gains, as a function of natural gas leaks.  By the time that we realize any net gains mean global temperature rise will likely have already exceeded the 2 degrees C tipping point.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 02, 2014, 01:37:38 AM
We know we can control and almost eliminate leaks at the well.  That's been determined via independent research.  Which means that we could stop well leaks very quickly if we decided to do so.

Most of the leakage seems to be from the old, often worn out distribution system that carries NG to our houses and commercial buildings.

Take a look at the leaks in one part of Boston...

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FBostonMethaneLeaks.jpg&hash=03374d0cd77db466855592815b1d7587) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/BostonMethaneLeaks.jpg.html)

That's a problem separate from using NG as a fill-in for renewables.

BTW, following the deadly explosion that happened in the San Francisco area a couple years back PG&E gas been testing and repairing their system.  We need to lean on all gas suppliers to do the same.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 02, 2014, 02:11:38 AM
Bob,

As neither one of us controls what either the Chinese, or Russia, are going to do to control methane leaks during drilling, collection, distribution and use; I think that we will have to agree to disagree on what leakage rates will actually occur as China increases its use of natural gas (both imported and increasingly from fracking).

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: ccgwebmaster on October 02, 2014, 03:52:21 AM
As neither one of us controls what either the Chinese, or Russia, are going to do to control methane leaks during drilling, collection, distribution and use; I think that we will have to agree to disagree on what leakage rates will actually occur as China increases its use of natural gas (both imported and increasingly from fracking).

In any event just because something can be done is a very long away from meaning it will be done, even in more affluent nations. If the cost to fix the leaks is greater than the value of wasted gas - there is no economic incentive to do so. You can legislate to force the action (in theory, little progress on this in decades from governments in the wider sense), but then costs are passed onto the consumer and you pinch the economy somewhere else (presuming it's a must have resource that people will prefer to other more discretionary choices).

We could be drowning in solutions, and still die of thirst, that's the sad truth here.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 02, 2014, 03:57:14 AM
I think both the US and China will move fairly quickly to control NG leaks at wells. 

I expect the EPA to release some new regs on NG after we get past the November election.  I think PBO intends to do everything he can to fight climate change within the powers he has.  Using the EPA is one thing that he,  I think, can do.  Better we had legislation but I don't see any chance of that getting through Congress in the next couple of years.

I think the Chinese leaders do take climate change seriously and are doing a balancing act, keeping their slowing economy as healthy as possible while lowering GHG emissions.  Clamping down on leaks is a win-win.  As far as I know China doesn't have the old, worn out distribution the US is dealing with.  They can clamp down and save gas.

I have no opinions as to what Russia might do. I put Russia in almost the category of North Korea.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 02, 2014, 11:03:36 PM
Bob,

I am not totally sure if the following information fully matches your "But, but, but China ..." theme for this thread, but I have frequently read that China feels entitled to continue polluting unless the rich Western Countries financially reimburse them for the value of the GHGs emitted by the First World since the industrial revolution.  However, the attached image from the Ruddiman video (see the link in Reply #328 of the "Selected Forcing" thread in the Antarctic folder, see: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,41.300.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,41.300.html) ), shows that the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (primarily associated with deforestation and agriculture) from about 7,000 yrs ago to the industrial revolution is about the twice anthropogenic CO2 burden in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.  As Chinese society developed earlier than the rich Western Countries, they have a larger portion of this pre-industrial CO2 burden (which influences mean global temperature more than recent emissions); however, I doubt that China will shoulder its responsibility for this early CO2 burden and will continue to feel entitled to maintain high GHG emissions until their per capita wealth more closely matches the First World per capita.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 02, 2014, 11:30:05 PM
Personally I don't find a lot of value in attributing the present situation to past offenders.

We're all in this mess together and each needs to do all they can to stop GHG emissions.

Every government finds itself in the tricky position of keeping their economy going while cutting GHG.  (That is, every government that is interested in doing its share.  There are exceptions such as Australia.)

From what I can tell the Chinese government is working on cutting their emissions.  They won't be the first to start reducing CO2 emissions, some European countries and the US have already started downward, but I doubt they will be the last to peak and start dropping.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: viddaloo on October 02, 2014, 11:48:37 PM
Bob,

as I've pointed out earlier, I very much doubt they will be the first to do so. Your method of gathering evidence seems to be a bit simplistic or reductionistic. Eg. you figures for co2 cuts in America are figures from energy industry in America only. Not US co2 emissions.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 03, 2014, 02:49:51 AM
Of course China won't be the first to cut CO2.  I clearly stated that other countries have already begun cutting.
--


Here is total CO2 emissions for the US and a sector breakout.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2Fusa_co2_q1_june2012_eia.png&hash=75518ec58b4f26083aa6970ae4b85564) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/usa_co2_q1_june2012_eia.png.html)

Here's is US CO2 emissons per capita from the World Bank.  Along with China and Russia data.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2F2014-10-02_174101.png&hash=dc354034768b67824e64e0c80317edb0) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/2014-10-02_174101.png.html)

Your charge was incorrect.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Laurent on October 03, 2014, 10:38:43 AM
U.S. carbon emissions tick higher; Obama tells U.N.: ‘We have to do more’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-carbon-emissions-tick-higher-obama-tells-un-we-have-to-do-more/2014/09/26/827f770e-45b1-11e4-b47c-f5889e061e5f_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-carbon-emissions-tick-higher-obama-tells-un-we-have-to-do-more/2014/09/26/827f770e-45b1-11e4-b47c-f5889e061e5f_story.html)

It is really unfair if we do not add to one nation emission the part that is produce abroad, in the case of France, I am pretty sure that 70% of our goods are produce in China...so we should add that to our emissions.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 03, 2014, 04:45:54 PM
Of course China won't be the first to cut CO2.  I clearly stated that other countries have already begun cutting.


Here is total CO2 emissions for the US and a sector breakout.


Bob,

By citing out of date information you come across as actively trying to paint a rosier picture of our current situation than we are current in.  Certainly the US CO2 emissions dropped temporarily after the 2008 financial meltdown and the growth of fracking; however, the two attached plots from the link that Laurent provided indicates that now that the US unemployment rate is dropping the US CO2 emissions from January to June 2014 are up.  It may well be premature to say that US GHG emissions (including CH4) have peaked (particularly if the economy regains its footing and people focus on jobs).

See also:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/monthly-energy-review-for-september-2014/1344/ (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/monthly-energy-review-for-september-2014/1344/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 03, 2014, 07:04:44 PM
My point was to illustrated that US emissions have fallen since 2005.  Your graph confirms my point.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FUSCO2Emissions2005to2013.png&hash=4da22d0f059a9fb3ca2a7dd8db20710e) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/USCO2Emissions2005to2013.png.html)

And was making that point because of this charge -

" Your method of gathering evidence seems to be a bit simplistic or reductionistic. Eg. you figures for co2 cuts in America are figures from energy industry in America only. Not US co2 emissions."

Now, let's look at your graph and my 'total CO2' graph.  2005 peak.  2008 is down.  One might attribute that to the recession but, in fact, the recession started very late in 2008 and the big crash was mostly in early 2009.  One would have to look carefully to tease out the effect of the recession.  Offhand labeling would not be valid.

CO2 is down in 2009.  That could easily be mostly recession.

CO2 moves up a small amount in 2010.  Recovery?

CO2 moves down a small amount in 2011.  Now, how far do we go trying to explain modest changes in CO2 levels to the recession?  Things were better in 2011 than in 2010.  If recovery is the CO2 driver then why the downturn?

CO2 moves further down in 2012.  We're more recovered.  Time to put recession/recovery explanations to bed, they don't seem to be explanatory with the exception of 2009.  You can't claim rising CO2 levels are caused by recovery when you've got falling CO2 levels in other recovery years.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: ccgwebmaster on October 03, 2014, 08:11:55 PM
CO2 moves further down in 2012.  We're more recovered.  Time to put recession/recovery explanations to bed, they don't seem to be explanatory with the exception of 2009.  You can't claim rising CO2 levels are caused by recovery when you've got falling CO2 levels in other recovery years.

You have a pretty damn rosy idea of what recovery is apparently. You can have GDP growth of up to 2% without creating any jobs at all. Wealth and disposable income (drivers of consumption) are still severely impacted, with no meaningful recovery in the years you're quoting it for the majority of people. Therefore it's perfectly plausible carbon emissions remained suppressed almost to the present time.

Furthermore, it's pretty likely energy consumption and associated emissions lead many other indicators of recession/depression, in much the same way that the Baltic Dry Index does (and many also lead on the exit, hence an uptick in emissions even before real signs of recovery are present for most people).

I think it's extremely premature to claim the US has reduced emissions by any amount independently of economic activity, and furthermore it absolutely has not started reducing emissions by any amount that the very rosy IPCC outlook says would be sufficient to stay within the very optimistic danger threshold of 2C as a "target".

Furthermore, you keep ignoring imported carbon emissions. It's all smoke and mirrors if you close down coal plants while China builds more to manufacture the stuff you import. Sure, you get to posture and blame China for the emissions and not doing more - but it's all the same in the end.

Then of course, there is the small matter of US policy, the Keystone pipeline, the rush to frack, the desire to seize claim to Arctic "resources". Nothing at all to me suggests the US is serious about cutting emissions beyond political posturing.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 03, 2014, 08:49:08 PM
The US economy added 248000 jobs in September.

The jobless rate fell below 6%.  5% unemployment in the US is considered by economists to be full employment.

The US is using less fossil fuels per MWh of electricity and less petroleum per mile driven.

Efficiency is cutting the amount of electricity used.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 07, 2014, 07:48:21 AM
Quote
The amount of coal used to generate electricity in China fell by nearly one-quarter in the month of August, according to new data – a blip on the global coal consumption radar that could soon become the norm, as the Chinese government commits to a 2014 target of slashing thermal coal imports and more and more major international funds join the fossil fuel divestment movement.

Deutsche Bank reported on Monday that a survey of thermal coal used in China by six major coastal electric utilities shows that consumption declined by 23 per cent YoY during the August-September period.

According to Deutsche, these utilities include three of China’s five largest state-owned utilities, serving coastal demand regions including Zhejiang, Shanghai and Guangdong, and account for annualised 2014 thermal coal consumption of 233 mt, or 11 per cent of Chinese utility demand for thermal coal.

Deutsche says the main drivers behind this reduced consumption include lower top-line power demand growth, and strong hydropower output over the course of the Chinese summer (Figures 2 and 3, above). The report says China’s high hydropower output will decline on a seasonal basis, but will likely remain above 2013 levels thanks to capacity expansions of 13GW in the first half of 2014.

“Additionally, the government mandate to reduce thermal coal imports this year by 40 mt year on year will trigger the first annual fall in China’s thermal coal imports since it became a net importer in 2009,” says the report.

“Compliance with this mandate is likely to be enhanced by the fact that the amount of import cuts have been individually assigned to the largest power utilities. According to McCloskey, power group CEOs will be held responsible for these cuts, and penalties will include reduced power generation quotas. Even a 50% implementation of the mandate would imply an 8% drop in China coal imports this year, which signals further weakness in thermal coal FOB prices into 2015, in our view.”

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/china-coal-consumption-down-23-as-more-funds-dump-fossil-fuels-40314 (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/china-coal-consumption-down-23-as-more-funds-dump-fossil-fuels-40314)

As well, China is doing some massive spending on renewables. 
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 07, 2014, 04:07:02 PM
The linked article references a peer reviewed article stating that the boom economy in China is undoing all of the efforts that they have made to reduce CO2 emissions:

http://www.autoworldnews.com/articles/9379/20141007/chinas-efforts-to-cut-carbon-emissions-hampered-by-economic-boom.htm (http://www.autoworldnews.com/articles/9379/20141007/chinas-efforts-to-cut-carbon-emissions-hampered-by-economic-boom.htm)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 07, 2014, 07:25:34 PM
That article assumes a continued high expansion of China's economy.  China's economic growth is slowing. 
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 09, 2014, 04:24:34 PM
That article assumes a continued high expansion of China's economy.  China's economic growth is slowing.

According to the linked article and image China's GDP on a PPP basis just past that for the US economy, so it appears more likely that you are assuming that Chinas' economic growth (on a PPP basis) is slowing down, as the numbers say otherwise:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/08/china-gdp-tops-us_n_5951374.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/08/china-gdp-tops-us_n_5951374.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 09, 2014, 06:08:01 PM
That's not a Gross Domestic Product graph.  It's GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 09, 2014, 07:41:13 PM
PPP mean Purchasing Price Parity (as given in my original post) and PPP is what governs GHG emissions not monetary (international market place value) as PPP says what is really being consumed.  Therefore the graph that I show is the relevant graph.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 09, 2014, 09:00:33 PM
That is what is being consumed inside the country.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 09, 2014, 11:15:36 PM
Yes, consumption within China is what is producing the GHG that we are talking about.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 10, 2014, 12:06:44 AM
I don't have a long term graph available.  Will have to do with two graphs and a single non-graphed data point...

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FC4898BC8-96B6-4970-915B-A9396738BFA4_w640_r1_s.jpg&hash=d17f3f3ad1d9041975266c738f6babb9) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/C4898BC8-96B6-4970-915B-A9396738BFA4_w640_r1_s.jpg.html)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FU468P886T1D97686F12DT20140120103106.jpg&hash=862e4de14e73d8d9862874cbe265664d) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/U468P886T1D97686F12DT20140120103106.jpg.html)

And 7.4% for 2014, Q1.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 10, 2014, 01:04:22 AM
Certainly, using monetary current prices makes China's economy look smaller (see attached comparison to the US GDP), but using monetary current prices is not relevant to how much GHG China is emitting, which is tied to purchasing price parity, PPP.

Besides that your plots show growth rates of GDP (in percents) not GDP which is still growing even when measured in monetary (current market price) terms rather than PPP.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 10, 2014, 03:27:46 AM
I think this conversation goes back to a statement on my part that the Chinese economy was slowing down, not speeding up.  And when people talk about national economies they generally mean gross national product.

When I look at the GDP graphs I see a slowing of GDP growth.

I never made a statement about China's economy shrinking.

You seem to want to use a different measure.  That's fine, I guess, but it has nothing to do with my statement.  Or perhaps I don't understand your measurement of choice.

It's likely to take a year or two to see if China is going to  reached peak coal as many are predicting.  And it could take another year or two after that to start seeing a significant slowing, or even minor drop, of CO2 emissions.

What we will be able to see in the more immediate future is China spending a lot on renewable energy and putting a lot of emphasis on electric cars.  We may see a slowing of new coal starts, but I'm not sure that's public information.  We can probably learn a lot by watching Chinese coal production and importing which is generally public.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 10, 2014, 01:57:06 PM
"Days of heavy smog shrouding swathes of northern China pushed pollution to more than 20 times safe levels on Friday, despite government promises to tackle environmental blight."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/10/china-pollution-levels-hit-20-times-safe-levels (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/10/china-pollution-levels-hit-20-times-safe-levels)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 10, 2014, 03:23:43 PM
We can probably learn a lot by watching Chinese coal production and importing which is generally public.

I agree with you Bob. This is the single most accurate metric to follow regarding coal consumption. One advantage is it captures all uses of coal, including coke production and steel manufacture. The only problem with this measure is the lag. Generally accurate measures of imports and production are slow to be reported.

Here is a breakout for coal usage in China with projections. The dramatic slowing in the growth of coal consumption for the first half of this decade suggests that China is beginning to decouple its economy from coal consumption.

When we talk about slowing growth in the China economy, we should recognize that slow growth in China means something far different than in the developed nations. In the latest quarter, growth slowed to 7.3%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/10/us-china-economy-gdp-idUSKCN0HZ0GE20141010 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/10/us-china-economy-gdp-idUSKCN0HZ0GE20141010)

Clearly coal consumption is not growing nearly as fast as the economy.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 10, 2014, 05:33:36 PM
I think this conversation goes back to a statement on my part that the Chinese economy was slowing down, not speeding up.  And when people talk about national economies they generally mean gross national product.

When I look at the GDP graphs I see a slowing of GDP growth.

I never made a statement about China's economy shrinking.

You seem to want to use a different measure.  That's fine, I guess, but it has nothing to do with my statement.  Or perhaps I don't understand your measurement of choice.

It's likely to take a year or two to see if China is going to  reached peak coal as many are predicting.  And it could take another year or two after that to start seeing a significant slowing, or even minor drop, of CO2 emissions.

What we will be able to see in the more immediate future is China spending a lot on renewable energy and putting a lot of emphasis on electric cars.  We may see a slowing of new coal starts, but I'm not sure that's public information.  We can probably learn a lot by watching Chinese coal production and importing which is generally public.

Bob,

A monetary (or purchasing price) evaluation of GDP is a financial concept, while Purchasing Price Parity, reflects actual consumption.  This is clearly demonstrated in the first attached slide (from the following free pdf) that shows while the monetary GDP rate of growth is slowing down (the same values you have been showing), while the energy demand (reflective of PPP) is continuing to rise.

http://www.eia.gov/conference/2014/pdf/presentations/xu.pdf (http://www.eia.gov/conference/2014/pdf/presentations/xu.pdf)

Furthermore, the second attached image (from the same source) shows the energy mix supply available for China, which shows that even if fossil fuels are projected to be a declining percentage of the Chinese energy supply mix; in absolute terms (see the insert figure) the fossil fuel supply will continue to grow, resulting in GHG emissions continuing to grow.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 10, 2014, 09:23:03 PM
Quote
When we talk about slowing growth in the China economy, we should recognize that slow growth in China means something far different than in the developed nations. In the latest quarter, growth slowed to 7.3%.

I'm seeing expectations that China's growth will slow and stabilize around 3%. 

China seems to have largely completed their enormous and extremely rapid development.  They're looking at an aging and shrinking labor force.  And they're looking to make their economic less dependent on manufacturing and moving into areas which are less energy demanding.

Time will tell.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 10, 2014, 09:38:40 PM
Quote
the second attached image (from the same source) shows the energy mix supply available for China, which shows that even if fossil fuels are projected to be a declining percentage of the Chinese energy supply mix; in absolute terms (see the insert figure) the fossil fuel supply will continue to grow, resulting in GHG emissions continuing to grow

You need to look at the assumptions underneath the renewable portion of that graph.  To me it looks like a BAU graph.  China has been increasing its solar goals every few months over the last couple of years.  Right now they're talking 70 GW by 2017.  And at this moment they are extending HVDC lines into the windy parts of northern China in order to greatly increase the amount of wind energy on their grid.

A problem with a lot of predictions is that they seem to be based on putting a ruler on the  history points and extending a straight line.  I'll suggest that is foolish when it comes to renewable energy.  It does not take into account the rapidly falling costs of wind and solar.

And one needs to add the rapidly falling costs of storage to the mix.  If China can use a combination of wind, solar and storage and replace the coal that is ruining their cities do you think coal will die a slow and lingering life?

It's kind of like the people who were looking at extent drops for Arctic sea ice and predicting 100 years to the first melt out, when they should have been looking at volume.  If you don't pack in all the relevant information your predictions fail.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 10, 2014, 11:13:46 PM
Bob,

I am willing to hope for the best wrt China's GHG emissions, but I think that we only get one shot at controlling climate change, so I think that we should also prepare for the worst case scenarios.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 10, 2014, 11:48:57 PM
I don't know what you mean by "one shot".

Assuming the IPCC isn't too wrong we've got the next 35 years to reach their 40% to 70% CO2 reduction window.  (Tasks follow, but that's the one at hand.)

We aren't moving fast enough at the moment but we're speeding up.  A 70% reduction means changing about 2% of our energy supply from fossil fuels to renewables a year for 35 years.  That is an achievable target.  Won't hit 2% in 2014 or 2015 but in a few years we should be hitting 2% and then we'll have to average 2.1% or 2.2%or something higher than 2% for the remaining years to make up.

If you recall Jacobson and Deluchhi calculated that we could move the entire world to (almost) 100% renewable energy in 20 years with a very dedicated effort.  Since 2009 when they published the job as become easier and cheaper.  And we can spread the task over more years.

_
I feel like I need to add a disclaimer to my posts as some people attempt to read in something that I'm not saying.  I am not saying we will be successful. I am saying that success is within our reach if we choose to reach for it.

(I think we will, but that's personal opinion.)



Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 11, 2014, 12:37:09 AM
I don't know what you mean by "one shot".

Assuming the IPCC isn't too wrong we've got the next 35 years to reach their 40% to 70% CO2 reduction window.  (Tasks follow, but that's the one at hand.)

I am not saying we will be successful. I am saying that success is within our reach if we choose to reach for it.

(I think we will, but that's personal opinion.)

Bob,

The IPCC is too wrong (too low) with regard to climate sensitivity as indicated by the following paper that shows that there is more ocean heat content in the Southern Hemisphere upper ocean than the IPCC assumed, which means that the climate sensitivity that IPCC models assumed are too low.


Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, Felix W. Landerer and Karl E. Taylor, (2014), "Quantifying Underestimates of Long-term Upper-Ocean Warming", Nature Climate Change, 4 (11), DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2389

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/staff/Durack/dump/oceanwarming/140926a_Duracketal_UpperOceanWarming.pdf (http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/staff/Durack/dump/oceanwarming/140926a_Duracketal_UpperOceanWarming.pdf)

Abstract: "The global ocean stores more than 90% of the heat associated with observed greenhouse‐gas‐attributed global warming (Levitus et al., 2005; Church et al., 2011; Otto et al., 2013; Rhein et al., 2013). Using satellite altimetry observations and a large suite of climate models, we conclude that observed estimates of 0‐700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low. This underestimation is attributed to poor sampling of the Southern Hemisphere, and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimate temperature changes in data‐sparse regions (Gregory et al., 2004; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007; Gille, 2008). We find that the partitioning of northern and southern hemispheric simulated sea surface height changes are consistent with precise altimeter observations, whereas the hemispheric partitioning of simulated upper‐ocean warming is inconsistent with observed in‐situ‐based ocean heat content estimates. Relying on the close correspondence between hemispheric‐scale ocean heat content and steric changes, we adjust the poorly constrained Southern Hemisphere observed warming estimates so that hemispheric ratios are consistent with the broad range of modelled results. These adjustments yield large increases (2.2‐7.1 x 1022 J 35yrs‐1) to current global upper‐ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments."

At the following link (Reply #8) jai mitchell estimates that the projection timelines will be accelerated by between 6 and 14 years, which means that we have less time available than you are assuming.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1011.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1011.0.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 11, 2014, 12:53:40 AM
I've read parts of that paper.  Let's see how the climate science community reacts to it before declaring it gospel.  Sometimes papers don't show what the authors think they show.  (I'm not in a position to evaluate the paper.  I don't know the fine points that might have or have not been missed.)

If they are right then we'll need to crank it up.  I think that's the inference.

70% in 29 years means 2.4%.  70% in 21 years = 3.3%.  That's the range using the IPCC upper bound and this new set of years. 

Realistically, I think we'll see, perhaps ten years down the road or a bit sooner. countries understanding that by switching to renewables they will be saving a large amount of money and we start closing coal and gas plants rapidly for purely financial reasons.  Spurred on by the pressure of climate change.

And I'm watching what is happening right now with EVs and I think it will be clear to almost everyone that EVs are the cars we will drive very soon.  Looking at the bombshells Tesla dropped today and the recent information about where battery prices are right now I will no be surprised if Tesla announces a 200 mile range EV for well under $30k before the end of 2015.  That happens and the market shifts.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 11, 2014, 05:34:36 PM
Bob,

To me your ideas seem to be: "a day late and a dollar short"; as waiting around ten years on the wish and a prayer that business as usual will get the job done will likely get a lot of people (and the eco-system) hurt.

In other words, what you seem to be promoting sounds like a Faustian Bargain, where society gets to live un-bothered today, in exchange for a future with well over 2 degrees C of mean global temperature rise, by 2050.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 11, 2014, 07:14:19 PM
I've read parts of that paper.  Let's see how the climate science community reacts to it before declaring it gospel.  Sometimes papers don't show what the authors think they show.  (I'm not in a position to evaluate the paper.  I don't know the fine points that might have or have not been missed.)

If they are right then we'll need to crank it up.  I think that's the inference.

70% in 29 years means 2.4%.  70% in 21 years = 3.3%.  That's the range using the IPCC upper bound and this new set of years. 

Realistically, I think we'll see, perhaps ten years down the road or a bit sooner. countries understanding that by switching to renewables they will be saving a large amount of money and we start closing coal and gas plants rapidly for purely financial reasons.  Spurred on by the pressure of climate change.

And I'm watching what is happening right now with EVs and I think it will be clear to almost everyone that EVs are the cars we will drive very soon.  Looking at the bombshells Tesla dropped today and the recent information about where battery prices are right now I will no be surprised if Tesla announces a 200 mile range EV for well under $30k before the end of 2015.  That happens and the market shifts.

I absolutely agree with your optimism that we can shift from fossil fuels to renewables quickly. We have the technology to effect a near complete transition for energy generation in as little as decade, for most transportation perhaps a couple of decades longer. Where you are mistaken is in suggesting that market forces will lead us there. Nothing could be further from the truth. This rapid transition from fossil fuels to renewables will have to look like The Marshal Plan when the U.S. rebuilt war ravaged Europe. No consideration was given as to whether this would provide a return in the financial sense. A rapid shift away from fossil fuels will destroy trillions of dollars of wealth as fields of coal, oil and natural gas lose all value. The entire, worldwide financial system is supported by the single most important and fungible commodity in the world, oil and the oil equivalents of coal and natural gas. The financial system went off the gold standard in the 1970's only to be replaced with the black gold standard, oil. The U.S. dollar or petro-dollar is safe and has become the de facto currency of the world because oil is denominated in dollars.

It is no accident that business is a fierce opponent of moving away from fossil fuels. There are trillions to be made. This will not change.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 12, 2014, 04:56:38 AM
Bob,

To me your ideas seem to be: "a day late and a dollar short"; as waiting around ten years on the wish and a prayer that business as usual will get the job done will likely get a lot of people (and the eco-system) hurt.

In other words, what you seem to be promoting sounds like a Faustian Bargain, where society gets to live un-bothered today, in exchange for a future with well over 2 degrees C of mean global temperature rise, by 2050.

Best,
ASLR

Are you in disagreement with the IPCC that we need to hit the 40% to 70% CO2 reduction window by 2050?  If not, we can talk.  I think we can get there with almost no bothering of the general public.

If you've got a higher target tell me what it is and I'll tell you if I think we can hit and what it would take.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 12, 2014, 05:28:44 AM

I think we can get there with almost no bothering of the general public.


Bob,

A 70% CO2 reduction of total net emissions by 2050 would be fine with me, but if you think that society can get to that level of reduction without bothering the general public, then I do not think that your proposed reliance on technology will get us there.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 12, 2014, 06:42:09 AM
Given that the US is one of the largest emitters of CO2 and has one of the highest CO2 per capita levels might we assume that if the US can do it then it can be done?

Rather that drag this out I'll assume your answer is 'yes' and charge ahead.

A 70% reduction in CO2 would mean cutting emissions by 2% per year for the next 35 years. 

Actually, the IPPC said 40% to 70% from 2005 levels and the US is already down 10% but I'll go for the full 70%.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FCO2DropbyRegion.png&hash=6bd786084566fa99fd2796ddf4a31c6f) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/CO2DropbyRegion.png.html)

Let's start with electricity.  We'd need to convert 2% from fossil fuels to renewables while neither driving up the cost of electricity or causing bothersome interruptions.

During the first half of 2014 we increased the wind and solar generation share by about 1.2% over the 2013 shares.  Wind and solar installations have been increasing rapidly over the most recent years.  The US should have no trouble reaching and maintaining a 2% switch-over per year.

We've seen that the seven states that have added the most wind to their grids between 2008 and 2013 saw their cost of electricity go down slightly while the average increase for the other states rose.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FPriceDrop7Wind.png&hash=0e66d4aa67524ad173912665de7d4745) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/PriceDrop7Wind.png.html)

We don't have enough solar on our grids yet to see the price of electricity impacted but if we look at what is happening in Germany we see that a modest amount of solar lowers the wholesale price of electricity for a significant part of the day.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FGermanyPreandPostSolar-1.jpg&hash=d75b3a67691e03b4aa3a37b4a8b15a81) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/GermanyPreandPostSolar-1.jpg.html)

The US should reach a 1% solar grid by 2016.  Another year or two past that and we should start seeing price decreases on sunny days.

OK, that's a quick and dirty on how the US achieves a 70% cut in electricity associated CO2 emissions.  Do about twice what we're now doing.  Not a strain. 

Oh, we're in the process of closing almost 400 coal plants between now and 2016 (I think that's the date.  So far in the last couple years we've closed 189.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 12, 2014, 07:06:25 AM
US transportation.  Transportation is responsible for about 32% of US CO2 emissions.  Electricity is responsible for about 38%.

About a year ago President Obama managed to get a major increase in gas mileage fleet averages for all car companies.  And, for the first time, light trucks (pickups and SUVs) will have MPG limits. 

The average fleet MPG jumped from 24.1 to 54.5 by 2025.  On average the cars sold in 2025 will emit less than half as much CO2 due to less fuel burned per mile.  Over a 15 to 25 year essentially all the old gas guzzlers will have gone to the crusher.  There's 50% of the 70%.

Heavy duty trucks were already under a requirement to reduce fuel use 20% from 2011 levels by 2018.  New EPA regs are in the work to further increase requirements.

We've just found out that apparently EV batteries are now being manufactured for around $160/kWh.  That 's a third of what many people thought and it's at least five years ahead of the most optimistic predictions.  When Tesla's gigafactory comes on line it is expected that costs will drop another 30% putting the cost around $110.  Prices are expected to fall to $100/kWh as there are about $70/kWh material costs for batteries.

At roughly $250/kWh EVs become competitive with ICEVs.  We seem to be well under $250.  Look what happens to hybrids, PHEVs and ICEVs with battery prices around $180.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FMyVersion-1.png&hash=c396b8035f4acba8410f51af30cec021) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/MyVersion-1.png.html)

If all those facts/assumptions are correct the oil is on the way out for personal transportation.  Between higher mileage requirements for any fueled vehicles going forward and EVs likely to take over the market there should be no problem hitting 70% reductions.

People won't be asked to drive less.  Driving will become more convenient (no more trips to the gas station).  And the cost of driving will fall.

That's 70% of US CO2 sources which should reach the IPPC upper end target without bothering anyone (except those in the fossil fuel industry).  And we should end up with cheaper electricity and cheaper driving.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 12, 2014, 07:26:09 AM
The other 30%.  14% industry, 9% residential/commercial, and 6%  "other".

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2Fgases-co2.png&hash=c349089229fa6ddd2669253eb7dd2202) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/gases-co2.png.html)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html)

I don't have details and numbers for this 30%.  I follow electricity and vehicles closely.  So let me throw out some general statements concerning the other 30%.

Industrial CO2 emissions have a large cement component.   We've had a couple discussions about lower CO2 cement and even cement that absorbed CO2.

Efficiency has become an important issue and I would imagine companies are looking for ways to lower their fossil fuel use in manufacturing as part of their overall efficiency efforts.

Residential/commercial CO2 has a large heating component.  We are tightening up our buildings as well as moving away from central heating furnaces to efficient air exchange heat pumps and geothermal heat pumps.  That, along with building codes requiring much more efficient buildings will continue to lower residential/commercial CO2 emissions.

I'm not sure what that 6% "Other" is that the EPA is talking about.  If it's CO2 from biofuel/waste burning, then it's of no importance.  Any CO2 that comes from biofuel is carbon that was already in the carbon cycle.

Now, I probably haven't fully hit the 70% reduction from today's level by 2050, but I'll bet I've  hit well more than 40% from 2005.  In terms of electricity and vehicles it looks like no problem hitting 70% from now.  And, remember, the goal line is 35 years away.  We've got a lot of smart people working hard to find more ways to cut our emissions.  Again, I'm making no guarantee we'll succeed, but I do think we've got an excellent chance.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 12, 2014, 04:58:07 PM
Bob,

While this is the "But, but, but, China...." thread, in your Reply #60 you choose to focus on the US activities, saying "...  if the US can do it then it can be done", and then you show (cherry-pick) how US energy related CO2 emissions have dropped between 2007 and 2013, which are very atypical years because of the recession and the drill-baby-drill mantra of the non-conventional gas boom in those years.

However, as the first attached image from the following link indicates during those years (and through the estimate of 2014) the world emissions (due largely to China not achieving their anticipated energy intensity levels) continue following RCP 8.5 (BAU) through at least 2014.  Thus your premise is clearly flawed (garage-in, garage-out):

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/14/files/GCP_budget_2014_v1.0_lowres.pdf (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/14/files/GCP_budget_2014_v1.0_lowres.pdf)

See also:

P. Friedlingstein, R. M. Andrew, J. Rogelj, G. P. Peters, J. G. Canadell, R. Knutti, G. Luderer, M. R. Raupach, M. Schaeffer, D. P. van Vuuren, & C. Le Quéré, (2014), "Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets", Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2248

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2248.html (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2248.html)


Abstract: "Efforts to limit climate change below a given temperature level require that global emissions of CO2 cumulated over time remain below a limited quota. This quota varies depending on the temperature level, the desired probability of staying below this level and the contributions of other gases. In spite of this restriction, global emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and cement production have continued to grow by 2.5% per year on average over the past decade. Two thirds of the CO2 emission quota consistent with a 2 °C temperature limit has already been used, and the total quota will likely be exhausted in a further 30 years at the 2014 emissions rates. We show that CO2 emissions track the high end of the latest generation of emissions scenarios, due to lower than anticipated carbon intensity improvements of emerging economies and higher global gross domestic product growth. In the absence of more stringent mitigation, these trends are set to continue and further reduce the remaining quota until the onset of a potential new climate agreement in 2020. Breaking current emission trends in the short term is key to retaining credible climate targets within a rapidly diminishing emission quota."

Furthermore, you ignore the positive CO2 feedback mechanisms (such as permafrost degradation that is not in the IPCC numbers, deforestation, drought and flooding, etc.; I also note that these figures assume an Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of 3 degrees C, while this is too low according to preliminary current estimates) triggered by society's slow implementations of controls on anthropogenic CO2 emissions.  If you were to take responsibility for truly limiting global warming to less than 2 oC, then you would realize that your proposed plan would need to implement carbon capture and storage, CCS, within ten years, as indicated by the second attached image from the linked reference.

Best,
Abrupt Sea Level Rise
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 12, 2014, 07:11:40 PM
I cherry picked nothing.  I showed you some data.  You might have noticed that US CO2 levels have not risen as the economy improved.

Now, and I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself, what we are seeing in 2014 are signs that China is starting to hit peak coal.  It's hard for a drop in coal consumption in 2014 to have an impact on pre-2014 years.

The world is installing a lot of renewable capacity in 2014.  It's hard for a larger percentage of renewable generation in 2014 to have an impact on pre-2014 years.

If one does not take into account the changes occurring around the world and makes their predictions based on history along they may end up with significant egg on their face.


"Efforts to limit climate change below a given temperature level require that global emissions of CO2 cumulated over time remain below a limited quota. This quota varies depending on the temperature level, the desired probability of staying below this level and the contributions of other gases. In spite of this restriction, global emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and cement production have continued to grow by 2.5% per year on average over the past decade. Two thirds of the CO2 emission quota consistent with a 2 °C temperature limit has already been used, and the total quota will likely be exhausted in a further 30 years at the 2014 emissions rates."

30 more years at 2014 rates.  I put the probability of keeping at 2014 rates for the next 30 years close to zero.

Do some googling on renewable energy.  Learn what is happening around the world.  Countries are jumping on the renewable band wagon.  It will take a couple of years for installed capacity to impact fossil fuel use enough for CO2 emission levels to slow.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 12, 2014, 09:22:57 PM
Northwest region of China aims to build up its wine industry as coal falters.

Quote
By offering tax breaks to winemakers, Ningxia wants to produce wine worth 100 billion yuan ($16.3 billion) by 2020, or roughly 4-1/2 times the contribution of its entire farming sector to gross domestic product last year, said Cao Kailong, deputy director of the region's forestry ministry.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/coal-region-china-wine_n_5963482.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/10/coal-region-china-wine_n_5963482.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 12, 2014, 10:21:12 PM
I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself ...

Bob,
There is no need for you to repeat yourself, as anyone who forgot what you said can scroll back to remind themselves.  As for example you can scroll back, if you have forgotten that I pointed-out in earlier posts that China is already starting to replace coal with natural gas, and synthetic fuel from coal (& I agree that they are also investing in renewables, but I have presented analysis that their economic growth is resulting in their continued growth in GHG emissions); and I said that as neither of us have crystal balls that we will have to wait to see whether China's GHG emissions actually decrease, or not.
Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wili on October 12, 2014, 11:47:18 PM
Not sure if this is the right thread for this story. It seems to have something for nearly all sides to love and to hate:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/10/we-can-meet-c2-climate-target-and-heres-how-say-energy-experts (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/10/we-can-meet-c2-climate-target-and-heres-how-say-energy-experts)

We can meet 2C climate target – and here's how, say energy experts

Sir Bob Watson and a team of climate experts lay out a step-by-step action plan on how to meet global warming limit, but say success depends on ‘immediate, urgent, action’


Quote
Meeting a target of keeping global temperature from rising above 2C is still possible, according to 30 leading climate and energy experts.

The authors, who include former UK government scientific adviser Sir Bob Watson, conclude that staying under 2C needs “immediate, urgent action” at the highest levels of governments. The Tackling the Challenge of Climate Change report was presented at Ban Ki-moon’s UN climate summit in New York last month.

Watson rejects any suggestion that 2C is an inappropriate target saying it “plays into the hands of climate deniers” and would be a step backward from the urgent action that’s needed.

Waiting until 2025 or 2030 to bend the CO2 emissions curve will be too late to meet the 2C target. That would hit most of Africa, many small island states and the world’s poorest very hard.

The report is a “short, punchy document focused on near-term solutions,” said Watson while acknowledging there is little new in it. The steps outlined to achieve 2C are “hardly rocket science”.

These steps include increased energy efficiency in all sectors — building retrofits can achieve 70-90% reductions — and an effective price on carbon that reflects the enormous health and environmental costs of fossil fuels. Tackling air pollution is estimated to cost China 10% of its GDP. Retiring inefficient coal plants while only building new coal with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and massive increases in wind and solar PV are also crucial.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 13, 2014, 02:49:07 AM
wili,

Thanks for your interesting link; which also contains the following extract that I agree with:

Extract: "Nearly half of the world’s most powerful corporations are in the fossil fuel sector. They have extraordinary influence on government policies that Watson calls “a form of corruption” preventing the necessary action on climate. In countries like the US, Australia and Canada, industry leads and government follows he said.

Watson worries that time is rapidly running out but “people aren’t scared enough” to force governments to act."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 13, 2014, 05:25:23 AM
Keep your eye on what is happening with coal company stock prices. 

If things continue the way they are in the US and Australia coal won't have any money available to influence politics.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FShrinkingCoalIndustry.jpg&hash=2a0a8dd05a8906e7da9b53408637003f) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/ShrinkingCoalIndustry.jpg.html)

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/incredible-shrinking-coal-industry-43851 (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/incredible-shrinking-coal-industry-43851)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wili on October 13, 2014, 06:43:28 AM
Glad you found it useful, ASLR.

Here are some other links that may be relevant to the discussion here (apologies if they've already been linked):

China's Economic Boom Thwarts Its Carbon Emissions Goals

http://www.sciencenewsline.com/articles/2014100623540030.html (http://www.sciencenewsline.com/articles/2014100623540030.html)

Quote
Nature Climate Change reveals how carbon efficiency has improved in nearly all Chinese provinces.

But the country's economic boom has simultaneously led to a growth in CO2-emitting activities such as mining, metal smelting and coal-fired electricity generation – negating any gains.

China drives world carbon emissions to record high

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/21/us-un-climatechange-carbon-idUKKBN0HG0QA20140921 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/21/us-un-climatechange-carbon-idUKKBN0HG0QA20140921)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 13, 2014, 07:11:41 AM
Buried in the other stuff  in the first paper...

"Official Chinese statistics for the first half of 2014 show an encouraging 5 per cent decrease in carbon intensity, the most significant drop in many years."

Is it going to continue or is it just a fluke?  Only time will tell....
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 13, 2014, 07:23:25 AM
There are a couple new papers out on how we get our carbon problem fixed. 

Here is place where you can read  the first and follow the links to the Sir Bob paper (I haven't had time to read it yet).

"Meeting a target of keeping global temperature from rising above 2C is still possible, according to 30 leading climate and energy experts.

The authors, who include former UK government scientific adviser Sir Bob Watson, conclude that staying under 2C needs “immediate, urgent action” at the highest levels of governments. The Tackling the Challenge of Climate Change report was presented at Ban Ki-moon’s UN climate summit in New York last month.

Watson rejects any suggestion that 2C is an inappropriate target saying it “plays into the hands of climate deniers” and would be a step backward from the urgent action that’s needed.

Waiting until 2025 or 2030 to bend the CO2 emissions curve will be too late to meet the 2C target. That would hit most of Africa, many small island states and the world’s poorest very hard.

The report is a “short, punchy document focused on near-term solutions,” said Watson while acknowledging there is little new in it. The steps outlined to achieve 2C are “hardly rocket science”."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/10/we-can-meet-c2-climate-target-and-heres-how-say-energy-experts (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/10/we-can-meet-c2-climate-target-and-heres-how-say-energy-experts)

And Jacobson and Delucchi have an updated version of their 2009 paper on how we move the world to renewables in 20 years.

"According to a new study coauthored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, we could accomplish all that by converting the world to clean, renewable energy sources and forgoing fossil fuels.

"Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will."

He and Mark Delucchi, of the University of California-Davis, have written a two-part paper in Energy Policy in which they assess the costs, technology and material requirements of converting the planet, using a plan they developed.

The world they envision would run largely on electricity. Their plan calls for using wind, water and solar energy to generate power, with wind and solar power contributing 90 percent of the needed energy.

Geothermal and hydroelectric sources would each contribute about 4 percent in their plan (70 percent of the hydroelectric is already in place), with the remaining 2 percent from wave and tidal power.

Vehicles, ships and trains would be powered by electricity and hydrogen fuel cells. Aircraft would run on liquid hydrogen. Homes would be cooled and warmed with electric heaters – no more natural gas or coal – and water would be preheated by the sun.

Commercial processes would be powered by electricity and hydrogen. In all cases, the hydrogen would be produced from electricity. Thus, wind, water and sun would power the world.

The researchers approached the conversion with the goal that by 2030, all new energy generation would come from wind, water and solar, and by 2050, all pre-existing energy production would be converted as well."

You can read about the paper here, the actual paper does not seem to be on line at this time -

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html)

And one more tasty treat.  The Jacobson and Delucchi 2009 paper is available on the web.  Scientific American put it behind a paywall but you can access it here via Mark's site -

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf (http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf)

And to top it off, here's a page where you can find a few other of Mark's papers -

http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html (http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/susenergy2030.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: oren on October 14, 2014, 06:02:00 PM
Bob, I really like your convincing vision of market forces (with some government pressure) doing away with most of US emissions in the next 35 years. However, let's assume that it does work out.
What happens then? The price of fossil fuels should drop precipitously, given that a lot of demand will disappear. Imagine oil back at $30 a barrel. All those third world countries that today are limited in their growth by high energy prices will soak all that oil and use it dirtily, based on market forces. Why bother investing in clean energy when you're a poor country and oil trades at such low prices? (Same for coal, natural gas etc.). Even poor people in the US might be tempted to switch back to plain old fossils if the price is low enough.
I believe this is a very important risk in all future plans for emission reduction. Admittedly some supply will become uneconomical due to lower prices, but the rest might still be consumed by someone somewhere, if left to market forces alone.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: jbatteen on October 15, 2014, 01:21:49 AM
By the time fossil fuels are that cheap, it will be out of necessity to compete with clean solutions.  At that point it will probably be more economical for new installations to be renewable.  The only reason to use fossil fuels at all would be for old equipment that hasn't outlived its usefulness yet.

Maybe.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 15, 2014, 01:42:27 AM
Bob, I really like your convincing vision of market forces (with some government pressure) doing away with most of US emissions in the next 35 years. However, let's assume that it does work out.
What happens then? The price of fossil fuels should drop precipitously, given that a lot of demand will disappear. Imagine oil back at $30 a barrel. All those third world countries that today are limited in their growth by high energy prices will soak all that oil and use it dirtily, based on market forces. Why bother investing in clean energy when you're a poor country and oil trades at such low prices? (Same for coal, natural gas etc.). Even poor people in the US might be tempted to switch back to plain old fossils if the price is low enough.
I believe this is a very important risk in all future plans for emission reduction. Admittedly some supply will become uneconomical due to lower prices, but the rest might still be consumed by someone somewhere, if left to market forces alone.

According to the linked article, in order to fight-off encroachment of its market Saudi Arabia has chosen to maintain high crude oil production rates that has caused oil prices to drop 23 percent between June 2014 and Oct 13 2014, and looks likely to drop still further (possibly to around $70 per barrel). This is forecast to promote energy inefficiencies and to reduce the rate of growth of renewable energy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/oil-prices-plunge-as-production-rises-fueling-concern-in-opec/2014/10/14/9bfd877c-53c9-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/oil-prices-plunge-as-production-rises-fueling-concern-in-opec/2014/10/14/9bfd877c-53c9-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html)

Extract: "With a weak global economy, the customary swing producer of oil — Saudi Arabia — has cut prices instead of cutting production, setting off a scramble on world markets. Crude oil prices have tumbled more than 23 percent since June, including a more than 4 percent drop Tuesday. Prices fell below four-year lows to wind up at $81.84 a barrel for the benchmark grade, West Texas Intermediate."

edit: Needless to say such a drop in the price of oil will also stimulate the economies of the EU, the USA and China (among others).
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 21, 2014, 12:22:29 AM
How much <$30 oil is left in the world?  If demand exceeds cheap supply then the price of all oil increases to the selling prices of the most expensive supply needed to match demand.  (No one is going to sell for $20 when they can get $40.

EVs are likely to sell for a bit less than ICEVs once the market is mature.

Driving an EV on renewable electricity will cost about the same as driving an efficient ICEV on $1/gallon fuel.  About $30/barrel oil.

EVs are likely to be competitive with even $30 oil and in order to burn $30 oil someone would have to manufacture the vehicles.  Before we create a collapse in oil prices most manufacturers would have already transformed to EV manufacturers.  There's not likely to be sufficient ICEV demand to create new manufacturers.

Plus, developing/poorer countries tend to import a lot of used cars and drive them as long as they can be pieced together.  The developed countries are going to be exporting used EVs by the time oil prices might collapse.  A new battery and a used EV is good to go for a hundred thousand miles, just keep patching up the body and fixing the external systems.

Used EVs are going to get a lot of love in developing countries.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 21, 2014, 04:23:09 PM
How much <$30 oil is left in the world?  If demand exceeds cheap supply then the price of all oil increases to the selling prices of the most expensive supply needed to match demand.  (No one is going to sell for $20 when they can get $40.

EVs are likely to sell for a bit less than ICEVs once the market is mature.

Driving an EV on renewable electricity will cost about the same as driving an efficient ICEV on $1/gallon fuel.  About $30/barrel oil.

EVs are likely to be competitive with even $30 oil and in order to burn $30 oil someone would have to manufacture the vehicles.  Before we create a collapse in oil prices most manufacturers would have already transformed to EV manufacturers.  There's not likely to be sufficient ICEV demand to create new manufacturers.

Plus, developing/poorer countries tend to import a lot of used cars and drive them as long as they can be pieced together.  The developed countries are going to be exporting used EVs by the time oil prices might collapse.  A new battery and a used EV is good to go for a hundred thousand miles, just keep patching up the body and fixing the external systems.

Used EVs are going to get a lot of love in developing countries.

Bob,

While oren did mention non-sustainable crude oil prices some decades in the future at $30 a barrel, I assume he was not including any replacement costs for exploration and develop or for infrastructure. Because if you include these costs to sustain the supply of crude at relatively high levels prices rapidly escalate toward $70/barrel. I assume that he was thinking sometime after 2050 when the renewable energy may have matured (if one is optimistic), and the oil industry was selling their proven reserves at rock bottom prices in order to salvage the best of a potentially bad situation.  However, per the following linked article by Smil (2014) it may take 50 to 60 years (ie until circa 2070) for renewables to capture even 50% of the market share (see the attached figure), without assuming either revolutionary technological break-through (miracles) or heavy government intervention:

Vaclav Smil, (January 2014), "A Global Transition to Renewable Energy Will Take Many Decades", Scientific American, Vol 310, Issue 1

http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/scientificamerican0114-521.pdf (http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/scientificamerican0114-521.pdf)

see also:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-global-transition-to-renewable-energy-will-take-many-decades/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-global-transition-to-renewable-energy-will-take-many-decades/)

Therefore, as I have not seen Exxon's (or any other major oil & gas giant's) stocks drop, I assume that the market investors are not too concerned about your scenario.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 25, 2014, 03:10:45 PM
... However, per the following linked article by Smil (2014) it may take 50 to 60 years (ie until circa 2070) for renewables to capture even 50% of the market share (see the attached figure), without assuming either revolutionary technological break-through (miracles) or heavy government intervention...
That's a great graph, but I think the rise of modern renewables will be quite different than the rise of fossil fuels, in much the same way that cell phones rocketed past landlines in just a few years.

"Wireless penetration for the U.S. population has increased from 19.8 percent in 1997 to 102.2 percent in December 2012. (Source: CTIA – The Wireless Association, Wireless Quick Facts, 2012.)"

Miracle?   8)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 25, 2014, 05:24:07 PM
"  However, per the following linked article by Smil (2014) it may take 50 to 60 years (ie until circa 2070) for renewables to capture even 50% of the market "

Smil has moved from my "what's wrong with this person?" list to my "crackpot" list.

The world is about 11% renewable when it comes to electricity.  Moving another 39% to renewables will take 50 or 60 years?  That's simply a foolish prediction.

It will take 50 to 60 years to move only half our transportation to renewables?    I'm sorry, more foolishness.

The world is going to sit around with its collective thumb up its butt for half a century while climate change cooks us?  Please.

We're going to continue to pay more for electricity and transportation by using fossil fuels rather than switching to cheaper renewables?

Time to put Vaclac on ignore.

I'd put money on 50% by 2030.  And then things will really speed up.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 25, 2014, 05:37:04 PM
Let's do some simple math. 

In 2070 (assuming cars age at about the way they do now) almost all the cars on the road will have been manufactured after 2050.  In 2050 almost all the cars on the road will have been manufactured after 2030.

It is very likely that we will have affordable, long range EVs by 2020.  EVs that cost the same or less as same-model ICEVs and cost about 1/3rd as much to operate.  The advantages won't be obvious to everyone by 2021 but by 2025 few will be willing to pay more for an ICEV plus more to operate one.  By 2030 ICEVs will be dead.

That's Bob's prediction. 

If that's true then by 2050 we will use almost no oil for personal vehicles.  Public transportation will have mostly moved to electricity (watch for the switch to happen very rapidly with urban buses).  Batteries at $100/kWh will make long range trucking electric via battery swapping. 

Oil will only be used for transoceanic and continental flights, oceanic shipping and some agricultural and mining purposes.  Assuming biofuels don't replace those functions.

If one understands the economics of renewable energy and the efficiency of electric motors then the future reveals itself.  Economics rule.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 25, 2014, 05:47:38 PM
... However, per the following linked article by Smil (2014) it may take 50 to 60 years (ie until circa 2070) for renewables to capture even 50% of the market share (see the attached figure), without assuming either revolutionary technological break-through (miracles) or heavy government intervention...
That's a great graph, but I think the rise of modern renewables will be quite different than the rise of fossil fuels, in much the same way that cell phones rocketed past landlines in just a few years.

"Wireless penetration for the U.S. population has increased from 19.8 percent in 1997 to 102.2 percent in December 2012. (Source: CTIA – The Wireless Association, Wireless Quick Facts, 2012.)"

Miracle?   8)

Sigmetnow,

While I sincerely hope that you are correct; however, I am a Civil Engineer, and I am concerned that the amounts of adjustments to the infrastructure, political and economic systems will take time (decades), whatever type of revolutionary technology maybe coming down the line.

When western countries imposed stricter pollution controls in the 80's & 90's this contributed to the flight of industry from western countries to Asia (including China) where pollution standards were more lax (at the time).  Thus the regulations did not stop the carbon pollution, but actually helped to accelerated it (on a percentage basis the rate of increase of CO2 in the atmosphere increased in this post-Kyoto period).  With projections of 10 billion people in the world by 2050 (much of that in Africa), even if China imposes strict GHG emission standards (sooner rather than later), what is to stop the flight of industry to other poorer (more desperate) countries (India, Nigeria, or even Russia if their economy keeps declining)?

I agree that we need to develop better technology, but unless the world forces (say by a carbon fee with a dividend plan) the fossil fuel industry to internalize the costs of the carbon pollution that they are responsible for, then I believe that we will see a relatively slow transition to a renewable economy.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 25, 2014, 06:07:01 PM
" I believe that we will see a relatively slow transition to a renewable economy."

Check the installed cost for coal, wind, and solar.  Ask yourself why we'd replace worn out coal plants with the most expensive generation rather than the least expensive.  Just attrition would lead to a moderately rapid switch over.

Look at how wind and solar are bringing down the cost of electricity when installed at only modest amounts.  For example, the US states with at least 7% wind have seen their electricity costs drop while the cost in other states has risen.  Germany is seeing the wholesale price of electricity drop below late night levels on sunny days.

Wind destroys coal during late night/off peak hours.  If utilities try to support coal by jacking up peak hour prices then they face customers installing solar (and likely storage) in order to escape those high prices.  Coal simply gets destroyed.  You can see it happening right now, the value of coal stock has fallen 50% in the last couple of years as capital flees the coal industry.  A number of US coal companies have gone out of business.

Natural gas will hang in for a while because it's dispatchable and can fill in around wind and solar.  But we seem to have inexpensive storage coming in the very near future.   Cheap electricity from wind and solar stored for a few pennies per kWh is a NG killer. 

(It's looking like we may have vanadium redox flow batteries for $300/kWh.  And they will have 25+ year lifetimes with multiple cycles per day.  $300/25 yr/365 da/2 cycles = $0.01/kWh)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 25, 2014, 06:16:26 PM
ASLR wrote:
Quote
I agree that we need to develop better technology, but unless the world forces (say by a carbon fee with a dividend plan) the fossil fuel industry to internalize the costs of the carbon pollution that they are responsible for, then I believe that we will see a relatively slow transition to a renewable economy.

Your argument makes sense -- if you look at things from top down.  Big countries, big inertia.  But I've read several places that China is looking to decrease manufacturing cheap goods, and grow the service sector.  We may yet get over our habits of buying cheap junk, and stop manufacturing stuff for no good reason.

Besides, more and more cities, islands, and regions are going 100% renewable, now.  Bottom-up growth may be the key.  Solar panels on the house is just cheaper than the grid, in places.  Add a little storage, and folks will be charging their EVs without the grid (unless they get a rebate for plugging into the grid to help with grid storage...).  Add a little more storage, and folks will be cutting the grid cord much as they cut the landline phone cord.  Residential standby generators already have utility switches that cut the house off from the grid when in use (to protect utility workers, and keep your generator from trying to power your whole street).  Utility switch + residential solar could be the next big thing.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 25, 2014, 08:00:59 PM
ASLR wrote:
Quote
I agree that we need to develop better technology, but unless the world forces (say by a carbon fee with a dividend plan) the fossil fuel industry to internalize the costs of the carbon pollution that they are responsible for, then I believe that we will see a relatively slow transition to a renewable economy.

Your argument makes sense -- if you look at things from top down.  Big countries, big inertia.  But I've read several places that China is looking to decrease manufacturing cheap goods, and grow the service sector.  We may yet get over our habits of buying cheap junk, and stop manufacturing stuff for no good reason.

Besides, more and more cities, islands, and regions are going 100% renewable, now.  Bottom-up growth may be the key.  Solar panels on the house is just cheaper than the grid, in places.  Add a little storage, and folks will be charging their EVs without the grid (unless they get a rebate for plugging into the grid to help with grid storage...).  Add a little more storage, and folks will be cutting the grid cord much as they cut the landline phone cord.  Residential standby generators already have utility switches that cut the house off from the grid when in use (to protect utility workers, and keep your generator from trying to power your whole street).  Utility switch + residential solar could be the next big thing.

Again, while I applaud the technological advances that you (& BW) are citing; I clearly remember that only a few years ago green pundits were lionizing the possible advances in the fight against climate change to be had by rapid implementation of energy conservation (which is 100% free energy, as a penny saved is a penny earned, and thus better than the energy costs that you are referencing).  Unfortunately, the rates of advances by advocating for energy conservation did not occur as fast as the green pundits postulated, because capitalism cherry-picked the relatively fat profits from the relatively easy fixes for energy conservation, leaving the less tasty (less profitable) fruits still on the tree.  Similarly, I am concerned that the early advances of renewable energy that you are referring to will slow-down once capitalism cherry-picks the low-hanging fruit, leaving the full potential of renewable relatively slow to develop (ie taking decades).
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on October 25, 2014, 11:23:30 PM
And I see efficiency as a booming market.  Businesses and industry understand efficiency, the money not spent on energy flows right to the bottom line.

Most individuals understand efficiency and will become more efficient as long as it doesn't harm their lifestyle.  And those who don't really care about efficiency will have it forced on them, largely without their noticing.  Because the market will favor more efficient appliances/light bulbs/etc. the stuff available to purchase will become more efficient. 

Building regs are causing new construction to be more efficient and that will only increase as we find new affordable ways to increase energy efficiency.

A couple years ago the energy news feeds lit up with efficiency news.  Companies are investing major money trying to figure out how to grab a part of this new market.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 29, 2014, 10:23:32 PM
The linked Natural Resources Defense Council report "The Prevention and Control of Shipping and Port Emissions in China", issued in October indicates that poor regulation in China of bunker fuel means that in a single day one Chinese container ship can pollute as much as half a million trucks.

http://www.nrdc.org/international/china-controlling-port-air-emissions.asp (http://www.nrdc.org/international/china-controlling-port-air-emissions.asp)
http://www.nrdc.org/international/files/china-controlling-port-air-emissions-report.pdf (http://www.nrdc.org/international/files/china-controlling-port-air-emissions-report.pdf)

See also:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/10/china-shipping-emissions-pollution-nrdc (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/10/china-shipping-emissions-pollution-nrdc)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 12, 2014, 05:03:37 PM
Quote
When we talk about slowing growth in the China economy, we should recognize that slow growth in China means something far different than in the developed nations. In the latest quarter, growth slowed to 7.3%.

I'm seeing expectations that China's growth will slow and stabilize around 3%. 

China seems to have largely completed their enormous and extremely rapid development.  They're looking at an aging and shrinking labor force.  And they're looking to make their economic less dependent on manufacturing and moving into areas which are less energy demanding.

Time will tell.

Bob,

Per the following article, it is a big deal (if China makes a big effort) that China may peak their carbon emissions by 2030 (also consider that the Republican Congress has vowed to fight Obama's end of this deal).  Thus it appears that you are way too optimistic that China's carbon emissions may be peaking now.  Furthermore, if China does eventually start to reduce carbon emissions it seems likely that capital (including Chinese investments) will flow to developing countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, India, etc. to promote fossil fuel developments in these developing countries, thus kicking the can down the road.  The carbon fee & dividend plan that I discussed previously, includes strong tariffs on goods to/from countries that do not limit carbon emissions, thus preventing the temptation to kick the can down the road.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/john-kerry-our-historic-agreement-with-china-on-climate-change.html?action=click&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/john-kerry-our-historic-agreement-with-china-on-climate-change.html?action=click&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article)

Quote from John Kerry: "The United States intends to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 – a target that is both ambitious and feasible. It roughly doubles the pace of carbon reductions in the period from 2020 to 2025 as compared to the period from 2005 to 2020. It puts us on a path to transform our economy, with emissions reductions on the order of 80 percent by 2050. It is grounded in an extensive analysis of the potential to reduce emissions in all sectors of our economy, with significant added benefits for health, clean air, and energy security.


The Chinese targets also represent a major advance. For the first time China is announcing a peak year for its carbon emissions – around 2030 – along with a commitment to try to reach the peak earlier. That matters because over the past 15 years, China has accounted for roughly 60 percent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions world-wide. We are confident that China can and will reach peak emissions before 2030, in light of President Xi’s commitments to restructure the economy, dramatically reduce air pollution and stimulate an energy revolution.
China is also announcing today that it would expand the share of total energy consumption coming from zero-emission sources (renewable and nuclear energy) to around 20 percent by 2030, sending a powerful signal to investors and energy markets around the world and helping accelerate the global transition to clean-energy economies. To meet its goal, China will need to deploy an additional 800 to 1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other renewable generation capacity by 2030 – an enormous amount, about the same as all the coal-fired power plants in China today, and nearly as much as the total electricity generation capacity of the United States."

However, per the New York Times: “While the agreement with China needs no congressional ratification, lawmakers could try to roll back Mr. Obama’s initiatives, undermining the United States’ ability to meet the new reduction targets.”
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 12, 2014, 08:47:15 PM
As a follow-up on my last post, the following extract indicates even with stringent environmental planning China will have a hard time peaking its carbon emissions by 2035:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/world/asia/climate-change-china-xi-jinping-obama-apec.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/world/asia/climate-change-china-xi-jinping-obama-apec.html?_r=0)

Extract: "Wang Yi, a professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, said that a consensus had grown recently among experts in China that the 2030 date was achievable, and that 2025 would be a more ambitious goal. But as recently as last week, researchers from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the China Meteorological Administration issued a report saying that even with “stringent environmental planning,” the country’s emissions were not likely to peak until 2035."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 13, 2014, 07:24:40 AM
Let me ask you - if some industry moves from China to Vietnam or Namibia why would it automatically get powered by fossil fuels?  Why would those countries pick a more expensive energy source rather than a cheaper one?

Why would capital investments move to carbon production when it is more expensive than renewables?

Second, what can Congress do to stop US installation of renewable generation and the scheduled closure of coal plants?  What can Congress do to reverse the agreed on increase in car and truck efficiencies?  To bring back the incandescent light bulb?  To make TVs less efficient?

Third question, if China stops the growth in coal consumption in the next few years and puts a major push on getting drivers into EVs rather than iCEVs where does the increased growth in CO2 emission come from following, say, 2025?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 13, 2014, 10:03:58 PM
First, almost all economists do not accept your simple-minded logic as indicated by the following reference and attached image, that indicates a direct historical link between more fossil fuel use and economic growth. Essentially all economists understand that it will take many decades before renewables can replace fossil fuels in developing countries like India, Indonesia and the Philippines; and in the meantime the world's carbon budget is going bankrupt:

Michael Jakob, Jan Christoph Steckel, Stephan Klasen, Jann Lay, Nicole Grunewald, Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso, Sebastian Renner & Ottmar Edenhofer , (2014), "Feasible mitigation actions in developing countries", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 4, Pages: 961–968, doi:10.1038/nclimate2370

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2370.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2370.html)

Abstract: "Energy use is not only crucial for economic development, but is also the main driver of greenhouse-gas emissions. Developing countries can reduce emissions and thrive only if economic growth is disentangled from energy-related emissions. Although possible in theory, the required energy-system transformation would impose considerable costs on developing nations. Developed countries could bear those costs fully, but policy design should avoid a possible 'climate rent curse', that is, a negative impact of financial inflows on recipients' economies. Mitigation measures could meet further resistance because of adverse distributional impacts as well as political economy reasons. Hence, drastically re-orienting development paths towards low-carbon growth in developing countries is not very realistic. Efforts should rather focus on 'feasible mitigation actions' such as fossil-fuel subsidy reform, decentralized modern energy and fuel switching in the power sector."

Second, the Republican now control the power of the purse, and will use it to tempt 5 to 6 democratic Senators (e.g. the Republican could grant extra funding for military bases in these selected states) to vote for a funding bill that will roll-back many of Obama's EPA regulations (also a few democrats might switch their votes to avoid a government shut-down).

Third, China has only promised to use renewables for 20% of its energy by 2030; and if it were as easy as your simplistic argument implies to achieve a higher percentage of renewable use by 2030 then the Chinese would be more than pleased to say that now and to get all kinds of good press and international cooperation for doing so; but the truth is that it will be difficult for China to achieve the 20% renewable number even using a lot of nuclear power.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 13, 2014, 10:51:33 PM
Your response #1 does not address my questions.  Of course it will take a few decades to replace fossil fuels. 

Want to make another stab at answering my question?

Your response #2 seems to not understand the power of the veto.  Your math is flawed.  Two thirds of the Senate is 67 votes.  Assuming Republicans take Louisiana (likely) they will have 54.  67 - 54 = 13.  Turning a half dozen Democrats will not do the job.  Additionally, a lot of the more centrist Democrats have left the Senate. 

#3. Coal supplied the vast majority (69%) of China's total energy consumption in 2011. Oil was the second-largest source, accounting for 18% of the country's total energy consumption. 

Don't make the mistake of assuming that 100% of that input energy has to be replaced in order to make China carbon free.  Thermal plants and ICEVs are incredibly inefficient.  Electric motors are very efficient.    About 35% of the energy going into a coal plant comes out as electricity.  The 69% coal energy replacement needs something like "23% electricity".  ICEVs waste about 80% of their energy input while EVs waste only 20% or less.  One EV replacing an ICEV cuts initial energy inputs by 4x.

A replacement of 20% of China's energy production with renewables means a much larger reduction in CO2 production.

That said, you really didn't answer my #3 question either.  Care to give it a shot?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 13, 2014, 11:34:34 PM
My only response is that: "The road to hell is paved with good intensions".

The Kyoto Protocol was well intended but failed (Australia, Canada and Japan withdrew & the USA never joined).

If the world stays anywhere near our currently pathway until 2030, then polar amplification will trigger the nonlinearity of many irreversible positive feedback mechanisms; which, will result in higher climate sensitivities than assumed in the IPCC GCM projections; thus putting the world deeper into a radiative forcing hole.

Without a level of effort comparable to a carbon fee plus dividend plan by the world's leading countries, then I believe that we are all headed towards a very warm future.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 14, 2014, 04:41:35 AM
Which of my questions is that suppose to address?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TeaPotty on November 14, 2014, 06:39:42 AM
AbruptSLR, what do you think of all of the additional Coal that China plans to burn until 2030? Is it significant enough to slow down short-term warming?

All that soot though, has to be really bad for the ice.

I also wonder about all the much-touted "CCS". Isn't the captured carbon exported to be burnt elsewhere, hence being pointless?

Btw, I (and surely countless others) so greatly appreciate your tireless computing and assembling of this giant climate puzzle. Learn a lot from your posts.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 14, 2014, 07:18:38 AM
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FChinaPeakCoal.png&hash=ad251de3c9e350dbad827503e5b1d8f4) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/ChinaPeakCoal.png.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: oren on November 14, 2014, 05:54:52 PM
Bob,
your logic is flawless but I believe not entirely realistic. It will all happen as you claim, but more slowly. It is difficult to prove using your logic tools, but people in large systems make revolutions only slowly. Fossil fuel is proven, known, no risk to the decision maker. Solar + storage (for example) can fail in so many ways, the fact that it's cheaper and better will not help the Chinese politician that took a risk and lost his job (or his head). The important driver for such decision makers is perceived risk and newness of the chosen technology for a given project, not necessarily actual risk and lifetime cost. Walk in your predecessors shows and steer slowly, is how you survive long in a bureaucratic system.
All this means slower uptake than dictated by pure economical reasoning.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 14, 2014, 10:16:27 PM
AbruptSLR, what do you think of all of the additional Coal that China plans to burn until 2030? Is it significant enough to slow down short-term warming?

All that soot though, has to be really bad for the ice.

I also wonder about all the much-touted "CCS". Isn't the captured carbon exported to be burnt elsewhere, hence being pointless?

Btw, I (and surely countless others) so greatly appreciate your tireless computing and assembling of this giant climate puzzle. Learn a lot from your posts.

I think that China would like to switch away from coal-fired power plants as quickly as practicable; however, with hundreds of newly built coal-fired power plants it will take years to switch to other fuels like natural gas.  Furthermore, CCS requires burning up to 25% more coal to get the energy for the CCS process (the CO2 captured can be used for some other purposes but is generally just injected into appropriate formations in the ground).

In general terms, I concur with oren that Bob's logic is not wrong, but that it will take much longer to get to the stages that he is expecting to happen quickly; and that as indicated in the attached plot the world will likely follow a pathway similar to RCP 6 (the second curve from the bottom in the plot) with the USA-China pact and the EU cuts only.

Furthermore, I believe that other developing countries (like India) have seen China's success at burning coal and that they will follow this same path for a couple of decades until they get to a similar level as what China is at now.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 15, 2014, 05:42:29 AM
Bob,
your logic is flawless but I believe not entirely realistic. It will all happen as you claim, but more slowly. It is difficult to prove using your logic tools, but people in large systems make revolutions only slowly. Fossil fuel is proven, known, no risk to the decision maker. Solar + storage (for example) can fail in so many ways, the fact that it's cheaper and better will not help the Chinese politician that took a risk and lost his job (or his head). The important driver for such decision makers is perceived risk and newness of the chosen technology for a given project, not necessarily actual risk and lifetime cost. Walk in your predecessors shows and steer slowly, is how you survive long in a bureaucratic system.
All this means slower uptake than dictated by pure economical reasoning.

Here's the timeline I presented -

Quote
Of course it will take a few decades to replace fossil fuels. 

You are correct that politicians/leaders/whomever can slow down renewables.  That's happening right now in Australia.

But they can also speed them up.  That's happening right now in China and India.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: viddaloo on November 15, 2014, 08:15:30 AM
Mainstream Media Circle Jerk Cheerleads "Historic" U.S.-China Climate Accord (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF7_SRX9eSQ#)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: dlen on November 15, 2014, 10:28:38 PM
...
What happens then? The price of fossil fuels should drop precipitously, given that a lot of demand will disappear. Imagine oil back at $30 a barrel. All those third world countries that today are limited in their growth by high energy prices will soak all that oil and use it dirtily, based on market forces.
...

There is an argument, that this will not happen , at least not so drastically, and this is more or less given by Hugo Bardi. (http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.de/2014/11/the-crash-of-oil-prices-and-european.html (http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.de/2014/11/the-crash-of-oil-prices-and-european.html)) Look at the image:
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-aWhhs35JNow%2FVFjhwfVCLxI%2FAAAAAAAANek%2FhCxf5dw2I54%2Fs1600%2Fmurphyfig_1.png&hash=20cac2ae1d9d21d48302f3e53041920b)
The new oil resources are more and more expensive. They act as a price buffer, because when oil price falls, also a part of the production ceases on grounds of profitability.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 19, 2014, 06:44:04 PM
China just made a huge announcement:
Quote
The Chinese government announced Wednesday it would cap coal use by 2020. The Chinese State Council, or cabinet, said the peak would be 4.2 billion tonnes, a one-sixth increase over current consumption.

This is a staggering reversal of Chinese energy policy, which for two decades has been centered around building a coal plant or more a week. Now they’ll be building the equivalent in carbon-free power every week for decades, while the construction rate of new coal plants decelerates like a crash-test dummy.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/19/3593567/china-climate-target-peak-coal-2020/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/19/3593567/china-climate-target-peak-coal-2020/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wili on November 19, 2014, 06:59:14 PM
Great minds...

I just posted this on the 'Coal' thread, but it's probably more appropriate here.

I would think that achieving this goal would make it easier to reach the over-all CO2 emissions peak well before the 2030 goal they pledged themselves to recently.

If China really becomes something of a leader on this, perhaps they can apply pressure on others, such as India, Canada and Australia...??
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 19, 2014, 08:02:31 PM
...think alike.  :-)

I am heartened that it seems much has been happening, "in secret", to reach new agreements.  The situation may not be quite as dire as it appears, politically.

Canada is breaking ranks with Australia over the Green Climate Fund:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/17/canada-breaks-with-australia-contribute-green-climate-fund?CMP=share_btn_tw (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/17/canada-breaks-with-australia-contribute-green-climate-fund?CMP=share_btn_tw)

If the climate conversation shrugs at China, now, and focusses more of its ire on Australia, I'd say something's gotta give Down Under.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: viddaloo on November 20, 2014, 02:03:24 AM
China just made a huge announcement:
Quote
The Chinese government announced Wednesday it would cap coal use by 2020. The Chinese State Council, or cabinet, said the peak would be 4.2 billion tonnes, a one-sixth increase over current consumption.

This is a staggering reversal of Chinese energy policy, which for two decades has been centered around building a coal plant or more a week. Now they’ll be building the equivalent in carbon-free power every week for decades, while the construction rate of new coal plants decelerates like a crash-test dummy.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/19/3593567/china-climate-target-peak-coal-2020/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/19/3593567/china-climate-target-peak-coal-2020/)

Heartening. Bit like a heavy smoker who really needs to quit *yesterday*, but who wows to start smoking more and more until 2030, when his smoking will be reduced (probably due to his early death). The irony is that in the real–world allegory, everyone seems to think that this smoker is doing a *GREAT* job to quit the habit. Gotta love the Wise Ape :)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: sidd on November 20, 2014, 05:19:23 AM
The Chinese announcements are significant. Standing Committee announced the deal with USA. This new announcement was made by the State Council, (these guys are the bureaucracy, of course very tightly interlocked with the Standing Committee.) This tells me that both the Standing Committee and the State Council have the unity and confidence to set markers on both peak coal use and, more important, timing of peak coal use.

The People's Daily has this to say:

" Installed nuclear power capacity will reach 58 gigawatts and that under construction will top 30 gigawatts by 2020.

Installed capacity of hydro-, wind and solar power is expected to stand at 350 gigawatts, 200 gigawatts and 100 gigawatts, respectively."

Bear in mind that China has repeatedly smashed wind and solar targets in the past.

The got smart people. They will go after load management next, turn up a hundred million thermostats at a time by half a degree in summer peaking load, and they can do it too. Too juicy a target not to.

sidd
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 20, 2014, 09:11:23 AM
And I have a feeling they will start to make a big move in EVs.  They're already building small scale. Autos are both something they need domestically and a lucrative business throughout Asia and the rest of the world.

China has the cash to build massive battery factories along the lines of Tesla, but more of them and bring battery prices down very rapidly.  For China that would mean new sources of income, cuts in oil imports, and progress on climate change.

China understands electric personal transportation.  China has around 200 million electric bikes on its road.  EVs are just a scale up to four wheels and a roof over your head. 

I wouldn't be surprised it China takes the <$25k EV market away from traditional car makers.  They'll start out on their own roads, work out the design details, and then under price others with very large economies of scale.


Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: jbatteen on November 20, 2014, 10:13:22 PM
Wow!  200 million electric bikes!  I'm off to go Googling, but if you have any particular links you'd like to share about China and electric bikes I'd love to read them.  I ditched the car and have been riding a Chinese electric bicycle, made by Currie, and it's pretty much the greatest thing ever.  Very much unlike many other garbage Chinese engineered products, this thing works fantastic.  I wish they would catch on in America like they have in China.  In terms of watt-hours per mile, I don't think there's any more efficient form of powered transportation.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 21, 2014, 05:21:21 PM
Bloomberg article on the huge energy investment China needs to make, and the environmental considerations spurring it on.

Quote
Protests over pollution at least three times this summer turned violent in Chinese cities. In Hangzhou, in the eastern part of the country, rioters overturned cars and set fire to police vehicles in May because of plans to build a waste incinerator near a residential neighborhood.

In the weeks leading up to last week’s APEC summit, China closed factories and limited traffic in Beijing so the air wouldn’t be offensive to visiting dignitaries. In the capital, 141 enterprises were asked to cut production from Nov. 3 to Nov. 11, according to the Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau. Xinhua News Agency said limits were placed on 3,900 plants in Hebei province and 1,953 firms in Tianjin city.

A government previously focused on growth at all costs has suddenly become sensitive to its environmental challenges, activists say.

‘Social Discontent’

Smog in Beijing and Shanghai made the authorities “realize that it has to take measures to rein in pollution, otherwise it will cause social discontent,” said Li Shuo, a climate policy researcher at Greenpeace East Asia. “Health is of immediate concern to everyone.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-21/latest-china-revolution-seeks-great-leap-for-clean-energy.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-21/latest-china-revolution-seeks-great-leap-for-clean-energy.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 22, 2014, 12:06:54 AM
Quote
A government previously focused on growth at all costs has suddenly become sensitive to its environmental challenges, activists say.

This is a forcing factor unrecognized by many who predict the rate of coal replacement by renewables.  Once people understand that they could be living with clear air without paying more for electricity they are going to demand an end to coal.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: sofouuk on November 23, 2014, 01:52:31 PM
Wow!  200 million electric bikes!  I'm off to go Googling
motorcycles are banned in many chinese cities, cars are too expensive for most urban residents, cycling is uncomfortable in hot and humid summers, and public transport is 'crowded'. so ...
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 25, 2014, 06:44:01 PM
Another sign China is becoming more health-conscious.  About breathing, anyway.

After signing, in 2003, the World Health Organization’s framework convention on tobacco control, which requires a “comprehensive ban on all tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship,” China may now be ready to act.

Quote
Draft legislation has been published on the State Council’s website, presumably for public comment. A proposed ban would prohibit smoking in indoor public places and “outdoor living spaces” in schools, colleges, women’s and children’s hospitals, and fitness venues. Smoking outdoors would be allowed only in designated areas. The proposed legislation also bans the sale of cigarettes to minors through vending machines and would eliminate some smoking scenes from movies and TV shows.
Quote
One reason for China’s delay in adopting stricter prohibitions on tobacco advertising and smoking is that the government raked in nearly $132 billion from tobacco sales last year.
http://247wallst.com/consumer-products/2014/11/25/china-moves-to-cut-smoking-cigarette-advertising/ (http://247wallst.com/consumer-products/2014/11/25/china-moves-to-cut-smoking-cigarette-advertising/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 26, 2014, 03:34:11 AM
China plans to start a nationwide carbon market in the next two years following a pledge to cap emissions by 2030.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-25/china-plans-national-carbon-market-by-2016-amid-emission-pledge.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-25/china-plans-national-carbon-market-by-2016-amid-emission-pledge.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 10, 2014, 03:26:13 AM
Chinese smartphone maker unveils home air purifier.
Quote
Today, Lei responded by unveiling a home air purifier that sends pollution readings to mobile phones and alerts users when its filter’s dirty.
...
Air purifiers are a must-have home appliance in Beijing and elsewhere in northern China, where smog levels have rebounded after a government-ordered break in factory production during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum early last month. Chinese President Xi Jinping said the country was making an unprecedented effort to clean up pollution.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-09/xiaomi-unveils-air-purifier-amid-worries-about-china-s-pollution.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-09/xiaomi-unveils-air-purifier-amid-worries-about-china-s-pollution.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on December 10, 2014, 03:59:51 AM
Air pollution is going to be an additional driver in China and India.  People in those countries have suffered from coal and oil fumes for decades.  Once citizens fully realize that they don't need to live with crappy air they will put a lot of pressure on their governments to fix the problems.

There are plenty of Indians who experienced Agra before and after they moved most of the polluting plants away from the city in order to protect the Taj and the tourist business.  That air clean up meant that some other part of the state was made worse, which is a bit harder to justify.  Many people will have a strong 'clean it up' attitude when it can be done without harming others.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Neven on December 10, 2014, 09:38:27 AM
Many people will have a strong 'clean it up' attitude when it can be done without harming others.

Many people also have a strong 'clean it up' attitude, even when it harms others. They just don't want to know about it.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on December 10, 2014, 07:09:13 PM
That's true.  But when I talked with people living in Agra who were enjoying their cleaner air they were very aware that they had only taken their problem and shoved it off on others.

Now that we have the technology to eliminate coal (and petroleum for personal transportation) India and China can actually clean their air rather than exporting the pollution.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 11, 2014, 09:54:15 PM
For life!
Quote
China’s Former Energy Chief Gets Life in Prison for Bribery

The former head of China’s energy agency was sentenced to life imprisonment for taking 36 million yuan ($5.8 million) in bribes to approve projects, a Chinese court said.
...
One case involved the son receiving a Nissan Teana as a gift after his father approved a heavy-polluting chemical plant in the eastern Chinese city of Ningbo.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-10/china-s-former-energy-chief-jailed-for-life-for-decade-of-bribes.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-10/china-s-former-energy-chief-jailed-for-life-for-decade-of-bribes.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wili on December 23, 2014, 07:22:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvr8AjT0aD0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvr8AjT0aD0)

Oh, I guess that's "to life" not "for life"  ;D

Back to China:

China Coal Use Can Peak this Decade: What Did the IEA Miss?

   
Quote
The International Energy Agency (IEA) published its annual Medium-Term Coal Market Report yesterday, with a lot of attention devoted to proffering the notion that China’s coal consumption will continue to grow until the end of this decade, despite a dramatic slowdown this year, and ambitious new energy and climate targets. A thorough analysis of Chinese energy trends and targets suggests that coal peak requires action but is much more achievable than the IEA made it seem.
    An analysis of the IEA’s calculations suggests they may be a very bullish outlook for the world’s most polluting form of energy based on data from the world’s largest coal companies.

    In its annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) the IEA has now adjusted its central forecast for China’s coal use downwards twice; driven by significant growth in renewable energy installation targets, the rapid acceleration of gas imports and a materially lower assumption for China’s gross domestic product growth.

    The latest edition (from November) anticipates 1.3% annual growth from 2012 to 2020 but even this scenario does not achieve a CO2 peak by 2030, a target that China recently committed to – so it will probably need to be adjusted again.

    But when it looks at the coal market in particular the IEA comes up with different figures. The Coal Market Report suggested growth in China’s coal use would be twice as fast as that predicted in the World Energy Outlook – just a month earlier.

    The IEA predicts that coal consumption will grow from 2013 to 2019 at 2.5% a year. Taking into account the probable fall in coal consumption this year that means coal use would have to grow at over 3% per year from 2015 – almost three times the rate predicted in the IEA’s own World Energy Outlook.

    This rate of growth would make it impossible to contain global warming, as rapid China CO2 emission growth would make peaking global CO2 emissions impossible.



    In summary: The four energy trends driving down China's coal demand

    Recent changes in China’s energy landscape are nothing short of a revolution, with 2014 set to mark the first annual drop in China’s coal consumption and possibly CO2 emissions this century.

    China has committed to a set of ambitious targets and actions that significantly diversify the Chinese electricity sector, building energy security and curbing both coal use and CO2 emissions much more than the IEA’s forecasts and China’s own proposed coal target for 2020 would imply. There are four very important trends underlying the slowdown and eventual peak:

    1) Consumption outside the power sector is likely to continue to decline after 2014, due to structural shift in the economy, and substitution by electricity and gas

    2) Non-fossil energy targets imply very significant expansion of CO2-free power generation, currently dominated by hydropower but with new renewable sources set to gain importance

    3) Efficiency of both thermal power plants and industrial processes continues to improve at a significant rate

    4) Coal to gas, coal to oil and other coal chemical conversion projects will not be realized at anywhere near the scale that the coal industry hoped and environmentalists feared, eliminating the largest potential source of new demand

    For the Chinese government, setting targets for coal use and CO2 emissions that consolidate China’s actual level of ambition would be important for coordinating domestic and global efforts. In the meanwhile, it is important for the rest of the world to pay attention to the totality of the market trends and government actions in China.

http://theenergycollective.com/lauri-myllyvirta/2174746/china-coal-use-can-peak-decade-what-did-iea-miss?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29 (http://theenergycollective.com/lauri-myllyvirta/2174746/china-coal-use-can-peak-decade-what-did-iea-miss?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29)

Of course, wrt point #3 above, efficiency does not always lead to decreased total use of energy, and has often perversely lead to higher use--Jevons Paradox and all that. Real reductions in energy use will depend on well thought out and implemented policies, not just industrial efficiency.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on December 23, 2014, 07:51:05 PM
Jevons Paradox is often misapplied.

First, is there any indication that electricity is being unused due to cost?  In most cases, no.  There may be a few cases of people turning off the lights when they leave a room but that does not mean that if the price of electricity goes down 10% they will start leaving them on. 

There may be a few people who will heat/cool their houses a bit more if electricity becomes more affordable.  But people aren't going to buy a few more TVs and turn them on all at the same time.  Or put two or three refrigerators in their kitchens.

Efficiency has a ratcheting effect.  Once you install LEDs, get a more efficient heat pump, put a occupation sensor on your kid's room, etc. you aren't likely to walk those actions back due to cheaper electricity.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Neven on December 23, 2014, 11:27:24 PM
But what to do with the money saved? Buy an extra iPad, or go to Bangkok for a week?Choices, choices...  ;D
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on December 24, 2014, 02:09:34 AM
Invest it for retirement?  Use it to help others?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: SATire on December 24, 2014, 02:01:53 PM
Mary Christmess ;-)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 30, 2014, 02:48:31 AM
Amidst a slowing economy, competition and supply gluts, and pollution concerns, China plans to move 11% of its steel manufacturing to South Africa.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-29/welcome-to-the-era-of-chinese-outsourcing (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-29/welcome-to-the-era-of-chinese-outsourcing)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: JimD on January 02, 2015, 05:36:04 PM
Amidst a slowing economy, competition and supply gluts, and pollution concerns, China plans to move 11% of its steel manufacturing to South Africa.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-29/welcome-to-the-era-of-chinese-outsourcing (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-29/welcome-to-the-era-of-chinese-outsourcing)

To reinforce a bit of what is happening that is described in the above article.  Some have pointed out the positive aspect of China starting to rein in pollution just like the US and the Europeans did some time ago.  This is marked as a sign of progress.  But there is another way to look at this situation.  When the US instituted much stronger environmental regulations on US companies that event was one of the factors used in the justification of globalization.  The end result was not lessor global pollution just less pollution in the US.  Now that China has started to reach the tolerance or its citizens to intense pollution their companies are following the US model and off shoring a part of their production to a place desperate for economic development and which will ignore pollution concerns for some time.  Thus we might see less pollution in China but there is not likely to be less pollution on a global basis. 
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on January 02, 2015, 08:00:12 PM
Amidst a slowing economy, competition and supply gluts, and pollution concerns, China plans to move 11% of its steel manufacturing to South Africa.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-29/welcome-to-the-era-of-chinese-outsourcing (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-29/welcome-to-the-era-of-chinese-outsourcing)

To reinforce a bit of what is happening that is described in the above article.  Some have pointed out the positive aspect of China starting to rein in pollution just like the US and the Europeans did some time ago.  This is marked as a sign of progress.  But there is another way to look at this situation.  When the US instituted much stronger environmental regulations on US companies that event was one of the factors used in the justification of globalization.  The end result was not lessor global pollution just less pollution in the US.  Now that China has started to reach the tolerance or its citizens to intense pollution their companies are following the US model and off shoring a part of their production to a place desperate for economic development and which will ignore pollution concerns for some time.  Thus we might see less pollution in China but there is not likely to be less pollution on a global basis.

It seems like you're predicting industry will flee China in search of places where they can burn cheap fossil fuels. 

Cheap wind and solar did not exist when the US started cracking down on pollution.  These are different times.  Wind and solar are cheaper than new the coal that someone would have to build in a different country.  China has lots of hydro to fill in around wind and solar.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 07, 2015, 04:09:05 PM
This article is primarily about how lower commodity prices are driving South American countries to destroy more and more of their land as income dries up.  But China's loans and purchases play a big role.
Quote
“Price declines and slower growth make nations more desperate, and they can be more apt to weakening environmental standards in order to grab at any investment,” said Gallagher, who is the co-author of The Dragon in the Room: China and the Future of Latin American Industrialisation.

When prices fall, “countries and investors seeking bargain-basement prices swoop into the Amazon”, he said. “We can expect to see a surge in Chinese investment in the Amazon in this manner in years to come.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/06/commodities-latin-america-amazon-deforestation (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/06/commodities-latin-america-amazon-deforestation)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Laurent on January 13, 2015, 09:44:23 AM
Climate Leadership Under China's Economic Domination?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-pierson-holding/climate-leadership-under-_b_6456886.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-pierson-holding/climate-leadership-under-_b_6456886.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 14, 2015, 04:08:46 PM
China relaxes its one-child policy. Less than 10 % of potential parents want to take advantage of it.

Two kids? Thanks but no say some Chinese
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/13/china/china-one-child-policy/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/13/china/china-one-child-policy/index.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 16, 2015, 04:49:42 PM
The linked article (and associated image) indicates that no matter how hard the Chinese Technocrats work to fight air pollution, the air quality index, AQI, in Beijing remains off the chart:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/beijing-airpocolypse-beyond-index-hazardous-smog (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/beijing-airpocolypse-beyond-index-hazardous-smog)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 20, 2015, 03:34:10 PM
China's economy is slowing, with increasing emphasis on services and less on manufacturing.
Quote
President Xi Jinping is pushing pro-market policies to boost new economic drivers as China enters a “new normal,” a phrase he has adopted to reflect slower, more-sustainable expansion.
...
A commentary by state-run Xinhua News Agency said it was unsurprising that China’s “miraculous, break-neck growth is over” and that people should “get over it.” Much of the pain was self-inflicted by a government pushing ahead with market-driven change on all fronts, it said.
Quote
Secondary industry -- made up of activities including manufacturing and construction -- contributed 3 percentage point to growth, compared with 3.8 percentage point from services, “reflecting an undergoing structural change,” said Liu Li-Gang, head of Greater China economics at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. in Hong Kong.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-19/china-gdp-beats-estimates-leaving-2014-expansion-close-to-target.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-19/china-gdp-beats-estimates-leaving-2014-expansion-close-to-target.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 20, 2015, 07:36:17 PM
Quote
BEIJING, Jan 20 (Reuters) - China beat a key energy efficiency target in 2014, cutting its energy intensity by 4.8 percent from a year earlier, the State Council said on Tuesday, as it tries to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

The government had aimed for a 3.9 percent cut in energy intensity after a 3.7 percent drop in 2013 in order to meet its target of cutting energy intensity to 16 percent below 2010 levels by 2015.

Energy intensity is a measure of the amount of energy needed to increase GDP, and high levels of energy intensity indicate a high cost of converting energy into GDP.

China aims to lower the efficiency measure by relying less on energy-intensive manufacturing, mostly powered by coal, which is causing massive health problems and has made China the world's biggest emitter of climate-changing greenhouse gases.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL4N0UZ1QJ20150120 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL4N0UZ1QJ20150120)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 22, 2015, 04:59:55 PM
The linked article provides new evidence of China's interest in exploiting Antarctica's minerals despite an international agreement preventing it:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-20/chinas-desire-for-antarctic-mining-despite-international-ban/6029414 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-20/chinas-desire-for-antarctic-mining-despite-international-ban/6029414)

Furthermore, I would like to note that China is currently exporting some of its manufacturing capital to open new factories in less developed countries with lower labor costs; while stimulating domestic consumption by a policy of quantitative easing.

These trends will serve to help keep the world on a BAU pathway for decades to come.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 24, 2015, 04:23:00 PM
I am a fan of the phrase, "It is perfectly acceptable to use fossil fuels to help wean yourself off of fossil fuels."

Is it possible to make an argument that moving manufacturing to less developed countries will, in the long run, provide the resources rich and poor countries alike need if we are to move the entire world to a greener way of life?

Just asking.   :)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 24, 2015, 05:58:23 PM
I am a fan of the phrase, "It is perfectly acceptable to use fossil fuels to help wean yourself off of fossil fuels."

Is it possible to make an argument that moving manufacturing to less developed countries will, in the long run, provide the resources rich and poor countries alike need if we are to move the entire world to a greener way of life?

Just asking.   :)

Sigmetnow,

I believe that it would be much easier to concur with your hypothesis if it was implemented beginning in the 70's, 80's, or even in the 90's; however, now as the Brookings Institute has projected that from 2010 to 2030 the worldwide population of middle-class will increase from 1.9 Billion to 4.7 Billion, I believe that using fossil fuel to make this great leap forward of the middle-class population will push the world so far beyond the 2 C temperature increase threshold that we will be activating/simulating so many positive feedback mechanisms that even if we wean society largely off fossil fuels by 2050 (which does not sound realistic to me) then the increase in effective climate sensitivity will off-set any anthropogenic reductions in GHG emissions, leaving the world moving (possibly more slowly) towards a climate change crisis.

I may concur that the best why to control future population growth is by spreading education and providing for basic human needs (particularly for women), but the world is likely already committed (possibly because the 1st world did not adequately engage the 3rd world early enough) to a world population of around 10 Billion by 2050; so even if we stabilize the world population around that level (say by using fossil fuel to stimulate economic growth in developing countries) we need to realize that there is only one Earth* and its carrying capacity is limited.

Best,
ASLR

*: Even if China wants to develop the last untouched continent of Antarctica and Elon Musk wants to develop Mars, and both China and the USA are actively planning to develop the Moon; in my eyes these are all acts of desperate minds, and that the resources required to implement such desperate plans will put an even greater burden on Earth's biosphere.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 24, 2015, 06:19:15 PM
Sorry, I should have decoupled "fossil fuels" from "manufacturing" more clearly in my comment.  ;-)

Why I think remote manufacturing could be part of a solution is: businesses would need to build new facilities in those poor countries.  They will need to build new infrastructure, and they would be crazy to build-in a dependence on fossil fuels, today.  A new factory, powered by renewables, could improve the living standards of the local area (and the country), and make them more able to afford other green improvements.  Meanwhile, the country that "farmed out" the factory would make a profit that they could use to better their own people.  I think it could be a win-win, if done right.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 24, 2015, 06:49:31 PM
Sigmetnow,

While I concur that your logic has some merit, my problems with it include:

1. The climate change crisis is actually a crisis of a lack of human willpower.  We have known about the potential threats of climate change since at least the 1960s (when told about this threat LBJ decided that it could easily be addressed by the geoengineering means of introducing sulfates into the atmosphere so why bother helping the developing countries), and when we could have addressed the threats of climate change in the 60s for a one hundredth of the effort that it will take now, it was still too much bother for human willpower to face back then.

2.  You seem to wishfully believe that you can control the fossil fuel industry on a whim, when actually this industry dominates politics worldwide, and private industry is too disorganized to mount an effective effort without something like a carbon fee & dividend plan to steer the invisible hand of the market place in the right direction.

3. I believe that such wishful plans give decision makers an excuse to do nothing as your plan would magically work by itself and would require no effort (willpower) on their parts.  Thus we can all happily rely on the RCP 2.6 scenario to protect society because some scientists say that it is still a physical possibility, when in reality without more willpower it is just wishful thinking that will encourage decision makers to stay on a BAU pathway because they can rely on your plan to make their lives easy.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 24, 2015, 09:26:02 PM
Let say China invests in manufacturing industry in India, per the linked article (see extract & attached image), this will lead to an increase in GHG emissions through at least 2040.  The climate (or doomsday) clock is ticking, and time is running out for us all to take serious (not wishful thinking) action:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/briefing-india-energy-and-climate-change-challenge/ (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/briefing-india-energy-and-climate-change-challenge/)

Extract: "But, despite the expected renewables boom, they are expected to only provide for about 16 per cent of India's projected energy demand in 2040 overall. Fossil fuels are projected to account for 75 per cent.

So India is planning ways to boost the low-carbon energy sector, it's just going to do it while also trying to expand its fossil fuel base. Modi's government is unabashedly technology neutral when it comes to upgrading India's archaic energy infrastructure. If a technology drives economic growth and can provide citizens with an improved standard of living, Modi is willing to exploit it, regardless of its carbon intensity.
As a consequence, India's energy-related emissions are set to more than double by 2040, the IEA suggests"
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 24, 2015, 10:20:16 PM
AbruptSLR,

And yet 62%, $224 billion, of clean energy and low carbon development in 2012 was paid for by private funds, not public. (Source: World Bank).  Figures from Bloomberg New Energy Finance show that total new funds for wind, solar and other low-carbon energy technologies grew 16% to $310 billion last year.

While I completely agree that more needs to be done to encourage the transition of existing fossil fuel emitters and not simply let them "wait for someone else to do it", I also believe the plummeting cost of renewables will quickly make investing in the alternatives, going forward, as unthinkable as, say, investing in land-line telephony rather than cell phones.  Those businesses still stuck with inefficient and volatile FF sources will find it hard to compete with the newer, cheaper, cleaner model.

"Those denouncing renewable energy sources as too expensive will also have to get off their soapboxes in 2015 with Deutsche Bank predicting that solar will be at grid parity in most of the world by the end of 2017."
http://tcktcktck.org/2015/01/global-energy-transition-surges-renewables-funding-grows/65976 (http://tcktcktck.org/2015/01/global-energy-transition-surges-renewables-funding-grows/65976)

India does indeed look like "a tough nut to crack."  But some significant announcements are expected when President Obama visits there next week.  I feel certain it will improve the clean energy numbers projected for that country up to now!
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 25, 2015, 04:05:30 PM
Right direction!

Coal production in China drops for the first time in 14 years.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/coal-production-drops-china-1st-time-14-years-28445890 (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/coal-production-drops-china-1st-time-14-years-28445890)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 25, 2015, 05:01:54 PM
India does indeed look like "a tough nut to crack."  But some significant announcements are expected when President Obama visits there next week.  I feel certain it will improve the clean energy numbers projected for that country up to now!

According to the linked article, you should not expect India to commit to a peak year for carbon emissions anytime soon (see extract below).

http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/01/25/india-obama-climatechange-idINKBN0KY0F920150125 (http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/01/25/india-obama-climatechange-idINKBN0KY0F920150125)

Extract: "India, the world's third largest carbon emitter, is reluctant to follow the United States and China in committing to a peak year for emissions on the grounds it needs economic growth to alleviate poverty."

Furthermore as I have pointed-out before, economists understand that it will take many decades before renewables can replace fossil fuels in developing countries like India, Indonesia and the Philippines (see attached graph); and in the meantime the world's carbon budget is going bankrupt:

Michael Jakob, Jan Christoph Steckel, Stephan Klasen, Jann Lay, Nicole Grunewald, Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso, Sebastian Renner & Ottmar Edenhofer , (2014), "Feasible mitigation actions in developing countries", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 4, Pages: 961–968, doi:10.1038/nclimate2370

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2370.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2370.html)

Abstract: "Energy use is not only crucial for economic development, but is also the main driver of greenhouse-gas emissions. Developing countries can reduce emissions and thrive only if economic growth is disentangled from energy-related emissions. Although possible in theory, the required energy-system transformation would impose considerable costs on developing nations. Developed countries could bear those costs fully, but policy design should avoid a possible 'climate rent curse', that is, a negative impact of financial inflows on recipients' economies. Mitigation measures could meet further resistance because of adverse distributional impacts as well as political economy reasons. Hence, drastically re-orienting development paths towards low-carbon growth in developing countries is not very realistic. Efforts should rather focus on 'feasible mitigation actions' such as fossil-fuel subsidy reform, decentralized modern energy and fuel switching in the power sector."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 27, 2015, 07:05:27 PM
Per the linked article Obama feels that India needs to do more to control emissions than it is currently willing to agree to do:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/world/asia/obama-ends-visit-with-challenge-to-india-on-climate-change.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/world/asia/obama-ends-visit-with-challenge-to-india-on-climate-change.html?_r=0)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Laurent on January 27, 2015, 11:16:48 PM
How China's Top Court is Encouraging More Lawsuits Against Polluters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-a-finamore/how-chinas-top-court-is-e_b_6555914.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-a-finamore/how-chinas-top-court-is-e_b_6555914.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 29, 2015, 04:16:33 PM
Why India Will Keep Growing Faster Than China
China's authoritarian government has some advantages — for now
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-28/why-india-will-keep-growing-faster-than-china (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-28/why-india-will-keep-growing-faster-than-china)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 03, 2015, 02:03:28 PM
China’s new wind power installations reached 23.35GW in 2014, with an increase of 45.1% from 2013
http://www.evwind.es/2015/02/02/chinas-new-wind-power-installations-reached-23-35gw-in-2014-with-an-increase-of-45-1-from-2013/50281 (http://www.evwind.es/2015/02/02/chinas-new-wind-power-installations-reached-23-35gw-in-2014-with-an-increase-of-45-1-from-2013/50281)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: mati on February 03, 2015, 05:43:06 PM
China's plans for nuclear has also had some changes...

By around 2040, PWRs are expected to level off at 200 GWe and fast reactors progressively increase from 2020 to at least 200 GWe by 2050 and 1400 GWe by 2100.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/ (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/)

they are planning an interesting strategy to marry different nuclear technologies in order to
recycle the fuel from PWR in Candu reactors.  with the Candu's also being able to use Thorium
in the fuel mix.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/ (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fworld-nuclear.org%2Fassets%2F0%2F16%2F660%2F4455%2Fa5ba3d15-1071-4c3c-8f1b-70364b2289f5.png&hash=cfeea3b81b1618d819ccc7e36f613d9e)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 04, 2015, 05:46:27 PM
China To Create Carbon Market And Cap Emissions
Quote
Ever since China started launching regional markets in 2013 there has been discussion about a national market, which could eventually dominate the international scene and act to both limit China’s dirty fossil fuel emissions as well as strengthen global efforts to put a price on carbon. The approach of the United Nations’ climate talks in Paris at the end of 2015, where leaders hope to reach a new global treaty, amplifies the significance of any actions toward mitigating GHGs that China takes this year.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/04/3619026/china-gets-ready-for-national-carbon-market/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/04/3619026/china-gets-ready-for-national-carbon-market/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 04, 2015, 07:57:08 PM
Bad weather in the U.S.?  Keep calm and blame China.
http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/pollution-china-winter-weather-america-smog (http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/pollution-china-winter-weather-america-smog)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 05, 2015, 01:15:49 AM
The linked article indicates that China's policies are making their stressed water supply problem even worse:

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/01/14/chinas-efforts-to-ease-water-stress-failing-say-researchers/ (http://www.rtcc.org/2015/01/14/chinas-efforts-to-ease-water-stress-failing-say-researchers/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 28, 2015, 01:11:55 AM
Air pollution turned this Chinese manufacturing city into a ghost town.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-02-26/air-pollution-turned-this-chinese-city-into-a-ghost-town (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-02-26/air-pollution-turned-this-chinese-city-into-a-ghost-town)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 28, 2015, 06:56:08 PM
China is currently engaged in a charm offensives to strengthen relations with the African Union, AU, and is committing to pour billions of dollars of investments into the world's second largest continent in order to both continue BAU economic development and to obtain greater diplomatic influence with developing countries as it exhibited at the IPCC COP discussions in Peru where almost all African countries supported the China lead initiative to blunt any agreement calling for large mandatory cuts in GHG emissions.  Communist China is not a democracy and they can effectively use strongman (Xi Jinping) rule to effectively thwart EU and US lead efforts to slow down BAU growth in the developing world (see links and extracts).  With such economic/political developments so well advanced it will likely prove impossible to stay below RCP 6.0 thru at least 2070:

http://mgafrica.com/article/2015-02-06-china-surges-charm-offensive-in-big-year-for-relations-with-africa (http://mgafrica.com/article/2015-02-06-china-surges-charm-offensive-in-big-year-for-relations-with-africa)

Extract: "At the heads of states and government summit last month, China inked a deal with the AU that commits it to a staggering plan to connect all 54 member states through a network of modern highways, airports and high speed railways."

http://www.worldcoal.com/coal/27022015/China-investment-in-African-resources-increasing-1981/ (http://www.worldcoal.com/coal/27022015/China-investment-in-African-resources-increasing-1981/)

Extract: "“China has been rapidly expanding its global footprint via international acquisitions as it gradually evolves into a capital exporting country”, said Dr Fang. “The economic slowdown of growth in China is unlikely to hinder global commerce but is likely to unlock further opportunities for African mining and other sectors as well”."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 01, 2015, 04:54:35 PM
Work has begun on a shipping canal across Nicaragua, by a Chinese billionaire, with a total estimated development cost of $50 Billion. Additionally, the agreement allows the developer to build roads, two ports, an airport, a free trade zone and a tourism complex, and to immigrate large numbers of Chinese workers to Nicaragua (the second poorest country in Latin America).  As no one can figure-out how such a project (that started construction in January 2015) could turn a profit for the billionaire; there is widespread speculation (see linked article and extracts) that the Communist Chinese government is using the billionaire as a front in order to gain geopolitical gains throughout Latin America, to thwart US interests, and to better secure their supply lines in the coming era of increasing geopolitical conflicts.

This all implies that China can meet their GHG emission goals by pushing emissions overseas to still poorer developing countries (in Latin America, Africa and South/Southeast Asia) while ensuring their own wealth and security using strongman tactics (such as buying local patronage by building discounted infrastructure in order to continue resource exploitation in some of the poorest countries in the world).  With over 1 billion people worldwide living off of incomes of USD $1.25 per day, or less; China's strategy to express the moral imperative of developing the economies for such people, while paying for such developments by largely unregulated resource development, should allow China to water-down any COP21 plan in Paris to allow them to continue on a BAU pathway for developing countries, for decades to come.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102451065#. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/102451065#.)

Extract: "The development plans include the building of roads, two ports—one in the Pacific and another one in the Caribbean—an airport, a free trade zone and a tourism complex with hotels. HKND has approval to build some of the other elements even if it doesn't build the canal itself.



Naturally, the lack of an apparent financial feasibility has raised questions about whether the Nicaragua Grand Canal is a commercial project for HKND—or a geopolitical project for the Chinese government.



If Beijing is the project's real sponsor, then its essentially limitless pockets would mean big problems for Panama.

"If there are geopolitical interests behind the building of the canal, and the investment returns do not matter, and nothing has to be repaid, then the Panama Canal would be severely affected. There is not enough demand for two canals," Sabonge said."

Edit: The following linked article (see extract) elaborates on why the Communist Chinese government may well be working in the background (as opposed to up-front as they are doing in Africa):

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/26/us-nicaragua-canal-idUSKBN0K410620141226 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/26/us-nicaragua-canal-idUSKBN0K410620141226)

Extract: "For now, China's government can stay aloof and claim no part in the project in case it founders, experts say.

"If the Chinese government is behind this project, it has to be responsible for everything," said an official from Taiwan's embassy in Nicaragua, speaking on condition of anonymity. "If it fails, that's a bad image. They have to maintain their distance."
China's involvement would be a direct challenge to the United States, which controlled the Panama Canal until 1999."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 01, 2015, 06:06:58 PM
The linked article indicates that that Communist Chinese government is supporting calls to limit air pollution from the standpoint of public health.  This supports the idea that Communist China will move aggressively to cut aerosol emissions associated with public health (which will reduce the negative radiative forcing associated with such aerosols), while still allowing the Communist government to continue gunning GHG emissions through 2030 by such means as hydrofracking and pipeline, development of natural gas which do not threaten the public health directly.

http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/documentary-on-air-pollution-in-china-grips-a-nation/?_r=0 (http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/documentary-on-air-pollution-in-china-grips-a-nation/?_r=0)

Extract: "So far at least, the government has not shut off the documentary, and some officials may welcome the chance to build greater support for cutting pollution. The website of People’s Daily, the ruling Communist Party’s main newspaper, was one of the first to post “Under the Dome.” And the recently appointed minister of environmental protection, Chen Jining, praised the video. He told Sina.com, a Chinese website, that he had watched it and sent a message to Ms. Chai.
“Chai Jing’s documentary calls for public environmental consciousness from the standpoint of public health,” Mr. Chen said. “It deserves admiration.”"
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 02, 2015, 07:08:11 PM
The linked article points to research showing that China's efforts to clean-up its air pollution does not necessarily lead to reduced GHG emissions and that in some cases it actually increases GHG emissions.  The researchers conclude that implementing carbon pricing would be a much better way for China to limit GHG emissions (if its leaders were serious about fighting climate change):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-s-war-on-air-pollution-may-cause-more-global-warming/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-s-war-on-air-pollution-may-cause-more-global-warming/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 02, 2015, 08:38:38 PM
More on the new Chinese air pollution documentary, "Under the Dome." (See ASLR @152 above.) The article has a link to the video on YouTube, which is being crowdsourced for an English translation.

Quote
One of China’s most prominent environmentalists, Ma Jun, told the Guardian that this $160,000 documentary has become “one of the most important pieces of public awareness of all time by the Chinese media.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/02/3628458/chinese-air-pollution-documentary-clears-the-haze/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/02/3628458/chinese-air-pollution-documentary-clears-the-haze/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 03, 2015, 12:24:37 AM
China's bursting coal bubble.
Quote
Chinese thermal coal peaking is like changing the direction on an escalator. It will be a shock for those who assumed the direction would always be up,” said James Leaton, research director at Carbon Tracker Initiative.

These sudden shifts in sentiment away from coal in China are already forcing producers to cut back hard and restructure their business models. Rio Tinto last week merged its coal and copper mining divisions, and announced significant cuts in Australia.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11443648/Chinas-bursting-coal-bubble-raises-fear-of-stranded-assets.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11443648/Chinas-bursting-coal-bubble-raises-fear-of-stranded-assets.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Laurent on March 03, 2015, 06:35:13 PM
Meat boom propels China's ecosystems into total collapse
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2776847/meat_boom_propels_chinas_ecosystems_into_total_collapse.html (http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2776847/meat_boom_propels_chinas_ecosystems_into_total_collapse.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 03, 2015, 06:56:44 PM
Meat boom propels China's ecosystems into total collapse
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2776847/meat_boom_propels_chinas_ecosystems_into_total_collapse.html (http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2776847/meat_boom_propels_chinas_ecosystems_into_total_collapse.html)

Laurent,

Thanks for the link.  The following extract makes it clear to me that as the Chinese tend to believe that nature is there to serve the wishes of man, and as they have a large reserve of funds (from decades of trade imbalances), they will put a lot of pressure on forestlands in South America, Africa, Southeast Asia; which will result in accelerated global deforestation and reduced CO2 absorption rates:

Extract: "But there's a larger-scale context to this problem that may affect us all. China's grain production has risen fivefold since the 1950s, outstripping the pace of population growth. Despite this, the nation is no longer self-sufficient.

The shift towards more meat production has placed a demand for soybean and cereal animal feed that can no longer be met internally. In 2012, China imported more than 60% of all the world's soybeans that were available for export, and cereal imports are also on the up.

Reliance on imports to fill a shortfall in home produce is nothing new. But in China's case, the additional risk that agriculture is increasingly unsustainable may amplify the demand. The potential scale of demand for imports is bound to have repercussions for global food production and food prices.

Unless reforms are introduced quickly, the rest of the world may well find that they are sharing China's trade-off with nature .. "
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Tor Bejnar on March 03, 2015, 09:12:27 PM
Quote
Unless reforms are introduced quickly, the rest of the world may well find that they are sharing China's trade-off with nature
Of course, we are already sharing the outcome of China's 'trade-off with nature'.  And more so, the USA's century's worth of 'trade-off with nature', etc., etc.

Recent posts here sure support a doom and gloom future.  I expect that a multi-year drought in China will let us see what a super-power does to feed its people to prevent rebellion at home.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: icefest on March 03, 2015, 09:19:31 PM
While there is much debate in the western world about "red" china (why do people feel the need to add red/communist in front of it anyway?); I feel that China will be the least of our problems in the long term. The current growth trajectory of India, and the lack of a stable committed government introduces much more carbon risk than a China where the birth rate is less than 2 people per couple.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 03, 2015, 10:49:11 PM
While there is much debate in the western world about "red" china (why do people feel the need to add red/communist in front of it anyway?); I feel that China will be the least of our problems in the long term. The current growth trajectory of India, and the lack of a stable committed government introduces much more carbon risk than a China where the birth rate is less than 2 people per couple.

First, Taiwan used to claim leadership for all of China (see the link below for the residual complex politics associated with this matter, and note that Communist China still claims rights to Taiwan), so as to avoid confusion for older readers, referring to Communist China can help.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/washingtons-obsolete-taiwan-policy/ (http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/washingtons-obsolete-taiwan-policy/)
 
Second, as a communist country China operates internationally in a different manner than purely capitalistic countries; and readers would do well to recognize this reality, as it means that they will work strategically to gain access to resources and food internationally, as well as to gain third world support in the UN and at the COP21 negotiations in Paris.

Third, climate change is about radiative forcing and the rapidly growing middle class in Communist China will have a much larger carbon footprint in the coming decades than will the average person in India.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: icefest on March 04, 2015, 03:21:50 AM
Thank you for the clarification ASLR.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 07, 2015, 01:02:24 AM
China tries to ditch its coal addiction, and reduce its energy intensity.
Quote
The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said in its annual report on Thursday that it would implement policies aimed at reducing coal consumption and controlling the number of energy-intensive projects in polluted regions.

China is trying to strike a balance between improving its environment and restructuring away from an economy dominated by energy intensive industries like steel making and construction towards one focused more on consumption and the service sector.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/05/us-china-parliament-ndrc-idUSKBN0M108V20150305 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/05/us-china-parliament-ndrc-idUSKBN0M108V20150305)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 07, 2015, 02:54:42 AM
This updated article on the viral video "Under The Dome" now is linked to a version that has English subtitles.
http://www.takepart.com/video/2015/03/02/china-air-pollution-smog-crisis-carbon-pollution-viral-video (http://www.takepart.com/video/2015/03/02/china-air-pollution-smog-crisis-carbon-pollution-viral-video)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 07, 2015, 04:51:56 PM
"Under the Dome" video has now been blocked from mainland China websites.
Quote
The video's disappearance comes as the country's top annual political meeting, the National People's Congress (NPC), is underway in Beijing, under thick white skies and with the city's air quality registering as "very unhealthy", according to a US embassy reading.

Online discussions related to the video remain unblocked on China's popular social networks, and users of China's Twitter-like Sina Weibo on Saturday voiced frustration with the government's abrupt censorship move.

"Chai Jing's documentary, 'Under the Dome', has already been 'harmonised' on all of the mainstream video sites," wrote one user on Sina Weibo, using an ironic term for authorities' blocking of objectionable content. "Why? Give us a reason first!"

"When will this country be able to face the attitudes of its own people?" another Sina Weibo user wrote.
http://www.france24.com/en/20150307-smog-documentary-blocked-china-after-becoming-viral-hit/ (http://www.france24.com/en/20150307-smog-documentary-blocked-china-after-becoming-viral-hit/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Lewis C on March 07, 2015, 07:59:24 PM
Good comment by Aubrey Meyer of GCI in response to the Guardian's article on Thursday.

" AMeyer    2d ago


The subject of Li Keqiang's comments above are Chinese Pollution local to China. The only aspect of Chinese Pollution that is not local to China but global is Greenhouse Gas Pollution.

Non-Chinese people and countries other than China may be legitimately concerned about those emissions. However, if they are concerned about this, there is a lot more to concerned about than just China.

We (globally) have already gone over an 'event-horizon' that now leads - according to NASA - inexorably to the full collapse of the Antarctic ice-shelf as a result of 80% of emissions having come from the industrial countries.

If there is to be any chance of not crossing an 'event-horizon' to uncontrollable rates of climate change taking hold globally, seriously organized rates of international emissions-control are needed urgently. "

A link in the above may not repost, so here's the address for those interested in how nations' rights and duties towards the Atmospheric Commons can be allocated: http://morphic.it/cbat/#domain-1 (http://morphic.it/cbat/#domain-1) 

Regards,
Lewis

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 07, 2015, 10:56:06 PM
How about a update on China?

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FChina%2520Coal%2520Use%2520Through%25202014.jpeg&hash=c4103aa4729be239b30c515940179d60) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/China%20Coal%20Use%20Through%202014.jpeg.html)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FChina%2520Inc%2520Dec%2520CO2%2520Output%2520FF.jpg&hash=2b5ca4fbab605eee7991090c9f16ef49) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/China%20Inc%20Dec%20CO2%20Output%20FF.jpg.html)

http://econews.com.au/news-to-sustain-our-world/china-fossil-fuel-emissions-down-as-coal-use-drops/ (http://econews.com.au/news-to-sustain-our-world/china-fossil-fuel-emissions-down-as-coal-use-drops/)

Makes me smile....


Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wili on March 07, 2015, 11:45:42 PM
Good catch, but a bit late to the game here, Bob (you haven't been out trying to make a living or anything, have you [ghasp] ! ;D). Back on Feb. 27 over on the coal thread, I wrote:

Quote
WSJ and now a few other sources are claiming that China's total coal consumption actually fell last year (didn't just grow at a slower rate) by 2.9%.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/26/3627490/china-coal-peak/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/26/3627490/china-coal-peak/)

If confirmed, this is potentially pretty big news, especially if its a result of policy and not just slowdown or some random temporary set of coincidences.

I guess Bob Wallace is traveling, or probably he'd be all over this with plenty of gloat and 'I told ya so'!  ;D

CarbonBrief claims that their total CO2 emissions may have fallen, too (last graph), though this is preliminary. http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/02/official-data-confirms-chinese-coal-use-fell-in-2014/ (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/02/official-data-confirms-chinese-coal-use-fell-in-2014/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 08, 2015, 12:28:44 AM
Out of the country for a couple of months.  Spending money rather than making more.

You brought the news, but did you post any pretty pictures like those?

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 08, 2015, 10:07:19 PM
Quote
China's State Council unveiled an Energy Development Strategy Action Plan (2014-2020) last year that promises to cap annual primary energy consumption at 4.8 billion tonnes of standard coal equivalent until 2020.

That means the annual growth of primary energy consumption must be limited within 3.5 percent for the next six years.

In addition to controlling the volume of energy use, the NEA is also stepping up efforts to reduce coal consumption and boost the share of non-fossil fuels.

Currently, China's coal consumption accounts for about 66 percent of the primary energy use, 35 percentage points higher than the world average.

China aims to bring the share of non-fossil energy to 15 percent by 2020 and 20 percent by 2030.

According to the annual government work report delivered by Premier Li Keqiang Thursday, the Chinese government plans to reduce the energy intensity, or units of energy per unit of GDP, by 3.1 percent in 2015.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-03/05/c_134041972.htm (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-03/05/c_134041972.htm)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wili on March 09, 2015, 04:04:43 AM
Welcome back, and hope you had a nice trip.

And yes, those are rather nice little graphs! :)

But hear are some other numbers to contemplate:
Quote
China’s installed coal capacity will increase from 846 GW last year to around 1016 GW by 2018 and more than 1367 GW in 10 years’ time

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2015/02/china-coal-capacity-forecast-to-hit-1367-gw.html (http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2015/02/china-coal-capacity-forecast-to-hit-1367-gw.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: viddaloo on March 09, 2015, 04:48:49 AM
Welcome back, and hope you had a nice trip.

And yes, those are rather nice little graphs! :)

I ditto that, wili: Welcome back, Bob!  ;D

And nice looking graphs are very important. A central band from the Oslo punk scene used to be called Life… But How To Live It?. Add twenty years and you have Collapse, but how to graph it?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 09, 2015, 05:21:16 AM
Welcome back, and hope you had a nice trip.

And yes, those are rather nice little graphs! :)

But hear are some other numbers to contemplate:
Quote
China’s installed coal capacity will increase from 846 GW last year to around 1016 GW by 2018 and more than 1367 GW in 10 years’ time

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2015/02/china-coal-capacity-forecast-to-hit-1367-gw.html (http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2015/02/china-coal-capacity-forecast-to-hit-1367-gw.html)

I don't know what to make of those claims given that the Chinese government has stated that they intend to cut coal use.

Perhaps whomever put those numbers together failed to count in plants that are to be closed.  (That is very commonly done when people talk about Germany building coal plants.

Quote
More than 70 percent of China's coal firms are making losses, the head of the coal industry association said on Thursday, with prices eroded by falling demand growth, a worsening supply glut and a war on smog.

Wang Xianzheng, the chairman of the China Coal Industry Association, told an industry forum that the problems facing the coal sector were expected to get worse, official news agency Xinhua reported.

Wang said the problems had been piling up for the sector since the second half of 2012, with slowing consumption growth unable to absorb sustained capacity increases, especially in the face of rising imports.

He added that more than half of Chinese coal enterprises were now struggling to pay the wages of their workers.

As part of its war on pollution, China has been trying to reduce the share of coal in its overall energy mix. It has vowed to cap total production capacity at 4.1 billion tonnes by 2015, and has been closing coal-fired power plants in smog-hit regions like Beijing.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0FT1GG20140724 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0FT1GG20140724)

It could be that China is building, like German, supercritical coal plants that can load follow.  Perhaps they need more power during limited times of the year but intend to dial these plants back or shut them down a lot of the time.  Increased capacity does not automatically mean increased consumption.

Or it could be that China intends to increase coal plant capacity for electricity generation while decreasing coal use for other purposes.  Here's a quote from an interview with a Chinese official...

Quote
“Today, there are approximately 600,000 industrial boilers in China that still use coal-fired boilers and direct coal firing for heating; most of these are in residential areas in urban centers in north China. Taking Beijing as an example, there are still 44,000 households with coal stoves in the western district within 2nd Ring Road; the impact of urban environmental pollution caused from these coal stoves is direct and severe.”
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wili on March 09, 2015, 12:09:55 PM
"Or it could be that China intends to increase coal plant capacity for electricity generation while decreasing coal use for other purposes."

Good point. IIRC, they are also decreasing the smelting of Pig iron, which is a very coal-intensive activity.

Of coarse, as with the US, some of this reduction may in fact be another case of 'off shoring' their emissions.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Csnavywx on March 09, 2015, 05:45:02 PM
Article is a bit old, but it might provide some perspective:

http://fortune.com/2014/07/11/coal-china/ (http://fortune.com/2014/07/11/coal-china/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 13, 2015, 03:18:02 PM
In order to help meet their carbon emission targets maybe China can/will import more cheap high-carbon-footprint goods from India:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/03/12/india-budget-energy-idINKBN0M812D20150312 (http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/03/12/india-budget-energy-idINKBN0M812D20150312)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 13, 2015, 11:37:27 PM
Chinese climate video was banned because it was too popular?
Quote
The banning of ‘Under the Dome’ is not a Chinese governmental denial or rejection of environmental concerns or Chai Jing’s argument,” said Daly, who believes instead that the ban is a reminder that the the Central Government insists on setting the agenda and providing the solutions. Daly said that Chai Jing’s telling of the story in a very personal voice, and her statement that fighting air pollution was a “personal battle” are radical notions in China.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/13/3633355/china-smog-documentay-banned-after-going-viral/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/13/3633355/china-smog-documentay-banned-after-going-viral/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 15, 2015, 07:06:54 AM
The only explanation I've seen is that the government did not want to create a celebrity.

They knew the film was being made, there are fairly high ranking officials interviewed in the film.  The government is not trying to hide the air pollution problem, they've openly talked about it and have been working to decrease levels.

If anything it seems like the central government hanging on to power and preventing people outside the government from gaining political/popular power.   
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 16, 2015, 03:38:33 PM
The linked Carbon Counter article entitled: "China has already exceeded its 2015 "cap" on energy consumption" shows that China's emissions statistic cannot always be relied upon and are subject to revision subject to the objectives of the Communist Party: 

https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/china-has-already-exceeded-its-2015-cap-on-coal-production/

Extact: "China has put in place plans to “cap” coal consumption and production in 2020. For whatever reason, this is regularly rendered as “China has plans to peak coal consumption by 2020″. This is not exactly correct. The cap itself can, and probably will, simply increase after 2020.



China has already exceeded its 2015 cap on coal production, and it did so two years ago. You won’t know this if you read the BP Statistical Review of World Energy or any other set of published statistics. They still tell you that China produced 3.68 billion tonnes of coal in 2013.
However, buried in a recently published statistical communique from China is the following important note, data have been revised based on the results of the Third National Economic Census. The output of coal in 2013 has been revised from 3.68 billion tons to 3.97 billion tons.
In other words, coal production in 2013 was revised upwards by 7.9%, and by 0.29 billion tonnes. This revision is the equivalent of 1/3 of the annual coal production of America.
And this raises another problem. There is a long history of official manipulation of statistics in China."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 17, 2015, 05:50:04 AM
A few years back China predicted peak coal use in 2015. Later they stated that they would not be able to peak in 2015, but it might take them until 2015.

China slowed growth in coal use starting in 2012 and consumption fell a bit in 2014 from their 2013 high.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FChina%2520Coal%2520Use%2520Through%25202014.jpeg&hash=c4103aa4729be239b30c515940179d60) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/China%20Coal%20Use%20Through%202014.jpeg.html)

China may or may not have hit peak coal. It is quite possible that we'll see some modest upturn over the next couple of years.  But China continues to aggressively install renewable energy and has slowed its growth in electricity consumption.

I think it's relatively safe to say that China is bouncing around on the top of their 'coal plateau' and is likely to be decreasing coal consumption sooner than 2020.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Laurent on March 17, 2015, 10:36:45 PM
China Targets Big Oil In Wars On Corruption, Pollution
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/17/china-corruption-oil-coal-pollution-crackdown_n_6882690.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/17/china-corruption-oil-coal-pollution-crackdown_n_6882690.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 18, 2015, 06:24:19 AM
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FChina%2520GDP%2520Growth.png&hash=ec247f66334858855ea17f60772c9b4e) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/China%20GDP%20Growth.png.html)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FChina%2520Inc%2520Dec%2520CO2%2520Output%2520FF_1.jpg&hash=1a983532c196619d277fb568c6e5a9d5) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/China%20Inc%20Dec%20CO2%20Output%20FF_1.jpg.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 18, 2015, 04:12:29 PM
China lifts solar installation target for 2015 by 19%, with a focus on commercial installations.
Quote
China has set a record high solar installation target of 17.8GW for 2015, according to official documents released by the National Energy Administration on Tuesday – a 19 per cent jump on the 15GW target floated in January.

The new solar target contains no designated quotas for utility-scale or distributed projects, according to Deutsche Bank, which will instead be left for provincial governments to designate. But changes to policy have turned the focus from the distributed market to commercial installations.

But the NEA has introduced a more streamlined project approvals process to the policy, which could make the target – which is a whopping 37 per cent higher than Deutsche Bank’s estimates of 13GW – easier to achieve.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/china-lifts-solar-installation-target-for-2015-by-19-18471 (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/china-lifts-solar-installation-target-for-2015-by-19-18471)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 24, 2015, 12:57:45 AM
Let's see if he keeps his job....

Top Chinese Official Says Climate Change Is “Serious Threat,” Could Have “Huge Impact”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/23/china_global_warming_meteorologist.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/03/23/china_global_warming_meteorologist.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: mati on March 24, 2015, 03:20:48 AM
China is very serious about reducing their pollution and carbon emissions.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Shared Humanity on March 24, 2015, 04:14:43 AM
China lifts solar installation target for 2015 by 19%, with a focus on commercial installations.
Quote
China has set a record high solar installation target of 17.8GW for 2015, according to official documents released by the National Energy Administration on Tuesday – a 19 per cent jump on the 15GW target floated in January.

The new solar target contains no designated quotas for utility-scale or distributed projects, according to Deutsche Bank, which will instead be left for provincial governments to designate. But changes to policy have turned the focus from the distributed market to commercial installations.

But the NEA has introduced a more streamlined project approvals process to the policy, which could make the target – which is a whopping 37 per cent higher than Deutsche Bank’s estimates of 13GW – easier to achieve.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/china-lifts-solar-installation-target-for-2015-by-19-18471 (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/china-lifts-solar-installation-target-for-2015-by-19-18471)

That is impressive. Too bad the U.S. doesn't have the technology to do this.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 24, 2015, 06:24:53 AM
" Too bad the U.S. doesn't have the " technology " to do this "...   Shouldn't the word be Huevos ?
But anyway too bad.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: JimD on March 24, 2015, 08:56:43 PM
Just like we would for any figures coming from the US government or groups which front for them we have to maintain a critical eye on all these stats from China as well.  They have political and security  agendas just like everyone else.

There are lots of reasons one needs to keep it all in perspective and all the factors in mind.  Here are a few of the things we watch in America that are relevant with China as well.

China tries to make it look like they are being a 'good'actor on the world stage when the reality is often different.

China subsidizes their industries and is buying a lot of renewable capacity an economic stimulus and an attempt to keep their renewable industry the strongest.  Or are they really focused on getting rid of fossil capacity.  They built entire cities they do not use as a stimulus.  Is it possible this is the same thing?

China is undergoing a big economic slowdown which often skews statistics and allows for all kinds of interpretations.  Fewer orders mean the factories run less and consumption of fuels drops along with emissions.  This is often temporary as we know.

China is where the US has off shored lots of its manufacturing so some of  its numbers belong to the US.

China is in the process of off shoring some of its industries to lower its pollution but it will still be responsible for that pollution where ever it is generated.  If it is generated it is generated.

Are renewables replacing fossil power capacity or just adding to capacity?

Are we looking at daily weather here or are we looking at a changing climate?  Do the trends we 'think' we might be seeing (not much data to look at in general) reflect real change, and most importantly do they have any prospect of really solving any big problem?

CO2 concentrations are rising steadily and carbon emissions are growing and at record levels year after year.  Someone out there is lying I think.

I watch China like a hawk.  The only thing I see right now of real significance is the economic slowdown there.  Depending on how that plays out there could be very significant events come out of it.  It could be the trigger to drop the whole world into another big down economic cycle with all that implies.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: JimD on March 24, 2015, 09:25:14 PM
Here is something interesting going on in China (and to some extent in India).  Is this good or bad or of no consequence?

Quote
...China has long been one of the world’s leading suppliers of small arms, but its sale of the frigates was not an anomaly. As the independent Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported in mid-March, China is now the world’s third-largest arms exporter, having overtaken France and Germany, and trailing behind Russia and the United States. In 2010 to 2014, not only was China’s share of global arms sales nearly double that of the previous five-year period — 5 percent as against 3 percent in 2005 to 2009 — but its exports of major weapons platforms rose by 143 percent compared to the previous half-decade.

Over the next decade, advanced weapons platforms — once the purview of Western and Russian defense industries — will flood the arms market as China, and to a lesser degree India, become global suppliers. Developing countries that once could only afford secondhand Cold War-era weapons will soon be able to acquire everything from modern fighter aircraft and warships to precision-guided munitions, all without breaking the bank. And not unlike with consumer electronics, the quality of these platforms will increase over time, even as their prices fall....

I imagine that US defense interests will not have a qualm about using this kind of information to demand increased defense spending here in the US.  I imagine it will also prompt additional spending in a lot of places.  And some of it will likely be used.  This bleeds resources away from fixing climate change and focuses our attention of the near term strategic interests instead.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/20/chinas-weapons-of-mass-consumption/ (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/20/chinas-weapons-of-mass-consumption/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 25, 2015, 01:45:02 AM
Chinese city prepares to pump almost $800M into electric car incentives
Quote
Shenzhen city, which is home to Warren Buffett-backed Chinese electric-car maker BYD Auto, will provide as much as 5 billion yuan ($799 million) in government funding to spur demand for green vehicles, according to an official statement released recently.

The statement says the fund will be used to subsidize purchasing of vehicles, to help reduce the cost of driving them, and to buy recharging infrastructure and develop regulations for Shenzhen, which is located just north of Hong Kong. It is one of the most crowded cities in the world, with more than 15 million inhabitants.

In addition to providing fiscal assistance, the statement notes, Shenzhen has ordered government departments and public transport agencies to purchase clean cars for their fleets.

Shenzhen's clean car promotion policy represents China's latest effort to remove fossil fuels from its transportation system. Policymakers here hope that an influx of clean cars will help the country fight pollution, cut carbon emissions and reduce its reliance on imported fuels.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060015607 (http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060015607)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: JimD on March 25, 2015, 04:03:13 PM
The slowdown in China's manufacturing sector has now gone slightly negative and is at levels approximating 1 year ago. 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hsbc-march-preliminary-china-manufacturing-pmi-drops-1427163030 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/hsbc-march-preliminary-china-manufacturing-pmi-drops-1427163030)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: jai mitchell on March 25, 2015, 08:04:50 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-24/beijing-to-close-all-major-coal-power-plants-to-curb-pollution (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-24/beijing-to-close-all-major-coal-power-plants-to-curb-pollution)

Beijing to Shut All Major Coal Power Plants to Cut Pollution

The 4 local Beijing Coal-fired power plants will be retired early and replaced by natural gas to reduce pollution.

Quote
Beijing plans to cut annual coal consumption by 13 million metric tons by 2017 from the 2012 level in a bid to slash the concentration of pollutants
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: JimD on March 26, 2015, 05:03:33 PM
Some of their being able to try and execute this plan was the recent huge long term agreement between them and Russia for the delivery of gas at very attractive prices. 

Any reduction in coal consumption is a good thing even if it is replaced with gas.  But China is also in an economic slowdown which reduces some of the demand for coal and is also triggering stimulative spending.  Thus targeting the coal plants causing the most annoyance to the public works in very well.  And Beijing is not a manufacturing center either.

China, unfortunately, is still building coal powered plants.  It is all a very fluid situation and we won't know for sure if it actually follows pronouncements for some time.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 26, 2015, 10:35:57 PM
Northern Taiwan instituting water rationing due to drought.
Quote
TAIPEI, Taiwan -- With drought conditions not improving, phase-three water rationing is scheduled to kick in on April 1, affecting areas supplied by the Shimen Reservoir, namely New Taipei City (Banqiao, Xinzhuang and Linkou) and Taoyuan.

The decision was made by the Central Emergency Operation Center (CEOC) yesterday. Water supply will be cut for two days per week, and up to 1.02 million residents are expected to be affected by the new measures.

The Taiwan Water Corporation said water will probably be cut on Saturday and Sunday. The final rationing schedule will be publicized before April 1.
...
The island is seeing its worst drought in 67 years. Fall and winter rainfall reached an all-time-low since records began in 1947.
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2015/03/20/431535/Tough-water.htm (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2015/03/20/431535/Tough-water.htm)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: P-maker on March 27, 2015, 10:22:34 AM
Jim D & Bob,

China’s biggest coal company – Shenhua – has announced a 25 % reduction in coal investments this year.

Coal analysts talk about a “structural decline” of the coal industry: (c.f. http://ieefa.org/shenhuas-bombshell-numbers-speak-volumes-chinas-coal-appetite-has-peaked/ (http://ieefa.org/shenhuas-bombshell-numbers-speak-volumes-chinas-coal-appetite-has-peaked/) ) .

Have aN ICE day!
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 27, 2015, 04:26:30 PM
Jim D & Bob,

China’s biggest coal company – Shenhua – has announced a 25 % reduction in coal investments this year.

Coal analysts talk about a “structural decline” of the coal industry: (c.f. http://ieefa.org/shenhuas-bombshell-numbers-speak-volumes-chinas-coal-appetite-has-peaked/ (http://ieefa.org/shenhuas-bombshell-numbers-speak-volumes-chinas-coal-appetite-has-peaked/) ) .

Have aN ICE day!

While making headway against CO2 emissions from coal in China is good, I think that it is good to calibrate what we are talking about every so often, so I e-mailed MIT and asked them for their latest estimate of the current global atmospheric GHG concentrations in terms of CO2-equivalent, CO2-eq, and they responded that: "The latest forecasted CO2_eq for April 1, 2015 is 485.48ppm".

For methodology & background see the following linked sites:

http://agage.mit.edu/ (http://agage.mit.edu/)
http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/1975 (http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/1975)

So don't forget that China is shifting more to natural gas (including from Russia) and per the attached figure (from jai's post in the Science folder) for at least the next 40 to 60 years methane (with about 3% leakage) will contribute more to AGW than coal (not to mention that the aerosols from coal have negative radiative forcing that will soon be reduced).
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 01, 2015, 06:38:14 PM
The linked article summarizes what China is, and is not, doing currently to fight climate change:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/01/3641084/china-doing-good-things/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/01/3641084/china-doing-good-things/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Laurent on April 01, 2015, 08:34:44 PM
I do not like what they are doing, that doesn't bode well for a futur peace with their neighbours (Vietnam, Philippines...)

China building a 'great wall of SAND': Coral reefs are being turned into artificial islands - and experts warn it is a 'severe threat' to marine life
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3021363/China-building-great-wall-SAND-Coral-reefs-turned-artificial-islands-experts-warn-severe-threat-marine-life.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3021363/China-building-great-wall-SAND-Coral-reefs-turned-artificial-islands-experts-warn-severe-threat-marine-life.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on April 13, 2015, 09:11:05 PM
Quote
China’s coal imports fell by nearly half in the first three months of the year as the slowing economy and tougher rules on pollution took their toll.

Imports by the world’s biggest coal consumer reached 49.07m tonnes in the first quarter, a fall of 42% on the same period a year ago according to data from the Chinese customs office.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/13/chinas-coal-imports-fall-nearly-half-in-12-months-as-anti-pollution-drive-bites (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/13/chinas-coal-imports-fall-nearly-half-in-12-months-as-anti-pollution-drive-bites)


In China’s Inner Mongolia, mining spells misery for traditional herders.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/in-chinas-inner-mongolia-mining-spells-misery-for-traditional-herders/2015/04/07/16b3a252-d643-11e4-bf0b-f648b95a6488_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/in-chinas-inner-mongolia-mining-spells-misery-for-traditional-herders/2015/04/07/16b3a252-d643-11e4-bf0b-f648b95a6488_story.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Laurent on April 14, 2015, 05:48:15 PM
China may build railway to Nepal, with tunnel through Mount Everest
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/04/09/asia-pacific/china-may-build-railway-to-nepal-with-tunnel-through-mount-everest/#.VS016Tf7vz_ (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/04/09/asia-pacific/china-may-build-railway-to-nepal-with-tunnel-through-mount-everest/#.VS016Tf7vz_)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 18, 2015, 04:10:37 PM
China is wealthy enough to buy more desalination plants, with large carbon footprints (see extract); & with growing water shortages around the world; the relatively small carbon footprint for desalination at the moment will likely grow.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060016593 (http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060016593)


Extract: "China has long been accused of using too much water to produce energy, but now some of its coastal cities are compounding this problem by planning for desalination, which will spike both their energy needs and their emissions.



There is also an issue of lack of awareness. Because carbon emissions from producing desalinated water are still insignificant compared with other industrial activities, Zhong said that Chinese officials have yet to pay enough attention to the climate impact of desalination plants. Besides that, the country has been desperately seeking water.
A 2012 government survey shows that nearly 90 percent of Chinese coastal cities face some degree of water scarcity. While recovering clean water from wastewater could help China alleviate its water shortage at relatively lower economic and environmental costs, Zhong said that the spread of this solution has been discouraged by public doubts about the quality of reclaimed water and qualms about its origin."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Laurent on April 21, 2015, 08:28:56 PM
Hundreds of Chinese Cities Don’t Meet Air Standards, Report Finds
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/world/asia/hundreds-of-chinese-cities-dont-meet-air-standards-report-finds.html?partner=rss&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/world/asia/hundreds-of-chinese-cities-dont-meet-air-standards-report-finds.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)

Quote
The data shows that China, despite a recent drop in the growth rate of coal use, continues to have among the most polluted cities in the world, alongside urban centers in India and Iran.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: jai mitchell on May 14, 2015, 06:31:37 PM
China shuts down 1,250 coal mines

http://english.cri.cn/12394/2015/05/07/2361s877697.htm (http://english.cri.cn/12394/2015/05/07/2361s877697.htm)


China reduces coal consumption by 8%

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/05/14/china-coal-consumption-drops-further-carbon-emissions-set-to-fall-by-equivalent-of-uk-total-in-one-year/ (http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/05/14/china-coal-consumption-drops-further-carbon-emissions-set-to-fall-by-equivalent-of-uk-total-in-one-year/)

Quote
The reduction in emissions from 2014 to 2015 is roughly equal to the total CO2 emissions of the UK over four months, and the reduction in coal use is equal to four times UK total consumption.

If the reduction continues until the end of the year, it will be the largest recorded year-on-year reduction in coal use and CO2 in any country.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 14, 2015, 08:25:44 PM
China shuts down 1,250 coal mines

http://english.cri.cn/12394/2015/05/07/2361s877697.htm (http://english.cri.cn/12394/2015/05/07/2361s877697.htm)


China reduces coal consumption by 8%

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/05/14/china-coal-consumption-drops-further-carbon-emissions-set-to-fall-by-equivalent-of-uk-total-in-one-year/ (http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/05/14/china-coal-consumption-drops-further-carbon-emissions-set-to-fall-by-equivalent-of-uk-total-in-one-year/)

Quote
The reduction in emissions from 2014 to 2015 is roughly equal to the total CO2 emissions of the UK over four months, and the reduction in coal use is equal to four times UK total consumption.

If the reduction continues until the end of the year, it will be the largest recorded year-on-year reduction in coal use and CO2 in any country.

With all of this great news about China, I look forward to being able to post a updated version of the attached AGGI plot (with data through the end of 2014, see link below) with data through 2015 that shows a marked reduction in the rate of increase of both the CO2-equivalent and the AGGI; if not I will assume that any cuts in GHG emissions made by China migrated to other (poorer) developing countries.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on May 14, 2015, 10:48:54 PM
While we're waiting for ASLR's graph,  :) 
enjoy this one (from the Greenpeace article):
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Csnavywx on May 15, 2015, 01:04:13 AM
Gotta think some of this is slowdown related. Electricity production figures are flat and might be in outright contraction soon. Steel, cement and construction figures are all way down. Import/export figures are also way down.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: jai mitchell on May 20, 2015, 05:24:01 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-18/china-war-on-smog-seen-dooming-coal-amid-cheap-but-dirty-purge (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-18/china-war-on-smog-seen-dooming-coal-amid-cheap-but-dirty-purge)

Coal prices will never recover, ever

China Smog War Seen Dooming Coal on ‘Cheap But Dirty’ Purge
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on May 23, 2015, 05:18:30 PM
China pollution: Beijing's improved air quality a result of good policy, city officials say
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-23/beijing-improved-air-quality-result-of-good-policy-say-officials/6492350 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-23/beijing-improved-air-quality-result-of-good-policy-say-officials/6492350)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on May 28, 2015, 09:10:10 PM
However, lest you think that China's air pollution problems have been miraculously solved, this is from May 26:

Quote
@AirlineFlyer: The pollution in Beijing is the worst since I arrived. Can hardly see aircraft after they takeoff. It's so gross. [picture:] http://t.co/6Msh55ECrl (http://t.co/6Msh55ECrl)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on June 02, 2015, 04:09:04 AM
I noticed this a few days ago:

Beijing’s About to Roll Out Its Harshest Smoking Ban Ever
Smoking will be banned everywhere from the Great Wall to Beijing’s bars starting June 1.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-29/beijing-s-about-to-roll-out-its-harshest-smoking-ban-ever (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-29/beijing-s-about-to-roll-out-its-harshest-smoking-ban-ever)

But now this:

How the Business of Cancer Is Taking Off in China
Quote
Overall cancer incidence in China has doubled over the past two decades fueled by an aging population, the lifestyle changes wrought by its economic boom, and a surge in environmental pollution.

The country is now home to more cases than any other, and the World Health Organization estimates that it adds 3.07 million new ones annually. Lung cancer is the most common type, and its prevalence is surging even as others such as stomach cancer that are associated with poverty level off.
...
Years of breakneck growth combined with unhealthy lifestyle factors, such as high smoking rates, are also making the cancer epidemic virtually unstoppable. Smokers may be even more likely to get lung cancer if they are exposed to high pollution levels or chemicals from coal mines, said Shelly Tse, an occupational and environmental health expert at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-01/selling-hope-how-the-business-of-cancer-is-taking-off-in-china (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-01/selling-hope-how-the-business-of-cancer-is-taking-off-in-china)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on June 08, 2015, 07:53:07 PM
China greenhouse gases: Progress is made, report says
Quote
China's greenhouse gas emissions could start to decline within 10 years, according to a report from the London School of Economics.
This would be five years earlier than expected and would offer a boost towards efforts to protect the climate.
The shift has been partly caused by a massive commitment to renewables. China is the world's top investor in wind and solar power.
It has also been replacing old coal plants with cleaner new stations.
...
They say China's actions will stimulate global markets for clean goods and services and harm exporters of coal and certain other raw materials.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33040965 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33040965)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 02, 2015, 04:49:15 PM
Climate pledge puts China on course to peak emissions as early as 2027
Quote
In the corridors of the Bonn climate talks in June, there was a sense that, perhaps in contrast to the ill-fated Copenhagen talks in 2009, China is strongly in favour of a deal in Paris. To the extent that it has been playing hardball on some issues, it is more a case of attempting to extract concessions rather than walking away completely.

So the Chinese pledge is being received as a positive, yet insufficient momentum-building step towards a deal -- and just maybe, leaving the door open for 2C.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/07/climate-pledge-puts-china-on-course-to-peak-emissions-as-early-as-2027/ (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/07/climate-pledge-puts-china-on-course-to-peak-emissions-as-early-as-2027/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 06, 2015, 03:55:57 AM
The linked article indicates that China's carbon intensity goals are inadequate:

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/03/china-climate-pledge-inadequate-on-efficiency-analysts/ (http://www.rtcc.org/2015/07/03/china-climate-pledge-inadequate-on-efficiency-analysts/)

Extract: "China has big plans for clean energy and is aiming to peak greenhouse gas emissions in 2030.
Climate Action Tracker, a coalition of four leading research bodies, gives it a “medium” grade for most of its national climate policies. That is on a par with the US and EU.
But on one critical measure – carbon intensity – the world’s biggest emitter is aiming too low, the analysts warn. Beijing has pledged to reduce the carbon emitted for each yuan of GDP 60-65% below 2005 levels by 2030.
That figure is “inadequate”, said Hanna Fekete of New Climate Institute. “The difference between China’s carbon intensity goal and its national actions and goals is disappointing.”"

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 06, 2015, 07:40:17 PM
According to the linked reference, Russia is working to develop its shale gas reserves within 15-years to better supply Asia, particularly including China, with more natural gas (which considering methane leaks can have a GHG footprint heavier than coal development):

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/06/19/is-russia-moving-towards-a-fracking-future/ (http://www.rtcc.org/2015/06/19/is-russia-moving-towards-a-fracking-future/)
Extract: "Last year, then-Nato chief Anders Rasmussen accused Russia, the world’s second-largest producer of natural gas, of spreading misinformation to destabilise shale.President Vladimir Putin said Russia needs to “rise to the challenge” of the changing market in 2012. In other words: if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.Russia is being pushed towards tapping shale and its other abundant unconventional gas deposits to preserve its stake in the global energy mix, experts say. Holder of the world’s largest natural gas reserves, the country could have up to 2.5 times the amount in unconventional reserves – shale, hydrates and coal-bed methane – as conventional supplies, Gazprom estimates. Russia still holds five times the US’ natural gas reserves with 44.6 trillion cubic metres (tcm), according to BP’s 2014 statistical review. Just 3% of the approximate 680 tcm of unconventional is shale. And 90% of total unconventional resources are located on the Asian side of the country, from the Ural Mountains through Siberia to the remote Arctic regions.
Ten years after the US shale boom began, Russia is at least 15 years off commercial production, according to government projections. And amid plentiful supplies of natural gas, it doesn’t yet make economic sense, though geopolitical factors are weighing in. “Although the present conjuncture is not conducive to investments in the still locally unproven and expensive methods of obtaining energy resources, Russia is developing its unconventional gas industry more and more boldly,” according to a policy brief by the Polish Institute of Foreign Affairs (PISM).

Russia is looking toward Asian economies, from Indonesia and Vietnam to India and China, who are conducting research programmes in their own territories, as it pivots away from old markets in Europe, the brief said."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 06, 2015, 10:04:10 PM

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/06/02/china-billions-drive-pakistan-coal-power-expansion/ (http://www.rtcc.org/2015/06/02/china-billions-drive-pakistan-coal-power-expansion/)

Extract: "At home Beijing is looking beyond coal, but abroad it’s investing in expansion of world’s dirtiest fuel."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 10, 2015, 12:54:46 AM
China eyes safe smart-grid system by 2020 to push clean energy
Quote
To expand capabilities, China will accelerate the construction of micro grids and promote the development of energy sources that don’t need transmission lines, including distributed solar projects and power from micro-gas generators, the NDRC said.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/07/07/asia-pacific/china-eyes-safe-smart-grid-system-2020-push-clean-energy/ (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/07/07/asia-pacific/china-eyes-safe-smart-grid-system-2020-push-clean-energy/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: mati on July 10, 2015, 05:27:40 PM
micro grids are a very interesting area of research and probably the way to go.
reducing transmission losses is a huge boost to energy conservation.

http://www.et.aau.dk/research-programmes/microgrids (http://www.et.aau.dk/research-programmes/microgrids)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 11, 2015, 11:04:44 PM
While I imagine that Chinese leaders are relatively serious about addressing climate change, the real question is where they are capable of reducing carbon intensity (the attached plot from the linked article shows just how high current Chinese carbon intensity is compared to developed countries) show at a faster rate than has ever been achieved by modern economies (it is nice to be positive but it is better to be realistic):

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/11/china-climate-change-greenhouse-united-states-policy/ (http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/11/china-climate-change-greenhouse-united-states-policy/)

Extract: "China will need a greater annual reduction rate of carbon intensity than most developed countries to reach its commitment of reducing carbon intensity by 60 to 65 percent by 2030. China would have to maintain a 3.6 to 4.1 percent annual reduction rate from 2005 to 2030. The U.S. rate since 1990 was 2.3 percent, and from 2005 to 2025 it would need to average 3.5 to 3.6 percent to reach the 26 to 28 percent total emissions reduction target as laid out in the U.S. climate pledge. The EU reduction rate since 1990 was also 2.3 percent, and the rate required to meet the EU goal of a 40 percent total emissions reduction in 2030 from 1990 levels would be 3.2 percent."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 19, 2015, 03:13:21 PM
Quote
BEIJING, July 16 (Reuters) - Bringing coal use to a peak by 2020 could save China billions of dollars in environmental costs, slash water consumption by nearly 30 percent and prevent tens of thousands of deaths from coal-related illnesses, a study released on Thursday said.
http://www.trust.org/item/20150716074735-wga40/ (http://www.trust.org/item/20150716074735-wga40/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 19, 2015, 05:22:03 PM
While Beijing has managed to just avert a crisis in their stock market, China's corporate debt is in danger of getting out of control; and I imagine that as soon as China gets into financial trouble they will be sorely tempted to relax their voluntary climate change policies:

http://www.benchmarkreporter.com/chinas-corporate-debt-in-danger-of-getting-out-of-control/7024/ (http://www.benchmarkreporter.com/chinas-corporate-debt-in-danger-of-getting-out-of-control/7024/)

Extract: "The debts of manufacturers is continuing to dwarf their profits. In 2010, debts of material companies was at 2.8 times of their core profit. At the end of 2014, this figure was 5.3 times. In the case of energy companies, debt has gone up from 1.1 to 4.4 times the core profits. In industrials, the figure has risen from 2.5 to 4.2 times."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wili on July 23, 2015, 09:51:35 PM
Apologies if this has been posted before:

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/22/8645455/china-emissions-coal-drop (http://www.vox.com/2015/5/22/8645455/china-emissions-coal-drop)

Be very, very wary of China's energy statistics

Quote
Case in point: back in the late 1990s, China announced it was shuttering a bunch of smaller, illegal coal mines, and early estimates suggested that nationwide coal use dropped 20 percent in 1998.

But it turned out that those coal mines didn't actually close, they just stopped reporting their numbers to the government. When BP reviewed the data years later, it turned out that China's coal use hadn't dropped at all in 1998

Quote
Similarly, in its most recent five-year census, China revised upward its estimate for coal use in 2013 by about 8 percent.

That's a massive edit
.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: JimD on July 24, 2015, 06:42:01 PM
To reinforce willi's point.  What are the poor folks in China going to do to provide heat and make a little money on the side.  They will continue to operate illegal/clandestine coal mines.

This is going on in the US as well.  It is not uncommon in poor and rural Appalachia for folks to still be burning coal in their houses.  There are folks who operate very small coal operations and distribute the coal to make a few dollars. 

Punch coal stoves into g**gle.  There are a host of companies still making them, selling parts and so on.  Punch in coal for sale.  Tons of hits on companies, ebay, craigslist, and there is always the word of mouth sales out in the country. 

Poor people are going to burn what ever is cheapest.  Climate?  What's that?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 26, 2015, 02:45:48 AM
China preparing 'California-style' scheme to promote green cars - Beijing Auto chairman
Quote
China is preparing a new scheme to encourage auto makers and consumers to use electric and hybrid vehicles, learning lessons from California's efforts to promote a similar switch, the head of a major state-owned carmaker said on Thursday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/23/china-autos-electric-vehicles-idUSL3N10340R20150723 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/23/china-autos-electric-vehicles-idUSL3N10340R20150723)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 26, 2015, 08:35:11 PM
Be very, very wary of China's energy statistics
Soon we won't have to depend on a country's claims.  Detailed data from satellites will tell the truth about emissions.

Quote
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 went up in July [2014]. It takes more than a million measurements a day of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The data help scientists see where the CO2 is coming from, such as Asian coal plants, and also where it’s going — into the Northern Hemisphere’s boreal forests and the Amazon.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-27/nasa-is-just-killing-it-with-these-earth-watching-satellites (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-27/nasa-is-just-killing-it-with-these-earth-watching-satellites)

For example, here is NASA's page of OCO-2 articles.
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/newsoco/index.cfm?Page=2 (http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/newsoco/index.cfm?Page=2)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 27, 2015, 01:01:12 PM
The linked article indicates that China is underestimating the likely threat of climate change (& SLR) to its booming coastal cities:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/25/climate-change-threatens-chinas-booming-coastal-cities-says-expert (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/25/climate-change-threatens-chinas-booming-coastal-cities-says-expert)

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 27, 2015, 01:35:25 PM
A (pessimistic) comparison of Beijing's air pollution problems and solutions with Los Angeles' in the 1960’s.  By the Los Angeles policymaker....
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1843735/chinas-ability-tackle-air-pollution-doubtful-says-vetern-us-policymaker (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1843735/chinas-ability-tackle-air-pollution-doubtful-says-vetern-us-policymaker)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 10, 2015, 01:18:41 AM
China Gets a Little More Fresh Air
Idled factories, less coal use, and lower emissions make breathing easier.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-06/pollution-china-gets-a-little-more-fresh-air (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-06/pollution-china-gets-a-little-more-fresh-air)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 10, 2015, 03:55:46 PM
It looks like China's distortion of fair market pricing, threatens to slow the long-term, healthy, development of the solar market:


http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/clouds-over-chinas-solar-power-industry/ (http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/clouds-over-chinas-solar-power-industry/)


Extract: "“Solar is heading down a path of profitless prosperity”, says Sivaram. In effect, he says, China is subsidising the global solar industry.
Sivaram says one of the damaging side effects of China’s dominance of the solar market is that production has tended to stick to old technologies and innovation in the industry has been stifled.
“As panel manufacturers scrape by on razor-thin margins, kept afloat by government credit, investing in fundamentally new technologies is far from a priority.”"
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: JimD on August 10, 2015, 08:33:31 PM
Yup China's emissions are likely to drop as there is a huge slowdown in manufacturing underway.  Their economy teeters on the brink of an actual recession (unheard of in China for at least a couple of decades).  There will be large adverse ripple effects across the world from this.  It is very hard to say how deep it goes but large economic disruption does not bode well for green solutions and lends large momentum towards permanent global contraction (i.e. collapse).   Such drops in emissions are not 'real' in the sense that there was some policy or technological improvement - just a business as usual collapse like in 2009.

The economic/business numbers are really ugly.  A very interesting side note is that Chinese companies are well into the off shoring of emissions and the search for 'cheaper' labor as the supply of Chinese labor is tightening and driving up wages.  So they are looking to off shore large amounts of production to places like India.  Thus some US emissions will become 3rd hand vice 2nd hand.

Quote
This has become a sign of the times: Foxconn, with 1.3 million employees the world’s largest contract electronics manufacturer, making gadgets for Apple and many others, and with mega-production facilities in China, inked a memorandum of understanding on Saturday under which it would invest $5 billion over the next five years in India!

In part to alleviate the impact of soaring wages in China.....

The manufacturing sector is responsible for much of China’s economic growth. It accounted for 31% of GDP, according to the World Bank. And a good part of this production is exported. But that plan has now been obviated by events.

Exports plunged 8.3% in July from a year ago, disappointing once again the soothsayers surveyed by Reuters that had predicted a 1% drop. Exports to Japan plunged 13%, to Europe 12.3%. And exports to the US, which is supposed to pull the world economy out of its mire, fell 1.3%. So far this year, in yuan terms, exports are down 0.9% from the same period last year. As important as manufacturing is to China, this debacle is not exactly conducive to economic growth.

The General Administration of Customs, which issued the report, added: “We could see relatively strong downward pressure on exports in the third quarter.”

Then there’s the plunge of the China Containerized Freight Index (CCFI), which tracks contractual rates and spot market rates for shipping containers from major Chinese ports to major port around the world. Last week, the CCFI dropped 2.4% to 798.89, near its multi-year low at the beginning of July. It is now 23% below where it was in February, and 20% below where it had been in 1998, when it was set at 1,000!

The beaten-down shipping rates are a function of an oversupply of ships and weak global demand for goods manufactured in China. Today’s export numbers once again confirm the dynamics tracked by the freight index.

Another chilling data point: imports plummeted 8.1%, after having already dropped 6.1% in June. They’re down for the ninth month in a row, in part due to crashing commodity prices. Year-to-date, imports dropped 14.6% in yuan terms.

This caused China’s trade surplus to drop 8.5% from June, to $43.03 billion.

Producer prices in July dropped 5.4% year over year, down for the 40th month in a row, the National Statistics Bureau said on today. It pushed the Producer Price Index to the worst level since October 2009. Who gets the credit? Crashing commodity prices, competitive pressures facing Chinese manufacturers, and weak demand for Chinese goods....

I have said it elsewhere but it bears repeating.  We are right on the edge of a global recession.  Not a certainty but it would not take much to make it certain.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/08/wolf-richter-chinas-hard-landing-suddenly-gets-a-lot-rougher.html (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/08/wolf-richter-chinas-hard-landing-suddenly-gets-a-lot-rougher.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: JimD on August 11, 2015, 10:15:00 PM
China devalues.  This is a big deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/business/international/china-lowers-value-of-its-currency-as-economic-slowdown-raises-concerns.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/business/international/china-lowers-value-of-its-currency-as-economic-slowdown-raises-concerns.html?_r=0)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 14, 2015, 03:22:48 PM
The linked open access reference indicates that air pollution causes roughly 17% of all deaths per year in China:

Robert A. Rohde, Richard A. Muller (2015), "Air Pollution in China: Mapping of Concentrations and Sources"


http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/China-Air-Quality-Paper-July-2015.pdf (http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/China-Air-Quality-Paper-July-2015.pdf)

Abstract: "China has recently made available hourly air pollution data from over 1500 sites, including airborne particulate matter (PM), SO2, NO2, and O3. We apply Kriging interpolation to four months of data to derive pollution maps for eastern China. Consistent with prior findings, the greatest pollution occurs in the east, but significant levels are widespread across northern and central China and are not limited to major cities or geologic basins. Sources of pollution are widespread, but are particularly intense in a northeast corridor that extends from near Shanghai to north of Beijing. During our analysis period, 92% of the population of China experienced >120 hours of unhealthy air (US EPA standard), and 38% experienced average concentrations that were unhealthy. China’s population-weighted average exposure to PM2.5 was 52 μg/m3. The observed air pollution is calculated to contribute to 1.6 million deaths/year in China [0.7–2.2 million deaths/year at 95% confidence], roughly 17% of all deaths in China."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 14, 2015, 08:03:54 PM
And here's an article on the Berkeley study AbruptSLR just mentioned:

Air Pollution Killing 4,000 in China a Day, U.S. Study Finds
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/air-pollution-killing-4-000-china-day-us-study-finds-n409516 (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/air-pollution-killing-4-000-china-day-us-study-finds-n409516)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 20, 2015, 09:51:00 PM
China Emits Less CO2 Than Anyone Thought, But It’s Still a Lot
Quote
The study concluded that China's energy consumption was 10 percent higher from 2000 to 2012 than figures reported by the Chinese government but that the emissions factors for Chinese coal are 40 percent lower than the global averages used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study also found that emissions from cement production in China are 45 percent less than recent estimates.  That led to the conclusion that China's emissions are 14 percent lower than previously reported.

"Initially we thought that carbon emissions may be underestimated because we found energy consumption is higher than the nationally reported figure," said lead author Zhu Liu a climate change specialist at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "[But] because the emissions factor is much, much lower, the total number is still lower. This was quite surprising."
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19082015/china-emissions-14-percent-less-thought-michael-mann (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19082015/china-emissions-14-percent-less-thought-michael-mann)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 19, 2015, 12:14:10 PM
The linked article discusses a newly release analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Admin. finding that China has consumed 14% more coal (over a somewhat more than the past decade) than previously thought:

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/09/17/chinas-coal-consumption-14-higher-than-previously-thought/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/09/17/chinas-coal-consumption-14-higher-than-previously-thought/)

Extract: "A newly released analysis of Chinese government data by the U.S. Energy Information Administration found over the past decade-plus, China consumed as much as 14% more coal on an energy-content basis than previously reported. Its domestic coal production meanwhile was as much as 7% higher between 2000 and 2013."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on September 25, 2015, 09:00:50 PM
Chinese President Details Wide-Ranging Carbon Pollution Pledge At White House
Quote
At a White House press conference Friday afternoon, U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced a suite of wide-ranging actions that clarify how serious the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter is about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. These include prioritizing green energy on China’s grid, a cap-and-trade or emissions trading system for China, additional low-carbon financing to developing countries, and emissions standards for heavy duty vehicles. The fact that these announcements were made during the world’s most important bilateral meeting and official state visit lends them further significance.
The linked article details the above pledges, and an update to the article states:
Quote
China also committed to a $3.1 billion international climate finance fund for low-carbon development. “This is by far China’s most significant commitment to climate finance to date,” the fact sheet said, comparable to the $3 billion U.S. commitment. The fact sheet also said China was “affirming that 50 percent of new buildings in urban areas will meet green building standards by 2020.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/09/25/3705464/us-china-climate-visit-pledges/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/09/25/3705464/us-china-climate-visit-pledges/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 27, 2015, 03:39:25 PM
Per the attached article, if China can show that cap and trade works in their economy after 2017, then perhaps they can export the idea to the US Congress so that they can remember how to use the policy tool that the USA invented (although I would prefer that the USA implement a carbon fee and dividend program, so that we can show the Chinese how to make the capitalistic system work, rather than vice versa). 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-can-china-achieve-with-cap-and-trade (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-can-china-achieve-with-cap-and-trade)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on September 27, 2015, 09:13:37 PM
TIME on the China climate commitments.

China Shows It’s Getting Serious About Climate Change
http://time.com/4050702/china-shows-its-getting-serious-about-climate-change/ (http://time.com/4050702/china-shows-its-getting-serious-about-climate-change/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 17, 2015, 04:33:57 PM
Too big to measure?

China's Economy May Be Even Bigger Than You Think
Data may not be capturing economy's full size
Quote
I know there's a lot of debate as to whether the numbers are true, whether [last quarter GDP is] really 7 percent, but our numbers indicate that it is at least that," the chairman of the emerging-markets group at Franklin Templeton Investments  said in a recent interview with Bloomberg TV. "We think that a lot of the economy is not really being counted because China is being converted from a manufacturing-oriented economy to a service economy."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-15/china-s-economy-may-be-even-bigger-than-you-think (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-15/china-s-economy-may-be-even-bigger-than-you-think)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 29, 2015, 11:15:18 PM
China confronts the pain of kicking its coal addiction
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-confronts-the-pain-of-kicking-its-coal-addiction/2015/10/28/24f23586-882b-43c3-ab4a-e223749293dd_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-confronts-the-pain-of-kicking-its-coal-addiction/2015/10/28/24f23586-882b-43c3-ab4a-e223749293dd_story.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 30, 2015, 02:30:10 AM
To improve its economic future China has now ended its one child policy (now allowing two childern), so for a few decades we can expect its population to accelerate and then to decelerate much more slowly:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/world/asia/china-end-one-child-policy.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/30/world/asia/china-end-one-child-policy.html?_r=0)

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wili on October 30, 2015, 02:46:18 AM
Can you explain your math a bit here? How do two children per couple add up to an accelerating birth rate?

I think it may prevent the total population numbers from peaking as early as they would have, but that depends what other dynamics and policies come into play.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: oren on October 30, 2015, 06:34:53 AM
Canceling China's one child policy is very bad news on the global level. It's not that Chinese population will accelerate, but future world population estimates may now need to be revised to a higher trajectory and the global birth rate will not decline as much as was hoped.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 30, 2015, 03:42:55 PM
Can you explain your math a bit here? How do two children per couple add up to an accelerating birth rate?

I think it may prevent the total population numbers from peaking as early as they would have, but that depends what other dynamics and policies come into play.

The two child policy is applied in cities, while in the countryside Chinese generally have more than two children.

Edit: and my reference to accelerating is relative to current population growth rates, and I admit that any such acceleration my be short-lived (but it may come at a particularly bad time between 2035 & 2050)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 30, 2015, 08:33:19 PM
It will be interesting to see whether China follows the green curve or something closer to the red curve:
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: oren on October 31, 2015, 10:17:09 PM
It will be interesting to see whether China follows the green curve or something closer to the red curve:

I don't really get it. Current demographics of China women are approximately:
20-24: 47 million
25-29: 63 million
30-34: 50 million
35-39: 47 million
There are about 160 million women in China between the ages of 25-40 for whom the policy change might be immediately relevant. Of those about half are in urban areas, where the total fertility rate per woman is around 1 (in rural areas it is roughly 1.5). So theoretically if all these urban women change their behavior to match the rural women, and increase their fertility rate just to 1.5, then 40 million children will be born over the next 15 years by these women, plus some extra more from the younger generation coming soon into childbearing. And yet this graph shows a total of 30 million extra births in the very highest case over 15 years, and less than 10 million extra births over 15 years in the most likely scenario. In addition, it doesn't show any immediate baby boom by those women who always wanted a second child but couldn't. I am surely missing something basic about Chinese demographics or policy, but what?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 01, 2015, 01:17:44 AM
oren,

All of the issues that you raise seem to be relevant, and while I do not know the answers to your questions, I throw out that: (a) the policy starts in 2016 not 2015; (b) not all Chinese women of child bearing age are in a situation where they can readily have a child in the time period you are talking about; and (c) it takes some time to become pregnant and to deliver a healthy baby and for the babies to survive to the date you are considering.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 01, 2015, 10:24:15 AM
I provide the following link & image for the UN's 2015 population projections made before China changed to its new two child policy:

http://esa.un.org/unpd/popdev/Profilesofageing2015/index.html (http://esa.un.org/unpd/popdev/Profilesofageing2015/index.html)

The mean 2050 World Population total projection creeps closer to 10 billion with each new projection.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 02, 2015, 01:16:29 AM
Apparently not all Chinese women would rush to have additional children, even if they are permitted to do so:

Quote
When China announced it would relax the policy in 2013, many parents said they did not want a second child due to the high cost of living. A 2014 survey conducted by the Communist Party-controlled People's Daily newspaper found that only half of those permitted to have a second child actually planned another.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/china-scraps-one-child-policy-all-couples-n453566 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/china-scraps-one-child-policy-all-couples-n453566)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 04, 2015, 05:50:52 PM
Per the linked article, China has been emitting roughly one billion more tons of carbon per year for the past 15 years than it previously reported:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-co2-carbon-pollution_563993d8e4b0307f2cab3f04 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-co2-carbon-pollution_563993d8e4b0307f2cab3f04)

Extract: "China has emitted roughly a billion more tons of carbon emissions a year over the past 15 years than it previously said, according to a report from The New York Times.
The outlet analyzed energy statistics data from China's statistical agency and found the Asian country has been burning up to 17 percent more coal than the government has disclosed. That figure translates into the entire fossil fuel emissions of Germany over a full year."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wili on November 06, 2015, 04:14:19 PM
Thanks for that, ASLR.

Did I not post a warning a while back to be 'very very wary' of China's claims about coal consumption (and just about everything else)?

Here's NYT's coverage of the same: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/asia/china-burns-much-more-coal-than-reported-complicating-climate-talks.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/asia/china-burns-much-more-coal-than-reported-complicating-climate-talks.html?_r=1)

China Burns Much More Coal Than Reported, Complicating Climate Talks
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 07, 2015, 09:13:58 PM
Kind of sours the "historic" Repeatedly-Verify-Reduced-Emissions agreement China and France just made.

China and France say Paris climate pact should have five-year reviews
Quote
French president François Hollande claimed China and France had taken an “historic” step towards tackling climate change on Monday after the two countries agreed any deal reached in Paris next month should include checks on whether signatories are keeping their commitments to reduce emissions.

In a joint statement released weeks before the United Nations Climate Change Conference, China and France said such progress should be reviewed every five years in order to “reinforce mutual confidence and promote efficient implementation”.

“The Paris agreement must send out a clear signal for the world to transition to green and low-carbon, climate-resilient and sustainable development,” the two countries said, also calling for an “ambitious and legally binding” deal in Paris.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/02/china-and-france-say-paris-climate-pact-should-have-5-year-reviews (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/02/china-and-france-say-paris-climate-pact-should-have-5-year-reviews)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 09, 2015, 04:48:02 PM
The linked Reuters article discusses just how difficult it is to accurately measure China's GHG emissions:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/08/us-china-climatechange-insight-idUSKCN0SX0WS20151108#DgIShJdBq84pRK27.97 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/08/us-china-climatechange-insight-idUSKCN0SX0WS20151108#DgIShJdBq84pRK27.97)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 11, 2015, 11:54:15 PM
The linked article raises questions about China's true commitment to renewable energy vs coal fired power plants:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/world/asia/china-coal-power-energy-policy.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/world/asia/china-coal-power-energy-policy.html?_r=0)


Extract: "In the first nine months of this year, state-owned companies received preliminary or full approval to build the 155 coal power plants that have a total capacity of 123 gigawatts, the report said. That capacity is equal to 15 percent of China’s coal-fired power capacity at the end of 2014.
The construction boom — with capital costs estimated by Greenpeace at $74 billion — is a clear sign that China remains entrenched in investment-driven growth, despite promises by leaders to transform the economic model to one based on consumer spending.
It also raises questions about whether China is weaning itself off coal as quickly as it can and whether officials are sufficiently supporting nonfossil fuel sources over coal, which is championed by some state-owned enterprises. China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world and the main driver of climate change, and has some of the worst air pollution.


Despite the construction boom, Mr. Myllyvirta and some scholars say there is little danger that China’s coal consumption will rise significantly, since a slower economy and flattening coal use appear to be the new norm. President Xi Jinping said China was aiming for 6.5 percent economic growth from 2016 to 2020. The construction boom means that China is not investing in alternative fuel sources as quickly as it could, critics say, and coal use may stay at or near the current high level for years.
 “You’re wasting a massive amount of capital that could be spent on renewable energy to generate green power that is needed,” Mr. Myllyvirta said. “And there’s a longer-term question of whether you will keep investing in renewables when you have all these coal plants lying around.”"
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 12, 2015, 05:40:00 PM
The linked article indicates just how challenging China's air pollution problem is:

http://www.globalpost.com/article/6685724/2015/11/11/these-photos-will-turn-heat-china-paris-climate-change-talks (http://www.globalpost.com/article/6685724/2015/11/11/these-photos-will-turn-heat-china-paris-climate-change-talks)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 14, 2015, 02:07:58 AM
New photos of China’s awful air quality make us nervous about coal plant plans
Quote
China isn’t exactly known for its pristine air quality, but levels of pollution are now the highest ever recorded — up to 50 times the maximum for safe exposure, according to the World Health Organization.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/new-photos-of-chinas-awful-air-quality-make-us-nervous-about-coal-plant-plans/ (http://grist.org/climate-energy/new-photos-of-chinas-awful-air-quality-make-us-nervous-about-coal-plant-plans/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 26, 2015, 12:36:21 AM
Per the linked article, most Chinese do not see climate change as a significant problem.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/11/24/456777290/chinas-greenhouse-gases-dont-seem-to-trouble-most-of-its-citizens (http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/11/24/456777290/chinas-greenhouse-gases-dont-seem-to-trouble-most-of-its-citizens)

Extract: "Most Chinese, though, don't seem to see climate change as a current threat."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 29, 2015, 02:00:44 PM
Tianjin will get a fleet of 1,000 EVs for a new car-sharing program
Quote
Kandi announced a deal with Pang Da to bring a fleet of 1,000 electric vehicles to Tianjin for a new car-sharing program – one of the biggest of its kind. The program will use Kandi’s Smart-looking K10 EV with 93 miles (150 km) of range on a single charge. All the cars should be delivered by the end of the year.
http://electrek.co/2015/11/27/tianjin-will-get-a-fleet-of-1000-evs-for-a-new-car-sharing-program/ (http://electrek.co/2015/11/27/tianjin-will-get-a-fleet-of-1000-evs-for-a-new-car-sharing-program/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 30, 2015, 02:54:20 PM
Chinese Report on Climate Change Depicts Somber Scenarios
Quote
“There is an unavoidable trend for all countries to participate in emissions cuts, and for the major developing countries to shoulder larger emissions-reduction responsibilities,” the report said. “China must fully prepare for this.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/world/asia/chinese-report-on-climate-change-depicts-somber-scenarios.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/world/asia/chinese-report-on-climate-change-depicts-somber-scenarios.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 01, 2015, 03:11:31 AM
As Paris Climate Talks Kick Off, Beijing Issues Its Highest Smog Alert Of The Year
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/30/3726445/beijing-new-delhi-smog/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/30/3726445/beijing-new-delhi-smog/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Laurent on December 01, 2015, 11:43:50 AM
Yep sure there is something going on...
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-253.58,32.11,269 (http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=cosc/orthographic=-253.58,32.11,269)

Even the fires in Indonesia or in Amazonia do not do that... What the hell are they doing ? Is it coal ? only coal ?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 01, 2015, 01:44:25 PM
For better or worse, China's manufacturing is on the decline:

China's Manufacturing PMI Weakens to Lowest in Three Years
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/china-official-manufacturing-pmi-gauge-deteriorates-in-november (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/china-official-manufacturing-pmi-gauge-deteriorates-in-november)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 01, 2015, 02:04:59 PM
Heavy Smog Forces Students Home as Pollution Hits Beijing
Quote
Air pollution hanging over city is heaviest this year
PM2.5 readings near Tiananmen Square above hazard levels
...
The round of air pollution that began last week is the heaviest of 2015, the Beijing environmental protection bureau said on its official microblog Tuesday. The blanket of pollution has fallen over Beijing just as President Xi Jinping was in Paris on Monday for United Nations-led talks on a deal to fight climate change.

Public anger over air pollution has been a driving force in pushing China to back a possible global climate agreement in Paris. U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday joined China’s Xi in urging 195 nations to push for the first truly worldwide deal to curb greenhouse gases.

Near Tiananmen Square in the heart of Beijing, concentrations of PM2.5 -- the fine particulates that pose the greatest risk to human health -- stood at 666 micrograms per cubic meter as of noon, according to the local environmental monitoring center. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says a PM2.5 reading of 500 micrograms per cubic meter is at the upper end of its hazardous category.
...
While the orange alert is in force, the city will ask some factories to suspend or limit production and for construction sites to stop transporting materials and waste, the bureau said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/heavy-smog-forces-students-home-as-pollution-enshrouds-beijing (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/heavy-smog-forces-students-home-as-pollution-enshrouds-beijing)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 01, 2015, 02:15:45 PM
Wanna bet Tesla had China's air pollution top-of-mind when they developed the new Model X's "Bioweapon Defense Mode" air filtration system?

http://www.ibtimes.com/elon-musk-says-tesla-model-x-will-protect-you-bioweapons-2120218 (http://www.ibtimes.com/elon-musk-says-tesla-model-x-will-protect-you-bioweapons-2120218)

Photos, video:
http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-x-has-bioweapon-defense-2015-9 (http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-x-has-bioweapon-defense-2015-9)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 01, 2015, 04:44:39 PM
More, unbelievable, photos.

Stunning Beijing Photos Show City Darkened by Smog at Midday
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/01/beijing_smog_photos_pollution_darkens_sky.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/01/beijing_smog_photos_pollution_darkens_sky.html)


BBC video posted a few hours ago.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34961144 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34961144)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 05, 2015, 01:42:27 AM
Joe Romm:  New Charts Show The Downward Spiral Of Chinese Coal Use
Quote
Coal use in China declined in 2014, the first drop this century. And another new study, from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), reports more than a 5 percent year-on-year decline in coal use as of September.

The IEEFA study concludes, “China’s coal production and consumption looks to have peaked in 2013.” It’s now a widely-held view in the Beijing climate community that China will peak its carbon dioxide emissions by 2025.

Yes, the New York Times reported last month about China’s “underreported” coal consumption. But as Climate Progress explained at the time, this isn’t news to energy experts and climate negotiators. One leading expert who had reported on all this back in February told Climate Progress, “The information in relation to this particular issue has already been known for at least a year and a half.”

What’s news is that a combination of new policies from Beijing has reversed a quarter-century of coal-based industrial growth driven by concerns over both urban air pollution and climate change. What’s news is China’s policies are driving an explosion in carbon-free power:
...
Significantly, China is still bringing online new coal capacity. Hart notes, “In 2014, China took hundreds of existing coal plants offline but also added around 39 gigawatts of new coal capacity.” Some of this is new, more efficient plants replacing older, less efficiency capacity. “Some local officials are overbuilding simply because they have the capital to do so, and that is creating a massive capacity bubble in China, driving down plant-utilization rates, as well as the generation of profits nationwide,” explains Hart. “The average utilization rate for China’s thermal-power generations was 54 percent in 2014 — the lowest rate since China first began its reform and opening process in the late 1970s.”

A November report from Greenpeace came to a similar conclusion: “Capacity utilization of the plants has been plummeting. China is now adding one idle coal-fired power plant per week.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/04/3727779/downward-spiral-chinese-coal/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/04/3727779/downward-spiral-chinese-coal/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 07, 2015, 03:21:26 PM
December 7:  Beijing Issues 1st Smog Red Alert, Orders Half of Cars Off Roads
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/beijing-issues-1st-smog-red-alert-orders-half-cars-roads-n475351 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/beijing-issues-1st-smog-red-alert-orders-half-cars-roads-n475351)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 09, 2015, 02:39:27 PM
China's slowing economy is encouraging its leaders to leverage move influence in Africa by increasing its economic aid to the continent.  Soon, Africa's middle-class consumption will be ramping up just as India is doing today:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/africa/chinese-economy-africa-trade-relationship/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/africa/chinese-economy-africa-trade-relationship/)

Extract: "China's economic influence across Africa is as controversial as it is irrefutable. On Friday 4 December, president Xi Jinping announced a three-year plan to boast cooperation with the African continent. The $60bn package includes 10 major projects that extend from poverty reduction to trade facilitation.
It is investments of this size that has enabled China to become, in 2013, sub-Saharan Africa's largest export and development partner in 2013. But its engagement has not been free from criticism, with international and African voices alike citing instances of exploitation, environmental damage and a disproportionate focus on extractive activities. The row over the Chinese-owned Collum Coal Mining Industries in Zambia being a case in point."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: mati on December 20, 2015, 02:54:24 AM
china approves 4 more nuclear reactors:
https://www.kallanishenergy.com/2015/12/18/approval-given-for-four-new-chinese-reactors/ (https://www.kallanishenergy.com/2015/12/18/approval-given-for-four-new-chinese-reactors/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sleepy on December 20, 2015, 04:52:11 AM
It's better than coal.
But it's also like treating a really bad flu with a bottle of whiskey. Great now, worse later.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 29, 2015, 04:41:13 PM
Microsoft, IBM Eye Big Business Opportunity in China's Air Pollution
Quote
Air pollution in China could be big business.

Two of the world's largest technology firms, IBM and Microsoft, are vying to tap the nascent, fast-growing market for forecasting air quality in the world's top carbon emitters.

Bouts of acrid smog enveloping Beijing prompted authorities in the Chinese capital to declare two unprecedented "red alerts" this month — a warning to the city's 22 million inhabitants that heavy pollution is expected for more than three days. Such alerts rely on advances in pollution forecasting, increasingly important for Communist Party leaders as they seek improvements in monitoring and managing the country's notorious smog in response to growing public awareness.
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/microsoft-ibm-eye-big-business-opportunity-china-s-air-pollution-n487001 (http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/microsoft-ibm-eye-big-business-opportunity-china-s-air-pollution-n487001)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 09, 2016, 03:43:43 PM
China feels that as in the next ten years it must urbanize another 300 million people, it has no choice but to grow, even if it means making bad economic decisions:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/the-country-that-tricked-the-world/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/08/the-country-that-tricked-the-world/)

China’s stock market took a breather Friday after plunging this week, pulling global markets down with it. But the financial turbulence rocking China has brought to the surface a deeper fear: That its economy is sinking, and that its downfall will derail the still-fragile economic recovery going on in other parts of the world.
What makes those fears worse is that few people have a good understanding of how well China’s economy is really doing. The country’s official growth figures paint a rosy picture that any country would aspire to: In the third quarter, China said its economy expanded 6.9 percent from the previous year, far above U.S. growth of 2 percent.
But how much should we believe those figures?
“Not a lot,” says Mark Williams, the chief Asia economist at Capital Economics, a research consultancy based in London.
“They are absolute make-believe,” says Leland Miller, the president of China Beige Book International, which compiles private surveys on the Chinese economy.
China’s economy has been gradually slowing from the double-digit rates it recorded in past decades, due to a variety of factors, some of which are the inevitable result of many years of fast growth, and some of which are not. But experts widely disagree on exactly how much the economy has slowed. While some analysts estimate the growth in China's gross domestic product (GDP) at as little as 1 or 2 percent, other estimates are higher, even if not as high as the country's official read.

So the setting of a relatively high target of 6.5 percent growth for the next five years – a time in which economic forces are likely to continue to drag on China’s economy – suggests that we could see a lot more fiddled growth figures to come.
“I think that the only way that China will be able to hit its targets over the next five years would be in the short term to pursue some very undesirable stimulus policies, which would only create bigger problems down the road, or by faking the numbers,” says Williams."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: JimD on January 12, 2016, 05:43:36 PM
Huge interventions in the Chinese markets and currency.

Quote
China resorts to 'nuclear strength' weapons to defend the yuan
Despite fighting words from the central bank and Communist party leaders, banks are calling the currency lower, pulling oil and stocks down further.

The Chinese authorities have resorted to “nuclear strength” weapons to deter an attack on the yuan by short sellers and convince sceptical investors that they are in control of the country’s spluttering financial system.

China’s central bank fixed the currency firmer again on Tuesday but traders were not persuaded and the currency slipped in early trade despite what dealers called aggressive intervention to support the currency.

The gap between the mainland yuan and its offshore counterpart had grown in recent days but suspected intervention by China’s state-owned banks brought them almost into line on Tuesday.

The action sent the rate at which banks charge each other to borrow yuan in Hong Kong to a record high of 67% on Tuesday.


http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/12/chinese-efforts-to-talk-up-yuan-fail-to-stop-slide-in-oil-and-stock-prices (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/12/chinese-efforts-to-talk-up-yuan-fail-to-stop-slide-in-oil-and-stock-prices)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 14, 2016, 08:06:25 PM
The linked LA Times article indicates that while China's economy has its share of problems, there is very little chance of an economic collapse.  This indicates that the global economy will most likely continue to impose relatively high rates of radiative forcing on the Earth for some years to come:

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-global-jitters-20160114-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-global-jitters-20160114-story.html)

Extract: “Our picture of China as a big export machine just isn’t accurate,” said Barry Bosworth, an Asia economic expert at the Brookings Institution. “What matters is that China is fundamentally a domestically based economy. It’s a great big domestic economy,” he added. “And a threat of a collapse is very small. It’s just got too much wealth behind it.”
That’s not to say that China doesn’t have serious economic risks and challenges, among them huge debts from excessive investments in property, an over-supply of steel and other goods, inefficient state-owned firms and a rapid outflow of capital from China.
But even if those fault lines open, Beijing has the resources and will to maintain satisfactory economic growth, which is critical for its political legitimacy. With foreign reserves of roughly $3 trillion, if worse comes to worst, Chinese officials can be expected to throw money at the problem, as Beijing has repeatedly done by bailing out debt-laden banks and other vulnerable sectors of the economy."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 18, 2016, 01:23:18 PM
Chinese Shipyards See New Orders Fall by Almost Half in 2015
Quote
New orders received by Chinese shipbuilders fell by nearly half last year from 2014, suggesting more consolidation is in order as the country’s appetite for raw materials wanes and shipping rates languish at multiyear lows.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-18/chinese-shipyards-see-new-orders-fall-by-almost-half-in-2015 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-18/chinese-shipyards-see-new-orders-fall-by-almost-half-in-2015)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 19, 2016, 04:36:05 PM
As the Chinese economy transforms into a consumer society, their oil consumption will keep increasing (more cars, more planes, etc.) as indicated by their all time high oil consumption in 2015:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil-idUSKCN0UX02J (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil-idUSKCN0UX02J)

Extract: "Oil prices rose on Tuesday as data showed Chinese oil demand probably hit a record high in 2015..."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 20, 2016, 06:26:42 PM
China's 11,000 mines are producing twice as much coal as the country needs.

Quote
BEIJING, Jan 18 (Reuters) - China's decision to stop approving new coal mines for three years has been applauded by green groups, but the move is likely to make barely a dent on the world's biggest coal industry given its vast existing production capacity.

Some estimates suggest China's surplus capacity could be as high as 2 billion tonnes of coal a year - more than 50 percent of 2015 output - in a country with nearly 11,000 mines.

Beijing wants to cut the share of coal in its energy mix to contain pollution and meet climate change goals, while it is also trying to manage the fortunes of a struggling sector that employs nearly 6 million people.

And so far efforts to rein in production appear to have had limited market impact with Chinese coal prices losing a third last year.
http://news.trust.org/item/20160118101012-4kvql/ (http://news.trust.org/item/20160118101012-4kvql/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 20, 2016, 06:36:22 PM
China's coal-burning in significant decline, figures show
Quote
Coal-burning in China is in significant decline, according to official figures released on Tuesday, signalling a major turnaround for the world’s biggest polluter.

The new data is good news for the fight against climate change but bad for the struggling global coal industry.

China saw a huge increase in coal-burning for power and industry in the last two decades but has suffered serious air pollution as a result. However in recent years there has been a surge in low-carbon energy and a slowdown in the economy - GDP growth fell in 2015 to its lowest in 25 years - as China moves away from manufacturing.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/19/chinas-coal-burning-in-significant-decline-figures-show (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/19/chinas-coal-burning-in-significant-decline-figures-show)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 20, 2016, 09:11:05 PM
China Emissions From Power Likely Fell 2% in 2015 as Coal Curbed
Quote
China’s emissions of climate-warming carbon dioxide produced as a result of using coal for electricity generation probably fell 2 percent in 2015 as a push by the world’s most populous nation to tackle climate change resulted in less of the fuel being burned.

That equates to 144.9 million metric tons of carbon emissions that didn’t enter the atmosphere because of the retreat from coal, according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysis of data from the China Electricity Council and the National Energy Administration.

Carbon emissions “declined faster than expected” in 2015, said Sophie Lu, a Beijing-based analyst at BNEF. The reduction means ‘China’s work in cutting emissions has taken effect.”

China, the world’s biggest energy consumer, has pledged to cap its emissions around 2030. The nation is seeking to cut coal’s share of its energy consumption, while boosting renewable energy.

Coal power generation fell 2.8 percent in 2015 from the previous year, indicating a 77 million metric-ton reduction in how much of the fossil fuel was used, according to the BNEF analysis.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-20/china-emissions-from-power-likely-fell-2-in-2015-as-coal-curbed (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-20/china-emissions-from-power-likely-fell-2-in-2015-as-coal-curbed)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 21, 2016, 05:25:23 PM
While many people focus on the transition of the Chinese economy from being the "Factory of the World" to a service based economy; China is quietly financing economic development throughout the remaining developing world including the Middle East (see below), which will effective shift Chinese emissions to other countries (much as the Developed World has already done):

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/01/21/world/middleeast/ap-ml-egypt-china.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/01/21/world/middleeast/ap-ml-egypt-china.html?_r=0)

Extract: "China has signed agreements to invest nearly $18 billion in Egypt, whose economy is yet to recover from years of political turmoil.
Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi welcomed the much-needed future deals on Thursday, saying he prides himself on his friendship with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
The Chinese agreements are aimed at developing the Suez Canal as well as the Egypt's infrastructure, transportation and electricity sector, with the investments staggered over several years.
President Xi's three-day visit to Egypt comes as part of a Middle East tour that will include a stop in Iran.
Earlier this week, Xi visited Saudi Arabia, where he signed 14 memoranda of understanding to enhance cooperation, research, investment and development in the fields of trade, satellite navigation technology, renewable energy and oil."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 24, 2016, 12:46:06 AM
Everyone's Got a China Call as Markets Grapple With Who's Right
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-22/everyone-s-got-a-china-call-as-markets-grapple-with-who-s-right (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-22/everyone-s-got-a-china-call-as-markets-grapple-with-who-s-right)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: JimD on January 26, 2016, 10:09:10 PM
Quote
"Temporary" Capital Controls Coming to China?

China hemorrhaged $663 billion of its reserves since June 2014 in a misguided attempt to prop up the yaun...

What caused this mess?

The answer is a ridiculous growth targets. To hit 7% growth targets for years on end, China had to waste a lot of money on projects, many of which are now worthless.

While the boom lasted, China, like Japan before it, was considered an "economic miracle".

Unlike the above writers, I suggest China do what it should have done a decade ago: float the yuan and stop micro-managing the economy.

Sure there will be a lot of short term pain. But short term pain is a lot better than three lost decades as Japan is experiencing

Note those 'worthless' projects are what drove the bubble in commodities and the global economy for years.  Thus the drop in demand is going to last a long time and crush many of those commodity suppliers.


http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/01/temporary-capital-controls-coming-to.html (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2016/01/temporary-capital-controls-coming-to.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 29, 2016, 01:31:24 AM
China Trumpets Its Service Economy
It accounts for half of GDP. The pay isn’t great.
Quote
China’s service sector now employs more than 300 million people, the largest share of the country’s 775 million workers. The fastest growth has been in low-end jobs in retail, restaurants, hotels, and real estate. Over the last five years, education and government jobs, most of which are filled by college graduates, have fallen from a little less than half of total service employment to a third or so.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-28/china-trumpets-its-service-economy (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-28/china-trumpets-its-service-economy)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: JimD on January 30, 2016, 03:30:32 PM
Excellent review of where China sits today and the implications for all of us tomorrow. It ain't pretty.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60926 (https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60926)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Shared Humanity on January 30, 2016, 06:56:37 PM
Excellent review of where China sits today and the implications for all of us tomorrow. It ain't pretty.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60926 (https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/60926)

A single simple quote from the linked article says it all.

"Hedge fund manager George Soros was merely stating the obvious when he warned that the slowdown in China meant that the global economy was back once again to the crisis of 2008 — the GFC has never gone away."

This has been my point all along. Global capitalism has a structural problem. There is simply not enough demand to prop up growth any longer. We have been tiptoeing along the edge of the cliff for a decade. We will eventually fall into the yawning abyss. Efforts to stimulate growth like zero percent interest rates are laughable.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 03, 2016, 02:04:54 AM
China Blows Past the U.S. in Wind Power
Reducing air pollution is a bigger incentive than lowering carbon emissions
Quote
China solidified its standing as the world’s wind energy behemoth in 2015, adding almost as much wind power capacity in one year as the total installed capacity of the three largest U.S. wind-producing states: Texas, Iowa and California.

New data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance show China installed just under 29 gigawatts of new wind energy capacity in 2015, surpassing its previous record of roughly 21 GW set in 2014. The country also accounted for more than 46 percent of all wind power installed globally for the year, eclipsing the next largest market, the United States, which added 8.6 GW (ClimateWire, Jan. 28).

Amy Grace, head of wind insight at BNEF, said the Chinese growth figure was the biggest surprise of 2015 and roughly 4 GW higher than analysts predicted. After China and the United States, the world’s largest markets for new wind power in 2015 were Germany, India and Brazil, with gross installs of 3.7, 2.6 and 2.6 GW, respectively.
...
While investment in China’s power grid has risen substantially, the country still has some of the world’s highest curtailment rates for renewable energy, meaning thousands of turbines are taken offline, even under optimum wind conditions, because grid operators lack the knowledge and skills to integrate the clean energy with other sources, including baseload power from coal plants.

Because of those limitations, Lewis said the United States remains a world leader in wind energy because capacity factors and utilization rates are much higher on average for U.S. wind turbines than for Chinese turbines.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-blows-past-the-u-s-in-wind-power/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-blows-past-the-u-s-in-wind-power/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 12, 2016, 07:14:20 PM
The linked article confirms that as China slows its industrial development, it is concurrently accelerating its finance of development projects in Latin America; which will make China's carbon footprint look better, but will make Latin America's carbon footprint look worse:

http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2016/02/12/china-doubles-bets-on-ailing-latin-american-economies/ (http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2016/02/12/china-doubles-bets-on-ailing-latin-american-economies/)

Extract: "As Western-backed development banks and the private sector are on the retreat from Latin America, China’s development banks are coming to the rescue, at least for now.

China’s two development banks, the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China, provided upwards of $29bn to Latin American governments in 2015, according to new estimates published by Boston University’s Global Economic Governance Initiative and the Washington-based think tank The Inter-American Dialogue.

A three-fold increase from 2014, China’s 2015 finance to Latin America was more than the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and the Development Bank of Latin America combined."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 13, 2016, 09:08:17 AM
The linked article indicates that China is currently experiencing 1.6 million premature deaths a year due to air pollution, mostly due to particle emissions from coal burning:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249)

Extract: "More than 5.5 million people worldwide are dying prematurely every year as a result of air pollution, according to new research.

In China, there are said to be about 1.6 million deaths a year; in India, it is roughly 1.3 million. This data is from 2013, the most recent year for which it is available.
The key sources of pollution concern are slightly different in each nation, however.
In China, the dominant factor is particle emissions from coal burning.
The project calculates this source alone is responsible for more than 360,000 deaths every year.
And even though China has targets to restrict coal combustion and emissions in the future, it may struggle to bring down the number of deaths because it is acquiring an aging population and these citizens are naturally more susceptible to the illnesses associated with poor air quality.
"So, we think more aggressive policies are urgently needed to reduce the emissions from coal combustion and other sectors," stated project researcher Qiao Ma, a PhD student at Tsinghua University in Beijing."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 23, 2016, 02:49:06 AM
China to close more than 1,000 coal mines in 2016: energy bureau
Quote
BEIJING (Reuters) - China will aim to close more than 1,000 coal mines over this year, with a total production capacity of 60 million tonnes, as part of its plans to tackle a price-sapping supply glut in the sector, the country's energy regulator said.

China is the world's top coal consumer but demand has been on the wane as economic growth slows and the country shifts away from fossil fuels in order to curb pollution.

In a notice posted on its website on Monday, the National Energy Administration (NEA) said the closures would form part of the plan released earlier this month to shut as much as 500 million tonnes of surplus production capacity within the next three to five years. (www.nea.gov.cn (http://www.nea.gov.cn))

China has a total of 10,760 mines, and 5,600 of them will eventually be required to close under a policy banning those with an annual output capacity of less than 90,000 tonnes, the China National Coal Association has estimated.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VV0U5 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VV0U5)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 29, 2016, 04:42:03 PM
China's coal consumption fell last year -- if you believe China government data.
Quote
China's coal consumption fell for the second year in a row, government data showed on Monday, as the world's biggest polluter attempts to tackle chronic pollution that accompanied economic growth.

Coal use fell 3.7 percent last year compared to 2014 levels, according to a report from China's National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). The drop follows a 2.9 percent decrease in 2014.
http://news.yahoo.com/china-coal-consumption-drops-again-govt-063147796.html (http://news.yahoo.com/china-coal-consumption-drops-again-govt-063147796.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 29, 2016, 04:52:45 PM
China's coal consumption fell last year -- if you believe China government data.
Quote
China's coal consumption fell for the second year in a row, government data showed on Monday, as the world's biggest polluter attempts to tackle chronic pollution that accompanied economic growth.

Coal use fell 3.7 percent last year compared to 2014 levels, according to a report from China's National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). The drop follows a 2.9 percent decrease in 2014.
http://news.yahoo.com/china-coal-consumption-drops-again-govt-063147796.html (http://news.yahoo.com/china-coal-consumption-drops-again-govt-063147796.html)

Unfortunately, China is substituting much of this coal with methane that is resulting in a net increase in radiative forcing over a 10-year period.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 29, 2016, 04:53:06 PM
China Redoubles Its War On Coal
By Joe Romm
Quote
Until recently, Beijing’s efforts to slash coal use had been more successful than their efforts to slow the construction of new power plants. Indeed, while thermal power generation from coal fell in 2015, some 23 gigawatts of thermal power plants — mostly coal — were brought online in the first half of the year alone. An Australia business journal explained what happened next:
"As a result, capacity utilization at thermal power plants fell further from the all-time low reached last year, now dropping just below 50%."

China is using the equivalent of only half its coal plants. And the utilization rate will continue to drop as China enacts the policies President Xi Jinping announced in the United States last September. Besides embracing a cap-and-trade system, which will put further downward pressure on coal, China announced it will use what is called “green dispatch” system for its electric grid.

Green dispatch means China will use all of its low- or zero-carbon sources like wind before using dirtier sources like coal. China had been forcing wind plants “to shut down at times to let coal power plants meet their generation quotas,” as the American Wind Energy Association has explained. As a result, some “17 percent of potential wind generation was lost due to curtailment in 2012, and this policy change should significantly reduce that figure going forward.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/29/3753342/china-war-coal/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/29/3753342/china-war-coal/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 01, 2016, 05:42:55 PM
China plans to cut 1.8 million coal and steel jobs
Quote
China's workers are starting to feel the pain of the global commodities bust.

The Chinese government said Monday it was planning to shed 1.8 million coal and steel jobs in an effort to reduce excess capacity.

Some 1.3 million jobs will be lost in the coal sector, and 500,000 in the steel industry.
"Although this is a very difficult task, in every respect, it is something that we must actively work to accomplish," said Yin Weimin, China's top human resources and social security official. Yin did not say when the jobs would go.

The cuts represent about 20% and 11% of China's coal and steel jobs, respectively, according to IHS Insight.

China's slowdown has triggered a rout in global commodities. For years, China pumped up its economy by building infrastructure and factories, fueling huge demand for coal and steel.

But the world's second-largest economy is now posting its weakest growth in 25 years, prompting those industries to cut back on investment and jobs around the globe. Now, the layoffs are also hitting China.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/29/news/economy/china-steel-coal-jobs/index.html (http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/29/news/economy/china-steel-coal-jobs/index.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 01, 2016, 06:24:12 PM
China plans to cut 1.8 million coal and steel jobs

The linked (open access) reference points to new development in aerosol-cloud-interaction, ACI, modeling in China, indicating that in 2013 ACI reduced regional Chinese monthly temperatures by 0.3C; which implies that as China decreases its use of coal this negative radiative forcing will be reduced:


Zhou, C., Zhang, X., Gong, S., Wang, Y., and Xue, M.: Improving aerosol interaction with clouds and precipitation in a regional chemical weather modeling system, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 145-160, doi:10.5194/acp-16-145-2016, 2016.


http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/145/2016/ (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/145/2016/)

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/145/2016/acp-16-145-2016.pdf (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/145/2016/acp-16-145-2016.pdf)

Abstract: "A comprehensive aerosol–cloud–precipitation interaction (ACI) scheme has been developed under a China Meteorological Administration (CMA) chemical weather modeling system, GRAPES/CUACE (Global/Regional Assimilation and PrEdiction System, CMA Unified Atmospheric Chemistry Environment). Calculated by a sectional aerosol activation scheme based on the information of size and mass from CUACE and the thermal-dynamic and humid states from the weather model GRAPES at each time step, the cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) are interactively fed online into a two-moment cloud scheme (WRF Double-Moment 6-class scheme – WDM6) and a convective parameterization to drive cloud physics and precipitation formation processes. The modeling system has been applied to study the ACI for January 2013 when several persistent haze-fog events and eight precipitation events occurred.

The results show that aerosols that interact with the WDM6 in GRAPES/CUACE obviously increase the total cloud water, liquid water content, and cloud droplet number concentrations, while decreasing the mean diameters of cloud droplets with varying magnitudes of the changes in each case and region. These interactive microphysical properties of clouds improve the calculation of their collection growth rates in some regions and hence the precipitation rate and distributions in the model, showing 24 to 48 % enhancements of threat score for 6 h precipitation in almost all regions. The aerosols that interact with the WDM6 also reduce the regional mean bias of temperature by 3 °C during certain precipitation events, but the monthly means bias is only reduced by about 0.3 °C."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: sidd on March 01, 2016, 07:49:23 PM
"Green dispatch" in China is important. When combined with the merit order effect arising from wind and solar buildout (see Jerome's excellent series at eurotrib) this will grease the skids for electricity from coal.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: sidd on March 02, 2016, 06:23:55 AM
China is serious.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-layoffs-exclusive-idUSKCN0W33DS (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-layoffs-exclusive-idUSKCN0W33DS)

500 million tonnes of coal production gone in the next three to five years

by comparison, world coal production is around 8000 million, china roughly half that
that takes a bite.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-29/china-expects-1-8-million-coal-steel-layoffs-on-capacity-cuts (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-29/china-expects-1-8-million-coal-steel-layoffs-on-capacity-cuts)

small steps.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wili on March 02, 2016, 09:39:53 PM
Yes, there's been a lot of green-sounding verbiage spilling from official Chinese mouthpieces.

Greenpeace, for one, isn't buying it: http://newsdaily.com/2016/03/greenpeace-says-china-increasing-coal-fired-capacity/ (http://newsdaily.com/2016/03/greenpeace-says-china-increasing-coal-fired-capacity/)

Greenpeace says China increasing coal-fired capacity

Quote
Greenpeace East Asia said on Wednesday that China had a total of 210 coal power projects in the pipeline”for environmental assessment permitting at the end of 2015, despite overcapacity in the industry and pollution concerns.

Of those, 95 projects received final regulatory permits that would allow construction to begin, Greenpeace said in a report. Construction began on at least 66 coal power projects with a combined capacity of 73 gigawatts (GW), Greenpeace added, some of which had received approval in a previous year.

There is a very rapid and accelerating net increase in coal-fired generating capacity,” Lauri Myllyvirta, the group’s senior global campaigner on coal, told Reuters...
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 02, 2016, 10:36:26 PM
Due to internal politics, China needs to reduce its coal burning (to improve air pollution); however, the first attached image of the Copernicus Methane emission forecast map from March 1 to 6 2016, shows that China is a major emitter of methane (from open coal mines that vent whether they are mined or not, from rice fields, from leaks from natural gas usage, and from fires); which can have a Global Warming Potential over 10-years that is 130 times that of CO2.  Thus it is possible that China's efforts to clean-up its air could result in a spike in global warming both due to a spike in methane emissions and due to a reduction in aerosol related negative radiative forcing.

Edit: I note that the relatively high methane emissions in the Congo and Indonesia are probably associated with fires.

Edit2: Per the second attached image from the following websites, the radiative footprint of both China and India is much more dominated by methane vs carbon dioxide as compared to developed countries

http://ehsdiv.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/2015/Desai%20_climate_debt_metric.pdf (http://ehsdiv.sph.berkeley.edu/krsmith/publications/2015/Desai%20_climate_debt_metric.pdf)

&
https://newmatilda.com/2015/11/25/halting-climate-change-means-more-than-cutting-carbon/ (https://newmatilda.com/2015/11/25/halting-climate-change-means-more-than-cutting-carbon/)
 
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 08, 2016, 04:22:49 PM
China Renewable Energy Growth Soars & Coal Use Declines
Quote
China’s solar and wind energy capacity increased by 74% and 34%, respectively, in 2015, while coal consumption dropped by 3.7%.

China’s National Bureau of Statistics released figures for 2015 this week, and officials believe that the country’s current growth path will allow them to soon surpass their carbon emissions targets. Specifically, China broke two new records in 2015, installing a record 32.5% of wind in 2015, and a record 18.3 GW of solar in 2015 — both of which were higher than initial estimates.

“The latest figures confirm China’s record-breaking shift toward renewable power and away from coal,” said Tim Buckley, Director of Energy Finance Studies at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). “Solar and wind continue to be the big winners, as illustrated by a 73.7% increase in grid-connected solar generation capacity. Declining consumption coupled with an over-abundance of domestic supply, meaning coal imports into China were particularly badly hit, dropping 30.4% yoy.”

Timothy Buckley also makes note of just how fast global electricity markets are transforming. Despite China’s confirmed figures being largely in line with initial estimates, they nevertheless highlight that global electricity markets “are transforming a great deal faster than anyone actually expected.”

The transformation is nothing without the corresponding decrease in fossil fuels, and China seems to be making strong headway towards its goals to decrease its coal usage and import. 2015 saw coal consumption decline 3.7%, year-over-year, and net coal imports dropped a much more significant 30.4% year-over-year, down to 198.7 million tonnes. This trend has already been seen to continue into 2016, with January’s net coal imports dropping by 11.6% year-over-year.

“IEEFA forecasts that China will install an additional 22 GW of wind, 16GW of new hydro, another 6GW of nuclear, and 18GW of solar (60% utility scale, 40% distributed rooftop solar) in 2016,” explained Buckley. “With electricity demand forecast to grow by 3.0-3.5% yoy in 2016, this 62GW of additional zero carbon electricity capacity will be more than sufficient to meet total electricity demand growth, such that coal consumption is forecast to fall again in 2016.”
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/03/06/china-renewable-growth-soars-fossil-fuel-use-declines/
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 08, 2016, 04:38:43 PM
Is China under-promising and over-delivering, and if so why does the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO₂ concentration keep increasing on a BAU pathway?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0307/China-denies-claims-that-the-nation-s-emissions-peaked-in-2014 (http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0307/China-denies-claims-that-the-nation-s-emissions-peaked-in-2014)

Extract: "China greenhouse gas emissions may have reached their peak in 2014, which means they are now either stable or in decline.
That’s generally good news, except that the country promised in a global warming pact signed in Paris last year, that it would cut emission over the next 15 years so that they would peak around 2030 and then start to decline. The fact that the country peaked much earlier suggests to climate advocates that the country may have set targets that are too easy to meet.
“China’s international commitment to peak emissions ‘around 2030’ should be seen as a highly conservative upper limit from a government that prefers to under-promise and over-deliver,” write economists Fergus Green and Nicholas Stern from the London School of Economics and Political Science in a paper released Monday."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 09, 2016, 06:41:44 PM
The linked article shows that the coal to synthetic natural gas, SNG, production that China is expanding its use of, produces more life-cycle GHG than either burning natural gas or coal directly to produce electricity:

Sheng Li & Lin Gao (2016), "Greenhouse gas emissions from synthetic natural gas production", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 220–221, doi:10.1038/nclimate2887


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2887.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2887.html)

Partial Abstract: "China is developing technology to process coal into synthetic natural gas (SNG). This process would both attain energy security and implement clean coal technology. Yang and Jackson's claim that the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with converting coal to SNG are seven times those associated with conventional…"

See also:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2889.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2889.html)

Edit: I note that the expanded use of SNG in China will reduce air pollution; which will reduce its associated negative forcing (& associated negative feedback); which will result in accelerated global warming (compared to Chinese electricity production by the direct burning of coal).
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 10, 2016, 01:58:28 AM
Bernanke: A Fresh Approach to Fiscal Stimulus Is China's Only Solution to the Impossible Trinity
Devaluations and capital controls won't work.
Quote
Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke offered a solution to the problem that's long vexed Chinese policymakers and spurred turmoil in financial markets.

As economic growth in China moderated and capital outflows picked up steam, market participants have become focused on how the world's second-largest economy will resolve the so-called "impossible trinity."

Under the Mundell-Fleming model, an economy can choose only two of three following options at the same time: a fixed exchange rate, independent monetary policy, and an open capital account.

The liberalization of China's capital account coupled with recent measures to ease monetary policy have left Beijing in the unsustainable position of being in defiance of this impossible trinity, Bernanke wrote in a blog post. Attempts to bolster the economy via monetary accommodation have increased the incentive for capital to flow out of the country, which is a negative for the currency.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-09/bernanke-a-fresh-approach-to-fiscal-stimulus-is-china-s-only-solution-to-the-impossible-trinity (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-09/bernanke-a-fresh-approach-to-fiscal-stimulus-is-china-s-only-solution-to-the-impossible-trinity)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 17, 2016, 08:49:13 PM
China goes big on clean energy in latest Five-Year Plan
Quote
For the first time ever, China will cap its total primary energy consumption, and set targets to improve its air quality, outlined in its 13th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development.

China also plans to cut energy and CO2 intensity by 15 per cent and 18 per cent respectively in the next five years, putting the country in a position to likely surpass its 2020 carbon intensity reduction target.

This announcement comes at a time when coal use continues to decline throughout the country and renewable capacity is soaring.

A recent study shows that the country is likely to meet its climate pledges quicker than expected, to protect the vulnerable from adverse climate impacts. As emissions stall and renewables surge, China is on a path that cleans up its air, cuts coal reliance and ends extreme poverty.

http://tcktcktck.org/2016/03/china-goes-big-on-clean-energy-in-latest-five-year-plan/#sthash.dBShj6Cl.dpuf (http://tcktcktck.org/2016/03/china-goes-big-on-clean-energy-in-latest-five-year-plan/#sthash.dBShj6Cl.dpuf)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 23, 2016, 03:26:57 PM
Report Ties Coal Plants to Water Shortage in Northern China
Quote
China’s consumption of coal, a major contributor to climate change and the country’s horrific air pollution, is worsening a severe water shortage in the northern part of the country, Greenpeace said in a report released Tuesday.

China’s coal-fired power plants consume more water where water is scarce than plants in any other country, according to the report, which assessed global water depletion from coal use.

A decades-long drought in northern China — home to the bulk of the country’s coal production and consumption — is worsening, and the central and local governments are grappling with widespread desertification. Officials have relocated millions of people. Beijing, the capital, where more than 20 million people live, has extremely low water levels.

The problem is so severe in the north that China has built an enormous series of canals, the South-North Water Diversion Project, to transport water hundreds of miles from the Yangtze River.

Greenpeace said the continuing burning of coal for power plants and factories in northern China, along with the growth of the coal-to-chemicals industry, was exacerbating the water crisis. In much of northern China, people are using water faster than it can be regenerated, Greenpeace said, “posing a serious threat to local ecology.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/world/asia/china-coal-power-water-shortage-greenpeace.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/world/asia/china-coal-power-water-shortage-greenpeace.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: mati on March 23, 2016, 07:38:07 PM
china to add 15-20 gigW of solar electricity per year .
China plans to more than triple solar power capacity by 2020 to as much as 143 gigawatts to help reduce carbon emissions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-21/china-to-more-than-triple-solar-power-capacity-in-five-years (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-21/china-to-more-than-triple-solar-power-capacity-in-five-years)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 29, 2016, 04:41:42 PM
Per the linked article, it is premature to claim that China's CO₂ emissions have dipped (certainly their CH4 emissions have increased):

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-china-idUSKCN0WU1CU (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-china-idUSKCN0WU1CU)

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 29, 2016, 09:53:32 PM
It seems to be safe to say that China's use of coal seems to be plateauing.  The amount might bounce around a few years before we see a strong decline signal that even the China-doubters would accept.

Stopping growth should be celebrated.  Gotta stop before putting into reverse.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 29, 2016, 11:01:01 PM
It seems to be safe to say that China's use of coal seems to be plateauing.  The amount might bounce around a few years before we see a strong decline signal that even the China-doubters would accept.

Stopping growth should be celebrated.  Gotta stop before putting into reverse.

The attached Mauna Loa CO2 concentration thru March 28 2016 indicates that w.r.t. CO2 we remain on a BAU pathway.  Maybe China is pulling their weight in the climate change fight, and maybe they are not; but before I celebrate "Mission Accomplished" let's just say that I am from Missouri (the "Show Me" state), and I want to see verifiable proof.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 29, 2016, 11:20:54 PM
Mauna Loa is a global measurement.  It does not tell us if China increased, slowed, or decreased its CO2 output.

I suspect it will take a few years before we can reliably assess whether China and/or the globe has stopped CO2 growth or cut annual emissions.  Like sea ice melting, there's year to year variation that can be driven by multiple factors.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 30, 2016, 12:41:15 AM
Mauna Loa is a global measurement.  It does not tell us if China increased, slowed, or decreased its CO2 output.

I suspect it will take a few years before we can reliably assess whether China and/or the globe has stopped CO2 growth or cut annual emissions.  Like sea ice melting, there's year to year variation that can be driven by multiple factors.

In the meantime, I assume that you will celebrate dubious local successes, even if planetary energy imbalances continue to accelerate; while, I will endeavor to take a more holistic view.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on March 30, 2016, 04:36:22 AM
You're damned right I'll celebrate individual country success in lowering their CO2 emissions. 

I don't ride a purity pony.  My steed is a pragmatic ox.  We plod along toward the goal and try to recognize progress wherever we find it.

 ;D
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: ghoti on March 30, 2016, 04:38:03 PM
I'm with Bob. This can be done incrementally (though I wish the steps were bigger and faster). The small successes show that it can be done and the doubters are wrong.

Impossible to get rid of coal? Quebec and Ontario prove coal isn't needed or even helpful.

Can't have more than a few percent wind and solar and keep the grid stable? Germany, Denmark, Spain and more in their gradual stepwise fashion have shown gird stabilty with  25% "intermittent" electricity sources.

Now you continue to insinuate China can't reduce their GHG emissions. They are proving they can.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 30, 2016, 06:48:28 PM
I'm with Bob. This can be done incrementally (though I wish the steps were bigger and faster). The small successes show that it can be done and the doubters are wrong.

Impossible to get rid of coal? Quebec and Ontario prove coal isn't needed or even helpful.

Can't have more than a few percent wind and solar and keep the grid stable? Germany, Denmark, Spain and more in their gradual stepwise fashion have shown gird stabilty with  25% "intermittent" electricity sources.

Now you continue to insinuate China can't reduce their GHG emissions. They are proving they can.

While it is nice to quote reductions in tonnes of coal consumed, it is better to talk about changes in radiative forcing.  The linked reference confirms, and quantifies, what we have long known; which is that as China cleans-up its aerosol emissions, GMST will increase due to CO₂ that is already in the atmosphere (and this does not consider the large recent increases in methane emissions from China due to such considerations as: (a) increased meat and rice production; (b) increase coal to synfuel production, and (c) leakage from natural gas sources/distribution lines:

Bengang Li, Thomas Gasser, Philippe Ciais, Shilong Piao, Shu Tao, Yves Balkanski, Didier Hauglustaine, Juan-Pablo Boisier, Zhuo Chen, Mengtian Huang, Laurent Zhaoxin Li, Yue Li, Hongyan Liu, Junfeng Liu, Shushi Peng, Zehao Shen, Zhenzhong Sun, Rong Wang, Tao Wang, Guodong Yin, Yi Yin, Hui Zeng, Zhenzhong Zeng & Feng Zhou (17 March 2016), "The contribution of China’s emissions to global climate forcing", Nature, Volume: 531, Pages: 357–361, doi:10.1038/nature17165


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7594/full/nature17165.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7594/full/nature17165.html)


Abstract: "Knowledge of the contribution that individual countries have made to global radiative forcing is important to the implementation of the agreement on “common but differentiated responsibilities” reached by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Over the past three decades, China has experienced rapid economic development, accompanied by increased emission of greenhouse gases, ozone precursors and aerosols, but the magnitude of the associated radiative forcing has remained unclear. Here we use a global coupled biogeochemistry–climate model and a chemistry and transport model to quantify China’s present-day contribution to global radiative forcing due to well-mixed greenhouse gases, short-lived atmospheric climate forcers and land-use-induced regional surface albedo changes. We find that China contributes 10% ± 4% of the current global radiative forcing. China’s relative contribution to the positive (warming) component of global radiative forcing, mainly induced by well-mixed greenhouse gases and black carbon aerosols, is 12% ± 2%. Its relative contribution to the negative (cooling) component is 15% ± 6%, dominated by the effect of sulfate and nitrate aerosols. China’s strongest contributions are 0.16 ± 0.02 watts per square metre for CO2 from fossil fuel burning, 0.13 ± 0.05 watts per square metre for CH4, −0.11 ± 0.05 watts per square metre for sulfate aerosols, and 0.09 ± 0.06 watts per square metre for black carbon aerosols. China’s eventual goal of improving air quality will result in changes in radiative forcing in the coming years: a reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions would drive a faster future warming, unless offset by larger reductions of radiative forcing from well-mixed greenhouse gases and black carbon."


See also (& image):
http://www.carbonbrief.org/21000-2 (http://www.carbonbrief.org/21000-2)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 01, 2016, 05:09:41 PM
The linked article & associated plot shows that for sometime now (three to four decades) China's increase in GHG radiative forcing has been offset by a parallel growth in negative radiative forcing from aerosol emissions.  However, it is clear that as China rapidly reduces its aerosol emissions, its net contribution to global radiative forcing will increase:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/china-is-responsible-for-10-of-human-influence-on-climate-change-study-says (http://www.carbonbrief.org/china-is-responsible-for-10-of-human-influence-on-climate-change-study-says)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 04, 2016, 10:11:48 AM
The linked article indicates that many international experts think that it may be premature to conclude that China's carbon emissions have already peaked:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/world/asia/china-climate-change-peak-carbon-emissions.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/world/asia/china-climate-change-peak-carbon-emissions.html?_r=0)


“I would be more confident to say that China has reached a plateau or period of low growth,” said Glen Peters, a scientist at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo. “I think to say ‘peak’ is a little bold.”
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: oren on April 04, 2016, 08:04:59 PM
It seems China is indeed plateauing on coal use, and perhaps on carbon emissions. Is this good? Of course. Will this be enough? It seems not. But any change in the global trajectory could do some good down the line.
Note that China may be already be exporting manufacturing to other countries, which of course lessens the good impact of the Chinese emissions slowdown, Same as happened in the US and Europe. I know that many things that used to be made in China are now made elsewhere, but can't quantify anything about this.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 05, 2016, 06:57:57 AM
Quote
The Chinese government may finally be making strong moves against further coal energy development in the country, going by recent reports — with news of the blocking of development of new coal-fired power plants in 15 regions apparently having been confirmed by the country’s National Energy Administration.

The regions in question — according to the Southern Energy Observer: Shanxi, Shandong, Inner Mongolia, Hubei, Guangdong, and Yunnan, among others — saw regulators block development owing to worries about growing overcapacity, reportedly.

The move will lead to substantial carry-on impacts considering that, according to Greenpeace, at least 250 coal-fired power projects will be affected — altogether totaling more than 170 gigawatts (GW) of project electricity generation capacity.

A related move was also recently made by the Chinese National Energy Administration (NEA) that saw regulators postpone new coal-mine developments in the country until at least 2019 — partly owing to overcapacity, and partly owing to worsening air pollution problems in much of the region.

http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/04/chinese-government-reportedly-planning-block-new-coal-fired-power-plant-development-15-regions/ (http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/04/chinese-government-reportedly-planning-block-new-coal-fired-power-plant-development-15-regions/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Anne on April 06, 2016, 09:22:30 AM
Where will climate change impact China most?

Quote
New research from the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford has identified China’s infrastructure hotspots – the geographical regions most vulnerable to serious economic impact from climate change.
The top infrastructure hotspots are:

1. Beijing
2. Tianjin
3. Jiangsu
4. Shanghai
5. Zhejiang

(https://assets.weforum.org/editor/qsC9-O5jU6eDTMRNuYPmgws3MSPSUBdDys0BKurpnHA.png)

Quote
Given that infrastructure development will remain a top priority for China’s government in the future and climate change is projected to aggravate the impacts of natural disasters, understanding the exposure and vulnerability of these assets is crucial. It requires the modelling of climate hazards (i.e. how the distribution and frequency of natural hazards will change in the future) and proper assessments of infrastructure vulnerability/capacity, engineering standards to withstand disasters, the number of customers served and how infrastructure is interconnected, so that if one service goes down, others are affected as little as possible.

The hotspot analysis presented here focuses on assessing infrastructure exposure and vulnerability. It demonstrates the areas of priority for the Chinese government in protecting its vital infrastructure networks. To deepen understanding of how climate change will affect the Chinese infrastructure system and hence its economy, climate change models need to be added.

Read more at the WEF summary here:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/where-will-climate-change-impact-china-most (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/where-will-climate-change-impact-china-most)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wili on April 27, 2016, 05:44:24 PM
http://foodchainreaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Findings-Report.pdf (http://foodchainreaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Findings-Report.pdf)

 China says more than half of its groundwater is polluted


Quote
Number of groundwater sites of poor or extremely poor quality increases to 59.6%, Chinese government says
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on May 01, 2016, 05:25:49 PM
China's newly added solar power capacity rise 52% over Q1 2015
Quote
BEIJING -- China's installed 7.1 million kilowatts of new photovoltaic power capacity in the first quarter, the National Energy Administration said on Friday.

This brings the country's total installed photovoltaic power capacity to 50.3 million kilowatts, up 52 percent from the end of Q1 last year, according to a statement on the administration's website.

The country's photovoltaic power generation jumped 48 percent year on year to 11.8 billion kilowatt-hours during the first quarter, according to the statement.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2016-04/23/content_24780071.htm (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2016-04/23/content_24780071.htm)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 21, 2016, 01:14:54 AM
China’s Massive Effort to Purify Seawater Is Drying Up
Stalled projects and underperforming plants have hampered China’s desalination plans.
Quote
China has much to benefit from more abundant freshwater resources. Government statistics show that by 2030, the water shortage in China’s coastal areas will reach 21.4 billion cubic meters, despite water conservation efforts and the massive South-North Water Diversion Project, which pumps 25 billion cubic meters of water per year from the Yangtze River in southern China to the north China plain via two routes that are each more than 1,000 kilometers long. Of China’s 669 largest cities, at least 400 already suffer from water scarcity. Water security also underpins the economy, since 93 percent of power generation in China relies on water, according to China Water Risk.
...
“When there is a drought, local officials and enterprises all come to see us and say, ‘We want to desalinate seawater,’” says Wang Zhi, director of the Key Laboratory of Membrane Science and Desalination Technology at Tianjin University. “But if there is sufficient rainfall the next year, they will drop the idea and invest their money in other things first.”
...
In an effort to prioritize the already dwindling freshwater resources, the Chinese government rolled out a new policy a few years ago: new water-intensive industrial facilities in the coastal areas cannot draw local surface water and are required to provide their own water supplies. As a result, over 60 percent of the desalinated water produced in China is for industrial use, often in the form of individual plants for generators or oil refineries along the country’s east coast.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601861/chinas-massive-effort-to-purify-seawater-is-drying-up/ (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601861/chinas-massive-effort-to-purify-seawater-is-drying-up/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on July 26, 2016, 02:27:21 AM
China's coal peak hailed as turning point in climate change battle
Quote
China is the world’s biggest polluter and more than tripled its coal burning from 2000 to 2013, emitting billions of tonnes of climate-warming carbon dioxide. But its coal consumption peaked in 2014, much earlier than expected, and then began falling.

The economists argue in a new paper on Monday that this can now be seen as permanent trend, not a blip, due to major shifts in the Chinese economy and a crackdown on pollution.

“I think it is a real turning point,” said Lord Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, who wrote the analysis with colleagues from Tsinghua University in Beijing. “I think historians really will see [the coal peak of] 2014 as a very important event in the history of the climate and economy of the world.”
...
Stern said that China’s progress indicates its total carbon emissions will start falling before 2025, well ahead of its official target date of 2030. Prof John Schellnhuber, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and a former adviser to German premier Angela Merkel and Pope Francis, said it could even happen by 2020, which would represent stunning progress.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/25/china-coal-peak-hailed-turning-point-climate-change-battle (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/25/china-coal-peak-hailed-turning-point-climate-change-battle)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 11, 2016, 06:28:33 PM
Australia and the U.K. put a hold on big energy plans involving Chinese money.

China’s $15 Billion Energy Ambitions Crushed Within Two Weeks
Quote
U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s government is reconsidering a plan to build Britain’s first nuclear-power facility in more than 20 years. China General Nuclear Power Corp. had agreed to pay for about one-third of the 18 billion-pound ($23.4 billion) project, which has been progressing for years. May’s administration said last month it wanted more time to study the deal.

One of May’s advisers, Nick Timothy, warned last year that China’s involvement in nuclear projects might allow it to “shut down Britain’s energy production at will.”
Quote
Morrison warned of the risk to Ausgrid’s critical power and communication services in explaining his decision. The grid powers more than 1.6 million homes and businesses in Sydney and the surrounding area.

A sale would help Mike Baird, the premier of Australia’s most-populous state, approach the A$20 billion he pledged to raise for building infrastructure. With the mining boom fading, the federal government encouraged states to sell assets to fund projects such as railways, schools and hospitals.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-11/china-s-15-billion-energy-ambitions-crushed-within-two-weeks (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-11/china-s-15-billion-energy-ambitions-crushed-within-two-weeks)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 14, 2016, 04:01:57 PM
China’s Crude Oil, Coal Output Declines Deepen Amid Cutbacks
Quote
China’s crude oil and coal production declines deepened as the nation’s oil companies cut spending amid low prices and coal miners slashed output to meet government-set targets.

Crude production last month in the world’s largest energy consumer dropped 8.1 percent to 16.7 million metric tons from a year ago, according to data from the National Bureau of Statistics on Friday. That’s about 3.95 million barrels a day, sliding to the lowest since October 2011. Output is down 5.1 percent during the first seven months of the year. Coal mining during that period slowed 10 percent to 1.9 billion tons.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-12/china-s-crude-oil-coal-output-declines-deepen-amid-cutbacks (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-12/china-s-crude-oil-coal-output-declines-deepen-amid-cutbacks)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on August 28, 2016, 03:55:09 AM
Dark Clouds Loom for Oil as China Chases Blue Skies for G-20 Summit
Quote
China is throwing the world’s leaders a party, and oil bulls may be hit with the hangover.

Authorities in the Asian nation have ordered hundreds of factories to curb activity ahead of the Group of 20 summit in Hangzhou in early September, in a bid to ensure blue skies when the red carpet is rolled out. The curtailments, along with flooding earlier this summer, may cut petroleum demand in the world’s second-biggest oil consumer by 250,000 barrels a day in the third quarter, according to industry consultant Energy Aspects Ltd.

The slowdown at facilities including refineries and petrochemical plants along the Yangtze River threatens to weaken Chinese oil imports that rose to record highs in the first half of the year, at some times exceeding even those of the U.S. Those unprecedented purchases, along with supply disruptions, helped crude rally about 80 percent from a 12-year low earlier in 2016, and any sustained recovery will hinge on continued strong demand from the world’s biggest energy consumer.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-22/oil-faces-dark-clouds-as-china-chases-blue-skies-for-g-20-summit (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-22/oil-faces-dark-clouds-as-china-chases-blue-skies-for-g-20-summit)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 30, 2016, 07:19:54 PM
The linked article is entitled: "China’s $450 billion farm plan could determine our fate".  It will be interesting to see if China jumps to a sustainable agricultural future or to more conventional ag-business:


http://grist.org/food/chinas-450-billion-farm-plan-could-determine-our-fate/ (http://grist.org/food/chinas-450-billion-farm-plan-could-determine-our-fate/)

Extract: "China’s choices, not to put too fine a point on it, will determine the fate of the world. If China were to follow the same path as the United States and Europe, by using inefficient fossil fuels to lift its 1.3 billion people to a comfortable standard of living, it could be pumping 30 gigatons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by 2030 — that’s three times as much as the whole world emits now. As the country feeding the largest population in the world, China’s policies on fertilizer use, genetically modified seed research, and agricultural regulations will matter to us all.

Last year, the Chinese government announced its intentions to become a leader in the genetically engineered crop market. “We cannot lag behind others in the GMO research. Our GMO market should not be saturated by foreign brands,” said agriculture official Han Jun.
China sees control of its food as a matter of national security, said Scott Rozelle, who studies Chinese agricultural policy at Stanford. And it’s hard to control your food if you rely on foreign countries for your seed.
The world got a major hint that China has been trying to catch up with American seed companies in 2012, when the FBI caught three men trying to smuggle corn kernels from Iowa fields into China. As journalist Ted Genoways wrote in his telling of the story: “The Department of Justice maintains that China is quietly permitting and even encouraging companies to steal American agricultural secrets right out of the ground.”

“They recognize that their agriculture is enormously inefficient, and they want to fix that,” Economy said.
The primary inefficiency is the amount of fertilizer that Chinese farmers use — more than twice as much as their U.S. counterparts. That fertilizer washes off the fields and pollutes waterways. It turns into nitrous oxide gas and warms the earth.

If this is all just a gesture meant to mollify a political faction, it won’t change much of anything. But, if China actually figures out a way to deploy some of this money in a way that upgrades its farms, it will almost certainly be good for the environment."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 06, 2016, 11:38:20 PM
China is now relaxing its regulations in order to promote more coal production:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-04/china-scrambles-to-boost-coal-as-rally-warns-winter-is-coming (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-04/china-scrambles-to-boost-coal-as-rally-warns-winter-is-coming)

Extract: "China Rushes to Boost Coal as Rally Warns: Winter Is Coming"
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 21, 2016, 07:53:57 PM
Goldman Sees China’s ‘Stealth’ Coal Bailout Lasting to 2020
Quote
• Miners unable to service 3 trillion yuan debt without cuts
• Qinhuangdao prices up about 65% as YTD output drops 10.5%

China’s coal production restrictions are a “stealth” bailout for miners and their creditors that may last until the end of the decade as the policies help boost prices, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Without government intervention, China’s coal industry wouldn’t be able to service the nearly 3 trillion yuan ($444 billion) in debt from investing in new mines before demand started to drop, the banks analysts including Christian Lelong wrote in an Oct. 20 note. The twin goals of the mining restrictions have been to develop a “safe, solvent and efficient” industry and protect the country’s financial system from the risk of large-scale defaults, they wrote.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-21/goldman-sees-china-s-stealth-coal-bailout-lasting-until-2020 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-21/goldman-sees-china-s-stealth-coal-bailout-lasting-until-2020)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 22, 2016, 06:23:01 PM
China starts cancelling under-construction coal plants
Quote
Chinese leaders have called a halt to construction work on 30 large coal-fired power plants with a combined capacity of 17GW — greater than the UK’s entire coal fleet.

This unprecedented move indicates just how serious the Chinese authorities are about bringing the country’s coal power bubble under control.

And those 30 plants aren’t the only ones that are being stopped.

The policy also dramatically scales down plans for transmitting coal-fired power from the west of China to the coast through a network of very long-distance transmission lines.

Another 30 large coal plant projects, for which transmission lines were already under construction, are being axed. 

Ten of those plants were already under construction but will now be marooned as they will have no connection to the grid.
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal-crackdown-cancel-new-power-plants/ (http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal-crackdown-cancel-new-power-plants/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 05, 2016, 08:12:54 PM
CHINA ANNOUNCES PLAN TO CURB CARBON EMISSIONS
Quote
BEIJING (AP) -- China has announced a plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions over the next several years, while capping coal consumption and increasing the use of non-fossil fuels.

Under the plan, by 2020, the level of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP will be 18 percent lower than in 2015, the State Council said on its website Friday, the same day that the Paris climate agreement came into effect.

Coal consumption must be capped at about 4.2 billion tonnes (4.7 billion tons), while non-fossil fuel energy generation capacity like hydropower and nuclear power will be expanded to 15 percent of China's total capacity.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_CLIMATE_CHANGE (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_CLIMATE_CHANGE)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: RichardStamper on November 06, 2016, 02:56:28 PM
CHINA ANNOUNCES PLAN TO CURB CARBON EMISSIONS
Quote
BEIJING (AP) -- China has announced a plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions over the next several years, while capping coal consumption and increasing the use of non-fossil fuels.

Under the plan, by 2020, the level of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP will be 18 percent lower than in 2015, the State Council said on its website Friday, the same day that the Paris climate agreement came into effect.

Coal consumption must be capped at about 4.2 billion tonnes (4.7 billion tons), while non-fossil fuel energy generation capacity like hydropower and nuclear power will be expanded to 15 percent of China's total capacity.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_CLIMATE_CHANGE (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_CLIMATE_CHANGE)
A really very poor headline from AP.  What is described does not constitute a plan to curb CO2 emissions at all.

Reducing emissions per unit of GDP by 18% over 5 years amounts to a 3.9% reduction per year.  If GDP grows by more than 4.1% per year then that reduction in "carbon intensity" is cancelled out. China is definitely planning to increase GDP by more than 4.1% per year for those five years.  Given that we have already had nearly two of those five years, and annual GDP growth has been at least 6.7% in every quarter since the start of 2015, the only way that China will not more than cancel out the decrease in carbon intensity is by crashing their economy.  Which is not their plan.  A headline "China announces plan to increase carbon emissions more slowly" doesn't have quite the same impact though.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on November 11, 2016, 02:34:09 AM
Beijing Residents Told to Limit Outdoor Activity as Smog Returns
Quote
Beijing’s frequent bouts of smog have forced the government to take tougher action to avoid any social unrest sparked by frustration over the city’s fouled and polluted air. Beijing phased out coal-fired heating facilities in 75,000 households during the first 10 months of the year, cutting consumption of the fuel by 225,000 metric tons, Xinhua News Agency reported on Nov. 9, citing the city’s Environmental Protection Bureau.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/beijing-residents-told-to-limit-outdoor-activity-as-smog-returns (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/beijing-residents-told-to-limit-outdoor-activity-as-smog-returns)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: mati on November 29, 2016, 06:32:43 PM
large solar project in china progressing....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-20/out-of-china-s-dusty-northwest-corner-a-solar-behemoth-arises (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-20/out-of-china-s-dusty-northwest-corner-a-solar-behemoth-arises)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 30, 2016, 05:50:28 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Despite Climate Change Vow, China Pushes to Dig More Coal".

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/energy-environment/china-coal-climate-change.html?_r=2 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/business/energy-environment/china-coal-climate-change.html?_r=2)

Extract: "America’s uncertain stance toward global warming under the coming administration of Donald J. Trump has given China a leading role in the fight against climate change. It has called on the United States to recognize established science and to work with other countries to reduce dependence on dirty fuels like coal and oil.

But there is a problem: Even as it does so, China is scrambling to mine and burn more coal.
A lack of stockpiles and worries about electricity blackouts are spurring Chinese officials to reverse curbs that once helped reduce coal production. Mines are reopening. Miners are being lured back with fatter paychecks.

China’s response to coal scarcity shows how hard it will be to wean the country off coal. That makes it harder for China and the world to meet emissions targets, as Chinese coal is the world’s largest single source of carbon emissions from human activities."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 19, 2016, 09:33:54 PM
December 19:

China chokes on smog so bad that planes can't land
Quote
Major cities across northern China choked Monday under a blanket of smog so thick that industries were ordered shut down and air and ground traffic was disrupted.

At least 23 cities issued red alerts for a swath of pollution that has hovered over much of the nation since Friday, China's Xinhua news agency reported. Alerts are expected to remain in effect through Wednesday.
...
Dangerous smog levels are a recurring theme for Beijing and other major Chinese cities struggling to balance desperately needed industrial growth with environmental concerns. Much of the pollution is blamed on coal burning for electricity, and smog levels often are worse in winter when cold weather drives up energy use.

Earlier this month, Beijing authorities caused a stir when a draft of the Beijing Meteorological Disasters Prevention and Control Regulations defined smog as a meteorological disaster mainly caused by haze, blizzards or unfavorable meteorological conditions.

Tianjin and other cities already list smog as a meteorological disaster in local regulations, but the State Council has yet to issue a similar national regulation.

“'Meteorological disasters' are caused by natural conditions and cannot be controlled by human activity,"  Zhang Zitai, a Fudan University professor, told Legal Daily. "Smog, on the other hand, is mainly caused by human activity. Thus the plan to list it as a meteorological disaster not only goes against science, it will also create an excuse for polluters to escape their culpability."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/12/19/china-chokes-smog-so-bad-planes-cant-land/95604308/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/12/19/china-chokes-smog-so-bad-planes-cant-land/95604308/)


North China cities choked by smog shut factories, stop cars (Update)
http://phys.org/news/2016-12-cars-china-smog-red.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-12-cars-china-smog-red.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on December 26, 2016, 09:58:17 PM
China to levy new taxes in bid to strengthen pollution fight
Quote
China's largely rubber-stamp parliament passed a law on Sunday that will levy specific environmental protection taxes on industry for the first time from 2018, as part of a renewed focus on fighting the country's pollution woes.

Anger has risen in the world's second-largest economy at the government's repeated failure to tackle land, water and air pollution, with large parts of northern China enveloped in dangerous smog in recent days.

"Tax revenue is an important economic means to promote environmental protection," the Finance Ministry said in a statement.

The tax rate will be 1.2 yuan ($0.17) per unit of atmospheric pollution, 1.4 yuan per unit of water pollution, 5 yuan per tonne of coal waste and 1,000 yuan per tonne of "hazardous waste".

Industrial noise polluters will also be levied 350 yuan per month if they exceed limits by 1-3 decibels, 700 yuan for 4-6 decibels and 11,200 yuan per month for 16 decibels and more.

The law goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2018.

China has not previously imposed any specific environmental taxes, and the new levy will replace an earlier system of miscellaneous charges that are regarded as far too low to deter polluters. ...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-environment-idUSKBN14E05T (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-environment-idUSKBN14E05T)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: longwalks1 on December 26, 2016, 11:33:23 PM
I have liked Mr. Binoy  Kampmark's writing for years.  He is slighty away from his usual subject matter, but elegant as always.  Maybe I am just a sap for any "thanatos" mention.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/26/cities-of-death-history-pollution-and-chinas-smog/ (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/26/cities-of-death-history-pollution-and-chinas-smog/)

Quote
As Greenpeace East Asia notes through the toxic cloud darkly, “Millions of people in China are breathing a hazardous cocktail of chemicals everyday.  These chemicals are caused by coal-fired power plants, factories and vehicles, and are responsible for heart disease, stroke, respiratory illnesses, birth defects and cancer.”
  actually a quote of a quote. 

And Mr. Kampmark's views on the new tax

Quote
These amounts, or details of the new law, are hardly being delivered from a unified front.  The bureaucrats are fighting acrimonious turf wars, from the State Taxation Administration to the Ministry of Environmental protection.  In this age, it will take far more than levies to reduce the pollution of cities, a problem that was even faced, albeit unsatisfactorily, in Han China and ancient Rome.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 01, 2017, 06:25:54 PM
SCMP article link at the twitter link:

South China Morning Post news: Smog levels in #Beijing exceed maximum 500 mark on index, #US embassy claims.
https://twitter.com/scmp_news/status/815589313094291459
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 06, 2017, 05:10:02 PM
The linked article is entitled: "How climate change in Central Asia is threatening to spark regional conflict".  Will we soon see China throw its weight around in Central Asia?

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2059862/water-conflicts-central-asia-pose-threat-chinas (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2059862/water-conflicts-central-asia-pose-threat-chinas)

Extract: "Lower water supplies, caused by rising temperatures, is increasing risk of political tensions, Chinese researchers warn.

Global warming and retreating glaciers in the Tianshan range – the “water tower” of the region – have raised the spectre of water shortages that will affect “the relationship between countries in Central Asia,” the researchers warned in a report on the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ website."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 09, 2017, 03:44:03 AM
China cementing global dominance of renewable energy and technology
It now owns five of the world’s six largest solar-module manufacturing firms and the largest wind-turbine manufacturer

“At the moment China is leaving everyone behind and has a real first-mover and scale advantage, which will be exacerbated if countries such as the US, UK and Australia continue to apply the brakes to clean energy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/06/china-cementing-global-dominance-of-renewable-energy-and-technology (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/06/china-cementing-global-dominance-of-renewable-energy-and-technology)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: DrTskoul on January 09, 2017, 04:57:00 AM
China cementing global dominance of renewable energy and technology
It now owns five of the world’s six largest solar-module manufacturing firms and the largest wind-turbine manufacturer

“At the moment China is leaving everyone behind and has a real first-mover and scale advantage, which will be exacerbated if countries such as the US, UK and Australia continue to apply the brakes to clean energy.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/06/china-cementing-global-dominance-of-renewable-energy-and-technology (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/06/china-cementing-global-dominance-of-renewable-energy-and-technology)

That is not necessarily a bad thing. Somebody has to take the lead!
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 16, 2017, 01:03:18 AM
“You ask me why I left Beijing? It’s because I want to live.”

Smog refugees flee Chinese cities as 'airpocalypse' blights half a billion
Thousands head to pollution-free regions as haze descends on the country’s northern industrial heartland
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/smog-refugees-flee-chinese-cities-as-airpocalypse-blights-half-a-billion (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/smog-refugees-flee-chinese-cities-as-airpocalypse-blights-half-a-billion)

"A picture from Henan province, showing more than 400 students sitting an exam on a football pitch after their school was forced to close, was widely circulated on social media:"
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 16, 2017, 04:14:38 PM
Beijing's smog: A tale of two cities
Quote
Beijing (CNN)The first thing Jiang Wang does when she wakes up in the morning is check on her daughter to make sure she's breathing clean air.
Next, it's time to start making breakfast. She's already made sure all the groceries come from an organic farm.
She'll wash her produce with tap water filtered through a separate treatment system under her sink.
But that water isn't for drinking -- there's imported bottled water for that.
This is how Wang typically starts her day, trying to minimize the effects of the toxic environment in Beijing.
"From the moment you open your eyes till the moment, you rest in the evening," she says, "you have to pay really (close) attention, to the air, to the water, to the food you eat."
...
With their newfound wealth, China's upper and middles classes have been able to travel abroad and see more of the world -- and in turn learn about the dangers of pollution and how to avoid it.

But on the street during a red alert it is still commonplace to see ordinary people wearing a scarf over their mouth and nose, rather than a protective mask.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/15/health/china-beijing-smog-tale-of-two-cities/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/15/health/china-beijing-smog-tale-of-two-cities/index.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 17, 2017, 06:25:35 PM
It Can Power a Small Nation. But This Wind Farm in China Is Mostly Idle.
Quote
...Gansu now has some of the highest rates of underutilization in the wind sector in China; in 2015, 39 percent of wind capacity in the province was wasted, according to statistics compiled by the National Energy Administration.

Mr. Frankl said inefficiency in Gansu was “astronomically high” and underscored the need for China to build more ultrahigh-voltage transmission lines to carry electricity long distances, and to position new turbines closer to major metropolises.
...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/15/world/asia/china-gansu-wind-farm.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/15/world/asia/china-gansu-wind-farm.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on January 24, 2017, 03:27:41 PM
China's Birthrate Rises After One-Child Policy Loosened
Quote
Beijing (AP) -- The number of births in China has risen nearly 8 percent in the year after the government loosened its unpopular one-child policy.

China's National Health and Family Planning Commission said this week that 17.86 million children were born last year, an increase of 1.31 million from 2015. Nearly half of the children born were to couples who already had a child, the commission said.

China enacted its one-child policy in 1979 to control population growth, enforced with fines and in some cases state-mandated abortions. But it now faces a rapidly aging workforce and the prospect of not having enough younger workers to support them....
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-24/china-s-birthrate-rises-after-one-child-policy-loosened (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-24/china-s-birthrate-rises-after-one-child-policy-loosened)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: oren on January 24, 2017, 11:10:12 PM
China's Birthrate Rises After One-Child Policy Loosened
Quote
Beijing (AP) -- The number of births in China has risen nearly 8 percent in the year after the government loosened its unpopular one-child policy.

China's National Health and Family Planning Commission said this week that 17.86 million children were born last year, an increase of 1.31 million from 2015. Nearly half of the children born were to couples who already had a child, the commission said.

China enacted its one-child policy in 1979 to control population growth, enforced with fines and in some cases state-mandated abortions. But it now faces a rapidly aging workforce and the prospect of not having enough younger workers to support them....
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-24/china-s-birthrate-rises-after-one-child-policy-loosened (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-24/china-s-birthrate-rises-after-one-child-policy-loosened)
This is probably good from the point of view of many Chinese, but adds to the global population overshoot.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: wehappyfew on January 24, 2017, 11:31:45 PM
China will need some cannon-fodder to take on TrumPutin. They're planning ahead.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on February 28, 2017, 09:21:32 PM
China smashes solar energy records, as coal use and CO2 emissions fall once again
Quote
We are witnessing a historic passing of the baton of global leadership on technology and climate from the United States to China.

The new U.S. administration has said it will abandon climate action, gut clean energy funding, and embrace coal and oil — the dirty energy sources of the past that experts say can’t create a large number of sustainable new jobs. At the same time, China is slashing coal use and betting heavily on clean energy, which is clearly going to be the biggest new source of permanent high-wage jobs in the coming years.

Indeed, Beijing plans to invest a stunning $360 billion by 2020 in renewable generation alone, and China’s energy agency says the resulting “employment will be more than 13 million people.”

In 2016, Chinese coal consumption fell for the third consecutive year, Beijing reports, while it installed almost twice as many solar panels as it had in 2015, which was also a record-setting year. Beijing projects both trends will continue in 2017.

China’s solar installation target for 2020 is likely to be achieved in 2018, which as Greenpeace’s Energy Desk noted in January, is “a pretty impressive feat given that the target was set only a couple of months ago.”

All of these policies have helped make China a new global leader in climate action, as their own CO2 emissions have plateaued and declined since 2013....
https://thinkprogress.org/with-millions-of-jobs-up-for-grabs-china-seizes-clean-tech-leadership-from-u-s-a37154d02d0
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on March 13, 2017, 10:52:25 PM
Chinese Non-fossil energy includes a very large nuclear buildout, they are going flat out on the "all of the above" non-fossil sources. I still worry though that they have been cutting the "low hanging fruit" and it gets harder from here. Also, car usage is growing rapidly - which will drive up the usage of oil. Seem to be really good on car efficiency standards though.

They also revise their usage statistics every five years, and the last revision included a big increase in coal usage. So, a little caveat until the next revision.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on March 17, 2017, 08:14:10 PM
In the short-term (i.e. the next couple of decades), the reduction in coal usage may actually increase the rate of climate change, as the climate-dimming sulphur particles are washed out of the atmosphere quickly (in days) while the historical carbon dioxide emissions stay in the atmosphere. Same effect may have been seen in Europe and the USA when clean air acts were put in place in the 1980's/1990's.

Worst possible thing is just to put sulphur-scrubbers on the coal plants, then you lose the climate dimming and continue to increase the CO2.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: DrTskoul on March 20, 2017, 12:16:48 PM
China reducing their coal huh???

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2017/03/china-kickstarting-new-coal-boom-in.html?m=1 (http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2017/03/china-kickstarting-new-coal-boom-in.html?m=1)


China kickstarting new coal boom in Pakistan (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/03/17/china-kickstarting-new-coal-boom-pakistan/)


Quote
(Climate Home) – Chinese investments are speeding up new coal developments in the Thar region of Pakistan, despite local water scarcity and pollution and an abundance of solar energy potential.

The CEO of Sindh Engro Coal Mining Company (SECM), Shamsuddin Ahmad Shaikh, said on Thursday that with government and investor support – particularly from China – its coal developments in Thar are running quicker than expected.

SECM is developing a 1,320MW coal power plant in Thar which is expected to be completed by June 2019.

Also under development is the Sino-Sindh Resources Limited (SSRL)’s open pit mine, which is expected to produce 6.5m metric tonnes a year. It will reach commercial operation as early as 2018. Coal from this pit will power a 1,320MW plant, expected to be operational by 2019.

Addressing a seminar in Karachi, Shaikh said that SECM can “considerably” reduce electricity costs to 6¢ per unit once its Thar coal production reaches a capacity of 4,000MW.

Thar’s provincial chief minister Syed Murad Ali Shah, said the coal projects will “change the face” of Pakistan’s biggest city Karachi and Sindh, the province in which Thar is located. […]


Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on March 20, 2017, 06:07:21 PM
China reducing their coal huh???

http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2017/03/china-kickstarting-new-coal-boom-in.html?m=1 (http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2017/03/china-kickstarting-new-coal-boom-in.html?m=1)


China kickstarting new coal boom in Pakistan (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/03/17/china-kickstarting-new-coal-boom-pakistan/)


Quote
(Climate Home) – Chinese investments are speeding up new coal developments in the Thar region of Pakistan, despite local water scarcity and pollution and an abundance of solar energy potential.

The CEO of Sindh Engro Coal Mining Company (SECM), Shamsuddin Ahmad Shaikh, said on Thursday that with government and investor support – particularly from China – its coal developments in Thar are running quicker than expected.

SECM is developing a 1,320MW coal power plant in Thar which is expected to be completed by June 2019.

Also under development is the Sino-Sindh Resources Limited (SSRL)’s open pit mine, which is expected to produce 6.5m metric tonnes a year. It will reach commercial operation as early as 2018. Coal from this pit will power a 1,320MW plant, expected to be operational by 2019.

Addressing a seminar in Karachi, Shaikh said that SECM can “considerably” reduce electricity costs to 6¢ per unit once its Thar coal production reaches a capacity of 4,000MW.

Thar’s provincial chief minister Syed Murad Ali Shah, said the coal projects will “change the face” of Pakistan’s biggest city Karachi and Sindh, the province in which Thar is located. […]


Will moving the source of both CO2 & particulate matter closer to the equator have a measurable effect on weather & or climate?


Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Buddy on March 23, 2017, 04:24:18 PM
Video of an interview with someone from Rocky Mountain Institute on China change in energy policy towards renewables.

1)  China has decreased its coal consumption for the third year in a row

2)  Solar has been doubling its installations of solar annually

Good video. .....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdkKNq7m7J0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdkKNq7m7J0)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on March 26, 2017, 03:25:25 PM
Jing-Jin-Ji: China Planning Megalopolis the Size of New England
Quote
... While it is supposed to become a motor for innovation and growth within China, some experts think Jing-Ji-Ji could also become a model of sustainable growth for the rest of the country and the world.

"All eyes are on the Jing-Jin-Ji region as a testing ground for innovative solutions," according to an October 2015 report by the Paulson Institute, a think-tank founded by former U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr.

Hebei, China's most industrialized and polluted province and the main source of smog in Beijing, also has strong winds and higher than average sunlight. This could translate into wind and solar power and ease its transition to low-carbon manufacturing. ...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/jing-jin-ji-china-planning-megalopolis-size-new-england-n734736 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/jing-jin-ji-china-planning-megalopolis-size-new-england-n734736)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on April 04, 2017, 06:17:08 PM
The really big news in China is its rapid reductions in energy use per unit of GDP, averaging 5% for the past 3 years. Combined with reductions averaging 3.8% for the previous 2 years, that's about a 25% reduction in energy intensity in 5 years. Overshooting its own 5 year plan targets.

With growth a bit higher than 5% last year, actual energy consumption only went up 1.4% - allowing the addition of renewables (and nuclear) to produce a fall in carbon emissions.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/03/14/china-coal-consumption-declines-despite-increasing-energy-consumption/

With the current renewables support programs reducing at the end of 2019, there will probably be a continued high level of renewable implementations between now and then. The government's GDP growth target is 6.5-7% (a rate that doubles the size of the economy every 10 years), so if the rate of reduction in energy intensity is maintained, then China could continue to slightly reduce its carbon emissions year over year.

If coal consumption continues to fall at a few per cent per annum, there would be a significant reduction in sulphur emissions. This could be exacerbated by extra use of sulphur scrubbers. The short-term effect, given that the sulphur particles are removed from the atmosphere very quickly (unlike the carbon emissions), could be a local warming effect. That could have more than regional consequences if it changes circulation patterns.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on April 11, 2017, 01:55:55 PM
One of my dinner guests last night is from China. She'd just returned from a trip back home after two years in Canada. She flew into Shanghai & was pleasantly surprised when her mother met her at the airport. Seems her parents now live only an hour and a half from Shanghai by rail, although it's still a 500 K distance.
The new Semi-High Speed line, not one of the very fast maglev super trains, but still, station to station in 1.5 hours, allows her parents to go for lunch in Shanghai, then return in plenty of time for dinner.
What surprised her was that her parents hadn't thought to mentioned the new service. An indication of how rapidly things are changing in some parts of the world.


Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Gray-Wolf on April 11, 2017, 02:57:35 PM
If we end up second warmest year to the el nino spiked 2016 record year then a lot of that warmth will be from the brightening that reduced coal use, combined with the roll out of clean air technologies, is now driving. The warming we missed out on through the late nineties and noughties is now about to rush in as the energy at the top of the atmosphere is able to make its way to the ground.

So, whilst celebrating the lead China is taking in both renewables and clean air technologies we have to accept that China had suppressed warming over its 'dirty Years'  will now the lost warming will make itself known as the atmosphere clears over the areas worst impacted.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on April 11, 2017, 07:32:28 PM
That's a worry that I have had for a long time, that we have been underestimating the negative albedo effect of those sulphur particles from the massive expansion of Chinese coal use post 2000.

Given the very fast washing out of those particles from the atmosphere, and the long life of CO2, even just a stabilization of coal use would have increased the rate of local warming. With aggressive steps to solve the air pollution crisis a lot of pent-up warming potential may now be released. With the very rapid drive for nuclear, renewables and energy efficiency we could have extra heat being added over China year over year for a decade or more.

We are walking a very fine line between kicking off positive climate feedbacks in the short-term (due to sulphate aerosol reductions and increased CH4 emissions etc.) and the longer-term effects of reduced CO2 emissions.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on April 14, 2017, 10:17:57 PM
China to lead in CCS (as well as in Wind, Solar and Nuclear)?

Looks like China is making a major push in CCS, following its "try everything" strategy. Becoming a world leader in all low-emissions technology (Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Hydro, CCS) while the Denier in Chief hobbles the U.S. industry.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/january/the-potential-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-in-china.html (https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/january/the-potential-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-in-china.html)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-28/china-set-to-displace-north-america-with-carbon-capture-projects (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-28/china-set-to-displace-north-america-with-carbon-capture-projects)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on April 15, 2017, 12:18:32 AM
Too early to celebrate China's reduction in coal usage given the historical upward revisions to its coal usage.

I keep having to remind myself that China has a nasty habit of revising its coal usage statistics upwards a few years after they are published, so the current drop may be a bit of a statistical mirage. Last time they revised their statistics, it was big! Even a much smaller scale of revision would blow a hole in the current "Global CO2 emissions have plateaud" story.

"Energy-content-based coal consumption from 2000 to 2013 is up to 14% higher than previously reported, while coal production is up to 7% higher"

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=22952 (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=22952)

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on April 24, 2017, 02:18:51 AM
China pulling ahead of US in clean tech, to produce a trade war in the future?

"Clean Energy Could Spark a Trade War Between the US and China" from Wired "That [$365bn] investment puts China in a prime position to lead the world in clean energy, selling its innovations to other countries looking to cut their energy bills. So if a trade war breaks out between China and the US, it may well be over clean energy."

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/us-china-clean-energy/ (https://www.wired.com/2017/03/us-china-clean-energy/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on April 24, 2017, 02:21:50 AM
China nuclear power capacity set to overtake the US within a decade Bloomberg

"The world’s second biggest economy will almost triple its nuclear capacity to nearly 100 gigawatts by 2026, making it the biggest market globally, analysts said in a note dated Jan. 27. The nation added about 8 gigawatts of nuclear power last year, boosting its installed capacity to about 34 million kilowatts, according to BMI."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-31/china-s-nuclear-power-fleet-seen-overtaking-u-s-within-decade (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-31/china-s-nuclear-power-fleet-seen-overtaking-u-s-within-decade)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on April 24, 2017, 02:34:43 AM
China will complete construction of five nuclear power reactors and start construction of eight more in 2017, according to plans released by the country's National Energy Administration (NEA). Planning for a further eight reactors will also be progressed this year.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-China-sets-out-nuclear-plans-for-2017-0203174.html (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-China-sets-out-nuclear-plans-for-2017-0203174.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on April 24, 2017, 02:38:07 AM
China Nuclear Push Stalled by Next-Generation Reactors

"Plans to green-light eight reactors this year in the world’s fastest-growing nuclear market, announced last week, could depend on whether it’s able to complete some of the world’s most-advanced facilities, including Westinghouse Electric Co.’s AP1000 and Areva SA’s EPR. The first such reactors may come online as early as the first half, followed by new approvals, according to Karl Liu, an analyst at BOC International Holdings Ltd. in Hong Kong."

"China is seeking to be the first country to bring online either an AP1000 or EPR, so-called generation III+ reactors, which have suffered costly delays in the U.S. and Europe. The world’s second-biggest economy, and largest energy consumer, is aiming to boost its nuclear power capacity and develop its own next-generation technology for export."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-20/china-nuclear-ambitions-seen-stalled-by-next-generation-reactors (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-20/china-nuclear-ambitions-seen-stalled-by-next-generation-reactors)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 24, 2017, 03:42:20 AM
I've been following China's energy developments for several years.  I will be really surprised if China doesn't start dialing down its nuclear starts before 2020.

The odds of this happening really increase if labor costs continue to rise in the country.  Very cheap labor makes nuclear a lot more affordable in China than in western countries.  I checked labor costs a few days ago.  IIRC an engineer in China makes about 14% as much as an engineer in the US.  Same for laborers.

China has an aging population (one child is starting to impact).  They're already experience something of a labor shortage.  And market forces are starting to take hold in China.  Their labor rates could move up fairly quickly.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: mati on April 24, 2017, 04:05:50 AM
afaik china has not changed their nuclear plans

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx)

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 24, 2017, 04:59:24 AM
afaik china has not changed their nuclear plans

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx)

Quote
I will be really surprised if China doesn't start dialing down its nuclear starts before 2020.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on April 24, 2017, 05:16:13 AM
Thanks for the info mati.

The rapid buildout of the low-carbon energy sources, including nuclear, benefits China in a number of ways. As well as reducing air pollution, carbon emissions and gaining competitive advantage in these new industries, it also helps reduce their dependence on imported fossil fuel energy supplies.
They can continue rapid growth without overwhelming the ability to import energy from others, and reduce dependence upon easily embargoed/interdicted fossil fuel supplies.

Given the increasing tensions with the US, it would make sense for China to keep driving the "all of the above" strategy as fast as they can go. That includes their impressive energy efficiency drive.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: sidd on April 24, 2017, 06:03:29 AM
Oi. Westinghouse/Toshiba are in bankruptcy. China will not greenlight eight nukes this year.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: mati on April 24, 2017, 06:13:54 AM
Oi. Westinghouse/Toshiba are in bankruptcy. China will not greenlight eight nukes this year.

only in poor merica

china reactor build go ahead
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 24, 2017, 06:17:43 AM
Oi. Westinghouse/Toshiba are in bankruptcy. China will not greenlight eight nukes this year.

only in poor merica

china reactor build go ahead

Math challenged?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on April 24, 2017, 08:04:36 PM
"China has become largely self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle, but is making full use of western technology while adapting and improving it"

China doesn't need the western companies, so their bankruptcy is irrelevant, just using their technology and improving it. Seems that we have seen this story before in many areas from East Asian countries (cars, electronics, solar panels, wind turbines ...,).

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx)

"China to launch eight new units in 2017"

http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newseight-new-units-to-be-launched-in-2017-5759126 (http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newseight-new-units-to-be-launched-in-2017-5759126)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on April 24, 2017, 11:17:56 PM
China's first big jetliner clears final hurdle before flying

"The 168-seat C919 is roughly the same size as Airbus's A320 and Boeing's 737-800. which are the most popular airliners in the world ... China is on track to surpass the U.S. by 2030 as the world's largest commercial aviation market. The country's airlines are buying hundreds of new airliners from Airbus and Boeing each year to grow their fleets. Boeing estimates that the country will need a trillion dollars worth of new airplanes over the next two decades. The company expects that it will need more than 5,100 that are the same size as the C919."

That's a hell of a lot of incremental jet fuel and carbon emissions

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/23/news/companies/china-comac-c919-airliner/ (http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/23/news/companies/china-comac-c919-airliner/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: mati on April 26, 2017, 01:19:04 AM
China aims for non-fossil fuels to account for about 20 percent of total energy consumption by 2030

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-idUSKBN17R0QK (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-energy-idUSKBN17R0QK)

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 27, 2017, 06:48:42 PM
China has a significant problem with wasted solar and wind potential (curtailment).  There seem to be multiple reasons:

Quote
1. An inflexible power grid designed for big power stations

2. Excessive quota allocated for coal power plants

3. No formal means of punishing curtailment

4. Ill-equipped cross-province transmission

To its credit, the Chinese government is trying to tackle the problem, last year pledging to reduce wind power curtailment to 5% by 2020 as part of its Five Year Plan.

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/04/19/china-wind-solar-renewable-curtailment-energy-wasted/ (http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/04/19/china-wind-solar-renewable-curtailment-energy-wasted/)


Growing pains....
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: mati on April 27, 2017, 11:45:17 PM
Yes, it took Denmark some time to create an organic electrical generation/distribution system.  needs some really responsive hardware and software for syncing voltage/phase/current.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 28, 2017, 02:30:22 AM
Take a look at the far left set of bars - ERCOT.  The Texas grid.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi619.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ftt275%2FBob_Wall%2FUS%2FWind%2FWind%2520Curtailment%2FWind%2520Curtailment%25202007%2520to%25202014.jpg&hash=41daad557cea9e70460df2180d6ef48b) (http://s619.photobucket.com/user/Bob_Wall/media/US/Wind/Wind%20Curtailment/Wind%20Curtailment%202007%20to%202014.jpg.html)

Texas got ahead of the game installing wind turbines in the Panhandle and in 2009 curtailed about 17% of the electricity they could have produced with wind.  Then as they beefed up their transmission curtailed wind has dropped will be low 1%.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: mati on April 28, 2017, 04:44:16 AM
Texas is really an interesting project, because their electrical system is isolated from the entire US system except at a very few points
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 09, 2017, 07:03:29 PM
Quote
China electricity output from photovoltaic plants rose 80 percent in the first quarter after the world’s biggest solar power market increased installed capacity.

Solar power generation rose to 21.4 billion kilowatt-hours in the three months ended March 31 from a year earlier, the National Energy Administration said Thursday in a statement on its website. China added 7.21 gigawatts of solar power during the period, boosting its total installed capacity to almost 85 gigawatts, the NEA said.

The power-generation increase comes even as more solar plants stand idle because of congested transmission infrastructure. China idled about 2.3 billion kilowatt-hours of solar power in the first quarter, up from 1.9 billion kilowatt-hours a year earlier, according to the NEA data.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-04/china-sees-80-increase-in-solar-power-output-as-capacity-added (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-04/china-sees-80-increase-in-solar-power-output-as-capacity-added)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on May 19, 2017, 08:54:09 PM
China suspends permits for new coal plants as overcapacity policy bites
Quote
The Chinese government has ordered the vast majority of its provinces to stop permitting new coal power projects.

According to a statement from the National Energy Administration (NEA), 28 of China’s 31 mainland provinces do not currently have the right financial or environmental conditions to build new coal capacity.
...
Last year the National Energy Administration kicked off a new scheme to determine whether provinces should build new coal- fired power stations.

The system, created so that the country would stop adding to its overcapacity crisis, assigns each province a colour to signify the viability of its coal pipeline — based on profitability, existing capacity and ‘resource constraints’ such as air pollution and water.

Red means no new coal projects should be permitted. Orange indicates local governments and coal companies should tread carefully. And green says that there is plenty space for new coal power.
...
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/05/16/china-coal-overcapacity-policy-hits-provinces/ (http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/05/16/china-coal-overcapacity-policy-hits-provinces/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on May 19, 2017, 09:51:18 PM
China suspends permits for new coal plants as overcapacity policy bites
Quote
The Chinese government has ordered the vast majority of its provinces to stop permitting new coal power projects.

According to a statement from the National Energy Administration (NEA), 28 of China’s 31 mainland provinces do not currently have the right financial or environmental conditions to build new coal capacity.
...
Last year the National Energy Administration kicked off a new scheme to determine whether provinces should build new coal- fired power stations.

The system, created so that the country would stop adding to its overcapacity crisis, assigns each province a colour to signify the viability of its coal pipeline — based on profitability, existing capacity and ‘resource constraints’ such as air pollution and water.

Red means no new coal projects should be permitted. Orange indicates local governments and coal companies should tread carefully. And green says that there is plenty space for new coal power.
...
http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/05/16/china-coal-overcapacity-policy-hits-provinces/ (http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2017/05/16/china-coal-overcapacity-policy-hits-provinces/)


Are the green and orange provinces high users of electrical power, are these regions high growth, or predominantly rural areas?


Thanks
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on May 20, 2017, 12:02:40 AM
Bob, some of those provinces are pretty high up on GDP per capita and growth rates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_administrative_divisions_by_GDP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_administrative_divisions_by_GDP)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on May 20, 2017, 03:25:54 AM
Bob, some of those provinces are pretty high up on GDP per capita and growth rates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_administrative_divisions_by_GDP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_administrative_divisions_by_GDP)


Thanks
Probably not the most affluent, but certainly not the poorest provinces.
Since we seem to be able to make affordable PV even with the outlandish tariffs placed on Chinese panels, the Chinese it seems should be able to make them the low cost option in most locals.
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on May 26, 2017, 06:06:42 PM
China rapidly building out their electrified high speed rail network and local transit, unlike North America

The problem in North America was that public transit was defunded/destroyed (e.g. by the car companies taking over transit companies and shutting them down) and the road network was massively expanded with government money post-WW2. The resulting "sprawl" urban development was then not consistent with efficient public transit. In China, they have developed a high-speed rail network at an astonishing pace. Linking it with local transit, and having development grow around these transport hubs:

"Less than a decade ago China had yet to connect any of its cities by bullet train. Today, it has 20,000km (12,500 miles) of high-speed rail lines, more than the rest of the world combined. It is planning to lay another 15,000km by 2025 (see map). Just as astonishing is urban growth alongside the tracks. At regular intervals—almost wherever there are stations, even if seemingly in the middle of nowhere—thickets of newly built offices and residential blocks rise from the ground ... China’s planners hope these will be like the railway towns that sprouted (at a slower pace) in America and Britain in the 19th century."

http://www.economist.com/news/china/21714383-and-theres-lot-more-come-it-waste-money-china-has-built-worlds-largest (http://www.economist.com/news/china/21714383-and-theres-lot-more-come-it-waste-money-china-has-built-worlds-largest)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-29/china-to-have-30-000-kilometer-high-speed-rail-network-by-2020 (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-29/china-to-have-30-000-kilometer-high-speed-rail-network-by-2020)

There may be some waste / over-building involved, but that it is always the case with such initiatives (the quoted article is from the free-market worshipping Economist!). Compare this to the decades of political pronouncements followed by no real action on such things. Canada is a great case in point, the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and Vancouver-Edmonton-Calgary triangles have been crying out for high speed rail for decades. Instead, we build airports and pack the roads between these cities.

For local transit Toronto and Montreal provide great contrasts. Montreal had a visionary mayor that built out an integrated public transit system, Toronto did not. The result is obvious to all, especially with the rapid growth of Toronto not being matched by public transit investments.

When we hit the point where rapid CO2 emission reductions will be required, China will be in a much more advantageous position than North America.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on May 26, 2017, 06:16:15 PM
Two days from Europe to China, for rail freight!

Seems Russia wants to be a serious player in the high speed rail business. If this comes to pass, it could move the transport of high value goods from planes to trains. Greatly reducing related emissions while facilitating ongoing long-distance trade that will help tightly integrate EurAsia. Low carbon long distance freight and people transport.

"Russia's proposed high-speed cargo rail line would be packaged with the much-discussed Moscow-Kazan high-speed passenger train, that will extend for 770 kilometers between the two cities, allowing people to get back and forth in as little as three hours. Construction is set to begin on this line later this year, with $6.5 billion of loans and $1.6 billion of FDI coming from China, while a German consortium led by Siemens, Deutsche Bank, and Deutsche Bahn promising to invest over $2.8 billion into its construction. This new HSR line is tentatively expected to open around 2023.

The broader plan is to extend the Moscow-Kazan high-speed rail line through Kazakhstan and all the way to Beijing, 7,769 kilometers away, feeding into China’s existing 19,000+ kilometer HSR system. This project would tie into China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and will in large part supplant Russia’s iconic, though aging, Trans-Siberian rail line. If this high-speed line is actually built, the total end to end commute time would be more than quartered, dropping to just under 33 hours."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 26, 2017, 08:16:12 PM
Let's hold off on being really critical of the US for a couple of  years to see if the Hyperloop works out.  If it doesn't then it's time to get serious about HSR.

At 1,200 kmh the 'loop would make the 7,769 kilometers trip in 6.5 hours rather than 33.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on May 27, 2017, 01:36:41 AM
Let's hold off on being really critical of the US for a couple of  years to see if the Hyperloop works out.  If it doesn't then it's time to get serious about HSR.

At 1,200 kmh the 'loop would make the 7,769 kilometers trip in 6.5 hours rather than 33.
Don't want to hold off for too long, Moscow signed on with Hyperloop One back in 2016


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/22/moscow-to-explore-high-speed-hyperloop-commuter-transport-system

Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on May 27, 2017, 07:31:15 AM
Its already time to get serious about HSR, as China and many other countries already have. Hyperloop is a theoretical concept that is decades away from large scale rollout, even if it turns out to be a viable technology.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on May 27, 2017, 08:06:10 PM
Its already time to get serious about HSR, as China and many other countries already have. Hyperloop is a theoretical concept that is decades away from large scale rollout, even if it turns out to be a viable technology.

Hyperloop:  Not decades.  Much less expensive than HSR.  More energy-efficient.  And potentially powered by solar.
Quote
Dubai's DP World, the world's third largest port operator, has also invested $50 million and is already working with Hyperloop One on a cargo track planned for 2020.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/08/technology/hyperloop-dubai-abu-dhabi/ (http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/08/technology/hyperloop-dubai-abu-dhabi/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 28, 2017, 05:37:55 PM
Its already time to get serious about HSR, as China and many other countries already have. Hyperloop is a theoretical concept that is decades away from large scale rollout, even if it turns out to be a viable technology.

A test of the Hyperloop is months away.  There are multiple Hyperloop projects that are already in the planning stage.

Once we have a proof of concept then some serious economic projections can be made.  Within a year we should have fairly reliable numbers that can be used to address the HSR/'loop issue.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on May 29, 2017, 01:02:30 AM
To go from the "test it at a small scale" phase to transporting large number over  hundreds/thousands of miles between major cities is what will take the time. Getting regulatory and social acceptance for such a thing, even if it works, will not be a fast process. Plus, as with any new technology there will be unexpected issues along the way that need to be worked out.

Time that we don't have. Just look at what China has done in a decade with the old train technology. We are well past the "let's wait a bit longer to see if anything better comes along stage", especially when that becomes a great ally of the denier/delayer types.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 29, 2017, 04:48:41 AM
To go from the "test it at a small scale" phase to transporting large number over  hundreds/thousands of miles between major cities is what will take the time. Getting regulatory and social acceptance for such a thing, even if it works, will not be a fast process. Plus, as with any new technology there will be unexpected issues along the way that need to be worked out.

Time that we don't have. Just look at what China has done in a decade with the old train technology. We are well past the "let's wait a bit longer to see if anything better comes along stage", especially when that becomes a great ally of the denier/delayer types.

I suppose we could charge ahead and start building HSR and take the chance that it will be obsolete in less than five years.  Even before we get the first stretch completed....
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on May 29, 2017, 06:35:17 AM
Just like the Chinese are doing.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 29, 2017, 06:45:52 AM
I'm sure there were countries who were continuing to extend landlines as cell phones began to take over the market.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on May 29, 2017, 06:12:31 PM
Just because something is used as a metaphor does not make it applicable. Physical infrastructure issues, such as transport and energy, are very different to electronics. They have much more in-built inertial resistant to change.

How long did it take from the first "idea" of a mobile phone to widespread acceptance? The hyperloop was just a clever idea only 4 years ago, and is still backed by some very small outfits. At the very start of the S curve.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on May 29, 2017, 07:08:59 PM
Assuming that HL is the answer, and that it blows HSR out of the water, it's going to take decades to know this, and longer for the buildout.


How far ahead will China be because of their use of HSR by this point? Won't the additional money saved and earned by their HSR infrastructure place them in the financial driver's seat when the time finally comes for the world to change to HL? A 30+yr head start, even if that start is later replaced by better technology, may give them an untouchable lead.


IIRC when Los Angeles opted for freeways over rail they built I10 with an extra wide median to accommodate a light rail/trolley line, should that ever prove a better fit. I believe that if HL begins to look viable, the Chinese will build their HSR systems in a manner to facilitate a later transition to the newer technology.


The same poles that provide for land lines also serve as power poles, bringing the grid as well as the phone to your doorstep. Isn't it possible that the same infrastructure that today serves China's HSR might in the future serve the needs of their HL? Stations, roads and parking to accommodate travelers, right of way, possibly even tunnels built for HSR might serve dual purpose, then exclusive use as HL infrastructure.


Track laid 100 years ago to carry slow steam driven trains is being used today by diesel and electrified rail. I doubt that in 100 years China will not have found a use for the high speed rail they are building today.


Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on May 29, 2017, 07:33:30 PM
Even with their major network of High Speed Rail, China sees advantages in the Hyperloop:

Promoting Shanghai for first Hyperloop
Quote
China, whose vast railway network is known worldwide for its speed and efficiency, is one focus of the competition. A student team at New York University Shanghai is designing a plan for a Hyperloop system between Shanghai and Hangzhou. “Giving the economic and political conditions, this is the best site for the first Hyperloop,” said Bradford Sunderland, a sophomore student majoring in economics and leader of the team.

Hyperloop proposes to move passengers and goods at more than 750 miles an hour, three times the speed of the current high-speed rail in China.

According to the team, Hyperloop would reduce the present 45-minute trip by high-speed rail between Shanghai and Hangzhou to just 15 minutes....
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sunday/Promoting-Shanghai-for-first-Hyperloop/shdaily.shtml (http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sunday/Promoting-Shanghai-for-first-Hyperloop/shdaily.shtml)

China is joining the Hyperloop race
Quote
China’s scientists are looking to ­develop military applications for experimental technology behind an ultra high-speed “vacuum” transport system, according to a researcher involved in one of the projects.

The technology under development would involve loading passengers into pods and projecting them through vacuum tubes at high speeds.

The researcher said some of the work being done in China and the US was funded by the military as the technology might have ­defence ­applications....
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-is-joining-the-hyperloop-race-2016-5 (http://www.businessinsider.com/china-is-joining-the-hyperloop-race-2016-5)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on May 29, 2017, 08:06:55 PM
China currently has 2 HSR's capable of 302 MPH. The speeds will increase, but not to HL projected speeds. Regenerative braking at 95% is impressive!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_CRH380A


Terry
Moving people at these speeds is impressive, but when the New Silk Route is complete & freight begins moving at these speeds it changes the way the world works. No more "Slow boats to China"  :)


Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 29, 2017, 09:03:43 PM
Assuming that HL is the answer, and that it blows HSR out of the water, it's going to take decades to know this, and longer for the buildout.


How far ahead will China be because of their use of HSR by this point? Won't the additional money saved and earned by their HSR infrastructure place them in the financial driver's seat when the time finally comes for the world to change to HL? A 30+yr head start, even if that start is later replaced by better technology, may give them an untouchable lead.


IIRC when Los Angeles opted for freeways over rail they built I10 with an extra wide median to accommodate a light rail/trolley line, should that ever prove a better fit. I believe that if HL begins to look viable, the Chinese will build their HSR systems in a manner to facilitate a later transition to the newer technology.


The same poles that provide for land lines also serve as power poles, bringing the grid as well as the phone to your doorstep. Isn't it possible that the same infrastructure that today serves China's HSR might in the future serve the needs of their HL? Stations, roads and parking to accommodate travelers, right of way, possibly even tunnels built for HSR might serve dual purpose, then exclusive use as HL infrastructure.


Track laid 100 years ago to carry slow steam driven trains is being used today by diesel and electrified rail. I doubt that in 100 years China will not have found a use for the high speed rail they are building today.


Terry

Within a few months we should know whether it is possible to move a pod very rapidly through a partially evacuated tube at speeds in excess of those flown by passenger jets.

Built out time for a stretch of Hyperloop should be less than a stretch of high speed rail over the same route.  The 'loop "flies" over obstacles such as roads and streams, it's already at least 14' in the air.  There's not need to acquire large stretches of railbed and fenced zones on each side.

HSR is not an acceptable substitute for flying over long distances.  The 'loop promises to be faster than flying.

It's about 2,300 miles from LA to NYC.  HSR at 300 miles per hour would take eight hours.  The 'loop at  760 MPH would take three hours.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on May 29, 2017, 09:26:44 PM
So---
Within a few months we'll know whether the US and Canada should be starting on either HL or HSR. Doing nothing is certainly not an option, correct?
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 29, 2017, 09:39:31 PM
We have to get off fossil fuels.  Both HSR and the 'loop run on electricity.

We should know within a year whether the 'loop works and how much it would cost compared to HSR.

If you look at all the engineers and schools of engineering that are working on the 'loop it makes one suspect the 'loop is going to work.  Scale models have already been successfully tested. A full scale propulsion system has been tested.  It even looks like Musk has a way to create tunnels for the 'loop which will be much faster to install and cheaper to build than what we'd need for HSR.

I think we're likely to see an operational stretch of tube within a couple of years.  Initial work is now being done for a tube between Dubai and Abu Dhabi.  Routing will not be a problem for dictatorial governments installing infrastructure over (largely) unoccupied desert.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM 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
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace 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.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow 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
Quote
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/
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM 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
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on May 31, 2017, 03:25:34 AM
In Ontario, Canada there is talk again about HSR - from Toronto to Windsor. Maybe by 2032!
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM 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
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd 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.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM 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
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM 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
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 01, 2017, 11:54:27 PM
Sea level rise would be an assist to the Panama Canal. 
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: sidd on June 02, 2017, 12:54:29 AM
Re: Panama Canal.

Got to rebuild locks of 90 odd feet
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace 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....
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd 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.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: sidd 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

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Pmt111500 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.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace 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. 
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd 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 (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-25/coal-king-s-shift-to-more-gas-wins-believers-as-china-use-surges)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd 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 (https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/china-huadian-joins-blackgolds-600-mw-coal-fired-project-indonesia.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow 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.
Quote
...
“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 (https://www.inverse.com/article/33426-china-renewable-energy-seven-days)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd 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 (http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/China-Becomes-Worlds-Third-Largest-Shale-Gas-Producer.html)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace 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.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Sigmetnow on October 29, 2017, 06:38:30 PM
In the winter, many Chinese homes burn coal for heat, worsening pollution.

China Has Shut Down Up to 40% of Its Factories in an Unprecedented Stand Against Pollution
Quote
In previous winters, city officials have been directed to enforce closures for only a few weeks at a time, but with 2017’s end-of-year targets just months away, China is shuttering polluters at a rate Li calls “unprecedented”.

“These special campaigns are not a one-off, instead it is an exploration of long-term mechanisms,” Li announced this week.

“They have proven effective so we will continue with these measures.”
https://futurism.com/china-shut-down-factories-stand-against-pollution/
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on October 29, 2017, 08:54:06 PM
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.


Bob
Just to add one more level of complexity to the equation.


Once CH4 is captured it is much better to burn it than to allow it to escape to the atmosphere. Just as flaring off is better than allowing CH4 to escape, burning gas to provide electricity, or for heating or industrial use is preferable to wasting those BTUs by flaring.


If China is doing shale primarily to recover oil, then gas could be seen as a byproduct that needs to be utilized, rather than simply flared off, or allowed to escape.


Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Shared Humanity on November 06, 2017, 03:20:22 PM
China continues to lead the world in wind turbine installations and electricity generated. There goal is to have 15% of electricity generated by wind by 2020, a nearly 4 fold increase over 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_China

China has identified wind power as a key growth component of the country's economy.

http://newenergyupdate.com/wind-energy-update/china-fund-boost-wind-turbine-trade-exports-grow

"Because Chinese wind manufacturers are now capable of producing 40 GW worth of turbines annually, while the Chinese government’s target is to install just 20 GW of new capacity per year between 2015 and 2020, they are aggressively growing their export markets to meet the rapidly growing world demand for wind turbines.

Because of this, Asian installed wind power capacity rose to 142GW at the end of 2014, surpassing Europe where capacity totalled 134GW, according to a report by the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Asia will continue to lead the growth in wind power, providing 40-45% of the annual global going forward, GWEC said.

GWEC is expecting an additional 140 GW to be installed in Asia between 2014 and the end of 2019, a doubling of the existing installed capacity.

China wind turbine companies see greater growth opportunities outside of China based on recent export figures, according to a report from CCM. A diverse group of countries are buying Chinese-made turbines. The top ten buyers include large economies such as the US, Australia, and Italy, but also Panama, Romania, and Ethiopia, according to CCM.

Exports accounted for just 4.3% of Chinese turbine manufacturers’ total sales volume in 2013, but this figure is rising rapidly and this will increase competition in the international wind market. Chinese exports more than tripled between 2011 and 2013, whereas domestic demand fell slightly during that period, the report said."


This is pathetic. The U.S. use to pride itself in introducing and advancing emerging technologies.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Shared Humanity on November 06, 2017, 03:50:28 PM
The entire article is a great read.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: numerobis on November 06, 2017, 04:03:00 PM
China about to export a ton of windmills is great news for the world. There'll be howls of fury calling for tariffs, but whatever.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Shared Humanity on November 06, 2017, 04:37:29 PM
China leads world in solar power production. Graduates in solar science from American universities are moving to China because that is where the opportunities are.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40341833

In the 1980's, engineering graduates from India stayed in the U.S. because few opportunities existed at home. Now most of these graduates move back to India due to a rapidly expanding technology industry. The U.S. is now becoming a third world supplier of talent to China.

Pathetic.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Shared Humanity on November 06, 2017, 04:48:44 PM
China is crushing the U.S. in renewable energy

http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/18/technology/china-us-clean-energy-solar-farm/index.html

"More than 2.5 million people work in the solar power sector alone in China, compared with 260,000 people in the U.S., according to the most recent annual report from the International Renewable Energy Agency. While President Trump promises to put American coal miners back to work, China is moving in the opposite direction.

Coal still makes up the largest part of China's energy consumption, but Beijing has been shutting coal mines and set out plans last year to cut roughly 1.3 million jobs in the industry. The Chinese government has also moved to restrict the construction of new coal power plants.

For the first time ever, China's National Energy Administration in January established a mandatory target to reduce coal energy consumption. It also set a goal for clean energy to meet 20% of China's energy needs by 2030. Analysts expect China to easily meet that target. Greenpeace noted in a report earlier this year that the country's clean energy consumption rose to 12% at the end of 2015. Renewable energy sources account for about 10% of total U.S. energy consumption, according to official statistics.

To help reach the 2030 goal, China is betting big on renewable energy. It pledged in January to invest 2.5 trillion yuan ($367 billion) in renewable power generation -- solar, wind, hydro and nuclear -- by 2020. The investment will create about 10 million jobs in the sector, the National Energy Administration projects. China currently boasts 3.5 million jobs in clean energy, by far the most in the world, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 06, 2017, 06:21:10 PM
China about to export a ton of windmills is great news for the world. There'll be howls of fury calling for tariffs, but whatever.

That depends on whether they charge a reasonable price or go predatory.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: ghoti on November 06, 2017, 06:39:23 PM
China about to export a ton of windmills is great news for the world. There'll be howls of fury calling for tariffs, but whatever.

That depends on whether they charge a reasonable price or go predatory.
The history of US tariffs indicates predatory pricing has almost nothing to do with barriers put up by the US. Whenever the US is at a competitive disadvantage they make up subsidy and dumping storys.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 06, 2017, 07:43:37 PM
Quote
Whenever the US is at a competitive disadvantage they make up subsidy and dumping storys.

That's bullshit.  The US is often outpriced on many things.

There's a difference between being priced out and dumping.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on November 06, 2017, 08:11:21 PM
Quote
Whenever the US is at a competitive disadvantage they make up subsidy and dumping storys.

That's bullshit.  The US is often outpriced on many things.

There's a difference between being priced out and dumping.


Could you please explain the 300% tariff on Canadian Airplanes then?
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 06, 2017, 11:32:05 PM
Quote
Could you please explain the 300% tariff on Canadian Airplanes then?

Nope.  Have no knowledge.  Might it have been because the galleys were set up to only serve poutine?

You do realize that "whenever" is an all inclusive word, do you not?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: ghoti on November 06, 2017, 11:42:29 PM
Quote
You do realize that "whenever" is an all inclusive word, do you not?
Yes, that is what I meant but I really didn't mean to disrupt the thread. I apologize.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: oren on November 07, 2017, 08:05:40 PM
If China wants to dump solar panels and wind turbines on any nation, that nation should gladly accept with thanks. "Dumping" is a strange concept when someone hands out capital goods.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 07, 2017, 08:11:27 PM
If China wants to dump solar panels and wind turbines on any nation, that nation should gladly accept with thanks. "Dumping" is a strange concept when someone hands out capital goods.

Dumping is a technique used to drive the dumped on country's industry out of business.  Then after the competition has been wiped out the dumper raises prices to what would have otherwise been possible.

It's an unfair trade practice.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on November 07, 2017, 10:18:28 PM
If China wants to dump solar panels and wind turbines on any nation, that nation should gladly accept with thanks. "Dumping" is a strange concept when someone hands out capital goods.
If a competitor is selling a product for less than their cost of production it might be considered "dumping", however it might also be a "loss leader", or even an "inventory reduction sale".
Americans might be more familiar with the year end sales in which retailers dump their merchandise below cost to avoid annual inventory taxation.


When China builds a billion solar panels, and their competitor's output is < a million, it's safe to assume that the volume manufacturer's costs per unit will be less than their competition. Perhaps not a level playing field, but should General Motors price their product so that hand built cars made in a London suburb can compete?


The money/jobs that solar and wind offers will be on the installation and maintenance side. The lower the cost of the hardware being installed, the more installations, and these will require more maintenance. Placing high tariffs on foreign made hardware costs America jobs.
Increasing the costs of renewable energy, increases fossil fuel usage. Increasing energy costs leads to more expensive American manufacturing costs, which again leads to fewer American manufacturing jobs.


Tariffs are a two edged sword.


Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 08, 2017, 12:26:42 PM
Loss leaders used to bring customers into your store where they are likely to buy goods that aren't discounted is acceptable. 

Selling at a loss in order to force competing stores to go out of business is not.

China had already taken over a lot of the PV market via their lower cost manufacturing.  Apparently a case has been made that they were doing even more than just reasonable competition. 

(I haven't followed this issue in any detail.)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: numerobis on November 08, 2017, 02:27:14 PM
The dumping case against Chinese solar panels is not that they’re selling units at a loss, but that there was too much state support to help the companies get set up, so the unit price has too little fixed cost embedded in it. Similarly for the Bombardier C-series.

In both cases, it’s pretty easy to get around sanctions targeted at one company or one country. The upcoming solar panel tariff “fixes” that by imposing the tariff on all imports, regardless.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Shared Humanity on November 08, 2017, 03:46:35 PM
The upcoming solar panel tariff “fixes” that by imposing the tariff on all imports, regardless.

Some fix.

All tariffs on imports will, in the long run, result in domestic industries no longer being competitive in the international markets. A strong case can be made that the tariffs put in place in the late 1960's to protect the steel industry actually accelerated the decline of the industry as they no longer had to modernize to meet domestic demand at a profit.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 15, 2017, 03:13:24 PM
Currently, China wastes a lot of renewable energy and thus needs to balance this wasted energy by burning a corresponding amount of coal.

Title: "China aims to stop renewable energy being wasted by 2020"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-renewables-waste/china-aims-to-stop-renewable-energy-being-wasted-by-2020-idUSKBN1DD136

Extract: "China aims to prevent power generated by its renewable energy sector being wasted by 2020, the country’s National Energy Administration (NEA) said on Monday.

Power from wind, solar and hydro plants is often wasted as there is not enough transmission capacity to absorb it, leading to high curtailment rates, especially in northwestern China."

Coal-fired power capacity across the country will be capped at 1,100 gigawatts by 2020, the NEA said."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 16, 2017, 04:15:42 AM
Currently, China wastes a lot of renewable energy and thus needs to balance this wasted energy by burning a corresponding amount of coal.

Title: "China aims to stop renewable energy being wasted by 2020"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-renewables-waste/china-aims-to-stop-renewable-energy-being-wasted-by-2020-idUSKBN1DD136

Extract: "China aims to prevent power generated by its renewable energy sector being wasted by 2020, the country’s National Energy Administration (NEA) said on Monday.

Power from wind, solar and hydro plants is often wasted as there is not enough transmission capacity to absorb it, leading to high curtailment rates, especially in northwestern China."

Coal-fired power capacity across the country will be capped at 1,100 gigawatts by 2020, the NEA said."

It's not the first time that wind/solar installations have gotten ahead of installation.  In the US about 17% of onshore wind was being curtailed in Texas (ERCOT), increased transmission dropped it to less than 1%.

Germany had a problem with offshore wind that was ready to produce but transmission was not in place.

Italy essentially stopped large scale solar installation due to a backlog of transmission projects.

A small topic shift - I played around some with solar insolation numbers for China and their reported solar CF numbers.  It looks China is losing a lot of potential output due to pollution.  As China cleans their air it looks like the amount of electricity produced by solar could soar.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 16, 2017, 04:36:28 PM
A small topic shift - I played around some with solar insolation numbers for China and their reported solar CF numbers.  It looks China is losing a lot of potential output due to pollution.  As China cleans their air it looks like the amount of electricity produced by solar could soar.

While I appreciate China's efforts to promote renewables; however, in my opinion (and that of Climate Action Tracker) their current targets and efforts to fight climate change are weak (as is the case for most countries that signed the Paris Agreement).  Until nations around the world implement strong progressive carbon fee and dividend plans, then I consider them all addicted to fossil fuels and that we will blow past the 2C upper limit and past several tipping points w.r.t. such mechanisms as a WAIS collapse and Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanism:

Title: "As Climate Negotiators Debate Nations' Pledges, Scientists Worry It's Not Enough

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/16/564384950/as-climate-negotiators-debate-nations-pledges-scientists-worry-it-s-not-enough

Extract: "Researchers say the emissions reduction targets made at Paris — and what countries are doing to meet them — are weak. Hanna Fekete is with the New Climate Institute. She cites new research by a European group, Climate Action Tracker.

"What we actually find is that a large number of countries is in the category of weak targets and even weaker implementation," she says, "and that is specifically worrying because there are many large emitters in this weaker category." That weak target and effort category includes countries such as the U.S., Russia and China."

Furthermore, in my opinion, due to the 'Chinese Dream', no matter how much renewable energy they produce up to the 100-yr anniversary of the PRC, their carbon footprint will increase until at least 2049 (by which time I am convinced that GMSTA will be well above 2C):

Title: "What Xi Jinping Wants"

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/what-china-wants/528561/

Extract: "China’s leader is determined to turn his country into “the biggest player in the history of the world.” Can he do it while avoiding a dangerous collision with America?

Xi is so convinced he will succeed in this quest that he has blatantly flouted a cardinal rule for political survival: Never state a target objective and a specific date in the same sentence. Within a month of becoming China’s leader in 2012, Xi specified deadlines for meeting each of his “Two Centennial Goals.” First, China will build a “moderately prosperous society” by doubling its 2010 per capita GDP to $10,000 by 2021, when it celebrates the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party. Second, it will become a “fully developed, rich, and powerful” nation by the 100th anniversary of the People's Republic in 2049. If China reaches the first goal— which it is on course to do—the IMF estimates that its economy will be 40 percent larger than that of the U.S. (measured in terms of purchasing power parity). If China meets the second target by 2049, its economy will be triple America's."

&

Title: "Why China aims to be number one superpower by 2049

http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/features/why-china-aims-be-number-one-superpower-2049

Extract: "The seeds of world ambition are historical but it would be reckless to dismiss them, says Oxford analyst Tom Miller."

&

See also the linked Wikipedia articles entitled "Two Centenaries" & " Chinese Dream":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Centenaries
&
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Dream

Edit: The attached images support my claim that we are likely to blow past the 2C limit before 2040 (when projecting using paleo-based dynamical estimates of ECS).
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: numerobis on November 16, 2017, 10:43:45 PM
What's your source on the claim that their carbon footprint will increase until 2049?

It's been stagnant for years already, just a few years after their first climate pledges (presumably they made the pledges as soon as it was apparent they'd be meeting them anyway for regional pollution reasons).
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 16, 2017, 11:50:07 PM
What's your source on the claim that their carbon footprint will increase until 2049?

It's been stagnant for years already, just a few years after their first climate pledges (presumably they made the pledges as soon as it was apparent they'd be meeting them anyway for regional pollution reasons).

Obviously, no one (including me) has a crystal ball as to what China will do by 2049, but here are two article indicating that China's 2017 CO₂ emissions have increase from last year and that they are outsourcing their dirty industries to nearby countries in order to decrease the size of their reported carbon footprint but not their actual carbon footprint:

Anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are projected to increase in 2017 primarily due to increased coal use in China:

Title: "First CO2 rise in four years puts pressure on Paris targets"

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41941265

&

It looks like China is currently meeting their climate commitments by exporting their pollution (just like developed countries):

Title: "Is China really stepping up as the world’s new climate leader?"

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-11-08/china-really-stepping-world-s-new-climate-leader

“China is in many respects simply exporting its pollution,” said Elizabeth Economy, director for Asia studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. She’s talking about China’s massive “Belt and Road” initiative, a nearly trillion-dollar infrastructure investment plan that includes almost 70 countries.

“[China] is on track to export as many as 100 coal-fired power plants,” Economy said. “There’s also going to be plans to export steel capacity and cement production and many other polluting industries.”

Part of China’s commitment to addressing climate change, Economy said, must be a commitment to “green” the Belt and Road."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 16, 2017, 11:54:41 PM
Here are more specific number's on China's increase in emissions in 2017:

Title: "After years of nearly flat growth, global fossil fuel emissions are inching up, according to report by Stanford-led group"

https://news.stanford.edu/2017/11/13/growing-carbon-emissions/

Extract: "Leading that increase is China, where emissions are projected to grow by approximately 3.5 percent in 2017. Coal use there is up an estimated 3 percent, oil use is up 5 percent and natural gas use is up nearly 12 percent."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: numerobis on November 17, 2017, 12:44:25 AM
One year of growth after several years of stagnation doesn’t give me much expectation of continued growth until 2049.

It’s definitely not a steep decline year over year like we’ve been needing the past twenty years, but stagnation is better than anything in anyone’s lifetime.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on November 17, 2017, 05:38:47 AM
One year of growth after several years of stagnation doesn’t give me much expectation of continued growth until 2049.

It’s definitely not a steep decline year over year like we’ve been needing the past twenty years, but stagnation is better than anything in anyone’s lifetime.
I believe that China also experienced high GDP growth, even while keeping their CO2 emissions flat. Quite an inspiring feat when deniers have claimed that GDP growth requires increased GHG production.
Eliminating coal, as Quebec and Ontario have both done, is not just possible, it's an attainable goal that everyone, at least everyone in North America, should strive for. Without cleaning up our own act it's hard to complain about others.
Terry


Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: numerobis on November 17, 2017, 02:54:20 PM
Hopefully we can eliminate coal like the UK has: from 40% to 2% in five years.

The Quebec model includes dispossessing indigenous people on a huge area of low population density. It’s a bit harder to replicate, either morally or physically.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on November 19, 2017, 09:28:59 PM
China has very aggressive wind and solar programs but have some problems to overcome before they can enjoy the full impact of their efforts.  Wind curtailment is very high (I've seen 39%) due to the need for more transmission and a need to restructure their energy market.

China is building lots of new transmission.  I think they are also going to start installing offshore wind which will put generation close to the coastal cities where the electricity is needed.

They have coal plants which were built with the guarantee that they would have first access to demand.  This has to be restructured (some sort of government buyout) so that low carbon electricity gets used first rather than last.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: sidd on March 24, 2018, 10:41:19 PM
Not gonna take your garbage no more:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-environment-usa/u-s-asks-china-not-to-implement-ban-on-foreign-garbage-idUSKBN1GZ2WI

sidd
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 25, 2018, 08:18:43 PM
China install 9.65 GW of solar in Q1 2018.  That's up 22% over Q1 2017.

The grid problems which had left solar curtailed 20% have apparently been addressed which means that previously installed solar will make a larger contribution to the grid going forward.

China installed 52.83 GW of solar in 2017.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/24/china-installs-nearly-10-gigawatts-of-solar-in-first-quarter-up-22/

It is expected that solar will generate more electricity than wind and nuclear in 2018, taking third place behind coal and hydro.  This is an extremely rapid ramp up.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 25, 2018, 09:53:19 PM
China's Belt and Road initiative, BRI, could make their Paris Pact pledges look good, while having a large negative impact of Earth Systems by transfer environmental degradation from China to its neighbors:

Title: "China’s Belt and Road poised to transform the Earth, but at what cost?"

https://news.mongabay.com/2018/04/chinas-belt-and-road-poised-to-transform-the-earth-but-at-what-cost/

Extract: "
•   The BRI is the largest infrastructure initiative in human history, and includes the Silk Road Economic Belt, a land transportation route running from China to Southern Europe via Central Asia and the Middle East, and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road, a sea route connecting the port of Shanghai to Venice, Italy, via India and Africa.

•   The potential environmental impacts of the mega-construction program could be severe, warn analysts. China has committed to BRI environmental and sustainability standards, at least on paper, but the sheer size of the initiative, along with China’s past environmental record and its autocratic institutions, are cause for deep concern.

One question of great concern to environmentalists is transparency. History has shown that rigorous environmental protections are most likely to be instituted and enforced in open societies where an independent judicial branch, media, activists and public can freely challenge government and business interests. China has no such history, and its construction projects around the world have long been plagued by a troubling environmental record."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on April 25, 2018, 10:07:18 PM
Since China seems to be dedicated to electrifying their transportation and replacing coal generation with low carbon sources I would expect the New Silk Road would mean a significant decrease in carbon emissions.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on April 26, 2018, 02:06:09 AM
Since China seems to be dedicated to electrifying their transportation and replacing coal generation with low carbon sources I would expect the New Silk Road would mean a significant decrease in carbon emissions.


The huge drop in air travel alone will make BRI a huge environmental winner.


Centralized governments have the advantage of being able to pivot rapidly during emergencies. We are facing a number of emergency situations in which the slowly churning wheels of democracy may prove a hinderance.


Compare hurricane response in Cuba to the responses in Puerto Rico, New Orleans, or Florida.
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on May 07, 2018, 09:07:25 PM
China's dependency on imported oil, especially from the Middle East, is a huge security issue for them (just look up "Straits of Malacca"). So electrification plays to both security and environmental issues, as well as helping drive China's thrust into the "next economy".

Will be very interesting to see when electrification gains the scale to cause China's oil imports to fall, that will be a major geopolitical and economic event. With increasing oil and gas imports from Russia, and the US fracking its way to "energy independence", the medium term scenario for the Middle East and North Africa oil and gas producers could be very dark.  If China also decides to favour Iran for oil and gas imports (protecting the BRI), the Saudis could be in real trouble.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on May 07, 2018, 09:49:04 PM
China's dependency on imported oil, especially from the Middle East, is a huge security issue for them (just look up "Straits of Malacca"). So electrification plays to both security and environmental issues, as well as helping drive China's thrust into the "next economy".

Will be very interesting to see when electrification gains the scale to cause China's oil imports to fall, that will be a major geopolitical and economic event. With increasing oil and gas imports from Russia, and the US fracking its way to "energy independence", the medium term scenario for the Middle East and North Africa oil and gas producers could be very dark.  If China also decides to favour Iran for oil and gas imports (protecting the BRI), the Saudis could be in real trouble.

I'm looking for an oil crash within the next five years similar to what has happened to coal.  At least clear signs that the crash has started which will mean a large decrease in oil company values and a major slowdown in new well development.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on May 07, 2018, 11:04:27 PM
Between being one of the epicentres for climate change, the poisoned legacy of great power politics, massively expanded populations grown on the back of the oil boom, and drastically reduced oil revenues the Middle East could be a way more of a shit-show than it is currently. Just imagine the Saudi rulers not being able to afford the bribes and security needed to keep their population from taking them out. Trump may be doing Iran a favour by driving it further into the arms of China and the BRI, it desperately needs to diversify its economy.

Perhaps us "westerners" will not care about the Middle East anymore once we don't need the stuff thats under their lands. If a coup takes place in a country with no MSM reporters or western military is it really important? All those skyscrapers in Abu Dhabi could look like incredible malinvestments.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: ivica on June 18, 2018, 07:10:41 PM
https://gbtimes.com/china-finland-cargo-train-link-extends-to-norway-and-sweden

"The first direct cargo train route linking China and Finland is being extended to Norway and Sweden as part of a Finnish city’s plans to establish itself as a Northern European logistics hub for China-bound rail freight.

The route linking the southeastern Finnish city of Kouvola with Xi’an and Zhengzhou in central China was opened last November and the service has run in both directions every week since April. It takes 10 to 12 days to complete the one-way journey from Finland through Russia and Kazakhstan to China, compared to eight weeks when shipping by sea."
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 18, 2018, 08:57:44 PM
Quote
It takes 10 to 12 days to complete the one-way journey from Finland through Russia and Kazakhstan to China, compared to eight weeks when shipping by sea."

The time difference is going to take a tremendous amount of freight off the seas and onto land. 

We know how to run trains on very low carbon electricity.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: BenB on June 19, 2018, 12:54:28 PM
I don't know whether this belongs here or in the cars thread, but 97,000 EVs were sold in China in May, including 12,624 of the market-leading BAIC EC-Series:

http://ev-sales.blogspot.com/2018/06/china-may-2018.html (http://ev-sales.blogspot.com/2018/06/china-may-2018.html)

Several of the cars have recently upgraded batteries, including the BAIC Ex-series crossover with a 48kWh battery and the BYD e5 with a 61 kWh battery.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: gerontocrat on June 19, 2018, 01:30:40 PM
Hullo BenB,

An entry in the cars,more cars.... thread is a good idea. China is really ahead of the game. Even when Tesla gets to 5 6 7 8 9 10 thousand cars a week, it is likely China will have got way ahead.

I don't know whether this belongs here or in the cars thread, but 97,000 EVs were sold in China in May, including 12,624 of the market-leading BAIC EC-Series:

http://ev-sales.blogspot.com/2018/06/china-may-2018.html (http://ev-sales.blogspot.com/2018/06/china-may-2018.html)

Several of the cars have recently upgraded batteries, including the BAIC Ex-series crossover with a 48kWh battery and the BYD e5 with a 61 kWh battery.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 19, 2018, 04:07:21 PM
China's impact right now is to cause other car companies to develop good, affordable EVs if they want part of the Chinese market.  That means that those companies will have models and experience that they can use in western markets as demand switches from ICEVs to EVs.

Chinese manufacturers may have all the market they can handle inside China for some time as their growing middle class buys their first cars and the Chinese government pushes buyers away from ICEVs.  We might not see China exporting many EVs or building factories outside China for some years.  But their in country use of EVs may speed up the transition outside China.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Bob Wallace on June 20, 2018, 08:32:08 PM
BP's 2018 Statistical Review of Global Energy is now online.  2017 data.  Seems like a good time to see how China is doing since it's a major GHG country.

Overall fossil fuel use increased some from 2016 but it could be mostly noise as China plateaus out.  It will take a few more years or a drastic increase/decrease to determine.  Coal consumption was down a small amount with oil and natural gas increasing.

(https://vgy.me/M9URWz.png)

Fossil fuel use for electricity is declining in terms of the percentage of electricity generated.  Coal is losing market share.

(https://vgy.me/cVPbsu.png)

Low carbon (hydro, wind, nuclear, and solar) are taking market share away from fossil fuels.  Over the last six years low carbon generation has taken about eight percent of the market from fossil fuels.

(https://vgy.me/ZnG0wk.png)

Non-hydro renewables and nuclear have been  growing but not so much hydro in terms of percentage of generation.

(https://vgy.me/yrgnUU.png)

Wind caught up and passed nuclear fairly quickly.  It is expected that solar will move higher than nuclear this year or next.

(https://vgy.me/6GGWoI.png)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on July 03, 2018, 01:52:48 AM
China's emissions may have peaked:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-carbon/china-carbon-emissions-in-retreat-after-structural-break-in-economy-study-idUSKBN1JS1Y4 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-carbon/china-carbon-emissions-in-retreat-after-structural-break-in-economy-study-idUSKBN1JS1Y4)

Quote
SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell from 2014 to 2016 and might already have peaked, according to a study published on Monday, with structural economic changes allowing Beijing to meet targets earlier than expected.

China vowed before the Paris climate talks in 2015 to bring CO2 emissions to a peak by “around 2030”, and the country’s top climate official, Xie Zhenhua, has already said it could meet the pledge ahead of time.

But the study, published by Nature Geoscience, said “in retrospect, the commitment may have been fulfilled even as it was being made”, with emissions hitting a record 9.53 gigatonnes in 2013 and declining in the following three years, dropping to 9.2 gigatonnes in 2016.

While emissions rose by an average of 9.3 percent per year from 2000 to 2013, China’s economy underwent a “structural break” in 2014, and is shifting to less carbon-intensive high technology sectors, it said.

“Unless there is a significant amount of change - a large government intervention like the stimulus package of 2008 - then China’s emissions will stabilize and gradually go down,” said Dabo Guan, a professor of climate change economics at the University of East Anglia (UEA), one of the authors of the study.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on August 17, 2019, 08:01:41 PM
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/15/climate-china-global-translations-1662345
Often considered the bogeyman of global climate diplomacy, China is making greater and faster strides than expected away from fossil fuels — becoming the world’s largest investor in solar and wind technology and boasting more jobs in solar energy than in coal-mining. It’s all part of a longterm economic strategy to dominate in critical technologies.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on August 18, 2019, 10:40:35 PM
China's emissions may have peaked:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-carbon/china-carbon-emissions-in-retreat-after-structural-break-in-economy-study-idUSKBN1JS1Y4 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-carbon/china-carbon-emissions-in-retreat-after-structural-break-in-economy-study-idUSKBN1JS1Y4)

Quote
SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell from 2014 to 2016 and might already have peaked, according to a study published on Monday, with structural economic changes allowing Beijing to meet targets earlier than expected.

China vowed before the Paris climate talks in 2015 to bring CO2 emissions to a peak by “around 2030”, and the country’s top climate official, Xie Zhenhua, has already said it could meet the pledge ahead of time.

But the study, published by Nature Geoscience, said “in retrospect, the commitment may have been fulfilled even as it was being made”, with emissions hitting a record 9.53 gigatonnes in 2013 and declining in the following three years, dropping to 9.2 gigatonnes in 2016.

While emissions rose by an average of 9.3 percent per year from 2000 to 2013, China’s economy underwent a “structural break” in 2014, and is shifting to less carbon-intensive high technology sectors, it said.

“Unless there is a significant amount of change - a large government intervention like the stimulus package of 2008 - then China’s emissions will stabilize and gradually go down,” said Dabo Guan, a professor of climate change economics at the University of East Anglia (UEA), one of the authors of the study.

China CO2 emissions went up 2.7% in 2018, following 1.7% growth in 2017. Doesn't look like "stabilize and gradually go down" to me. Carbon brief is an excellent source for up to date CO2 emissions data:

Quote
The stronger growth in 2018 indicates that 2017 was not a blip

Quote
Like in 2017, coal consumption grew again, after having gone down from 2014 to 2016. Also like in 2017, the biggest single contribution to coal consumption growth was increased electricity production, which grew at 7.7% in 2018 and accounts for roughly half of coal consumption in China.

From 2014 to 2016, expanded renewable and nuclear power generation was able to cover slow growth in overall electricity consumption. This allowed coal-fired power generation to fall. In 2017 and 2018, however, electricity demand grew so fast that new low-carbon sources could not keep up.

Quote
China’s oil (+6.5%) and gas consumption (+17.7%) grew rapidly in 2018, continuing recent trends. Even though they account for a much smaller share of the country’s CO2 emissions than coal, this rapid growth helped push the growth in total CO2 emissions well above the rate for coal alone.

Due to discrepancies between coal production (higher) and coal consumption (not as much higher) numbers, the actual CO2 increase could be as high as 4% for 2018!

Quote
Whatever the case, the discrepancy over coal means that overall CO2 growth could be as high as around 4% – compared to 2.3% reported in the communique – even before accounting for other sources of uncertainty that we usually include in our analyses. Those factors push the uncertainty range even wider, to -0.4% to +6.7%.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-chinas-co2-emissions-grew-slower-than-expected-in-2018 (https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-chinas-co2-emissions-grew-slower-than-expected-in-2018)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 04, 2019, 06:16:59 PM
Chinese Belt and Road plan ‘may result in 2.7C warming’
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/02/chinese-belt-road-plan-may-result-2-7c-warming/
Quote
China’s multi-trillion dollar global investment plans could blow the 2C warming limit set by the Paris Agreement without curbs on pollution, a new study said on Monday.

The 126 countries in the Belt and Road region now account for 28% of global emissions, but on their current trajectory, that could rise to 66% by 2050, researchers, led by Ma Jun, a special advisor to China’s central bank, said.

That could mean global carbon levels would rise to nearly double the level needed to keep temperature increases to below 2C, a major goal of the Paris Agreement.

“If B&RCs (Belt and Road countries) follow historical carbon-intense growth patterns… it may be enough to result in a 2.7 degree path, even if the rest of the world adheres to 2 degree levels of emissions,” the report said.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on September 04, 2019, 06:52:33 PM
That strikes me as very pessimistic. In 30 years, oil and gas will be so expensive compared to renewables, China wouldn't be competitive anymore if they still relied on fossils.

So it's either less CO2 emissions because they switched to renewables or less CO2 emissions due to a broken down economy.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on September 05, 2019, 03:17:51 AM
That strikes me as very pessimistic. In 30 years, oil and gas will be so expensive compared to renewables, China wouldn't be competitive anymore if they still relied on fossils.

So it's either less CO2 emissions because they switched to renewables or less CO2 emissions due to a broken down economy.

The developing countries are in a great position as they will be adding net new electricity generating plants (no sunk costs) and increasing motorcycles/trains/buses/trams/cars with all the advances being made by China etc. available to them. It may take a few more years, but new new fossil fuel plants/transport will become a thing of the past, so the CO2 emissions growth curve may flatten.

Shame is that we need to have it pointing downwards big time and the UN IPCC math that the report relies upon massively understates the probable temperature response.That needs to rich nations to step up to the plate.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on September 05, 2019, 07:17:36 AM
Agreed, Rboyd.

Long term the math doesn't work out for fossils anymore (30 years). Hard to say what happens short term though (within 10 years). I guess in this timeframe we do see higher growth year by year and a sharp cut after that.

Implications are known to the considerate reader. We really should have started to phase out 30 years ago...
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on September 06, 2019, 09:41:37 AM
Agreed, Rboyd.

Long term the math doesn't work out for fossils anymore (30 years). Hard to say what happens short term though (within 10 years). I guess in this timeframe we do see higher growth year by year and a sharp cut after that.

Implications are known to the considerate reader. We really should have started to phased out 30 years ago...


If we had ended ff use 30 years ago we'd be faced with a difficult, but solvable problem today.


I don't believe "winning" is possible for most of the world's population. We might still be able to mitigate the very worst, if we were all willing to sacrifice today for the benefit of generations yet unborn. We won't make these sacrifices so ...


Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 06, 2019, 10:54:45 PM
China’s Industrial Heartland Fears Impact of Tougher Emissions Policies
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04092019/china-climate-change-policy-economic-slowdown-impact-industrial-heartland-factory-shutdown
Quote
Chinese regulators have come down hard on polluting industries in recent years. Around Hebei province, the impact of Beijing's industrial reorganization is profound. Small towns like Dazhang village are now surrounded by shuttered and partially dismantled factories. Chained gates and idle yards line the streets.

The tension between China's slowdown and its climate ambitions has global implications, as world leaders prepare for a 2020 deadline for new international targets to reduce emissions that contribute to global warming.

But after two decades of near double-digit expansion, gross domestic product has slowed to 6.2 percent growth in the second quarter — the weakest official pace since the early 1990s.

If China, the world's second-largest economy, does not get tough on its emissions, other countries might not be willing to either.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 13, 2019, 09:49:39 PM
UN ‘very confident’ China plans to raise climate ambition
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/09/11/un-confident-china-plans-raise-climate-ambition/
Quote
Speaking ahead of the high-level meeting convened by UN secretary general in New York on 23 September, UN special envoy on climate change Luis Alfonso de Alba said he was “very confident that China will come to the summit with a clear commitment on a number of areas… with a much higher level of ambition”.

Referring to a statement signed by China, France and UN chief António Guterres on the margins of the G20 summit in July, De Alba said the communique had “made some important announcements”.

“One of them is a commitment of China to enhance their [national climate plan] and to come in September with a proposal on that,” he said.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 24, 2019, 10:26:02 PM
Jerry Brown partners with China to fight climate change
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/23/jerry-brown-uc-berkeley-china-climate-institute/
Quote
Jerry Brown isn’t finished fighting climate change just yet.

The former California governor is launching a new partnership with China and UC Berkeley — the California-China Climate Institute — to research new solutions for cutting carbon emissions and averting the disastrous impact of global warming, he announced Monday.

“We want to provide a forum and an open line of communication between Americans and Chinese on one of the most important challenges we face,” Brown said in an earlier interview. The plan is to “do everything we can not only to contribute to China and California carbon reduction, but being a force for the rest of the world to emulate.”
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on September 26, 2019, 06:46:42 PM
The linked article states that China has phased out subsidies for renewable energy products and increased investment in fossil fuel projects.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-chinas-renewable-energy-transition-is-losing-momentum (https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-chinas-renewable-energy-transition-is-losing-momentum)

Quote
In addition, as renewable energy prices have fallen and the central government has grown increasingly concerned about the impact of the U.S.-China trade war on China’s economy, renewable subsidies are being phased out. Wind and solar facilities must now compete directly at auction with other forms of power generation. China’s green energy sector seems increasingly capable of winning that competition, but solar energy installations are nevertheless expected to drop by about half this year, from a peak of 53 gigawatts in 2017.

And while curtailing subsidies for wind and solar power, the central government has sharply increased financial support for what it calls “new energy” extraction, which includes fracking of shale gas and separating methane from coal. Those subsidies are an important reason behind China’s rising CO2 emissions.

Quote
To reduce the country’s CO2 emissions, experts say it is crucial that power produced in provinces like Qinghai be transmitted seamlessly to the industrial and population centers along China’s coast. Many larger renewable projects are located in remote landlocked provinces like Qinghai, Gansu, and Inner Mongolia. Until more transmission lines are built and government reforms are enacted that better enable power to be transferred to other provinces, far-western “battery provinces” like Qinghai will mainly end up generating power for themselves.

What’s needed, Tu says, is for the central government to eliminate barriers of inter-provincial power trading and to simultaneously give renewables priority in the transfer and dispatching of electricity.

Alvin Lin, an energy and climate expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council who has worked in China for more than a decade, says that an important near-term element in the climate battle is to sustain the momentum of China’s renewable energy drive so that the country’s CO2 emissions peak before 2030. Many experts increasingly argue that the 2030 target date is insufficient.

“We and others would like to push for an earlier carbon peaking around 2025,” Lin says. “China would need to stop building new coal plants now and bring coal power capacity and generation down rapidly.”

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on September 28, 2019, 02:04:25 AM
The linked article states that China has phased out subsidies for renewable energy products and increased investment in fossil fuel projects.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-chinas-renewable-energy-transition-is-losing-momentum (https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-chinas-renewable-energy-transition-is-losing-momentum)

Sad, but makes sense from a short term energy security point of view. China's natural gas demand is exploding, so they want to produce as much domestically as possible rather than importing from the Middle East and Australia etc.

They have cut the EV subsidies and now also the wind and pv subsidies, very sad. They should be going full throttle on these things.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on September 28, 2019, 06:28:36 AM
^^
The "Power of Siberia" pipeline was charged up at the end of August and will begin pumping gas this December.
This turns China's energy situation on it's head. Cheap Russian gas as opposed to expensive LNG, no US dollars required, and a big expansion project already on the drawing boards.


The new low priced energy will make renewables a hard sell & will alleviate the need to subsidize projects that no longer make sense financially, even if they do lessen the need for imported energy.
A China with an abundance of low cost energy will be hard for anyone to compete with. If Europe follows Trump's dictates and shuts down Nord Stream 2 European manufacturing will pay a very heavy price.
Terry

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Hefaistos on September 28, 2019, 06:50:00 AM
... If Europe follows Trump's dictates and shuts down Nord Stream 2 ...

Won't happen! Trump just uses some russiaphobic political arguments to promote US business interests, as the USA hopes to be able to export its expensive LNG instead of the cheap Russian one.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on September 28, 2019, 07:03:21 AM
... If Europe follows Trump's dictates and shuts down Nord Stream 2 ...

Won't happen! Trump just uses some russiaphobic political arguments to promote US business interests, as the USA hopes to be able to export its expensive LNG instead of the cheap Russian one.
I hope you're right.
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: bluice on September 28, 2019, 09:01:54 AM
I find interesting how posters here see increasing dependence on Russian fossil fuels as a good thing.

Both China and Europe also have the possibility to develop local zero carbon energy sources.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on September 28, 2019, 06:14:29 PM
From a geopolitical point of view it is very intelligent for China to reorient their natural gas and oil imports to friendly nations with over-land transportation. Same as attempting to ramp up domestic natural gas production. This helps remove their oil and gas imports as a weakness that the USA can utilize in a conflict (just like with Japan just before Pearl Harbour). They have also built up a very large strategic oil reserve.

They should also be going full speed with EV's as they replace imported oil with domestic electricity production (coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables). Their removal of subsidies to EV's and the renewable sector is very short sighted geopolitically and really bad for the climate. Even at 80% coal share in electricity production EV's generate less CO2 due to the efficiency of the electrical engine (and power generating stations).
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Wildcatter on September 28, 2019, 06:57:42 PM
From a geopolitical point of view it is very intelligent for China to reorient their natural gas and oil imports to friendly nations with over-land transportation. Same as attempting to ramp up domestic natural gas production. This helps remove their oil and gas imports as a weakness that the USA can utilize in a conflict (just like with Japan just before Pearl Harbour). They have also built up a very large strategic oil reserve.

They should also be going full speed with EV's as they replace imported oil with domestic electricity production (coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables). Their removal of subsidies to EV's and the renewable sector is very short sighted geopolitically and really bad for the climate. Even at 80% coal share in electricity production EV's generate less CO2 due to the efficiency of the electrical engine (and power generating stations).

Removing subsidies actually makes perfect sense for China, although it does suck for climate. Although, it could potentially even out.

They "plant 1000 seeds", scale up, start to corner markets, and then they drop subsidies to encourage further cost efficiency, separating the wheat from the chaffe, and monopolize global markets. That's how they do it, and it's very efficient. They did it with solar, EVs, and will do it with batteries (probably). And they've cornered silicon, solar, and will outpace everyone in battery production by multiple times, while having the biggest EV market that will dominate exports to SE Asia, and anyone who imports them, as well as having a huge presence in global electric buses.

It's actually very effective, in a cutthroat kinda way. They are very good at it. I say it may even out, because they drop costs so significantly through scale, and then optimization + innovation and iteration in manufacturing. They're basically the reason why solar is as cheap as it is, and why batteries will drop in costs as well, at economies of scale. So, it's a catch 22.

What we can expect is that they'll do a "tick, tock" type installation with renewables. They're also going to scale up offshore wind with all their coastal population. By tick tock, I mean they installed a large amount, now they're letting domestic suppliers scale up massively and corner markets, also dropping costs, and when this new expansion has optimized processes and cost efficiency with a whole bunch more supply, they'll do another series of large installs, so it doesn't hamper their global supply too much and they maximize value domestically.

It also has the effect of letting them catch up on grid utilization. As can be expected, they had a good amount of grid problems adding all those renewables, lot of curtailment, bottleneck issues, transmission/distribution. A period of slower growth means they can alleviate some of these issues, while letting them plan better for the future. In the near term, they'll likely be adding grid storage while building their grid, to try and get the most effective options, to aid in transmission/distribution and ancillary services for example.

I guess the positive with China is knowing that they actually want energy independence. Besides the global markets, their rate of oil consumption was projected to be astronomical, which has pushed them towards EVs more. Removing subsidies was actually to reduce costs as fast as possible. No one should be too surprised if they renew some EV subsidies in the future, when their markets stabilize a bit and EVs are even more cost efficient and producing more at scale.

It's no surprise about natural gas, it allows them to flex their muscles in Central Asia as well as strategic agreements in the Middle East, part of the Belt n Road. It also allows them to get plentiful of cheap supply, and to them it's less damaging than coal, so it's a win/win for them as it also helps influence + good faith with all those countries as well as pipelines and $$.

I don't really agree with their methods, but removing subsidies has been an effective way to reduce costs. They'll probably renew some of them at a later date. They know their current rates of consumption are basically unsustainable, so that's a silver lining I guess. There is a method to their madness though, so we'll see. If the world goes into a recession, it will probably hurt renewables + EVs, but I imagine we'll see efforts pick up again in the near future. Hopefully, anyway.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on September 28, 2019, 09:55:09 PM
Thanks Wildcatter!
Well written & logical.
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on September 29, 2019, 09:36:29 PM
A extremely rational analysis - welcome Wildcatter!
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on October 01, 2019, 06:13:35 AM
Guest post: Why China’s CO2 emissions grew 4% during first half of 2019

Quote
Estimates based on preliminary data for the first half of 2019, compared to the same period last year, indicate that:

China’s coal demand increased by 3%;
Oil demand was up 6%;
Gas demand rose by 12%; and
Cement production increased by 7%.

Quote
At the same time, the debate about energy targets for the 14th five-year plan, to run from 2021 to 2025, and a longer-term plan until 2035, has taken off in earnest.

The five-year plans for different sectors will be published in 2021-22 and will include detailed targets for different energy sources, power generating capacity, share of coal in total energy and so on. This plan will be immensely important in charting the country’s future energy policy, as almost all detailed targets are currently for 2020. One of the proposals being discussed is adopting a CO2 emission cap for 2025.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-chinas-co2-emissions-grew-4-during-first-half-of-2019 (https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-chinas-co2-emissions-grew-4-during-first-half-of-2019)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on October 01, 2019, 10:13:28 PM
The Global Rise of China: Alvin Y So and Yin-wah Chu

Read this really good book on the development of the Chinese economy over the past few decades, the author refers to the policies as "State Neoliberalism" with neoliberalism (deregulation, privatization, market orientation) being used to maintain the state (and the Party) in power instead of handing power over to the corporations.

Seems they still believe in the mixed economy, where natural monopolies and state-subsidized businesses (e.g. banking, energy supply, railways, arms manufacturers, aerospace etc.) should be owned by the state and the basic costs should be somewhat protected from rentier corporations. Also that anti-competitive behaviour should be punished and restrained - the new business social credit system is an interesting move in that direction.

An authoritarian bureaucracy overseeing what used to be called "embedded capitalism" prior to the 1970's, with oversight to make sure that the market actually functions more for the benefit of society. Still lots of problems though, especially with local corruption and exploitation which is permitted as a cost of rapid development, especially outside the major cities.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-28/china-s-social-credit-for-companies-sparks-alarm-eucham-warns (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-28/china-s-social-credit-for-companies-sparks-alarm-eucham-warns)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on October 10, 2019, 01:14:44 AM
China is on track to meet its [so2 and no and particulate] emissions goals for 2020

The good news - the local air pollution from coal plants in China has been cleaned up a lot.
The bad news - the climate cooling levels of SO2 from Chinese coal plants have been reduced a lot

Quote
The team found that between 2014 and 2017, China's annual power plant emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter dropped by 65%, 60% and 72% each year respectively from 2.21, 3.11 and 0.52 million tonnes in 2014 to 0.77, 1.26 and 0.14 million tonnes in 2017, which is in compliance with ULE standards.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191007113327.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191007113327.htm).
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on November 06, 2019, 04:59:05 PM
China meets ultra-low emissions in advance of the 2020 goal. China's annual power plant emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter dropped by 65%, 60% and 72% from 2.21, 3.11 and 0.52 million tons in 2014 to 0.77, 1.26 and 0.14 million tons in 2017, respectively.

Link >> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-11/caos-cm110519.php
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: GoSouthYoungins on November 07, 2019, 04:21:00 AM
China can't have much more pollution. In fact, as it's citizens get more affluent, it needs to reduce pollution to satisfy the masses.

But fossil fuels are huge energy sources for a society that will continue to use more energy than any other country in the world.

(Emissions metrics per country make no sense, of course. The only real measure of a society is the per person emissions, but whatever.)

China will emit more than any other country for decades.


The good news (maybe), is that because China is the most tightly controlled large advanced economy, they can implement fairly radical policies if they choose.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Alexander555 on November 07, 2019, 06:52:08 PM
These are big boys, 10 MW windturbines. https://www.rt.com/business/472826-china-worlds-largest-wind-turbine/
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on November 09, 2019, 11:36:13 PM
China's coal based electricity fleet way more efficient that the US

Interesting report on the Chinese coal-fired electricity generation fleet. 50% is already made up of super-critical and ultra super-critical units (higher temperatures and steam pressure produce more electricity per unit of coal) and by 2020 all units will have to meet an efficiency level that the top 100 units in the US cant meet. With the very low utilization rate of the fleet, less efficient ones can be shut down without the need for replacement. All new plants are at the least super-efficient, so will increase the efficiency of the whole fleet.

Quote
Since China’s fleet uses more advanced technology, it also consumes less coal: an average of 286.42 grams of coal equivalent, or gce, consumed per kilowatt-hour of power produced in China versus 374.96 gce consumed per kilowatt-hour produced at lower heating value in the United States.

In 2016:
- Subcritical coal power plants in SE Asia were on average 32% thermally efficient
- SuperCritical coal power plants in SE Asia were on average 36% thermally efficient (that's 12.5% more efficient than subcritical)
- Ultra SuperCritical coal power plants in SE Asia were on average 39% thermally efficient (that's 22% more efficient than subcritical)

China already has Ultra Supercritical plants that are 10 years old running at 45% efficiency (thats 41% more efficient than subcritical). The goal is to get to over 50% efficient.

This means that China may very well be able to cut coal usage in electricity production while actually increasing the amount of electricity generated from coal.

At these levels of efficiency coal plants are pretty close to natural gas plants for CO2 emissions and have much less fugitive methane emissions during production and transport of the coal/NG.

There is also significantly less flue gas to deal with for the sulphur and nox scrubbers to deal with.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/05/15/432141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/ (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/05/15/432141/everything-think-know-coal-china-wrong/)

https://www.worldcoal.org/file_validate.php?file=The%20Power%20of%20high%20efficiency%20coal%20-%20WCA%20-%200316.pdf (https://www.worldcoal.org/file_validate.php?file=The%20Power%20of%20high%20efficiency%20coal%20-%20WCA%20-%200316.pdf)

https://www.power-technology.com/projects/yuhuancoal/ (https://www.power-technology.com/projects/yuhuancoal/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on November 12, 2019, 06:29:56 PM
^^^

That article from 2017 relies on some information that appears to be incorrect.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/climate/china-coal-climate-change.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/climate/china-coal-climate-change.html)

Quote
China’s Coal Plants Haven’t Cut Methane Emissions as Required, Study Finds
By Somini Sengupta
Jan. 29, 2019

China, the world’s coal juggernaut, has continued to produce more methane emissions from its coal mines despite its pledge to curb the planet-warming pollutant, according to new research.

In a paper published Tuesday in Nature Communications, researchers concluded that China had failed to meet its own government regulations requiring coal mines to rapidly reduce methane emissions, at least in the five years after 2010, when the regulations were passed.

It matters because coal is the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel, and China is, by far, the largest producer in the world.

Coal accounts for 40 percent of electricity generation globally and an even higher share in China, which has abundant coal resources and more than four million workers employed in the coal sector. Scientists and policymakers agree that the world will have to quit coal to have any hope of averting catastrophic climate change.

Quote
“Our study indicates that, at least in terms of methane emissions, China’s government is talking the talk but has not been able to walk the walk,” Scot Miller, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who led the research team, said in a statement.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07891-7#citeas (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07891-7#citeas)

Quote
Miller, S.M., Michalak, A.M., Detmers, R.G. et al. China’s coal mine methane regulations have not curbed growing emissions. Nat Commun 10, 303 (2019) doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07891-7

Quote
Abstract

Anthropogenic methane emissions from China are likely greater than in any other country in the world. The largest fraction of China’s anthropogenic emissions is attributable to coal mining, but these emissions may be changing; China enacted a suite of regulations for coal mine methane (CMM) drainage and utilization that came into full effect in 2010. Here, we use methane observations from the GOSAT satellite to evaluate recent trends in total anthropogenic and natural emissions from Asia with a particular focus on China. We find that emissions from China rose by 1.1 ± 0.4 Tg CH4 yr−1 from 2010 to 2015, culminating in total anthropogenic and natural emissions of 61.5 ± 2.7 Tg CH4 in 2015. The observed trend is consistent with pre-2010 trends and is largely attributable to coal mining. These results indicate that China’s CMM regulations have had no discernible impact on the continued increase in Chinese methane emissions.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on November 12, 2019, 06:38:52 PM
And when the world urgently needs to retire coal power plants, not build more of them, let's compare and contrast countries.

The United States is retiring larger and newer coal plants now.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/07/26/bigger-younger-coal-plants-are-retiring/ (https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/07/26/bigger-younger-coal-plants-are-retiring/)

Quote
Bigger, younger coal plants are retiring

An analysis of coal plant retirements from the U.S. Department of Energy shows that more than 100 GW of coal-fired power plants have already retired this decade, as solar, wind and gas eat coal’s lunch.

July 26, 2019 Christian Roselund

The last decade has seen a dramatic change in the U.S. generation fleet, with hundreds of older coal-fired power plants being shut down, and replaced with at first gas plants, and increasingly wind and solar.

Quote
It’s hard to draw too many conclusions from the overall capacity of coal plants that have retired, as the pattern is highly uneven from year to year. But of the 546 coal-fired power plants totaling over 102 GW which have gone offline during the last decade, the ones that have shut down in the last few years have been both younger and larger than previous plants.

According to EIA, The average age of coal plant that shut down in 2018 was 46 years – 10 years younger than the ones that shut down in 2015. Additionally, the average capacity of plants that are shutting down has nearly tripled, from around 100 MW in 2015 to 350 MW last year. And this means that it is not only small, ancient coal plants that are feeling the heat, but younger, bigger units, which have better economies of scale.

China keeps building new coal plants.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/28/asia/china-coal-plant-inner-mongolia-intl-hnk/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/28/asia/china-coal-plant-inner-mongolia-intl-hnk/index.html)

Quote
China struggling to kick its coal habit despite Beijing's big climate pledges
By David Culver, Lily Lee and Ben Westcott, CNN

Updated 9:06 PM ET, Sat September 28, 2019

Inner Mongolia, China (CNN)On the coal-rich plains of Inner Mongolia, thick white smoke curls from the huge chimney of a thermal coal power plant which the Chinese Communist Party had pledged to stop constructing two years ago.
The huge Mengneng Xilin Thermal Power Plant's third unit, expected to deliver 700 megawatts of power to China's north, was ordered to cease construction in January 2017.

The order came from China's National Energy Administration as part of a government plan to eliminate millions of tons of "overcapacity" caused by a rush of approvals and the construction of "illegal" power plants. It is also part of President Xi Jinping's pledge to reduce the country's reliance on coal and reach peak carbon emissions by 2030.

But even as China reiterated its commitment to reducing emissions last week in New York, earlier this month at least three large, new coal-fired power stations appeared to be either operating or under construction in Inner Mongolia in northern China -- including Mengneng Xilin.

Quote
According to Climate Action Tracker, China's carbon emissions rose an estimated 2.3% in 2018, the second consecutive year of growth after emissions appeared to stall between 2014 and 2016.

Quote
Mengmeng Xilin isn't the only coal power plant to have quietly restarted construction or gone into operation since the notice was sent in 2017.

Huaneng North Victory Thermal Power Plant is due to begin operating in October 2019, generating more than 1,000 megawatts of power. Similarly, Xilinhot's Datang Power Plant is expected to finish construction in July, set to provide up to 1320 MW, despite also being on the list of power stations put on hold.

Satellite images from Google Earth show that, after a brief pause in 2017, the construction of all three suspended plants continued. The resumption work has raised questions about the status of dozens of other supposedly suspended heavily-polluting power stations across the country.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on November 12, 2019, 07:07:30 PM
More about China's supposedly efficient coal plants.

https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3037206/problem-chinas-clean-coal-push-there-no-such-thing-clean-coal (https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3037206/problem-chinas-clean-coal-push-there-no-such-thing-clean-coal)

Quote
The problem with China’s ‘clean coal’ push is that there is no such thing as ‘clean coal’

China’s leadership in renewable energy is at odds with the fact that it has too much coal-fired power capacity. But Beijing is not yet ready to make the tough decisions necessary to acknowledge the problem and downsize coal production

Melissa Brown 
Ghee Peh 
Published: 10:00pm, 11 Nov, 2019

Quote
Yet in October, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang renewed the focus on what the global public relations arm of the mining industry calls “clean coal” with comments on China’s potential for development of new coal and coal bed methane technologies.

As China knows, “clean coal” simply does not exist. “Clean coal” describes a hope that new technology like emissions abatement or carbon capture and sequestration might one day solve the coal problem. To date, both technologies have proven uneconomic and unsuccessful in reducing emissions.

Quote
While it is tempting to believe that China’s leadership may be hatching some special plans for “clean coal”, the more likely scenario is that they are using the “clean coal” narrative to distract attention from a more uncomfortable problem.

Simply stated, China has far too much under-utilised coal-fired power capacity. In commercially driven power systems, this would be unsustainable. Beijing, however, is not yet ready to make the tough decisions necessary to acknowledge the problem or to fund the type of regional stabilisation programmes that may be needed to downsize coal production and power.

And here's where the article discusses those new coal plants that are so much more efficient than the older plants that the United States is retiring:

Quote
These decisions are tough for three reasons. The first is that China’s coal power fleet is young – reflecting a legacy of planning mistakes and overbuilding due to local government incentives. Tragically, much of this overbuilding took place over the past five years even as Chinese renewable energy technologies were winning market share.

Quote
The third reason relates to the fundamental nature of coal itself. In a word, coal is dirty and any effort to make it “clean” raises costs and reduces operational efficiency.

Quote
China’s leading coal-fired power companies are enthusiastic about reporting to investors on dramatic improvements they have made with their new ultra-low emission coal-fired power units. For example, China Shenhua reports reductions in per kilowatt hour emissions of “soot”, SOx and NOx of 5.5 per cent, 9.3 per cent and 17.9 per cent respectively over the past five years.

These improvements must be put in context, however. China Shenhua increased its installed capacity of coal power by 46.8 per cent during the same period and coal generation by 25.1 per cent. This means that any gains are offset by more coal-fired generation, adding to the company’s conventional pollution emissions and its still unreported carbon emissions.



Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on November 15, 2019, 11:44:53 PM
As per my post in the coal thread, China has a strategic reason to keep its coal-fired generating fleet at relatively low levels of utilization of about 50% - to act as a reserve to replace seaborne natural gas imports and to power greater use of electrical transport (trams, trains, buses, taxis and the couple of a million and increasing number of personal EV's) to replace seaborne oil imports.

This is strategic energy security planning so that they can withstand an energy blockade (as was done with Japan in the months before Pearl Harbour) during any hostilities with the US. By showing that they can, they greatly reduce the possibility of such hostilities. They have also been building up their strategic oil reserve in the past few years and oil and gas imports from Russia and Central Asia through pipelines.

Renewables and nuclear are still at a pretty small amount of Chinese energy use (and capacity), even after the rapid growth of the past few years. So coal will be the bedrock of Chinese energy security. Geopolitics is getting in the way of climate change actions.

If things with the US escalate further, probably after the next Presidential election, I would not be surprised to see China announce a quite radical date for the end of ICE sales in China. EVs move energy supply from oil to electricity (and even with the current Chinese electricity mix reduce lifetime vehicle CO2 emissions). This would also reduce local air pollution a lot (the coal pollution issue having been fixed through very tough particulate matter regulations), especially in the cities, adding to the political legitimacy of the CCP.

So, could be coal use up and CO2 emissions down before 2030 (the Chinese Paris commitment).
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: oren on November 16, 2019, 08:43:30 AM
Your analysis makes a lot of sense.
I am susprised Japan is not making a larger move into renewables for the same strategic consideration of reducing reliance on imports.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on November 16, 2019, 11:31:42 AM
This is strategic energy security planning

I want to emphasise this point with an anecdote.

Since i'm also interested in bitcoin i know a little about the utilisation of unused renewable power in China.

There are some huge dams build for power production that are not yet utilized. So what do you do if you are responsible for an idling dam in China?
You buy bitcoin mining machines and use the power you have plenty of to mine bitcoins.

For what i can say, the vast majority of bitcoin mining is done this way.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on November 16, 2019, 11:18:55 PM
Your analysis makes a lot of sense.
I am susprised Japan is not making a larger move into renewables for the same strategic consideration of reducing reliance on imports.

Japan is a subservient ally of the US (with a lot of US bases on its territory, such as Okinawa), so it  will not be affected by a US blockade. They can get their coal and NG from Australia, not affected by the blockade or any hostilities in the South China Sea. Ships from the Middle East may have to take a more circuitous route, but would still be able to get safely to Japan. In an emergency they could switch back on many of those idled nuclear plants. They also have an excellent, fully electrified, public transport system - from subways to high speed trains.

There is a large amount of trade between Japan and China, so there could be a lot of problems with supply chains etc.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on November 16, 2019, 11:20:33 PM
This is strategic energy security planning

I want to emphasise this point with an anecdote.

Since i'm also interested in bitcoin i know a little about the utilisation of unused renewable power in China.

There are some huge dams build for power production that are not yet utilized. So what do you do if you are responsible for an idling dam in China?
You buy bitcoin mining machines and use the power you have plenty of to mine bitcoins.

For what i can say, the vast majority of bitcoin mining is done this way.

A lot of bitcoin miners in Iceland with their cheap energy and cool temperatures to reduce the power needed to keep all the servers from overheating.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on November 17, 2019, 05:19:46 AM
Yeah, cool climate surely works in your favour if you have a bunch of bitcoin miner. A lot of warmth is produced in the process.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on November 20, 2019, 09:24:40 PM
Cross-posted from the coal forum:

Once China peaks, global coal consumption will peak.  If you were to take all of the countries other than China, global coal capacity has declined.

https://endcoal.org/2019/11/new-report-out-of-step-china-is-driving-the-continued-growth-of-the-global-coal-fleet/ (https://endcoal.org/2019/11/new-report-out-of-step-china-is-driving-the-continued-growth-of-the-global-coal-fleet/)

Quote
Report: Out of Step – China Is Driving the Continued Growth of the Global Coal Fleet
Posted November 20, 2019 by Ted Nace

Today, Global Energy Monitor released Out of Step: China is driving the continued growth of the global coal fleet. The report, based on plant-by-plant research by the Global Coal Plant Tracker, finds that from 2018 through June 2019, countries outside of China decreased their total coal power capacity by 8.1 gigawatts (GW), due to steady retirements and an ongoing decline in the commissioning of new coal plants. Over the same period China increased its coal fleet by 42.9 GW, and as a result the global coal fleet overall grew by 34.9 GW.

(https://endcoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/China_v_world-500x308.png)

Quote
China’s proposal to continue growing its coal fleet through 2035 comes as 31 countries have proposed phasing out coal power by 2030. Of the countries that continue to develop coal, China is financing over a quarter (102 GW) of all proposed coal plants outside its borders, including most coal power capacity under development in South Africa, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, among others. Combined with domestic proposals, Chinese financing is behind over half of all global coal power capacity currently under development.

“China’s proposed coal expansion is so far out of alignment with the Paris Agreement that it would put the necessary reductions in coal power out of reach, even if every other country were to completely eliminate its coal fleet,” said Christine Shearer of Global Energy Monitor. “Instead of expanding further, China needs to make significant reductions to its coal fleet over the coming decade.”

Quote
The report concludes: “China’s continued expansion of its coal fleet is not inevitable: the central government could strengthen its existing policies discouraging coal plant building, continue incentivizing low-carbon power over coal, and begin a transition toward clean energy. The path that China’s central government chooses could make or break Paris climate goals.”
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on November 21, 2019, 02:05:05 PM
You know, the situation with China is heating up with the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019. A huge trade war, with the situation the economy is already in, could lead to the Greater Recession. This would be enough to lower emissions in the short term, and probably have considerable mid-term consequences.

EDIT: Here is evidence we are already entering the Greater Recession:
http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/relentless-road-to-recession-2/
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on November 22, 2019, 08:41:43 AM
The 2008 Great Recession had quite a big impact on emissions, sadly the drop was recovered pretty rapidly with the recovery. Maybe the recovery wont be so fast this time.

In a meeting that serves as input to the next Chinese 5 year plan, the Chinese Premier emphasized coal (and expanding domestic oil and gas production) and put much less emphasis on renewables. Not good news... They seem to be doubling down on the "clean coal" bullshit that the US industry was pushing for a while - increased efficiency and carbon capture and storage (CCS).
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on November 22, 2019, 01:55:31 PM
Since we have much less "ammunition" to fight a recession this time, and since the fundamentals were not addressed last time and are, if anything, even worse this time, I suspect the recovery will take much longer.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on November 22, 2019, 04:36:25 PM
China has still a lot of room to grow its domestic markets. Don't make the mistake thinking the US is a hegemony still. These times are over. I can imagine a scenario where the west is in recession while the Chinese markets are decoupled.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on November 23, 2019, 12:17:27 AM
Good point, especially when their banking system is still mostly state-owned. People have been writing about the collapse of China for the past 15 years at least.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on November 23, 2019, 12:28:45 AM
How did they do in the Great Recession? That might give us a clue how they will do in the Greater.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on November 23, 2019, 01:18:54 AM
They did very well in the Great Recession, their monetary expansion helped drag the rest of the world out of recession.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on November 23, 2019, 08:16:23 AM
For western media, China does badly if they 'only' grow 5% a year. This is, of course, idiotic.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on November 24, 2019, 08:44:07 AM
China's working age population has peaked, so the required rate of growth is less than it was before. The country also needs to rebalance between exports and domestic consumption. So 5% is fine, the Western MSM always want to call the next China crisis it seems.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on November 25, 2019, 07:02:28 PM
Demographics are behind the coming burst of China's economic bubble.  A decade of bad investments (like coal power plants that will run at less than half of capacity before they are retired decades in advance of their useful lives) haven't helped.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/09112019-chinas-descending-rise-oped/ (https://www.eurasiareview.com/09112019-chinas-descending-rise-oped/)

Quote
China is in a sustained economic slowdown. This is causing malignant unease among the political and economic leadership of the communist party in Beijing that governs China. Investing in China will be different, because:

“The country’s first sustained economic slowdown in a generation. China’s economic conditions have steadily worsened since the 2008 financial crisis. The country’s growth rate has fallen by half and is likely to plunge further in the years ahead, as debt, foreign protectionism, resource depletion, and rapid aging take their toll.”

Chinese social structures are under duress over their aging society. Formerly in the 1990s-early 2000s: “China had the greatest demographic dividend in history, with eight working-age adults for every citizen aged 65 or older.”

Quote
Public figures from the Chinese government generally have the economy growing at six percent, but many analysts and economists peg the number(s) at “roughly half the official figure.” China’s GDP has consisted of bad debt that typical financial institutions and western governments will transfer from the state to public sector and ultimately costs passed onto consumers. For China’s wealth to increase when so much domestic wealth is spent on infrastructure projects to increase GDP these official numbers need context.

China has bridges, and cities full of empty office and apartment buildings, unused malls, and idle airports that do not increase economic productivity, and if that isn’t the case then infrastructure increasing economic measurements will decrease. Unproductive growth factors officially known are: “20 percent of homes are vacant, and ‘excess capacity’ in major industries tops 30 percent.” According to official Chinese estimates the government misallocated $6 trillion on “ineffective investment between 2009-14.” Debt now exceeds 300 percent of GDP.

What’s discovered is the amount of China’s GDP growth “has resulted from government’s pumping capital into the economy.” Private investments have trouble overtaking government stimulus spending, and Foreign Affairs ascertains “China’s economy may not be growing at all.”

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cover-Story/China-s-housing-glut-casts-pall-over-the-economy (https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cover-Story/China-s-housing-glut-casts-pall-over-the-economy)

Quote
China's housing glut casts pall over the economy
A building binge leaves cities with 65 million empty apartments

KENJI KAWASE, Nikkei Asian Review chief business news correspondent
February 13, 2019

TOKYO/HONG KONG -- For many single men in China, buying an apartment is a prerequisite for marriage. Yan Zhong, a 34-year-old resident of the northern city of Jinan, has hopes to do both. But lately, he has started to have second thoughts -- at least about buying the apartment.

"I'm considering holding back on my house purchasing plans for a while," he said.

Yan still intends to marry someday, but he is growing concerned about China's housing market. Even in a so-called second-tier city like Jinan, a 100-sq.-meter apartment would cost him about 2 million yuan ($297,000). Yan, who makes roughly 6,000 yuan a month working for a local environmental nonprofit organization, is only able to afford half of that, despite years of saving and generous support from his parents.

Quote
Many analysts now expect China's home sales to contract this year. Perhaps more worrisome, though, is the growing number of Chinese property companies that appear to be struggling under the weight of heavy debt burdens. Moody's Investors Service has assigned junk status to 51 of the 61 Chinese property companies it assesses.

"We do see some challenges ahead" for the property sector, Kaven Tsang, senior credit officer at Moody's in Hong Kong, told the Nikkei Asian Review. While foreseeing overall selling prices to be "relatively stable," he predicts nationwide contract-based sales in 2019 to fall by 5% compared to levels last year.

The slowing real estate sector is a potential problem for China's policymakers. For years, real estate has played a pivotal role in creating jobs, boosting investment and generating cash for local governments. Roughly 25% of China's gross domestic product has been created from property-related industries, according to CLSA. And housing is a crucial means of asset formation in China, where ordinary citizens face restrictions to overseas investment and have few domestic options besides local stock markets, which lost 25% of their value last year.

The property slump has also triggered several episodes of social unrest, which Beijing seeks to avoid at all costs. In October, Shanghai homebuyers came out in droves to protest a developer's decision to cut prices in an apartment complex. The angry residents screamed slogans denouncing the developer and carried placards saying: "Give us our hard-earned blood-and-sweat money back!"

Quote
According to his estimates, about 80% of Chinese people's wealth is in the form of real estate, totaling over $65 trillion in value -- almost twice the size of all G-7 economies combined. A significant slowdown could, therefore, have a substantial impact on citizens' financial health.

To him, Chinese people have "played around with leverage, debts, and finance, and eventually created a mirage in a desert that will soon entirely collapse."

In December, Xiang challenged the government's official economic growth estimate of 6.6%, saying it was actually just 1.67% -- or possibly even negative -- in 2018. He then went on to warn of a potential crash in the property market.

"This collapse will be a perfect Minsky moment," he added, using the term for a sudden collapse in asset prices after a long period of growth, named for American economist Hyman Minsky.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on November 25, 2019, 07:22:40 PM
So maybe China will not pull the world out of the Greater Recession?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on November 26, 2019, 07:08:58 AM
https://www.ft.com/content/be1250c6-0c4d-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67

Quote
   The general momentum on climate and environment issues has been declining [in China],” says Li Shuo, senior global policy adviser at Greenpeace. Climate change has become a lower priority for Beijing. “There is less space for the green agenda,” he says.

China’s investment in renewable energy fell 39 per cent in the first half of this year, compared with the same period in 2018, according to data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Beijing yanked subsidies for solar panel projects in the middle of last year, and is shrinking those for wind, causing an abrupt shift.

“This is probably a low point,” says Li Junfeng, a senior renewable energy
policymaker and head of the National Centre for Climate Change Strategy Research, part of the government planning ministry. “The new policy is not in place yet, and the old policy [of subsidies] has been stopped.”

Quote
The highest political priority in China is trying to stabilise the economy,” says Kevin Tu, an energy economist who previously led the China desk at the IEA. “Anything else, including environmental protection, especially climate change, will have to make some room for these political priorities.

Quote
At the same time, coal appears to be again in the ascendant with Li Keqiang, China’s premier, last month identifying it as a priority area. China remains the world’s biggest producer. Many see this as part of a growing focus on energy security in Beijing, a result of Chinese leaders being spooked by deteriorating relations with the west. “Energy security anxiety is a blessing for the coal [sector] in China,” says Mr Tu.

https://www.ft.com/content/be1250c6-0c4d-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67 (https://www.ft.com/content/be1250c6-0c4d-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on November 26, 2019, 09:11:16 PM
The linked report on the global decline in coal use has some very interesting information on China.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-coal-power-set-for-record-fall-in-2019 (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-coal-power-set-for-record-fall-in-2019)

Quote
Global electricity production from coal is on track to fall by around 3% in 2019, the largest drop on record.

Quote
Over the preceding two years 2017-2018, reductions in coal generation in the US and EU have been offset by increases elsewhere, particularly in China.

This year, however, the fall in developed economies is accelerating, while coal generation in India and China is slowing sharply, precipitating a global reduction.

Quote
In China, electricity demand growth has slowed to 3% this year, down from 6.7% over the past two years. Non-fossil energy sources have met almost all this demand growth.

The country’s demand for coal-fired power depends on the interplay between clean electricity growth and rising demand. The gap between the two, if any, is filled with coal.

This means that when electricity demand is growing strongly, coal dependence comes to the fore. With these conditions, 2017-2018 saw coal-fired power generation grow at an average of 6.6% year on year.

However, 2019 has so far seen strong nuclear, wind and hydro power generation and relatively weak overall electricity demand growth, with coal use in electricity flatlining.

At the same time, Chinese power firms have been continuing to add new coal-fired power plants to the grid at a rate of one large plant every two weeks. This has driven coal-fired power plant utilisation rates – the share of hours in the year when they are running – back down to record lows of 48.6%. This is the fourth year in a row that the Chinese national average has been below 50% – and also below the global average, which stands at 54%.

Quote
However, 2019 has also seen the first contracts for wind and solar plants that will generate power at the same price as coal power plants, putting China on a path to renewable energy “grid parity” as those projects come online in 2020.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: gerontocrat on November 26, 2019, 09:50:15 PM
China...
As coal fades, does Solar+Wind rise to take over, or does Natural Gas? (as in the USA)

https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/China-stockpiles-natural-gas-on-painful-memory-of-shortage

OK, a 2018 Report, but data from the 13th 5 year plan.

Quote
President Xi Jinping aims to reduce air pollution in major cities by switching from coal to natural gas for power plants and other facilities. China's natural gas consumption is expected to reach 360 billion cu. meters in 2020 compared with 230 billion cu. meters last year (2017).

We will see...
_______________________________________________
ps: Ken, how do you rate the chances of reducing CO2 emissions in 2030 by 55% (7.5% p.a.) for +1.5 celsius, 25% for +2 celsius ?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on November 26, 2019, 10:33:12 PM

ps: Ken, how do you rate the chances of reducing CO2 emissions in 2030 by 55% (7.5% p.a.) for +1.5 celsius, 25% for +2 celsius ?

With solar and wind now cheaper than fossil fuels in about three quarters of the world (already cheaper in the developed countries and now at grid parity in China), pretty good.

Given that we're already seeing drops in global coal consumption (down 3% in 2019) and softening of demand for oil and a huge glut in natural gas, the major wildcard is how quickly battery electric vehicles take over the transportation market.  The forecast year for cost parity between BEVs and ICEs is now 2022.  So we should see peak oil demand within the decade.

I doubt we'll see a new coal power plant built after 2025 or a new natural gas power plant after 2035.  Sales of new ICE vehicles will probably be banned in most countries in the 2030s.

I suspect that we wont hit the 7.5% annual decreases needed for the 1.5 degree C target until the 2030s, but we should be able to hit the 2.0 target for emissions reductions in the 2020s and exceed them in the 2030s and 2040s.  With global temperatures increasing at around 0.18 degrees per decade and the five-year average increase around 0.9 C, we'd hit 1.5 degrees in the 2050s. So we'll end up somewhere by 1.5C and 2.0C temperature increase before looking at options for carbon dioxide removal (CDR).

When people think of CDR, they usually think of artificial leaves or other large machines to suck CO2 from the air and pipe it underground (or deep under the sea).  However, there are much better options that can be used to increase global carbon sinks from better agricultural practices, which are increasingly being used.  Look up regenerative agriculture, biochar, sustainable grazing, renewable natural gas, or reductions in methane from rice farming. 

And there are possibilities in kelp farming, with the kelp reducing acidity in the oceans and then being fed to ruminants to reduce their methane emissions.

In the past decade, a lot of progress has been made in all of these areas.  Keep that in mind when you read a gloom and doom report.  We must continue to press our leaders for more rapid changes to reduce greenhouse gases and improve carbon sinks, and we shouldn't give up hope that it can be done.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on November 27, 2019, 04:51:22 PM
Ken, this is me 30 years ago:

"Renewables will get cheaper and cheaper. The lifetime of a power plant is 40 years. So it can't take any longer for the energy transition. It's a no brainer. Any time now."

Me 20 years ago:

"Wow, if you extrapolate the numbers we are there soon. Amazing!"

Me 10 years ago:

"Holy shit, renewables are almost as cheap as coal. No one can afford to build a coal plant these days."


Me today:

Reads that new coal power plants are still in the planning.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on November 27, 2019, 07:51:31 PM
Ken, this is me 30 years ago:

"Renewables will get cheaper and cheaper. The lifetime of a power plant is 40 years. So it can't take any longer for the energy transition. It's a no brainer. Any time now."

Me 20 years ago:

"Wow, if you extrapolate the numbers we are there soon. Amazing!"

Me 10 years ago:

"Holy shit, renewables are almost as cheap as coal. No one can afford to build a coal plant these days."


Me today:

Reads that new coal power plants are still in the planning.

Yes, and peak coal is now on the horizon.  Of those plants in planning, most (if any) won't be built.

As I posted upthread, global coal use is down 3% this year.  While some of that may be weather related (more rain for hydroplants or milder weather cutting energy demand), much of it is due to the fact that outside of China, more coal power plants have been retired than built this year.  And that trend is only going to continue.

https://energypost.eu/peak-coal-on-the-horizon-a-country-by-country-review/ (https://energypost.eu/peak-coal-on-the-horizon-a-country-by-country-review/)

Quote
Peak coal on the horizon: a country-by-country review
September 2, 2019 by Christine Shearer

Though the global coal fleet still increased by 17GW in the first half of 2019, net of retirements, the pipeline is definitely shrinking. Two thirds of proposed projects never even get started. Notably, in China existing coal plants have been running, on average, only 50% of the time since 2015, evidence of a large excess of capacity. But is it enough? The IPCC’s pathway to 1.5C requires unabated coal power generation to fall by 55-70% by 2030 and be effectively phased out by 2050. That’s why all eyes are on the 15 countries – headed by China (49%), the US (13%) and India (11%) – responsible for 91% of the global coal fleet, generating 2,027GW worldwide, to turn that shrinking pipeline into shrinking capacity. Christine Shearer of Global Energy Monitor dives deep into the latest global stats.

Around the world, 12.7 gigawatts (GW) of new coal capacity has been proposed so far in 2019 – less than 3GW above the amount that has retired (10GW). These trends mean the global coal fleet will soon decline, because only a third of proposed capacity has actually been developed since 2010.

Quote
In 2019 to date, about 12.7GW of coal power capacity has been newly proposed across eight countries and 12GW of new construction has started across five countries. These developments are concentrated in China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Bangladesh. China also resumed construction on nearly 9GW of capacity that had been postponed under central government restrictions.

Conversely, 132GW of planned new capacity was cancelled in 2019, mainly from lack of activity. The largest numbers of cancellations were in China, India, Myanmar and Turkey.

Quote
The implementation rate figure in the table above varies widely, from 0% in Egypt – which has yet to implement any of its projects – to 71% in South Korea. The global average is 35%, meaning just 1GW of new coal has been built or began construction since 2010 for each 3GW of proposed capacity.

Quote
India has undergone a large downscaling in its future coal plans, in favour of lower-cost renewables. Turkey has 34GW of coal in the pipeline, but has commissioned only 12% of its proposed capacity since 2010 – a rate that would lead to only 4GW of the 34GW being completed. In reality, the figure may ultimately be even lower than this.

Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have all reduced their proposed coal capacity, with no new large proposals since 2015. Meanwhile Japan and Korea are also facing public pressure to cut their international financial support for coal, which would leave only China as a significant source of global coal funding – given over 100 financial institutions are restricting coal financing.

Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and Pakistan have all scaled back plans for coal in their future national energy plans, with many of them experiencing significant coal-related financial problems.

It's possible that 2018 was the year that coal consumption peaked.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on November 27, 2019, 08:11:04 PM
It's possible that 2018 was the year that coal consumption peaked.

It's also entirely possible it's 10 or even 20 years out.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: philopek on November 27, 2019, 08:28:33 PM
Ken, this is me 30 years ago:

"Renewables will get cheaper and cheaper. The lifetime of a power plant is 40 years. So it can't take any longer for the energy transition. It's a no brainer. Any time now."

Me 20 years ago:

"Wow, if you extrapolate the numbers we are there soon. Amazing!"

Me 10 years ago:

"Holy shit, renewables are almost as cheap as coal. No one can afford to build a coal plant these days."


Me today:

Reads that new coal power plants are still in the planning.

With all that what you thought 30 and 20 years ago you certainly meant more or less us Europeans and north Americans but certainly not China, china was not on the radar 30 years ago. Also for most of us not 20 years ago and perhaps a larger part of the population became aware of their industrial rise 1about 8-12 years ago, depending.

What I'm trying to say is that you were not that far off with your assumptions but now compare apple with pears in the way that of course there are cultural, structural as well as regional differences and one cannot name a general rule for the entire earth.

Even though China makes a huge effort since longer to get pollution and other environmental effects under control, they had such an extraordinary growth rate over about two decades that they could only avoid the worst and see to set the course somehow.

Perhaps i have to add that I've been living in China for 12 years and have some kind of insight how things developed over the last 20 years and before that from hearsay.

There could more be added here but that would veer OT and get TLTR, just wanted to point out that we should not measure our previous expectations with regions that emerged after we made our mind up.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: SteveMDFP on November 29, 2019, 08:24:09 PM
....So we'll end up somewhere by 1.5C and 2.0C temperature increase before looking at options for carbon dioxide removal (CDR).

When people think of CDR, they usually think of artificial leaves or other large machines to suck CO2 from the air and pipe it underground (or deep under the sea).  However, there are much better options that can be used to increase global carbon sinks from better agricultural practices, which are increasingly being used.  Look up regenerative agriculture, biochar, sustainable grazing, renewable natural gas, or reductions in methane from rice farming. 

My favorite solution for carbon capture is the one Mother Nature has used, and can be adapted for the climate emergency:  weathering of olivine rock.

Olivine against climate change and ocean acidification

http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/olivineagainstclimatechange23.pdf (http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/olivineagainstclimatechange23.pdf)

" It is expected that the cost of olivine will drop below 15 € / ton for large
mines in low-wage countries and limited transport distances. The cost per ton of CO2 will
then be around 10 €/ton, as one metric ton of olivine captures 1.25 tons of CO2. This
compares very favorably with the cost of CO2 capture by CCS, which is 60 to 90 € / ton
according to a recent report by McKinsey & Company (2008). "

Crush it, spread it, and it will turn CO2 into carbonates. 
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: sidd on November 30, 2019, 03:33:37 AM
Re: Olivine, "Crush it, spread it"

There was a study pointing to significant soil impact, but i dont have the reference handy at the moment. In any event, the effort will exceed the effort of mining all the coal and then some. Any substantial drawdown effort will be in that category.

sidd
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: oren on November 30, 2019, 11:35:03 AM
Indeed, sidd.
I also wonder how much land area is needed to spread all those crushed rocks on, where such land is to be found, and what other uses can still go on for such land after said spreading.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: SteveMDFP on November 30, 2019, 01:22:43 PM
Indeed, sidd.
I also wonder how much land area is needed to spread all those crushed rocks on, where such land is to be found, and what other uses can still go on for such land after said spreading.

Magnesium and silicates are non-toxic (don't inhale fine silicate dust, though).  In fact, magnesium is a nutrient that many are deficient in.  Silicic acid is a limiting nutrient for ocean diatoms.

Thousands of recreational beaches are paying to obtain sand.  If people could get used to greenish-tinged sand, there's some gigatons right there.  Just subsidize this use via a carbon tax.  Pay recreational beaches to use it. Create a ton of CO2 and pay the cost of crushing a ton of olivine to re-absorb it.  At 10 euros per ton of crushed olivine, that's not a deal-breaker for the economy.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on November 30, 2019, 04:43:37 PM
An Autonomous Solar Powered Boring Machine that can identify olivine could extract (and pulverise) a tunnel through a vein of olivine then exit at the far end. This pulverised dunnage can be used as paving material, compressed into bricks, or otherwise profitably deployed at either of the adits.


A large solar/battery fan is installed at the least accessible adit & the ASPBM is reprogrammed to widen, and/or deepen, the original tunnel until the entire vein has been tunnelled, pulverised and exposed to the CO2 laden air that the solar/battery powered fan draws through the now air permeable dunnage left behind the ASPBM.


If the olivine swells and blocks the passage of air as it absorbs CO2, additional tunnels may need to be drilled through the rubble, and enough olivine dunnage extracted to restore airflow. This would be used to expand parking, maintain access roads or compressed into bricks to facilitate additional housing, recreation facilities, or office complexes.


By using the about to be available million cycle batteries, a very long lasting EV style motor for the fan, and a second ASPBM for those periods when its mate is in need of digger/pulverizer head resharpening or renewal. The site will require minimal human intervention. Possibly a site manager, his secretary, a janitor/chauffeur/mechanic and a maid/cook.


Once in operation the site could run continuously until such time as all of the available ovaline had been processed. When this occurs the buildings and parking gravel can be packed back into the holes, both ends sealed and the site restored to its original pristine state.


The fan, solar panels and ASPBMs can then be transported to the nearest promising ovaline vein and the process repeated.


Many of these can be used concurrently, with startup costs coming from fines levied against major emitting businesses. The costs of operations should be minimal but for management costs, and additional fines will relieve every country from fiscal responsibility.


My firm will oversee every aspect of the operation from locating the olivine deposits, certifying the results and inspecting the final cleanup/restoration of the sites. When it comes to CO2 remediation We Really Suck.


By reading this you have sworn to Never Disclose the Contents or Concepts Discussed.
Our lawyers are standing by the phones. NOW


Thank You for Your Valuable Time
An agent will contact you shortly to collect the signed contracts and collect our initial fees
Sincerely

Willie Dewitt
Founder, Inventor & Boring Scientist
We Suck Continuously Co.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on December 01, 2019, 11:15:50 PM
Upgrading of Chinese coal fired electricity plants

35% of Chinese coal plants are the less efficient sub-critical plants that do not meet the efficiency levels required by Chinese regulations by 2020. They can either be closed or upgraded to get about 43% efficiency - that means at least 10% less coal usage and CO2 emissions form these plants.

So thats 10% times .35 = 3.5% saving from the overall coal fleet (it will be more as some of the old plants will be closed and replaced with much higher efficiency ones). All new coal plants have to be of the ultra-critical type at least, ultra super critical ones are reaching efficiency levels of 50%.

So, it may be possible for China to increase electricity production from coal plants to support growth while not increasing emissions for the next few years, before they utilize all the benefits of upgrading the coal plant fleet.

Quote
The introduction of higher steam temperatures and pressures led first to operation at supercritical and then subsequently with ultrasupercritical conditions. To put this in context, the supercritical units could boost efficiencies from 39% to about 42% while ultrasupercritical units have achieved efficiencies that have steadily increased from just above 42% to about 49% (net, LHV basis), with developments and demonstrations underway to push these past the 50% mark

Quote
A 300 MWe subcritical unit can at very best achieve 39% efficiency while a state of the art 1000 MWe USC unit can have an efficiency close to 49% (net, LHV basis) ... the Chinese Government requires that by 2020 all the coal-fired power units should achieve an annual average UNE greater than 39.6% (LHV)

Quote
Such subcritical units represent a significant part of the overall coal power fleet since their operational capacity is about 350 GWe, accounting for close to 35% of the total installed coal-fired power capacity

Quote
Professor Feng has now turned his attention to providing the cost-effective high temperature retrofit for those existing 300/600MWe subcritical coal power units, which will result in a significant efficiency improvement that can be achieved at an acceptable investment level. His intention is to increase maximum temperature of the main and hot reheat steam from 538/538°C to 600/600°C, while keeping the steam pressure unchanged. It is estimated that the upgrade will enhance the unit’s power output efficiency to 42.9% for the 300 MWe units, and even higher for the 600 MWe ones, reduce its emissions by more than 10% and extend its overhaul interval from six to 12 years.

https://www.iea-coal.org/another-innovative-idea-from-the-waigaoqiao-no-3-coal-power-plant-engineers/ (https://www.iea-coal.org/another-innovative-idea-from-the-waigaoqiao-no-3-coal-power-plant-engineers/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on December 22, 2019, 06:47:05 AM
#china_kills_muslims is trending in the US. Beyond satire...

(https://i.redd.it/o9tqn2kvc2641.jpg)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on December 24, 2019, 03:11:17 AM
Its a strange, strange world ... Putin is the "New Hitler" and China gets blamed more for Muslim deaths than the USA (and the Hindu nationalist Indian government) and for subjugating protestors than many others (more than the Chilean state and the Bolivian coup state that are shooting demonstrators with real bullets, the Indian one in Kashmir, the Israeli one in Gaza, and the French state that is using plastic bullets to the head and rubber filled hand grenades). Propaganda is a wonderful thing. I feel like I am in a strange mix of 1984, Brave New World and the Cold War more every day.

Both Russia and China are highly authoritarian, but so are a lot of our "friends". Now for some Rachel Maddow for more "Newspeak".
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on December 24, 2019, 05:56:50 AM
^^
What's amazing is that when they replay the same old tapes, some choose to believe them again! even though pretty much everyone had eventually concluded that the last time they heard these same tapes played the message was verifiably false.


It's almost as though they aren't even trying. They push the buttons, bring up the applause track and fade to the next commercial. The audience screams in anguish, sobs in empathy, then opens the frozen Handyman with Protein Power, and flips to this weeks Murdoch Mysteries.


It is different this time. Years ago we switched to Murder She Wrote.
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on December 24, 2019, 03:02:19 PM
Ethiopia seizes crown as fastest-growing country in the 2010s. Among African states, Ethiopia has arguably been the keenest pupil of the Chinese growth model

Quote
When it comes to the winners, “you could argue that almost all of these have very strong Chinese links or have adopted the Chinese growth model”, said Charles Robertson, chief economist at Renaissance Capital, an emerging markets-focused investment bank, referring to the likes of Mongolia, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia and Rwanda, as well as Vietnam, another strong performer.
Among African states, Ethiopia has arguably been the keenest pupil of the Chinese growth model, embarking on an authoritarian, state-led investment push, focused on infrastructure and manufacturing.
“Ethiopia has been growing really hot on a model that was initially brought in by [former prime minister] Meles Zenawi, who was a committed Marxist,” said François Conradie, head of research at NKC African Economics.
“It was state-led growth, public investment in infrastructure — roads and a lot of electricity. They realised the competitive advantage they had through hydropower [via the Blue Nile, river Omo and others] and using those dams for irrigation to boost agriculture, and building roads and allowing farmers to get their produce to market.”
Mr Robertson said Ethiopia had investment rates above 40 per cent of GDP, “which is Chinese-type levels”.

Link >> https://archive.md/k1UVT
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on December 24, 2019, 09:10:13 PM
Very interesting, the Chinese model is so very different to the Washington Consensus of liberalization, privatization and deregulation. The danger is always of the "good example" of an alternative - so the Ethiopians will have to be very alert for any attempts of the US/Europe to spoil things for them. Interesting how much the Belt & Road is being trashed in the western press.

Can't be having African nations becoming rich and independent, that virus may spread across the continent. They may even want to use their resources for the good of their nation and people instead of having the western nations take them for peanuts. Just like Bolivia under Evo.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on December 24, 2019, 09:17:37 PM
My thoughts had drifted to Gaddafi's hopes & plans for Africa. That was an unfortunate episode.


Have a great Xmas
Always enjoy your posts.
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on December 24, 2019, 10:07:05 PM
That was very sad, taking a well developed country and breaking it to the point of slave markets. Gaddafi had a lot of plans for an independent African currency and development funds. I am sure that he would have been happy working with the Chinese - no regime change required.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: oren on December 25, 2019, 10:16:09 AM
Good for Ethipoia, and good luck to them. Authoritarian regimes have a lot of downsides but a big upside is the ability to take long-term decisions.
With a TFR of 4.6, and pop growth rate of 2.9%, they need to run to stay ahead of the curve.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on December 27, 2019, 06:16:02 PM
^^
Ramen!


The authoritarian governments that we support often get great press here but are hated at home. Sometimes the opposite is true.
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on January 03, 2020, 05:36:23 PM
(https://i.redd.it/knvjlxbjxi841.jpg)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on January 12, 2020, 10:43:27 PM
blumenkraft, I will have to remember not to have my mouth full when reading your posts from now on - that was both hilarious and so truthful!
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: sidd on January 12, 2020, 11:16:20 PM
I posted an article in another thread where Chomsky has things to say about China:

"this is the imperial model, which succeeded. It prevented other countries from moving toward independent development, and therefore led to a situation in which U.S. multinationals dominate the world. If they had moved to independent development, we’d see exactly what we’re seeing with China today. It’s moving toward independent development; U.S. is trying to prevent it. "

"That’s why the bipartisan programs are to prevent China from doing the things that make the economy successful–like industrial policy, to have a state industrial policy. We see that that’s successful; we want them to stop it. Kind of interesting, because that’s–economists and others, if they believe a word they’re saying, ought to be cheering. According to their theories, if the state intervenes in the economy, it’s going to harm the economy. But everyone knows the opposite is true. In fact, we ourselves have a massive state industrial policy. That’s why you have things like computers and the internet and so on, it’s mainly public funding. But we don’t want China to have that, because they’ll be successful, they’ll be out of our control; that we don’t want. "

But do read the whole interview. I have posted parts and the link here:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2272.msg243963.html#msg243963

sidd
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on January 12, 2020, 11:47:51 PM
Thanks Sidd, I missed your previous post. Yep, the US wants China as a captive cheap manufacturer and consumer for US TNC profit-making, but not as an independent state that can challenge the West. I think that the US elite have already lost that battle, and are now slowly and painfully having to forget the joys of the unipolar moment and endless profit making. It seems to be a very problematic learning experience, with continuing "acting out" events being involved, which will only tend to reduce their international status.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: NeilT on January 13, 2020, 12:05:31 AM
Anyone who studies the demise of the British Empire, post WW2, would have an excellent template for what we are seeing now.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: gerontocrat on January 13, 2020, 12:13:54 AM
Anyone who studies the demise of the British Empire, post WW2, would have an excellent template for what we are seeing now.
I am old enough to have lived the demise of the British Empire, and have worked and lived in a good many ex-colonial countries (not just ex-British).

There are still many in the UK in positions of power and influence who haven't yet got with the programme.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on January 13, 2020, 06:58:02 AM
The two world wars basically bankrupted Britain, as well as destroy much of the country itself. With Japan, Germany and Italy occupied and the USSR also utterly devastated fighting 86% of the German forces it was made very easy for the untouched US to build its hegemonic liberal empire.

The current US has not been destroyed, so any change in relative power could be a much more brutal process.

PS - I lived through much of the post-WW2 period as well, and yes many still haven't quite got it that Britain is not "Great" any more.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: NeilT on January 13, 2020, 07:47:24 PM
Hmm, not that great, but try to destroy us and we can nuke any nation back to the stone age.  One of only 3 countries in the world with that capability.

It doesn't make us "Great" in the empire context, but it does not make us insignificant either.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: kassy on January 13, 2020, 09:51:11 PM
Nurse!  ::)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on January 14, 2020, 08:32:11 PM
Hmm, not that great, but try to destroy us and we can nuke any nation back to the stone age.  One of only 3 countries in the world with that capability.

It doesn't make us "Great" in the empire context, but it does not make us insignificant either.

Unfortunately, 3 is an underestimate.  The nuclear club has grown and most of the members don't stop at 1 or 2 weapons.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: gerontocrat on January 14, 2020, 08:42:40 PM
Hmm, not that great, but try to destroy us and we can nuke any nation back to the stone age.  One of only 3 countries in the world with that capability.

It doesn't make us "Great" in the empire context, but it does not make us insignificant either.

Unfortunately, 3 is an underestimate.  The nuclear club has grown and most of the members don't stop at 1 or 2 weapons.
The wildlife in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl is doing very well. So let's nuke each other back to the stone age to give life on earth a breather.

Simple.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: NeilT on January 14, 2020, 09:04:33 PM
The thought had occurred to me gerontocrat...  8)

Ken, it comes down to deliverable megatonnage.  Even France, at #4 doesn't make the MAD club.

The rest are just playing games.

Better to use it for power generation but once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Shared Humanity on January 14, 2020, 09:29:27 PM
Hmm, not that great, but try to destroy us and we can nuke any nation back to the stone age.  One of only 3 countries in the world with that capability.

It doesn't make us "Great" in the empire context, but it does not make us insignificant either.

Unfortunately, 3 is an underestimate.  The nuclear club has grown and most of the members don't stop at 1 or 2 weapons.
The wildlife in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl is doing very well. So let's nuke each other back to the stone age to give life on earth a breather.

Simple.

And thermonuclear weapons would be far less dirty than what happened at Chernobyl. Careful placement of the explosions where human population is densest would yield the maximum benefit.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: NeilT on January 14, 2020, 09:35:11 PM
Apparently the wolves glow in the dark...
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on January 14, 2020, 10:34:47 PM
The thought had occurred to me gerontocrat...  8)

Ken, it comes down to deliverable megatonnage.  Even France, at #4 doesn't make the MAD club.

The rest are just playing games.

Better to use it for power generation but once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back.

According to this source, the US, UK, France and China have more weapons that the UK.  And with an estimate of 90, this seems to undercount Isreal, which supposedly has between 200 and 400 weapons.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat (https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat)

(https://www.armscontrol.org/sites/default/files/images/Factsheets/WarheadsGraphic_190619_900px.png)

And with 160 and 140 weapons respectively, I'm pretty sure Pakistan and India could wipe each other out and trigger a nuclear winter for the rest of us.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on January 15, 2020, 07:20:04 AM
Scientists did the calculations - India and Pakistan could easily trigger a nuclear winter.

Rapidly expanding nuclear arsenals in Pakistan and India portend regional and global catastrophe

Quote
Pakistan and India may have 400 to 500 nuclear weapons by 2025 with yields from tested 12- to 45-kt values to a few hundred kilotons. If India uses 100 strategic weapons to attack urban centers and Pakistan uses 150, fatalities could reach 50 to 125 million people, and nuclear-ignited fires could release 16 to 36 Tg of black carbon in smoke, depending on yield. The smoke will rise into the upper troposphere, be self-lofted into the stratosphere, and spread globally within weeks. Surface sunlight will decline by 20 to 35%, cooling the global surface by 2° to 5°C and reducing precipitation by 15 to 30%, with larger regional impacts. Recovery takes more than 10 years. Net primary productivity declines 15 to 30% on land and 5 to 15% in oceans threatening mass starvation and additional worldwide collateral fatalities.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/10/eaay5478 (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/10/eaay5478)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 15, 2020, 10:38:36 AM
rboyd:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4fxFcPgOps
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: NeilT on January 15, 2020, 01:13:06 PM

And with 160 and 140 weapons respectively, I'm pretty sure Pakistan and India could wipe each other out and trigger a nuclear winter for the rest of us.

Yep, I fell into that trap and I have been trained so have no excuse.

The US, UK and Russia have 3 stage weapons. Our tridents can carry up to 8 455kt re-entry vehicles and each sub carries up to 16 missiles.   We have 4 subs.

France only has 2 stage weapons and their deliverable megatonnage is correspondingly smaller per weapon.

One sub is overkill as each missile can kill 8 cities.

It is why I get a bit irked when the UK is talked about as a "small" country.  It is a massive economy, a massive mitter of CO2 and a country you do not want to force into a corner militarily.

Sorry for going off topic but it is something that tends to underestimate the work the UK has to do to in order to reduce world emissions.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: kassy on January 15, 2020, 03:44:42 PM
The UK has to do what the UK has to do just like all other nations.
There is a widget on the ASIB showing 2,8 billion hiroshima atomic bombs of warming since 1998.


Quote
The wildlife in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl is doing very well.

In the year after the tsunami i visited Lanka and i ended up at the Elephant Orphanage. They had an elephant with a prosthetic limb because it stepped on a land mine. So i talked to one of the people working there. Isn´t it sad that we put down land mines that hurt these elephants?

The answer was: It is only because of the fighting in that area that the actual habitat still exists.
You trade a limb for the herd...
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: NeilT on January 16, 2020, 11:35:33 AM
There is a widget on the ASIB showing 2,8 billion hiroshima atomic bombs of warming since 1998.

I know, I remember Neven adding it.  I remember Neven starting the site.  For a long time before that, it had been quite difficult keeping track of all the information.

I started the off topic because so many in the UK think the UK is a small country.  In terms of economy, power and influence in the word, it is not. Also, in terms of CO2 emissions, the UK is not small.

These people are voters and they vote for action based on their perceptions.

If they don't perceive that the UK is a big part of the problem, they will not vote for action.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: gerontocrat on January 18, 2020, 02:12:29 PM
Meanwhile, soon China will have fewer people to nuke.

Note the response of the authorities to the low birthate is to encourage fecundity.
I thought AI and robots wold mean less labour required -seems not.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/17/chinas-birthrate-falls-to-lowest-level-despite-push-for-more-babies
China's birthrate falls to lowest level despite push for more babies
Efforts by policymakers to bolster the population after decades of strict family planning seem to be failing

Quote
China’s birthrate has fallen to the lowest level since the Communist country was founded in 1949, in a sign that efforts to head off a demographic crisis have so far failed.

There were 14.6 million births in China in 2019, a drop of about 500,000 from the year before and the third year in a row that the number of births fallen, according to a report from the National Bureau of Statistics published on Friday. It was the lowest number in seven decades, with the exception of 1961, the last year of a famine that left tens of millions dead.

The birthrate for last year, at 10.48 live births per 1,000 people, was the lowest since 1949. By comparison, the rate in England and Wales was 11.1 last year, the lowest since records started in 1938. Singapore’s birthrate, one of the lowest in the world, is 8.9 per 1,000 people. Niger, with one of the highest birthrates in the world, saw 46.5 births per 1,000 people in 2017, according to the World Bank.

....many families have still chosen not to have more children, citing the high costs of school, housing and medical care. Others said the energy required to ensure their children can compete in modern Chinese society was too exhausting. Divorce rates have increased and more women were marrying later or not at all.

....fertility rates dropped from 5.9 births per woman in 1970 to about 1.6 in the late 1990s. The replacement level for a population is 2.1.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: oren on January 18, 2020, 03:25:49 PM
Finally some good news, and of course TPTB find it problematic. God forbid that there will ever be even a slight drop in population.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on January 25, 2020, 10:02:30 AM
An up to the minute blog about CORONAVIRUS


https://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2020/jan/25/coronavirus-china-death-tolls-rises-to-41-as-france-confirms-three-cases (https://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2020/jan/25/coronavirus-china-death-tolls-rises-to-41-as-france-confirms-three-cases)


Updated regularly
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on January 26, 2020, 12:04:19 AM
Solar Radiation Management (SRM) is basically a planned small-scale nuclear winter, just without the bombs and nuclear fallout - just the sun blocking particles in the stratosphere. The research backgrounds of nuclear winter and climate change are very much intertwined.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on January 26, 2020, 02:23:34 AM
^^
Is anyone talking about what effect SRM will have on solar installations?
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on January 26, 2020, 02:26:35 AM
The reduction in the solar radiation tat gets through to the Earth's surface will be in the 1-4% range, at the most so not a big impact on solar installations.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on January 26, 2020, 02:35:24 AM
Thanks!
I'd feared it was much more.


Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on January 26, 2020, 02:36:18 AM
China solar installations to slow as subsidy cuts bite: executive

Looks like China will install about 25GW of solar this year, which is a very large reduction from the previous years 40+, even bigger on a cumulative installed growth level (could be as low as a 14% growth rate). If that stays the same, as proposed in the article, then installed capacity will only double in 5 years - not enough to stop increases in Chinese fossil fuel use.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-solar/china-solar-installations-to-slow-as-subsidy-cuts-bite-executive-idUSKCN1VR08R (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-solar/china-solar-installations-to-slow-as-subsidy-cuts-bite-executive-idUSKCN1VR08R)

Backed up by this report:

China’s market in transition

Coal prices could fall, reducing the solar prices required to meet grid parity pricing.

Quote
At the same time, the majority of provincial, city or industrial-zone support policies will terminate either in 2019 or by 2020 at the latest. Equally impactful will be the introduction of a base price + floating mechanism for the coal benchmark price, from Jan. 1, 2020. Accordingly, the coal benchmark can fluctuate by -15% and +10% annually. A decline of the local coal benchmark price by 15% could consequently challenge the competitiveness of grid-parity projects, and eventually may lead to delays or even the cancellation of such projects planned for next year

Quote
In short, it has been a rather eventful year to date as far as the changes in China’s solar PV policy landscape are concerned. AECEA’s full-year demand assessment for 2019 is 20-24 GW, with a 2020 demand forecast of about 23-31 GW

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/12/30/chinas-market-in-transition/ (https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/12/30/chinas-market-in-transition/)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on January 26, 2020, 02:40:06 AM
Without the energy from the Sun the Earth's average temperature would be below 0 F, instead of plus 57 F right now, so we don't have to block that much of the Sun's energy to knock temperatures down by a degree or so.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/what-if-the-sun-disappeared-earth-video_n_2999693?ri18n=true (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/what-if-the-sun-disappeared-earth-video_n_2999693?ri18n=true)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on January 27, 2020, 10:14:12 AM
(https://i.redd.it/i7px3xo7r8d41.jpg)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Shared Humanity on January 27, 2020, 04:25:07 PM
China solar installations to slow as subsidy cuts bite: executive

Looks like China will install about 25GW of solar this year, which is a very large reduction from the previous years 40+, even bigger on a cumulative installed growth level (could be as low as a 14% growth rate). If that stays the same, as proposed in the article, then installed capacity will only double in 5 years - not enough to stop increases in Chinese fossil fuel use.


Definitely not good news but when you compare this to the total U.S. installed capacity of 71.3GW, it still is a hefty number.

The U.S. installed 2.6GW in 2019.

https://www.seia.org/us-solar-market-insight
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on January 27, 2020, 08:53:47 PM
Shared Humanity, talk about setting the bar low!
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on January 27, 2020, 11:19:28 PM
China solar installations to slow as subsidy cuts bite: executive

Looks like China will install about 25GW of solar this year, which is a very large reduction from the previous years 40+, even bigger on a cumulative installed growth level (could be as low as a 14% growth rate). If that stays the same, as proposed in the article, then installed capacity will only double in 5 years - not enough to stop increases in Chinese fossil fuel use.


Definitely not good news but when you compare this to the total U.S. installed capacity of 71.3GW, it still is a hefty number.

The U.S. installed 2.6GW in 2019.

https://www.seia.org/us-solar-market-insight

That was in the third Quarter only.  From your linked article.

Quote
The U.S. installed 2.6 gigawatts (GW) of solar PV capacity in Q3 2019 to reach 71.3 GW of total installed capacity, enough to power 13.5 million American homes. Residential solar saw its best quarter in history in Q3, and the utility-scale solar pipeline now stands at a record 45.5 GW in Q2. Total installed U.S. PV capacity is expected to more than double over the next five years.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Shared Humanity on January 28, 2020, 04:36:58 PM
Thank you for the correction. Should have read the article more carefully. Still a pathetic number for the richest country in the world.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on January 31, 2020, 05:45:36 AM
Quote
Total installed U.S. PV capacity is expected to more than double over the next five years.

That's a compound growth rate of just over 15% per annum (a significant deceleration from the 24% in 2018), doubling solar pv's share of US energy consumption to 2%. As the installed base gets bigger it gets harder and harder to keep the % growth rate up. Wind in the US is averaging a sub-10% growth rate for the past three years (2017-2019) and forecast to do the same for the next 5 years.

If US energy consumption remains stable (as it mostly has for the past decade), then the result will be a very slow reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, with some added benefit from coal to gas switching. The EIA thinks that NG demand for electricity production will start falling in 2021 due to renewables competitiveness, after growing in 2019 and 2020.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/natgas.php (https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/natgas.php)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on January 31, 2020, 10:43:58 PM
Global solar installations are projected to be 140GW in 2020, even with slower growth in China.  (The article implies China will maintain its lead since it already has more installed solar power than other nations).

https://www.rechargenews.com/solar/exponential-global-solar-growth-to-continue-with-142gw-added-in-2020/2-1-733672 (https://www.rechargenews.com/solar/exponential-global-solar-growth-to-continue-with-142gw-added-in-2020/2-1-733672)

Quote
'Exponential' global solar growth to continue with 142GW added in 2020

Latest figures from IHS Markit show China maintaining market leadership but greater number of emerging plays worldwide
7 January 2020
By Darius Snieckus

More than 140GW of new PV plant is expected to be added to grids around the world this year, an almost 15% rise on 2019, as the global solar build-out continues its sprawling expansion, according to latest figures IHS Markit.

Quote
Market-leader China will continue to account for an outsized share of new installations into the foreseeable future, according to IHS calculations, but the “over-reliance on China for global solar installation growth will continue to decrease in coming years as more capacity is added elsewhere”.

Quote
In the US, the world’s second largest solar market, IHS Markit expects i nstallations to grow 20% in 2020, with California, Texas, Florida, North Carolina and New York “key drivers” of rising demand over the next five years.

Quote
In India – where policy uncertainties and the impact of import duties on PV modules combine to slow build-out in 2019 – installations are expected to grow again and surpass 14GW in 2020, spurred by lower module prices and a large, waiting pipeline of projects.

SolarPower Europe’s Global Market Outlook 2019-2023 forecasts the world adding nearly 800GW of capacity by 2023 in a “medium scenario”, bringing cumulated solar capacity to 1.3TW, as solar power has become the lowest-cost power generation source in an increasing number of countries.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on February 03, 2020, 09:45:43 PM
The 142GW in 2020 is an almost 15% rise on the amount of incremental new PV installations vs. 2019, so 2019 was (142/115)*100 = 123GW.

For 2019 that represents a 25% growth in the installed base, and for 2020 a 23% increase in the installed base. Quite impressive if that can be kept up, as that level of growth leads to a doubling about every three years. That would require the growth in incremental new PV installations to grow at about 25% a year, which could possibly happen given that there are no more subsidies to cut in China and a Bernie presidency would be a lot more climate policy friendly.

Solar is about 1% of the total global energy supply, so a doubling every three years would deliver 2% in 2023, 4% in 2026 and 8% in 2029. There is some growth in global energy consumption of about 2% a year, so together with the much slower growth in wind energy and even slower growth in hydro, this would deliver a small yearly fall in fossil fuel usage toward the end the 2020s.

As long as GDP keeps growing its really hard to cut fossil fuel usage. Sales of EVs may help increase the fall in FF usage, but still nowhere near the 7-10% reductions required from today,
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 05, 2020, 01:29:46 AM
The Chinese economy may be heading toward a recession.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/economy/china-services-employment-coronavirus/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/economy/china-services-employment-coronavirus/index.html)

Quote
China's economy could shrink for the first time in decades because of the coronavirus
Anchor Muted Background

By Laura He, CNN Business

March 4, 2020

Hong Kong (CNN Business)The novel coronavirus outbreak has been brutal for China and could plunge the country's economy into its first contraction since the 1970s.

Economic activity sharply declined across the board in February as companies struggled to reopen for business or hire workers during a government-mandated shutdown, according to official and private surveys released in recent days.

Wednesday revealed shockingly bad news for services in the world's second biggest economy. Chinese media group Caixin said its purchasing managers index for the sector plummeted to 26.5 last month from a reading of 51.8 the month before — the lowest figure recorded by the survey since it began in 2005. A reading below 50 indicates contraction, rather than growth.

"China's economy is in a very bad way indeed," said Kit Juckes, a strategist at Societe Generale.

Quote
The fallout could be crippling for China's economic growth this quarter. Macquarie Group chief China economist Larry Hu suggested that the country could be in for a historic economic decline.

The data "suggest that things are really bad and the government is willing to report that," Hu wrote in a note after the official data was released at the weekend, adding that growth for the first quarter could come in well below estimates currently running at around 4% (down from 6% in the fourth quarter of 2019).

"It's even possible that the government will report negative growth for [the first quarter], the first time since the end of Culture Revolution," he added.

Quote
He also said stabilizing employment is the government's primary task, and placed special emphasis on new graduates and migrant workers. China's 290 million migrant workers are among those most exposed to a slump, since they often travel from rural areas to the cities to take on construction, manufacturing, or service jobs that would have been tough to find during last month's widespread shutdowns.

Only 80 million migrant workers had returned to work by mid-February, according to the government.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: NeilT on March 05, 2020, 04:54:50 PM
So may the EU.  Which will impact China. Also South Korea, with 6,000 cases and ever increasing shutdowns is not going to help China, now under 200 new cases per day, with bringing its industry back up to speed.

With Italy at 3,000 cases and a growth rate at around 500 per day, Germany close to 450 with a growth rate close to 200 per day and France at close to 400 with a growth rate close to 100 per day; it is more likely than not that significant shutdowns are in the near future for the EU.

All of this will impact the Chinese economy.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on March 05, 2020, 05:37:40 PM
And a week or two after China restarted its industry will the cases/day climb right back up?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 05, 2020, 06:46:19 PM
The slow economy in China has lead them to cut back on natural gas imports.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/PetroChina-Declares-Force-Majeure-On-Gas-Imports.html (https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/PetroChina-Declares-Force-Majeure-On-Gas-Imports.html)

Quote
PetroChina Declares Force Majeure On Gas Imports
By Irina Slav - Mar 05, 2020

PetroChina, the largest importer of natural gas, has declared a force majeure on all imports, including of liquefied natural gas, unnamed sources told Reuters, without providing any details except that the move was prompted by the coronavirus outbreak.

Quote
China imports 40 percent of the natural gas it consumes, with 70 percent coming via pipelines from Russia, Kazakhstan, other Central Asian states, and Myanmar. The rest comes in the form of LNG from other parts of the world.

As forb pipeline gas, one of the Reuters sources said that PetroChina has asked for cuts in daily volumes. As for LNG, according to one source, the state company had asked for a deferral of several cargoes to the third quarter.

The move comes after another state energy company, CNOOC, suspended its contracts with at least three LNG suppliers, Reuters recalls. CNOOC is China’s largest importer of liquefied gas.

The news suggests that natural gas storage space in China is full while demand remains subdued and likely to stay that way for an as of yet undetermined period of time. Reports about the economic activity in the world’s largest manufacturing and exporting nation have been bleak, with expectations now about not just a slowdown in growth but an actual GDP contraction for the first quarter.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 09, 2020, 11:49:58 PM
While China may be slowly recovering from Covid-19 outbreaks, they're just taking off in the US and Europe.  That's bad news for the Chinese economy.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-06/investors-may-be-overlooking-a-second-blow-to-china-s-economy (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-06/investors-may-be-overlooking-a-second-blow-to-china-s-economy)

Quote
Investors May Be Overlooking a Second Blow to China’s Economy
By Annie Massa
March 6, 2020, 1:58 PM PST

    U.S., Europe slowdown would bring more pain, Vanguard says
    Firm’s chief economist says hit could be half percentage point

A second hit could be coming for China’s economy after its initial shock from the coronavirus, said Joe Davis, chief economist at fund giant Vanguard Group.

While China has seen new cases of the virus slow, its spread is intensifying in the U.S. and Europe. Should that trend keep hammering the economies of both regions, it could knock a half percentage point off of China’s gross domestic product for the year as demand for Chinese goods slows, he estimated.

“One risk that’s not priced in is that, should we see cases expand, there will be a second demand shock in China,” Davis said in a phone interview Friday.

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on March 10, 2020, 10:26:41 AM
The New York Times:

Quote
Breaking News: Italy is locking down Milan, Venice and much of its north, risking its economy in an effort to contain Europe's worst coronavirus outbreak.

Link >> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/world/europe/italy-coronavirus-quarantine.html

Also the New York Times:

Quote
To fight the coronavirus, China placed nearly 60 million people under lockdown and instituted strict quarantine and travel restrictions for hundreds of millions of others. Its campaign has come at great cost to people's livelihoods and personal liberties.

Link >> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/world/asia/china-coronavirus-cost.html

Dat framing... Dat bias...
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: SimonF92 on March 10, 2020, 11:10:40 AM
And a week or two after China restarted its industry will the cases/day climb right back up?

Cases are pretty likely to go back up in China in future due to the nature of the virus. There will come a point when it becomes so endemic in other countries that there will be transmission back into population centres within China. I expect a double peak.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 10, 2020, 05:10:27 PM
China has seen more cases from outside the country than internally spread recently.  (Note that this article is from March 6th.)

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-03-06/mainland-china-reports-99-new-confirmed-cases-of-coronavirus-on-march-6 (https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-03-06/mainland-china-reports-99-new-confirmed-cases-of-coronavirus-on-march-6)

Quote
Shanghai Tightens Airport Checks as Imported Virus Infections in China Jump
March 6, 2020

BEIJING (REUTERS) - Shanghai increased airport screening on Saturday as imported coronavirus infections from countries such as Italy and Iran emerge as the biggest source of new cases in China outside Hubei, the province where the outbreak originated.

Mainland China had 99 new confirmed cases on Friday, according to official data. Of the 25 that were outside Hubei, 24 came from outside China.

However, they also have huge numbers of migrant workers who went home for the Lunar New Year holidays.  Many have yet to return to work.

Quote
In addition to the growing risk of imported infections, China faces a challenge in trying to get migrant workers back to work by early April.

So far, 78 million migrant workers, or 60% of those who left for the Lunar New Year holiday in January, have returned to work.

Yang Wenzhuang of the National Health Commission (NHC) said that the "risk of contagion from increased population flows and gathering is increasing ... We must not relax or lower the bar for virus control".

But new cases in mainland China continued to decline, with just 99 new cases on Friday, the lowest number the NHC started publishing nationwide figures on Jan. 20, against 143 on Thursday.

Most of these cases, which include infections of Chinese nationals who caught the virus abroad, were in the northwesterly Gansu province, among quarantined passengers who flew into the provincial capital Lanzhou from Iran between March 2 and 5.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 10, 2020, 06:13:55 PM
Prior to the coronavirus outbreak, I wasn't aware of the huge numbers of migrant workers in China.  In the articles I've read, the numbers of migrant workers are estimated to be between 280 and 300 million.  The large debt burdens of urban landowners and structural changes in the Chinese economy (increasing automation as factory workers earn higher wages, shift to a service economy) were already stressing the economy and the travel restrictions, quarantines and factory shutdowns  to control the outbreak will probably push the economy into a recession. 

The linked article focuses on the inequality issues related to the reliance on a huge number of migrant workers and implies that China may be in for a period of social unrest.  The recent unpleasantness in Hong Kong will seem mild compared to what may be coming.

https://qz.com/1813586/dexter-roberts-migrant-worker-inequality-threatens-chinas-future/ (https://qz.com/1813586/dexter-roberts-migrant-worker-inequality-threatens-chinas-future/)

Quote
Why China’s economic miracle is a myth made possible by exploitation of workers
March 8, 2020
Mary Hui
By Mary Hui

We’ve all heard the story countless times: China’s three-decade-long economic miracle propelled it from being an isolated backwater to a global powerhouse and the second-largest economy in the world, and hundreds of millions of people have managed to escape poverty.

What we’ve heard less about is the deeply unequal and exploitative system, centered around low-wage migrant workers from rural areas, that has fueled much of the country’s economic growth. These migrant workers, who make up almost half the national population, have been made second-class citizens and locked out of the huge economic windfall of China’s rapid development, argues writer and former China bureau chief of Bloomberg Businessweek Dexter Roberts. Roberts is now a fellow at the University of Montana’s Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center.

Quote
The theme of the urban-rural divide plays out in other countries, too. What aspects of it are unique to China?

China is pretty unusual in that it still has, basically, this internal passport system, the hukou household registration system, that makes it very difficult for rural Chinese to actually settle in cities for reasons that are in the book. The fact is that rural Chinese can’t in general get access to affordable health care in cities, their children in general can’t go to the urban schools without paying a lot of money or they go to private schools that are often not as good. This is pretty unusual. There has been reforms, but it’s piecemeal and the general dimensions of the policy are still in place.

Similarly, with the land system, this fact that land in the countryside in theory belongs to the collective and therefore the farmers that actually till the land hold it—they are not, by and large, actually able to sell it. Or if they do they sell it at a very cheap price to local governments who then are able to re-define it as industrial or commercial land, and turn around and make a lot of money off it, but the farmers themselves can’t actually do that. By contrast, in the cities you’ve seen an explosion of wealth because… there are 70-year leases on the property in the city that will probably be extended. So there’s been this enormous and very, very lucrative real estate market for the urban people.

Quote
Many have for decades predicted the demise of the Chinese Communist regime, and yet it has just continued to solidify its grip on power. In your view, is the threat different this time?

I think absolutely there’s more of a threat now… the fact that by and large these jobs that have supported migrant workers are going away. There’s also a policy push from the highest levels of the government in Beijing to try to automate factories.  And wages have gone way up. So there are a lot of other places that might be a better place for global supply chains to move.

So that’s sort of the big picture. You have millions of migrant workers who may no longer work in factories or construction sites who are supposed to re-invent themselves with a new form of employment. The service economy obviously is growing fast. A lot of the jobs in the service economy they’re taking are not the higher-paid jobs that Chinese policy makers were hoping for. So you have the phenomena of large numbers of migrant workers becoming delivery people on motorcycles, which frankly is a miserable job and is very dangerous with terrible rates of accidents. And then there’s the hope also that a large portion of them will go back to their villages and become entrepreneurs. It’s not clear how they can actually do that. Do they have the skills to do that?
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 17, 2020, 07:22:20 PM
We're getting some data on the impact of measures to control the Covid-19 outbreak on the Chinese economy. 

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Chinas-Power-Demand-Dives-In-2020.html (https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Chinas-Power-Demand-Dives-In-2020.html)

Quote
China's Power Demand Dives In 2020
By Irina Slav - Mar 17, 2020

China’s power consumption in the first two months of the year fell 7.8 percent on 2019 because of the coronavirus outbreak, Reuters reports, citing data from the National Development and Reform Commission.

Power generation also fell, by 8.2 percent, in January and February, although since the beginning of March it has increased, the state planning agency also said.

Quote
Factory output dropped by 13.5 percent in the period from a year earlier, the data showed, which was a record decline. Retail sales fell even more, by 20.5 percent. In energy, official data for fuel demand has yet to be released but consultancy Rystad Energy has calculated that road fuel demand alone suffered a blow of 1.5 million bpd in just February.

Forecasts for total fuel demand are a lot worse. State energy major CNPC said it expected this to have dropped by as much as 26 percent during the first quarter of the year. Gasoline demand, the company said, is seen 1.1 million bpd lower in January-March 2020 from a year earlier, and diesel demand is seen down by 790,000 bpd, or 25 percent.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 20, 2020, 06:58:39 PM
The resumption of the Chinese economy is going slower than expected.

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3076128/coronavirus-chinas-economic-emergence-lockdown-continues (https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3076128/coronavirus-chinas-economic-emergence-lockdown-continues)

Quote
Coronavirus: China’s economic emergence from lockdown continues with electricity, coal, transport gains

    Indicators for electricity and coal power generation, as well as car sales, port traffic and passenger activity, have shown signs of improvement as factories gradually resume production
    But economists say the rebound is progressing slower than expected, meaning a full recovery could take longer
Sidney Leng and Frank Tang in Beijing
20 Mar, 2020

While the coronavirus pandemic is just starting to upend economies in the United States and Europe, preliminary data for March suggested that the recovery of the China economy is making progress with the domestic outbreak seemingly under control.

But with the pace of the recovery in China still modest, a full recovery is likely to take somewhat longer than previously expected, analysts said.

Quote
Coal consumption by China’s six major power generation groups also rebounded this week to 76 per cent of pre-Lunar New Year levels, up from 66 per cent in the second half of February, but still below the 95 per cent that would normally have been reached at this stage after the annual holiday.

Quote
The Chinese government estimated last week that 60 per cent of small and medium-sized enterprises and 95 per cent of large companies outside Hubei had restarted operations, although there are doubts over the rate of recovery.

Quote
An economic activity index from Beijing-based consultancy Trivium also showed firms had still only reached 70 to 80 per cent of their normal capacity.

In many Chinese provinces, a company is said to have resumed operations if it is operating at 33 per cent or more of normal capacity.

“The daily indicators that we use to track the resumption of the economy continue to pick up substantially slower than we expected earlier on,” said Louis Kuijs, head of Asia economics from consultancy Oxford Economics.

Quote
Some economists’ estimates for China’s full year growth rate were cut just to 1 per cent after the worse-than-expected economic data for January and February was released on Monday.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 24, 2020, 06:55:41 PM
The shutdown of China to control the coronavirus resulted in a decrease in all methods of electricity generation, except solar.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/03/24/chinas-covid-19-lockdown-crushed-every-other-form-of-energy-generation-but-solar-grew/#1059a9072370 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/03/24/chinas-covid-19-lockdown-crushed-every-other-form-of-energy-generation-but-solar-grew/#1059a9072370)

Quote
Mar 24, 2020,12:00am EDT
China’s COVID-19 Lockdown Crushed Every Form Of Energy Generation Except Solar
Jeff McMahon

As China shuttered industries during its coronavirus lockdown in January and February, every form of energy production dropped from prior-year performance but one.

Solar was up 12 percent.

Quote
Overall electricity production was down 8.2 percent.

• Thermal power—dominated by coal—plunged 8.9 percent, hydropower by 11.9, nuclear by 2.2.

Wind was slightly down 0.2 percent.

• While solar was up 12 percent.

Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst for the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, believes renewables were protected “above all” by their zero marginal cost. Every additional unit of thermal energy requires the producer to buy additional fuel. The sun demands no such payment.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: kassy on March 24, 2020, 07:41:19 PM
The sun is great.  :)

Off course there is a slightly other way to read it.

Whatever you have in solar is going to give as much as the sun (and weather etc) allows. There is no reason to shut it off because we do not have enough anyway.

The others are mainly a response to drop out of industrial use.
Wind could be a factor of just wind.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: oren on March 24, 2020, 10:05:50 PM
I bet Solar partly increased thanks to clear sky above China.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on March 24, 2020, 11:31:08 PM
^^
Sounds reasonable.


Lots of changes will be seen as much of the world's industry and transportation grinds to a halt.


Stay Well
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 26, 2020, 09:33:04 PM
China is working on their next five-year plan, due to be approved in 2021.  Their coal industry is lobbying to be a big part of the plan, despite having such an oversupply now that the capacity factors for coal plants are less than 50%.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-will-china-build-hundreds-of-new-coal-plants-in-the-2020s (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-will-china-build-hundreds-of-new-coal-plants-in-the-2020s)

Quote
24 March 2020
Analysis: Will China build hundreds of new coal plants in the 2020s?

China’s 14th five-year plan (FYP), setting out its national goals for 2021-2025, will arguably be one of the world’s most important documents for global efforts to tackle climate change.

The overarching plan for economic and social development in the world’s largest emitter is to be finalised and approved in early 2021, followed by more detailed sectoral targets over the next year. A power sector plan can be expected around winter 2021-22.

Ahead of the FYP’s publication, powerful stakeholders, such as the network operator State Grid and industry body the China Electricity Council, are lobbying for targets that would allow hundreds of new coal-fired power stations to be built. And a recent update to the “traffic light system” for new coal-power construction signaled further relaxation of permitting.

This is all despite significant overcapacity in the sector, with more than half of coal-power firms already loss-making and with typical plants running at less than 50% of their capacity.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F&hash=35d7d5d7526c9897dfb55501e320295a)
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: rboyd on March 28, 2020, 11:53:21 PM
The antagonism between the US and China has increased with the pointing of fingers about where patient zero for COVID 19 is from. Plus, the US is increasing its belligerence during the epidemic, with labelling the President of Venezuela as a criminal drug pusher, refusing to reduce sanctions on Iran, trying to blame Iran for helping to spread the virus in a G7 communique which was blocked by other counties, and with rumours of moves by the US against "Iran backed" groups in Iraq.

Oil may be much cheaper now, but it is still the biggest energy security risk for China with respect to conflict with the US. So China keeps a very large electricity generating reserve for emergencies (the low coal plant utilization rate) and plans for greater amounts of transport conversion from oil to electricity (much of it powered by coal).

Geopolitics trumps long term survival! Very depressing.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: TerryM on March 29, 2020, 09:49:29 AM
As the Wuhan quarantine is being lifted the first train left the Wuhan Station yesterday carrying medical supplies and construction material for Europe.


https://www.rt.com/news/484344-china-wuhan-first-train/ (https://www.rt.com/news/484344-china-wuhan-first-train/)


(https://cdni.rt.com/files/2020.03/xxs/5e7f02f52030274e93626f69.JPG)
It will arrive in Germany with its precious cargo in 2 weeks. This will be the first China-Eu. freight train since service was cut in January.
Terry
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on March 29, 2020, 11:20:58 AM
Wow, i didn't even know there was a direct China-EU train connection.  :o
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on April 17, 2020, 01:09:42 AM
The Chinese economy is trying to rebound from the Covid-19 closure, but consumers aren't spending.

https://apnews.com/a981361007aed7aa427a85af42623e23 (https://apnews.com/a981361007aed7aa427a85af42623e23)

Quote
China tries to revive economy but consumer engine sputters
By JOE McDONALD
April 16, 2020

BEIJING (AP) — China, where the coronavirus pandemic started in December, is cautiously trying to get back to business, but it’s not easy when many millions of workers are wary of spending much or even going out.

Quote
Factories reopened in March after President Xi Jinping visited Wuhan, the city at the center of the outbreak, in a sign of confidence the virus was under control. But the consumers whose spending propels China’s economic growth are still afraid of losing their jobs or catching the virus. They are holding onto their money despite official efforts to lure them back to shopping malls and auto showrooms.

Data due out Friday is expected to show the economy contracted by up to 9% in January-March, its worst performance since the late 1970s.

That is a blow to automakers and other global companies that hope China, after leading the way into a global shutdown, might power a recovery from the most painful slump since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

“What is not fully back, or is completely missing, is the demand,” said Louis Kuijs of Oxford Economics.

Quote
In China, manufacturing is back to 80% of usual levels, but urban traffic, power use and other indicators of daily life are at half to 65% of normal.

At the same time, public anxiety has been fed by reports of new outbreaks that have led to more controls.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on April 17, 2020, 06:55:35 PM
China's economy shrank 6.8% in the first quarter.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-04-17/chinese-economy-contracts-68-as-coronavirus-cases-revised-higher (https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-04-17/chinese-economy-contracts-68-as-coronavirus-cases-revised-higher)

Quote
Chinese Economy Contracts 6.8% as Coronavirus Cases Revised Higher
The Chinese economy plunged nearly 7% in the first quarter, painting a grim picture of what’s in store for the rest of the world.
By Andrew Soergel, Senior Writer, Economics April 17, 2020

China's economy contracted 6.8% during the first three months of the year from the year prior – representing the country's first and largest reported economic decline since it began formally reporting data in the 1990s.

The reported annual drop was less severe than many analysts expected – even as the country seems to have brought its coronavirus outbreak under control, reporting a little more than 83,000 cases and more than 4,600 deaths, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University.

Quote
China's quarterly economic decline and cautious consumer rebound foreshadows what's in store for the rest of the world as first and second quarter gross domestic product reports are released. Like in China, economic experts predict the bulk of the international damage will be accumulated early on in each country's individual outbreak, when lockdown measures are at their most prevalent. But as some European countries begin partially reopening in the coming days and weeks, Chinese consumers' reluctance to spend money suggests an immediate V-shaped recovery will not be in the cards for many world governments.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: bluice on April 18, 2020, 08:05:10 AM
Wow, i didn't even know there was a direct China-EU train connection.  :o
There are plenty of services nowadays and demand is booming because air freight rates have multiplied in the absence of passenger flight belly freight capacity. Wuhan is only one of the hubs and most of then have been up and running since a relatively short break during and after the Spring Festival and following lockdowns

https://www.railfreight.com/beltandroad/2020/03/17/china-europe-train-traffic-back-on-track-by-90/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2020/03/31/china-europe-rail-is-set-to-boom-as-covid-19-chokes-air-sea-and-road-transport/

Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on April 18, 2020, 08:38:21 AM
Thanks for the links, Bluice.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: blumenkraft on May 02, 2020, 02:12:26 PM
Podcast:

Sifting Through Anti-China Disinformation w/ Ian Goodrum - MEDIA ROOTS RADIO

Quote
Abby and Robbie Martin speak to Ian Goodrum of China Daily. During the course of their conversation they cover a whole range of issues frequently raised in the US like the 'social credit system', 5G, the COVID-19 lab leak theories, and draconian surveillance. Ian also explains why he believes the hostilities between the United States have been growing, based largely on ruling class profit motivations, Obama's 'Asia pivot', and Trump's trade war.

Webplayer >> https://overcast.fm/+BMjGNxb50
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on August 10, 2020, 09:01:08 PM
China is developing its five-year plan for 2021-2025.  If they take into account the need to produce electricity as cheaply as other nations, that should lead to a big increase in the share of renewable energy in thier electricity generation system.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2020/08/10/plummeting-renewable-energy-battery-prices-mean-china-could-hit-62-clean-power-and-cut-costs-11-by-2030/#66621451519b (https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2020/08/10/plummeting-renewable-energy-battery-prices-mean-china-could-hit-62-clean-power-and-cut-costs-11-by-2030/#66621451519b)

Quote
Plummeting Renewable Energy, Battery Prices Mean China Could Hit 62% Clean Power And Cut Costs 11% By 2030
Aug 10, 2020
Silvio Marcacci

China is the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, and is building the most power plants of any country in the world, making its decarbonization paramount to preventing dangerous climate change. But the costs of wind, solar, and energy storage have fallen so fast that building clean power is now cheaper than building fossil fuels – a lot cheaper.

New research shows plummeting clean energy prices mean China could reliably run its grids on at least 62% non-fossil electricity generation by 2030, while cutting costs 11% compared to a business-as-usual approach. Once again, it’s cheaper to save the climate than destroy it.

Quote
China plans its economy in “Five Year Plans” guiding development and serving as the principal measure of performance for government officials. The plans lay out binding, quantitative targets for everything from the economy and infrastructure, to health and social development, to the environment.

China’s leaders are currently developing the 14th Five Year Plan for 2021-2025, and greater climate and clean energy ambition could accelerate decarbonization. For example, the country’s current climate goals allow emissions to increase through 2030 before declining, and to date the country’s carbon dioxide (CO2) targets have been expressed as carbon intensity per unit of GDP allowing for emissions increases with economic growth.

Quote
But as the new paper from Stony Brook University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researchers points out, even these optimistic analyses fail to capture just how dramatically renewable energy and storage prices have dropped in recent years. The global weighted-average levelized costs of electricity (LCOE) of utility-scale solar panels, onshore wind, and battery storage have fallen by 77%, 35%, and 85%, respectively, between 2010 and 2018.
Title: Re: But, but, but, China....
Post by: Ken Feldman on November 23, 2020, 08:30:30 PM
Chinese bond markets are unsettled by a string of defaults that have spurred new rules.  Given that China is the primary driver on new fossil fuel demand, especially for coal and oil, this should speed up the peak for oil* and increase the decline in global coal demand.

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3110903/chinese-authorities-warn-bond-issuers-they-cant-run-away (https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3110903/chinese-authorities-warn-bond-issuers-they-cant-run-away)

Quote
Chinese authorities warn bond issuers they can’t ‘run away’ from their debts after defaults rock investor confidence

    Financial regulators promise zero-tolerance approach after two high-profile defaults by Huachen Automotive Group and Yongcheng Coal and Electricity
    Cases have alarmed investors who had assumed that local governments would honour their debts
Karen Yeung and Orange Wang
23 Nov, 2020

China’s financial regulators have vowed to crack down on people “running away” from their debts after a slew of bond defaults rocked the country’s onshore market.

Quote
The meeting follows a number of high-profile defaults by bond issuers backed by local governments, including a car manufacturer in Liaoning and a coal mine in Henan province, which had hit investor confidence in local governments’ ability or willingness to honour their debts.
As a result, new bond issuance plans were suspended and the yields on some bonds have risen to 34 per cent – a strong indicator of the perceived risk.

Yongcheng Coal and Electricity Holding Group, a Henan state-owned enterprise, sent China’s bond market into a panic on November 10 when it defaulted on a 1 billion yuan (US$153 million) bond. It had been given a AAA rating before its default and the company’s latest balance sheet showed it has 47 billion yuan worth of cash.

Quote
On Sunday Xu Lin, a former official at the National Development and Reform Commission, told a forum in Beijing: “This is just the beginning, and the problem will continue to spread.

“We have invested in too many projects through debt financing, and many projects can’t generate enough economic returns to repay the debt. It’s only a matter of time for defaults to emerge.”

The central government is reluctant to bail out local governments and has urged them to solve their own problems and “prevent systemic risks”.

*Some analysts have stated that oil demand peaked in 2019 as they doubt consumption will raise to pre-pandemic levels due to changes driven by the pandemic, such as teleworking and less air travel as well as the increasing adoption of electric vehicles for surface transportation.  Global coal use peaked in 2013.