Can China Build its Economy on Wind Power Alone?

[Nathanael]

New Harvard study shows that China's natural wind resources are large enough to supply the country's entire energy demand by 2030.

Check it out:



China’s voracious appetite for energy to fuel its frenetic economic growth is well documented. How China is going to generate that power is less well known – and a source of intense domestic and global debate.

Now a new study suggests that China may be able to make the switch away from fossil fuels based on wind power alone. A team of environmental scientists from Harvard University and Tsinghua University has discovered that China’s potential for wind-generated electricity could meet all of the country’s electricity demands by 2030.


Source: http://www.energyboom.com/wind/can-china-build-its-economy-wind-power-alone

[NewJeffCT]

1. Aren't they committed to building a bunch of nuke plants over the next decade?

or longer?

[kristopher]

4. They have been going full bore on all energy fronts.

Coal, nuclear and wind are all being pursued (or have been until recently) with equal vigor.

A difference just manifested itself a week or so ago with a new regulation that requires their grid operators to use renewable energy as their first power choices.

This is extremely significant as it govern the way their entire grid will be built out. Instead of renewables being niche technologies fitting in around coal, the reverse will be true - they will develop generating in a way that fits around the characteristics of wind and increasingly solar.

That has a profound effect on the economics of project development.

[joshcryer]

5. And if there is no grid to those renewable sources?

[kristopher]

6. Surely you aren't that obtuse...

[joshcryer]

9. So they build out the grid or do they just plop on a coal plant?

Hint: it's the latter.

[kristopher]

11. If they don't hve a grid, what good would a coal plant do them?

It's good to see that you've abandoned the pretense of not being a typical nukenut.

[joshcryer]

14. Erm, their grid is highly centralized and coal based, and their wind is going to be in locations...

...that may not be suitable for the grid.

[kristopher]

15. You don't know what you are talking about.

You are just making shit up that you *think* sounds like "China".

[joshcryer]

17. No, I am going on the information I could find about their wind potential.

Wind map:



Power network:



Most of China's wind is close to the grid:



Most of China's potential, is not.

If you have better information, feel free to share it.

[kristopher]

19. Like I said...

Your maps have nothing to do with your claim regarding coal. You are basing that exclusively on hearsay about wind farms being built that are not connected to the grid. That's it, one factoid with absolutely no context. From that single piece of information you are making up everything else you are saying about the use of coal and it is strictly a result of poorly formed stereotypes and biases you hold. Aren't you the one that said previously that the only reason they are building wind is to look good to the rest of the world?

If you have factual data showing that they are not working as fast as possible to extend their grid to the Gobi because they would rather build coal plants then please share it. You see, you are making an incredible claim - that China just builds a bunch of wind turbines for show. It is idiotic frankly, and as an incredible claim it requires a bit more than the maps that are scaled to show absolutely nothing relevant to the point at hand.

[joshcryer]

21. I said that they weren't committed.

If they were committed they'd build more wind than coal. Instead they build more coal at a pace never before seen in the history of the species.

I am not saying that it's "for show." (I might have in the past, I can't remember, but I am not now.)

[kristopher]

23. You are still not getting it...

When they passed the law giving renewables precedence, they committed. That is what it looks like.

[joshcryer]

24. OK. Tell you what, in 5 years we'll come back to this and discuss their "committment."

:hi:

[ashling]

2. The answer, my friend

is blowing in the wind.

[joshcryer]

3. The energy is there, the committment is not.

So there ya have it.

[kristopher]

7. Two points

One is the new law that mandates grid operators use renewable energy before going to fossil fuels. That acts to structure the way the grid is configured in favor of renewables.

Two is that no single generating source can provide all of a grid's power. As a rhetorical question if works to highlight the wind resource, but it is a stupid question from a technical point of view.

[joshcryer]

10. That is not a good enough incentive.

The grid itself must be designed for renewables, if it isn't then they'll just keep plopping on coal plants.

[kristopher]

12. That's how you design a grid for renewables.

It means that people who want to build a power plant to make money (yes that is the way it works there too) will be inclined to build a renewable power plant because it will have priority in selling its output.

[joshcryer]

13. Not if the location for that plant is far from the grid.

[kristopher]

16. You don't know what you are talking about.

You are just making shit up that you *think* sounds like "China".

[joshcryer]

18. No, I am going on the information I could find about their wind potential.

Wind map:



Power network:



Most of China's wind is close to the grid:



Most of China's potential, is not.

If you have better information, feel free to share it.

You are in the business after all, and you are adamant about this, so I would love to read something more comprehensive than what I could find.

[kristopher]

20. Like I said...

Your maps have nothing to do with your claim regarding coal. You are basing that exclusively on hearsay about wind farms being built that are not connected to the grid. That's it, one factoid with absolutely no context. From that single piece of information you are making up everything else you are saying about the use of coal and it is strictly a result of poorly formed stereotypes and biases you hold. Aren't you the one that said previously that the only reason they are building wind is to look good to the rest of the world?

If you have factual data showing that they are not working as fast as possible to extend their grid to the Gobi because they would rather build coal plants then please share it. You see, you are making an incredible claim - that China just builds a bunch of wind turbines for show. It is idiotic frankly, and as an incredible claim it requires a bit more than the maps that are scaled to show absolutely nothing relevant to the point at hand.

[joshcryer]

22. My maps show that wind isn't near their grid. Ergo, their "committment" to connect their grid...

...is hollow at best. My maps show that most of their wind is built in non-ideal locations.







Sorry facts abuse your sensibilities so much.

[kristopher]

25. Dupe deleted

[kristopher]

26. The outside temp is now 33F.

That too is a fact and it is just as irrelevant as your maps. In fact, if you were paying attention to the data from the maps and trying to actually uderstand the topic instead of just panning wind and china, you'd realize that your maps show a distinct problem with your position - why all the wind development where you assert there is no wind?
It's because the maps are a gross representation of the quality of wind resources. There are a lot of localized, high quality resources that do not show on the map - that's why there is so much development in places where there is apparently little wind.

Again, if you were being fair, you'd have to ask these question that your maps do not address:
WHERE, specifially, are the wind farms that are not connected?
Where are the transmission lines that are presently being run?
What kind of agreement regarding transmission goes along with the power purchase agreement that the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) gives to the private investors that are building the wind farms?
Why would private individuals build wind farms that will not produce any return on investment?

Without that minimal data you cannot possibly conclude what you have. Since you don't have that data or anything even remotely like it, it is therefore obvious that your conclusions are nothing but a product of persona bias of some type and that you really don't care about FACTS except as they can be used to support your bias.

It is also very, very evident that your incredulity is limited to renewable resources with absolutely none being applied to nuclear energy.

Why is that?

[joshcryer]

27. Do you have a link to that data?

You either 1) don't, or 2) do, but the data confirms what I have shown.

More than half of China's wind is in the lowest capacity zones:

China's highest wind capacity zones have few transmission lines:

(Unsurprising given that coal and hydro are in the east and south of China.)

WHERE, specifially, are the wind farms that are not connected?

Relevance? I am discussing China's future wind power, which should be built in Inner Mongolia, where the population is low (about 23 million people), and the wind is very high. Assuming China was committed to building wind.

Where are the transmission lines that are presently being run?

Using denialist tactics. I already say I am having a hard time finding this kind of data and you ask one of those stupid ass questions that has little bearing on the discussion.

Just spend another half hour, found *one* source on this: http://www.gov.cn/english/2009-12/17/content_1489650.htm

They're building *one* transmission line to Inner Mongolia. Good fucking for them. Just validates my opinion more. I love the inclusion of coal alongside wind (wind which would be far better a choice than coal here).

Every other source I find is about transmission lines for hydro (good) and coal (fucking goddamn ridiculously bad).

You won't provide any other sources because you don't have them (this is my way of challenging you to actually provide information rather than pointless and useless rants).

Without that minimal data you cannot possibly conclude what you have.

Who concludes something and asks for more data? You are doing your bullshit meaningless stupid ass reading in to things again.

In science "conclusions" can be instantly changed by new data. You don't provide it.

[kristopher]

30. Once more, let's recap.

NewJeffCT
1. Aren't they committed to building a bunch of nuke plants over the next decade?

or longer?


kristopher
4. They have been going full bore on all energy fronts.

Coal, nuclear and wind are all being pursued (or have been until recently) with equal vigor.

A difference just manifested itself a week or so ago with a new regulation that requires their grid operators to use renewable energy as their first power choices.

This is extremely significant as it govern the way their entire grid will be built out. Instead of renewables being niche technologies fitting in around coal, the reverse will be true - they will develop generating in a way that fits around the characteristics of wind and increasingly solar.

That has a profound effect on the economics of project development.



joshcryer
Response to Reply #4
5. And if there is no grid to those renewable sources?



kristopher
Response to Reply #5
6. Surely you aren't that obtuse...



joshcryer
Response to Reply #6
9. So they build out the grid or do they just plop on a coal plant?

Hint: it's the latter.


You are trying to defend this statement on the FUTURE direction of China's wind policy with extremely poor resolution maps that show SOME of what has happened in the PAST. You are ignoring extremely significant changes in their policies related to the way their energy build out will proceed in the FUTURE and claiming that these irrelevant maps of the PAST somehow tell us something about the way these NEW policies will (that's future tense) work.

In short, in spite of your intimate relationship with google, you have no idea of what the hell you are talking about. You don't understand the way energy systems are designed, you don't understand the economics of energy (or anything else) and you don't have a clue about how public policy tools work to make things happen.

Worst of all, you also lack even the most rudimentary knowledge of how to just think.

If you were paying attention to the data from the maps and trying to actually understand the topic instead of just panning wind and china, you'd realize that your maps show a distinct problem with your position - why all the wind development where you assert there is no wind?
It's because the maps are a gross representation of the quality of wind resources. There are a lot of localized, high quality resources that do not show on the map - that's why there is so much development in places where there is apparently little wind.

Again, if you were being fair, you'd have to ask these question that your maps do not address:
WHERE, specifially, are the wind farms that are not connected?

Where are the transmission lines that are presently being run?

What kind of agreement regarding transmission goes along with the power purchase agreement that the National Development and Reform

Commission (NDRC) gives to the private investors that are building the wind farms?

Why would private individuals build wind farms that will not produce any return on investment?

Without that minimal data you cannot possibly conclude what you have. Since you don't have that data or anything even remotely like it, it is therefore obvious that your conclusions are nothing but a product of persona bias of some type and that you really don't care about FACTS except as they can be used to support your bias.

It is also very, very evident that your incredulity is limited to renewable resources with absolutely none being applied to nuclear energy.

Why is that?

[joshcryer]

31. No links. I remain unconvinced that "China is committted to wind."

[kristopher]

33. Like I said, the facts don't matter to you.

You brought up "denialist tactics" which, as I understand them, are based primarily on ignoring evidence in favor of continued belief in a pre-existing conclusion.

That is precisely what you are doing here. You read the news release about China changing it's policy on the order of preference for grid operators selecting power sources, and I've explained the way that is significant to how a grid forms around an economic hierarchy.

Instead of actually trying to understand that, you ignore new information and persist in your attacks on how wind energy can change the emissions profile of China. Your position also requires you to ignore the abundant statistical evidence of rate of growth in China's installed wind capacity.

That is classic denialist behavior.

Now contrast that with this one example of your willingness to endorse this obviously dishonest information that tries to portray wind technology as unreliable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=224893&mesg_id=224946

[joshcryer]

35. You don't give facts. I do. The ones I gave don't support your position.

You can feel free to actually provide some information, but like a denialist, you continue to rant uncontrollably without actually showing me where I am wrong.

I did the fucking research before I made any statements about China's commitment to wind.

[joshcryer]

28. And with regards to your nukenut tripe. I AM BASHING COAL.

I AM BASHING COAL. Read the previous sentence. Let it fucking sink in. China is building out coal and I don't like it. You are ambivalent.

[kristopher]

29. You've been consistantly picking at renewables since you started posting here..

[joshcryer]

32. I'm not a blind follower of technology like you are.

I believe technology itself cannot be clean without a concerted effort to make it so. So when I read a report about China building more coal to support its wind infrastructure, I am concerned about their commitment to wind, which is effectively non-existent.

You use denialist tactics to downplay the effects of CO2, and to downplay the necessity to move to non-CO2 emitting energy sources as soon as physically (not politically) possible.

[kristopher]

34. Red herrings and strawman arguments...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=224893&mesg_id=224946

You are just intent on bashing wind in order to provide backdoor support to nuclear power. Your posts on the above thread are just one example among many...

[joshcryer]

36. You're a liar.

[NNadir]

8. No. Nor will they do so. They're not uneducated Americans in the um, "by 2030" or...

"by 2050" crowd.