While We Consider, China Constructs

[wtmusic]

"When Duke Energy and ENN Group announced their partnership to accelerate development of low-carbon and clean energy technologies at the Clinton Global Initiative last September, Duke CEO Jim Rogers explained that 'We must move at "China speed" to combat global warming.'

'China,' Rogers explained, 'is leading the world in investing in clean energy and we can make greater progress by joining forces and working together.'

This was no less evident today at the MIT Energy Conference, where a distinguished panel shed light on what 'China Speed' really means.

It means, according to Dr. Ning Li, Dean of the School of Energy Research at Xiamen University, that China's 2020 target of 30GW of wind capacity will be met by midyear -- that's this year. (They set that target in 2007.)

It means that China's new target for 100GW of nuclear power by 2025 will probably be met in record time as well."

http://www.thegreenskeptic.com/2010/03/while-we-consider-china-constructs.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheGreenSkeptic+%28The+Green+Skeptic%29

[HeresyLives]

1. 'China speed' a phrase that's a sign of the times.

[endless october]

2. they build a coal plant every week.

they are hardly climate change superstars. and they treat their workers like dog shit.

[HeresyLives]

3. Leaders in green energy tech.

[endless october]

5. lol

yeah, that's "green" right there.

[kristopher]

4. This shows what CAN happen when the will is there...

K&R

[NickB79]

6. The will to build nuclear plants, renewables, and keep burning coal?

Is there any indication that the Chinese are closing coal-fired plants because of renewables, or even reducing their build-out of new coal plants? Until the global recession hit, they were firing up a new coal-burning plant every WEEK.

The "will" of the Chinese government seems to be to build and use EVERY source of energy they can get their hands on. That some of it is renewable is just a side benefit to them, so long as it keeps their economy growing at 8%/year.

[joshcryer]

7. And just for lulz, the nuclear will produce 5-10x the energy that the wind produces.

Yes, capacity factor matters, despite the dishonesty by certain posters here.

[Statistical]

9. Is there any indication the United States will be burning less coal any time soon?

Kinda hard to damn the Chinese when we are doing the same thing.

If anything we are more addicted to the status-quo then they are.

[joshcryer]

22. We're not building new coal, as far as I understand. But we loves us some NG.

[Statistical]

23. No but capacity factor of coal is rising.

More coal burned at same number of plants.

Personally I would gladly quadruple natural gas if we completely stopped burning coal.

[FBaggins]

11. THIS is the "will" that you want?

All they're looking for is MORE power... not cleaner... not more renewable... just MORE.

They're expanding everything. Nuclear/Coal/Wind/Solar/refining/etc. Is that really what you want?

[Statistical]

12. Their per capita consumption is less than US

If we drop our consumption to their levels then maybe we will have some room to complain.

The reality is Americans are the problem not China. We consumer more energy (in all its forms) than any other country on the planet.

China could quadruple coal consumption and it wouldn't even come close to matching us in per capita consumption.

[FBaggins]

13. So is their standard of living.

What's your point?

[Statistical]

15. the point is maybe "we should start with the man in the mirror"

Kinda hypocritical to bash China with its per capita energy consumption of 13,000 kWh annually while we (as a country) slurp at the trough of 90,000 kWh annually.

Also the higher standard of living argument is a crutch.
Japan, France, Switzerland, and Germany all have per capita consumption roughly half the US with comparable standards of living.

The US pointing the finger at China is like an 600 pound obese man telling a malnourished person to "go on a diet" because they gained 5 pounds this year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

[FBaggins]

16. I wasn't "bashing China"...

I was correcting kristopher's misconception that China's future plans for generations (including more nuclear and more coal) hardly fits HIS model for the future. It was therefore odd for him to use them as an example of what "CAN happen when the will is there"

Also the higher standard of living argument is a crutch.

Not in the slightest. China does not use less power per person because they are somehow dedicated to a greener future... but because people living in poverty don't use much power.

[Statistical]

17. China is unlikely to ever use as much power per person as the US does.

The US is by far the largest waster of energy on the planet.

The higher standard of living argument IS A CRUTCH. There are dozens of countries with high standards of living with 30%, 40% even 50% less consumption as the United States. It takes work, and commitment, and planning but it can be done. Energy efficient homes costs about 10%-15% more but over their lifetimes save 10x that in reduced energy consumption (and bills). You need a combination of education, requirements on consumer disclosure, and in some cases mandates to for higher efficiency products (appliances, insulation, furnaces, etc).

The only countries that consume more energy do so out of geographical necessity. They tend to either be in Middle East with insane summer temperatures or in Scandinavia with bitter winters.

The rising cost of energy combined with the lower cost of high efficiency materials and opportunity to "join the party late" means China likely will never consume as much power per capita as we do.

Nobody can afford to waste as much power as we do and that includes us. Our "free pass" as a result of post-WWII era allowed us to hide this reality but we will be energy bankrupt within couple decades if we keep trying to consume energy at these unsustainable rates. IF the whole world has tried to consume as much power as the United States did/does we likely would have killed the planet (or each other in nuclear war over dwindling resources) decades ago. Luckily the rest of the world is smarter.

[FBaggins]

18. And how many with China's standard of living use MORE energy?

If you're trying to compare energy policy between China and the US... why do you seem to only be able to make the point by comparing us to someone OTHER than China?

The question raised here is "should we use China as a model?" - The answer is no.

[Statistical]

19. The term is called "energy intensity" and the US is one of the worst

Notice how China is near its peer. It is unrealistic to expect a growing economy to meet same standards as developed nations.

However it isn't unrealistic for a developed country like the United States to have efficiencies comparable to its peers. Something we fail at.


Also China despite burning coal seems to show at least some realism when it comes to emission free power. They have an acceptance that you will never make a dent in fossil fuel usage without nuclear in the mix. It doesn't matter their reasons (purely economic) the reality is they will displace a lot of CO2. China isn't going to slow down their growth (they can't because of internal pressure). 100 GW more emission free capacity by 2040 is a lot.

If US would build 100 GW more nuclear capacity that combined with carbon tax could replace roughly 1/3 of our current coal plants by making coal marginally more expensive than nuclear. However that won't happen and we will continue to lag our peers in efficiency and CO2 emissions while pointing the finger at developing nations like China.

[Nihil]

24. Interesting graph ...

... shows that there is a long way to go even for the "advanced" countries ...

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Chinese nuclear is one of the things I'm least enthusiastic about

Simply because of their ability to fuck up anything. Although interestingly, they could do a Chernobyl a week and still be a safer than coal.

And don't ask about Banqiao.

[Statistical]

10. Well they do have nuclear weapons and manage to not have random detonations.

Still I agree China is synonymous with sloppy workmanship and no oversight.

A nuclear incident in China would cause catastrophic damage to nuclear renisance.
The end result is we will burn more coal for next 30 years.

The only good news is that they have no (IIRC) built any positive void coefficient reactors.
So simple negligence should just result in a reactor shutdown, or poor uptime, or local emission release as opposed to a TMI or Chernbobyl.

[The2ndWheel]

14. Nature is indifferent to us

Yet we're looking to pick a fight.

[kristopher]

20. Effective 2005 and 2009 China energy policy now aimed at prioritizing renewables

2005

Source: Greenpeace International
Posted by: Greenpeace International - archive
Posted on: Feb 28, 2005 @ 9:02 am
Beijing, China, 28 February 2005 - Today, the Chinese top legislature voted to pass China's first renewable energy promotion law, which will help the country meet ambitious targets for the uptake of renewable energy. Greenpeace welcomed China's commitment to clean renewable energy as the new law could kick-start a massive take-up of clean energy, such as wind power. With the potential to become a world leader in renewables, China could transform the global markets.
"China could and should be a world leader in renewable energy development. This law has long been anticipated by the global renewable energy industry. If the definition of renewables and the details are right then the international community will get behind China and support its ambition to become an international clean energy powerhouse," said Steve Sawyer from Greenpeace International.
The Renewable Energy Promotion Law, which takes effect on the 1January 2006, will allow the renewable energy industry in China to take off. The law guarantees grid access for renewable energy producers as well as spreading the costs of these new technologies across the electricity sector.
The law's enactment is a signal of China's intentions in relation to global climate protection efforts, as well as its commitment to cleaner air and energy security, and it is well timed with the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol two weeks ago. At present, China has no binding obligation under Kyoto, but as the world's second largest emitter of CO2, international attention has focused on the country and its efforts to curb CO2 emissions growth. ...

Dec 2009

Chinese Law Aims to Increase the Use of Renewable Energy
BEIJING -- China announced new regulations to increase the use of renewable energy such as wind and hydropower by forcing electricity-grid operators to prioritize their use, in a bid by the world's top greenhouse-gas emitter to reduce its reliance on coal.

The new measures were passed Saturday by the standing committee of the National People's Congress, China's legislature, as an amendment to the 2006 renewable-energy law, the state-run Xinhua news agency said. The amendment will force powerful state-owned electric grid companies, responsible for distributing electricity from power plants, to buy all the electricity generated from renewable sources even when it is more expensive and more complicated to use than electricity from coal-fired plants.

The new legislation "contributes to the global fight on climate change," said Wang Zhongying, director of the renewable-energy center under a think tank affiliated with China's National Development and Reform Commission, according to Xinhua.... (source: WSJ)

This policy will work.

[Statistical]

21. I wonder why you chose a photo of a coal plant on any article about emission free power?

The photo file is named "China_nuclear_plant" and it looks like a stock photo file but whoever originally named it named it, identified it incorrectly.

It is clearly a coal plant. Coal plants are very distinct. Four square coal furnaces connected to two fluegas stacks ("chimneys").

The distinctive structures on the left while commonly associated with nuclear power are cooling towers.
They are used in any thermal plant (oil, coal, nuclear, even thermal solar if one was built big enough) to remove heat from steam loop.

[bananas]

25. It's a VVER-440 (I think)

This looks like the same plant from a different angle:

http://www.greenpacks.org/2008/06/12/quick-development-of-nuclear-power-wanted-in-china/

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/tianwan/tianwan1.html

[Statistical]

26. Yeah that could be it. I thought it looked more like this ...

Laicheng
Location: Shandong
Operator: Huadian Power International Corp Ltd
Configuration: 4 X 300 MW
Operation: 1999-2003
Fuel: bituminous coal

http://www.industcards.com/st-coal-china-shandong.htm
Also I think China only has 2WVER reactors right?

Anyways if it is nuclear the mistake isn't my fault. The craptastic Soviet design threw me. :)
Even after 50 years and Chernobyl accident the Russian still can't make a reactor worth a damn. I mean look at the schematic. The core itself is inside a strong structure (cylinder, dome, or dome+cylinder being geometrically strong) but the two steam generators are inside weak square structure. Then you have larger square structure over the whole thing which adds more useless complexity and doesn't improve safety at all. BLEH!

Make it a single large strong containment. Make it large enough to handle everything (refuel pond, cranes, equipment, emergency systems, pumps, reactors, steam generators (on BWR), etc. Then only cut a single hole in containment to pass steam out, return water in, and electricity/control cables.

Come on Russia it isn't that hard.

[bananas]

27. Some VVER-440's in Central Europe

From the same site as your photo:

http://www.industcards.com/nuclear-europe-cent.htm

[Statistical]

29. Ok I have spent to much time on this photo detective work but I think it is coal plant.

China only has 2 VVER-400 in the entire country and that is at Tianwan.

Here is photo of Tianwan generating station (once again from powerplants around the world)


Here is the photo from Laicheng coal plant 4 boiler coal plant in China


Here is the photo from original OP:


I am pretty sure the photo in OP (3rd photo) is the same as the Laicheng coal plant (2nd photo) and not the Tianwan reactors (1st photo).

Still thanks for pointing out VVEC design. The nice thing is based on the 1st photo it looks like China has modified/modernized the VVEC containment. Gone is the box inside box containment and the dome on cylinder (very strong structure for absorbing energy) replaces it.

Here is another shot of Tianwan pair of reactors. VVER-400 (AES-91)


http://ro.china-embassy.org/rom/xw/t356543.htm

[bananas]

30. I've located the source of the photo

This page has the photo with caption and link to source:

http://www.wendmag.com/greenery/2010/01/china-not-convinced-about-the-cause-of-climate-change/
china emissions
Image via Flickr: Bret Arnett

It links to a flicker page which has higher resolutions:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bretarnett/97352331
China Syndrome

Uploaded on February 8, 2006
by Bret Arnett

China Syndrome by Bret Arnett.
Power plant near one of Beijing's "Ring Roads"

...And for all I know, this could be a coal plant, but I couldn't resist the title.

Click on "All sizes" then "Original" to get the original 2157 x 1438 photo at http://www.flickr.com/photos/bretarnett/97352331/sizes/o/
It's about a megabyte.

edit to add: the photographer thought it was a nuclear plant, but wasn't sure. He gives the location.

[Statistical]

31. Good hunting. Yeah it is a coal plant.

Funny thing is that likely due to his title (or maybe the cooling towers) it has become a stock photo for "nuclear plant in China" despite not being a nuclear plant. :rofl:

Not just in the OP by across the web, even some Chinese news agency articles use that photo.

The description is ring road which are the highways circling Beijing. The 4 boiler coal plant is in Liaocheng and Liaocheng fits the description provided by the author.

As an amateur photographer I got to say though, cool photo. I wonder if he/she knows how many times the photo has been (mis)used.

[bananas]

32. Everything on the web should be taken with a grain of salt and a shot of tequila. nt

[bananas]

28. Overhead photo of VVER-440 in Slovakia

http://www.banktrack.org/show/dodgydeals/mochovce_nuclear_units_3_4/_blank