China Leading Race to Make Clean Energy

[kristopher]

China Leading Race to Make Clean Energy

By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: January 30, 2010

TIANJIN, China — China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.


As China takes the lead on wind turbines, above, and solar panels, President Obama is calling for American industry to step up.


China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.

These efforts to dominate the global manufacture of renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.

“Most of the energy equipment will carry a brass plate, ‘Made in China,’ ” said K. K. Chan, the chief executive of Nature Elements Capital, a private equity fund in Beijing that focuses on renewable energy.

President Obama, in his State of the Union speech last week, sounded an alarm that ...

Full story at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html?hp

[Statistical]

1. Such utter BS.

While it is applaudable that China is diversifying its energy production the vast majority of energy in China is produced by DIRTY COAL.

China coal consumption growth in last decade is more THAN ENTIRE REST OF WORLD COMBINED.



In last 30 years China's CO2 emissions have increased 1000%.

China alternative energy campaign is little more than whitewash if they continue to accelerate coal burning at the staggering rate that they have for last 30 years.

[qazplm]

3. cmon on now

dont you know, China Good, US Bad?

[kristopher]

4. No it isn't BS

About two weeks ago the government mandated a totally new structure that their grid operators are now required to follow when selecting power sources for the grid. They now must choose renewable energy sources first and utilize those sources to maximum capacity and only then can they fill in the of the load with other types of generation like coal or nuclear.

This is an extremely significant event because it structures who is guaranteed to get paid for building power generation. If you are an investor in the Chinese energy market, you are now going to prefer to put your money in renewable projects because that is where the ROI is safest.

This, in turn, determines how their grid will eventually structure itself as a diversified grid built around the operating characteristics of renewables versus a centralized grid built around large scale thermal generation.

Looking to the past to predict what is happening in today's energy market is a pretty stupid analytic approach as the market dynamics are completely different now than they were even 5 years ago.

[Statistical]

6. Well no friggin kidding.

Renewables (solar, wind, tidal, hydro) HAVE NO FUEL COSTS.

Essentially they are 99.9% paid for up front (construction and installation).

Why would you burn coal when you have a wind plant generating "free" power?

The same thing happens in the US. If the sun is shining on a solar park in CA it will feed 100% of its power into the grid. Why? Because since it has no fuel costs it can adjust its feed in rate so that is beats all other competitors. Renewable power providers sell power at the highest possible price that at the same time guarantees 100% of their power is used. Nuclear power does the exact same thing.

When demand is lower the wholesale price of power falls and fossil fuel providers (which have a fuel costs) go offline rather than sell power at a loss. As demand rises and exceeds nuclear & renwables fossil fuel plants come online and sell power at a price that supports their fuel costs.

So you would use 100% of the wind plant and then burn "enough" coal to make up the difference. The problem isn't them using renewable. Once built most of the renwables cost is a sunk cost. IT would bu utterly stupid not to use 100% (or as much as is possible based on demand) of renewables output. The problem is that "enough coal" to meet demand is massive and growing faster than entire rest of world combined. In China continues the same acceleration in coal use in next 30 years that they did in the last 30 they will use more coal than ENTIRE WORLD does today.

[kristopher]

7. You're still off target.

You have a false idea in your head and you can't see the facts because of it. A grid is a very large machine composed of a vast number of integrated parts. With today's technologies there are two basic configurations that are mutually exclusive. If you have central thermal generation, it is structured to meet demand in one way and you build power plants accordingly. If you have small scale distributed generation the machine functions in a totally different way and power plants are built to serve that structure.

What they've done is commit to the second structure. WE are the ones with a sunk cost problem - the problem of WTF do we do with the trillions of dollars in fossil fuel assets is what has hogtied us since the early 90s. It may be utterly stupid to not use 100% of renewable output, but in the US it isn't a given at all because of the way our grid is structured. Renewables are able to bid into the spot market, but that isn't nearly the same as being first in line like coal and nuclear are here.

BTW, you might want to brush up on the definition of sunk cost.

[Statistical]

8. You are clueless.

You have of understanding about how wholesale power works.

The realtime auction system, feed in tariffs, the fact that despite retail power being a fixed price at wholesale side supply and demand is at work and renewables have virtually no operating costs. Thus they will always sell power. Selling power at less than cost is still better than selling no power. That same dynamic doesn't apply to fossil fuel operators who can turn on or off generation and need to compensate for fuel costs.

Given that there really is nothing to discuss.

The reality is by 2011 China will consume more coal than any other country and coal use will grow geometrically. You can think of all the fairy tale fantasies you want but we will see in 3 years when China is the clear leader in CO2 emissions with no end is sight for their coal consumption.



So bookmark this and in 10 years when China is burning more coal that the rest of the world combined you let me know how this token paper response is working out.

[kristopher]

9. Like I said, you have an idea in your "mind" and you can't get beyond that.

I also said, renewables can bid into the spot markets (which is the upshot of what you've tried to bluff about) but that doesn't mean the same thing as what is happening in China as of two weeks ago. A distributed renewable grid is created by prioritizing the purchase of power one way, a centralized thermal grid is created by prioritizing the purchase of power another way.

I've explained it to you; if you are too thick to get it, then you are too thick to get it. Spouting a stream of jargon you've just glommed from google doesn't demonstrate you understand what you are talking about. It might buffalo someone who is as ignorant as you are but this is what I do for a living, my friend - energy policy and carbon management analysis.

Did you figure out what sunk cost means yet?

[parkia00]

10. I want to be clueless too!

What some people that seem to love to point out the carbon emissions from China and go look look at all that; China biggest polluter in world etc.... IF you take into account the population of China, divide it by their emissions amount you will see that per person, the Chinese actually use, consume, pollute less than many other countries. This is a fact. Also because China produces so many of the worlds products, they consume more energy and pollute more. If China didn't do that, what they normally would have produced would then have to be produced elsewhere.... like say in the home countries where the products are destined for... thus adding more pollution to their home countries. Imagine if all the products that China makes for the US market. What if suddenly all that now needs to be produced locally for domestic consumption? What would the pollution levels of the US be like? Hazy with a chance of acid rain? It would be great for employment though.

[ConcernedCanuk]

2. We should remember all that talk about "jap-crap" 30 years ago,

.
.
.

and how their electronics and auto industries took such a big bite out of North America's share of that manufacturing market.

Anyone who has received a telemarketing call sees our outsourcing of tech jobs to the East.

North America may become a net importer soon if we do not start making our OWN affordable products.

USA may be able to bomb the shit out of any country they feel like (well, not Russia and China - yet)

But the USA is dependent on others even for their energy needs

Not looking good . . .

[kristopher]

5. I disagree,

There is strong potential in the US manufacturing sector to be a leader in the renewable energy field. This is a wake-up call, and I believe we have the right leadership in place to respond to the challenge.