It’s long been said said that China was adding one new coal power plant per week to its grid. But the real news is worse: China is completing two new coal plants per week. If China’s carbon usage keeps pace with its economic growth, the country’s carbon dioxide emissions will reach 8 gigatons a year by 2030, which is equal to the entire world’s CO2 production today. If the Chinese economy steps into our carbon footprint, all other greenhouse gas reduction efforts will be for naught.
Alexis Madrigal, Wired, 8 February 2008
China has one of the largest coal reserves in the world, and coal accounts for 67% of its primary energy use, compared with 24% for the world average. China is currently bringing two additional coal-fired power plants to the electric power grid every week. In a hypothetical scenario in which carbon intensity keeps pace with a GDP growth rate of 7%, by 2030, China would be emitting as much as the world as a whole is today (8 GtC/year).
Ning Zeng et al., Science, 8 February 2008
Faced with electricity shortages in more than half the country, the Communist Party responded with an old-style mobilization campaign. Last week, President Hu Jintao visited the Tashan mine and ordered all state-owned mines to produce more coal, and produce it faster, in order to guarantee supply for power plants in the south.
The New York Times, 9 February 2008
China has long been a huge supplier of coal to itself and the rest of the world. But in the first half of last year, it imported more than it exported for the first time, setting off a near-doubling of most coal prices around the world. For the world, which uses coal for about 40% of its electricity, the result is similar to what happened after China became a net importer of oil in 1993.
The Wall Street Journal, 12 February 2008
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Yes, it’s a shame, isn’t it? If we had only got serious about Kyoto, got the whole carbond trading model going, researched new technologies and ways of saving energy, we would be nicely placed right now to say to China and India “Here you go, this is a CO2 management process that we have developed and tested”.
That didn’t happen, of course. Everything possible was done to disrupt and emasculate Kyoto. When that happened, people were dancing up and down on the spot, celebrating the fact.
SJT, just relax and become a dynamist. Or else look to join up with some altruists on some other site. ‘Selfishness beats altruism within groups; altruistic groups beat selfish groups.’ ( every thing else is commentary!)
Paul – “2030: Entire World’s Current CO2 Emissions to be Equalled by China?”
So what is the problem? You do not agree that CO2 is the main driver of climate change so why should this be a problem to you? Why do you post such things if you do not regard CO2 as a problem?
Or is it just an agenda of greenie bashing? You will bash them no matter what even if the statement conflicts with what you have said in many previous posts.
For all the people without agendas, China is way out in front of Australia in renewables:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/infocus/story;jsessionid=E252053122C2E6425BBA377A8ABCE14D?id=38983
“Overall, the market share of renewable energy consumption in China is only 7 percent, and in comparison to some of its neighboring countries, China has lagged behind. Taking wind power as an example, China just barely registers in the top 10 countries in the world in terms of domestic consumption of wind power (well behind neighboring Japan and India).
The rate of increase in renewable energy consumption in China is currently 25 percent a year.
Consumption of electricity from renewables is expected to reach 15 percent of total consumption by year 2020, according to government figures. By then, capacity is expected to reach 300,000 MW of hydropower, 30,000 MW of wind farms, and 1,000 MW of solar power. The expected rate of increase in wind is staggering.”
and:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5491
“China has become a global leader in renewable energy. It is expected to invest more than $10 billion in new renewable energy capacity in 2007, second only to Germany. Most of this is for small hydropower, solar hot water, and wind power. Meanwhile, investment in large hydropower continues at $6–10 billion annually. A landmark renewable energy law, enacted in 2005, supports continued expansion of renewables as a national priority. China currently obtains 8 percent of its energy and 17 percent of its electricity from renewables— shares that are projected to increase to 15 percent and 21 percent by 2020.
Among renewable energy sources:
* Wind power is the fastest-growing power generation technology in China, having doubled in capacity during 2006 alone.While wind is still slightly more expensive than coal power, policies encourage competitive pressure on costs, and new mandates require power companies to obtain a minimum share of their power from wind and other renewables. China is home to more than 50 aspiring domestic manufacturers of wind turbines and a number of foreign producers.
* Solar power is still in its infancy in China, although a growing amount is used in rural areas and other off-grid applications. A large market for grid-tied solar photovoltaic (PV) is still several years away, once costs decline further. Already, China is a global manufacturing powerhouse for solar PV, third only to Japan and Germany, with huge investments in recent years and much more expected.
* China is the world’s largest market for solar hot water, with nearly two-thirds of global capacity. The country’s 40 million solar hot water systems mean that more than 10 percent of Chinese households rely on the sun to heat their water. When Chinese firms eventually turn to exporting, the lower costs of their units—seven times less than in Europe—could affect markets globally.
* Biomass power in China comes mostly from sugarcane wastes and rice husks, and has not grown in recent years. New policies will likely mean more biomass power from other sources, such as agricultural and forestry wastes. In addition, industrial-scale biogas, such as from animal wastes, is starting to make a contribution to power generation.
* Biofuels for transportation have received widespread attention in China. Ethanol is produced in modest amounts from corn, and biodiesel is produced in small amounts from waste cooking oil. The government plans to expand biofuels production from cassava, sweet sorghum, and oilseed crops, although the large-scale potential is limited. The greatest promise lies with cellulosic ethanol, which many expect to become commercially viable within 7–10 years. If China could use its vast cellulosic resource of agricultural and forestry wastes—up to half a billion tons per year—it might become a major ethanol producer after 2020.
It is likely that China will meet and even exceed its renewable energy development targets for 2020. Total power capacity from renewables could reach 400 gigawatts by 2020, nearly triple the 135 gigawatts existing in 2006, with hydro, wind, biomass, and solar PV power making the greatest contributions.More than one-third of China’s households could be using solar hot water by 2020 if current targets and policies are continued. Use of other renewables, including biogas and perhaps solar thermal power, will increase as well. ”
Amazing. STJ blames everyone but China for China’s pollution. Hey, just blame Bush.
Don’t believe every statistic that comes out of China. It is still a totalitarian regime after all. See http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/10/china_gdp_stati.html
But the real flaw in the above “scarenario” is the underlying assumption that Chinese growth will continue at this same pace for another 22 years. Such high growth rates are only possible when taken from a low baseline.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_China_administrative_divisions_by_GDP_per_capita where GDP per Capita of Shanghai and Beijing is already at 25% of Taiwan and Hong Kong. So in these centres the capacity for continued very high growth is already limited.
It would also be fairly self evident to the economically literate that a boost in economic growth today merely brings forward the date at which hyper growth rates will cease (when relative affluence is achieved) and the growth rate returns to the levels experienced by other developed economies.
And given that China has also signed up for 34 new French nuclear power stations then any assumption that the rate of coal station construction will continue apace is highly dubious.
So mop your brow, punters, and have a good lie down.
I bet that STJ didn’t know this: Heath Ledger Found Murdered by Bush in NYC Apartment
http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2008/01/heath-ledger-fo.html
“Yes, it’s a shame, isn’t it? If we had only got serious about Kyoto, got the whole carbond trading model going, researched new technologies and ways of saving energy, we would be nicely placed right now to say to China and India “Here you go, this is a CO2 management process that we have developed and tested”.”
You forgot to add “Just don’t worry about the economics”. Keep smoking it buddy.
Mark – “You forgot to add “Just don’t worry about the economics”. Keep smoking it buddy.”
And that is the heart of the problem we face. Right now we can place economics ahead of the environment because right now there are no issues that can’t be ignored as climate change is not killing enough people right now.
God forbid that this should happen and that there is a disaster that kills job lots of people like the Boxing Day Tsunami, that is entirely attributed to climate change, then I guess economics can take second place to the environment for at least a little while.
Wouldn’t it be better to avoid the job lots of people being killed? For instance if economics and politics had taken second place to the environment when the question of a comprehensive tsunami warning system was proposed years ago and one had been installed in the Indian Ocean Rim how many lives would have been saved? It is very easy to be wise in hindsight however as we are finding in the case of global warming it is almost impossible to be wise if foresight as short sighted economic gain will always trump long term possible threats no matter who sounds the warning.
The blog Nazis have sent my previous post into limbo, again, to reappear at a less relevant stage of the thread. So for those who won’t be awake at 3.0am and are too mathematically challenged to comprehend the improbability of three full decades of 10% economic growth, it is important to note the common thread in this sorry sequence of beat-ups.
“If the Chinese economy steps into our (USA)carbon footprint, all other greenhouse gas reduction efforts will be for naught.”
Alexis Madrigal, Wired, 8 February 2008
And here we go with the same old IPCC dogs vomit. According to http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita
US emissions per capita are 19.48 tonnes CO2, while the highest amongst asian nations is Singapore with 13.813 tonnes, followed by Japan with only 9.612 tonnes. And given the cultural similarities and comparable population densities there is absolutely no excuse for trying to imply that China would ever reach the emission footprint of the USA.
Note that current Chinese emissions are 2.66 tonnes per capita. So even if there was no technology based emission dividend for the Chinese from the 34 French nuclear reactors they have just signed for, a trebling of their emissions would put them on 8 tonnes per capita, with a standard of living (averaged from the least developed regions to the cities) just above that currently enjoyed by the South Koreans @ 7.34 tonnes per capita.
Meanwhile, an annual increase in emissions of 10% over the 23 years to 2030, as envisaged in these preposterous articles, would lift Chinese emissions to 23.8 tonnes per capita. That is, 22% ABOVE the current US footprint and 147% above the current Japanese footprint.
Clearly, these projected emission scenarios are a demonstration of either the most extreme ignorance of the relationship between energy and economics, or it is deliberate deception of the very worst kind.
The effort of the ‘AGW’-phobic’ hasn’t become associated with actual reductions of pollution. This is why mention of ‘environmental concern’ is so farcical when used towards the platforming of ‘AGW’!
CO2 is not ‘carbon’ still and is not at all of a problem for ‘warming’ or of Climate. Regard again then links (split to overcome limitations of weblogs) from http://www.youtube.com/
…’The Myth about Global Warming’;
watch?v=iMDi_u0dcig
‘… Contrary to the latest bill of goods we’re being sold about “climate change” Carbon dioxide is a “convenient myth” rather than an “Inconvenient Truth.” …’
…or then ‘The Myth of Man made Global Warming’;
watch?v=PIuNxy6i1o0
‘… Some scientific facts about the climate change …’;
…whilst there isn’t noticed still unnatural warming, and little relevance of CO2 to warming, Temperature or Climate as the ‘AGW platform’ persists in demanding there (somehow) is!
Kyoto is, and always was, a pointless documentation of a pointless agenda and so does it remain. Regard ‘The Recovery from the Little Ice Age and Global Warming’;
http://thenewamerican.com/node/6973
-=-
‘… A roughly linear global temperature increase of about 0.5°C per 100 years seems to have occurred from about 1800, or even much earlier, to the present. This value may be compared with what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists consider to be the manmade greenhouse effect of 0.6°C per 100 years. This long-lasting linear warming trend is likely to be a natural change.
One possible cause of the linear increase may be Earth’s continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age. This trend (0.5°C/100 years) should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years when estimating the manmade contribution to the present global warming trend. Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend is attributable to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the 2007 IPCC Report (p.10), which states that “most” of the present warming is due to the manmade greenhouse effect. …’;
-=-
…there is just no ‘good measure’ of Temperature at all related to CO2. The LIE protected is why the ‘AGW’ platform should be dismissed. What is becoming noted is then the ‘making of models’ as presentations ‘of a fraud’ and not of ‘a Climate’ potential.
Is there to be notice then made in some rational manner, within valid SCIENCE, of Pollution (even)? If so then does the ‘AGW’ platform, and its notions of ‘pollution trading’, need be dismissed once more.
So then to notice ‘agenda holders’ …Ender (February 13, 2008 12:28 PM) you would only try to notice by an ‘installed capacity’ …not an actual generation ability of Electricity generation. This is as what your agenda is requiring Ender, half-truths told loudly. Notice then also that although it might be that;
‘China has become a global leader in renewable energy. It is expected to invest more than $10 billion in new renewable energy capacity in 2007, second only to Germany’;
…is it that Germany has been seen planning multiple Coal fuelled utilities. Such presumably to make up actual ‘shortfall performance’ of that ‘renewable energy (installed) capacity’ whilst avoiding installation of ‘new’ Uranium based Utilities (perhaps for political reasons).
Nothing you would seem to mention otherwise Ender is ‘new news’ whilst you would try too hard to seem knowledgeable when only repeating yourself (in too many places).
Yours, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(TM)
Oh no… Peter K Anderson is here…
I think I am leaving now. His nonsensical ramblings are VERY tiresome. Moderators, how about banning him now and saving us all grief?
Actually, I did notice one thing. He can’t make words bold or italic, it’s one ray of light!
Mr T – “Oh no… Peter K Anderson is here…”
My fault I am afraid. I posted my entry on Bolty’s mirror blog and here he his. I guess I can ignore him here the same as there.
Ender,
Agree with you re. Peter K Anderson, I never understand what he is saying, but he is coherent enough when defending himself, fancy that!?
Whether we think climate sensitivity to CO2 is low or high, there doesn’t seem to be much prospect for reducing global emissions, even before we take into account the IPCC’s claimed 50 to 200 year residency time for CO2 in the atmosphere.
“Amazing. STJ blames everyone but China for China’s pollution. Hey, just blame Bush.”
So it’s OK to blame the single biggest polluter now?
“It is very easy to be wise in hindsight however as we are finding in the case of global warming it is almost impossible to be wise if foresight as short sighted economic gain will always trump long term possible threats no matter who sounds the warning.”
You mean climate disasters like this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7241824.stm
Perhaps a bit more economic development would have saved these people!
But silly me! – I forgot any change to the climate is all caused by CO2 driven man made global warming!
Well Mark the Mayans had a fair bit of economic and technological development and it didn’t help them.
Bit hard for economic development to stand that long in Afghanistan too – people keep blowing things up. Perhaps might be more the issue do you think?
And you are MOST silly as you admit – as only you have said there will never be any climate variability again and that anyone supporting AGW is against all economic development. But you are a total nong.
Lots of sidestepping the issue here but no-one can explain exactly what would make the Chinese, Indians and numerous other emerging nations, once they reach the same level of affluence as the Japanese, (ie 9.6t CO2 per capita) suddenly get the urge to completely flatten their existing cities and rebuild them on the LA model? For this is the only way they will all buy Hummers and live in quarter acre blocks 120km from work so they fit the US emissions footprint.
Overlay that with the variations in mean Chinese household size after the “one child” policy and the sprawl scenario becomes even more preposterous.
So it is not just the upper half of the IPCC projections that are blown right out of the water. The UK Royal Society paper on ocean acidification was also entirely dependent on projecting this high end outcome into a third or fourth century. It has a realistic probability of occurrence in the order of 0.00001.
The 1.3 billion Chinese multiplied by this super scary (USA) 19.5t CO2 gives us 25.35Gt. But when multiplied by its realistic probability of 0.00001, we get a modest 0.2535 megatonnes of annual CO2 emissions.
“Well Mark the Mayans had a fair bit of economic and technological development and it didn’t help them.”
Not quite up to 21st century standards though.
“Bit hard for economic development to stand that long in Afghanistan too – people keep blowing things up. Perhaps might be more the issue do you think?”
Point went right over your head as you’re too busy making up smart-ass comments. Can’t expect much more from a lefty flunkie. The point is as enviro-fascists try to have their way, their actions will in fact be the cause of suffering to people.
This issue is covered in more depth at http://ianmott.blogspot.com/
It points out that the Chinese are not even bound to follow a Japanese emissions footprint at 9.6tCO2/capita when their purchase of French nuclear power plants makes it clear that they will most likely achieve fully developed status under the Swedish (5.41t/capita), Swiss (5.58t/capita) or French (5.99t/capita) model.
So why would anyone but the barking mad bother to assume that China and India will conform to a US emissions footprint?
Ender – “For instance if economics and politics had taken second place to the environment”
If you don’t have a job and can’t afford a place to live, you’ll get a close up look of the environment because you’ll be living out in it.
I prefer to have a nicely heated home and a car to get to work. If you want to live in the woods and walk to work(if you work) then feel free but stop telling me I have to return to the “Existance” my great grandparents had to scrape out for themselves.
Good point, infidel. Both my Grandfathers spent the best two decades of their working lives complying with a compulsory requirement to get rid (cut down and burn) over 100,000 tonnes of high quality forest as a condition of their grant of land title.
And it is pretty hard to feed a family when you share your life with a nightmare masquerading as informed government policy. And then came the great depression.
cdn.infidel – “If you want to live in the woods and walk to work(if you work) then feel free but stop telling me I have to return to the “Existance” my great grandparents had to scrape out for themselves.”
Never said anything of the sort. It is just at the moment we can put economics ahead of the environment however the circumstances may change in the future when it is impossible to put do this.
“If you don’t have a job and can’t afford a place to live, you’ll get a close up look of the environment because you’ll be living out in it.”
Lets get one thing perfectly straight.
The economy totally depends on having an environment. No environment, no economy.
Gosh, SJT, what an insight. The problem with your simplistic, indeed, moronic pronunciamento is that you are implying that they are mutually exclusive. As if any modification to the environment for economic purposes is tantamount to the total destruction of the environment.
The test of your intellect, and anyone else’s for that matter, rests on one’s capacity to discern the nuances in a number of inputs and variables. And for the record, you just demonstrated your incapacity to discern any nuance in only two variables.
Readers will notice how yourself and Ender have avoided any discussion on the actual realistic emission levels for a developed China and India (the topic) like a French Hells Angel avoids a hot bath.