Climate Science Watch question “4) The poor way the Energy Department under the Bush administration handled R&D on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for coal combustion, including the late-stage cancellation of FutureGen, has caused needless delays in resolving critical issues germane to determining the viability of this climate mitigation option. How do you plan to expedite an R&D program needed to ascertain the feasibility of CCS in a timely enough manner to avert the disastrous climate change consequences we are facing?”

So perhaps Chu will have to take a stand on the Obama administration attitude to carbon capture and storage soon.

Chu spoke recently about more than 150 coal plants on the drawing boards in the US, which he said could mean the US intends to build one plant every ten days compared to the often quoted China figure of one every week.

One think everyone needs to understand about the PRC: they are employing EVERY type of electrical generation, bar none. Quite literary the first with public bicycle battery generators to actually, THIS YEAR, deploying Generation IV Nuclear reactors (PBMRs, Chinese version).

They will adding close to 30 more GWs of hydro over the next 10 years (maybe double that). The 100 nuclear reactors mentioned above comes out to 160 GWs by 2030. They are looking at 16% of their power generated by nuclear (ALL of which would be produced by coal if not atoms).

I follow their nuclear industry the closest and have written about it on the Daily Kos. I’ve talked with PRC energy decision makers over the last year. A few things to note:

1. Their labor costs are about 1/12 of that of the US. Since labor is more than half the costs of a nuclear power plant (10 to 20 million man-hours for the ever popular AP1000, for example) the Chinese are bringing in their nukes at under $1800 KW installed.

2. They have lots of money and they assure me that part of the 500 Billion USD stimulus package includes all manner of energy, indigenously produced (meaning vertically integrated energy businesses from wind mills to nuclear).

3. The Chinese see nuclear and hydro as their *main* way of combating CO2 emissions.

What I get from their people who visit the SF-Bay Area where I live, is that they see nuclear as THE primary way to solve a host of problems. To wit:

1. Health. The issue of climate change is a sort of ’secondary’ issue for the Chinese. Coal production and use of it kills close to 400,000 people a year there. The savings in this, both human and financial would be huge by a switch to nuclear.

2. The Chinese rail system is fraught with ‘weakness’ do to the geographic location of where the coal is mined…in the north, and to where it needs to be used, in the south. They are “always upgrading” their rail but snows, natural disasters, have shown the severe limitations of rail. So they are addressing this two ways.

a). They ARE importing more coal. If you think this is not true, due a search of Australia’s coal industry, write them, and ask them what they think. The Chinese are *planning* huge, exponential increases of coal importation from everywhere they can buy it, including the US, South Africa and India.

b). Building more nukes. Nuclear is easier for them. They have, in 2008, 3 times increased their 2020 goal from 40GWs (as part of the original 11th Year plan) to 50GWs then 60GWs and now, 70GWs.

3. And more nukes…again. So, the 2030 goal of “160GWs” is probably low. They are quite open, especially officials from the big utilities in the south of China, about “if we can”, we would go to 80% nuclear or, 900 GWs by 2050 (expected load –as opposed to capacity– of 1200 GWs). I asked “do you see the amounts increasing over the 12th Year Plan (2010-2015) in terms of projecting out to 2030?” Yes, they replied. This was BEFORE the announcements last year of immediate 2020 goals of 70 GWs.

So the conclusion is that the Chinese are clear about reducing CO2 and fly ash, and particulate even though it’s *secondary* to maintaining their 7 to 9% growth rates. They see nuclear (and all non-carbon producing electrical generation) as a main way to reduce overall emissions.

David

Email reply from Mark Jacobson Jan 11 09

“We developed the first and only map of the world’s winds from data alone at the height of modern turbines, 80 m,

http://www.stanford.edu/ group/ efmh/ winds/ global_winds.html

and found the global delivered potential over land at locations where the mean annual wind speed is > 6.9 m/s (about 15% of land outside of Antarctica) is about 72 TW, which is on the order of 35 times the global electricity use. More recently, we have done a modeling study and found that this number is conservative, and may be ~ 100 TW.

Any other number you see anywhere is not based on data. The site you refer to specifically does not even show land wind energy, and even the ocean values are not based on in situ data. In fact, it sounds like they are just making a general statement consistent with many renewable portfolio standards, not based on actual potential.”

Anyone remember a country that recognized the problem of a too rapidly expanding population and did something about it?

Who was it that implemented the One Child Policy?

The story which forms the basis for this post should help those who have been seduced by the glint from a Chinese solar project realize that basically it’s still business as usual in China. A 30% increase in coal production from 2008 to 2015 works out to an annualized average increase of 3.75%. Assuming this increased production is thermal coal, as the article suggests, and coal fires about 70% of China’s electricity production, this works out to an increase in generation of about 5.35% on an average annual basis. This is remarkably is close to the 5.4% average annual rate of increase in energy consumption between 1979 and 2007, as reported in the article you cite.

China will not be brought easily to the negotiating table and once it’s there it won’t be forthcoming unless there is a large stick lurking somewhere in the background. I hope that soon after January 20 the US will engage China in serious and credible efforts to end the status quo of mutually assured destruction.

Anyone got access?

Archer and Jacobson might be talking about 8,000 North American sites. Some parts of the world are wind poor. But I don’t think that’s what they said.

The linked page is a poorly written summary. I think you have to pay to get the full article.

I’ve emailed both. I’ll report back if I hear from either.

(I do wonder about Bush’s NASA. ;o)