Comments on: Energy and Global Warming News for May 6th: China to triple wind goal to 100,000 MW by 2020

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:41:18 +0000

David MacKay comes to the conclusion that only two energy sources have sufficient potential to repower the whole world to US standards – concentrating solar and nuclear, or only one if we restrict the choice to renewable/sustainable.

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/ withouthotair/ c30/ page_231.shtml

I find it amazing that average energy consumption in the US is 250 KW/h per day. I guess most of that is energy we don’t think about, such as energy used in manufacturing and transporting goods, public services, etc.

By: paulm

paulm — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:25:13 +0000

Psst, we have to cut back on consumption also.

It should not be a direct one to one replacement.

By: Anders

Anders — Thu, 07 May 2009 13:46:38 +0000

I think we are missing a huge factor when we start talking about becoming an “exporter of clean energy” – storage. Using wind energy becomes great for fulfilling immediate demand for energy on a regional scale, but without proper energy storage and a sophisticated network of grid-technology, there is simply no way that wind can become a large nation’s dominant energy form.
That being said, if it was implied that China’s growth in this market will contribute to exports of equipment used to create clean energy or the licensing thereof, then that’s fine. Clean energy itself, however, I find will be difficult to export the way one can export oil.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:43:06 +0000

Impressive numbers, but what do they actually mean? By my calculations running China consumes about 2000 GW continuously (based on 40KW/h per day per person – source UNDP Human Development Report, 2007), so 100 GW by 2020 will only be 5% of this. Meanwhile their energy consumption is increasing by a much larger percentage EACH YEAR… So by 2020 their CO2 emissions will be far higher, irrespective of how much wind they have.

It all comes back to the same thing. If you want to limit emissions you have to reduce coal, not increase everything else.

By: NFJM

NFJM — Thu, 07 May 2009 11:07:49 +0000

Do not underestimate the potential of wind in Inner Mongolia.

Keep in mind that even with a 100GW peak capacity planned and let’s assume a 30% capacity factor, we are still speaking about 30 GW of production. This is more than the three gorges dam.

The problem off course is the constantly increasing DEMAND in China which calls for large energy efficiency measures.
Keep in mind that due to the high emission factor of the produced electricity in China, energy efficiency on the user side reduces emissions more than anywhere else. These measures have to come first, whether in the building sector or on the industrial sector.

By: Michael Hogan

Michael Hogan — Thu, 07 May 2009 08:31:31 +0000

I don’t usually find a lot of common ground with Bill Woods, but I have to agree with him here. Onshore wind has never replaced coal-fired plants, and it never will (I think that networked deep offshore wind has a good shot at doing so). The goal here should be very simply stated – shutting down the construction of new coal plants completely, and closing or abating all of the remaining plants, preferably by 2030. In that respect, onshore wind is at best a gimmick, at worst a distraction. If we want to grab the lead on 21st century energy from the Chinese, one way to do so would be to focus on the things they seem to have little interest in that are actually capable of replacing coal – deep offshore wind, concentrating solar thermal, biomass co-firing, post-combustion CCS. Don’t know if it’s too late to take a leading position in electric vehicles, but that’s one area the Chinese are moving aggressively on that we really can’t afford to fall behind.

By: Bill Woods

Bill Woods — Thu, 07 May 2009 06:47:55 +0000

“[The Chinese] expect to more than triple their wind capacity goal, resulting in 100 gigawatts of wind power by 2020, and surpass by five to tenfold the target set for solar. These are sobering numbers.”

Sobering in what sense? How many planned coal plants have they canceled?

By: Joeb

Joeb — Thu, 07 May 2009 04:02:07 +0000

Joe, I think the headline should be whether China’s goal is high enough to make up a wedge, or if it’s still not enough. Global warming is still a global issue and we’re all in this together, right?

By: paulm

paulm — Thu, 07 May 2009 03:45:37 +0000

Climate change slowly taking strangle hold in North America…

Shaved Heads Keep Barbers Idle as Drought Sears California
http://www.bloomberg.com/ apps/ news?pid=20601109&sid=a8X3k8FhImlc&refer=home
…
Businesses are casualties of the three-year drought that is forcing farmers to leave hundreds of thousands of acres fallow in the Central Valley, the semi-arid agricultural region running 400 miles (600 kilometers) down the middle of the state. The drought may cost the valley 35,000 jobs and $959 million in lost revenue this year,

“I’ve never seen a drought this bad,” said Bob Diedrich, who has been farming since 1973

Farmers … are planting about 200,000 acres, down from 500,000