Climate Leadership: China Rises, U.S. Falls
Scientific American celebrates its 170th anniversary this year; it’s the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States. And just think of what science was like in the 1840s: long before the advent of germ theory, modern physics, even the periodic table. The big deal at the time, and it was a very big deal, was Faraday’s recent discover of electricity and magnetism.
Needless to say, the subject of climate change didn’t enter the picture until quite recently, though there have been many dozens of articles on the topic over the past few years.
Of course, being scientific by its nature, the magazine tends to take on the issues of greenhouse gas emissions, geophysics, atmospheric research, measuring the rate at which the icecaps are melting, studying the changing ocean currents and chemistries, etc.
Yet here’s an article that explores the ramifications of the two largest and powerful countries on Earth, the U.S. and China, and their changing roles as leaders in climate change mitigation. China, as we all know, is aggressively positioning itself for dominance in cleantech, the industry destined to become the defining business arena of the 21st Century. They’re installing renewable energy at a record pace, having invested $80 billion in this area in the last year alone.
The U.S., by contrast, appears to be exiting the game, thus solidifying China’s position of superiority over the rest of the world. In particular, China has pledged to fulfill and honor its commitments to the Paris Agreement, where the U.S., if President-elect Trump follows through with his promise, will withdraw from the accord, thus undermining America’s influence in this space, placing ourselves at a competitive disadvantage, and seriously diluting our reputation on the world stage.
What a sad day.
China is expanding BOTH renewables and nuclear. In fact, according to this article
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/6215-Chinese-nuclear-versus-renewables-who-is-winning-
“China’s prodigious nuclear program currently has 17 commercial reactors operating and 28 more under construction—almost half the global total of reactors being built. The government expects to have 40 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear power on line by 2015 and at least 58 GW by 2020.”
From reading articles by those who eschew nuclear power, one would think that nuclear power is dead and will never be resurrected. The actual truth is significantly different.
Once again Frank Eggers has demonstrated that his only allegiance is to common sense, logic and truth.
A very well constructed and poignant posting Frank free of ‘fear or favor’ please keep up the good work as always.
And thank you for illustrating for the readers once again on 2greenenergy, that ‘climate change mitigation science’ and ‘renewable energy technologies science’ are two very different and separate subjects.
Lawrence Coomber
Craig,
I wouldn’t get too excited about pledges and promises made by the PRC. The PRC doesn’t have the same attitude as other nations when it comes to government commitments.
Pledges, promises, commitments and even contracts are not viewed in the same gravitas as the West. A pledge my simply be an indication of a willingness to consider, acknowledgement of a worthy ambition, or the word of the individual making the commitment, but not necessarily the organization.
Party this is a cultural difference and partly deliberate.
Solar power is far less advanced and adopted than official propaganda would lead a reader to believe. Coal remains a highly favoured resource.
As Frank points out, the PRC is rapidly researching and developing advanced Nuclear technology. The PRC doesn’t have the US problems of lengthy approvals, political protests and licensing problems. Economics are a secondary consideration, the main object is securing a reliable source of power.
Demonstrations in the PRC are met with a brutally effective security response, unless CCP approved (surprisingly some are).
Research indicates China has genuinely invested in Wind Power, but not to the extent reported.
I fear the symbolism of the Paris Accord is only too well understood by Beijing, without inspiring any sense of compliance. The terms of the Paris agreement are so vague and contain so many get out clauses it’s doubtful anyone will fully comply.
The PRC has been very active in acquiring interests in Australian Thorium deposits (Which I’ve been delighted to accept).
The Scientific American is a fine publication, and is to be congratulate for its 170 history.
Marcopolo makes some relevant points here about China and renewables in particular.
China has always understood the limitation of renewables in the context of being a meaningful contributor to “big power” in their energy intensive society, compared to other sources such as coal fired and nuclear.
Solar is actually a negligible contributor in reality in China (even though official statistics say otherwise, but those statistics are not related to Solar Generated KWH but rather officially earmarked solar projects in KW. There is a substantial difference in these two terms KWH and KW.
But the main take away here is as Marcopola has alluded, the main object is securing and providing a reliable source of power for the society to get on with what it needs to. That is precisely what all nations are required to deliver to their societies, and the new energy dense generation science era allows for this through safe and clean means, which everybody, including the PRC understand is essential as coal fired plants must be shut down urgently, whilst maintaining and enhancing “big power” opportunities.
Cost effectively.
Lawrenece Coomber
lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,
Thank you for your reply.
Wind and solar advocates fail to understnd for nations like India, the PRC and other heavily populated developing countries, the first consideration is large scale, economical, reliable industrial power on demand.
Only “power on demand” can lift these populations out of abject poverty and create a stable middle class society. Coal fired power stations are cheap to build, the technology is relatively simple and supply is reliable.
Solar and Wind are very capital intensive, incompatible with old poorly maintained and patchy distribution networks, and at best intermittent, requiring storage solutions either not yet existing or costly to construct.
For most developing nations, coal remains the most cost effective method of quickly achieving base load power. The technology of “clean coal” is advancing rapidly and can be utilized to fudge pollution emission reporting.
It’s a very American reaction to completely misunderstand the needs and aspirations of the developing world. (first illustrated in The Ugly American a 1958 political novel by Eugene Burdick and William Lederer).
The idea of a third world farmer harnessing solar technology to improve his lifestyle is ludicrous. Most third world farmers, are not happy sons of the soil, but miserable subsistence farm workers, heavily in debt to money lenders, whose main ambition is escape to the city in search of factory employment and education for his children.
Roof top solar would be great, but first you must own a roof !
That’s not to say Wind and Solar have no value. Wind and Solar can , and do, play a part in the energy mix, especially in specialist applications.
But if the planet is to replace coal with something other than Natural Gas, the solution must be a technology capable of generating huge amounts of base load, industrial “power on demand”.
The only practical solution is advanced nuclear (I favour thorium). For some years I have been proposing the development of a financing plan where developing nations could lease-to-buy a generating plant, distribution system and supply from an international consortium who would be responsible for operating the system.
US political interests, followed by Western Wind turbine manufactures have proved the biggest opposition.
As a result, the PRC, India, and a resurgent Russia will become dominant in this technology, while the west wanders off down a side track.
Marcopolo,
Although I agree with most of your post, I question the practicality of “clean coal”.
Capturing and liquifying CO2 as it issues forth from the chimney takes considerable power thereby requiring the burning of even more coal. That also increases investment and operational costs. And, once the CO2 is liquified to expedite its efficient transport, regardless of where it is put we cannot be certain that it will stay there and not eventually escape into the atmosphere.
I continue to believe that with currently available technology, the primary source of power for most large countries will have to be nuclear despite its problems. It looks as though the stated excessive cost of nuclear power may be artificial rather than inherent.
Thorium reactors look very promising and may very well be the nuclear fuel of choice although it is too soon to be entirely certain of that.
Hi Frank,
Yes, you are quite right. The term “clean coal” should be “Cleaner Coal” or even ” a bit cleaner coal” !
I favour Thorium but I’m by no means adamant about the technology. Naturally, as an Australian siting on a pile of Thorium, I have a certain bias 🙂
I particularly like the latest Japanese mini-modular unit. Potentially, these units can be mass produced to a standardized design, and easily installed close to major sources of power demand.
This design reduces the cost of infrastructure, increases efficiency and reliability , while remaining able to be cheaply expanded as demand increases.
The plentiful nature of thorium (much can be extracted from existing waste) makes the technology even more attractive.
The Japanese and South Koreans, believe these 220-300 MW units could be produced and installed for $350 million.
UK’s Rolls Royce estimate it’s small modular unit (based on submarine Technology) could be built for $1.5 billion, but produces 440 MW and covers an area less than 10% of traditional plants.
Although no figures for mass thorium fuel production exist, it’s obvious that extraction,transport and processing costs will be a fraction of uranium.
For consumers, the cost of Thorium generated power is estimated to be less than 20% of Wind and with no unsightly, booming turbines destroying vistas or wildlife.
Underground thorium reactors are also more secure from the ravages of storms, terrorists. etc, while needing no additional base load facilities. (a factor always left out when calculating wind economics).
Thorium generation, is easily compatible with Hydro etc and has greater ramping up and down capacity than other technologies.
The savings on distribution infrastructure are considerable
Other advantages include the ease of adding additional modules as energy needs increase. Thorium is abundant with thousands of years reserves.
It’s difficult to see the rationale behind the opposition. Naturally, the main opposition comes from fear, ignorance and ideologues. These fears are encouraged by Solar and Wind advocates,backed by powerful industrial conglomerates.
Thorium lack the problem of waste disposal so contentious with other Nuclear technologies.
The best part of Thorium (or advanced nuclear)is the lack of need for taxpayer/consumer support in the form of ongoing subsidies, mandates, quota’s or other covert means of support.
Thorium technology can make any economy competitive again.
Marcopolo,
I am also enthusiastic about the potential of thorium. However, although it looks exceedingly promising, it is too soon to be certain that it is the best way to go. It could be that unforeseen problems would make other nuclear power technologies better. I think that there should be R & D on multiple nuclear technologies until we can be sure which one or ones are best.
Already enough thorium has been mined to last for many decades as reactor fuel. It occurs with rare earth elements and is discarded because currently it is not used for much.
Regarding smaller reactors, I’ve been at planning meetings for Power New Mexico. From the meetings, it is clear that 1000 megawatt power plants are too big an increment for many power companies. Thus, smaller reactors would have a market, especially if they can be manufactured in a factory and shipped to the site instead of constructing them on the site.
It’s unfortunate that more R & D isn’t being done here in the U.S. Westinghouse did develop there AP1000 reactor, but basically it is just an improved version of existing pressurized water reactors. One of its advantages is that the emergency cooling system operates on gravity and convection without power. If Fukushima had had AP1000 reactors, the melt downs would have been prevented.
If China and other countries develop superior nuclear technologies, others will benefit from their work.
Hi Frank,
Yes indeed, the more R&D on various technologies the better !
One of the biggest problems is all Nuclear technology is portrayed by opponents to the general public as if it were still in the same stage of development as it was in 1955!
The regulations, designed for that time remain in force. This is a tremendous disincentive for investment and development.
In recent years nuclear technology has acquired new and even more formidable opponents from the massive corporations behind Wind Solar, and ethanol.
It’s time for some objectivity.
Frank its early days mate.
We don’t often hear the term “global communities equalizing energy technologies” because its not fashionable to think about those communities in Africa, Asia, and everywhere else really, with no or little electricity supply, being so contemptuous as to believe they are deserving in this greedy modern era, of having just as much energy available for there community development as say an ordinary western world community.
How contemptuous are they?
Well that distorted thinking (and its very common) is precisely why I coined the term “global communities equalizing energy technologies” several years ago and included it in my middle school series lectures (12 – 16 years age students).
And to my joy, they actually hooked up on it immediately.
Global peace and prosperity is all about the availability of “big energy”. It is not about lean and green energy frugality and retreating back into caves with candles as some would have us believe.
But this raises another challenge that we never hear about in blogs and other cyberspace media. How does this fit in with permanent greenhouse gas reversal generation technology. It seems to throw another spanner into the works.
Well of course it certainly does, by a global multipler of about 50 to 100. That’s right – and that will come as quite a shock to most. But not to Frank Eggers is my guess, because he takes the time to think about the broader global energy equation, unlike most others.
One would expect that Marcopolo being a true-blue Aussie number cruncher would have come up with that multiplier range ages ago. Well no he didn’t and it looks like I have beaten him to it. LOL
50 to 100 times. Yes that’s about right. For those communities who haven’t got it – to join those communities who have got plenty of it, the energy needed to commence and complete modern (infrastructure development, energy intensive manufacturing, roads, mining, businesses, rolling stock, all forms of electric transportation, food production, and on and on it goes). Yes 50 to 100 times of what is currently being generated globally is about on the money.
So when is the right time to implement “global communities equalizing energy technologies” if ever; well coincidentally and serendipitously I contend, about now is the time, along with greenhouse gas reversal generation technologies. Because they are precisely the same generation science solution.
Abundant, clean, safe, low cost power for all people.
Two critical issues solved, for the price of one.
The maths adds up.
Back to the molecular science generation issues of scale Frank; don’t be too constrained in your thinking about what you see in the rear view mirror about old school nuclear scaling issues. Scale will be determined by the solution required not the other way around. Technology will (as it must) be tailored to fit the need.
My guess for smart reticulation systems everywhere is for mini systems starting at 50 MW and up from there, will be a good range for the science in general to strive for.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,
That’s why the global demand for energy will increase by about four times. Poor countries seek to lift their people out of poverty and that cannot be done without greatly increasing the demand for energy. Of course that does not necessarily mean that they have to use energy at the same rate we do. For example, development can occur in such a way that they will not be inordinately dependent in private cars as the primary means of transportation in urban areas, but even so, their demand for energy is certain to increase drastically.
Not only that, but in many places of the world, wind and solar power would be impractical. In far north areas, during winter there is sunlight for only a few hours per day and the sun doesn’t rise much above the horizon. They can be without enough wind to generate significant power for weeks at a time. So, unless they are fortunate to have considerable geothermal power, like Iceland, they will have to use fossil fuels or have nuclear power.
India has a monsoon season during which there may be no sun for days at a time, so the idea of 24 hours or so of storage would be totally inadequate. And so it goes.
Fortunately, some countries are doing R & D on different nuclear technologies. I expect they will find nuclear technologies which will circumvent the problems associated with our current pressurized water enriched uranium reactors but until they do, I see no choice but to expand greatly our current nuclear technology which would later be gradually replaced by superior nuclear technologies. It is possible that there will be more nuclear disasters, but fossil fuel is an even greater disaster. The difference is that the fossil fuel disaster is less obvious because it occurs continuously at a low rate whereas a nuclear disaster occurs suddenly.
Lawrence,
Third world energy requirements are issues that have been addressed many times on this forum.
In principle, you are correct. As I have emphasized many times, only access to plentiful, economic “power on demand” can lift poor nations out of poverty, while creating the type of middle class dominant society required to produce stable, peaceful, progressive societies.
The sort of simplistic utopia so favoured by the Green-left, with blissful, vegan, anti-consumers enjoying a folk rendition of Kumbaya, is patently absurd.
Your figure of 50 to 100 times, must remain your own guesstimate. It’s a very difficult prediction to quantify.
The advances in increasingly energy frugal technology, better distribution, and less waste will have incalculable impact. As Frank points out, so will the impact of new energy on the way society uses energy.
But your basic premise the developing world needs more reliable, more economic and more accessible “power on demand”, is an obvious truth. (It’s equally important for the first world).
Unfortunately for ardent advocate of Wind, Solar, bio-fuel etc, these technologies just can’t supply the type of simple, reliable energy-on-demand required. Even if all the ancillary problems could be resolved, the question remains, why bother?
Although these technologies can prove valuable in limited locations, and for specialist applications, mostly they’re just cul-de-sac technologies.
The most successful technology adopted, will be able to replace current generation technology with the greatest simplicity, economy and efficiency.
I’m afraid that means some form of advanced nuclear. How micro, is yet to be determined.
The are also ancillary technologies such as micro-turbines in rivers, etc which have yet to be fully explored.
@Marcopolo
The 50 to 100 time’s multiplier is a very conservative guesstimate Marcopolo.
Don’t forget the key greenhouse gasses issues that must be addressed conjointly (within 10 years of each other anyway) let me recap; [1] the closure of fossil fuel generation plants everywhere (coal); and [2] the cessation of manufacturing globally of internal combustion engines (oil).
So by extension items [1] and [2] need replacement technologies to step in to keep the lights on and the wheels revolving.
Any guesses what that must be? And my estimation is that we won’t be discussing this trendy term [energy mix] that has evolved over the last 10 years either.
There won’t be any support for costly alternative sources energy at all, and why would anybody think otherwise. There is no philosophical loyalty by consumers to “high cost” proposals side by side with “low cost” proposals. Mobile phone plans teach us that at least. Economy of scale is the key driver as we move forward with new era energy science.
I am always amused by those who believe that electric vehicles get their electricity from batteries. Hey beam me up Scotty!
Well some of us, who are in sync with the immutable laws of thermo-dynamics and other scientific principles, see it from a completely different perspective. I know you are one of those and Frank Eggers is also for sure. Of course it comes from the source of supply, in a round robin way normally, and that source will need to expand considerably once coal and internal combustion engines get the flick because of greenhouse gasses issues.
I invite readers to make up a simple Excel spreadsheet to get some idea of the multiplier I refer to. Start by summing the annual global usage statistics of oil. They are well documented.
The surprises appear with the simple click of a mouse. Then move onto per capita energy consumption averages of let’s start with the USA, then extrapolate this value with the balance of people on the planet. Then consider the energy impost multiple on top of all that necessary to elevate community’s development from scratch for the global masses, to the USA citizen standard for example, and the spreadsheet starts to glow in the dark.
We don’t seem to have many energy focussed contributions of where the world is at and where we are heading from the mathematicians? We have plenty about Californian storage imperatives by 2030 though.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,
I have no dispute with your basic premise. Your estimate of 50 to a 100 times may well prove correct.
However, when trying to make future predictions allowance should be made for ongoing modifications and improvement in technology and social patterns.
As Frank points out, increases in urbanization, without massive automobile suburban villa estates, will create a different demand for energy. Advanced EV’s use less energy to move the number of people due to greater efficiency. There will be a host of industrial energy reductions achieved through greater efficiency.
Improved distribution, better planning, etc may all help to reduce energy demand without reducing the quality of life.
I think you are also correct when you observe that the term ‘energy mix’ will fall out of favour.
However, technologies like solar will continue to provide energy for cost effective and specialist situations. Having built and operated a bio-mass generating plant, it’s difficult to see why anyone would bother if an abundance of zero carbon, cheap energy became available.
Convenience is the by-word for the majority of the human race, and we adjust accordingly. There will always be those individuals who seek an alternate lifestyle, knit their yoghurt etc, but the vast majority seek the convenience, comfort and security of mass produced power-on-demand.
Your figure of 50-100 times may be correct, lesser or greater, but your premise of a vast increase in energy demand due to third world economic expansion is sound thinking.
Anyone,
I apparently missed something. What is meant by the global multiplier of 50 to 100 times?