60 comments on “Please comment here:
  1. David Buchla says:

    China looks after China; they are doing this because it is in their best interest and they can selll renewables to the rest of the world. There is no concern for the environment else they would have stopped the massive polluting of their rivers and air years ago. Take a cruise down the Yangsee if you want to see massive pollution.

  2. Jim Jonas says:

    Government has corrupted themselves. We need our President to come out and say our Politician are corrupt and paid off. An infrastructure Bank must open up for Infrastructure overseas cash. Energy Bank the same.
    The USA has to fix Politics. No More Money to Congress and Senate. We as a Nation has failed. Politicians and money failure.Dillian Ratigin address this on his 4pm Eastern show yesterday.He has knowledge Craig get his interview.
    J.J.

  3. Mike says:

    I do believe that positive PR is a component to China’s push to renewables. I believe however it is more about resources and an economic strategy. They realize that with their enormous country and population, if they don’t quickly pursue in-house sustainable development, they could quickly become a net importer of technology, energy and other resources. Bottom line, they don’t want to follow the same path the US has taken over the last 20 plus years…which has not taken us to a “good place”.

  4. barry nicholls says:

    CHINA SEES THE SHIFT TO RENEWABLES AND WANTS TO BE THE MANUFACTURER OF ALL THINGS RENEWABLE TO DOMINATE THE MARKET. iF IT WANTED TO POLUTE LESS IT WOULD USE IT’S MANUFACTURING MIGHT ON REDUCING IT’S OWN FOOTPRINT BUT CHEAP COAL BASED ENERGY IS TO CHEAP FOR IT TO WANT TO USE CLEAN ENERGY

  5. Steven Andrews says:

    I believe China is investing in renewable energy because of necessity, their demand is explosively growing and alternative energy is a fast and wise way to produce energy, the equipment is also a way to avoid using imported oil, the employment they provide is low tech, generally.
    Their strategy is wise and the energy production spread across the country. I would do the same thing, even in a right wing economy, the dirty politicians and corruptors are the ones tampering with millions of lives; they should be sent to court ( all of them).

  6. Anonymous says:

    In my opinion, China invests in renewable because solely of its own needs and concerns. The idea of messing with the environment does not register in its collective consciousness. Based on my experience, they are the ultimate capitalists and renewables to them mean energy security, manufacturing dominance and eventually world market dominance.

  7. Tim Milburn says:

    China continues to move aggressively in the global economy. As long as there is growth and problems are addressed for the citizens to some level, the people will follow their leaders. In this, constructive energy and environment policies are critical to satisfying the needs of the people. They have a long way in the last few years and this is largely sincere, based on the drive to grow, but this is also driven by serious health issues directly related to extremely poor environmental policies in the last generation.

  8. Richard says:

    China, America, all countries act in their own economic and political self-interest. China’s push into green energy is chasing profits that will continue to provide jobs to its citizens. E.g.) there are so many wind turbine manufacturers operating in China that the industry as a whole is near break-even on its costs to operate. Result is a wide range of quality of product and price compression. Expected consolidation is impeded by government subsidies that prop up employers, avoiding a true free market rationalization. The “outward push” is to secure positions in foreign markets with higher margins that will pay for manufacturing at home and R&D to maintain global dominance in foreseeable future. Too easy to overlook the elephant in the room – China’s demographics of a labor force that is younger, hungrier, and five to six-times the size of the labor class in America. It is altruism motivating Go Green – it’s pure economic self-interest.

  9. Andrew says:

    China is:
    a) Looking to create jobs for its people
    b) Looking to create cost effective energy
    c) see acquisition of hydrocarbons as a short term – necessary action
    d) clever enough to see peak oil as a zero sum game
    e) less beholden to corporate interests because their is only one party
    f) has studied the WEST extensively and is not beholden to any particular technology or market ethos. Remember Asia looks at the group overall, while the WEST (for the most part) looks at ME.

  10. Barry Russell says:

    China invests in renewables for the same economic reason the rest of the world would be smart to do so. It puts the generation of needed energy within the control of the country generating it. This makes China less dependent on other nations for its energy needs, allowing it to maintain an edge in autonomy. Its easier when there is a lack of political paralysis, of course, so their progress is much more rapid. So long as the US stays paralyzed politically, China can press its advantage. China wins, we lose.

  11. Benjamin says:

    I think their leaders realize the costs of caring for all the people whose health is ruined by pollution and are simply making a long term investment in their country’s future based mainly on simple economics.

    (They may also may know more about peak oil than we do.)

  12. Joanne says:

    1) China, as a developing country, has relatively newer infrastructure system, which makes easier for them to enter into renewable energy industry than developed countries with older, aged energy infrastructure.

    2) Because China is building and polluting so much to cope with rapid urbanization and increase of middle-income population, the country needed to come up with their own cleantech/renewable energy agenda in order to offset the effects of environmentally negative development.

    3) As it’s clearly shown on their 12th Five-Year-Plan, China, now more developed with more money, wants to move its industry focus from ‘made in China’ to ‘designed in China’, which means they are now entering into value-added product manufacturing and hightech industry from the previously known ‘cheap OEM manufacturing’.

  13. Mary Ed says:

    Oil is no longer the future of energy. Granted that the big oil companies and OPEC are milking oil for all they can get, but it still is not the future of energy. Having renewable and distributed energy is where we all will be in the next century. China thinks in futures and they are simply setting up their future now.

  14. Larry Lemmert says:

    China is investing in all forms of energy to bring them up to the standard of living they see in the western world. They are building new nuclear and coal plant capacity at least as fast as they are adding green energy. They want energy at any cost. They are not adding green energy because they have a green philosophy.
    The solar and wind just add to the total. In my opinion, their leadershipp is amoral about the whole thing.

  15. Larry Lemmert says:

    China is investing in all forms of energy to bring them up to the standard of living they see in the western world. They are building new nuclear and coal plant capacity at least as fast as they are adding green energy. They want energy at any cost. They are not adding green energy because they have a green philosophy.
    The solar and wind just add to the total. In my opinion, their leadership is amoral about the whole thing.

  16. S. Harrowing says:

    I get the impression that China seeks to attain one goal – to be the world’s leader in every category. The speed at which their development is attained leaves me with a lot of concern as to their inclusion of sustainability as one of the necessary components to development! It feels like there is a “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it” attitude. Isn’t that what has got us into this environmental mess we are in? I believe we will all pay the price of this country’s lack of concern for the global community of which they are a part of but believe themselves to be separate from.

  17. Anthony Mirandah says:

    China has the money and resources for renewable energy. Besides China is sincere about reducing the pollution problem caused by fossil burning fuels. They are smart enough to realize that these new technologies will create jobs and bring other technical advantages to Chinese Society and industries.

  18. 1 out of every 5 people on Earth live in China. I encourage you all to visit China, learn Chinese and make friends there and with Chinese people everywhere. The more you know, the better you are able to make intelligent decisions.

  19. George Anagnost says:

    Simple . economic and political self interest. Big push for renewables for that reason. The future is obvious fossil fuels. Use it because it is artificially cheap with prices manipulated by leaders of free market until it is gone or very expensive as a result of not being able to hide the the true price anymore. The taxpayers in the west will not be able to pay for the charade anymore. They will have been looted to the point where they have no ability to finance the smoke and mirrors of fossil fuel. We are now entering an era of financial repression culminated by the latest financial debacle. It happens when we we amass huge deficits. Like after civil war, WWI,WWII and so on, we are returning to that era of gov”t control,tight gov’t relationship with banks and all that brings. 1937 and further looting of the U.S. public. China is very comfortable with this new era because it is a command economy and operates this way anyway. Renewables are the future ,they know it and we know it. They are securing as much energy as possible, next it will be water, the follow on crisis. Free market system here or anywhere in the world? Grow up kids. We do not support renewables here because the “right people” here do not totally control it yet. Leave it up to their stooges in Washington to position it correctly for the advantage of their corporate masters and renewables will be the new mantra. Thats the free free market in the 21 century because the “right people”want it like the 19th century.
    The return to their guilded age. Bend over and grab your ankles.

    • right on “””””””’!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • George Anagnost
      I could not have said it any plainer. The U.S. should have all it’s elections funded by the tax payers and no outside money.The U.S. has the greatestest democracy in the world but we need to tighten the screws down a little tighter. Some items should have a blend of socialism in it.

  20. Iangagn says:

    I believe this is a win-win situation for China in the sense that if it uses the technologies it develops and mass-produces all the while saving money by being less dependent on foreign sources of energy, it’ll benefit from an industry that is simply waiting for the right conditions to burgeon and inevitably will.

  21. RF says:

    China has social/economic/environmental-running plans that go back to an era when the US was still sicking dogs on segregated African Americans. That commitment to ecological restoration following more than 30 years of industrial havoc is made clear in both their current status and on-going initiatives to move forward more sustainably. While we can talk about a “Command” economy, China is riddled w. mismanaged regulations and every other bit of trouble that comes along with a political organism this big, in a state of growth unmatched on little earth.

    But they have a plan. A plan already chock full of achievements, enough so to prompt a survey wondering, “What the heck is going on w. China?”. Labor? Increasingly tight. Innovation focus? We’re talking renewables here, right? Vastly damaged ecosystems stewing in an miasma of population growth and good old American consumption? Of course. That’s why China is self-effacing about this being its era of restoration. Get paid like crazy doing it – YES! And what do we do?

    From China’s 11th 5 Year Plan (ending in 2010), addressing the environment (which has its own plan): “the transformation from focusing on economic growth ignoring environmental protection into putting equal emphasis on both.The authority takes the enhancement of environmental protection as an important tool to adjust economic structure and shift economic growth mode and seek development under environmental protection.The second is the transformation from environmental protection lagging behind economic growth into the synchronisation of environmental protection and economic development. .. thus changing the situation of pollution followed by treatment, or destruction going along with environmental control. The third is the transformation from mainly employing administrative methods to protect the environment into comprehensive application of legal, economic, technical and necessary administrative methods to address environmental problems.”

    Wow! “Synchronization” of environmental and economic development – that’s a plan. Who would ever think of the opportunities there. To think that we are in a time where we need to really take a hard look at applying our ingenuity and human-side to stopping ecological disaster. Gotta say, I think China is giving it a go.

    Here’s a little from there 12 th 5 Year Plan, regarding the environment:
    – Non-fossil fuel to account for 11.4 percent of primary energy consumption;
    – Water consumption per unit of value-added industrial output to be cut by 30 percent;
    – Energy consumption per unit of GDP to be cut by 16 percent;
    – Carbon dioxide emission per unit of GDP to be cut by 17 percent;
    – Forest coverage rate to rise to 21.66 percent and forest stock to increase by 600 million cubic meters;

    And they will make money doing this, lots of money. Why? ‘Cause they got a plan, they’re talking, they are suffering, too, and courageous enough to rise up. Their plan probably has a lot of soot and stuff all over it, but they got a plan. They are synchronizing. They seem good at planning.

  22. James Gover says:

    China needs electric vehicles to reduce air pollution in its cities. In some cities, an auto is only permitted to be driven on alternative days.

  23. Bob Benson says:

    China is merely one more nation that realizes several important things relative to the need for renewable energy: 1) oil and other fossil fuels reserves are not unlimited and are generally located in countries over which its influence/control is not at all certain; 2) the use of coal – of which it has an ample supply – has been a major contributor to poor air quality in many urban areas; 3) building renewable energy facilities and products tends to keep its domestic labor force busy while maintaining/increasing its positive trade balance through exports; and 4) nuclear power has far more downside than upside potential in the long term.

  24. I have much interest in all investor’s , do you have any idea’s to start seeking ASIAN INVESTOR’S.I was born in the San Francisco Bay Area, I am very comfortable with all form’s of FUNDING. My first offer is from GERMANY, they are looking toward the future as well.WWW.MCEELECTRICHYDRAULIC.COM.President Michael A. Croyle

  25. Stan says:

    China moves are completelly motivated by rush for money. It is a national policy not only to collect the maximum of the “tax payers” (all the people in this “non-democratic” country) but to make others pay for the China’s development. For example (almost) every PV panel in Europe comes from China. Who pays? The tax-payers, because the goverment subsidies are from our tax money… Finally we all pay to China, because they are clever to have those products at a lowest price. Tha same is for wind energy, etc.

  26. Mike Kiely says:

    The group gets the public nature of China and understands they have an agenda to take care of hard currency trading. What they fail to understand is that China is in far worse financial states than Europe or North America and face civil war if they fail to keep the Illusion of keeping the country working. This is failing in spades as the Chinese have no moral sense of duty other than to their own secular groups and clans since they very much are a Dynasty and subject to Feudal wars. The autocratic leadership of China faces a major setback if they all start to suffer from starvation not unlike Korea several years ago.
    A Billion hungry mouths will unseat even the most powerful government simply because no one will have the peoples favor if the wide spread corruption and impending backlash from industry polluting a significant amount of their drinking water starts to result in widespread disease and deaths.
    Makes the debt issues seem insignificant does it not and China is a sleeping Tiger you do not want to get it upset as it will attack anything within striking range till it is fed and finally back at peace.

  27. Musse says:

    China is the most populated in this world. They should have a moral mandate to think about how to make vivible this world.

  28. Jane Twitmyer says:

    From the answer average it sure looks like someone, somewhere has made a boogie man out of China. The Chinese government did a pilot project for offshore wind. When it proved successful they upped their 2015 offshore installation goal from 5GWs to 30GWs.
    Sounds like sensible policy to me

  29. Mike Patin says:

    China knows they are going to need mass quantities of energy in the future, and they correctly see the writing on the wall with respect to the coming end of the Great Golden Age of Petroleum. We as usual have our hubristic head in the sand.

  30. Gill Bates says:

    The US has devolved into a “next year” or “next quarter” profit mentality.

    Any long term vision is lost. China, while not perfect (by a long shot) has more discipline and a longer term point if view.

  31. Chris Daum says:

    I think China’s lack of infrastructure in remote locations initially started the ball rolling for their renewables industry, but now they see it mostly as a way to gain world dominance in the energy sector. Whatever country that leads the world in clean energy technologies will be the economic leader, and sadly, that is not the U.S.

  32. John Laughlin says:

    There’s a lot of merit to many of the things listed above. I believe their renewables policy is based on two things. 1.) Their own future need for energy. 2.) The opportunity and ability to dominate a huge future market and increase their overall world financial power. Money talks louder than almost any group of individuals… just look at our media conglomerates.

  33. Kurt Campbell says:

    I agree with most of the other comments. China is looking out for themselves, which is obviously what any country would do…except the US. They can see the writing on the wall for oil prices and the pollution that it causes or has now caused in such a short period of time and they do not want to get caught in the sucking sound for all of their capital to go to OPEC.

  34. Glenn Doty says:

    Craig,

    The big difference is that China is growing rapidly. The relative costs in installing new wind power vs installing new coal power is actually not that high (in some cases the wind costs less, but China has few regions of wind potential that rival ours), but the cost between continuing to burn coal vs building a new wind tower are quite different. We started with the coal infrastructure, and in building wind we are replacing existing and operating infrastructure with something new…

    For China, they must spend on some form of new power production, so they can either spend the money on a new coal plant or a new wind farm or hydropower dam.

    THAT’S the reason they are leaving us in the dust… they are building out capacity to meet demand, while we are building out capacity to replace existing capacity. One of these things is much easier to authorize the money for than the other.

  35. Trev says:

    Renewables are a military priority for China. Their military want to avoid the choke points that come with the supplies of oil, gas and even coal (to a lesser extent).

  36. Breath on the Wind says:

    About 8 years ago we could read that China was continuing to ask “What happens when we run out of Oil.” I have traveled to China (and extensively throughout SE Asia) and seen a phenomenal rate of building as I have witnessed no where else in the world. I have also read that China must keep its 10% growth rate or potentially suffer civil unrest. I have witnessed that potential for civil unrest first hand. The country is caught in a growth cycle that they must continue in the face of limited resources. They have aggressively pursued every available source of energy including oil, much of it in Africa. They turn from Coal only because of some of the worst pollution in the world. A Nuclear power accident in China has the potential for unimaginable loss of life (due to population levels.) Their turn to renewables is a matter of survival. Oh, it has the added benefit of looking good but the short term, the next 10 years, creates tremendous pressure.

    This said China has always been much better at looking at the long view than western democracies. 50 years out is not unrealistic. Some of those in power expect to continue in power for that time. We share a sense of the market economy. The Chinese are the businessmen of the Asian world where ever you go. But cast on top of this is a sense of unity that does not exist in the West. The Chinese will organize and develop lines of power more readily than in the west. A close analogy without implication might be found in the power structures of organized crime.

  37. JAY TWIGG says:

    As a planned economy, China’s “planners” can see that renewables are the world’ (and China’s) future. Renewables are sustainable, often “infinite” resources. A “smart” government interested in the welfare of the citizens and their common good would move away from finite, rapidly diminishing resources and invest in renewables and sustainable use of what resources we have available.
    Jay Twigg.

  38. wesarnott says:

    China is part of the planet – if the planet suffers so will they. They are also highly polluted and suffer major shortages of clean water. They must be concerned re melting ice/snow in Himalayas re future water security. nb some areas last year were shut down (electricity) for exceeding quotas. Finally China is investing in the 21st century growth industries with the intention of positioning as leading economy.

  39. Cameron Atwood says:

    I seem to recall an old firm noir plot where an up and coming crime boss with a big potential was under an older boss who had a gambling habit that inch by inch pervaded his entire power structure.

    The new boss ruled his own neighborhood ruthlessly and dictated that his will be accepted without question, but he took better care of his people than they were used to (as long as they stayed in line), and he planned very well in order to grow and consolidate his power over the long term. He also kept lending money to float the old boss’s gambling habit, and kept doing him favors and learning more and more about his operation – and at the same time he was duplicating what he liked about the old boss’s operation inside his own territory until his own setup provided him with greater and greater real power.

    Both bosses had begun as vicious thugs who bullied and abused wide swaths of people to get whatever they wanted but, more and more, the new boss often took an enlightened approach to develop stronger lasting influence outside his territory, while the older boss used his henchmen crudely and brutishly with little regard even for their own safety, let alone considering how this brutality would play out should his power ever wane. Meanwhile, the old boss’s old powerful friends were scrambling to knock down the competition and keep new ideas out of the way. These ‘friends’ gladly propped the old boss up more and more as they saw their own positions weakening and needed the old boss’s henchmen to keep up the protection rackets that guaranteed them access to the goods they traded on – goods that either had been gambled on and scammed and diluted to the point of being nearly valueless, or goods that got more and more scarce and dangerous to get at as time crept on. They made ever surer that the old boss cared more about what they wanted than what his people needed in his territory.

    Then at last, one dark night, when the old boss had long played out his hand and had his back to the wall, and not a friend was left to him in the world, the new boss finally called in his chips. The old boss had no choice but to allow his operation to become a subsidiary syndicate of the new boss’s territory, where the old boss was allowed to remain top dog in name only, while the new boss tightly held his leash. The people in the old boss’s territory suffered greatly under this new arrangement, but they were powerless against the new boss because the old boss and his henchmen were already spread too thin, and the new boss had plenty of henchmen and plenty of friends.

    No, wait… that’s not an old movie, it’s modern life – and our future. The old boss is our government, and the new boss is the Chinese government. But you knew that, didn’t you. I didn’t have to tell you.

    The Chinese government is more responsive because ours has been bought and paid for by moneyed interests who like things fine just the way they are. Without the bribery that is the lifeblood of our modern elections, we wouldn’t be stuck with the greed and cowardice that exemplifies our leadership today. The people – and their satisfaction and prosperity in the majority – would be the key to staying in office.

    We’d have universal single-payer healthcare, and our business could shrug off that enormous financial burden to be more competitive globally and pay their fair share at home to invest in the people and infrastructure through higher wages and taxes – and still profit handsomely (as they did under Eisenhower and Nixon).

    We’d have free university to develop a highly educated and skilled world-class workforce that would make us even more competitive.

    Our commerce would be regulated to preserve the natural world on which we all will always depend, and business would be structured for the benefit of the majority of the people – not a tiny elite percentage. People could bargain collectively for each other, so that those who have worked all their lives could then hope to live out their closing years free from poverty.

    By the way, Social Security has always paid its own way; it has never contributed to the debt. The plain truth is that the debt would now be far larger without Social Security, because both red and blue administrations have borrowed richly from that trust fund. If all the money had been left in the fund that was collected from the increases in contributions as a result of the adjustments made to the program in the 1980’s (under Reagan and the Democrat Congress) the program the “shortfall” foreseen in 2047 would never occur.

    Moreover, pensions are not “entitlements”, they are deferred compensation that was granted as a condition of employment and should be regarded as what they are – a contractual obligation worthy of full satisfaction. Union workers are not “overpaid”, they are prosperous in accordance with their skills and labor, and their prosperity was the key to the economic growth driven by consumer spending – an economy to which we had all grown accustomed, and which is now collapsing beneath our feet as our corporate masters decide that foreign markets and foreign workers are all they need to make a killing.

    Our old corporate masters were a more lot like the “new boss” in my old movie plot – they weren’t paragons of philanthropy, far from it, but they were more enlightened and planned for the long haul. Henry (not a liberal) Ford knew he ought to pay his workers enough to buy his product if he wanted to have customers. The rampant tycoon JP Morgan thought not even the highest executive should make more than twelve times the pay of the worker on the factory floor. But now, wages have remained stagnant for decades while productivity and profits have soared, and C-suite staff members make 300 to 500 times what the average worker on the line makes – and these elite pay a much smaller share of every dollar toward investment in the collective power of the nation (you know, that investment that goes by the much berated name of “taxes”).

    People in more prosperous western European nations – like Germany and Norway and Switzerland and the Netherlands – pay far higher taxes than we do, but they have far more responsive governments than ours, and can expect much more in return for their investment in their nations. In spite of recent “reforms” they still have a much easier time than we do getting a university degree and getting quality healthcare for themselves and their children. They are accustomed to very well maintained roads and bridges, and they demand and possess a much higher level of reverence for the natural world. Their societies are more sustainable and enlightened.

    We have much to relearn – is there still time?

    • Dean Sigler says:

      Cameron,
      This is a masterful synopsis. This should be on the NYT’s op-ed page.

      • Craig Shields says:

        Yes, this is indeed great stuff. If it were in my power, I’d make this required reading for every American. Disagree with it if you can, but understand it as best you can.

  40. Dean Sigler says:

    If one is old enough to remember smog jokes in the 1950s, with comedians as apolitical as Bob Hope taking on the LA airscape, they would sympathize with the overwhelming haze that permeates most industrial areas in China. When I was working with a large engineering firm, a great many of our people sent to offices over there came back with severe health problems.

    There were killer fogs in London in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Over 4,000 died in one such week-long temperature inversion, which kept the smoke from millions of coal-burning fireplaces at ground level. As Guy Murchie wrote in Song of the Sky, movie theaters could not project their films across their auditoriums – the smoke-laden fog took over completely.
    This is so burdensome that the least benevolent dictators would have to take notice. China needs its willing and unwilling to have a least a modicum of health.

  41. Sanjay Jindel says:

    In the current scenario China is preoccupied in making colossal investments in infrastructure due to its high domestic savings rate. It is making such investments in all sectors of infrastructure. Investments in renewable energy is only a logical corollary of this economic reality. Of course, the fact that China is so terribly energy hungry also prompts such a policy.

  42. Wow, reading these comments is like taking a symester course in Asian Economics. Thanks for all the enlightenment. I am currently considering importing a South Korean Electric Vehicle because I can buy a nearly identical car to that one marketed by *&&%@ for $5,000 and those other guys are selling a car whos component parts are manufactured in China for MSRP of $ 24,000. Isn’t a 80% mark-up slightly high? Or am I underestimating freight and assembly costs?

  43. Hi, Craig, I have tired if failing to convince investors that a Vocational school is a great profit grnerator. They just don’t see it. So I have revised my web page at http://www.dennisleemiles.com to describe a service business that modifies hybrids to plug-in and nice newer used cars to electric at a completed sales price about 1/2 the price of a “Leaf” or a “Volt” And we are planning to import Electric Car Kits and assemble them for 2/3 rds of typicak market prices now. also a very different plan to recharge Electric cars at home or work where we bring the power in a van with a BIG pack of batteries and even if there are no outlets in the local area we will fill up their battery. More details are on the web sites, (One leads to another.) Someone really interested can phone or e-mail me and we can talk. Perhaps we can leave China out of the loop, I find South Koreans deal more “Honorably.”

  44. Ichim Cosmin says:

    All the advantages are related to the money invested in a renewable energy based economy. Competition is great and it will follow the roads built by the three titans: Europe, USA and China (China and two continents…wow).

  45. Charles says:

    They see it as an integral part of their development and growth path, recognizing the finite fossil reserves and the impact its use has on our natural environment.

  46. Abraham Stein says:

    China needs lots of energy and has to import conventional primary sources. Green energy is a way to reach self supply and provide jobs to their population.

  47. Cultures like China strive for self-reliance and independence, wanting to provide for themselves, therefore appreciating the value of providing their own energies even if/where more expensive than imports or other options. This isn’t just a matter of corporatism or corruption. Most Americans don’t seem to care abt how much of their energies are imported or delivered from very far away, so don’t often show willingness to pay more if it’s local or closer, whether or not RE. Look how long USA has imported most of its oil, for example. Pres. Nixon setup that commission to study how to get us off oil imports, but that went nowhere when oil prices dropped and embargos ended. As said, Americans (not just their governments) seem willing to go for short-term cheapness over long-term localness.

    The other thing abt China’s situation is its need to invest its HUGE profits from imbalance of trade. Once again, USA consumers don’t seem to care whether their clothes or energies come from USA or North America or other side of the globe. It’s not just energy that we’re importing. Our governments tend to cater to this American preference for short-term cheapness. Result is we send HUGE amounts of dollars everywhere else, rather than spend them more locally. Just this morning I heard on NPR that the June trade deficit was very much UP over prior months. Duh!

    Remember that phrase, “Think globally, act locally”? Americans tend to think locally and short-term, act locally and short-term, or think locally and short-term, act globally. Either way, every time I teach a class in energy or RE, I ask what payback people want. Usual answer is 1-3 yrs. This is #1 reason most people don’t even insulate more than required by codes, #1 reason why most people don’t embrace more than minimal efficiency opportunities, #1 reason why we relentless import so much of what we need in pursuit of short-term cheapness, #1 reason they don’t invest in RE which usually has longer-than-10yr paybacks.

    Maybe all this is because America is such a young country, with citizens having very little pride or knowledge of history. China is not just a command economy but also a contiguous nation with 1000s of years of history as such. Its culture and economic thinking are almost completely opposite ours, based on millenia of development and monoculturalism. It should not surprise us that China is doing, thinking, acting and planning way differently than most Americans do. China and its citizens know what it’s like to lose power in the world, to see economy rise and fall. Americans do not, especially younger Americans.

    I do not measure progress by how much my customers invest in RE or support RE politics. I measure progress by how much conventional energy use and demand go down. Even among most RE advocates and users, conventional energy use and demand are still growing. Same is likely happening in China. Our modern world hasn’t accepted that conventional energies are running out, whether or not global warming is real or anything can be done abt that. Back when I got started, in the 1970s, our incentive to get off non-renewable energies was more abt transitioning before we ran out. The new-RE movements don’t much think abt this. New RE movements are more about creating new profits and jobs, abt selling more RE, even if it means using more conventional energies too.

    This is not unlike the Washington DC approach to budgets. Deficit reduction bill recently passed in DC only lowered the growth in expenditures. Not one proposal yet produces a balanced budget. Not even Rep Paul Ryan’s plan “Plan to Prosperity”. The titles don’t match the facts. We have same problem with our energy policies. We say and our people believe more RE means “cleaner energy”, for example, when the fact is, unfortunately, that RE is still relentlessly growing far slower than conventional. Even though most Americans are constantly using more energy for more things.

    I like to view these issues in as broad a context as possible. Amazing how often we find close similarities between dissimilar issues. Like obesity, debt and energy all being abt people unwilling or unable to live within practical physical limits. Whether it’s calories, weight, BTUs, kWhs, water or money, there’s only so much to go around. Too many people have only a virtual reality understanding of these matters. So they live beyond their means, expect beyond their means. This is a cultural problem. Solve it and we can solve a big variety of related problems from health care to energy and economics. As long as we continue to think of these issues separately and narrowly, we have less chance of progress.

  48. S Burkholder says:

    China’s economy must grow in order to move more people out of poverty which in turn allows a totalitarian government to govern. The vast majority of Chinese citizens are willing to live under this system, are indeed proud of their country, and have learned to accept the restrictions on their freedoms in exchange for a higher living standard. The expansion of available electricity is basic to economic growth. But what seems to be lost in this discussion is the fact that for every kw of power by alternative means an equivalent amount of capacity must be developed by traditional sources, especially coal fired thermal electic plants. (Some sources have estimated China opens a new coal fired plant every week.) To imagine that China wants to develop less polluting power sources is suspect. Rather there is reason to think that they want into the lucrative market for wind and solar technology and manufacture.
    The sun shines only part of the day and the wind is not constant. If you care to spend double and drive electricity prices higher, then build ‘alternative’ supply systems. China will thank you. The kicker lies in the subsidies for ‘alternative’ power provided by governments, one of the reasons the U.S. economy lies in tatters. As America’s chief lender, China’s leadershiip must be sweating right now, dreading the shrinking of its exports to the USA as a factor in domestic political control. But wealth is more important than environmental degradation. So the Chinese region producing 95 % of the world’s rare-earth magnets (as required for wind turbines) come from one of the worst polluted spots on the globe.
    The premise of what I read on this website is that ‘alternate’ energy is benign and clean. Yet, as in China, so in American. If there’s a dollar to be made, do it. Ignore the fact that the building of a 50 storey turbine creates CO2 in sufficient quantity to require twenty years of operation to break even. Don’t think of the cumulative impact of turbines on birds along the Atlantic migratory flight path. Forget the degradation of rural areas as these structures fall into disrepair, rust, leak oil or burn, or the scars on the landscape left by infrastructure–access roads, service buildings, grid connections. Like the Chinese government, are you any different as investors or proponents of ‘alternative’ power sources, happy to destroy the planet for financial gain in your lifetime?

    • It IS possible to rely on renewables at a very high level, much higher than most applications being encouraged or implemented today either in USA or China. As S. Burkholder says, RE isn’t usually constant-output, like a nuke or coal-fired powerplant often is. But my own office operates all its equipment on RE at nearly 100% “solar fraction” because my setup is “off-grid” and has no backup generation. Nov 2011 will mark 10 years! Normally, in my climate, the best “utilization factor” or “solar fraction” for PV is 10% to 20%. This describes how often the rated power of any generator can be expected. As you say, half the year it is dark. I also live in a 45% cloudy region.

      To achieve higher utilization factor or solar fraction, I have done 4 important things. First, I do the overwhelming highest % of my energy-using work when I have ample or surplus solar power available, whether in real-time with the sun or my battery supply. Second, I installed 9-11 days of battery storage. And I have survived two 11-day cloudy stretches over the last 10 years! Third, I cut my office power use by over 75% at the get-go, so that storage could be done more inexpensively and reliably. Nothing eats away storage faster than operating guzzling equipment or being careless abt power consumption, like leaving stuff on when not used. When I have surplus, I find ways to use more power. During persistent cloudy periods, I delay power-using tasks until the sun returns. Every time I need to replace equipment, I look for the absolutely lowest-watt devices! Fourth, I located my solar panels where I can easily access them, on a ground rack. This allows me to regularly clear snow and ice in winter, to clean dirt and bird %$#! in spring, summer and fall. University of Cincinnati participation in the Solar Dechathlon produced a seldom-told fact that solar output is usually 5% to 10% better if panels are kept CLEAN! Amazing.

      I dare most reader to contrast this with how most solar is installed. Most is on roofs, often poorly accessible, seldom or never cleaned or cleared of snow, debris etc. Too many installations do not implement power use and demand reductions at same time as solar conversions are made. Too many users do not alter their energy using habits to be more in-sync with available solar power. And too many installations include no storage. This maximizes grid backup, which of course is usually the filthiest power (albeit cheaper power than batteries or other options). But more importantly, in many partly cloudy regions, this does not even permit the “backup grid” to turn down or off any conventional generation. We need 10 hrs to shutdown a coal-fired generator. So the usual benefit of realtime PV without storage in my region is MAYBE a little less ngas-fired generation.

      In another post, I said that most of what we Americans do is simply to do or buy the cheapest version of what we want. Grid-tied PV, esp with all the huge subsidies and sRECs right now, is far cheaper than any other kind of PV. But grid-tied PV without energy load reductions, storage or user participation typically accomplishes the least, at least in terms of avoiding the dirtiest kinds of conventional energy.

      So it is one thing to promote more RE and RE businesses, but quite another matter to promote substantial reductions in dirty power. As S. Burkholder says, even though RE in the grid went up 15% from 2009 to 2010 according to EIA, right now coal and ngas generation is increasing far faster than RE. According to EIA for 2010 vs 2009, total US generation grew by 87,446 megawatthours (MWH). RE grew by only 2233 MWH. Coal-fired power grew by 26.1 times this! This is why I repeatedly say we need to focus on how to reduce coal-fired gen, pay far less attention to the growth rate of RE. After all, it is easy, and already demonstrated, that we can increase RE substantially while dirty power continues to grow far faster.

  49. John Norborg says:

    Why, the Chinese are out to make a BUCK, of course. History has for long shown them to be master merchants and traders…

  50. This “survey” is a prime example of asking leading questions — which often results in biased answers. This does not honor to the Green movement.

    I agree with your goals, but I don’t agree with your means.

  51. brent says:

    I’m over here now trying to raise money and partners. Their biggest reasons are they need it, create jobs and dominate the global market. Sounds like good reasons to me. The US should have taken those $500MM grants they threw around and instead invest $5M in 100 companies and then give tax incentives to the VCs to match the money. Then when the companies are successful the US shares in the profits. That’s a sound policy. Too bad I’m here to raise money and not back home getting it.

    • Craig Shields says:

      Sounds a bit bleak. But I’ve known you long enough to know that you’ll come home with something terrific.

  52. Virgilio R. Reambillo says:

    China is preparing for now and for the future. They learned from the Western style of democracy and its greed for power. Now it is their
    time and hopefully be a better neighbor in Asia and the Pacific. In1421 China sailed throughout the world and did trade and not took over places and islands. Now, I think that will change and become a world power. China is not a communist country but a capitalist. The are buying everything from minerals, oil, US treasuries for their own use.

  53. marcopolo says:

    I read with amazement at the rantings of Sino-files, whose ravings the PRC officials would find hilarious, or shake their heads in disgust at the sight of Westerners, so eager to abase themselves with self-loathing.

    The government of the PRC has no regard for altruism, or ‘green’ philosophy, except as propaganda. Deeply suspicious of debate, dissension and innovation, the Politburo only acts with complete self interest. In the next five years, PRC will complete 851 massive new power stations. All coal fired!

    This year, Shanghai will add more office space and high rise apartments, than the whole of New York City! Shanghai, is a city of nearly 6000 skyscrapers! Ten years ago, I drove past a rural waterfront of almost medieval farmland, beside an ancient river bank. Today that same river, is inhabited by hundreds of kilometres of urbanisation. Trillions of tonnes of steel, concrete, glass, wood, etc, all hurriedly constructed. (the sewerage and infrastructure already showing signs of collapse from inadequate and corrupt PRC planning controls).

    This uncontrolled expansion continues unabated, and fuelled by fossil fuel energy!

    To feed this unprecedented expansion, the PRC has expanded it’s merchant marine in a very curious fashion. From 4000 PRC flagged merchant ships in 2004, the PRC now records only 1870! The other 4200 new giant ships are registered in strange little ‘Flag of Convenience’ countries, (some landlocked! ). 940 more have ‘disappeared’ from the merchant shipping registry, after being designated ‘Naval reserve’! This sot of deceit allows the PRC to claim a spectacular reduction in shipping pollution.

    PRC has commenced an ambitious Naval armament program, ostensibly to rival India’s dominance of the Indian Ocean, and protect PRC merchant shipping. PRC trade represents nearly 14% percent of world cargo’s. The PRC merchant fleet contributes 1000 x more pollutant emissions to the biosphere, than all the vehicles in the USA.!

    All this expansion, makes the PRC, the world’s super polluter! Unlike Western corporations, very little pressure can be brought to bear on a defiant and duplicitous PRC. The PRC simply refuses to co-operate, or just lies, when it comes to reporting pollution.

    While it’s fashionable to beat up Chevron, Shell, BP etc, For some strange reason no one seems to include the giant Total Oil Company, of France. This Oil company has an ethical record that makes BP look saintly! Yet for most of its existence has enjoyed the protection of it’s largest single shareholder, the government of France.

    Likewise, no critical attention is ever directed at the huge, yet secretively aggressive, State controlled PRC oil companies. China National Offshore Oil Corp, China National Petroleum Corp, and Sinopec, all enjoy the protection and secrecy provided by the PRC government. (along with extensive espionage activities).

    Criticism appears to be solely focused on the privately owned Western oil companies. As these companies retreat from the expensive issues associated with environmental accountability, they will be replaced by less accountable and less friendly entities, including those owned by the PRC.

    PRC is not a friendy, nor enlightened nation. For the USA, this is the beginning of a long and protracted trade war.