This recent paper on the likely path of China's CO2 emissions is striking in that the projections are much greater than once thought. They are so large that they dwarf any reductions by all other nations who have signed the Kyoto Protocol. On top of this is the fact that China doesn't have all that much non-fossil fuel energy potential and in fact is highly dependent on coal.
The questions that need to be asked are these:
- Is it possible for China to actually decrease absolute emissions? If so, how, and how much will it cost? Who will pay for it?
- If China can't reduce absolute emissions, how much more do all the rest of us need to decrease our emissions to offset China's increase? Is this feasible? Within what time frame? And again, how, and how much will it cost?
If we can't answer these questions, we really are in big trouble.
How industry pressures and competing national agendas dim prospects for a climate treaty
U.S. puts onus on China for climate deal
Comments
View as Flat
sunflower Posted 2:30 am
13 Mar 2008
The US has a much larger reserve of coal than China. China has a very large solar resource.
Perhaps the US should develop new efficiency and energy technologies, prove profitability, then export such innovation to China. China is on track to become the world's largest solar hardware exporter, and perhaps the World's largest solar polluter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008 ...
Permalink
racc Posted 2:48 am
13 Mar 2008
Even better, focus on lifetime per capita emissions.
We must bring ours down to 3 or 4 tons to set a good example and because it is the right thing to do. We have created the problem with our emissions, it is only fair.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:53 am
13 Mar 2008
Also, even if China reaches its ambitious solar goal it is literally a drop in the bucket with respect to total energy use- that ain't gonna do it.
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2007/gb2 ...
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:50 am
13 Mar 2008
If things get too bad, the population will start to upchuck, and when that happens, the government will pretty much be forced to take action in order to avoid a revolution.
Horrible that it has to get that bad before somethin' is done though.
Permalink
John McGrath Posted 6:20 am
13 Mar 2008
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:31 am
13 Mar 2008
I remember the days when IBM predicted there would be maybe six computers, Bill Gates said the Internet was no big deal, cars will never replace horses, and planes were only good for entertainment of barn stormers and will not compete with passenger trains.
The solar industry is positioned to become the largest industry on Earth. China will become a very big player.
Permalink
infp Posted 7:31 am
13 Mar 2008
Permalink
trock Posted 8:42 am
13 Mar 2008
Although I am skeptical that you were actually there when they said that cars would never replace horses and that airplanes were just for barnstorming, not for transportation, I do want to believe you about solars potential.
What besides people being wrong about things before and the total energy that the sun shining gives to the earth is it that gives you so much optimism about solar energy? This is not meant to be a trick question. I'm just wondering what would be the top 2 or 3 reasons after solars great potential? Aren't costs the barrier?
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:33 am
13 Mar 2008
I live in a passive solar house in Seattle climate which collects 20,000 watts for the price of glass, my favorite form of solar energy. There are also flat-plate hot water solar collectors, attached greenhouses, Trombe walls, clotheslines, indirect solar heat like firewood, solar powered district heating, solar industrial process heat, high-intensity photovoltaic cells now at 42% efficiency, solar thermal power with 24 hour steam storage, and stuff I barely understand.
I know solar glass mirrors best. One square meter collects each year the equivalent of burning one barrel of oil in Colorado climate, about half that in cloudy areas. Natural gas is half the cost of oil, usually more. BrightSource claims $150/m^2 for heliostats and tower, IdeaLabs $100/m^2 for dishes, Industrial Solar $170/m^2 troughs, and Sunflower (me) $99/m^2 for dishes. Materials are commodities from existing industries: mirror (glass, silver, palladium, paint), steel, aluminum, concrete, micro controllers, and small motors (a couple watts clock drive). The primary market application is natural gas displacement.
I've had dignitaries from China, India, Middle East, South America, SE Asia all discussing rapid unbelievably large scale up of solar energy systems. They want low capital tooling and high labor designs that can scale quickly with the force of humanity - lots of indigenous casual jobs.
The effort is all about simplicity. How simple can it get?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:28 am
13 Mar 2008
Sunflower is correct. Most of the current manufacturing of solar pv in China is too expensive for the overall market. But it is not so far off that this will not be true (growing wealth, declining costs).
There are many demo projects going on, and lots of people are watching to see how they will work. One concern that developers have is the payback period. They tend to run on smaller margins than developers in the US, so this is of concern to them (especially for commercial developers).
The issue here is not the desire to go green, but really the economics and the technical knowledge. But things are changing very rapidly.
The Chinese are also looking at every possible method of meeting their power needs. They are not ready to put all of their eggs in one basket.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
KenG Posted 3:52 am
14 Mar 2008
It's true that we've had technical advances that most people thought impossible, but we've also had stagnation in areas that weren't anticipated. In particular, energy transfer and electrical generation run into limitations based in the laws of physics that are hard to work around. Also, renewables (wind and CSP) require, on a unit generation basis, more concrete and steel than combustion type generating facilities.
There are many areas to pursue, but assuming one (i.e solar) will be successful is probably a bad plan.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:03 am
14 Mar 2008
CSP returns the energy content of materials in less than 6 months.
the "energy payback" time of CSP systems, taking into account the energy expended in their manufacture, is about five months, which compares well with their useful life of approximately 30 to 40 years. Most of the CSP solar field materials can be recycled.http://www.solel.com/faq/
Fresh water in Saudi Arabia costs more than oil. Super tankers return to Saudi Arabia filled with salt water.
Everybody expects somebody else will pick the low hanging fruit. Somebody? Anybody?
Permalink
KenG Posted 7:15 am
14 Mar 2008
I would hold on to my wallet looking at Solel's claims also. To the best of my knowledge no CSP has ever been viable without large subsidies and the biggest one (the Luz plants in California) went bankrupt and wrote off the entire capital cost even with subsidies.
Don't get me wrong - I'm in favor of developing and building these things but at some point they have to make sense. I'm concerned that solar may be the electrical generation version of ethanol.
Permalink
KenG Posted 7:17 am
14 Mar 2008
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:51 am
14 Mar 2008
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink