It is old news for regular readers of this blog, but today's NYT has a thoughtful article on how China's emissions are surging and efforts to increase efficiency gains are foundering.Here is an excerpt from the article:
Already, in the last three years, China has shut down more than a thousand older coal-fired power plants that used technology of the sort still common in the United States. China has also surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other clean energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas mileage for cars.
But even as Beijing imposes the world’s most rigorous national energy campaign, the effort is being overwhelmed by the billionfold demands of Chinese consumers.
Chinese and Western energy experts worry that China’s energy challenge could become the world’s problem — possibly dooming any international efforts to place meaningful limits on global warming.
If China cannot meet its own energy-efficiency targets, the chances of avoiding widespread environmental damage from rising temperatures “are very close to zero,” said Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency in Paris.
Aspiring to a more Western standard of living, in many cases with the government’s encouragement, China’s population, 1.3 billion strong, is clamoring for more and bigger cars, for electricity-dependent home appliances and for more creature comforts like air-conditioned shopping malls.
As a result, China is actually becoming even less energy efficient. And because most of its energy is still produced by burning fossil fuels, China’s emission of carbon dioxide — a so-called greenhouse gas — is growing worse. This past winter and spring showed the largest six-month increase in tonnage ever by a single country.
The article also explains that earlier assumptions of "spontaneous decarbonization" implicit in major energy and emissions assessments were likely overly optimistic:
This of course echos an argument that I made along with Tom Wigley and Chris Green in a 2008 paper in Nature (PDF) focused on the assumptions of spontaneous decarbonization in the IPCC, in which we conclude:Until recently, projections by both the International Energy Agency and the Energy Information Administration in Washington had assumed that, even without an international energy agreement to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, China would achieve rapid improvements in energy efficiency through 2020.
But now China is struggling to limit emissions even to the “business as usual” levels that climate models assume if the world does little to address global warming.
There is no question about whether technological innovation is necessary — it is. The question is, to what degree should policy focus directly on motivating such innovation? The IPCC plays a risky game in assuming that spontaneous advances in technological innovation will carry most of the burden of achieving future emissions reductions, rather than focusing on creating the conditions for such innovations to occur.At some point climate policies will have to evolve to reflect the realities of economic growth and energy demand, and move beyond magical solutions. We are not there yet, but we are getting closer.

6 comments:
A lot of pieces have to fit together for a rational long term energy strategy.
Wind can produce some, but it has to be load balanced against something. The only options China has installed at the moment for load balancing are sub-critical coal which is only 30% efficient.
The current 'best technologies' available at the moment for load balancing are hydro and natural gas. China has big plans for hydro(300 gigawatts by 2020) and natural gas in the next 10 years(doubling from 4% to 8% of generation capacity).
Hydro has very long lead times.
China doesn't have a lot of natural gas, so it will have to come from Central Asia, which requires building pipelines, which aren't going to be completed until 2014.
If I look at their nuclear build program, 10 Gigawatts in operation, 20 gigawatts under construction, an additional 40 gigawatts planned. Realistically they will need to double the construction rate again. Doubling every 5 years is about as fast as any industry can grow.
Personally, when I look at China I see a country that understands it can't sustain it's current rate of coal burn indefinitely, for economic and energy security reasons and is making the necessary long terms investments to remedy that situation.
From an 'Enlightened Western Perspective', where talking about nuclear and hydro are forbidden (the NY Times article leaves China's Nuclear and Hydro programs out of the article) China has a big unsolvable problem.
Honestly, can anyone be optimistic? It's about time politicians, NGOs and some scientists actually stood back and accepted that emissions simply will not decline. There is only so much that the developed world will do. Politicians are elected, and there are limits beyond which they can't drag their unwilling voters.
My gut instinct is that even if the developing world were to accept lives with 30% of the emissions of Europe, that will still mean massive increases in Co2 unless they're also prepared to accept much slower growth rates forced on them by using renewables.
If I were in their situation family would come first, planet second. I suspect that many of the people preaching green solutions have not had family members die of starvation or a curable disease.
I have often wondered how many people died of malaria after 'Silent Spring' that might otherwise have survived had DDT not been banned. We took away a cheap and (I believe) effective way of controlling malarial mosquitos and replaced it with what?
Is this similar to what the well off, climate change aware, developed world is proposing for the developing world?
OT
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mechel-oao-announces-the-start-of-coal-supplies-from-usa-2010-07-05?reflink=MW_news_stmp
"As the result of insufficient supplies of fat coking coal concentrate in Russia, Mechel OAO started supplies of coal from USA."
Russia has the second largest coal reserves in the world.
Very predictable as is the fact industial pollutants will rise dramatically and that the renewables industry, the supposed saviour of the first world will be based in China.
There were adverts during world cup games for a Chinese solar panel company (I googled it)!
Who cares about the environment ? Certainly not the people orchestrating global climate deals.
"If I look at their nuclear build program, 10 Gigawatts in operation, 20 gigawatts under construction, an additional 40 gigawatts planned."
A bit more than that: 24 GW under construction, and "As of June 2010, official installed nuclear capacity targets are understood to be 80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030 and 400 GWe by 2050."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
Bill said... 2
"A bit more than that"
Yep, if I was a betting man, I would bet that the Chinese end up with a build rate of about 1 nuclear plant a month for the foreseeable future. It's just going to take a few years to get the industrial infrastructure up to speed.
Post a Comment