Sec. of Energy Chu on China

[kristopher]

after a few minutes he departs from his prepared remarks. “I just came back from visiting China with the president,” he says, no longer reading. When he was there two years ago, there was little interest in doing anything about climate change or carbon emissions. “That is no longer true,” he says. “The president of China, the premier of China, the vice premier of China are all saying, ‘This is a very big deal for us. If we continue business as usual, continue to grow our carbon emissions, it would be devastating for the world, devastating for China.’ But they also say, ‘This is our great economic opportunity.’ And for that reason, they’re investing over $100 billion a year in the clean energy economy.”

When Chu pivots back to the US, his point becomes clear: Spending on clean technology isn’t a feel-good sideline. It’s an investment that can yield jobs and profit. Someone is going to invent the technology that cleans our factories and our air — someone in Beijing or someone in the Buckeye State.

On the way back to the airport, Chu is still fired up about China. Too many times, he says, he’s heard American businesses justifying their environmental inaction by saying that going green would put them at a disadvantage compared to their environmentally irresponsible Chinese competitors. Those days, he argues, are long gone. China’s supposed inaction isn’t an excuse; China’s rapid action should be a motivation.

After China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, its economy soared. As a result, so did its carbon emissions. To make the products the West demanded, the nation had factories operating at full tilt no matter how old or polluting. To create the infrastructure to support its new economy, China generated unimaginable amounts of energy-intensive cement and steel. In 2006, China surpassed the US in total emissions.

For Chu, this makes China the key to America’s energy future. Since the US and China produce some 40 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, Chu argues that far-reaching multicountry agreements aren’t really necessary. All the diplomatic inertia and endless compromise make them difficult to achieve and unlikely to have real teeth. It’s smarter to deal with China alone. A massive investment by the US and China, and a series of strong treaties between the two countries, would have a big effect on actual emissions, and the pacts would also serve as a model and inspiration for other countries. In part because they’re such massive polluters, the US and China have been the two countries stifling progress toward international agreements. If they could agree, others would feel the logjam had broken and follow along. It’s like a high school movie: Once the jocks and the nerds unite for a common cause, everyone falls in line.

Much more at: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/04/ff_stevenchu/all/1
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/04/ff_stevenchu/all/1

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. You may not care for the foci of the cooperative efforts though

http://energy.gov/news/8804.htm

March 29, 2010

Secretary Chu Announces $37.5 Million Available for Joint U.S.-Chinese Clean Energy Research

Washington, DC – U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today the availability of $37.5 million in U.S. funding over the next five years to support the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center. Funding from the Department of Energy will be matched by the grantees to support $75 million in total U.S. research that will focus on advancing technologies for building energy efficiency, clean coal including carbon capture and storage, and clean vehicles. The Clean Energy Research Center (CERC) will be located in existing facilities in both the U.S. and China and will include an additional $75 million in Chinese funding.

“Cooperation between China and the United States on clean energy is crucial to confronting the global climate crisis and presents an important opportunity to create American jobs and build U.S. leadership in a growing global industry,” said Secretary Chu. “By jointly developing new technologies and learning from China’s experiences, we can create new export opportunities for American companies and ensure that we remain on the cutting edge of innovation. This partnership will also be a foundation for broader partnerships with China on cutting carbon pollution.”

President Obama and President Hu Jintao formally announced the establishment of the CERC during the President’s trip to Beijing last November. At the time, Secretary Chu joined with Chinese Minister of Science and Technology Wan Gang and Chinese National Energy Administrator Zhang Guobao to sign the protocol launching the Center. The CERC will facilitate joint research and development of clean energy technologies by teams of scientists and engineers from both the U.S. and China, as well as serve as a clearinghouse to help researchers in each country. Funding from the U.S. Government will be used to support work conducted by U.S. institutions and individuals only.

The U.S. and China are the world’s top energy consumers, energy producers and greenhouse gas emitters. They will play central roles in the world’s transition to a clean energy economy in the years ahead. Technology will play an important role in this transition, and the U.S. and China have a strong shared interest in advances in key technologies. The initial research areas under the CERC – building efficiency, clean coal and clean vehicles – are areas where the U.S. and China have complementary strengths, so that each country can benefit from internationally collaborative research.

...

[kristopher]

2. Yes I think CCS is a waste

But that is a minor sideline to the central points: 1) there are credible alternatives to global treaties. I've pointed out here any number of times that by properly harnessing the economic advantages of sustainable technologies we make very large movement in the effort to address AGW; 2) the size of the Chinese market and the built in demand presented by its developing infrastructure for renewable energy products is the best potential engine for creating significant cost reductions in those technologies.

For a number of reasons CCS holds very little promise of actually being a viable part of the solution to climate change. I believe it is much more probable that declining renewable energy prices will make coal obsolete long before cost effective large scale deployment of CCS is possible.

[FBaggins]

3. Shhh... See, what you don't realize is...

When kristopher reads "green" he automatically assumes that they're using HIS definition of "green"

Best not to wake him.

[kristopher]

4. The article confirms many things I've pointed out.

What is there to confirm your "thoughts"?

Oh, that's right, snark and obnoxious behavior are not subject to confirmation.

[FBaggins]

5. Lol... Kris, I've got to tell you....

... I'm pretty sure that if you read an article titled "God says that nuclear is the only way" you would still be convinced that it confirmed your thoughts.

Your post #2 is a great exaple. Somehow you came away from this article thinking that the central points were about renewables, instead of all green (or even just greener) options.

Yesterday or the day before I saw you claim that their infrastructure upgrades (and how they were purchasing renewables first) meant that they were suddenly done with nuclear and were just going to finish the plants they had already started.

IOW... you build your own reality... that bears only a passing resemblance to the actual one.

[bananas]

6. lol - is that what happened to you?

You read an article titled "God says that nuclear is the only way" and believed it?
No wonder pro-nukes sound like religious fanatics - they are!
:rofl:

[FBaggins]

7. Unwilling to deal with the substance of the discussion?

Should I be surprised?

[bananas]

8. lol - so that is what happened!

You read an article titled "God says that nuclear is the only way" and believed it!
It's divine revelation!
:rofl:

[FBaggins]

9. Translation...

"Yes"

And "no... I shouldn't be surprised"

Thanks for playing.

[kristopher]

10. I said they will finish the ones "in the pipeline".

Those where funding has already been allocated are probably going to be built - maybe a few more, maybe a few less - but the effect I described is real and will act to deter investment in large scale thermal generation.

If you choose to think investors in China will want to put your money into projects with a 40 year payback that are going to become increasingly less likely to be economically viable over time that is certainly your prerogative.

[FBaggins]

11. And you were full of it when you did so.

Those where funding has already been allocated are probably going to be built - maybe a few more

What a crock. The "pipeline" is just ramping up now. There isn't a reason in the world for them to continue beyond the first 2-4 plants if they already knew that they weren't going to commit longterm to nuclear.

And yet they are... and in a BIG way.

[kristopher]

12. Is that how you manage the cognitive dissonance?

You just redefine terms as you want so that they will fit into your little bitty teeny tiny mental box?

Here are some numbers posted by Stats that I'll accept as working numbers:

China nuclear power:
Operating: 10
Currently Under Construction: 22
Planned by 2020: 28 more
Planned by 2020-2040: 132 more

I would consider the 22 under construction and some portion of the 28 planned by 2020 to be "in the pipeline".

[FBaggins]

13. Label it however makes you feel best... you were simply wrong.

Once again... if they really HAD decided that nuclear wasn't going to be a BIG part of their future plans, LOTS of those plants would be canceled.

Let's assume that you're right and China has seen the renewable light... agreeing with you completely. Even ignoring any risk factors for nuclear... How far along into construction of a nuclear plant do YOU think you can get before the money already spent makes it cheaper to just go ahead and finish it than give up on it?

Speaking of cognitive dissonance. The answer to that question (if given honestly) would force to you face the truth that at least one of your dissonant positions was flat wrong.


As additional evidence... note that only the newest ones are the new Westinghouse design. Four of those are being built for them by Westinghouse and then they've purchased the technology and will be building 28 more of their own. They are just now signing the contracts to purchase parts for these plants and/or build new factors to build the parts themselves.

[kristopher]

16. Bluster and blather but no rationality.

You are straight out of the "How to think like Sean Hannity" playbook.

[FBaggins]

19. Lol! You crack me up.

Do you think that there is ANYONE who can't see that you just don't have a response so you shift to ad hominem?

Particularly hillarious that you do so and then accuse anyone ELSE of mirroring Sean Hannity. :rofl:

[Confusious]

22. Like you said

What is there to confirm your "thoughts"?

Oh, that's right, snark and obnoxious behavior are not subject to confirmation.

Though it is MUCH more applicable here.

[Statistical]

17. The transfer of technology is a key point.

If China was just building a few reactors it would make more sense to do something like what Finland is doing. Pay per reactor, parts are built in France and shipped to Finland. Finland is essentially just doing the assembly work.

Now that results in a higher cost per unit but if you are building a few units it doesn't really matter. This is what China did for the first 20 or so reactors.

However this year China has done 3 major things:
1) sign technology transfer agreements. Not just getting the parts for reactors but learning how to build reactor parts
2) built a network of part plants to supply reactor components to a rising fleet of reactors
3) built/upgrade two major steel yards capable of making the large steel bands. Bands of this size are only used in nuclear reactors. Up till this point China was sourcing the steel from Korea & Japan (sadly the only two steel yards that are capable).

All that is a substantial overhead. In long run it is cheaper than just buying reactors on a per unit basis but it will take a long time (dozens of reactors and decades of time) to pay off.

Nobody does all that just to turn around and close shop.

What Kris fails to realize is that all this has happened in last 18 months. So if anything China long term commitment today (with substantial sunk investments) is higher than a decade ago (when China was simply purchasing reactors on a per unit basis).

[kristopher]

18. You mean under the stewardship of the person arrested for taking $250+ million in bribes?

[Statistical]

20. If you think a single bribery case is going to derail China massive nuclear program....

well you should get a lottery ticket because it has greater chance of paying off for you.
The point is the deals are done, factories built, steelyards upgraded.

You think China is just going to burn all that investment because someone told you nuclear is dead. :rofl:

[FBaggins]

21. No no... you don't understand.

Obviously the entire (infinitely wise) Chinese government was naturally opposed to additional nuclear power... but they put this one guy in charge, see? And then he got bribed to make a decision that was clearly not in the interests of the Chinese people. Now that the bribery has come to light, the (infinitely wise) Chinese government will naturally return to their REAL priorities.

[Statistical]

14. So what is the cutoff when you accept you are wrong?

40 reactors built & under construction?
50 reactors built & under construction?

Just curious so I can bookmark this and check on it later when they pass that milestone.

[FBaggins]

15. Oooh! oooh! Mr Kotter! Mr Kotter! I know that one!

It involves he11 and water in its solid state.

:rofl: