By 2002 China is Expected to Need 2.8 GT of Coal and 600 MT of Crude Oil

[jpak]

By 2020 China is Expected to Need 2.8 Billion Tons of Coal and 600 Million Tons of Crude Oil

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060529005010&newsLang=en

A new report details the current and future state of the energy industry in China. This report is for CEOs, strategists, and researchers seeking to identify market potential for their products and services in all sectors of the China energy industry. Give yourself the competitive edge with this comprehensive report.

China's economic trajectory has driven its expanding energy needs, and it is now the world's second largest energy consumer behind the United States. Accompanying this increasing energy demand has been a growing dependence on imported oil, and China is now the world's third largest oil importer. China will continue to be a major player in world energy markets, but increasing energy demands pose tremendous challenges.

China's present phase of economic and industrial development requires higher energy consumption per unit compared with developed nations. China's energy sector has enormous potential, especially the coal, petroleum and natural gas industries, yet China is currently a net importer of oil, and imports are expected to increase to more than 900 million barrels in 2006, against a total demand of 1.993 billion barrels per year. China is looking to expand its production of coal, natural gas, and renewable energy sources such as nuclear, solar and hydroelectric power to meet the enormous appetite for energy spawned by its massive industrial complex and consumer sectors.

It is estimated that in 2020, China will need 2.8 billion tons of coal and 600 million tons of crude oil, two and a half times more than in 2000. Given this scenario, China will need to import 250 million tons of petroleum, about 70%, from foreign sources. What's more, its carbon emissions will reach 1.94 billion tons, and China will likely overtake the US as the nation with the highest greenhouse gas emissions.

<more>

[sakabatou]

1. Fix your headline

But interesting article

[jpak]

3. The original headline was way too big

GT = billion tons

MT = million tons

[sakabatou]

4. okie dokie...

[havocmom]

5. Think poster meant the date you have: 2002?

I may be outta the loop, but isn't that year in the past just a bit? ;) Or have I been time drifting again (I hate it when that happens...)

[jpak]

7. lol - I misplaced my reading glasses a couple days ago

and can't see the damned screen.

Now if Skinner had a Stupid Check feature here....

:)

[havocmom]

8. LOL If Skinner gets that 'stupid check' going, give me a heads up!

Just what I've been looking for, well, that and my reading glasses... Oh, they're on top my head again...

[wordpix2]

10. you're dating yourself, jpak

[jpak]

13. Sorry - I've been wearing coke bottles since I wuz 6

and I take offense to the notion that I "date" myself...

:evilgrin:

[aquart]

2. To run the factories America no longer has.

[phantom power]

6. Projections like this are probably correlated with...

China's agressive plans for nuclear reactor deployment. By 2020, many of their current planned reactors should be on-line, offsetting the need for coal, if not oil.

I wonder what the world will really be like in 2020. Most of these projections assume "business as usual," which doesn't account for disruptive factors like abrupt climate change, or peak oil scenarios.

[depakid]

9. Most of these projections assume "business as usual."

The certainly do- which quite franky I find laughable.

In an econ course I took a year ago, one of the assignments was to calculate the projected retirement needs of a set of individuals and contingencies in 2025. I used the various assumptions, looked at the actuaries, etc. and did the calculations. At one point I put an endnote in with a disclaimer that certain figures did not take into account the economic effects of petroleum depletion.

The paper came back with a circle and a big red question mark on that note-

This was a 600 level econ class at a major university- and yet the professor was clueless.

Part of what I call the "consensus trance."

[wordpix2]

11. that prof really IS clueless --I would have gone to him/her & clued him in

[XemaSab]

14. No! No! Not abrupt climate change!

Anything but that! :P

[GOPBasher]

12. They won't be getting that much oil.

That may be the projected demand, but there is no way that they will be able to get that much oil. Neither will we get anywhere near as much oil as our projected demand will require. It's time for conservation and renewable energy sources.

And if both the US and China burn as much coal as they think we will, we'll turn earth into an easy-bake oven. (There might be something to this whole "carbon sequestration" thing, but I don't know anything about that yet.)

[Massacure]

15. As oil gets more expensive, so does open pit mining.

As coal gets more expensive, other energy options will become more attractive. It'll be interesting to see nuclear and wind duel against each other.