China's Energy Crisis

[qldfrog]

Russia was also absent from climate talks. Today I asked why, and I couldn't help but think global warming would be in my best interest if the majority of my country is frozen for half the year....
I wonder if China had similar thoughts given the video @Smurf1976 posted

China, Russia, Canada, northern Europe and northern USA would hugely benefit from a 5c increase in temperature...
There are loosers: Africa, Australia and generally all overpopulated places which can not adapt to change.plus with co2 increases , harvest productivity increases

 

[qldfrog]

Seems like coal prices are receeding in China,price capping are mooted, and aluminium price going down as a result.
If coal prices have to go down to protect CCP interests, they will go down.
The beauty from an economic point of view of merging wild capitalism and reigning it with a dictatorship...it actually works?

 

[qldfrog]

And as i hinted, just off the press
"Chinese Coal Production Surges After Government Free-for-All. China’s October coal output rose to a 6-year monthly high of 357.09 million tons as the government hastily approved coal extensions and expedited mining wherever it could, also forbidding local authorities to shut mines without authorization."
They were nice , and waited the end of the green fest in Glasgow to announce...
China consumption ( last figure i can find ) is around 4.3 billion tons a year so that output should cover their per month requirement .
Obviously demand is not flat along the year but with whatever import added last month, Xi will not see Chinese citizens freezing this winter.
Sorted.
The beauty of authoritarian government....even better, China can now reduce , or just not increase, production next year and get Greta kudos points and some of your tax money.
The world is an amazing place

 

[rederob]

China, Russia, Canada, northern Europe and northern USA would hugely benefit from a 5c increase in temperature...

Completely false.
A 2 degree change has massive global implications, while 5 degrees is nothing short of catastrophic.
Your knowledge of climate and CO2 effects is abysmal.
Suggesting regional winners from increasing temperature ignores detrimental ecological and environmental impacts, and neglects increased number and intensity of adverse weather events, bushfires and floods.

On topic, for China to compensate for a few percentage points increase in electricity demand is almost equivalent to adding Australia's total energy generation capacity. And as @Smurf1976 notes changes in daily weather, let alone seasonal weather patterns, can have a massive impact on China's grid. China is also the global leader in adding renewable energy to their grid so will have a bigger problem than most other countries in terms of adding commensurate backup.

Having watched China's economy for a few decades the issue of power shortages is not new. The greater issue nowadays is that China's role in the global supply chain is so pronounced that any and every energy misstep gets noticed and has flow-on effects. China is also adding energy intensive industry at a much greater rate than the developed world, so their supply and demand imbalance continues to worsen during manufacturing and weather peaks.

None of this is a surprise to China, and that's why it was reluctant to commit to abandoning coal at COP26. China has a roadmap for it's energy future but needs the next decade to put it in place. In the meantime watch the weather.

 

[Sean K]

Completely false.
A 2 degree change has massive global implications, while 5 degrees is nothing short of catastrophic.
Your knowledge of climate and CO2 effects is abysmal.
Suggesting regional winners from increasing temperature ignores detrimental ecological and environmental impacts, and neglects increased number and intensity of adverse weather events, bushfires and floods.

On topic, for China to compensate for a few percentage points increase in electricity demand is almost equivalent to adding Australia's total energy generation capacity. And as @Smurf1976 notes changes in daily weather, let alone seasonal weather patterns, can have a massive impact on China's grid. China is also the global leader in adding renewable energy to their grid so will have a bigger problem than most other countries in terms of adding commensurate backup.

Having watched China's economy for a few decades the issue of power shortages is not new. The greater issue nowadays is that China's role in the global supply chain is so pronounced that any and every energy misstep gets noticed and has flow-on effects. China is also adding energy intensive industry at a much greater rate than the developed world, so their supply and demand imbalance continues to worsen during manufacturing and weather peaks.

None of this is a surprise to China, and that's why it was reluctant to commit to abandoning coal at COP26. China has a roadmap for it's energy future but needs the next decade to put it in place. In the meantime watch the weather.

So, a 2 degree change will have massive impact, but China are the one's who are now in the drivers seat to actually cause it. As you say, their energy intensive industry requirements are far outstripping the developed World, yet they are not going to reduce coal and gas for a couple of decades, well past the hypothetical tipping points where there's runaway climate change catastrophe.

If we're serious that CAGW is going to cause catastrophe at some tipping point of 2 degrees, or 2030, then China have the con.

Their announcements of building 150 new nuclear plants are very welcome, but it doesn't change the fact they're building dozens of coal plants as well and unlikely to stop building to meet immediate energy demands in the next 2 decades.

 

[Investoradam]

So, a 2 degree change will have massive impact, but China are the one's who are now in the drivers seat to actually cause it. As you say, their energy intensive industry requirements are far outstripping the developed World, yet they are not going to reduce coal and gas for a couple of decades, well past the hypothetical tipping points where there's runaway climate change catastrophe.

If we're serious that CAGW is going to cause catastrophe at some tipping point of 2 degrees, or 2030, then China have the con.

Their announcements of building 150 new nuclear plants are very welcome, but it doesn't change the fact they're building dozens of coal plants as well and unlikely to stop building to meet immediate energy demands in the next 2 decades.

china are building hundreds of new coal fired power stations! that gets ignored by the usual champaign socialists and useful idiots and continue to blame cows farting in Australia and USA for the so called climate crisis

prior to energy crisis

China's new coal power plant capacity in 2020 more than three times rest of world's: study

China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.

www.reuters.com

post energy crisis announce to build 40 plus more

China Is Planning 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants. Can It Still Keep Its Promises to Cut Emissions?

China built three times more new coal power capacity as all other countries in the world combined in 2020.

time.com

china is apparently set to be largest infrastructure of renewable energy in the world as well apparently

China Is Set To Become The World's Renewable Energy Superpower, According To New Report

"No country has put itself in a better position" claims new report, noting that China accounts for almost a third of all renewable energy patents in the world.

www.forbes.com

 

[rederob]

So, a 2 degree change will have massive impact, but China are the one's who are now in the drivers seat to actually cause it. As you say, their energy intensive industry requirements are far outstripping the developed World, yet they are not going to reduce coal and gas for a couple of decades, well past the hypothetical tipping points where there's runaway climate change catastrophe.

If we're serious that CAGW is going to cause catastrophe at some tipping point of 2 degrees, or 2030, then China have the con.

Their announcements of building 150 new nuclear plants are very welcome, but it doesn't change the fact they're building dozens of coal plants as well and unlikely to stop building to meet immediate energy demands in the next 2 decades.

So the fact that China did not get the world to where we are today is not relevant to you!
America has been the culprit, followed by Europe:


Aside from the above, China, which is already the world’s largest market for renewables, added 136 GW of new capacity in 2020, which is more than twice the total capacity of Australia (which is dominated by coal generation). It's also going to be class leading in wind turbines with this monster putting out 16MW. So you can't say that China is relying on the rest of the world to offer solutions to its energy needs as its doing comparatively well in decarbonising.

It would be good if China could decarbonise faster, but China remains a developing country and not a developed one. That's why despite China's total CO2 footprint, its per capita emissions are much lower than ours or America's. Again, that fact gets overlooked to indulge instead in a blame game.

 

[qldfrog]

So, a 2 degree change will have massive impact, but China are the one's who are now in the drivers seat to actually cause it. As you say, their energy intensive industry requirements are far outstripping the developed World, yet they are not going to reduce coal and gas for a couple of decades, well past the hypothetical tipping points where there's runaway climate change catastrophe.

If we're serious that CAGW is going to cause catastrophe at some tipping point of 2 degrees, or 2030, then China have the con.

Their announcements of building 150 new nuclear plants are very welcome, but it doesn't change the fact they're building dozens of coal plants as well and unlikely to stop building to meet immediate energy demands in the next 2 decades.

So what is the key difference between China and the west?
China is always looking ahead and has plenty of time: no rush to do something before the next election.
So any china policy is in most case looking 20y 40y ahead.
They could not care less about burning more coal., the move to nuclear and renewable is just a move to avoid resource shortage, peak oil etc.
What does this tell you or any thinking person about the global warming and co2 play in the west?

 

[Sean K]

So the fact that China did not get the world to where we are today is not relevant to you!

Nope, it's just how things worked out. Unfortunately, China missed the boat on the industrial revolution of the late 1800s / early 1900s well before CO2 became the temperature control knob. It's a matter of history that China have found themselves in this situation. If GHG emissions really are the problem, China (and all other 'developing' countries) need to do like the rest of us and stop emitting, now. Unless, Developing countries developing and stopping emissions are not mutually exclusive at this moment in time?

 

[Investoradam]

So the fact that China did not get the world to where we are today is not relevant to you!
America has been the culprit, followed by Europe:
View attachment 133051

Aside from the above, China, which is already the world’s largest market for renewables, added 136 GW of new capacity in 2020, which is more than twice the total capacity of Australia (which is dominated by coal generation). It's also going to be class leading in wind turbines with this monster putting out 16MW. So you can't say that China is relying on the rest of the world to offer solutions to its energy needs as its doing comparatively well in decarbonising.

It would be good if China could decarbonise faster, but China remains a developing country and not a developed one. That's why despite China's total CO2 footprint, its per capita emissions are much lower than ours or America's. Again, that fact gets overlooked to indulge instead in a blame game.

china total omissions are nearing 1/3 of the worlds total and we are told we are in a total climate crisis and Australia & USA cows farts are to blame. chinas omissions dont count due to being an emerging country!

yet the world will end if we dont act quick
so what does china do! build hundreds oc new coal fired power stations

China's new coal power plant capacity in 2020 more than three times rest of world's: study

China put 38.4 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity into operation in 2020, according to new international research, more than three times the amount built elsewhere around the world and potentially undermining its short-term climate goals.

www.reuters.com

China Is Planning 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants. Can It Still Keep Its Promises to Cut Emissions?

China built three times more new coal power capacity as all other countries in the world combined in 2020.

time.com

and we have the usual climate dooms day loons in a spin!

 

[rederob]

Nope, it's just how things worked out. Unfortunately, China missed the boat on the industrial revolution of the late 1800s / early 1900s well before CO2 became the temperature control knob. It's a matter of history that China have found themselves in this situation. If GHG emissions really are the problem, China (and all other 'developing' countries) need to do like the rest of us and stop emitting, now. Unless, Developing countries developing and stopping emissions are not mutually exclusive at this moment in time?

Another solution is for all economies above average per capita emissions to reduce their footprint. Better still, let's drop our per capita CO2 levels to India's seeing their population is greater than Europe, North America and Oceania combined. That will get us to net zero in no time at all and seems a fair proposition.
GHG's really are the problem, and China's contribution to it is about 13% compared to Europe and America combined at 47%. The mentality of those who want developing nations to cease raising their standards of living to ours smacks of western cultural elitism.
Here's another take on China not being the problem:

 

[Smurf1976]

From the website as indicated on the chart.

Thermal power = anything that burns in the conventional sense of burning. So that is coal, oil, gas, wood and anything else. Whilst it uses steam turbine, nuclear is not part of the "thermal" classification and is shown separately.

Note that's comparing 2019 versus 2021.

Key points:

Thermal generation, which in practice is mostly coal, accounts for three quarters of the growth in production. Since thermal power accounts for 73% of present generation, its overall share is remaining roughly constant.

The bit I do question is what's going on with China's hydro production? I don't have details but it does stand out as something to question. Noting there that China doesn't seem to be overly forthcoming with data, it's not like (say) the Snowy scheme or Tasmania where literally anyone with a computer can see the water storage levels.

Given they've added new generating capacity, another source puts it at 4.7% growth over 12 months, meanwhile they're having actual energy supply shortfalls, the drop in hydro output does suggest a problem. Either a lack of water in storage or a physical problem with one or more major power stations or transmission.

As for the politics, well I've seen so much politics concerning energy that I'll simply say the trick with politicians is to let them think they're in control but make very sure that in truth they're not.

 

[sptrawler]

So the fact that China did not get the world to where we are today is not relevant to you!
America has been the culprit, followed by Europe:
View attachment 133051

Aside from the above, China, which is already the world’s largest market for renewables, added 136 GW of new capacity in 2020, which is more than twice the total capacity of Australia (which is dominated by coal generation). It's also going to be class leading in wind turbines with this monster putting out 16MW. So you can't say that China is relying on the rest of the world to offer solutions to its energy needs as its doing comparatively well in decarbonising.

It would be good if China could decarbonise faster, but China remains a developing country and not a developed one. That's why despite China's total CO2 footprint, its per capita emissions are much lower than ours or America's. Again, that fact gets overlooked to indulge instead in a blame game.

That quote sums it up, the western countries have pumped out carbon to build affluence and wealth in their countries, China now is doing the same so why shouldn't they be given the same concessions, well probably because they aren't starting from zero they are starting from a base that is already mature.
They aren't starting from scratch, they are starting from a multinational push to source manufacturing in a low labour cost countries, so really all that has happened is intellectual knowledge has been outsourced to China and they have taken advantage off that, there is nothing wrong with that.
All that has happened is the U.S, U.K, Europe and Australia has outsourced their advantage, for higher profits, why they are complaining is what confuses me.

 

[Smurf1976]

All that has happened is the U.S, U.K, Europe and Australia has outsourced their advantage

The problem there is that in the Australian context it has made us the king of coal and not much else.

That's not China's fault but it's a very definite issue.

 

[Investoradam]

The problem there is that in the Australian context it has made us the king of coal and not much else.

That's not China's fault but it's a very definite issue.

no that's just s saying the idiot left dribble out. given that much of Australian trade is dictated to by the United Nations "lima declaration" thanks to oxygen thieves Gough Whitlam and bob Hawke.

most of Australian coal is of higher grade and is used in the production for making steel along with the iron ore (something that no one ever mentions)
even our lower grade coal is still of high quality and much higher quality than most countries.
this was demonstrated the china ut a ban on buying Australian coal exports and went to Indonesia Russia etc.. who's quality is much lower and to dirty for many of the power stations & manufacturing plants in China, hence the black outs and closure of factories

 

[willfairfax89]

The main consequence of the energy crisis in China for me is the recognition of the fact that green energy is not capable of replacing coal or nuclear power in a modern state now or in the near future. Despite all the harm to the environment, despite the changes in climate, the industry cannot yet exist without them.
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-sp...wer-outages-may-affect-xis-green-initiatives/

 

[qldfrog]

The main consequence of the energy crisis in China for me is the recognition of the fact that green energy is not capable of replacing coal or nuclear power in a modern state now or in the near future. Despite all the harm to the environment, despite the changes in climate, the industry cannot yet exist without them.
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-sp...wer-outages-may-affect-xis-green-initiatives/

Do you really believe there is that recognition? I doubt, we are just off the Glasgow green fairy fest ...

 

[rederob]

The main consequence of the energy crisis in China for me is the recognition of the fact that green energy is not capable of replacing coal or nuclear power in a modern state now or in the near future.

You need to check what has occurred in South Australia in less than a decade as, simply put, your statement is false.

Despite all the harm to the environment, despite the changes in climate, the industry cannot yet exist without them.
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-sp...wer-outages-may-affect-xis-green-initiatives/

The energy infrastructure of many nations has legacy implications that make it physically impossible to replace current generating capacity with renewables. China, with over 1000 coal fired power plants (typical operating life over 30 years) will take several decades to physically make and install the same generating capacity in wind and solar it needs to replace. However, last year, for example, China added about 48GW of solar (Australia's NEM has a total capacity of 59.5GW) , but also added 30GW to its coal fleet to meet industry demand, which explains why China talks about 2030 as its inflexion point.

 

[frugal.rock]

You need to check what has occurred in South Australia in less than a decade as, simply put, your statement is false.

Don't know what is so important about South Aus, except for the Calabrians in the hills?

What is false about the statement?

Your post is essentially the same, in my opinion.
Not trying to cause trouble, but, am I missing something apart from a wombat in the top paddock?

 

[rederob]

What is false about the statement?

This.
I think South Australians' regard their State as modern.
Then there's Norway and our island State of Tassie that can generate 100% from renewables.
On the other hand China remains a developing economy. It's one of the reasons it's lights go out from time to time during the year.

Presently costs of storage don't make it economical to invest in extra capacity, but it's very doable for Australia. The other point missing is that few nations ever rely solely on their own natural resources and capacity to meet energy needs. So in years to come excess wind and solar energy is either going to be exported or converted into storage.

The UK is another nation that demonstrates the rapid transition from legacy ff capacity to renewables and shows why @willfairfax89's claim barely stacks up: