dstark

China launches green power revolution to catch up on west | Environment | The Guardian

"China is planning a vast increase in its use of wind and solar power over the next *decade and believes it can match Europe by 2020, producing a fifth of its energy needs from renewable sources, a senior Chinese official said yesterday.

Zhang Xiaoqiang, vice-chairman of China's national development and reform commission, told the Guardian that Beijing would easily surpass current 2020 targets for the use of wind and solar power and was now contemplating targets that were more than three times higher.

In the current development plan, the goal for wind energy is 30 gigawatts. Zhang said the new goal could be 100GW by 2020.

"Similarly, by 2020 the total installed capacity for solar power will be at least three times that of the original target [3GW]," Zhang said in an interview in London. China generates only 120 megawatts of its electricity from solar power, so the goal represents a 75-fold expansion in just over a decade.

"We are now formulating a plan for development of renewable energy. We can be sure we will exceed the 15% target. We will at least reach 18%. Personally I think we could reach the target of having renewables provide 20% of total energy consumption."

That matches the European goal, and would represent a direct challenge to Europe's claims to world leadership in the field, despite China's relative poverty. Some experts have cast doubt on whether Britain will be able to reach 20%. On another front, China has the ambitious plan of installing 100m energy-efficient lightbulbs this year alone.

Beijing seeks to achieve these goals by directing a significant share of China's $590bn economic stimulus package to low-carbon investment. Of that total, more than $30bn will be spent directly on environmental projects and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions."

mini

"Your keen eye's appreciated, mini, but some sort of facts would be appreciated even more."

I presented them - do you want me to make a list of the dozens of scientific societies that have made statements on the issue since 2000? THAT is the argument. The scientific consensus is huge and growing, and as to the facts about climate change, I MUST leave that to the scientists, much (as I said before) as I do that the earth is spherical, even though it doesn't "feel" like ti.

catahoula

China's doing this because they believe in catastrophic AGW... rotfl.

Translation: "we're choking on the emissions from our dirty coal plants and are gonna build some windmills - another "Three Gorges dam, too, if we can find another spot and the Green's will get off our back."

Looks like a big "screw you, jack", rather than them getting on board with the believers.

AFP: China blasts US climate bill

dstark

What consequences can we expect - COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009

catahoula

You should have capitalized scientists, instead, mini.. it would show the proper reverance

dstark

Money making opportunities?

It?s all about energy - COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009




"It’s all about energy
How does the world’s energy map look right now, and how will it look in the future? See what science has to say about the pros and cons and maybes of 12 renewable and non-renewable energy technologies.


The global energy scene is currently dominated by two overriding concerns that strongly affect decisions on energy development priorities: security of supply and climate change.

Worldwide, renewable energy is still dominated by the ”old” renewables: hydropower and traditional biomass. They supply respectively six and nine percent of global primary energy demand.

Only about two percent of the world’s primary energy is currently provided by ”new” renewable sources such as wind, photovoltaics (solar cells) and mini- and micro-hydro.

If greenhouse gas emissions are to be reduced substantially, renewable energy technologies arguably have to obtain a greater share of the global energy supply. But even if renewables get a larger market share, this only takes care of the climate problem. To become commonplace, they also need to satisfy the demand for security of supply.

”One of the main challenges is that all of the sophisticated sustainable energy technologies – be it wind, solar, wave or something else – produce energy when it suits them. But Mrs. Jensen does her laundry when it suits her,” says Hans Larsen, Head of Division at Denmark's Technical University, Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy, and a review editor of the Fourth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The problem is storing the energy for later use and also transporting it over greater distances with a minimum of loss.

”If someone were to come up with a major storage breakthrough, the world’s entire need for energy could be covered by renewable energy,” says Hans Larsen.

In addition to storing and transporting energy, two other factors are a key to optimizing energy use and obtaining a higher degree of sustainability: intelligence and energy systems.

”The intelligent energy system is an area you don’t think so much about, but where there is a whole lot to be gained. It is key to making all current and future energy technologies meet and work together,” says Hans Larsen."

catahoula

Your link argument's driving me to bed, dstark.

I don't have time tonight to read each one of the darn things to figure out your point... there's always tomorrow, though.

Ask Al... it's worked for him.

dstark

Home - COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009

dstark

My point is insurance.

Points.

There are over 150 countries meeting in Denmark at the end of the year to discuss how to combat something that doesn't exist.

There is an argument that fighting global warming is going to cost us jobs, and more specifically the cap and trade bill is going to cost us jobs.

There are going to be winners and losers in the cap and trade bill and the fight for global warming, but this doesn't mean there is going to be a "net" loss of jobs.

If the US doesn't get it's act together, it will not be a global leader in alternative energy. That will cost the US jobs. It will cost the US money. The US has been the technological leader for a long time, but it doesn't have to be that way in the future. It won't be if things don't change.

And it is not just me saying these things. People like John Doerr, who knows a few things about business, and investing for the future, are saying these things.

So even for the people who think global warming is a crock, is the US going to be a leader in alternative energy or not?

If the US is going to be a leader, it is going to cost money.
Or we can sit around with 20th century technology while other countries develop 21st century technology.

Then not only can we buy our junk at WalMart that is made in China, we can buy our energy from China too.

We can just watch our money get sucked out of this country.

But yeah, we might lose a few jobs in certain areas because of cap and trade. That's what is important.

The guys who cleaned up horse@@@@ in NYC 100 years ago lost their jobs too.

dstark

And now I wait to see what I really said in post #399.

mini

"You should have capitalized scientists, instead, mini.. it would show the proper reverance."

Well, if I have to choose between thousands of the world's leading scientists and you... (You might be better on a date? )

catahoula

It’s doubtful, mini, though I suppose it would depend on what you’re looking for in a man.

catahoula

It’s significant that a crisis ginned up for policy reasons is being debated by politicians?

I don’t pretend to know how many jobs will be lost from Cap and Trade and it’s eventual tweaking and tightening, dstark, but inflating the price of energy in a downturn seems moronic… it could just be me, though.

There’d be winners and losers with AGW, too, in the event it ever occurs. (The catastrophic version of the IPCC, et al seems destined to remain a pipe dream, though.)

As for the whole “global leader” thing, exactly which alternative energy sources are you suggesting we work on?

I’m truly not familiar with this one and since you’ve mentioned it more than once, would you explain?

I assume you said what you meant, dstark. If I disagree with it, does that mean I’m claiming you did otherwise?

dstark

catahoula, the increase in the cost of energy for households isn't going to be large in the near future.

I think Doerr and the Denmark link #post 396 mention many choices.

I would leave out corn-based ethanol. That's a loser.

mini

"It’s doubtful, mini, though I suppose it would depend on what you’re looking for in a man."

Ah, but there's only one of you, and I shall not have to apportion your general appeal according to a consensus.