Slashdot Mirror
China Is Winning Global Race To Make Clean Energy
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world's largest maker of wind turbines, has leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world's largest manufacturer of solar panels, and is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants. These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China."
The OP is comparing a natural ressource only present in specific places with something that is easily manufactured anywhere. So, dependence on chinese wind turbines - hardly.
You cannot compare our need for oil to our "need" for manufactured goods. The former is a finite resource, you can only get it from a handful of places around the world, the latter will be sourced from literally whoever is cheapest. If China suddenly cut the west's supply of goods off I'm sure one of their cheapest competitors would happily step in to fill the void. Or if it got too expensive then they would be produced in the west.
I'm surprised that we can ignore all the toxic byproducts created by manufacturing solar panels and still call them "green".
Because there are no toxic byproducts created when fossil fuels are burned, or fossil fuel burning equipment is manufactured?
I've had this argument before. Nothing is really "green", unless you eradicate the human race completely. And then there will still be animal farts to deal with. But honestly when you tell me that a solar panel has a life expectancy of 25 years, well, spread out the manufacturing "damage" over 25 years. It's not so bad after all, compared to burning oil/coal for 25 years, is it?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Ok, if that upsets you just call them green-ER.
We consider CFL bulbs to be "green" by the same reasoning - they still have an impact on the environment, but it's much lower than that of normal bulbs.
But honestly when you tell me that a solar panel has a life expectancy of 25 years, well, spread out the manufacturing "damage" over 25 years. It's not so bad after all, compared to burning oil/coal for 25 years, is it?
But the "damage" isn't spread out, we pay it up front and then hope to make up for it over the 25 year life span of these panels. Do we really want to do that at this time when we might be on the edge already ? The greenest way out is to use less and spend what we do use more wisely manufacturing "greener" power sources that we then use to bootstrap production of ever greater numbers of these same power sources, not this phony economic thinking.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
When the US attacks Iran...
That will never happen. For all that the Iranian government has not exactly made friends in the West, I doubt that the Chinese would stay quiet. AND I doubt that the Russians would be happy with so much American presence on their southern flank. They stayed quiet about Afghanistan because the whole world was shocked by 9-11 and expected American retaliation. The Russians protested the Iraq war and Putin at the time (2003) called it an "error". Going into Iran, hmm, I think the Russians would side with China and take action.
Laugh if you must. Perhaps you don't feel threatened by those two very large countries. I'm sure the British scoffed at the American Militia in the late 1700's too. Remember that Iran is a lot closer to Russia and China than it is to the US. Technology alone doesn't win wars. Ask Napoleon. Ask Hitler. Ask the Romans. The strategic outlook for going into Iran is bad bad bad, which is probably why it hasn't happened yet.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Actually, you probably make a very good point as to why they just passed the west in regard to solar panels: They don't care about the environment being poluted. So it is, neccessarily, much cheaper to produce them there than in "the West"
They stayed quiet about Afghanistan because the whole world was shocked by 9-11 and expected American retaliation.
No, more than likely they stayed quiet because they expected America to end up in a long, protracted, bloody and costly war much like the Russians did 2 decades earlier.....
Monstar L
Either that or there's nothing of any real value in Afghanistan and being there is helping to ruin the US economy. Win-win (for them).
No sig today...
This will be a somewhat general statement, but I'm an American and the endless flood of stories like this is quite disheartening. I've left the USA now, because it seems to be in decline, but more importantly because no one seems to give a damn. Just today I read the article about China (where I currently live) leapfrogging the West in renewable energy products (which is clearly happening, despite the West's complaints), as well as an article on Cringely's blog about upcoming cuts to NASA (which is probably the single most important government agency for the future of humanity).
Then, I go over to facebook, and all I see are status messages from politically-minded friends, essentially acting like children watching a football game "Go Democrats! Fuck Republicans!" "Go Republicans! Fuck Democrats!", and no one seems to give a flying fuck about actually making changes that position the country for the future.
Take China as an example. Like every other country, they injected a huge financial stimulus into their economy, but they are doing it with purpose. They're building new highways to serve parts of the country presently unserved; they're building bullet trains faster than those in Japan, Korea and France; they're upgrading their power grid to technologies surpassing that of any other country. When all is said and done, they will have used the downturn as an opportunity to improve their country's efficiency.
Meanwhile, in the USA, they bailed out the oligarchy that runs the banking system, and then gave money to a bunch of aimless projects that just put band-aids on current infrastructure. There was no national call to action (for example..."we're going to put unemployed auto workers to work building an all-new high-speed rail system to link our urban areas" or "we're going to use this opportunity to completely replace our power grid, because we lose such a high percentage of power to inefficiency of the lines") that would have solidly improved the country for the long-term, improve its ability to transact business.
Anyone to this site ought to understand that networks are important. The Internet, power grid, airports, train system, highway system...all networks, that allow society to function. In the USA, only the Internet and highways actually work well (the power grid is antiquated and incredibly inefficient, the air traffic control system is a dinosaur and most U.S. airports are shitholes comparatively speaking to the many other countries, and although highways work well, they depend on a resource that is finite and running out). When will Americans wake up and start pushing the country to actually upgrade the country's networked infrastructure; prepare the country for the future?
I know this seems to be out of place here, but the fact that the USA is doing essentially nothing on the renewable energy front is just another example. After a while, it gets pretty disheartening.
gameDB
Do we really want to do that at this time when we might be on the edge already ?
So you think doing nothing is better?
he greenest way out is to use less and spend what we do use more wisely
What you say makes sense in theory. However it's not going to happen. You would need to fundamentally change human nature. People will starve to death before that happens. You can't ask people not to breed, not to strive for a certain standard of living, to consume less. They won't listen. Oh some might pretend to listen, but if you look at the statistics it just won't be happening.
When I was born in the 60's there were 4 billion people on this planet. We've just about doubled that. And yet when I was young I remember hearing all the time about how important it was to "control" the world population. Guess what? It hasn't happened, and it won't happen.
So go ahead and preach modesty and frugality - you are absolutely correct. But know that no one is listening. Therefore at least let's find some other way of producing what we need in the meantime - because believe me, we WILL use all the resources on this planet at one point. ALL of them. And then we die, just like the J-curve bacteria in the petri dish when they finally deplete their nutrients.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
In order to win race you must finish first. I don't think that China can do that when Norway is already 100% green. Or maybe "green energy" does not include hydro power.
Of course, if those self-same "hippies" hadn't been busy doing Big Oil's job for them by demonising nuclear power at the time, the environmental situation, not to mention the face of world politics, might be very different today (I would have liked 20 years of building more efficient breeder reactors and better means of dealing with the waste, for instance, than the status quo of pumping the waste directly into the sky). I guess it's easy to say, in hindsight, that the world might be a cleaner, better place today if we'd done more nuclear back then, but the truth is the facts were there all along, people just chose to ignore them or distort them to their own ends (on both sides of the debate, I might add).
If you can dump the effluent from your factories into the rivers and if you don't need to give you workers protective gear, its amazing how financially compelling your argument to build in China becomes. Obviously China will outstrip the workers paradises in Europe, and nobody, least of all the Europeans, are going to complain about polluted rivers and skies in China.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Define "solved". We know how to reprocess the fuel. We know how to bury it securely enough for any possible risk to be local and slight.
The problem is that in the minds of critics of a certain age, the waste problem isn't "solved" until it turns itself into sugar-free gummi bears. For free. Immediately.
We don't hold other kinds of industrial waste to nearly the same standard we hold nuclear, despite that waste remaining more danger for a longer time. (Ever hear of dioxin?)
Now, you can have a coherent position that involves no pollution whatsoever. As a side effect, it'll make our way of life impossible, and as such, I'll reject it. But at least it's a coherent position.
On the other hand, you can adopt my worldview, in which a tiny bit of pollution is acceptable, and we should rationally choose technology that results in the least pollution with respect to coal.
But this notion many people have, that nuclear is a special category, and can't be evaluated using the same intellectual framework we treat the rest of our civilization, is incoherent and irrational. It's clearly the emotional byproduct of growing up during the cold war. It's not something one can rationally argue. It's a belief absolutely impervious to evidence, and is costing us billions each year we delay switching away from coal due to the fear of the nuclear waste boogeyman.
On the other hand it is a hell of a lot easier to get people do to things when doing things is the only chance they have. You could go out and build wind turbines or you could starve. Millions of rural Chinese are choosing to not starve.
Also, and just because I have a few bones to pick with the article/blog, saying that China is leading the way on solar and wind is like saying that a diabetic is leading the fight against world hunger and sugar imbalance. Of course they are producing more solar panels and wind turbines than anyone else, they are producing more of anything else than anybody else. This is just stating the obvious while the blogger quietly applauds China's take on cap and trade.
As as far as green infrastructure building goes, of course they are. They have a ton of people and what would save other countries a penny, will costs China billions. If China didn't take that approach it would be like Wal-Mart swapping out their distribution chair for backpacked clowns on pogo sticks.
I am sorry, but saying the Chinese government have suddenly developed an environmental conscious is bullshit. I have lived there personally, and I know environmentalist that have tried to work with the government. They are only interested in saving face in front of the World.
This is all about making products and money. If they thought they could sell blue widgets rather than solar panels for more money, they would. They will also likly dump the chemicals and waist from the manufacturing of the solar panels in to the rivers and lakes, while using the dirties coal powered energy to make them, making their workers sick with uncontrolled processes, and no one will even try to hide it.
So while you are all feeling warm and fuzzy about your new solar panels, electric car, or whatever saving the Planet, stop and realize that it was made with some of the most environmentally unfriendly and unethical practices in the World in China.
Try the rivers full of dead floating fish? How about the chemical spills that regularly kill thousands across China? Try driving by one of their coal fired power plants. Your eyes will be watering long before you see the plant. Has anyone on the East coast of China ever seen a star in their life?
Talking about pollution in China is still officially a State secret that can make people disappear.
Living in Chile
In the long run, I have little fear of China. First, their oppressive government will eventually moderate or fail as the population becomes more educated and more connected to the rest of the world. Second, as China engages with other nations, they have quickly learned how taking shortcuts such as using lead paint on toys is not the path to success. Third, there is the lesson of Google, where China is learning that there is a high cost to forcing the private sector at private expense to do the government's bidding. Finally, China's public health issues and personal liberty issues are on a collision course with it's government ability to stay in power.
-- $G
No we don't.
A bit of googling will show the French experience in attempting to do so and only getting a small fraction at vast cost. In the USA there were never attempts to get so far so don't let this decay into mindless nation bashing (plus there were people from the USA involved in the French efforts). You can't just walk up to a fuel rod with an angle grinder, everything has to be done remotely and it becomes horribly expensive, time consuming and wasteful.
As for storing the high grade waste Synrock is a pretty good option and is only now starting to get used after more than thirty years of low budget research. The "nukes are clean" crap was counterproductive so very little effort has gone into the waste problem.
Unlimited population growth leading to certain death is not innevitable. The population in many developed countries is actually falling - that is why they are [mostly] happy to welcome large numbers of immigrants. Education, particularly of women, and wealth generally leads to a declining birth rate.
rt
The problem with investing in green tech isn't the EPA. (Many of the worst chemicals in Solar Panel manufacturing are so toxic that they kill you instantly if you mishandle them... and they don't stick around).
The problem is that these investments take years to payoff and US corporations provide incentives for very short term results at the expense of serious long term investments.
Build a wind turbine in the US or EU, and it's "Agggh! You might hurt some birds!"
Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....
Build a hydroelectric dam in the US or EU, and it's "Agggh! You might hurt some snails!"
Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....
Build a solar panel in the US or EU, and it's "Agggh! You might shade some weeds!"
Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....
Build a nuclear reactor in the US or EU, and it's "AGGGH! GIANT ANTS!"
Lawsuit-lawsuit-lawsuit....
Folks in China don't seem to have to deal with as many of the "technology is baaaaad" types.
I suspect it's because they have far more-recent memories of what it's like to freeze in the dark.
Regards;
That's what they said about Japanese goods a few decades ago, and about American goods a few decades before that.
And the Russian achieved better results too, after they left many expected the Socialist regime to collapse, instead they lasted for quite some time inflicting heavy defeats on the 'freedom fighters', the Afghan army they trained successfully operated jets, tanks and other advanced equipment on large scale. Compare it top the Afghan army of today, illiterate, undisciplined mess of unshaven men in dirty uniforms (if any) with no supply and command and control capability. It won't last a week against the Taleban.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil