Slashdot Mirror


China Leads in "Clean" Energy Investment

derekmead writes "According to a new study (PDF) from Pew Charitable Trusts, China was the world leader in clean energy investment in 2012. The U.S., meanwhile, saw its grip loosen on many of the clean energy technologies it developed. According to the research, total clean energy investment totaled $269 billion worldwide last year, a decline from 2011's record high of $302 billion. However, clean energy investment in the Asia and Oceania markets grew by 16 percent to $101 billion. In terms of investment — which is an indicator that a country or region has offered compelling projects, struck a good regulatory balance, and has a strong economy — that makes Asia the epicenter of the global clean energy market. The Pew researchers thus labeled the U.S. clean energy sector as 'underperforming,' largely for a trio of reasons. First, China's boom and manufacturing prowess has taken investment away from the U.S.. Second, the U.S. regulatory environment for clean energy is horrifically unstable (as is the regulatory environment as a whole) as politicians battle over budget rhetoric. Finally, the U.S. has failed to capitalize on its innovation prowess and develop its clean energy manufacturing sector to its full potential." They do not count nuclear as clean, but including nuclear would only widen China's lead over everyone else (they almost have their first new AP1000 ready and are building lots more).

20 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Clean Energy = Scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clean energy is nothing but a scam invented by the liberals who hate America and want to destroy this country with fear mongering (ie global warming).

    It is a good thing that our enemy (China) is outpacing us in this budget-wasting regard! /s.

    1. Re:Clean Energy = Scam by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Clean energy is nothing but a scam invented by the liberals who hate America and want to destroy this country with fear mongering (ie global warming).

      It is a good thing that our enemy (China) is outpacing us in this budget-wasting regard! /s.

      Woah!

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Clean Energy = Scam by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Funny

      And as Zontar The Mindless once said, "Never have I seen a man in such dire need of a sarcasm detector."

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Clean Energy = Scam by niftydude · · Score: 4, Informative

      i dunno what made you think the op was being sarcastic, but your username kinda gives it away

      I'm guessing the "/s" at the end of the op's post was the indication everyone else was using to recognize sarcasm...

      --
      You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    4. Re:Clean Energy = Scam by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Informative

      >And there's another myth - that 'being liberal' means having an open mind. The not-so-subtle implication of that statment is that you must also believe that anyone who is not 'liberal' does not have an open mind.

      No myth there. Simple fact. Conservative, by definition, means NOT having an open mind. It means "wanting to conserve the status quo" - which is ipso facto a closed-minded approach.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  2. Long term vs. short term by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America is a corporate-driven economy, which needs results this quarter and the next. Any strategy that last for longer than 5 years is just not worth the investment.
    China is still partially a plan-driven economy, which does not need to have a result this quarter or the next. Pay back times can be longer.

    It is incredibly painful to an economy to move away from short term gains to longer term. At first, you only pay, and nothing comes back yet. But after a couple of years, you start to gain from this. Nobody in the USA seems willing to take that first step.

    1. Re:Long term vs. short term by SimonInOz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I just came back from China - Shanghai, actually. It's a city of 23 million people (more than Australia's entire population). It has many roads, full of - wait for it - electric scooters. Not those boring little ones, no these are full-on Vespa-like, two person carrying scooters. I would guess they carry half the city's traffic, in people-kms.
      They have 400 watts, a top speed around 40kmh, and a range of about 40km. And they are pretty cheap. From 2400 YMB (=$400) these are real bargains. And they look pretty good.

      So a Chinese city has moved half its transport to electricity. And nobody has said a word. Amazing.

      These scooters looked pretty good to me - I'd buy one without question at that price. But they are banned here (Australia), and many other places. You are allowed up to 250 watts. Above that the regulations get all nasty. Registration, helmets, licenses, etc. So much so that you cannot buy such a thing, just a few rather expensive electric bikes.

      For sure they are charged from the mains, sourced from coal fired generating plants - but that is surely far, far more efficient than the nasty engines normal scooters have, and use far less energy. I imagine they are way ahead, carbon-wise.

      Maybe we should take a few lessons from the Chinese.

      --
      "Cats like plain crisps"
    2. Re:Long term vs. short term by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thank you for recognizing that central planning can exist at the "corporate level" as well as the "government level". Too many so-called free-market capitalists only recognize the latter and fail to see the former.

      IMHO the best feature of the free market is that it harnesses the sheer chaos of many players working in an un-coordinated fashion. A better (not necessarily the best, at least not right away) solution is likely to emerge from somewhere in that mess.

      I'll see your heresy and raise you one... Profit is not a feature of free-market capitalistic economy, it's a necessary evil.

      If you look at a market economy as transferring goods from producers to consumers efficiently, profit is an inefficiency. It's a necessary inefficiency, because it gives people the incentive to facilitate that transfer, (and to produce, for that matter) but it's still an inefficiency.

      Today's "record corporate profits" are really a danger sign. One aspect of the free market is that whenever there are high profits, there should ALWAYS be an opportunity for another player to enter the market, willing to accept lower profits, improving the flow of goods from producer to consumer. That we have sustained high profits indicates that there are barriers to entry that are not being overcome. Sometimes the barriers are "natural", such as the cost of a semiconductor fabricator, and sometimes they're not, such as market effects or IP law.

      Even more heretical...

      People talk about government spending being a sap on the economy, but when you look at it, the government is spending all of that money, so it's really almost all going back into the economy - it's not being taken away. When corporate profits are used to invest in growth, production, etc, that is also not removing money from the economy. But today's record corporate profits aren't being reinvested, they're being stuffed in the mattresses - frequently offshore. In that respect, corporate profits are worse for the economy than taxes, because they really are removing money from the economy. (not just spending the money on something the taxee doesn't like)

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  3. Not surprising -- and not a black eye for the U.S. by gregwbrooks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    China's energy needs -- in terms of year-over-year growth -- dwarf those of any other country. Their regulatory processes, for projects that the state deems necessary, can be incredibly streamlined. AND they've got money to spend. It's no surprise they're the hotspot for all kinds of energy investment -- clean and otherwise.

    --


    "It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
  4. Re:I should hope so... by thephydes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    WTF What gives you the right to complain about China if you live in USA or EU . Christ you've been fucking up the planet for decades - no centuries, and now you have the gall to complain about China. Where was all the work you did to avoid it? Oh yes that's right into the pockets of "Global Corporations" global rapists more like......... Geez I though I'd heard it all!

  5. Re:I should hope so... by crutchy · · Score: 5, Informative

    actually per capita china is still doing pretty well

    in 2008, china produced 5.3 tonnes per capita of CO2, whereas the US produced 18.5 tonnes per capita

    if the US is telling china that it needs to clean up its act, it would definitely be a case of pot calling the kettle black

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

  6. Re:Not surprising -- and not a black eye for the U by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whilst it might not be surprising to you or me, many people argue that there's not worth being more green as a nation because the Chinese won't follow. When in actual fact the boot is on the other foot. China is leading and America is lagging behind.

    And why would it be that it's not a "black eye" for the US? It's hardly the case that they are not spending money on creating ever more energy sources. It's just that not enough of them are green.

  7. Re:I should hope so... by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Informative

    Only because they are by far the most populous country. You can only really judge based on per capita rates. China is 78th among countries with 5.3 metric tonnes CO2 per capita. The USA is 7th with 22.1.

    When you look at consumption, the USA comes out even worse. America consumes more per person than any other country. There are around 200 countries in the world, and the USA alone consumes about 25% of the energy.

    America is still the biggest offender in "fucking up the planet".

  8. Re:Brown coal from Australia by jonwil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As an Aussie and an environmentalist, I consider coal to be evil and think that the less of that dirty black/brown crap we dig out of the ground the better. Plenty of ways to generate electricity (even baseload electricity) without using coal if people are willing to put in the investment.
    I do not believe the government should be giving a single cent in money to the coal industry or to coal fired power stations (the exception being if the money is to be used to decommission said power stations)

  9. Re:China has no choice by ciderbrew · · Score: 4, Funny

    is it about 8-10% of US debt they own? They could just move in to a state and call it even.

  10. Just don't breathe and you'll be fine. by game+kid · · Score: 4, Informative

    China is a wonderfully clean and healthy place, as long as you don't breathe.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  11. Re:I should hope so... by KGIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's right. China's per capita coal consumption is far less than typical Westerners, so until the Chinese have wrecked the environment at least as much as you have, for at least as long as you have, and a good deal worse and longer for good measure, then you need to shut your stupid fat face.

    You know that is illogical, right? Just because someone has done something wrong doesn't mean that they can't point out, complain, or attempt to stop another from doing the same thing. Even if they're still doing that same thing themselves it makes it no less wrong. It is hypocritical but the act is still wrong regardless of the source or history of the accuser.

    What is sad is that you're not the only one who presumes such. I'd hope that more people could think logically but most of my hopes seem to expect too much of people.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  12. Re:China has no choice by coinreturn · · Score: 4, Funny

    is it about 8-10% of US debt they own? They could just move in to a state and call it even.

    They can have Texas.

  13. Re: China has no choice by Evtim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My goverment takes 45% of my wages in taxes and I still can support whole family with one job + supproting old mother (widow) in former communist state. That is how we do things in Europe...

  14. Re:THAT Dream Comes From Pipes, sir... by HungWeiLo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks like Texans are the big leechers:

    http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-20/business/35270608_1_job-growth-rick-perry-public-sector-jobs

    "Between December 2007 and [June 2011], private-sector employment in Texas declined by 0.6 percent while public-sector jobs increased by 6.4 percent, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Overall, government employees account for about one-sixth of the workforce in Texas."

    Pulling up by the bootstraps, my foot.

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.