Slashdot Mirror
China To Boost Non-Fossil Fuel Use To 20 Percent By 2030 (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: China aims for non-fossil fuels to account for about 20 percent of total energy consumption by 2030, increasing to more than half of demand by 2050, its state planner said on Tuesday, as Beijing continues its years-long shift away from coal power. In a policy document, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will peak by 2030 and total energy demand will be capped at 6 billion tons of standard coal equivalent by 2030, up from 4.4 billion tons targeted for this year.
>> carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will (go to) 6 billion tons of standard coal equivalent by 2030, up from 4.4 billion tons (now)
That's the only part of this post I believe.
It's already too late.
People dragged their feet since it was definitive in the 90s. If humanity has a crisis from the shift we damn well deserve it at this point.
While it is true that China is rolling out more all-electric cars SUVs and trucks than North America, the problem is not the ratio of electric vehicles but the shift from 80 percent bicycle to more cars and SUVs.
China needs to stop providing parking spots for non-electric cars in high demand areas, and use those spots for bicycles.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I wish I could see your face when you eventually marry, have kids and your daughter is gonna be ashamed you're her dad and never tell you about her black bf.
I will not even suggest your mother has ever had a mouthful of some dark meat.
On second thought and having your children in mind, do us all a favour and don't reproduce. You're diluting the gene pool with your baboon-like behaviour.
You can't take the sky from me!
oh wait, maybe they can
Or is this part of the AI suppression pogram?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
While it is true that China is rolling out more all-electric cars SUVs and trucks than North America, the problem is not the ratio of electric vehicles but the shift from 80 percent bicycle to more cars and SUVs.
China needs to stop providing parking spots for non-electric cars in high demand areas, and use those spots for bicycles.
Why China? Why not everywhere else. Seems a bit unfair to expect China to stay on bicycles and not adopt ICE and only allow electric if other countries are not willing to do the same. Indeed, whilst the POTUS is promoting Coal as the fuel of the future, China has been promoting renewables. (it sucks that they have all the pollution and disregard for the environment from all the factories).
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Using non-fossil energy isn't the goal here. The goal is to drastically reduce fossil energy consumption. They carefully avoided saying by how much they'll increase fossil energy use, but even if 20% of that 6 billion ton equivalent in 2030 will come from non-fossil sources, that means 4.8 will come from fossil sources, which is still a lot more than fossil and non-fossil combined this year. No cookie for you, China.
If you think China is going to reduce their fossil fuel use overall, you are a fool. They may be diversifying, but you can bet they will be utilizing the most cost effective means of power production they can find to build all that stuff you buy that they build.
Guarantee they won't reduce C02 production any time soon. Oh they may CLAIM to have done so and make a big show out of "green" projects to appease their customers, but as long as coal is cheap, they will burn it, and they have plenty of coal...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
we're retardedly trying to bring coal back, Christ
I don't think anyone would even fuck that guy... They would probably say it, but no one would actually do it.
Because China is the oil industry's favorite whipping boy these days.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This makes a lot of sense for China. If you're building out new infrastructure, build with the one that will be most cost effective in the future. You can take a solar panel to a remote village, and use a few hundred yards of copper to give lighting to all the houses....or, you can build a centralized coal plant and run hundreds of miles of copper to give lighting to all the houses. The renewable solar wins on a cost basis, even if you ignore the renewable.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
It's good to want...
fuck republicans.
The missing piece of this article is that China is dumping a lot of money into developing thorium nuclear power. In comparison, Uranium is expensive, hard to dispose of, way too radioactive, and terribly inefficient.
You mean the one that the US Dept of Energy** is helping them build because they can't convince the US government to fund it?
In the meantime, overcapacity, cost overruns due to mounting safety requirements*** have delayed China's near term nuclear efforts. Maybe their future Thorium nuclear endeavors will go more smoothly...
It's good to have optimism about new things, but sometimes thorium cheerleaders seem to have unwarranted optimism given the issues surrounding nuclear projects in the short history of nuclear power.
**Isn't that department headed by Rick Perry who as a candidate wanted to eliminate that department, but apparently couldn't remember it's name...
***The same cost overruns that have basically pushed Toshiba near bankruptcy and Areva towards a french government bailout
Why China? Why not everywhere else. Seems a bit unfair to expect China to stay on bicycles and not adopt ICE and only allow electric if other countries are not willing to do the same. Indeed, whilst the POTUS is promoting Coal as the fuel of the future, China has been promoting renewables. (it sucks that they have all the pollution and disregard for the environment from all the factories).
Because only China is doing this in large part. They have the top emissions worldwide. The US & Canada are both dropping.
it's 2017, not 1997. wake up.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Read the Bloomberg article at the link, rather than this silly summary. It describes a nuclear program that is already producing so much additional power ("overcapacity") that it will reduce the number of coal stations faster than originally planned. The "mounting safety requirements" part was a two-year hold to make post-Fukushima updates to the program. China currently plans 176 reactors, far more than any other nation.
China is catching up to western living standards, from a long ways behind. If they followed the same trajectory as the US and Europe, their CO2 emissions would increase tenfold and stay there for the rest of this century. Instead they're planning to speed past that stage and cut emissions much sooner.
Of course that's only possible because we pioneered the way, but still - it's a good ambition and should be praised, not jeered.
Everyone seems to be talking about green and whether green is real or fake or whatever. It doesn't matter. Not doing renewables means you lose the global economy. Two charts that show why China is all-in on renewables:
(Note: I just linked the first ones I could find from Google image search. Feel free to confirm with other sources.)
Cost of oil production:
https://gailtheactuary.files.w...
Energy consumption by a few major countries:
https://gailtheactuary.files.w...
See that purple line going up? China has 3x the people as the U.S., and that purple line is eventually going to pass ours. Noting that the cost of oil production has been increasing significantly faster as the world uses up all of its "easy to access" petroleum sources, we expect fossil fuel prices to continue to increase as global consumption accelerates with China and India's growth.
As both of these trends continue there will be a point where the economy least tied to fossil fuels will have a significant cost advantage. That's China's real goal.
If you're against renewables because Al Gore or something, look at the long run macroeconomic trends.
Well, technically, they did steal a lot of wind and solar tech to do that, but given the end result, I'm ok with it.
What's a 20 foot increase in sea levels compared to some corporate theft by a nation state?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
TFA says Chine wants to
increase oil and underground natural gas storage facilities
How does that reduce fossil fuel usage? It seems there is something from with article title.
Not just China, but China has a good opportunity to do it here.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Oh, I wish people had fewer cars here as well.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Because only China is doing this in large part. They have the top emissions worldwide. The US & Canada are both dropping.
it's 2017, not 1997. wake up.
China, despite having a lower GDP than the US has outspent the US in spending on renewables for every year this decade. China is already doing more than the US to break from fossil fuels. China has a lot of problems with how they treat the environment, but they're beating us on renewables.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
While it is true that China is rolling out more all-electric cars SUVs and trucks than North America, the problem is not the ratio of electric vehicles but the shift from 80 percent bicycle to more cars and SUVs.
China needs to stop providing parking spots for non-electric cars in high demand areas, and use those spots for bicycles.
Why China? Why not everywhere else. Seems a bit unfair to expect China to stay on bicycles and not adopt ICE and only allow electric if other countries are not willing to do the same. Indeed, whilst the POTUS is promoting Coal as the fuel of the future, China has been promoting renewables. (it sucks that they have all the pollution and disregard for the environment from all the factories).
The main reason it is more reasonable to do this in china is that their population does not yet own cars en masse. It's a little unfair to do it to a population who has already invested in vehicles. But, in China, I would dare say the majority still have a bicycle (or maybe an e-bike). So, it's more reasonable, because they haven't yet made the investment. It's not pulling the rug out from the common man the way it would be in a more developed economy.
Technically, the only reason China is beating the US and Canada on renewables is the inaction of Red states and provinces. If you actually look at the 13 states and 6 provinces investing in renewables, we're also investing just as much. But, being Communists, China can force everyone to actually do stuff, so they win.
And I do mean win. It cuts their costs dramatically. It's why Blue cities grow faster. The few Red cities that invest in renewables and transit are growing a lot (part of why Texas does so well, too).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Except in every metric other than country total output, China looks much better than the USA. Better per capita, better per GDP, better spending direction, better policies.
But yeah I know. There's lots of them so they don't deserve to use electricity. Now excuse me while I turn up the A/C because it's slightly uncomfortable in here.