Slashdot Mirror


Why China is Winning the Clean Energy Race (axios.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: U.S. politicians have been warning for years that America couldn't let China win the clean energy race. That's exactly what has happened, with the trends most stark in electric cars, solar and nuclear energy. Why it matters: Building for the last decade, these trends have accelerated in the last couple of years. Politicians and business leaders said America's dominance in this space would bring jobs to the U.S. and security to our clean-energy resources, and now both of those goals are at risk. Why China is doing this: It needs to literally energize its 1.4 billion people, both how they travel and how they power their homes. Its leadership feels compelled to do it in a cleaner way than the U.S. did. Air pollution is at dangerously high levels across many of China's cities. People are seeing and feeling health repercussions of China's dependence on fossil fuel-fired cars and power plants in an acute way. Traditional air pollution, not climate change, is a big driver.

130 of 213 comments (clear)

  1. Political Party explains this by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    China's ruling political party has no competition, so they never felt the need to directly contradict progressive ideas. They have admitted the existence of global warming (sorry GOP, I will not use the term you invented "climate change") and are actively fighting against it.

    The USA's ruling party is currently the GOP, it holds the Presidency and a majority in Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

    But the GOP got there in part by fighting against the Democrat party, which had put itself on the side of Progress. That includes the progressive idea of global warming.

    So the GOP denied global warming and put pro pollution people in charge. They refuse to put funding into clean energy and that explains it.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re: Political Party explains this by TimMD909 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow. I never realized how black and white everything is. Life is so much simpler now. Blissful even. Wonder if there's a word this feeling... igno-something?

    2. Re:Political Party explains this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China's ruling political party has no competition, so they never felt the need to directly contradict progressive ideas. They have admitted the existence of global warming (sorry GOP, I will not use the term you invented "climate change") and are actively fighting against it.

      The USA's ruling party is currently the GOP, it holds the Presidency and a majority in Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

      But the GOP got there in part by fighting against the Democrat party, which had put itself on the side of Progress. That includes the progressive idea of global warming.

      So the GOP denied global warming and put pro pollution people in charge. They refuse to put funding into clean energy and that explains it.

      Read the article before commenting.

      Traditional air pollution, not climate change, is the main driver behind their desire to improve.
      People are more motivated to address a threat they can see and experience (their current air quality) than something that may impact them 10-20-30 years in the future.

    3. Re: Political Party explains this by spun · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your comment makes little sense, gurps_npc is not making anything black and white. If anything, their explanation is pretty nuanced, and far from ignorance.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:Political Party explains this by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      China is NOT worried about CAGW dolt. CAGW is simply another foreign money maker for them and strategically exploits the US. Urban particulates for black lungs, NOx, SOx are their immediate problems.

    5. Re:Political Party explains this by skb.ee.duke.edu · · Score: 2

      A couple of points. 1) From the article, their current air pollution is the motivating factor, not climate change. This makes sense when you consider that people are more likely to react to an immediate threat than a distant one. 2) So they are winning... who cares? 'Losing in leadership' is only important to alpha mindsets that can't turn off the 'need to lead'. Much of the technology they are using is derived from US research anyway. We can let them 'win' and then copy the best ideas back here. In that way, it makes better economic sense to let them take the risks and then join in after they've found a path forward.

    6. Re:Political Party explains this by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      GOP invented the term "climate change"?

      Time to put down that crack pipe, son.

    7. Re:Political Party explains this by dj245 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      China's ruling political party has no competition, so they never felt the need to directly contradict progressive ideas. They have admitted the existence of global warming (sorry GOP, I will not use the term you invented "climate change") and are actively fighting against it.

      The USA's ruling party is currently the GOP, it holds the Presidency and a majority in Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

      But the GOP got there in part by fighting against the Democrat party, which had put itself on the side of Progress. That includes the progressive idea of global warming.

      So the GOP denied global warming and put pro pollution people in charge. They refuse to put funding into clean energy and that explains it.

      I would make a totally different case-

      China's ruling party's biggest goal is stability and keeping unrest to a minimum. All the pollution was starting to get a lot of attention. When I was there 3 years ago, I couldn't see the building across the street due to the Beijing smog. Cleaning up their pollution problem fits into the climate change narrative, but I would argue it is not their main goal.

      The calculation between Europe, Russia, and the US is totally different. Russia's economy is strongly driven by oil and natural gas exports, and Russia is the country with the most to gain from global warming. So naturally Russia would benefit spreading from anti climate change ideology.

      The US economy benefits from very cheap energy, and our natural gas prices are 1/3 of what Europe pays. We seem to be in a new Cold War, so promoting clean energy while at the same time ramping up fossil fuel production (and exporting it) are actually complementary strategies. Both actions have the effect of hurting Russia financially.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    8. Re:Political Party explains this by imgod2u · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Depends. "winning" often involves perfecting the manufacturing environment as well. Including the supply chain, support businesses, logistics and most importantly, the workforce.

      That's something that builds upon itself and can't be moved overnight. It's why the US has historically been such an economic powerhouse: it's industrial production strength.

      Losing the next wave of manufacturing advanced energy products can be a pretty big loss. Both in terms of economic growth, employment and even more importantly, negotiating power during trade agreements.

      We already lost the electronics manufacturing economy. Missing out on the renewable energy economy would seem to be a blow we can't take.

    9. Re:Political Party explains this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All hail the glorious party, able to suppress dissent and directly correct the proletariat. We can all dream of a day when the DNC has such a glorious role in America, we could fix this evil dissenting voice problem and correct the vile constitution.

    10. Re:Political Party explains this by mikael · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The main motivation for Chinese to want to go abroad is to escape the hot smoggy climate, and move somewhere cool and green. They love the UK for this reason. When they can't see the skies for the pollution, the government has no option to act. Just do an image search for pollution in China. Those pictures look like something out of a dystopian futureworld.

      http://static4.businessinsider...

      http://www.museumofthecity.org...
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/ima...
      https://i.guim.co.uk/img/stati...

      On a clear day:
      http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multi...

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    11. Re:Political Party explains this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the GOP that has proven time and again to be eager to shove the proletariat to the curb while obeying their corporate masters, because, you know, profits matter more than anything else

    12. Re: Political Party explains this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it really makes no sense. He called the ruling party in China "progressive"...

      Reading comprehension issue?

    13. Re: Political Party explains this by mapkinase · · Score: 2

      "Climate change" was invented to accomodate consequences of global warming that do not manifest in obvious local climate warming. If anything, it was to cover more observations with antropogenic explanation

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    14. Re:Political Party explains this by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      global warming (sorry GOP, I will not use the term you invented "climate change")

      Climate change is actually a better term for the public, and it is still correct.
      When you thing global warming, people think, OK, less jackets in winter, more AC in summer, what's the big deal? It is, in fact, a compelling idea when it is cold outside. How many time did I hear variants of "wow, it's freezing, is that global warming?", or even "where is global warming when we need it". Global warming really sounds like a good thing.
      Climate change, which includes warming but not just that, gives a better idea of what is expected to happen. In fact, the term "climate change" is to be used against deniers, not by deniers.

    15. Re:Political Party explains this by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Typical five to ten year old rhetoric on China. Xi Jinping has been leading a yuuuuge crackdown on polluting factories this last year. Supply chains are being disrupted left and right. Skies are getting cleaner. There are benefits to being a communist authoritarian oligarchy. There is no debate or lobbying, you just tell people what to do. An environmentalist's dream.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    16. Re: Political Party explains this by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope, he called the Democratic Party of the US progressive. He also said, the Chinese single Party has no competition, so it could embrace the progressive idea of man-made climate change and it actively fights against it. Partly, because their smog-ridden great cities suffered more than present day US cities. Having no progressive competition left them acting freely for the greater good of their people (in this issue).

      Contrary to you, realizing that pollution/climate change is a problem and that developing green energies will also create jobs, it is indeed progressive. Much more than the Orange Clown's dumb denial. I bet, China will open factories in the US where the White Trash can build wind turbines and solar panels instead of cars AND Trump will PAY FOR IT.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    17. Re: Political Party explains this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      igno-mious Trump faggots?

    18. Re: Political Party explains this by spun · · Score: 2

      No he didn't, he said that the Chinese never felt the need to contradict progressive ideas. Meaning, they had no political reasons to deny global warming. In America, we are so polarized that each side will deny anything the other side says, in a knee-jerk fashion. China, as a dictatorship, doesn't have that problem.

      Also, nice sig line.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    19. Re:Political Party explains this by markdavis · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      >"But the GOP got there in part by fighting against the Democrat party, which had put itself on the side of Progress."

      LOL. I suppose that depends on how you define "progress". I would hardly use that label for either party. My definition of progress is change that makes the government comply with the Constitution, first. Instead of progress, we just get a larger and larger Federal government that taxes more and spends more than ever, every year, and now a 20 TRILLION dollar national debt to go with it. Abuse of Executive powers for decades. Abuse of police powers in the name of "safety." Stealing or interfering with powers specifically granted to States (or the People). Creation of so many laws and non-representative regulations that it chokes all markets and civil liberties while creating a hugely complex legal system that nobody can navigate. Rewarding people for not working or making up "disabilities." Raising entitlements to unheard of levels. Bailing out private market failures to reward them so they can do it again and again. Pushing up education costs through the roof due to unilateral funding without any real results requirements. Tax codes that are insanely complicated and impose legislation through code. Astronomical military spending and with associated waste. Crazy copyright and patent laws that destroy rather than protect learning and innovation. I could go on for pages, but I think you get the idea.

      Progress. Yeah, right.

    20. Re:Political Party explains this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      China's ruling political party has no competition, so they never felt the need to directly contradict progressive ideas. They have admitted the existence of global warming (sorry GOP, I will not use the term you invented "climate change") and are actively fighting against it.

      The USA's ruling party is currently the GOP, it holds the Presidency and a majority in Supreme Court, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

      But the GOP got there in part by fighting against the Democrat party, which had put itself on the side of Progress. That includes the progressive idea of global warming.

      So the GOP denied global warming and put pro pollution people in charge. They refuse to put funding into clean energy and that explains it.

      If you don't think the Democrats have the primary force in trying to kill nuclear energy, then you haven't been paying attention.

    21. Re:Political Party explains this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      China is NOT worried about CAGW dolt. CAGW is simply another foreign money maker for them and strategically exploits the US.

      Urban particulates for black lungs, NOx, SOx are their immediate problems.

      And yet the US Repubs think it is about denying CAGW, so the US is losing the renewable race. The idiot-in-chief thinks revitalizing coal is so much more important.

    22. Re: Political Party explains this by Creepy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Strangely enough, the Democrats are the most misinformed and regressive party when it comes to nuclear power. Nearly all their concerns about nuclear power are addressed in Generation IV, the exception being proliferation, but if they reprocess at a centralized guarded facility like they previously and put the good fuel back into the reactor that is more a non-issue. And yes, waste is addressed - in a breeder reactor (pretty much all Gen IV) waste is bred to be fuel. I'm not saying Republicans aren't misinformed on nuclear power - they mainly see $$$ and don't understand it, but they are correct in that the US should support it.

      Incidentally, Al Franken was completely anti-nuclear until he got on the nuclear committee, got informed, and changed his position. I wish more Democrats would do that, but the Green leaning folk in the party tend to misinform because they honestly believe a reactor is just a controlled bomb. It does not work like that at all, please go educate yourself.

    23. Re:Political Party explains this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      True. And that matters why? Whatever their motive, their volume will create a product that undercuts the prices of other energy sources, and they will have a critical head start on production ramp-up. If they dominate the other world markets, our choices will be to buy from them or continue to pay more for our energy. Making our own doesn't work at that point because our needs are not enough to match the manufacturing scale and resulting cost reductions, and we will have already lost the world market race.

    24. Re:Political Party explains this by athmanb · · Score: 2

      Some of their biggest cities are within a few meters of sea level, and a lot of their farming land is only a few degrees away from desertification.
      They will get hit just as hard by it as Florida and California respectively.

    25. Re:Political Party explains this by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The main motivation for Chinese to want to go abroad is to escape the hot smoggy climate, and move somewhere cool and green. They love the UK for this reason.

      What kind of smog have you been inhaling? The UK climate is almost universally hated, it is one of the single worst things about the country and people from the hot-humid cope exceptionally poorly. Additionally the Chinese tend to concentrate within major cities, which would put them in places like London, one of the smoggiest and most polluted cities in Europe which can on a bad day match the air quality of Beijing.

      So while you're posting pictures from the Telegraph: Try this one: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/con... There's some doom and gloom articles too: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sci... Mind you this is telegraph grade reporting at it's finest. You will find another article talking about how much cleaner the air is in London. They couldn't tell their heads from their asses.

      Anyway point is that while Chinese are flocking to the UK, the wonderful sunshine and clean air have nothing to do with it. Education system, very easily obtainable visas for certain age groups, and easily convertible status to permanent residents after study combined with the good economic prospects of the UK is what brings them over. This has increased in the past 5-10 years as other previously hot destinations like Australia have increasingly raised the bar to foreign nationals, not for study, but for settling, working, and investing.

      Stay tuned for 2017 figures. Pulling the pin on the metaphorical Brexit hand-grenade has changed that dynamic quite a bit.

    26. Re: Political Party explains this by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      No, it really makes no sense. He called the ruling party in China "progressive", for example. I didn't realize murdering a bunch of college students was "progress", but maybe I'm just a bit backwards.

      Now we know what Antifa used as their model of progressive. It's all starting to make sense.

    27. Re:Political Party explains this by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Depends. "winning" often involves perfecting the manufacturing environment as well. Including the supply chain, support businesses, logistics and most importantly, the workforce.

      That's something that builds upon itself and can't be moved overnight. It's why the US has historically been such an economic powerhouse: it's industrial production strength.

      Losing the next wave of manufacturing advanced energy products can be a pretty big loss. Both in terms of economic growth, employment and even more importantly, negotiating power during trade agreements.

      We already lost the electronics manufacturing economy. Missing out on the renewable energy economy would seem to be a blow we can't take.

      If only we could vote against the party that supports outsourcing everything to China. Oh wait, they both support that. Economic Nationalism really needs to find a good home. It resonates strongly enough that it allowed even a generally unelectable person like Trump to get elected. If a decent candidate got behind it they would certainly win.

    28. Re:Political Party explains this by mikael · · Score: 1

      Smog on the South Coast. I hate being "gassed" every time I try and walk home. Seriously, it's like dental anaesthetic.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    29. Re:Political Party explains this by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The main motivation for Chinese to want to go abroad is to escape the hot smoggy climate, and move somewhere cool and green.

      China is bigger than America, and has climates as varied as Alaska is from Florida, including plenty of places that are cool and green. If you visit China, consider going to Lijiang. It is called "the city of perpetual springtime". The air is clean and it is green and verdant all year round, never too hot and never too cold. The Naxi people living there are very friendly and welcoming. When Han people go to nearby Tibet, the Tibetans see "invaders", but when outsiders come to Lijiang the Naxi see "customers".

      I have friends and relatives in China, and their main motivator to move money abroad and obtain foreign residence permits, is to have a bolthole in case of political instability in China. The Chinese people tolerate the CCP because it delivers steady economic growth. If there is a hard downturn, it could all fall apart very quickly.

    30. Re: Political Party explains this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, the Democrats are the most misinformed and regressive party when it comes to nuclear power. Nearly all their concerns about nuclear power are addressed in Generation IV, the exception being proliferation, but if they reprocess at a centralized guarded facility like they previously and put the good fuel back into the reactor that is more a non-issue. And yes, waste is addressed - in a breeder reactor (pretty much all Gen IV) waste is bred to be fuel. I'm not saying Republicans aren't misinformed on nuclear power - they mainly see $$$ and don't understand it, but they are correct in that the US should support it.

      Nope, the real concern Democrats have is that it's a complete and total financial money pit for electric companies that don't want to generate the cheap and affordable power that nuclear supports anyway, and that they're such skinflint cheapskate shits that they'd cut costs on maintenance anyway, as witnessed by even the Japanese having the same problem.

      Republicans are indeed misinformed, since they wasted untold billions on the last pipe dream, which has only produced power from a single reactor that was started in the 1980s and was actually the only one run by a government owned entity (the TVA), which they still don't like. That isn't even getting into their incessant demand for more fossil fuels to be produced, and their rampant anti-environmental record that leads to them hating smog control. (Except for that one Senator who owned the Emissions testing facilities...)

      Incidentally, Al Franken was completely anti-nuclear until he got on the nuclear committee, got informed, and changed his position. I wish more Democrats would do that, but the Green leaning folk in the party tend to misinform because they honestly believe a reactor is just a controlled bomb. It does not work like that at all, please go educate yourself.

      And I wish you'd take a second to understand that all your hysteria over the "Green-leaning" folk has lead you to completely miss the real and legitimate concerns that have been amply demonstrated. I get it, I get it, you want to pretend that you are just fighting the regressive enviro granola nuts, and if everybody was as educated as you wanted, they'd think just like you.

      Turns out...that seems not to be the case.

      Look, you had your chance with nuclear. You failed. You had a second chance. You failed. Stop sniffing the exhaust pipe of your rolling-coal truck that's never hauled a single load, and find some common sense yourself.

      Especially with Rick Perry involved. That guy couldn't locate a fertilizer plant in a safe area, do you REALLY want him behind anything more dangerous than a deep-fried turkey?

    31. Re: Political Party explains this by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Except that the term was coined many decades ago, when the climate changes were still theoretical. Your description makes it sound like some conspiracy is trying to paper-over unexpected results.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    32. Re: Political Party explains this by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The two major right wing political parties in the US (Democrats and Republicans) are not political opposites, their policies match on most issues. They have their pet policies where they fight, and climate change happens to be one.

    33. Re:Political Party explains this by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      Then please explain why these rankings of the most polluted regions of the US are mostly traditional "progressive" Democratic strongholds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Neither side of the political duopoly can or wants to take on the fossil fuel industry in any meaningful, progressive way. That's why it doesn't take much for heavily polluting countries, even China, to leap ahead of the US, even when heavy investment in renewables makes sense in economic and national security terms.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    34. Re:Political Party explains this by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I agree, China is feral. The south coast is supposed to be one of the cleaner populated areas and the only place I have spent any considerable amount of time. Lots of industry down there so I'm sure the smog is toxic in ways that cars just aren't.

      Just don't go to the UK. The only thing you'll inhale there is diagnosed clinical depression.

    35. Re: Political Party explains this by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Really? They match? Like on women's rights, minority rights, LGBT rights, gun control, environmental issues, medical care, social security, education, arts, and taxes? All the important issues that actually affect real people and not just rich greedy white guys?

    36. Re: Political Party explains this by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      They have turned forwards in tech creation, unlike Trump who wants to go backwards. That turnaround is one of the reasons why they are winning the race, they've got a whole lot of old power generation tech i.e. coal, which is poisoning their people while their production of goods for the world grows (instead of just for china) so they realise they need to replace coal as soon as possible. Necessity is the mother of invention whereas complacency makes you stand still until such a point you are going backwards in real terms

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    37. Re:Political Party explains this by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      I presume China are so not worried by CAGW (climate deniers phrase) that they did not sign up to the Paris accord http://time.com/4810846/china-... - oh wait.. they did and its Trump and his meat heads that didn't. US shot themselves in the foot on that decision.
      "CAGW is simply another foreign money maker for them and strategically exploits the US." - belongs in the conspiracy theories column

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    38. Re: Political Party explains this by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Nope, he called the Democratic Party of the US progressive. He also said, the Chinese single Party has no competition, so it could embrace the progressive idea of man-made climate change and it actively fights against it. Partly, because their smog-ridden great cities suffered more than present day US cities. Having no progressive competition left them acting freely for the greater good of their people (in this issue).

      Contrary to you, realizing that pollution/climate change is a problem and that developing green energies will also create jobs, it is indeed progressive. Much more than the Orange Clown's dumb denial. I bet, China will open factories in the US where the White Trash can build wind turbines and solar panels instead of cars AND Trump will PAY FOR IT.

      I thought that the Chinese promoted internal competition for the best products. And then to market these same products worldwide. Trump's and the GOP's preoccupation is Trump vs GOP vs News Agencies and Trump Vs healthcare and Tax reform that would line Trumps kids, and Trump himself with multiple millions / billions of dollars.
      Now we have to ask, "Are the hurricanes that were experienced and the fires in California just freak accidents, or a coming annual event?
      With natural disasters, can the USA afford to reduce corporate income tax? Maybe, corporations should look at director and VP salaries and bring them down to earth. The money saved there should go to the shareholders. -- whoops, I am dreaming. When are the shareholders going to get a fair deal?

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    39. Re:Political Party explains this by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      ....belongs in the the conspiracy theories column.

      Nope, clearly in China's profit column PLUS Paris had other perks for them, at our expense.
      Solar panels, money losers for the US economy, have been a massive export market for China.

    40. Re:Political Party explains this by Gussington · · Score: 1

      The main motivation for Chinese to want to go abroad is to escape the hot smoggy climate, and move somewhere cool and green. They love the UK for this reason. When they can't see the skies for the pollution, the government has no option to act.

      The rub with this is, that being a one party system they can act and act quickly if required. The Chinese industrial revolution compressed what Europe did in 200 years into 20. There's nothing to suggest that they can't compress our last 100 years into the next 20 if the desire is strong enough.

    41. Re: Political Party explains this by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. Even nuclear is better than coal, but as the things go, the US seem to have passed the advancement of nuclear power. The current reactors are worn down and old generation too. I've never heard of any nuclear incident in France, despite they use lots of nuclear power.

      So, as progressive goes, restarting those old nuclear reactors isn't progressive and i'm not sure where would the US engineers got the experience of building and maintaining reactors if this was neglected in the past decades.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    42. Re:Political Party explains this by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      If only we could vote against the party that supports outsourcing everything to China. Oh wait, they both support that. Economic Nationalism really needs to find a good home. It resonates strongly enough that it allowed even a generally unelectable person like Trump to get elected. If a decent candidate got behind it they would certainly win.

      There's nothing wrong with outsourcing to China/Vietnam/India per se. You just don't want to do it for your advanced stuff and you don't want to legislate it using a blunt hammer (tariffs, political bullying, etc.). It'd be silly to try to bring t-shirt production to the US and it'd be silly to refuse to import computers from China.

      Ideally we'd want politicians (and voters) to recognize this important nuance. Economic Nationalism (like any Nationalism) can be easily as harmful as it can be helpful depending on what you strategically apply it to.

      For instance, look at what Argentina tried to do to force all smartphone production into their country. Their President proudly introduced a 2-year old Blackberry model "made in Argentina" in the age of the iPhone.

      All it did was slow down domestic commerce and create a black market.

      The way to grow a domestic industry is to train a labor force that can service that industry and create lasting reasons for companies to choose to start a new production line in the US. Lasting as in not tax credits (which expire). Good infrastructure so they can get their workers in and out. Good protection (IP, physical protection and otherwise) and good distribution channels.

      When it comes to the advanced stuff, the cost of those absolutely dwarfs the difference in labor cost. Tesla is a good example of this today. Apple was an example of what happens when you don't have the domestic labor force needed.

  2. They have not a demented person heading it? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    That must be it.

  3. Re:Politicians and business leaders said... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

    No, TFA at axios, with the help of published data, did. Go strawman somewhere else.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  4. China gets to cheat... by G00F · · Score: 1

    It's building massive infrustructure now after we have learned al lthe lesons and develop new cleaner tech.

    They had very little, 3rd world country type stuff, they jumped the gun with really dirty stuff for cheap, and continue to build out cleaner stuff.

    They could also afford local labor.

    --
    The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    1. Re:China gets to cheat... by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

      And they probably have few environmental restrictions holding back their development and production of clean tech. It's got to be a lot harder to both be clean and produce it.

      --
      Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  5. Technically true, but the West is also winning by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    While it is true that China is winning by leapfrogging from old tech like dirty coal and replacing it with more efficient (2x) cogeneration scrubbed coal (to reduce emissions) and by installing cheaper and more efficient solar and wind, it is also true that many US states are doing the same. These states (like the 13 that joined California in implementing higher renewable and clean air standards) are competing very well, and since we have more than 50 percent of the US economy, it's a fair battle.

    But, yes, the other states are being left in the dust. Or the floods and storms. Whatever.

    Adapt or die.

    Many US corporations are requiring all their facilities do the same, because more efficient and cheaper energy gives them a competitive advantage over the buggy whip old industries that don't adapt. Even WalMart, which had to do this to get business in China.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Technically true, but the West is also winning by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Those US cities are using solar panels and other equipment made in China.

      That is the "loss" in the article. The US let China win the battle for those jobs. One party wanted to deny there is a future, and the other was too beholden to free trade to fight for those jobs.

    2. Re:Technically true, but the West is also winning by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. For example, a lot of solar and wind fabrication happens in Washington State and Nevada.

      In point of fact, just the UW alone owns more than 40 basic patents and licenses them for solar, wind, biofuel and battery technology.

      It's sad how little you know about modern America.

      Adapt. Become more efficient. America surrenders to nobody.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  6. Say what? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How are absolute deployment numbers evidence that a country with a population of 1.4 billion is "winning the race" over a country with a population a quarter that size?

    Don't the charts in the article really say that the U.S. has nearly double the deployment of electric vehicles and solar on a per-capita basis?

    As for nuclear, it's hard to even call that a "race" when we've hobbled ourselves.

    1. Re:Say what? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      No see, we only talk about emissions in terms of per-capita when it makes the US look bad. When per-capita can make the US look good, we just talk about total, cumulative numbers. The guiding principle is that under no circumstances can we allow the US to look good.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Say what? by imgod2u · · Score: 3, Informative

      It makes sense to measure absolute production output if your goal is to grow a domestic industry. It doesn't matter how many people you serve (well, the more the better; more customers). The more you build, the better you get at building it.

      This leads to better, cheaper, superior products that other countries will line up to buy.

      It happened with electronics; they're trying to make it happen with advanced energy.

    3. Re:Say what? by Jerry+Atrick · · Score: 3, Informative

      You overlook the way China dominates PV panel production. For solar they might or might not lead in deployment but they own the production side and it's become almost impossible for the developed world to compete. The scale of production gives them an overwhelming price advantage.

      Chinese PV prices are falling so fast in markets that don't use tariff proctectionism it's threatening traditional energy companies. Here in the UK our idiot gov are trying really hard to kill PV by premature subsidy removal and failing to outrun the price drops. In the US you as usual let the incumbent energy companies lobby and sue PV out of many states even before Trump declared war.

      It's big business and you're lost the war for the production business.

    4. Re:Say what? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      How is that particularly different than just about any commodity-level manufacturing these days? I read the article to be about deployment, not production capacity, but if that's the point then it seems like it just collapses into the larger point that China has cheap labor that we won't allow ourselves to compete with.

    5. Re:Say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not just a cheap labor equation anymore. Their labor costs are rapidly increasing. They've also learned to exploit their own market share to build volume which is another means of lowering costs. That is what embracing the change does for you. If you build your volume faster than everyone else, you lower your cost in time to change everyone else's ability to recoup the high up-front infrastructure costs. The market then becomes a lock. Placing tariffs doesn't matter because their market is bigger than ours anyway. They can do without us, especially if they dominate sales to other parts of Asia.

    6. Re:Say what? by vakuona · · Score: 2

      Chinese PV prices are falling so fast in markets that don't use tariff proctectionism it's threatening traditional energy companies. Here in the UK our idiot gov are trying really hard to kill PV by premature subsidy removal and failing to outrun the price drops. In the US you as usual let the incumbent energy companies lobby and sue PV out of many states even before Trump declared war.

      If removal of subsidies is failing to outrun price drops, doesn't this prove that the subsidies are no longer necessary, and should therefore be removed?

    7. Re:Say what? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Don't the charts in the article really say that the U.S. has nearly double the deployment of electric vehicles and solar on a per-capita basis?

      Per capita is quite a useless measurement when looking at technological conversion rate. You need to start with the existing pool of what it is you are changing rather than the number of people. A large portion of the Chinese population are either rural or in a position not to need to own a car. They may have 4 times the population of the USA, but they have only just over 2/3rds of the number of cars ~190million vs ~270million in the USA.

    8. Re:Say what? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      Per capita is quite a useless measurement when looking at technological conversion rate. You need to start with the existing pool of what it is you are changing rather than the number of people.

      You bring up an interesting point -- it's not clear in either country how many (if any) EV sales are actually displacing cars in the existing pool as opposed to being net new sales to new drivers.

      Ballpark numbers here suggest that in the U.S. sales growth is less than 1% annually (we'll call it 2.7 million to be generous), while in China it's around 7-8% (making it in the neighborhood of 13 million). According to this, last year there were about 160,000 EVs sold in the U.S. and about 350,000 in China. That means that about 6% of net new car sales in the U.S. were EVs, while only about 2.5% of China's were.

      So measuring per capita for new drivers, our EV sales are still over 2x China's.

      Of course, the other way you could look at all this is that the numbers are vanishingly small in any event (160,000 is one twentieth of one percent of the 270 million cars in the U.S., and 350,000 is one tenth of one percent of the 190 million cars in the U.S.), and so these statistics are noisy enough to be essentially useless for showing any long-term trends. But that's just another way to come to the same conclusion that the article is badly misleading at best.

    9. Re:Say what? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

      They've also learned to exploit their own market share to build volume which is another means of lowering costs. That is what embracing the change does for you.

      Oh, so we should "buy American" after all? It's so hard to keep up.

    10. Re:Say what? by swb · · Score: 1

      If PV is so economically valuable, why does it need subsidies?

      I'm always kind of boggled by sectors that get killed when their subsidies get removed. Sounds to me like the product or sector isn't economically viable if it needs a subsidy to remain competitive.

      In terms of "winning" some industrial race to produce PV panels, does it matter? Even if the US ends up developing some next-gen panel design that's a quantum leap forward, it seems unlikely to get manufactured at scale here anyway. The same basic economics that causes it to work out to have China build TVs or refrigerators or everything else at massive scale would seem to wind up working for solar panels, too.

      Even if China "owns" the designs, even the Chinese can only absorb so many panels and will likely see the wisdom in building them at scales that feed both domestic and export markets or licensing their technology to other manufacturers.

      It's nice to dream about a groovy green energy industry in the US where we design, manufacture and install next-gen PV exclusively at home, but I think modern economics are too sophisticated these days. Capital will seek the lowest cost production for the product that produces the products that buyers identify as providing the utility they want for the money they will spend.

    11. Re:Say what? by Jerry+Atrick · · Score: 1

      What happened is politicians ideologically opposed to subsidies and with "big energy" friends to support looked at price projections and thought they were crippling PV by jumping way ahead of the expected curve.

      There was a deliberate intent to move faster than the numbers suggested. What went wrong is those projections turned out to be wrong - which they didn't know at the time. Probably couldn't have predicted. They did manage to severely damage the domestic PV installation business despite that, UK PV is now increasingly large scale farms.

    12. Re:Say what? by Jerry+Atrick · · Score: 1

      You should be dismayed by sectors that get killed when their subsidies get removed too early. You should be dismayed when that's a deliberate political choice for very questionable reasons.

    13. Re:Say what? by vakuona · · Score: 1

      I was only discussing PV subsidies.

      Of course subsidies should be removed if they are no longer necessary. The fact that PV is now so cheap that companies will deploy it anyway kind of proves this.

      The fact that Hinckley Point C might still require subsidies may actually be evidence that the subsidy is necessary.

      Subsidies are not supposed to be for government to reward technologies they like. They are supposed to be to help projects considered to be good, but are otherwise not viable to be undertaken. Perhaps Hinckley Point C fits that description, but solar PV no longer does.

    14. Re:Say what? by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Don't the charts in the article really say that the U.S. has nearly double the deployment of electric vehicles and solar on a per-capita basis?

      I'd be interested know how they count electric vehicles. China has literally millions and millions of those little electric scooter/bike/monowheel/hoverboard things which I bet aren't in the count.

  7. Interesting definition of "leading clean energy" by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Informative

    China is building 700 coal plants, with 80% of the energy generation capacity within China. And that's just in the next few years. I guess when China deploys an order of magnitude more power generation as coal rather than wind or solar it's considered a "clean energy win"?

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. Re:Interesting definition of "leading clean energy by Jzanu · · Score: 1

    China is leading in all energy production due to growth, but it is investing substantially more in clean generation technologies than the US is, and even more than the EU as a whole. Making some coal plants temporarily while scaling up production of solar, etc. is an effective solution to surging electricity demands in the meantime. Like in India where coal plants were built for decades but are now being scaled back. Growing productive populations need energy by all means, and that is a distinct phenomena from their investment in renewable generation to make it cheaper and to cap off and destroy the need to import any coal.

  10. Change is tough by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    In every change, some people will lose and some will gain.

    The people who are going to lose, will know they are going to lose and fight very hard. People who will gain, don't know whether they will gain, at what time or by hoe much. So they discount the future and do not support the changes that might benefit them.

    In this specific example the fossil fuel industry is well entrenched and they know how to fight and they fight hard.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. Rare Earths are a major part of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    China dominates the market for rare earths, which are necessary for the high strength magnets that windmills need, and for the interesting material high efficiency solar panels need.

    Why doesn't the U.S. have a stronger edge in rare earths? Because you can't dig them up without also digging up lots of thorium, which we classify as a nuclear source material - and so impose a lot of requirements on how it's handled. And then we don't use it, even though we've known how to use it as a clean energy source for decades. Mostly because environmentalist groups scare people with the "N" word.

    China is also constructing Thorium reactors, btw.

    1. Re:Rare Earths are a major part of this by amorsen · · Score: 1

      China dominates the market for rare earths, which are necessary for the high strength magnets that windmills need, and for the interesting material high efficiency solar panels need.

      The majority of wind turbines do not use permanent magnets in their generators, and therefore they do not use rare earths. Only thin film solar cells use rare earths, and thin film is losing in the market at the moment.

      Rare earths are a complete non-problem for the green industry.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  12. They will win more "races" by bogaboga · · Score: 2

    Just wait when their joint Russia/China wide body aircraft engine is completed.

    I am worried American dominance won't last that long.

    Plans of China & Russia "ditching" the dollar will simply make things worse.

    1. Re:They will win more "races" by LostInTaiwan · · Score: 1

      Yup, I worry about that too. Sure, China's c919 is no where as good as a 737 or a A320, and no sane airline executive will want them. However, the Chinese government can mandate adaption by domestic Chinese airlines for domestic routes. Slowly but surely, they will improve while we sit on our collect fat ass thinking we're the best and greatest civilization under God.

      It doesn't take a genius to see the incremental steps China is taking, but our politicians simply don't care enough to look beyond their next election cycle.

      Aviation is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait till you start looking into how the Chinese government is actively encouraging and developing factory automation. Sadly we are too dumb to realized China is not post-war Japan/Germany. China is pre-war Japan and Germany combined.

    2. Re:They will win more "races" by psmoot · · Score: 1

      How is this bad for humanity? Talking about this in terms of a race with winners and losers totally obscures the big pictures with parochialism and tribal loyalty.

      Political boundaries have little to no meaning in terms of economics, human welfare, or the state of the environment. All of humanity is a winner if we produce cleaner energy with less environmental impact. As an American, I'd be delighted to buy a well made, inexpensive, reliable, long range electric car regardless of whether it's made by Tesla (a dozen miles from my home) or Beijing.

      If I were an a EV producer, yeah, I'd care. But the producers are totally outnumbered by the consumers who win either way.

    3. Re:They will win more "races" by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      It will easily be as good as 737, because even the 737MAX is like putting lipstick on a pig - the basic design is 50 years old. It is only current airliner that still has no fly by wire (electrically actuated spoilers don't really count).

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  13. clean = less by js290 · · Score: 1

    The only clean energy is to use less energy.

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
  14. Oh please, that's nothing! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    America is winning the race on anti-science rhetoric! I'd post a link to the numbers but we all know numbers are FAKE NEWS. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  15. So many lies in this BS by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First and foremost, where does China's electricity come from? 80+% is from COAL. Worse yet, the gov requires companies to put Emission.Controls on the plants ( due to treaty with Japan ), but actually discourages companies from using them, since Japan forgot to require that part.
    Secondly, how much their electricity comes from clean sources? All the rest. IOW, less than 20% of their current 1.4 TW of electricity comes from clean energy. But to put matters into prospective, 100% of available clean energy is currently used. So by adding more EVs which will increase demand, where will the electricity come from? From coal. Right now, coal is at 60-65% utilization and can be quickly ramped up. Clean energy can not.
    Third, how much new clean energy vs coal does China add yearly ? Each year, they add about 30 GW of solar, wind and hydro COMBINED. Of course, with their lack of good winds combined with pollution blocking solar, these run at less than 25%. So that 30 gw of 'clean energy' generates less than 7.5 GW. Now how much NEW coal plants ( not just replacements ) does China add yearly? 35-50 GW. China's plan is to CONTINUE adding new coal plants until 2030 at which point, they will be around 1.75 TW of coal. Then they will be adding their own nuclear power plants. But the coal will continue to run until 2060 or so. That is more coal than Europe, north America, central America, South America, and Africa COMBINED TODAY.
    Lastly, why will China continue to add more coal plants while switching to EVs? 2 reasons. The first is their hope to destroy all foreign car makers. The second is that they HAVE hit peak oil and they either have to import which they are opposed to, OR go to war with phillipines, Viet nam, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, and possibly Russia and Australia to get all of the oceans that they have now declared to be theirs.
    Sadly, idiots who do not understand science on AGW OR strategy, are helping China out by declaring them as winners in clean energy race, which is going to lead to WW3.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:So many lies in this BS by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Can you at least quote the correct numbers?

      China's electricity output right now is: Coal - 58%, Hydro - 20%, Wind+Solar - 15%, Nuclear - 2%. Coal generation is capped at 1GW (its 950GW now) and will probably start to fall down soon.

    2. Re:So many lies in this BS by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Wow were to begin.

      - China's primary energy split shows coal at a tad over 60% and a year on year trend going down.
      - China's primary energy consumption went up by 3% last year while their coal consumption went down by that figure too. The rest made up with mostly renewables and a small bit of nuclear.
      - China's coal construction is primarily replacement plants, some of which are quite literally falling over. This is why despite building new coal, their coal consumption actually has been dopping between 1.5% and 4% every year for quite a few years running.
      - Your story about scrubbers is about 5 years old, and was fixed in the Chinese way. Lots of people fired and shamed, executives replaced. Compliance with particulate scrubbing is nearly 100% where it's installed. You must be thinking of CCS plants which you're right, aren't running. Mind you they've failed everywhere in the world including the USA and Europe.
      - Peak oil? China's proven reserves have increased 15% in the past 3 years, and the reserves to production ratio for them has never been higher.

      As for WW3. If anything is going to cause WW3 it'll be the USA invading China for their oil (given that it's the USA's R/P ratio which is nose diving thanks a lot to the oil companies overstating their proven reserves, several technologies proving to be unviable, and no longer hording it.
      Or maybe it will be China invading the USA because the world is sick of your shit. When you pull your finger out and stop being the largest polluters in the world per capita, come back and criticise. In the mean time just remember everyone hates you (even before you elected a coal fired pumpkin as a figurehead).

    3. Re:So many lies in this BS by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      wow. Another idiot who knows NOTHING about this issue, but will speak about it at length.
      Here, lets go to the TRIVIAL lies of yours. The Chinese gov, the CHinese oil companies, AND their academia say that they have pretty much hit peak oil and expect it to drop QUICKLY. They have exactly 3 choices which is 1) to militarily fight for ocean bottom that does not belong to them from the nations that I mentioned before, 2) import a lot more, which they are growing their imports, but absolutely do NOT want to do so, and 3) move off oil over to coal with EVs. The later is what the CHinese gov wants.
      So, you claim that CHina is burning less coal, that new plants are replacing old one, and that they have turned on all of the pollution controls. Ok. Assume that is true? Then why is pollution getting WORSE, not better? about 85% of China's visible pollution comes from their coal plants and their not using pollution controls. If coal use REALLY dropped, then the air would actually clean up WRT all pollutions. If pollution control was turned on, then visible pollution will drop (regular unseen pollution such as SOx, NOx, etc would continue ). If new plants were replacing the old ones, then again, TOTAL pollution would drop. BUT, that is not the case
      for the last couple of year, pollution improved slightly, but that was due to their economy dropping on the industrial side. Now it is picking up as the idiots in Europe try to cozy up to them like they did with Hitler
      2016, along with 2017, saw major increases.
      And here.

      New plants are not being built and what few are simply replacing old ones?
      Nope. Only the idiots make such wild claims.
      China is the largest builder of new coal plants. Much of that will still go into china, but China continues to push this all over the world, in spite of their claiming to be on-board with paris accord. As was pointed out, Trump talks about restoring coal to America, but the fact is, that unless he gets MAJOR subsidies for coal, which has nearly zero chance of passage, we will not be building anything new. In fact, America's will continue to drop.

      As to your personal hatred of America, whatever. Go live in China, Russia, North Korea, etc. Please, go have a good time.
      But claiming that America is polluting the world, is total BS. We emit no mercury of any amount. It is Canada, Australia, Europe India, Russia and esp China that do all that.
      SOX/NOx? America emits a fraction of that.
      And as has been shown by OCO2, America's emission of CO2 is about right on to what we claim, while Europe's, South Korea, Japan's, China, etc are MUCH HIGHER. And for the last decade, America has dropped the most CO2 emission of all nations.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:So many lies in this BS by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      This is why ppl like you get into trouble. U obviously do not understand CHinese NOR are you a technical person.
      Look at the 2 images at the top. U picked the top 1 and declared that it was the amount of energy PRODUCED But that is NOT the case. It is the CAPABILITY. IOW, it is the theoretical ratings of all of their systems. It does not tell you how much electricity came from each source.
      The big issue with AE, as I said before, is that the ratings is a MAXIMUM CAPABILITY. So, the 10KW system on top of my roof can produce 10 KW during the daytime. IOW, it technically could produce 99600 KWH (9,960 hrs in a year). But, the reality is that we only have 50% daylight. Right off the bat, the MAX would then be 49,800 KWH. But then that does not include the fact that sun varies over the course of the day. The first couple of hours after sunrise and before sunset are fairly weak. Likewise, add in rain, clouds, snow, etc. along with LIGHT pollution. So, in America, we get around 30-40% electricity from Solar in the BEST CONDITION. In China, due to their pollution, they get less than 25%. And with wind, we get 33-40%, while China gets 15-25% of their ratings. SO, AE's ratings really do not correspond to what they will generate.

      Now, look at the second image on there. That IS the amount / source. China is claiming 70%, BUT, just in sept. they came out and admitted that they burned a LOT more coal. 17% more than what they reported. WHy did they do this? Because OCO2 has shown that CHina's CO2 emissions are MUCH MUCH higher than what the CHinese gov admits to. Unlike the west, the CO2 numbers that we use for CHina are based on what Chinese gov claims to consume in coal and oil. Nothing more. So, in 2015, they claim 70% coal, BUT on 2014, China was claiming that coal accounted for 84% of their electricity? Then in Sept 2016, they come along and admit that they have lied and that since 1960, it is 17% more coal???? So, you can bump that 70% up higher to lower 80s. But even then, OCO2 still shows that China's numbers are way higher than what china's gov numbers claim.

      Coal generation is NOT capped at 1GW. They are CURRENTLY at 1.2 TW worth of capability. In addition, because their plan STILL counts on adding 35-50 GW EACH YEAR UNTIL 2030, they are expected to cap it at 1.75 TW worth of coal capability. Do note that they have absolutely NO extra capability WRT clean energy. Any extra usage, such as by EVs, will be coal. RIght now, they run their coal at around 60% of their capabilities. They will gladly increase it since they have hit peak oil.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:So many lies in this BS by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Here, lets go to the TRIVIAL lies of yours. The Chinese gov, the CHinese oil companies, AND their academia say that they have pretty much hit peak oil and expect it to drop QUICKLY. [cleantechnica.com]

      LOL. Good work. Trying to counter the actual proven reserves figure that came straight from the industry's annual global review with hit piece on clean technical, and then claiming that I'm a trivial liar.

      Sorry kid, I work in the industry. Get your head out of your arse, it smells in there.

      As to your personal hatred of America, whatever. Go live in China, Russia, North Korea, etc. Please, go have a good time.

      I would move somewhere else, but *YOU* and your fellow countrymen are fucking up the globe for everyone. The hatred isn't personal, I think you'll find most of the world hates you.

      And for the last decade, America has dropped the most CO2 emission of all nations.

      Ooooh man. Can I get tickets to your show? With material like that I assume you are touring internationally. But if you're not: https://www.comedyfestival.com... Man you'll blow them away.

    6. Re:So many lies in this BS by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      Electric power plants in America comprise a relatively small number of facilities, but, their toxic emissions dwarf other industrial sectors. Whereas literally thousands of chemical plants and other industries reported toxic emissions to EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory in 2010, only a few hundred power plants reported mercury and hydrochloric acid emissions, and only 59 power plants reported selenium emissions. Yet, despite the relatively small number of facilities, electric utilities emit more arsenic, mercury, selenium, and hydrochloric acid than any other industrial sector, and the utility industry emits the second highest total emissions of chromium and nickel of all industry sectors.

      The electric power industry emits almost two-thirds of the nation's industrial arsenic emissions.

      Only 59 power plants representing the entire electric utility sector reported selenium emissions in 2010. Yet, the utility industry is still the top selenium emitter of all industry sectors, releasing 250,220 pounds, or 125 tons, of selenium into the nation’s air. That’s 76.3 percent of all industrial selenium emissions.

      Some states have seen major drops in reported emissions of dangerous heavy metals, while other states have made little progress to reduce these air toxics.

      From 2009 to 2010, power plant lead emissions actually increased in 16 states.

      Pennsylvania – by far the largest state in terms of power plant arsenic emissions – has actually increased its reported power plant arsenic emissions over the past decade, from 15,861 pounds reported in 2001, to 17,666 pounds of arsenic reported in 2010.

      Lucky it's only a few hundred...

  16. American environmentalists to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All of these "green" things require two important things:
    (1) Cheap energy for affordable manufacturing (which the USA used to have and China currently has)
    (2) Rare Earth minerals, like neodymium which is used in the magnets in the windmill generators, and the motors of electric cars (and even consumer drones)

    American environmentalists pushed the regulations that drove up Amrican energy costs while China burns enormous quantities of very cheap coal, and they have pushed a combination of regulations and federal land grabs to eliminate mining in the US. The USA has plentiful rare Earth mineral resources, but they have nearly all been placed off-limits as presidents Clinton and Obma created huge new national monuments and wildlife refuges on those lands using those presidential authorities as a way to do what congress would not have allowed. No new rare Earth minals mines have opened in the USA for decades - everytime prospectors find a good place for one, it gets quickly declared as wildlife refuge or monument.

  17. Re:Interesting definition of "leading clean energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    China is building 700 coal plants, with 80% of the energy generation capacity within China. And that's just in the next few years. I guess when China deploys an order of magnitude more power generation as coal rather than wind or solar it's considered a "clean energy win"?

    But they're still a part of the Paris Agreement, so they have that going for them. ;)

  18. Re:What race? by imgod2u · · Score: 1

    Ya but while you are leading, you reap the rewards. It's good the be the king (while it lasts).

    You could say the same about Apple, Google, MSFT (in its day) or hell, Exxon, Walmart or post-WW2 US. Ya, you have to expend effort innovating and improving; but being first and best means you can sell to the world and be the richest in the world.

  19. Also, the article is total shit. by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Informative

    this shows China way ahead of Europe and America on nuclear power. However, in 2020, China will have 58 GW of nuclear power by 2021.
    America has over 100 GW of nuclear power, but sadly, the same idiots from groups like this, continue to drive up our costs.
    Europe has over 163 GW of nuclear power, and yet, this article claims that China is winning that?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Also, the article is total shit. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      China is building 22 new reactors under construction right now. And by 2020 they're planning to double their construction rate. Meanwhile, US has lost key expertise needed to build nuclear power plants and Europe is well on the way to do the same.

    2. Re:Also, the article is total shit. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you on that last sentence that does not change the fact that China's nuke capabilities will not really come up until around 2025, or later.
      America and Europe really need to re-do our nukes. Sadly, our GD GOP is far more interested in their fucking stock, which is plummeting.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  20. Re:Politicians and business leaders said... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

    I find it amusing that you think your first sentence and your second one have any causal link whatsoever.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  21. I hate the USA narrative by AnthonywC · · Score: 2

    Everything and everyone is about winning, from Charlie Sheen to Donald or Hillary. It is never, ever about the common good, because that's so socialist. Can't let Russia reach the moon first, not because of science but because of political reasons. Can't let China 'win' the clean energy race, but not because we care about the environment. We won't take care of the poor while we spend more $ on bomb and military bases. I look forward to the day when the world most powerful country is not one that is so egotistical and self-centered, it will actually be a small step for humankind.

  22. Why is everything a race... by tomxor · · Score: 2

    Sounds people are still living in the cold war.

    1. Re:Why is everything a race... by psmoot · · Score: 1

      Amen, brother. It's not a race. We all with with clean, safe nuclear and well-made long range electric cars. In the long run, it doesn't matter much where they're designed, built, or deployed.

    2. Re:Why is everything a race... by tomxor · · Score: 1

      Ya, I've been to China, the rate they make changes when an issue like pollution plagues their cities is inspiring, some provinces are all electric scooters and all electric taxies already. I know a lot of it is due to government heavily intervening, but the thing is that when a change is forced fast then it become economical more quickly due to scale, it's one of the few positive aspects of such a type of government.

  23. It's a little more complicated than that by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but not much. Our electoral college means that a handful of swing states decides who the president will be (because they're the only ones that aren't locked into one party). In three of them a handful of well organized coal miners decided our last election. Yeah, they're trying to stop progress, but they're doing that because corporatist Democrats abandoned them.

    If the Dems want to win again they need to stop abandoning large swaths of the working class and become an actual populist left party again. That means $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, College for All, end the wars and a "New" New deal (e.g. infrastructure spending). Otherwise folks are going to keep voting GOP because, well, what have you got to lose?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's a little more complicated than that by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      but not much. Our electoral college means that a handful of swing states decides who the president will be (because they're the only ones that aren't locked into one party). In three of them a handful of well organized coal miners decided our last election. Yeah, they're trying to stop progress, but they're doing that because corporatist Democrats abandoned them. If the Dems want to win again they need to stop abandoning large swaths of the working class and become an actual populist left party again. That means $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, College for All, end the wars and a "New" New deal (e.g. infrastructure spending). Otherwise folks are going to keep voting GOP because, well, what have you got to lose?

      It won't happen though because as you noted "for all" is the key. That includes white people and even (gasp) Christians. They just can't tolerate helping that group, that's the arch enemy after all. They'd rather lose elections or give amnesty to get enough foreign votes first.

      If the Dems want to win again they need to stop deciding that all evils are due to white people. It's tough to win elections when every other left of center article blames the familiar "white male" punching bag. It's like wondering why Trump didn't get the Latino vote.

    2. Re:It's a little more complicated than that by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The right wing Democrats don't want those things, so they don't push that agenda. They make a nice show of being the lefty choice but that's all it is, a show. It's just like how the Republicans consistently support left wing ideas like agricultural subsidies, yet claim to be the right wing party.

    3. Re: It's a little more complicated than that by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

      And look which group of idiots voted for Reichsfuhrer Pussygrabber. White people. Who hate blacks, browns and gays. Who think climate change is fake. Who think coal is the future. Who think women shouldn't be able to have abortions. Who hate the EPA. Who think companies run by religious nut jobs should be allowed to discriminate. Who don't believe in socialized health care. I hate to tell you this, but you dummies ARE the problem. Nothing you stand for is Good.

    4. Re:It's a little more complicated than that by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      "Otherwise folks are going to keep voting GOP because, well, what have you got to lose?"

      You know what? You're right. All our problems will go away once we go away! YAY TRUMP! NUKE NK! WW3 FTW!

      --
      ~X~
    5. Re: It's a little more complicated than that by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      I hate to tell you this, but you dummies ARE the problem. Nothing you stand for is Good.

      This really speaks to my original comment that if the Dems ever want to win elections they have to stop insulting half the country. You really need to internalize that we are the 99% includes *a lot* of people you won't like. Can you get past that and work with the people you disagree with for economic justice against the 1% or will you allow CNN et al to persuade you that fighting against others, and thus allowing the 1% to divide and conquer, is more important?

  24. Re:What race? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    Someone builds the equipment. While doing that, they learn a great deal of expertise on how to build the equipment. That information can not be easily moved between (intelligent) countries. So the dominant player has a massive edge in retaining their dominance.

    That's the race - to be the country that builds the stuff for "clean energy" projects. And the US lost that race.

  25. Re:Interesting definition of "leading clean energy by Jzanu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your story was out of date and wrong even when it was printed. See here and check the end, also note the dates are written differently such that while your article was written later it was also wrong when published.

  26. China-so-awesome same shtick different decade by TheZeitgeist · · Score: 2

    It is popular to refer to way China does things all centralized as a better way these days, at least by those with a psychological tendency towards centralization, and ultimately the state, as the driving force in society that can Fix Things. Thomas Friedman, a very influential columnist at NY Times, comes to mind as CCCP fanboy that way.

    Worth noting this same kind of clique were all agog over Japan's industrial might in the 80's, and were fixated on MITI's heavy hand as the reason the Japanese were so much 'better' at pick-the-subject-at-hand than silly USA stumbling along without Guidance from the sovereign. Same shtick, different country and decade.

  27. Re:Interesting definition of "leading clean energy by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    False dichotomy: Just because China is building coal plants doesn't mean they are also building solar plants.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  28. Re:Interesting definition of "leading clean energy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    So is it big oil trolls or Trump trolls modding this down?

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  29. Thorium Fairy by nojayuk · · Score: 2

    China is also constructing Thorium reactors, btw.

    No they're not. They're building lots of classic PWRs and BWRs, upgraded and improved from the Westinghouse design of the 1970s but still the same enriched-uranium steam kettle technology at heart. They're completing five of them this year and starting to build another eight or so with a lot more planned. Thorium reactors, none today, none yesterday and none tomorrow.

    They're looking at all sorts of newer reactor concepts, building some first-off units like a pebble-bed reactor (the HTR-PM) as well as a sodium-cooled breeder but thorium reactors, nope. There are some academic paper exercises on the subject but uranium reactor tech is well-proven and they need the electricity more than they need to spend time, effort and money on developing thorium as a reactor fuel.

  30. Re: Global Warming vs Climate Change by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Actually "global warming" and "climate change" are equally accurate, but at different spatial scales. The global waming causes changes to regional climates.
    Some regions of the planet get net colder (e.g. as Europe will if it loses the gulf stream ocean current, a possible GW effect),
    some warmer (desert zones will shift north in northern hemisphere and south in southern hemisphere due to the growth in energy and size of atmospheric convective cycles, poles will become warmer faster than average elsewhere),
    Some wetter (overall level of water vapur in atmosphere has already increased about 5% due to recent global warming and is continuing to increase at around 1% per decade.),
    and some drier (see desert-shift comment above.)
    All of these regional changes are driven by the underlying warming of global oceans and atmosphere.

    Politically, "climate change" can be used to hoodwink people into thinking all is as usual (not true.)
    Whereas "global warming" tells it as it is and is the more fundamental, underlying physical change going on, that causes the smaller-scale changes. On average, places will definitely be warming.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  31. Re:Interesting definition of "leading clean energy by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

    On top of that, China has been through 4 straight year on year reductions in the amount of coal consumed while their energy generation has increased year on year. Even if they are still playing with coal, they are most definitely trending correctly.

  32. Wrong direction... by pubwvj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This isn't a race you win by being first but by being last. First to finish does it at the highest economic cost. Last to finish benefits from the economies of scale that the early adopters create that drives down the cost of technology.

  33. Strategic independence by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can dream that China is all eco-hippies. Truth is, they're doing their best to avoid dependence on foreign resources and foreign technology or at the very least control it through direct ownership.If they had Saudi-Arabia's oil reserves they wouldn't give a shit to find alternatives.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Strategic independence by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      China has a LOT of coal, yet they're moving away from it.

    2. Re:Strategic independence by Gussington · · Score: 1

      You can dream that China is all eco-hippies. Truth is, they're doing their best to avoid dependence on foreign resources and foreign technology or at the very least control it through direct ownership

      And.... shouldn't we be doing the same?
      That's how you get ahead, by pushing forward. Not by building walls, and blaming everyone else for the situation you're in.

  34. More clickbait bullshit lies and fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    China is coal powered and the coal use is not declining. Until it does, there is nothing clean about them. I imagine they will try to clean up the cities before they choke to death on the killer smog, but even that is going to take many years.

    1. Re:More clickbait bullshit lies and fake news by Gussington · · Score: 1

      China is coal powered and the coal use is not declining.

      Facts say otherwise...http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/01/china%E2%80%99s-decline-coal-consumption-drives-global-slowdown-emissions

  35. I know you're trolling by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    and I shouldn't feed the trolls, but we actually missed out on Medicare for All in the 1930s largely because white voters didn't want black people to have medical care.

    Also, don't you feel shame writing that? I mean, if you work for Vlad Putin riling us up I guess not. Seriously, are you Russian or just mean spirited?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  36. Re: Global Warming vs Climate Change by Immerman · · Score: 2

    An wonderfully concise way I've heard it described is that Global Warming is the cause, and Climate Change is the effect. Nice details though.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  37. Re:What race? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

    So does that mean Europe lost as well?

  38. A lot of them are left wing by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    just only on social issues. They don't want to oppress Gays or Blacks or ban abortion and they'd like to see some gun control and legal drugs. But they're hard right economically.

    What makes the Right so strong is they're a coalition of hard right economics and hard right social voters (racists and evangelicals) but whereas the left fights within itself over economic issues the "values voters" don't give a crap about economics as long as they can be racists or force their religious beliefs on others. That makes them strong because they just plain disagree on less.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  39. Re:Interesting definition of "leading clean energy by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    China has been through 4 straight year on year reductions in the amount of coal consumed while their energy generation has increased year on year.

    I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but the real world strongly suggests they're wrong.

  40. and the reasons are simple by doctorvo · · Score: 1

    U.S. politicians have been warning for years that America couldn't let China win the clean energy race. That's exactly what has happened,

    Yes, because China has much lower labor costs and much less regulation.

    Air pollution is at dangerously high levels across many of China's cities

    And air pollution is quite low in most US cities, which is another reason why switching away from fossil fuels isn't as urgent for the US transportation sector.

  41. Because... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    They probably have people in government that's not as stupid as Trump... not exactly hard to accomplish.

    Here's the thing, this isn't only about China and reducing polution there. Clean energy is quite clearly a skyrocketing global trend, whatever the reason you might believe in. It should be clear for everyone, even climate change deniers and people that believes in some big conspiracy about BIG RENEWABLE or whatever, that whoever dominates technology and production of clean energy resources will have a whole ton of money as countries in the entire world starts investing in it.

    US companies will keep pursuing it, sure, because they are not stupid, and countries announcing lofty goals only serves to put more fuel *cough* into the trend. Trump getting out of the Paris agreement just shows how much of a doofus he is. Of course it won't stop american companies to pursuit what will become an extremely profitable business, but it definitely doesn't help.

    And yes, this is a very cynical outlook on the whole thing, but I highly doubt any of the big corporations or governments care about stuff like our health or cleaning up the mess. China's extremely strict dictatorship doesn't give two shits about their citizens dying of lung related disease or having to swim through smog during certain periods of the year.
    They'd let half the population die while living in an air filtered bubble. If they really cared they wouldn't be in the state they are.

    But this is about money and power. While Trump is wasting time trying to repeal everything Obama did, and try to do every ignorant thing he promised in his campaign because he's a sociopath that can never admit he's wrong, the chinese government will be investing full force on renewables because they want the country to serve as a role model, as a souce of technology, and as an industrial source of solutions for renewables in general.

    The balance has already been shifting towards China for a while now, renewables might be the thing that will tip the scale on their side over. Which I personally don't see as a great thing overall, but it's happening.

  42. Re:Interesting definition of "leading clean energy by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Primary industry numbers from the producers and fossil fuels industry themselves. Nothing is more reliable than numbers from an industry which stands to gain something by having them go in the opposite direction.

    Incidentally if they were wrong then I'm sure the biggest exporters of Coal to China would be celebrating. But they aren't, they like the countries which don't export the stuff are seeing their industry go out of business.

    Remember the saying in the economic world, "When the USA sneezes the world catches a cold? It's that way in China with primary industries. Except in some parts of world it's not a cold but rather malignant melanoma.

  43. Re:Politicians and business leaders said... by sycodon · · Score: 1

    I find it amusing that you have no recollection of Communist countries trumpeting their superiority by citing fake accomplishments.

    Maybe you weren't alive then.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  44. Fake news Chinese hoax by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile the US is winning the coal race so bigly your head will spin.

    --
    sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
  45. Surely it's a good thing by ju2au · · Score: 1

    Since China is the major polluter and producer of green house gases, surely this is a good thing! Anything that benefits the planet also benefits all of us.

  46. Re:Politicians and business leaders said... by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

    I find it amusing that you have no recollection of Communist countries trumpeting their superiority by citing fake accomplishments.

    That has nothing to do with what's hilariously wrong with what you said. Try again.

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  47. Re:Interesting definition of "leading clean energy by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Check the dates of the articles. Yours are from May 2017. Mine is from July 2017. Oh, and mine mentions the earlier cut that you reference. Yes, China cut the number they're building - and they're STILL building 700 more coal plants.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  48. Re:What race? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    Well, everyone's buying from China now.....

  49. Licencing by nojayuk · · Score: 1

    The Chinese bought licences to use Westinghouse technology for their PWRs but they've been working to develop their own home-grown PWR design(s) which have no licence encumbrances and they're building the first of those, the Hualong-1 models which have no intellectual property limitations for resale outside China. One consortium is looking at the Hualong-1 as a possible candidate reactor design for building in Britain.