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.

40 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 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
    10. 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.
    11. 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
    12. 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
    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

  2. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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?

  3. 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!
  4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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. ;)

  9. 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.
  10. 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.

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

    Sounds people are still living in the cold war.

  12. 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 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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
  19. 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/
  20. 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.