China just announced it will invest massively into its renewable energy sector as the world prepares for a new energy leader.
China’s economy has taken huge strides in past decades, growing from a poor, developing country, to the world’s largest economy. This new China was built on coal – the dirtiest source of energy there is. The results were horrifying, as the country is still struggling to deal with the resulting pollution. China’s smog kills 4,000 people every day, most of the coastline is heavily polluted, and few cities have a decent air quality. In the rural areas it’s even worse. But China isn’t slumbering. China’s renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity. In 2015, they became the world’s largest producer of photovoltaic power, at 43 GW installed capacity. They also lead the world in the production and use of wind power and smart grid technologies – and they’ve just begun.
The Chinese National Energy Administration announced its plans to develop the energy sector. They aim to achieve 50% clean energy by 2020, harnessing wind, hydro, solar and nuclear power. Geothermal is also expected to play a part, although a smaller one at that.
The agency didn’t make many details public, but they did announce a full investment figure: $360bn from 2016 until 2020 – that’s a whopping $72 bn / year. Just so you can get an idea, global investments were $285.9 billion in 2015, and US investments were $44 billion in the same year. China is almost doubling the US in investments, which is simply amazing. It’s not even like this is an optimistic plan – many analysts expect China to surpass that figure.
“The government may exceed these targets because there are more investment opportunities in the sector as costs go down,” said Steven Han, renewable analyst with securities firm Shenyin Wanguo.
The investments are expected to create 15 million new jobs in China. But it’s not all rosy, not in the least. China is also by far the world’s biggest polluter and they have a lot of work to do if they want to ensure a proper development of their energy sector. In 2014 the carbon emissions from China made up about 28.8% of the world total Furthermore, as more and more people are expected to raise their standard of life, their energy consumption will grow dramatically. In order to cover this growth, China is also planning a number of new coal mines and coal plants. Their economy has somewhat decoupled from coal usage, but coal remains a big problem for China.
This is great news. It's also incredibly sensible, since solar and wind are available cheaper and are faster to install. We just nee to stop the new fossil and nuclear plants and put all our "energy" into renewables.
It is the height of climate criminal stupidity to stop nuclear plants. Note China includes nuclear under the 'renewables' label.
Electricity is not fungible. So "solar and wind are available cheaper" is not much use if they are unavailable when needed.
Waste to fuels will provide the fuels for reserve generators to backup solar and wind, the long haul fuels needed, and the chemical feed stocks we need. Solar and wind can provide about 90% of our power without backup. Waste to fuels should easily provide the remaining 10%. Everything we harvest we eventually dump. The energy in what we harvest is roughly half of the world total oil use. Plus there are agri waste we can use.
The grid already has reserve generators because BASELOAD NEEDS THEM. baseload does not provide energy when you need it, it produces it all the time, if you want it or not. So the gird installed pumped hydro in a lots of places just to keep baseload happy at night when energy use went down. The utilities installed reserve generators to handle peak and load following. Those are the very same generators solar and wind need. Where did you get this idea that solar and wind can't work? Germany and Denmark have the world's most reliable grids, ten times less outages than the USA.
Nuclear can't solve anything.
Nuclear's short of fuel ten years IAEA 7209-uranium-2014.pdf for 2% world's energy for 50 years. Costs 4 times available solar and wind BEFORE GOV BREAKS, In the 12 years it takes to install average, Nuclear power plant per year: 27 tons spent fuel rod waste. deadly for a million years, 30 billion dollars dry casks for 100,000 years, 2M tons of toxic mining wastes. Inflexible base load forces solar and wind off the grid and need pumped hydro nighttime storage.
https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf
Utility solar and wind are available cheaper than fossils and 4 times cheaper than nuclear before gov breaks.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6f883e16640a84c6a9c279e48df15ab355af49d9bc437d2a20efabef3494cfde.jpg
When the author points to capacity growth rather than output growth, it may mislead people. Capacity factors for different sources are different: Every MW of capacity of Chinese nuclear produces four times more electricity than Chinese wind, for example, and nuclear output has been growing faster over the past couple of years than wind output.
"Solar and wind can provide about 90% of our power without backup. "
A figure given with no evidence. Suspect unrealistic assumptions are being made. The actual figure will differ by country. Processing "Waste to fuels" will add to the cost of RE.
"So the gird installed pumped hydro in a lots of places"
Again, installing pumped hydro ads to the cost. And is only available where geography permits.
"Where did you get this idea that solar and wind can't work?"
I never said that.
" Germany and Denmark have the world's most reliable grids"
And they are chronically dependent on their neighbors for hydro, coal and nuclear power when their own RE assets are not producing. E.g. Denmark can draw on the Nordic grid.
Brian has been caught telling these lies serveral times, as interested readers can see by examining e.g. the comments here:
http://www.independent.com/news/2016/sep/09/nuclear-power-vital-our-future/
You suspect? Lack of imagination is your problem. Well, take a look at any electricity generation chart for any country. Notice that with 150% or so, solar and wind will cover virtually all the demand. Notice wind never quite goes away.
Waste to fuels will eliminate the costs of dumping. There is a built in cost advantage for waste use. Various wast to fuels companies claim less than the cost of fossils. Given fossils get 5.3T$ plus wars, it's really hard to imagine it costing more to convert wastes.
Pumped hydro was installed for NUCLEAR AND COAL. solar and wind don't need it. They will be fine using it. France's grid is 5 times less reliable, yet they are connected.
https://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/11/germanys-grid-is-one-of-worlds-most-reliable/ France has 6 times the time without power as Germany. Germany is not dependent on it's neighbors, it's a net exporter to them.
https://energytransition.org/files/2015/07/renewable_powerproduction_week30_2015.png
"Lack of imagination is your problem."
No. Your lack of evidence is the problem.
I notice you cite green propaganda website clean technia. But then, you have, it seems, a long history of propagandizing on behalf of RE.
More realistic views can be found elsewhere…
http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2012/07/12/the-exaggerated-promise-of-renewable-energy/
https://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/
"France has 6 times the time without power as Germany. Germany is not dependent on it's neighbors, it's a net exporter to them."
A misleading statement. Germany must dump excess electricity on its neighbors when it overproduces. The net export is not the issue. The unreliable nature of that export is.
The quality of Brian's claims can be seen in this thread:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/greentechmedia/wind_and_solar_are_our_cheapest_electricity_generation_sources_now_what_do_we_do/#comment-3128975595
Nuclear plant ramp rates are too slow to mesh with wind and solar. Nuclear plants are relatively binary I/O
No Germany must not dump excess energy, they get paid to send it. France must dump excess because nuclear plant hate to throttle. Bravenew climate? seriously?
You are just plain wrong and are paid or can't admit it. France is grid is less reliable that Germany's. Yes or no? will you deny facts? let's see.
"must not dump excess energy, they get paid to send it."
And they can only get paid when the wind is blowing. Other times they must import.
"Bravenew climate? seriously?"
Written by academics knowledgeable in the field. As opposed to the propagandists at CleanTechnia.
"You are just plain wrong and are paid or can't admit it."
Here we go. The shill gambit. Weak.
I don't need to reinvent the wheel here. Readers may be interested in Russ Finley's previous take-downs of Brian's exaggerated claims on RE:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/greentechmedia/wind_and_solar_are_our_cheapest_electricity_generation_sources_now_what_do_we_do/#comment-3128975595
You have been telling lies EVERY time. All you have is paid pro nuclear pr.
Nuclear installed pumped hydro you fool.
In regions with large coal-fired or nuclear steam plants, pumped storage plays a levelizing role and peaking role. This is the case of the existing pumped storage hydropower fleet in the eastern U.S., as well as countries such as Japan and France. The majority of the other 39 projects were constructed more than 30 years ago, in coordination with large thermal or nuclear facilities.
http://www.hydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/NHA_PumpedStorage_071212b12.pdf
Historically, a pumped storage project’s primary function has been to balance load on a system and allow large, thermal generating sources to optimize generation by running near peak production. As described in the main body of this paper, this process allowed pumped storage to take advantage of excess off-peak energy from these large (thermal or nuclear) generators and store the energy for release during peak demand. Accordingly, the primary development of pumped storage power occurred in the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s in parallel with the construction of a large number of nuclear power stations. The worldwide evolution of the total installed nuclear power and the total installed pumped storage power over the last 45 years is depicted in Figure A-1.
No it's not and nuclear is a runaway train provide electricity if we need it or not.
Both solar and wind throttle just fine: no runaway train problem needed.
You two are paid or fools of the same god. Nuclear. Notice how polished he is. He's a pro.
Thanks, they can. Notice the professional behavior by Arron and Russ. It's almost like they were paid.
Nope, I have not been caught telling lies, but Aaron and Russ have. The nuclear industry spend millions probably billions on pr and influence. They send out gangs, packs of pro nuclear pr folks. They attack together an support each other, and it's same small group of folks. look.
Lair, you said solar and wind could not world several times.
if Germany is dependent on France, why is France's grid 6 times worse? Who pays you?
Brian appears to have assumed the role of my stalker.
Rather than reinvent the wheel, I invite readers to read as Russ Finley wipes the floor with him:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/biodiversivistdisqus/biodiversivist_globally_new_nuclear_power_stations_are_becoming_one_of_the_lowest_cost_sources_of_en/#comment-3156781737
Brian appears to have assumed the role as my stalker.
Rather than reinvent the wheel, I invite readers to read as Russ Finley wipes the floor with him:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/biodiversivistdisqus/biodiversivist_globally_new_nuclear_power_stations_are_becoming_one_of_the_lowest_cost_sources_of_en/#comment-3156781737
I think someone who resorts to the shill gambit has essentially lost the debate.
Then you lost a long time ago.
He's a victim! he publicly claims things and gets paranoid when people disagree!
Russ and he both work for the same nuclear lobby.
Poor aaron makes public comments than claims stalking when people disagree. I think he might be Trump. …. He's also repeating himself. Russ seems to be the pr professional., You will note he gives out advice on how to lie, I mean do pr.
You notice he has not reply? just attacks?
Yet another lie from the master of lies AARON.
This is funny. As you have replied to over 20 of my comments in the last hour, I think "stalker" is appropriate.
The following is attributed to Napolean:
‘Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.’
As such, I invite "Brian" to continue.
I don't think I'm a victim. I think I am living rent free inside your head, as it seems you are obsessively replying to numerous of my comments going back in time.
I invite "Brian" to continue.
‘Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.’
An odd thing to say, since I have not accused you (or anyone) of being a paid shill.
I love the smell of paranoid delusion in the morning. Thanks, Brian! :-)
I bet you do.
No, just of lying.
You wish.
Yes, you are a source if lie and deception in the service of the nuclear power industry. I hunt those down and reply. Terrible, huh? I looked at you responces to me, and they were so professional and annoying. So I looked deeper at you history and figured you out. Fraud. Astro turf.
Did you know the shills ALWAYS say that?
Please do. The only people who think I got wiped are the paid trolls and true believe in nuclear power.
Notice the same favs? They traverse in packs. Please check out the link. Only the trolls and true believers think I lost. But 7 cents per comment buys a lot of those.
Yes they can. But only pro nuclear tolls and true believers have made it this far.
Please go to the link. I will defend my comments as aggressively there as here.
Ad Hominem is all you have? you poor thing. Brave new climate, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAQHAHA! you are hilarious.
France is a net exporter too, fool.
Yes you have been caught telling lies. it's a fact folks. Search for the IAEA doc. Why? because the IAEA is the premier pro nuclear agency and eve they admit 2025, shortage of uranium. Deal with it. Notice at his link, I link to him and the IAEA graphs that prove I am correct.
" hunt those down and reply."
Oooh, scary ;-)
" I looked at you responces to me, and they were so professional and annoying."
I guess being in science does allow me to write professionally.
" So I looked deeper at you history and figured you out. Fraud. Astro turf."
So, never having met me, or talked to me Brian has me "Figured out". I guess his tinfoil foil hat gives him psychic powers. Or something :-)
Yes, isn't it odd that scientifically literate people have similar views? Its uncanny! :-)
Pssst, Brian … there is also a conspiracy among mathematicians … they all agree that 1 + 1 = 2. Better get your sleuthing powers onto it! :-)
Brian writes "Ad Hominem is all you have?"
… and then proceeds to indulge in the very same … "Brave new climate, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAQHAHA! you are hilarious."
Brian displays a level of silliness that no amount of training can hope to match.
Readers may care to note that articles at Brave New Climate are written by scientists in a professional yet scholarly manner, and so are definitely worth a look.
https://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/
You don't deserve serious consideration. you have not made an argument in about 50 comments. Cato love brave. Think.
No they are not chronically dependent on their neighbors, they don't have the connections. Then you turn around and claim Germany and Denmark are not independent, yet they have much more reliable grid.
Let's list your fans:
Joffan., TIMS, Sam Gilman, Mike Carey, Amhed Shaker. you will see these folks on every comment against renewable sand for nuclear. Mann occasionally joins them.
"You don't deserve serious consideration."
… says the guy who has replied to ~50 of my comments in 2 days.
Nice to be living rent-free inside your head, Brian! :-)
Well, yes, you have lied: calling me a paid shill. I am not.
Nice to be paid to spread your nonsense, huh? Mister astro truf. Where did Russ go? was he too much of an harassment?
Notice you still have no argument. Nuclear: short of fuel in 2025, 4 times the cost, deadly million of cancers, slow to build.
He repeat the lie. Brave is a paid Cato institute loved astro turf pro nuclear site. wake up folks, it's what million of dollar in pr and influence buy.
Tell us who fund it. Aaron. Please. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Notice that paid trolls "think" alike?
Read his history. Just click on his name.
Yes you have lied. No I have not. I can't tell a paid shill from a true believer, I admit it.
"I can't tell a paid shill from a true believer, I admit it."
Now you can retract your claim that I am a paid shill. That's the first step on the road to recovery, Brian. Keep going!
Notice the same gang of favs? Joffan., TIMS, Sam Gilman, Mike Carey, Amhed Shaker. Mann.
Sam would like us to forget that a nuclear power plant is nothing for 12 years average build time, then nothing again fro 50 year waste storage time. that's less than 50% capacity factor. France only get 70% or so capacity factor. The USA get more by running the react 10% or more beyond design spec, and short changing inspections during refueling. They instead disable safety features while the reactor is running to test them.
Somehow that does not sound as good
Then it's better to build out nuclear than wind and solar, given that the penetration rate can be higher, given that nuclear is dispatchable.
I mean, that's what the purpose of your comment was, wasn't it? Any storage solution to make nuclear rampable would of course be far, far easier than one to make a wind/solar based grid feasible, and if you want to supplement with gas, less gas would be needed with nuclear than to keep a wind/solar system running. So you're all for nuclear.
Personally, I think it's better to go for a mix of all three plus technologies to improve rampability.
Reckless (check) use of false statements (check) in order to harm someone's public reputation (check).
He has just openly admitted he defames people. He's left himself completely open to being sued by anyone subject to abuse who posts using their real name or who are easily identifiable in real life. His only defence as far as I understand would be that he lacks any credibility and that no one would ever take him seriously.
In my neck o the woods the peak loads are about 56% higher than min loads. I don't think nukes have the turn down ratios required.
But they can ramp. Wind and solar can't at all. To even get to the limited ramping ability of nuclear would take a huge storage solution that defies resources, technical challenges and economics.
Since it's tedious to rehash all of this, I direct readers to links that systematic demolitions of Brian's talking points:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/biodiversivistdisqus/biodiversivist_globally_new_nuclear_power_stations_are_becoming_one_of_the_lowest_cost_sources_of_en/#comment-3156781737
" you will see these folks on every comment against renewable sand for nuclear."
This is false. Speaking only for myself I am not anti-RE. I do not believe the others listed are either. I do criticize unrealistic advocacy on RE, and ignorant criticisms of nuclear. So Brian has lied yet again. Sad.
By "defending comments aggressively", Brian means personal attacks and nutty conspiracy theories. Enjoy, folks!
" Brave is a paid Cato institute loved astro turf"
Oh dear.
The problem with people like Brian is that they are so deeply buried in their ideology that they cannot conceive that people might have a different point of view. Hence the nutty conspiracy theories, etc.
" HAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Clearly Brian has a profound intelect with responses like this. Perhapse this is more his speed:
http://www.abc.net.au/abcforkids/sites/playschool/
Show one post where I say I am against renewable energy, Brian.
You have to take responsibility for your health issues. It affects the way you post, and when you start posting lies about people, using obscenities and harassing other Disqus users, being online is no longer some kind of safe activity.
Numerous other posters have exposed Brian's claim re Nuclear fuel.
Again, in the interests of not reinventing the wheel, readers can go here to see Brain's claims demolished (this time by writer En Pelle):
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-100-percent-renewable-energy-law
As usual, Brian is reduced to a frothing rage by the end, with the usual ad homs being lobbed by him.
It's his site. Get it? He is sending you to a site he and his palls control.
You stupid are you?
You win the personal attacks catagory. You also have you own personal web site with Russ where you delete yachting that does not support nuclear. Such honesty!
Same gang of nuclear trolls keep faving you.
Joffan, the fool, was your only fav.
You act like one. That's what I said.
You mean you same old gang of pro nuclear folks don't like me? what a surprise.
"You win the personal attacks catagory." says Brian. Lets look at some of his comments…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/330152cfb8f3a1e6542f21eb1fc729d0768c207b02c61dc33cc2cd7324d95a0e.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1a4ced48fcf85a1ba1166b75d637ce5b99c97f49d938405af29594a8b87207f8.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/646c111898233bfd3e771306a88c85a0aa39017ef19a344a86cc79603117b9b9.jpg
"When the author points to capacity growth rather than output growth, it may mislead people. Capacity factors for different sources are different: Every MW of capacity of Chinese nuclear produces four times more electricity than Chinese wind, for example, and nuclear output has been growing faster over the past couple of years than wind output."
China has an 87% capacity factor if you believe them, and some offshore with is above 60. How is that 4 times. Why do it matter? Nuclear need an equal amount of other, flexible generation because it hates to throttle.
Solar and wind combined can supply 80% of the energy.
Oh yes, That was to their personal web site. I knew you would publish them, you deleted all the civil one. I knew you would use them just like this. You are so predictable and a true professional acting troll. Good job. Those are all from their little pro nuclear witches coven. They just proved they are pros. Like I suspected.
Have a cup of tea and a lie down, dear. :-)
Irony alert: I use my real name and keep my comments history open. Brian hides behind anonymity keeps his comments history hidden.
Numerous other pro nuclear trolls have faved and agree with AARON, he even has his own pet site with Russ. Check his favs, the very same usual suspects. Please follow the link. The same folks fav him and attack me. At 7 cents per comment, the trillion dollar nuclear power industry can afford a whole lot of these folks.
No irony, you are paid profession pr agent in service to a trillion dollar industry, most likely. I'm not. When I had it open, you pro nuclear probably paid trolls invaded every site I commented on nuclear related or not. Is that irony? I'm not sure, but is sure was nasty. So I risk attack by a legion of trillion dollar industry paid trolls, lawyers and you name it, the pro nuclear troll risk?…. nothing?
Yes dear, now you make sexual innuendos at me. You really are a pro. So dear, you aren't my type.
Here's the comments they removed from their https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b9b440eb7dd037fdf992f37baf276ac1bd2fa36cd4c5b2163d11d3811a0cb4f2.jpg personal pro nuclear pr site.
"you are paid profession pr agent in service to a trillion dollar industry, most likely"
No, I'm not. This is your own paranoid delusion. But at least you have an excuse for hiding…
"you pro nuclear probably paid trolls invaded every site I commented on nuclear related"
Like the way you have obsessively replied to > 50 of my comments? Pot, Kettle…