China Quadruples 2015 Solar Power Target!

[kristopher]

China Quadruples 2015 Solar Power Target!
JULY 2, 2012 BY ZACHARY SHAHAN

The global solar marketplace has a huge glut of solar panels and solar cells. This is the top reason why solar panel prices have plunged in the past year or so. And China’s tremendous manufacturing output is certainly a big part of that oversupply.

Now, it seems the country is looking to help relieve that glut a lot more by quadrupling its 2015 solar power targets! The new 2015 target is reportedly 21 GW of installed solar power capacity. This is quadruple its initial 2015 target. (Though, notably, a little more than one year ago, the country doubled its target to 10 GW, and it increased it again to 15 GW in December.)

To put that into perspective, the top 5 countries for total installed solar PV power capacity (and their capacity) at the end of 2011 were:
Germany — 24.7 GW
Italy — 12.8 GW
Japan — 4.9 GW
Spain — 4.4 GW
USA — 4.4 GW

China had about 3.1 GW.

Italy installed the most...

Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1gFRv)

[msongs]

1. meanwhile USA politicians with no vision and castrating corporations strangle us solar wise

since the utility thieves want to control solar in megawad installations. paid off politicians happily oblige. oh well

[Confusious]

2. Funny

I just read an article the other day that China was going through a leadership change, so basically they where lying about everything in their economy. Growth rate, unemployment rate, energy usage, etc.

Wonder if they're lying about this also?

[bananas]

3. quack quack quack

[NickB79]

4. Good for them!

Anybody know how much coal-fired investments will be completed in the same timeframe? I see that Mongolia is betting $800 million dollars that it will be a metric shit-ton: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-28/mongolian-mining-bets-china-will-double-coal-imports.html

[kristopher]

5. Nuclear power proponents just love trying to shit on good news about renewables...

The process of getting rid of fossil fuels is just that, a process. If it is instant success you want, you'll need to figure out a way to do it yourself because no one else has one.

The rapid escalation of installed solar and wind capacity globally is nothing short of amazing. It is the trickle which is fast becoming a flood. It's really too bad you care more about the welfare of the nuclear industry than about the actual effort to address climate change.

[NickB79]

8. "is nothing short of amazing."

Yeah, when I look at the graph of energy use by China GG posted in #7, that's exactly the thought that comes to mind.

[NickB79]

21. Looks like I found an answer: 200 GW of new coal in China by 2015

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-alternative-energy/

So China's gonna build out 10X as much coal-fired capacity as solar in the same timeframe.

We're so fucked.

[kristopher]

22. the only thing nuclear lovers love more than nuclear is distorting the truth

In 2011 China burned 3.48 million tons of coal.

In 2010 they consumed 3.24 million tons of coal.

They are implementing a nationwide cap on coal consumption that is scheduled to go into effect in 2015.

The cap is 4.1 million tons annually.

Let's presume the 200GW of new coal is true.

In light of the cap, what does that tell us about what is happening with coal in China?

That they are replacing old, dirtier, inefficient systems with cleaner more modern systems maybe?

What does that say about your attempt to use this to disparage the ramp up of renewable energy?

[NickB79]

23. Do any of these new plants implement carbon capture?

You don't have to answer that, because we both know they don't. So, capping coal at "only" 4.1 million tons per year (like this is an acceptable amount in some batshit crazy alternate world or something) still means we're skyrocketing towards 6C of warming by 2100.

Plus, one of the reasons they're capping coal is because their natural gas consumption is EXPLODING: http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/3056701/Latest-News/China-poised-to-increase-gas-imports-production-as-demand-rises-analysts.html

and

http://shale.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/news/archives/24674-china-embraces-shale-gas-boom-but-not-its-regulations

And, as I've pointed out many times here to you, natural gas from fracking is no better for slowing climate change than burning coal: http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/natural-gas-from-fracking-emissions-can-double-those-from-coal.html

To paraphrase: the only thing gas lovers love more than gas is distorting the truth.

[kristopher]

26. Poor attempt at diverting the point that you weren't being honest...

You made a claim that, were it true on its face, would mean a given rate of increase for coal consumption could be expected. That claim was false.

No one said China's emissions were "only" going to be capped at 4.1mm tons except you as you try to attribute that sentiment to me - another point displaying your dishonest approach to discussion.

The OP stands as significant information. In 2007 China had virtually zero renewable energy installed. Anyone who look where they are today can not fail to realize the significance of that pace and scale of deployment to the global fight against climate change. The only naysayers around here are those who want nuclear and see it falling by the wayside.

[NickB79]

27. Spin, spin, spin

Nice try, attempting to divert the conversation from tons of coal burned to tons of emissions. We were discussing consumption, not emissions, Kris. Try to stay on target here.

"No one said China's emissions were "only" going to be capped at 4.1mm tons except you as you try to attribute that sentiment to me - another point displaying your dishonest approach to discussion."

No, no one said anything like that, right?

They are implementing a nationwide cap on coal consumption that is scheduled to go into effect in 2015.

The cap is 4.1 million tons annually.

[GliderGuider]

24. I don't know where you're getting those numbers for coal.

Last edited Fri Jul 6, 2012, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Coal Consumption in China Rises at Fastest Rate Since 2005

EIA figures show the massive boom in China's coal consumption through 2010. Coal use increased another 9.7% in 2011

In 2011, China’s coal consumption increased by 9.7%, the most year-over-year growth seen since 2005. The country also saw a substantial increase in natural gas consumption, which climbed by 12% in 2011. The figures, released this week by the National Bureau of Statistics, show just how much work needs to be done in order to de-carbonize China’s rapidly growing energy system.

Non-fossil fuels — solar PV, solar thermal, wind, and hydro — now account for 9.4% of China’s primary energy consumption. Officials expect renewables to make up roughly 11.4% of consumption by 2015 and energy intensity to decrease another 16% by 2015. China is also in the process of rolling out provincial greenhouse gas trading programs in an attempt to decrease emissions 45% by 2020 compared to 2005 levels.

These developments are promising, but they still don’t stop China’s rapid growth in emissions. Assuming a business-as-usual approach to energy development, the International Energy Agency projects that by the mid-2020s, China’s emissions will double those in the United States.

These numbers agree with those reported in the BP Statistical Review, which also includes the tidbit that in 2011 China emitted about 9 Gt CO2. That's an increase of about 800 million tonnes of CO2 over 2010, for a rise of 9.4%.

[kristopher]

28. "Assuming a business as usual approach" is not warranted

These developments are promising, but they still don’t stop China’s rapid growth in emissions. Assuming a business-as-usual approach to energy development, the International Energy Agency projects that by the mid-2020s, China’s emissions will double those in the United States.

Overall energy consumption per unit of GDP declined another 2% — continuing the 19.1% decline in energy intensity since 2005 (meaning they are being more more energy efficient- k).

In addition, solar installations increased by an astonishing 547% and wind installations grew by 48% last year.

Non-fossil fuels — solar PV, solar thermal, wind, and hydro — now account for 9.4% of China’s primary energy consumption.

Officials expect renewables to make up roughly 11.4%of consumption by 2015 and energy intensity to decrease (meaning they are being more more energy efficient- k) another 16% by 2015.

China is also in the process of rolling out provincial greenhouse gas trading programs in an attempt to decrease emissions 45% by 2020 compared to 2005 levels.

[NickB79]

32. Agreed. It's not warranted because we're already doing WORSE than BAU estimates

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112718212

Carbon dioxide emissions have risen by even more than previously thought, according to new data analysed by the Guardian, casting doubt on whether the world can avoid dangerous climate change.

The data has emerged as governments met in Rio de Janeiro to finalise the outcome of the Rio+20 conference, aimed at ensuring that economic growth does not come at the expense of irreparable environmental degradation, but which activists say has not achieved enough to stave off severe environmental problems.

Global carbon emissions from energy are up 48% on 1992, when the original Earth summit took place in Rio – a historic summit at which governments agreed to limit emissions in order to prevent dangerous climate change.

In 2010, the latest year for which figures have been compiled, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) said the world emitted 31.8bn tonnes of carbon from energy consumption. That represents a climb of 6.7% on the year before and is significantly higher than the previous best estimate, made by the International Energy Agency last year, that in 2010 a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide were released from burning fossil fuel.

[GliderGuider]

37. You can use the bold tags all you want, but

Your numbers for 2010 and 2011 coal consumption were still wrong.

There is no reason NOT to assume BAU, even including the growth in Chinese renewables. The only way that renewable number looks any good at all is because they include hydro (like Three Gorges) in it. Not all renewables are environmentally benign.

In fact, China's future energy path could even fall well short of even the current BAU, in terms of environmental impact. The fact that you desperately want one particular outcome doesn't preclude a host of others that have an equal or greater chance of materializing.

[NickB79]

25. Kris, you are utterly, horribly wrong on China's coal consumption

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China#Coal_consumption

China's coal consumption in 2010 was 3.2 billion metric tonnes per annum. The National Development and Reform Commission, which determines the energy policy of China, aims to keep China's coal consumption below 3.8 billion metric tonnes per annum.

That's BILLIONS, not millions, of tons of coal per year.

Christ, even uncontrolled coal mine fires smoldering underground burn 200 MILLION tons per year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China#Coal_mine_fires

What's that you say? Capped at 4 billion tons burned per year? Well, fuck, why didn't you say so sooner? Now I have the confidence to buy a vacation home on some little South Pacific Island only 2 ft above sea level!

[kristopher]

29. That is true, but it doesn't change the point at all - they are capping at present levels.

Your claim that consumption was going to continue skyrocketing was false.

[NickB79]

30. And as I pointed out, they are capping while transitioning to nat. gas

Which won't do anything to slow the rate of climate change.

[NickB79]

31. Capping at present levels is a death sentence for human civilization

And most major ecosystems on the planet. We've already seen very damaging changes to the planet's climate from emission rates below present levels.

And that's not even taking into consideration all the positive feedbacks that will kick in once the Arctic ice is gone and the tundra starts to thaw, like massive methane releases.

[kristopher]

33. I know you read the other posts on the thread

Yet you still misconstrue the cap on coal consumption by insinuating it represents overall GHG emissions:

"China is also in the process of rolling out provincial greenhouse gas trading programs in an attempt to decrease emissions 45% by 2020 compared to 2005 levels."

[NickB79]

34. Key words: In an attempt

Does your quote mean they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 45% of 2005 levels, or just reduce the RATE OF INCREASE to 45% the rate in 2005? Because the first meaning would be an enormous, unparalleled cut in emissions, something no nation on Earth has come close to and would put the Kyoto Protocol to shame. The second meaning, while an improvement, would still represent a massive annual growth rate in global carbon emissions that puts us on course for catastrophic climate change.

[FBaggins]

38. Forget "key words"... the claim is just plain false.

China is not, in fact, planning to "decrease emissions 45% by 2020 compared to 2005 level".

Or anything close to that level. Actual emissions will be at least twice that high in a most optomistic case... likely more than three times that high.

What they actually propse doing is decreasing their carbon/energy intensity ... but that tells us little about actual carbon emissions by itself. They decreased their energy intensity by more than 75% between 1978 and 2003... but increased their carbon emissions substantially.

[joshcryer]

39. And it looks like they're not likely to meet that: China’s carbon intensity struggles

China's carbon intensity struggles
New estimates from the International Energy Agency (IEA) illustrate how China has been struggling to cut its carbon intensity in the past three years.

Last week, the agency noted that China had reduced its carbon intensity — the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) — by 15% since 2005. That put in context the news that China’s energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rose by 720 million tonnes, or over 9%, to hit 8.4 gigatonnes last year, over one-quarter of the world’s 31.6-gigatonne total. If China hadn’t made great efforts to decarbonize its economy, it could have been worse, said Fatih Birol, the IEA chief economist.

But the IEA’s estimates show that almost all of that welcome untangling of CO2 emissions from GDP growth came in 2005–08. In the last three years, China has not managed to reduce its carbon intensity much at all. China has set itself the target of cutting carbon intensity 40–45% by 2020 — which it may not manage, judging by this trend. (Its twelfth Five-Year Plan includes an intermediate target to reduce carbon intensity 17% below 2010 levels by 2015).

...

Knut Alfsen, head of research at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, says that China’s enormous capital investments in infrastructure projects, together with its rapidly growing car and airplane fleets, may also be countering the gains made by cleaning up manufacturing. “The outcome of all of this is that China’s intensity targets (both energy and CO2) are not going to be realized under a business-as-usual scenario,” he adds.

I am completely blown away by it whenever someone says China is going to be a harbinger of renewable energy. It's mind boggling.

BTW, I the idea of "carbon intensity" helps the developing world and lets the developed world make it seem like they're reducing emissions more than they are. I don't like using that metric at all.

[NickB79]

35. Of course coal and gas represent overall GHG emissions

When fossil fuels supply the country with the vast majority of it's primary energy, these are very good general indicators of the road the country plans to take with regard to GHG emissions into the foreseeable future.

Tell me, how are they going to continue burning coal by the BILLIONS of tons per year, AND expand their natural gas consumption dramatically through imports and domestic fracking, while reducing GHG emissions?

[XemaSab]

40. .

[NickB79]

36. Being off by a factor of 1000 doesn't change the point.

Good to know

[kristopher]

6. The story of one province in China that's planning 10GW of solar by 2020.

They note that solar installs in this region are outpacing grid expansion, leaving nearly 1/2 of present installations as yet unconnected. That situation probably has a lot to do with the fact that as of the end of May 2011, this province only had 50MW of solar installed.

I don't much care for Friedman, frankly, but his remark quoted below is spot on.

Sun shines on development of power sector
Updated: 2012-07-03 11:20

By Zheng Yangpeng (China Daily)

"When historians look back at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, they will say that the most important thing to happen was not the Great Recession, but China's Green Leap Forward," Thomas Friedman wrote in his New York Times column after a visit to China in 2010.

If that proves true, the Green Leap Forward's frontier will be in Qinghai, a northwestern province that is on track to be the country's largest solar power generation base.

"Qinghai has the most abundant solar energy resources second only to Tibet. Combined with other conditions, Qinghai has the best comprehensive conditions for solar power generation," Xu Fushun, deputy governor of Qinghai province, said at the recently concluded Qinghai Green Economy Trade and Investment Fair.

At the fair, he also announced that another 1,000 megawatts of solar photovoltaic power was planned to be added to the grid this year....

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-07/03/content_15545080.htm

[GliderGuider]

7. That's sweet and everything but...

Let's take a step back and get real here.



You can wish upon the "process" star if it makes you feel better, but the facts on the ground are telling a different story.

[XemaSab]

9. Does that include Three Gorges?

[GliderGuider]

10. No, that's just non-hydro renewables - all that new wind and solar. nt

[joshcryer]

11. Heh, I was going to ask, "And what's their target coal?"

I should've known GG would be here to set the reality straight. To the OP's credit the exclamation point was not theirs.

[Systematic Chaos]

12. But nonetheless, the Ministry of teh Kea (tm) DEMANDS that you be fucking excited!!!

And use LOTS of exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!

When talking about teh solerz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHICH ARE GOING TO SAVE US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[joshcryer]

15. Love your sig Systematic Chaos.

[kristopher]

13. Wonderful GG. Now we know you have an emerging grasp of the problem.

Too bad you don't understand the difference between the problem and the solution. If nuclear were showing any progress at all, I'm sure you and the other closeted nuclear boosters not be saddled with such faux despair and self induced confusion..

[joshcryer]

14. The people you often slander as "nuclear boosters" with the exception...

...of maybe two that I can think of have realized this problem years ago. Those two are still hopeless optimists, but at this point most of us are basically either alarmists or highly cynical.

It's the faux "renewable boosters" who are the problem, because they keep telling us something is happening that isn't or they keep overstating the renewable achievements on a global scale.

No one here will disrespect the achievements of renewable in the developed world, but it's still not enough and it's still not reducing or even showing signs of reducing fossil fuel consumption.

[XemaSab]

16. Hahaha

Where am I in your hierarchy of so-called "nuclear boosters?"

[joshcryer]

17. Didn't you relish the thought of the arctic having a high melt this year?

[XemaSab]

18. Die in a fire, Josh

[XemaSab]

19. Too soon?

[joshcryer]

20. HAHAHA

Awesome.