Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
Tue Nov 19, 2013, 12:05 PM Nov 2013

Either China's screwed, or everybody is. [View all]



China is currently burning half the world's coal, which supplies 68% of their primary energy consumption. If China were to keep increasing their coal consumption at the same rate as the past decade for the next 18 years, in 2030 they would be burning all the coal produced in the world today. China cannot keep up their current expansion of energy use based on coal because a) there isn't enough production and shipping capacity in the world to support it; b) the CO2 emissions would be insupportable.

They don't have enough other energy resources (gas, renewables or hydro) to replace coal use over the next two decades.

The implication is that the Chinese coal consumption is probably going to peak quite soon, perhaps within the next 5-10 years. The effect that will have on the Chinese economy could easily be catastrophic, and the knock-on effects for the world economy will be only somewhat less serious.

If the Chinese economy does crash, we could be within a decade of seeing global CO2 emissions stop rising, but at the cost of a significant slowdown or decline in the world economy - even when taking energy efficiency improvements into account.

Either that or China keeps increasing their coal use, their economy continues to boom, but the world loses its last vestige of hope for avoiding a climate calamity.
32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Unsustainable energy-base is just one of many destabilizing factors in China. DetlefK Nov 2013 #1
China can't reprise the European industrial revolution. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #6
"They don't have enough other energy resources..." kristopher Nov 2013 #2
Economies require energy. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #4
You said they don't have the resources. kristopher Nov 2013 #7
I know Canada is doing badly. I'm not talking about Canada. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #9
Maybe you SHOULD be talking about Canada. kristopher Nov 2013 #11
Why, so I'll stop talking about really uncomfortable things? GliderGuider Nov 2013 #12
I was thinking you might be motivated ... kristopher Nov 2013 #13
I yam what I yam, kristopher. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #16
China has a lot of solar potential Demeter Nov 2013 #3
What's the source for your extrapolation? FBaggins Nov 2013 #5
The data is from the BP Statistical Review. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #10
Sorry... once again? FBaggins Nov 2013 #14
Those are my curve fits to the BP data. nt GliderGuider Nov 2013 #15
Surely you know that you can't do that? FBaggins Nov 2013 #17
So both the pro- and anti-nuke camps think this is bad juju. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #18
Which should tell you something FBaggins Nov 2013 #19
Actually, GliderGuider Nov 2013 #20
Nope. FBaggins Nov 2013 #21
Here's how I see it. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #23
Well, no matter what one is "selling," be it a vision of disaster or something else, curve... NNadir Nov 2013 #27
I've banished two words from my vocabulary: "should" and "hope" GliderGuider Nov 2013 #29
Whilst not as pessimistic as you, I thought that was a good post - thanks. Nihil Nov 2013 #31
Glad you liked it! GliderGuider Nov 2013 #32
100 million tons of coal for China pscot Nov 2013 #8
100 million tons of coal will produce 286 million tons of CO2 byproduct ??? CRH Nov 2013 #22
It's EIA, though output will vary a bit - grade of coal, efficiency of combustion, etc. hatrack Nov 2013 #24
He's not that wrong. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #25
"1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons)" kristopher Nov 2013 #26
Basic chemistry FBaggins Nov 2013 #28
Something else to note: GliderGuider Nov 2013 #30
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Either China's screwed, o...»Reply #0