China clean power capacity to reach 600 GW by 2020: report

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/38685/20100727/iea-clean-energy-state-grid-corp-hydropower-smart-grid-renewable-energy-wind-solar-carbon-dioxide-em.htm

China's clean electricity capacity is estimated to touch 600 gigawatts by the end of 2020 catering to 35 percent of electricity needs, said a report from Xinhua news agency quoting Liu Zhenya, the general manager, State Grid Corp.

Recently, China has rebuffed a report from International Energy Agency (IEA) that it has overtaken the United States as the largest consumer of energy in the world in 2009.

China also defended by saying that it has surpassed the US in generating clean energy from various sources such as hydropower, solar power, nuclear power and wind power.

According to State Grid, the government's plan to increase the clean electricity generation in the country includes deployment of smart grid technology in the next ten years.

<more>

The US uses an average of 3,300 gigawatts of energy. China uses more, and will use a lot more still by 2020. 600 GW isn't enough.

and that includes nuclear

:D

China currently consumes roughly 3500 GW. By 2020 I'd be shocked if it were less than 4500. Even going with current numbers, 600 GW is 17% of 3500, not 35%.

<snip>

China's clean electricity capacity is estimated to touch 600 gigawatts by the end of 2020 catering to 35 percent of electricity needs, said a report from Xinhua news agency quoting Liu Zhenya, the general manager, State Grid Corp.

<snip>

the end

:rofl:

By selecting only electrical generation as a subset of energy demand, it artificially deflates the size of the demand and makes 600 GW look bigger. But the other half of their energy demand is still going to be filled by coal and oil, pumping out greenhouse gases, and that 600 GW still only represents 17% of China's ENERGY demands.

yup

So the failure (yet again) is yours

Your posted 35% claim was in response to a post about total energy usage (without making clear that you were making a change).

:D

Instead of replying that percent of total energy production wasn't important to you (though why that is makes no sense), you made a false claim that the poster's statement was false.

You were wrong.

You could have 100% clean electricity here in the US and we'd still be burning 20 million barrels of oil a day. China could have 100% clean electricity and still by burning millions of barrels of oil for cars, millions of tons of coal for heat, and on.

n/t

yup!

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html

In China, now with eleven operating reactors on the mainland, the country is well into the next phase of its nuclear power program. Some 22 reactors are either under construction or likely to be so by the end of 2009. These include the world's first Westinghouse AP1000 units and a demonstration high-temperature gas-cooled reactor plant. Another 27 units are planned, with construction due to start within three years. But most capacity under construction will be the largely indigenous CPR-1000. China aims at least to quadruple its nuclear capacity from that operating and under construction by 2020.

Your math is just wrong all over the place.

That's eleven existing... plus 22 under construction (YE 2009)... plus 27 due to begin construction by three years later. That's 60, not 59.

Of course that alone would be no big deal, except that almost all of them are larger than 1GW, and China has increased their plans in the last few months, and that's just the plants to be started within three years of that mid-2009 date (IOW - 2012). Did you think they were planning to stop at that point? What about the plants that will be started in 2013? 2014? 2015?

Just in the last month they announced an increase in their plan for nuclear by 2020 from 60-70gW to 86gW... and that's hardly the only increase they've announced in recent months (and they said they're not done). The 2005 plan called for 40gW by 2020... more recently it was 60-70gW... now it's 86gW.

In short, they expect to get significantly more power (almost twice as much) from nuclear in 2020 as they do, for instance, from wind. Unless, of course, they find a way to get the wind to blow 24/7. :)

even at 86 GW, nuclear will be a insignificant fraction of new low carbon Chinese generating capacity 600 GW

yup

Note that the same plan intends to increase wind generation to 150gW. Of course we both know that wind gigawatts and nuclear gigawatts aren't at all the same thing. You're not going to get more than about 30% of that wind number on a consistent basis.

So over the course of the year, the nuclear power in this plan will generate about twice as much power as the wind generation.

IOW... the difference between your presumed nuclear component and the actual plan was about 2/3rd of the total wind plan.

Taking hydro out of the mix, better than half of the generation that they're planning for is going to be nuclear.

yup

Translation: "Don't confuse me with the facts... I've already made up my mind"

Should I be surprised? :rofl:

Yup.

Don't dispute facts. Simple ignore them with the brilliant statement:

renewables rule

As have you.

That doesn't mean they aren't there any more than covering your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!" changes what has been said.

Actual wind power plants average about 30% of the theoretical level as stated by FBaggins.

http://www.energy-consumers-edge.com/pros_and_cons_of_wind_power.html

On average, wind generators operate with a Capacity Factor of about 30%. Because the wind doesn’t blow all the time and it doesn’t blow at a constant rate when it does blow, a one-megawatt wind generator can be expected to actually generate only about 300 kilowatts of power per hour averaged over the course of a year.

So, if we want one-megawatt of reliable and dispatchable power from a wind generated power supply we will probably need over three-megawatts of power producing wind turbines installed.

yup

n/t

yup

Their 2020 plan shows rougly twice as much energy coming from nuclear.

They know that 150 gW of wind generation capacity nets them ~45gW of power... why don't you?

Or is it comparing 86 to 45 that is too hard? :rofl:

so 90% will be clean green *renewable* energy

yup!

Over half of that amount it hydro. Likely well over half (at least it was in their 2005 plan).

Of the actual power that they plan to generate in 2020, FAR more is nuclear than is solar or wind.

You seem to think that just because the facts don't support your position, you can pretend they aren't facts. That just makes you look foolish, and we don't want that. :)

Though I appreciate the free entertainment.

read that

At least, not to the Chinese.

So sorry if that bursts your little bubble... but they are clearly on the path of significantly boosting their nuclear capacity.


To the Chinese, hydro clearly rules... and then nuclear. Wind is well down the list.

And I searched google news for it to no avail.

Here's one from about a year ago.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-07/02/content_8345808.htm

The "draft alternative energy development stimulus plan" is what I want to see.

I gave both the label generating capacity (150 gW) and an adjusted figure taking the capacity factor into account. I haven't seen their assumptions for that 150gW, but I remember that they assumed about 30% in the 2005 plan that intended to build 100gW of wind power by 2020.

The "draft alternative energy development stimulus plan" is what I want to see.

Sorry.. I presumed you wanted a link that backed up what I had been talking about (the nuclear component). All I've seen of the latest plan is reporting around it (as with the OP), not specifics.

I can tell you, however, that while jpak appears to assume that the vast bulk of the new generation is wind/solar as advocated by many here, the 2005 plan was more than half hydro and the remaining total was predominantly nuclear. Nothing that I've seen reported re: the latest plan appears to change that balance.