China Wind Power Capacity To Grow Five-Fold By 2020

Yahoo! News:

China's wind power capacity will increase more than five-fold over the next decade from 2009, a report forecast on Wednesday, as the country steps up its drive to develop clean energy.

Read the whole story: Yahoo! News

Comments

[Senol Ocak]

07:51 PM on 10/17/2010

There are so many caveats to the inference of this article it's difficult to know where to start. First off, wind power is unstable - you need to build more coal powered stations to make up the difference. Second, when you're expanding coal powered stations at a exponentially bigger rate than you do wind power grids the whole notion becomes rather tongue in cheek. Third, the US still produces more wind energy than China and is forecasted to do so for several years.
http://www.bayanescortistanbul.net bayan escort

[Monk2001]

07:56 PM on 10/16/2010

Exactly US.... either step it up to be at the forefront of the step in energy for mankind OR become irrelevant in it.

[Chopin]

05:41 PM on 10/16/2010

There're two major contending economic models in the world today vying for leadership. Six billion people around the world are watching and studying which of these two contending models to emulate, to follow, to ally and collaborate with.

One model channels over half of its limited precious national resources to non-productive, destructive aspects of economy, namely the "military-industrial-complex". People around the world plainly see that acceptance of this model comes with a heavy dreaded cost. That cost is production, maintenance, use of a huge military establishment that can be used for only one purpose --- wars, destruction and aggression. Inevitable consequence is militarism --- reliance on military approach in defining opportunities, problems, solutions. Unintended consequences are many --- de-emphasis + attrition of civic needs, the very needs that are socially creative + economically productive, like building advanced wind turbines to generate electric energy, or bridges, highspeed trains, electric cars, energy efficient fridges.

The other model channels major investments into primary productive civic infrastructures --- hightech wind turbines, solar energy materials, highspeed trains, modern bridges. This civic emphasis necessitates search for collaborating partners + customers of such productive capacities. Civic needs + investments clearly point + lead in very different, productive, creative direction, as contrasted with militarism + weaponry production.

Besides obvious economic implications, there're clearly major social, political, ethical, moral, spiritual dimensions + implications, on future wellbeing of humanity in global community. Confronted with such stark fundamental choices of economic models, which one would most intelligent nations emulate, follow and

[Chopin]

05:44 PM on 10/16/2010

Confronted with such stark fundamental choices of economic models, which one would most intelligent nations emulate, follow and collaborate with ?

[fireofenergy]

01:03 PM on 10/16/2010

It might be hard to make wind "grow" exponentially because it is hard to imagine making {all} the parts by robotic machines, however, once they do (because robot arms are still much cheaper than Chinese workers in the long run), the turbines will be cheaper and will thus continue exponential growth.

Same with solar...

Just times .5 (about the amount solar and wind provides today) by 1.35 to see that exponential growth would make RE "the lions share" in less than 20 years...

What is sad is that "nobody" wants to make RE cheaper, except for China `~'

[Domo Tronic]

12:43 PM on 10/15/2010

I like China's resolve on the most pressing problem of our time. I just wish nations that say they're tough on climate change follow suit (Canada, US and A, etc.).

I was recently in the Baltic region for vacation, all nations I visited harness solar + wind technology, and downtown cores are bike and people only areas. If only we here could adopt the same practices things here would push ahead in a positive nature rather than forced down by lobbyist and political interests.

[TYRANNASAURUS]

05:57 PM on 10/14/2010

China Wind Power Capacity To Grow Five-Fold By 2020.................... AND THE SAD THING IS THAT IT WON'T MAKE A DENT IN THE 1,600,000,000 PEOPLE THEY WILL HAVE BY THEN... IT'S ANOTHER STORY OF TOO LITTLE TOO LATE.

[StephBr]

03:25 AM on 10/16/2010

Did you say something? I can't hear you!

[Durian Weng]

03:43 PM on 10/14/2010

Keep it up China!

[DeanWormer]

08:56 AM on 10/14/2010

China also is putting multiple new coal plants online every month and has over 100 nuclear plants in the works. Wind will be a tiny fraction of their supply.

[netzwerg]

10:23 AM on 10/14/2010

China is already producing 20% of their electricity with alternative energy sources.

They are lightyears ahead of the US in terms of solar and wind power technology.

[JamesJerico]

03:04 AM on 10/15/2010

Incorrect: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/28051

"Data from the Energy Information Administration indicates that in 2007, 2008 and 2009, the U.S. added more non-hydroelectric renewable capacity than was added in natural gas, coal, oil, and nuclear.[2] By the end of 2009, the U.S. was number one in the world with respect to wind capacity (China’s wind capacity over 25 percent less than the U.S. level).[3] Similarly, by the end of 2009, the U.S. was at the top in terms of solar capacity, ranking fourth only behind Germany, Spain, and Japan.[4] Where China is outdoing us in utility capacity is in coal-fired, nuclear, and hydroelectric generating technologies."

While the majority of new American capacity is from low emissions sources, the majority of new capacity in China is from coal. Second is hydroelectric, which is controversial. At the current pace China will have double America's carbon emissions by 2035. Time to toss the "green China" myth, I've been there and it is anything but green.

[alvdh1]

11:22 AM on 10/15/2010

DeanWormer,

Get a grip and stop making stuff up!!!

The total planned nuclear installation of China will be approximately, 400 GWe by 2050. The most agressive estimate for wind installtion if China is 257 GWe by 2020. Using first grade math, one can see that wind will be playing a larger roll in in electric power generation in China long before their nuclear nightmare will be attained.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

More on nculear power's darkside.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/JWGcv.html


http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/chp3.html

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/chp4.html

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/chp5.html

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/chp6.html

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/chp7.html

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/chp8.html

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/chp10.html

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/chp11.html

[FreeHat]

07:41 AM on 10/14/2010

There are so many caveats to the inference of this article it's difficult to know where to start. First off, wind power is unstable - you need to build more coal powered stations to make up the difference. Second, when you're expanding coal powered stations at a exponentially bigger rate than you do wind power grids the whole notion becomes rather tongue in cheek. Third, the US still produces more wind energy than China and is forecasted to do so for several years.

[khanti]

12:17 AM on 10/14/2010

China has the money what better to invest in green energy. It does the World a lot of good too as pollutants travel to far off places including the US.

[Zhuubaajie]

11:48 AM on 10/14/2010

I have to disagree on that. I think investing in manufacturing and then exporting is one thing - at least making some labor cost wages (even at $1.5/hr.) is gainful employment of resources. Today "renewables" simply are not economically competitive with the more muscular and "traditional" power sources such as fossil fueled and nuclear power plants.

The near term future has to be nuclear for China. The cost of construction was heroically brought down from $2,000/kwe in the 1980's to last year's $1,227/kwe. It is expected that in another 5 years the number will break the psychological $1/we barrier. Solar PV, even the cheapest, runs $3 or more installed, and requires huge amounts of land (4 or 5 acres per MW). And solar does not generate anything but collects dust when there is no sun.

[khanti]

08:01 PM on 10/14/2010

On the nuclear part I agree with you in fact all nations will have to go nuclear to generate electricity to bring down global warming. Although there are considerable risk factors but advancement in modern technology are making new nuclear plants safer. China need to wean itself off fossil fuel although it may take time. She has a vast reserve of coal but mining coal cause pollution such as underground coal fire which cannot be exstinguished. Dependent on solar or wind power alone will not solve the problem but these are good investments in places where it is suitable.

[alvdh1]

11:05 AM on 10/15/2010

Nuclear Power in China?

This is going to be a huge costly mistake for public health, the environment and their economy.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/JWGcv.html

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/chp3.html


http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/chp4.html

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/chp5.html

http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PP/chp11.html

[mikefina]

10:50 PM on 10/13/2010

Lucky China. No Kennedy's, Kerry's or Cronkite's complaining that the distantly visible turbines would compromise the views from their mansions on Cape Cod. They don't have to put up with the too-precious NIMBYism of the hypocrital Liberal establishment and its fetish with importing the benefits and exporting (to RedState America) all the liabilities.

[MLear]

03:56 AM on 10/14/2010

Yes, but thank God you have all those American conservatives embracing alternative energies with open arms, and bravely standing up to the oil companies...

[mikefina]

10:59 AM on 10/14/2010

Bi-partisan opposition to inefficient and too-expensive technology. Beats the rush down the ethanol rabbit-hole...

[Monk2001]

07:59 PM on 10/16/2010

You're truly lost and completely brainwashed if you think the (D)'s are the one's lagging on cleaner air, lower pollution and alternative energy.

(R)'s alternative energy... "clean" coal. We shoot the coal vapor miles under the surface instead!!!!!

[Genders]

08:05 PM on 10/13/2010

Great news. China has the worst pollution. Chinese love nature. The Chinese are taking action. Offshore wind is the ideal way to go for wind, and Google is helping build the offshore grid. Offshore wind works great because most cities are on the coast. Solar on the other hand, is best done in rooftop distributed fashion, since it decreases grid load. Add waste bio fuels particularly waste bio chars, and you have the perfect 24/7 green alternative to fossil and nukes.

[nellre]

08:03 PM on 10/13/2010

Yup, and before you know it they'll be able to retire a coal powered plant or two.
I don't know, and the story doesn't say, but what percentage of China's total need do these windmills cover?

[Zhuubaajie]

08:31 PM on 10/13/2010

1%? But only when the wind is blowing.

Nuclear has to be the only viable replacement for coal going forward - at least until fusion comes on line. China actually has a very technically mature geothermal industry. But wind is more in vogue and has more political support (for building plants and doing FIT) today. It is the same everywhere, politics trumps what makes sense any day.

[eric14]

06:49 AM on 10/14/2010

From the article:

''That would be equal to 13 times the capacity of the Three Gorges Dam and could cut 410 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, or 150 million tonnes of coal consumption, said Yang Ailun of Greenpeace China.''

More than one or two.

[DAE]

06:32 PM on 10/13/2010

China is merely implementing the policy we followed in the 1950s, protect domestic industries, build up the countries infrastructure, invest in basic science and R & D, and develop a self-sustaining internal market based on a strong middle class. They also don't have to sustain a burdensome military-industrial comples like we and th Soviet Union did, so they can devot more of their GNP for developing their industrial base. Unlike the Soviets they hav built up a strong consumer economy. They also have a 5000 year history of strong civic mindedness among its population. The Asian autocratic, merchantile model works very well for them. Hey they invented it.

[Robert David Steele]

05:44 PM on 10/13/2010

From my own reading, the concept of wind and solar appears to be severely distorted as long as it retains the centralization of collection. Ideally renewable resources should be cultivated locally to avoid the waste of transmission.