China Improves Energy Efficiency By 20 Percent In 5 Years

BEIJING — China met a five-year target to improve energy efficiency by cutting power to industry and imposing rolling blackouts, even though a massive economic stimulus increased energy use.

Energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product was reduced by 20 percent from 2005 levels by the end of 2010, said Zhang Ping, chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission. It is China's top economic planning body.

The official Xinhua News Agency quoted Zhang on Thursday as saying detailed data have yet to be released.

Top Chinese officials said last year reaching the goal might be difficult because China sought to recover from the global economic crisis with a stimulus that focused on upgrading infrastructure that used steel, cement and other energy-intensive products.

China cut energy intensity by 14.4 percent in 2009, but its economic rebound pushed energy intensity back up by 0.09 percent in the first half of 2010, the first such increase since 2006.

Meeting the energy efficiency target was seen as a key marker of China's commitment toward fighting global warming. It has surpassed the United States as the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, largely because its economic development over the past three decades has relied on labor- and energy-intensive growth.

Beijing's leaders issued stern orders to meet the energy-savings targets in the second half of the year and sent inspectors to see the orders were carried out in the provinces. About 2,000 steel and cement mills and other factories with poor environmental controls were closed.

Local governments took drastic measures, such as power cuts at steel mills and factories and rolling residential blackouts. One prosperous eastern city turned off street lights and ordered hotels and shopping malls to cut power use.

However, public anger forced a backlash, and the NDRC scolded local government officials for punishing ordinary citizens with power cuts.

China is hoping emerging clean-energy industries will reduce its surging need for imported oil and gas and promise economic growth and jobs.

The energy intensity targets for the next five years are still being deliberated, but media reports have suggested the new targets could be around 17 percent.

Comments

[Kenz300]

08:35 PM on 01/30/2011

China is making a commitment to lead in the new era of alternative energy.

They are investing heavily in wind, solar and electric vehicles.

They want to be leaders in the businesses of the future.

As the volume ramps up the unit cost of production will go down and
the competitiveness with other forms of energy will be enhanced.

Flat screen TV's were very expensive a few years ago before they
became commodities and the prices started to drop.

Wind and solar will be the same. Soon there will be standard systems
to add units to your home or business and the price will drop as the volume
increases.

[FilmCriticOne]

05:15 PM on 02/02/2011

Units for your HOME? Sounds great, but what about storage of energy? Isn't that the big problem?

[fireofenergy]

09:16 PM on 01/18/2011

Why don't everyone use close cycle nuclear... Way simpler than placing (at least) 40,000 sq mi of solar panel per each large country... (although I think it would be really cool if robotic factories made that, and batteries, possible!).

[worker beenumbed]

08:33 PM on 01/14/2011

China needs an energy star program such as the USA .That is not clear.Less than half of the new homes being built in the states are energy star.----TOO few.Also The USA needs to charge a port fee based on displacement since merchant shipe contribute 3.7% of the planets co2 emissions.Use the revenue to subsidize the purchase of wind turbine output in the states and lower sales taxes.

[Tim The Enchanter]

01:46 AM on 01/13/2011

Here's something to chew on -

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-18/spanish-solar-projects-on-brink-of-bankruptcy-as-subsidy-policies-founder.html

[worker beenumbed]

08:50 PM on 01/14/2011

I read the bloomberg.44 cents per kilowatt GUARENTEED was too generous.The new turbines and solar costs are have dropped since 08.

[fireofenergy]

02:57 PM on 01/12/2011

China needs to build extra coal plants just to satisfy America's demand. So we have to stop buying so much from them and instead get rid of all the laws that prevent us from transforming over to a clean energy economy.

[MikeyJaii]

11:23 PM on 01/11/2011

Congratulation China!

[worker beenumbed]

08:49 PM on 01/11/2011

China's growing use of coal iis unacceptable in my view.The USA should position itself to say,"Do as we do"Usa should reduce its fossile fuel consumption more rapidly.How?More wind turbines and fuel efficient houses and vehicles.and an improved electric grid..Pay for it with a port tax on all merchant ships which consume 3.7% of the planets fossile fuel .Tax should be enough to achieve a 100% carbon offset within the USA of the ships" emissions.The shippers are getting a free ride.

[texfly]

02:06 PM on 01/11/2011

This is what it takes America - commitment:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/u.s.-ignores-china-greentech-at-its-peril/

And look how far they've com:
http://www.solarfeeds.com/greentech-media/12372-this-week-in-solar-first-solar-shines

"China is now the number one global producer of photovoltaic cells. They were barely on the map a few years ago in solar production. There is $3 billion in Chinese government stimulus for solar. Compare that with last week's announcement from Secretary Chu allotting $200 million for solar and water power technologies. The Chinese government will fund 50 percent of the cost of very large solar (>500 megawatt) installations and expects their solar market to increase to 20GW by 2020. "

So much for the "efficiency" of the free market.

[iceage7]

11:24 AM on 01/11/2011

Those of you criticizing china on their green inititiatves are missing the point..Just like manufactuing china will now be the leader in green technology while America sleeps in deep slumber

[rowdybrowngirl]

01:57 PM on 01/11/2011

F & F

[red clavier]

01:30 AM on 01/11/2011

Two new coal plants every week for the next ten years, that's the plan.
Throw in a few green projects along the periphery just to keep western observers happy.
It doesn't take much to make some folks fawn.

[dwhuston]

11:33 AM on 01/13/2011

You probably need to keep a little more current. The number for 2010 is 1 per week. That is still excessive in my opinion, but half of what you stated.

[fiddler3]

08:33 PM on 01/10/2011

And what is the energy consumption per GDP in both China and US? The article actually doesn't say, but give an impression that China is doing well while the US is doing poorly.

So .... here are the numbers (for 2009). GDP in trillion USD, energy consumption in tons oil equivalents:
US GDP is 14.1T USD, energy consumption is 2169M Toe
China: GDP is 5.0T USD. energy consumption is 2265M Toe

So, energy intensity for US is 0.154 Toe/USD, about three times better than China's 0.453

[texfly]

09:10 PM on 01/10/2011

How does GDP distinguish between energy consuming activities and non-energy consuming activities?
Isn't fraction of GDP due to energy-intensive activies a better way of doing the comparison.

[fiddler3]

08:28 AM on 01/11/2011

All activities consume some energy. One can get trapped in the semantics of how you define "energy intensive activities'. The generally used metric for energy intensity is the one referred to in the article: consumption/GDP. That is the one I provided the figures for.

[La Luna]

11:58 PM on 01/10/2011

Don't you think using energy consumption per capita is more reasonable? I have been in the US for quite a long time and it always "amazes" me that even if there is nobody at all in your stores and supermarkets, the lights are still ALL on! What's more, in Walmart they just give away plastic bags like they cost nothing.

You people really waste a lot of energy and resources while forcing other people protecting the environment. What a fighter for environment!

[fiddler3]

08:26 AM on 01/11/2011

Energy consumption per capita is a good metric also. The energy intensity metric tells something about economic efficiency and is the metric referred to in the article. All I did was provide the actual numbers.

[Moder8tion]

08:35 AM on 01/11/2011

Be realistic.
-Cycling power to lights can be worse than leaving them on.
-Stores have employees that need to see.
-Lawyers would love you.
-I want a bag so that I can carry what I purchased! Geesh!
-Oh, and they practically do cost nothing....

[goingstrong]

07:25 PM on 01/10/2011

And you know what? This is only ONE way China will leave America in the dust in the coming years...welcome to the new SUPER power Republic of China, America will be (or are we already?) lapping at your heels in no time

[JPMP]

03:45 PM on 01/10/2011

Yes, it IS impressive that China would unilaterally undertake measures that resulted in "Energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product was reduced by 20 percent from 2005 levels by the end of 2010."

Of course, the phrase "consumption per unit gross domestic product" is the key issue.

As a capitalist economy, China is bound to the illogical, physically impossible notion of the absolute necessity for CONSTANT economic growth. IF it were possible, the implied production of a growing mass of goods would require a growing energy consumption.

So, in the end, the entire world, now converted to the global religion of capitalism will simply become very unhappy, being unable to reach its purpose, but still managing to squander its available energy in trying.

[JCArky]

02:53 PM on 01/10/2011

Only 150 child laborers where killed during construction....

Those who survived where paid a whopping 100 dollars each.

You are awesome China! I wish the USA was more like you!!

[Rharte]

03:53 PM on 01/10/2011

Honestly, this whole China bashing is getting old. The U.S has a *DEFICIT* of over $14 Trillion... while China has a *SURPLUS* of over $200 Billion. Yes it's bad news for the U.S but don't hate the player. Hate the game. While be blow over $10 billion a month in Iraq among other things, we are lacking in innovation as a result of our poor education system. Our ability to compete is further challenged.

[babaganoush9]

03:55 PM on 01/10/2011

America used child labor for quite a while before it changed its ways, and that was only after a fight. And corporate American also fought the minimum wage which made getting 25 cents or so an hour illegal. Time was America was alot like China. Just because we changed a few things, after many years of fights and arguments doesn't make us angels. Look at the way we currently treat the healthcare issue.

[dwhuston]

11:37 AM on 01/13/2011

America has really not changed its ways that much... we simply outsource our child labor requirements to the far east.

[Kye154]

02:51 PM on 01/10/2011

Seems like America has fallen off the power curve badly in science and technology since the early 1970's. Now we have an economy that doesn't support efficiency or substainability, rather we have a Service economy that does nothing but sells manufatured goods from other countries, hamburgers, and servicing debt. As a matter of fact, Servicing Debt happens to be America's #1 industry now, not energy efficiency or substainability.

So, China leaves us in their dust, while we still are in love with gas guzzling cars, (by the way, based on 19th century technology, the gas expansion chamber and piston), while our energy grid has become monpolized by energy companies that want to service you for a price, but don't want any competing energy efficient technology online for you to have.

In the meanwhile, the US has dropped science education in the World ranking from first place in 1960, to 21st place in 2008, making it almost impossible to compete against other countries in these new innovative fields. So, is it any wonder why the U.S. has fallen behind a third world country like China?

Everything about America seems screwed at this point, whether you talk about energy, environment, or the economy, nothing in America seems to be functioning anymore. Even assuming we decide to make the effort overnight, it will take at least another generation or more before we can catch up, and be #1 again. America really needs to get it's act together.

[Moder8tion]

08:43 AM on 01/11/2011

We simply need manufacturing back but we have too much red tape in today’s society.
-Legal, environmental, union, political red tape. We have out-civilized ourselves from being able to compete.

[Edward Standley]

08:08 PM on 01/12/2011

Some red tape is necessary. There are aspects to old time manufacturing that were indeed harmful to workers and all consumers. That said, we must be realistic with our expectations.