Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 1, 2005
China Getting Serious About Renewable Energy. Meanwhile, the US Dither…

China Daily
Non-fossil energy sources, including wind, solar power and thermal power, will make up a bigger share of China’s energy resources under a new bill passed yesterday encouraging use of renewable energy.

Yep, while Europe is quietly turning into a wind superpower (small pdf), and while the US says that the American Way of Life is "non-negotiable", dithers about supporting renewable energy (see below) and dreams about the Alaskan (smallish) hydrocarbon reserves, China is facing its very real energy problems in a more sensible way.

Would you have believed it, 5 years ago, that China could have more sensible policies than the US on such important matters?

Members of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) approved the Law on Renewable Sources, which upholds renewable energy as a priority in China’s energy strategy.

"The development and use of renewable energy has special importance because China is a developing country with severe energy shortages," Standing Committee member Li Congjun said at a discussion on Saturday.

The new law, effective next year, provides a host of practices to ensure that renewable energy can be produced, marketed and used.

It orders power grid operators to purchase "in full amounts" resources from registered renewable energy producers within their domains. It also encourages oil distribution companies to sell biological liquid fuel on the sidelines.

According to the law, power grid operators should buy renewable-source-generated power at directed prices calculated by the government. The extra costs incurred by this will be shared throughout the overall power network.

The law also offers financial incentives, such as a national fund to foster renewable energy development, and discounted lending and tax preferences for renewable energy projects.

Take my word for it, or do your own research, but they are doing all the right things to get renewable energy going:

  • guaranteed access to the grid (very important for intermittent producers like solar and wind)
  • specific prices for each energy source. Most renewable energy sources are currently not directly competitive at today’s energy prices, which do not reflect the externalities (pollution, military costs, depletion, global warming) of the current energy sources, and need to be helped. This is fair as it also reflects the lack of externalities of these energy sources. Wind is already almost competitive without help and will be very competitive when the alternatives are correctly priced to reflect their real cost on society; solar is still a lot more expensive but prices are coming down as economies of scale kick in and research advances.
  • long term framework. Renewable energy projects need 10-15 years to make sense economically, so the fact that you have a clear national strategy in that respect, and the corresponding political backing for it, is very important for investors as they know that the new regulatory framework will not disappear half way through.

Now consider how the US is supporting renewable energies. The main tool is the PTC (production tax credit), a tax refund that you receive for 10 years for each kWh of renewable energy you produce. The problems with that:

  • the fact that it’s a tax refund means that you need an investor who has a big enough tax bill to benefit from it. That means that small developers need to find financial investors to join them, and build complicated corporate structures;
  • there is no guarantee in the law that your power will be bought at all times, which, as I wrote above, is a big issue for intermittent power. So you need to find a buyer (usually, a local utility) that will accept to buy your electricity at all times through a bilateral contract. Again, more complexity, and the difficulty for small developers to be taken seriously by the big utilities they will depend upon. Som states have a more favorable framework that encourages their utilities to support renewable projects, but it’s on a case by case basis;
  • as the "Leave No Lobbyist Behind" Energy bill has shown, all other energy producers in the US get loads of tax breaks, advantages, subsidies that reduce renewable energy’s relative competitivity and show most of all that there is no coherent energy policy in that country;
  • worst of all, the PTC mechanism has been limping on in the past few years. It expired in 2001, was renewed in late 2000 for 2 years only, and was caught in 2003 in the horrible debate on the energy bill – so was renewed only in late 2004 until the end of 2005. (Project will get the 10-year PTC if the project gets into operation at a time when the PTC rule is in place). As wind projects take about a year to develop (at least) and another year to build, this law has become essentially meaningless. Many projects have been on hold throughout 2004, waiting for the PTC to be reinstated; now they are all rushing to be built before the end of 2005, creating major strains for turbine manufacturers (which heavy industry can cope with demand jumping by 100% one year, dropping to almost zero the next year, and then jumping up again to new record level the next, and with high risk that demand will fall again after that??).

With erratic, inconsistent support and no long term framework, it’s a miracle that the US is still the third largest wind producer in the world (after Germany and Spain). But if Chinese plans go in accordance with all declarations (and everything points the same way over there) the US will soon be overtaken and China will have taken yet another advantage in the energy race between the two countries.

from the same article

It usually takes three reviews before an act goes to a vote. But this one was passed after the second round, with senior legislators acknowledging the vital need to get the nation on a sustainable energy fast track amid worries about the country’s worsening pollution problems, chronic energy shortages and increasing reliance on imported energy sources.

China is getting serious about energy. When will the US do the same?

Comments

China is eminently capable of taking the long view. I wish the rest of us were too.
The US DoD apparently thinks that there’s a 10-year window in which to undertake radical restructing measures to prevent really catastrophic climate change, although it may already be too late to prevent the 2-degree-C rise scenario (you know, the one where the Arctic ice sheet melts and sea levels rise 7 meters).
The UK director of Greenpeace, Stephen Tindale, also thinks there’s about 10 years, and has called for a war-time economy to be instituted similar to that seen in the run-up to WW2 (w/ Churchill re-equipping the British RAF from 1937) – all economic activity to be aimed at reducing the threat of abrupt change. War for Terra.
(Researchers at Oxford Univ have recently put the upper estimate of the average hike in global temperature at 11 deg C in the next 100 years, rather than the 5-7 deg range usually assumed.)
Global Business News had this Pentagon report leaked to them back in 2003, which concludes:
“It is quite plausible that within a decade the evidence of an imminent abrupt climate shift may become clear and reliable.”

Posted by: Dismal Science | Mar 1 2005 13:18 utc | 1

Sorry – retraction of that last para. The report was not leaked.
Two GBN contributors (one of whom appears to be an advocate of the nuclear response to climate change a la James Lovelock) authored the paper for the Pentagon for US$100,000), and it does not represent an official DoD position.
However, Tindale’s comments stand (I heard him in person at the start of February).

Posted by: Dismal Science | Mar 1 2005 13:31 utc | 2

At the risk of being recognized as the self-complacent advocate of desaster I am from time to time: Most people are like children when it comes to (almost by definition long-term) ecological matters – they have to be hit personally, and hit hard, before they will seriously ask and work for a change. By then, it will very probably be too late.

Posted by: teuton | Mar 1 2005 14:12 utc | 3

teuton – right on.
People smoke. The human races “smokes” as well.

Posted by: Jérôme | Mar 1 2005 14:16 utc | 4

Long view? China’s not taking the long view, it’s moving on an immediate problem and opportunity. To get significant non-fossil energy production in the next 10-15 years you have to start yesterday. Not only do you have to build the generation facilities, you first have to build the factories to produce the components. Once China does that while the U.S. sits around with it’s finger up it’s nose, they have the market sewn up.
U.S. corporations and the Congress will prefer to sit around making windfall profits and bonuses on $50/bbl oil until it’s too late.

Posted by: Tim H. | Mar 1 2005 14:25 utc | 5

Two words: Follow through. It’s what the boss of Toyota, Business 2.0’s Smartest Company of 2004 credits to his sucess.
Three words: No Future Here.
“Last month media elder statesman Bill Moyers made a speech after receiving an award at Harvard in which he said that “born again” members of the Bush regime couldn’t possibly believe in the future if they truly subscribed to the doctrines of Pentecostal Christianity — since its theology includes the notion that the world has entered an “end times” scenario as described in the the Book of Revelations. Moyers went further, implying that people who explicitly and programmatically don’t believe in the future have no business running a government, the chief task of which is safeguarding the future.”

Posted by: The Key | Mar 1 2005 15:15 utc | 6

With China’s air pollution problems, it only makes sense. They want to make a good impression for the Olympics too (those marathoners are going to die if they have to run in that air!). It’s good to see them acknowledging the problem and acting on it… now if only they could do the same for the AIDS crisis in their country.

Posted by: kat | Mar 1 2005 16:15 utc | 7

The people of China have been speaking and living Chinese for 10,000 years. Oil has affected their lives in a major way for 50 years. We of the United States whose forebears arrived here from Europe and Africa have been living and speaking English (among other tongues) for 400 years, and oil has affected our lives in a major way for 100 years. Why, then, would it surprise us that China, as a community, might be much more cautious than we about the dangers posed by oil consumption?

Posted by: alabama | Mar 1 2005 16:45 utc | 8

Good point, I think, alabama. However, I recently saw a report about China’s poor, many of which come to the big cities in the erroneous belief that the wrongs that have been done to them (e.g., their land has simply been taken away by corrupt local party functionaries) will be righted. They only fill the slums, and nobody cares about their complaints and suffering. They form a marginalized substratum of society that is there to be exploited when the next factory opens and exploits them in a way that makes it impossible even for the most ruthless Western capitalists to compete. What I saw in that report was probably an important element of the stereotypical ‘modern’ China, and old culture that is now eating capitalist structures raw – and it really touched my anachronistic humanist heart. For a while. Then I lacked the energy.

Posted by: teuton | Mar 1 2005 17:38 utc | 9

China is about as much a communist country now as America is a “democracy” (which it actually never was, cf usual explanation about republic vs democracy, yada yada)… seems like it’s sliding back into authoritarianism and feudalism as fast as we are if not faster. that petty officialdom stealing peasant lands is as old as the Han empire if not older…
what’s interesting/chilling is that China is an authoritarian state run by intelligent authoritarians, whereas the US is becoming an authoritarian state run by deeply stupid, irrational authoritarians. think… oh, think Marcus Aurelius vs Caligula or Tiberius I suppose? Moyers is right. the US has become futureless — or pathetically invested in some kind of hokey 1950’s Buck Rogers futurist fantasy (cf NYT review of Diamond’s book, the best the reviewer would come up with was “but we’ll go into space where resources are infinite, and that will solve all our problems.” as the friend w/whom I was having breakfast at the time said, “Up in the air, Junior Birdman.”)
imho the intelligent authoritarians will win… though the loser all around seems to be individual freedom, the brief flicker of the Enlightenment notion that we have “rights” and some prospect of being other than hive creatures.
anyway my bet: if China can get its sustainable energy program up and running — by official fiat, by force if necessary (hey, maybe they will start executing major polluters!) — then their position will be so strong vis-a-vis the US… and what the heck, if I have to live under an authoritarian regime it would be better to breathe clean authoritarian air than filthy authoritarian air — I guess.
[Ogg say, why is text editing box suddenly so small? I didn’t change browsers…]

Posted by: DeAnander | Mar 1 2005 18:00 utc | 10

O I forgot to say Jerome — great post!

Posted by: DeAnander | Mar 1 2005 18:01 utc | 11

De A wrote: what’s interesting/chilling is that China is an authoritarian state run by intelligent authoritarians, whereas the US is becoming an authoritarian state run by deeply stupid, irrational authoritarians.
Both are capitalistic one-party States. China listens to its scientists, slowly but attentively — BushCo control and suppress what scientists have to say; many of the most competent ones working in areas of interest to the Gvmt. (except in weapons and bio-warfare) resign in despair or are fired.
On this point, China resembles Nazi Germany more than the US does.
The US resembles nothing at all – I can’t think of a similar example. The irrationality is frightening – poison seeps (someone made that point in another thread, sorry I can’t remember, maybe Colman?)
Part of the US’ attitude and actions is due to ‘democracy’, that is an attempt to keep on board, pacify, pander to, a segment of the voters, supporters, past funders, etc. E.g., the US has just tried to crush abortion rights world wide. See here: Guardian; the US media has ignored or kept quiet the murder of women active in women’s causes in Iraq. See here: Newsweek, IntlEd.
Of course, ‘democracy’ is a source of pride and ostensive clout (even if others give in only because of military strength) that must be kept up for image and propaganda purposes internally.
China is not tied in this way.

Posted by: Blackie | Mar 1 2005 19:03 utc | 12

If you want to find an analogy to Moyers’ description of the born-again nutcases, the best one would probably be Hitler in 1945. Basically, let’s do any foolish thing that can harm as many people as possible, including and even first of all your own people, in the hope that this will provoke the end time cataclysm. The same way Hitler ended up thinking Germans didn’t deserve him and had to all die for their failure to win his war, the Rapture-nuts think mankind should be brought down and annihilated. In fact, I wouldn’t totally differ with them if they just targetted mankind, because when such criminal fools have such a power over the whole species, it’s a proof some things didn’t work – but these assholes basically want to take the whole world down with them, environment, resources, the whole planet, and they probably are mad like Hell that they don’t have their own plan to destroy the solar system.
Moyers is right that such people shouldn’t be allowed to rule a country. I’d say he should have added that people having such beliefs should never be allowed near a ballot box and should be forbidden to be elected or nominated to any office except resident of an asylum locked cell.
DeAnander: Fully agree. China *is* authoritarian. In fact, it’s the main reason why it can get away with such massive reforms and could manage to implement them quickly. This is the area where authoritarian systems beat any democracy.
Dismal Science: a 11C rise in 100 years? That’s the most frightening scenario I’ve seen. That’s the kind of thing I always feared but so far was relieved not to see, even in worst-case scenarios. If such a thing happened, our end would come even sooner than I thought, and we would leave this planet to the rule of the insects, if not the bateria. A 11C increase would probably mean that the whole system is going out of control, with continuous heating until Earth looks close to Mars or Venus.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Mar 1 2005 20:03 utc | 13

The cockroaches will inherit the Earth.

Posted by: idook | Mar 1 2005 20:43 utc | 14

Yep, CluelessJoe, it’s potentially really, really bad:
“The world could be as much as 11°C hotter inside 50 years, according to the first results from climateprediction.net, an experimental distributed computing network set up to simulate climate change.
(snip)
“The researchers ran more than 50,000 simulations of the potential future climate, based on a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels. What they found has surprised them. David Stainforth, from Oxford University, explains that carbon dioxide levels could have a much greater impact on global temperature than previously thought.”
You can sign up to help model climate change data (a la SETI) with climateprediction.net here.

Posted by: Dismal Science | Mar 2 2005 14:43 utc | 15