"That's my idea. At Shanxi and Shaanxi, coal-to-oil and IGCC will be integrated into one system. In this regard, China is ahead of other nations. The US is only talking about this," he told me matter-of-factly over a cup of green tea.
The technology is expensive, but Xiao estimated that China could build and operate IGCC plants for about a third of the price of the US. In the near future, he predicted China would have to choose whether to invest primarily in supercritical plants, which burn coal efficiently, or IGCC facilities that dealt more effectively with carbon. The latter are more expensive, but price is not the only consideration. "The uncertainty of climate change constraints is a factor in deciding which plants we build," he said. "If we don't need to worry about CO2 emissions, then supercritical plants make more sense. But if we are concerned about carbon dioxide, then IGCC is the best. This is the big decision we must make in the next five to ten years . . . Sequestration will be the final solution for carbon dioxide control. But before that we should try other things."
Isn't the priority in the long term to reduce demand?" I asked.
He shrugged and smiled. "We cannot deny people a happy life. But we also must not deny future generations a happy life," I said.
"True," he replied.
From When a Billion Chinese Jump: How China Will Save Mankind--or Destroy It by Jonathan Watts. © 2010 Jonathan Watts. Reproduced by permission of Scribner.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentI was in China recently and didnt find the air bad in Bejing, Shanghi or Dalian except for sand storm from the Gobi desert.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLots of cars, but all new so no old boats on the road spewing oil and gas fumes.
China is getting their act together and accomplishing things every single day, building dams, nuclear power plants and yes coal. Coal will be used for hundreds of years, the technology has allowed dramatic reductions in its outputs.
LOL--The question is a stupid one, because China has absolutely zero intention of doing without coal. Neither does India or a long list of other countries that want electricity. Increases in CO2 emissions over the next 50 years will come from those countries as they seek similar levels of electricity access that is available in developed countries today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main polluting use of coal in China are the large "tablets" that are used for heating in millions of homes. These are burned in primitive stoves, virtually all without any type of catalyst, and they pollute extensively.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a very interesting chart on Co2 produced by nation and by nation-per-capita please see this link:
http://www.miller-mccune.com/science-environment/tracking-climate-change-24435/
You do realize that those nice new cars still produce a lot of CO2 even if they aren't 'spewing oil', don't you? All the coal fired electric generation facilities built in recent years my be cleaner than older designs, but still produce a lot of CO2. Please refer to candide's comment #4 link.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, were you a guest of the government or industry on your trip to China? Yes, they are building the future, but I think you missed a lot of sites and even cities exhibiting major environmental disasters. The future ain't that bright.
While polution is a major global probelm, it has become fashion by western corporate media including scientific publications to bash China. Has the author traveled to other developing countries whcih are US allies and seen the level of polution or price of human life. China is doing far better tahn many western darlings in Asia. SA should engage in science doscourse and not copy FOX, CNN, NYT and other corporate agencies. In fact, many Asian countries are getting epidemic of asthma and other chest ailments due to polution. However, they are praised as great, most powerful nations, flourishing democracies etc by western governments and media. Such double standard is sickening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSilly article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was in Shandong 4 years ago. Thee were thousands of people everywhere...I didn't see anyone trapped in a coal pile.
Hint...China is bigger in geographic area than the USA. Los Angeles is not 'the USA' anymore than Beijing is 'China'.
Much of China's coal in future will come from China and Canada.... natural gas from russia and oil also from Canada. Huge contracts have already been signed and mines developed.
Overall, a silly misleading article. China will survive.
With Chinese nuclear costs projected to be less than their own coal within two to three years, its likely China will be going massively coal to nuclear after 2020.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight now China wants to get their nuclear sales competitive advantage firmly established before letting their massive sales of wind and solar equipment to idiots in the west phase out in favour of Chinese nuclear exports.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/china-leverages-learning-curve-cost.html
Your point is valid, but I have to point out that China's emerging world economy has produced large increases in CO2 production in recent years. It is now the world's largest producer of CO2 emissions. Its continued economic growth will likely produce the largest change in CO2 production in the next several years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEventually everybody will use another power source: Aether.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA Flying Saucer "taps" power out of the aether.
Tesla used it for powering his Pierce Arrow car in 1931.
Nasa could have had it when they were given the technology of Gravity Control but allowed some handymen in physics to screw it up with the big Black-out of 2003 as a result.
Then they informed the Nasa Head-Office that the System, used by a Flying Saucer, was unsuitable for Space Travel.
Coal burning will only be ecologically acceptable when power plant uses pure oxygen in the combustion cycle. That way only pure CO2 is produced which can be stored underground. But at present oxygen is expensive, but so too is CO2 capture and storage in present plant. There is the added advantage that there is no NOx either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgree with you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUSA and the Euro developed countries has beening using coal and pouring CO2 to the atmosphere for over a hundred year. The major part of CO2 comes from them. Now how can they stop others countires from using coal as a energy source?
Geothermic energy has a far greater potential for generating electricity than all fossil fuel reserves put together. When the Chineses leaders realise this, they will make the necessary investments that all the other world leaders are too ill-informed to introduce, because of the whining drivel emitted by the heads of big energy groups.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this