BEIJING—Winds rush through the capital city of China, blowing dust storms that envelop it in grit from the encroaching Gobi Desert each spring. Last year, the government finally took advantage of those winds, installing 33 wind turbines manufactured by domestic company Xinjiang Gold Wind at the Guanting wind power field to harvest this energy and use it to supplement the electricity provided by polluting coal. Those suburban turbines began turning in earnest on January 20, providing 35 million kilowatt-hours of electricity to Beijing through July, or roughly 300,000 kilowatt-hours a day.

That may supply 20 percent of the power to the city's Olympic venues, helping the country meet its pledge of a green Olympics. The government's commitment to renewable energy is real: the Chinese government recently doubled its target for installed wind power to 10 gigawatts by 2010 after the previous goal of 5 gigawatts was met three years early.

Through 2007, however, despite abundant winds in Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, offshore and elsewhere, the country had only slightly more than 6 gigawatts of turbines built, which supplied less than 1 percent—0.6 percent—of the country's power. And even the most optimistic projections have wind power accounting for less than 3 percent of total electricity production by 2020—more than the current U.S. share of 0.4 percent but far less than world leader, Denmark, which gets roughly 20 percent of its power from the wind.

The U.S. currently gets 7 percent of its energy from renewable resources, of which wind makes up just 5 percent. In China, the current five-year plan calls for renewables—wind, solar, biogas and hydro power—to account for 10 percent of the country's energy consumption by 2010 (up from 7.5 percent in 2005, the last year of the last five-year plan) and 15 percent by 2020. All to reduce the dependence on—and the pollution from—burning coal.

"Developing and utilizing renewables shall be an important part of building a new socialist countryside," the plan states, while also calling for the development of 50 entire counties in Jiangsu, Shandong, Guangdon, Guangxi, Sichuan and Inner Mongolia to be built by 2010 that get 50 percent of household energy from renewable sources.

"China is already one of the top renewable energy producers in the world," says climate and energy campaigner Liu Shuang of environmental group Greenpeace. "Renewable energy can provide 50 percent of the energy needs in China," she adds, and the environmental group projects that 37 percent of that renewable energy could come from wind and solar power alone.

But the reality is that, like the wind, renewable power in China is a fickle source.

There are 158 wind farms in China, according to the Chinese Wind Energy Association (CWEA), and the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)—the government ministry charged with economic development—has called for the installation of 10 gigawatts—up from 6 gigawatts at present—by 2010.

Major companies—electricity giant Huaneng Group and state-directed China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC)—have responded to the government's goals, looking to build utility-scale wind farms throughout the country, according to engineer He Dexin, president of CWEA. "All the good wind farm locations are now owned by the biggest energy companies," says Greenpeace spokeswoman Sarah Liang.

But even all those good locations will not be enough. "Because land is very precious in China, some places will not be allowed to build wind farms," notes Dexin, who has been involved in wind power since the 1970s.

Offshore wind farms may fill the gaps, providing up to 750 gigawatts of electricity, according to the China Meteorology Research Institute, without impacting farms or other sensitive lands. "China has the largest wind resources in the world and three-quarters of them are offshore," says Barbara Finamore, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Beijing office.

Typhoons wreaked havoc on poorly designed wind farms in the south of the country in recent years, however, and that does not bode well for China's ability to build in deep waters. "The reality in China is they develop [wind farms] too fast," says CWEA's Cai Fengbo. "The quality of wind generation suffered."

Regardless, China remains among the world leaders in building wind turbines, or at least their components. Even when foreign companies such as General Electric or Suzlon supply the turbines as much as 70 percent of the components are made in China, everything except for bearings and electrical controls.

China is also the number one producer of solar photovoltaics, with more than 200 manufacturers creating 1700 megawatts of the panels in 2007, says the Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association (CREIA), or nearly half of the world's total production of 3,800 megawatts. 

Almost none of that remained in the country, however. "99 percent goes outside," says CREIA secretary general Li Junfeng. "The local market is very limited because [PV] is too expensive."

Around 80 megawatts of solar photovoltaics are used in the country, cropping up on light poles in cities like Rizhao in Shandong province or even the roofs of office buildings that hold solar technology companies, like Beijing Solar Energy Research Institute's headquarters in the capital city. And China has become the world's leading proponent of solar heating technology, which provides hot water everywhere from Beijing airport's new Terminal 3 to a village inn in Yunnan Province, because it is as cheap as the alternatives.

Still, says Greenpeace's Liu, "It's a waste of all the production in China. It doesn't make sense."

And all of that production means that China is bearing the burden of the pollution that can go along with the manufacture of such renewable energy for other countries—whether the acid rain–forming sulfur dioxide emitted from making the steel in a wind turbine's blade or the noxious chemicals left over after manufacturing specialized silicon, or glass, that can turn sunshine into electricity. "To stop global warming, it's not an excuse to destroy the local environment," says Greenpeace's Liu. "Producing photovoltaics must have strong controls on chemicals."

So that leaves dams as the cleanest, cheapest option for electricity generation in China. And the country is blessed with abundant resources in that area: 400 million kilowatts of potential of which only 110 million kilowatts have been developed, according to government figures. "Within 30 to 50 years, hydro will be the main energy we should rely on," predicts Lai Hun Suen, a professor of sustainable development at Chongqing University and a municipal government official.

Dams accounted for 16 percent of total electricity generation in 2005, thanks to the completion of Da Chao Shan, Gong Bo Xia and Three Gorges dams. But it is a technology that has proven problematic in developed and developing countries—witness the ecological problems brought on by the Three Gorges—and most of the undeveloped locations for hydropower are located in the west of the country while the majority of electricity use is in the east.

Nevertheless, "China will try to rely on hydropower," Lai says. "It is a choice we made when we had no other choice."

5 Comments

1. 1. daenouja 07:44 AM 8/5/08

   Tecnospin is a great example of affordable wind energy for a market like this. www.tswind.com

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. David M. Clemen 02:30 PM 8/7/08

   Three Gorges does have some ecological problems associated with it as stated in your article. However, the dam was built as a "flood control" structure (the electrical power generation is an ancillary benefit) because over 300,000 people have died in Yangtze River floods in the 20th century(156,000 in 1840; 142,000 in 1935; over 33,000 in 1954; and most recently over 3,000 in 1998).
   
   Naturally, when you build a large dam with its associated large reservoir, there will be ecological problems that were not previously existent; and these must be handled. However, the logic dictates that you build the dam to save the thousands of human lives. Then you must address the ecological problems that were unforeseen prior to the construction of the dam.
   
   Hydropower electrical production is much more efficient than wind energy (85% overall efficiency vs. wind energy's 40% overall efficiency). Hydropower also
   
   1. produces the lowest cost electricity among the various renewables
   
   2. provides reservoirs for drinking water, irrigation, etc.
   
   3. has long life facilities (75 to 100 years) when compared to wind (20 years) and solar
   
   4. has lower maintenance costs than wind by a factor of 10
   
   5. and enables the entire electricity network to be more efficient and reliable because it has readily available power on a continual basis (This is to be contrasted with the intermittent power of wind and solar)
   
   In summary, the dam was required to avoid the loss of human life due to the frequent flooding of the Yangtze River; and the saving of human lives on such a large scale is imperative. The ecological problems created have to be addressed. The electrical power generation is a large ancillary benefit

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. Megafun Nigel 01:29 AM 8/20/08

   i live in China, my girlfriend's village is downstream from this dam. I used to enjoy swimming in a fairly clean river whenever I return to visit her village. But now, the river flow has ben reduced by over 80 percent, resulting in the loss of most river-dependant wild life. So, my respond to people like the two David who wrote this article and the other who commented, is that "ecological problems created" are never addressed!
   As for the benefit, those villagers along the Three Gorges who are deprived of reasonable good drinking water, do not generally use much, if any, electricity.
   Maybe one day when Hudson River, in New York, has its flow reduced by over 80 percent, you guys in USA will appreciate the problems - smelly polluted water. Or maybe not, since you have air-conditioning and bottled water.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. David M. Clemen in reply to Megafun Nigel 10:55 AM 8/23/08

   Megafun Nigel
   
   If your girlfriend lived downstream from the dam, then she, her parents, and grandparents, etc. must have relocated and/or lost many possessions (or died) due to one of the many disastrous floods. I think the deaths of 300,000 people, and the elimination of the loss of many more human lives due to flooding of the Yangtze, are more important than your enjoyable swimming pools. However, with that point being made clear (human lives are more important than enjoyable pursuits), I entirely agree with your opinion that the Chinese government , or dam agency "should" address the ecological problems created by the dam
   However, I do agree

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. jocelynnchoo 02:52 AM 3/3/09

   This is my opinion, but WHO am I? Nobody, so, don't take to heart if you disagree.
   Harnessing Liability from Nature into Assets for Man (The TGP way)
   First of all, we have to really look at the Yangtze River with which the Chinese have been living since early Chinese civilization. It is their mother river, which they love and respect for the means of livelihood and natural habitat provided by it. But, though they hate to say it aloud, it has also been their endless source of hardship and sufferings: frequent flooding causing damages of agricultural products, properties, lands and above all, hardship and countless lives.
   The main concern behind the construction of this dam, I believe, is the numerous valuable lives lost in every flood. The August 1998 flood of the Yangtze River, caused 4,000 lives, and 24 billion dollars worth of damage. It may have been weighed many times before the final and difficult decision was made, placing human lives above all other important issues, like natural habitats, farmland, historic sites, culture and relocation.
   Then comes the subsequently important issues of energy to help China solve 1/9 of its energy need.
   The US$ 24-billion project is a major source of reliable, cheap, clean and renewable power which is much needed in China. The project has a generating capacity of 18.2 GW, equivalent to 1/9 of China's power output. Gift of nature should be tapped, not to be left idle.
   The hydro-plant is said to be able to reduce about 50 million tons of raw coal to be burnt annually which might produce about 100 million tons of carbon dioxide, 1.2 million tons of sulphur dioxide, 10 thousand tons of carbon monoxide, 370 000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and huge amount of wastes.
   Loss of culture heritage needs the least worry from outsiders, as China is a country richest in culture preservation. No effort would have been spared to ensure maximum salvage of culture preservation and minimum loss of heritage along the affected areas. Moreover, river floods has all along been destroying cities and cultural sites.
   In the processes of development and modernization, haven't we been tearing down old buildings and structures, haven't we been changing our lifestyle for better comfort? Are not these constituting loss of our (previous) culture?
   Archeological and endangered species losses could not be the primary concern to millions of people who have been living under hardship conditions. The relocation was clearly a positive move with new cities having modern plumbing and using coal gas for heating and cooking, electricity and water facilities, minus the floor fear factor.
   What is wrong for China to stop the massive flooding, for generating a cleaner energy to reduce emissions! Use other options? Has not China been venturing into other options too?!
   Are not the so called environmentalists place wrong emphasis? No doubt, the heritage and the endangered species are our very concern. But which is of utmost importance: To avert the possible loss of millions of lives with an added facility to generate cleaner hydroelectricity for GHG reductions; Or heritage and endangered species? I already answered it. So what is yours?
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this