The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© Thomson Reuters 2023.China climate envoy says complete phasing out fossil fuels 'unrealistic'
By David Stanway SINGAPORE©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.
25 Comments
Login to comment
isabelle
It's not realistic for the immediate future, but that's still no excuse for China to approve new coal plants at the rate of two a week:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/27/energy/china-new-coal-plants-climate-report-intl-hnk/index.html
WA4TKG
Of COURSE they do, while the rest of us literally PAY for being "GREEN", out the nose.
OssanAmerica
China (PRC) was late in becoming an industrial power, having made an economic mess of themelves with their communist doctrine. When the world opened up to them they made "catching up" to everyone a top priority. Part of that was the claim to be a "developing country" to be excused from any environmental controls. Today China is the second biggest economy in the world, and they are still proceeding on a self-centered agenda. Another example of how China is not a team player in the international community.
Jonathan Prin
Common sense is lacking for many.
Nothing can replace fossil fuels.
Until it is costly effective, why on Earth would you reject it, especially for freezing countries (Canada, USA, Scandinavian, Russia...).
What you say is not what you do, and China does the job to remind us of the simple truth.
It does not mean countries do not wish to become energy independant. This is by far the true and sensible reason for the change.
Climatic change, even if happening faster, does not threaten in any way mankind which gets 200 000 more beings per day !
quercetum
Countries moved their manufacturing and factories to China. China is sacrificing their clean air to produce goods for the world. Stop buying Chinese industrial goods. A customer goes to a Yakiniku BBQ to eat then complains about the smoke is what it is. Who keeps sending coal to China to be burned?
The WTO is weak is what it is. The status in the WTO is based on self-declaration by countries.
Mr Kipling
Well, he does have a point.
Wesley
Not surprised they'd say this.
china is the largest importer of coal from Mongolia, esp during the winter season.
They seem very happy to control other countries' water supply by building huge dams but can't seem to provide enough hydropower for their own use.
Sven Asai
Very lever, because when they say it's unrealistic, which it of course is, then all those brainwashed GX extremists and those generally denying everything from there are continuously forced walking on their wrongly chosen totally misleading path. In other words, those pseude communists understand capitalism better than the original capitalistm themselves. It's first rule is growth at all costs, that includes to use and consume all available resources and energy not only the favorable kind. It doesn't even play a role if you like it or not or if you believe it or not, but that's how it will work and turn out as a systemic rule.
theFu
We have a way to make electricity for our residential buildings and most vehicles, including trains, buses, trucks, mopeds. Office buildings can be upgraded and new building codes enacted to provide more efficient airflow and cooling, along with solar power and banks of batteries built-in. Much more energy efficient methods can be phased in over the next 30 yrs.
Homes are 30% more efficient than they were just 20 yrs ago, for example.
Many industrial processes can also be weened off fossil fuels. over the next 50 yrs.
There are a few industrial processes, air-travel and shipping left that will probably always need fossil fuels, but these will become the exception, not the default. Shipping is very dirty. International standards for more efficient diesel and cleaner outputs are needed.
All industries and people need to do their parts. Mandated by law, if necessary, which is pretty obvious that is required. For example, it is illegal for me to add solar panels to my roof. It is part of a legally binding agreement connected to our home. However, if either a state or federal law were passed making roof solar panel installation allowed, then the current document section written in 1990 would become void.
That's what we want to see from our govt leaders - a plan that moves the efficiency and polution bar towards low pollution, renewable energy, high-efficiency homes, offices, vehicles and travel. That doesn't seem like too much to ask.
isabelle
It's not "sacrificing" anything. It gladly takes the money/investment.
If China were concerned about the environment it could easily say no to foreign money/investment, but it doesn't. And its increase in domestic coal production is more evidence that it most certainly isn't concerned.
You make it sound like China is benevolently doing the world a favor, but the CCP is about as far from an altruistic organization as you can get.
Yes, countries are doing so with decoupling/derisking, but mostly for political reasons.
isabelle
This may be solved in future with the use of hydrogen and ammonia (among other things), which can produce the high heat content needed for industrial processes like steel-making (where solar power etc. just won't do the job):
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/green-steel-produced-first-time-180978550/
There are also hydrogen planes and ships in production/testing/development:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_ship
Things are still at a relatively early stage, but such efforts look very promising.
ian
Is there a country that says it's realistic?
Keepyer Internetpoints
This is how humanity ends. Everybody pointing fingers at eachother and never themselves. Everybody having faith in complete pipe-dreams.
This did not start with China. It started with America. America is no longer the biggest CO2 producer by volume, but it is, by a wide margin, the largest per capita. Americans especially have no room to be smug and accusatory here. Having one tenths the population primarily due to mass fatal illness and murder of the original native population between 400 and 150 years ago is NOT a laurel to rest on, especially when ON TOP of the carbon produced right there per capita you are ALSO the prime consumer for whom the carbon in China was generated!
Fact is, Chinese people are largely doing without while its ordinary Americans with the huge cars, the huge homes to heat and cool, the huge refrigerators, the cars with huge batteries AND the huge waist-lines.
All truths that are going to run right smack into the desire to absolve oneself of guilt.
Fact is, the only way forward is to go back. You can't have your cake and eat it too. We all have to either accept that continuing on this path leads to the end of us all, and look our kids in the eyes and say "Our addiction is more important than your future." OR we must learn to say goodbye to every last person trying to live like kings with a new phone every year, a car just to get us to the donut shop around the corner, a TV in every room, and a trip to Europe or the Carribean every year.
Start imagining living on a small farm or something, with a happy family that talks to eachother and neighbors, that swims when its hot and huddles when its cold, rather than staring a screens all day with an electric waterfall keeping the room temp stable as a museum.
ian
The poster did explain why they said what they said.
You're saying it's not true?
theFu
isabelle Today 07:42 pm JST .... the economics of airtravel mean that aircraft need to be in the air most of the time. That means 12+ hours every day to make a profit. If refueling takes more than 1 hr, that will prevent the economics from working. Electric planes are for very short trips only and that doesn't look like it will change anytime soon.
Generating hydrogen to be used for aircraft fuel will not be in sufficient amounts anytime in the next 50 yrs to be viable. Yes, with work is encouraging, but the efficiency of pulling hydrogen from water is no where near sufficient. Getting hydrogen from other sources, just shifts the carbon output to those processes. That isn't "green". We need to worry about the entire cycle, not just 1 part.
Unless we want to be like China and trying to save face rather than actually work the total problem.
What? England started the industrial revolution. The US had a huge part and isn't helping the world ecology as much as it should since .45 was President. Eventually, the deniers will be smacked in the face hard enough to realize we are all destroying our ability to live on Earth. The Earth will adapt. Many of the people on Earth will be killed, however. Climate change is accelerating. It is seen everywhere, but in the far north and far south, it is much more clear to see.
To bad the entire world can't agree about this and move in a deliberate way to reduce the impacts. It is unlikely we can stop the 2-3 degC change over the next 50-75 yrs at this point. The world climate is screwed already, but our great grand children may be able to reverse that trend. "May".
ClippetyClop
'it's' is which bit?
isabelle
I'm no expert on the time-scales, but a lot of work is going into this. Airbus is aiming for "hydrogen-powered commercial aircraft by 2035." I doubt they (and other companies) would be working on this if it didn't look viable:
https://www.airbus.com/en/innovation/low-carbon-aviation/hydrogen/zeroe
Electrolyzer technology is improving all the time. Many companies, across many countries, are working on this so I do think there's something very worthwhile there. Again, I'm no expert but I do read about this stuff and progress is definitely being made. Here's one example from last year:
https://newatlas.com/energy/hysata-efficient-hydrogen-electrolysis/
No, but with carbon capture it's "Blue," which is still much, much better than fossil fuels. With carbon capture, 90% (or up to 99% with more investment) of CO2 emissions can be captured. This alone clearly won't solve the climate problem, but it can certainly form part of the measures until other technologies become more viable.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-efficient-carbon-capture-and-storage
I don't pretend that hydrogen/ammonia are a panacea for all our energy problems, but I do think they are extremely encouraging, and many companies/governments around the world think the same.
theFu
I hope your optimism works out.
I've been an aerospace engineer since the 1980s and changes like proposed will take many decades in that field. For example, hydrogen can't be easily stored.
It leaks from all containers that aren't chemically-based. There are some H₂ containers that will use 1% of the container space and hold the H₂ for relatively easy release, but the materials used for that are extremely expensive. The normal methods are high-pressure and cryogenics. Cryogenics introduces all sorts of other issues, especially at the extreme temperatures needed to store hydrogen. Storing 2 wings full of H2 AND keeping them cryogenically cooled for 5-15 hr flights isn't something easy to solve. Materials science doesn't have a solution for that AND it won't for many decades, if ever.
Airbus doesn't make aircraft engines. They are making a feasibility prototype. There might be 5 models made, trying to drum up buyers, but the buyers will need to find a way to source hydrogen in a cost effective manner. Airbus only needs to hook up engines from GE or UT or Royce. Aircraft engines would need to transform to be much more like rocket engines to deal with the extreme temperatures. That will increase the cost of each engine by a factor of 4 (my estimate). Airbus will need to make storage containers for the aircraft and convince federal regulators that those are safe.
It goes on to say,
So with cryogenic and other tricks, they still need 4x the space for the same effective fuel. That's the difference between getting from NYC to LA and only getting from NYC to ... Cincinnati.
That's a huge difference and Airbus knows it.
Nearly all aircraft from the US would all need to stop over in Anchorage to get to Japan. Only 2 can barely make it, unmodified, assuming similar fuel efficiency AND no added weight or size is needed to maintain the H2 cryogenics. Only 2 current aircraft could make it:
B747-8
B777-200LR
That won't happen, but for a napkin design, we can overly simplify solutions knowing there are sufficient problems to make it impractical.
Basically, Airbus is wasting money, just like Virgin did with their demonstration "biofuel" B747 flights. It makes for good press, but it isn't good business.
The typical methods of holding hydrogen are with either very high pressure vessels or using extreme cold. Both bring problems for industries that need light weight. Let's assume new aircraft use less fuel thanks to a radical fuselage design change. People like looking out windows, but suppose aircraft switch to huge flying wing designs and passengers aren't freaked out being stuck without an outside view for 4-15 hr flights. Imagine being in a theater with low ceilings all that time, no direct outside views. I'd have to wonder how quick exit mandates will be achieved, but that's for interior designers to solve.
Anyway, big problems need to be solved before anything besides single city commuter aircraft are viable. As an engineer, I live in a practical world. Lots of things are possible, but not practical.
Peter Neil
We cannot generate enough electricity in the world to produce hydrogen. You certainly can’t do by breaking the bond with O2 using water. And then there’s the infrastructure. Yikes.
bass4funk
Can’t believe I would say this, but I agree with China.
isabelle
Thanks for your reply. I'm not an engineer but have been reading a lot about hydrogen these past couple of years and am very interested in/excited about the possibilities. Like I say, it's not a panacea but I'm sure it'll form part of the solution. I hope my optimism works out too.
kurisupisu
The Chinese are correct, phasing out of fossil fuels cannot be accomplished in an instant. However, China is a leader in the production of solar panels and in the greening of energy which a lot of people don’t wish to admit.
One of the biggest carbon emitters on the planet is the USA and they have, in their wisdom placed tariffs on the import of Chinese solar panels.
Go figure that!
gcFd1
China ia right on the money with this, although I hate to say it.
theFu
You've bought the Chinese bridge, sipped from their KoolAid, and are wearing their rose colored glasses.
China doesn't care about pollution. If they did, they'd actually deploy all those solar panels and "green" energy in China rather than approving 2 new coal power plants EVERY WEEK and dumping their huge nuclear waste into the ocean. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Annual_total_CO%E2%82%82_emissions%2C_by_world_region.png shows that the US has held CO2 emissions nearly level over the last 20 yrs while China has greatly expanded their releases more than 2x. Other Asian countries have also drastically expanded their CO2 emissions during that time. In typical CCP fashion, China wants to claim 1 thing while they are actually doing something completely different. Use a little brain power to see what the truth is.