China Takes Axe To Alternative Energy Funding, Slashing Subsidies For Solar And Wind

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

Sorry Mark but total nonsense. Renewables may be cheap on the surface and may do well on those levelised cost comparisons which greens are fond of quoting, but all the supposed advantages disappear when they are used as part of a grid which has to deliver power 24/7. This point has been made many times now. Activists have no counter except to repeat the same nonsense. However, if you're really into this point then fine, remove all subsidies - which includes mandated quotas for green electricity - and see what happens. You will be sorely disappointed with the results.  

Even worse is the concept of the carbon tax. 

"Oh, so you're going to use the energy method that actually works? Let me just quick prevent that by sticking my fingers in your pie."

"Use this one instead, it has negative GDP but I don't care. As a liberal elite I'm covered." 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

15 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I think, perhaps, that a better approach is to simply make diesel with the natural gas. That way we can conserve our power density. I really don't want a natural gas tractor unless it can totally match the performance of our current set without increasing capital cost. 

Then don't buy one, especially at this time, when diesel and gasoline is at rock bottom prices. I think that free choice is ideal. Energy density is a natural advantage for diesel and gasoline right now. If the price were high enough, I would have my Nissan NV3500 set up for natural gas but it isn't going to happen in my lifetime. I started my natural gas crusade nine years ago when natural gas was very expensive as was gasoline and diesel. We were also told that we were in an energy crisis, that is when I began looking for the best solutions and I looked at all of them. I will always switch to the one that makes the most sense. 

It will make sense where stringent regulations take hold such as in ocean shipping and cruise lines going to Europe. 

Natural gas is the best solution for producing electricity and heat. When possible the excess heat produced at the natural gas plant should be piped throughout dense cities that have an abundance of water for radiator systems. Here is a small scale reference http://www.2g-energy.com/about-cogeneration/

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

When possible the excess heat produced at the natural gas plant should be piped throughout dense cities that have an abundance of water for radiator systems

The power plant in New Ulm MN (near where I live) does this. In the coming times when combined cycle plants become the norm, I wonder if there will still be enough waste heat to pipe to residents. Of course the plant would have to be within reasonable distance. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Natural gas is the best solution for producing electricity and heat.

This I do disagree with, since I'm a nuclear power proponent. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

This I do disagree with, since I'm a nuclear power proponent. 

OK, good luck with that in America. It may be a viable option, it is just more expensive in the long run and I do not trust human nature to take care of the radioactive waste for thousands of years. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

13 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The power plant in New Ulm MN (near where I live) does this. In the coming times when combined cycle plants become the norm, I wonder if there will still be enough waste heat to pipe to residents. Of course the plant would have to be within reasonable distance. 

It looks like good kayaking is nearby on Swan Lake and the oxbows of Brown Creek when the levels are up. You had some smart people set up your power plant!

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Then don't buy one, especially at this time, when diesel and gasoline is at rock bottom prices. I think that free choice is ideal. Energy density is a natural advantage for diesel and gasoline right now. If the price were high enough, I would have my Nissan NV3500 set up for natural gas but it isn't going to happen in my lifetime. I started my natural gas crusade nine years ago when natural gas was very expensive as was gasoline and diesel. We were also told that we were in an energy crisis, that is when I began looking for the best solutions and I looked at all of them. I will always switch to the one that makes the most sense. 

It will make sense where stringent regulations take hold such as in ocean shipping and cruise lines going to Europe. 

Natural gas is the best solution for producing electricity and heat. When possible the excess heat produced at the natural gas plant should be piped throughout dense cities that have an abundance of water for radiator systems. Here is a small scale reference http://www.2g-energy.com/about-cogeneration/

Or dump the heat and CO2 waste into a greenhouse.

Grow "tomatoes" in the winter with CO2 enrichment. Win, win, win.

Yes, CO2 is "plant food", but excess is still not good for the environment.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The power plant in New Ulm MN (near where I live) does this. In the coming times when combined cycle plants become the norm, I wonder if there will still be enough waste heat to pipe to residents. Of course the plant would have to be within reasonable distance. 

You can also do the reverse to save energy.

Toronto uses cold water from the great lakes to reduce air conditioning costs during the summer. Just by drawing the drinking water from deeper, colder, water.

https://www.acciona.ca/projects/construction/port-and-hydraulic-works/deep-lake-water-cooling-system/

Dumping waste heat into some sort of reservoir during the summer, and then heat pumping it back during the winter, is a decent idea.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

12 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Or dump the heat and CO2 waste into a greenhouse.

Grow "tomatoes" in the winter with CO2 enrichment. Win, win, win.

Yes, CO2 is "plant food", but excess is still not good for the environment.

Isn't CO2 is the most recyclable waste compares to battery or nuclear wastes( their problems are just not big enough now)? Why shouldn't we focus on the CO2 recycling process? Solar energy is only a big advantage on space where you have unlimited energy and debatable unlimited space for waste yet spaceship still needs fuel to launch.

Edited March 26, 2020 by SUZNV

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

17 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Dumping waste heat into some sort of reservoir during the summer, and then heat pumping it back during the winter, is a decent idea.

Assuming the reservoir is vacuum insulated and you have a way of stopping infrared rays. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

5 hours ago, SUZNV said:

Isn't CO2 is the most recyclable waste compares to battery or nuclear wastes( their problems are just not big enough now)? Why shouldn't we focus on the CO2 recycling process? Solar energy is only a big advantage on space where you have unlimited energy and debatable unlimited space for waste yet spaceship still needs fuel to launch.

By reverse water gas shift and the Mobil process, we can turn CO2 into fuel or feedstock as long as we have reliable energy input (nuclear). We're currently not focusing on it because of bad insights in the fields of physics and chemistry.

They're convinced that wind and solar will work, so their efforts are focused on chemical processes that function with these systems. They even do this wrong too. They're trying to make everything electrochemical, when they should simply look at making electrothermal processes. (electricity to heat, heat to chemical reactors).  Electrolysis is fine for the hydrogen component, but everything else needs to be researched and invented when we've already got technology for the thermal method (more efficient too, and thus more profitable).

They also don't seem to understand that synthetic fuel is a much better option than electric cars for obvious reasons. We don't replace the vehicle fleet, and we don't have to engage the enormous problem of energy density when we're talking about trucks, tractors, planes, and ships. We also don't need increased electric generating capacity. This is good because generating electricity is less efficient than producing fuel (IF the process has heat as the starting component. Solar and wind are better off working with electric vehicles, but the other advantages of synfuel outweigh the benefits of this scenario). I'll give you an example.

A 1000 MWe nuclear power reactor is actually somewhere in the order of 3200 MWth. A thermochemical process for producing hydrogen via the sulfur-iodine process can operate at 75% efficiency. A thermal process for producing electric power can operate at 55% max with one specific reactor type (interesting that combined cycle gas plants achieve higher efficiencies than Very High Temperature Gas Reactors, I hope this changes). With this in mind, our energy recovery with a hydrogen plant is 10% better than with an electric plant. Since the Mobil process is pretty efficient, we obtain better use of the nuclear fuel by making hydrocarbons than we would by making power for EV's. 

Remember, a typical nuclear plant operates at 35% efficiency. In that scenario, you're weighing 75% against 35% in terms of energy recovery. Do the math for a nuclear ammonia plant. It's rather pleasing, but upfront capital costs make this impossible at the moment, as the plant components are already in the order of a billion dollars before you even make the power reactor. 

 

Edited March 26, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[Mattias Arnander + 1]

I'm sorry but all this dwelling on about renewable subsidies is extremele nauseating. I know, Greta Thunberg is a pain in everyone's ass, trust me I know, I'm from Sweden.

Nonetheless, here a number for you to consider;

$ 400 bn

The value of fossilfuel subsidies in 2018.

It's no big secret, it's no conspiracy, it's not "fake news", it's not even hidden facts.

It's just facts. Still it's never mentioned in this endlessly grinding debacle.

https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 hour ago, Mattias Arnander said:

I'm sorry but all this dwelling on about renewable subsidies is extremele nauseating. I know, Greta Thunberg is a pain in everyone's ass, trust me I know, I'm from Sweden.

Nonetheless, here a number for you to consider;

$ 400 bn

The value of fossilfuel subsidies in 2018.

It's no big secret, it's no conspiracy, it's not "fake news", it's not even hidden facts.

It's just facts. Still it's never mentioned in this endlessly grinding debacle.

https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies

Okay, but you're going to have to demonstrate that fossil fuels without subsidy aren't competitive with renewables. Otherwise this strange argument falls apart.

On a different note, fossil fuels are NOT subsidized for lack of profitability, like renewables are. Instead, they're subsidized out of interest in a nation's economy and in many cases national security. When oil companies need a bailout due to bad oil prices, that's literally because oil is so cheap to produce.

Honestly, where did you think this was going to go?

Edited March 28, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

On 3/25/2020 at 11:28 PM, Enthalpic said:

You can also do the reverse to save energy.

Toronto uses cold water from the great lakes to reduce air conditioning costs during the summer. Just by drawing the drinking water from deeper, colder, water.

https://www.acciona.ca/projects/construction/port-and-hydraulic-works/deep-lake-water-cooling-system/

Dumping waste heat into some sort of reservoir during the summer, and then heat pumping it back during the winter, is a decent idea.

This is done AROUND the world already.  This is called geothermal.  You pump excess heat down in the summer and draw it back out of the ground in the winter.  Efficiency sucks, but then nothing else stores this low quality energy at all so...

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

53 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Okay, but you're going to have to demonstrate that fossil fuels without subsidy aren't competitive with renewables. Otherwise this strange argument falls apart.

On a different note, fossil fuels are NOT subsidized for lack of profitability, like renewables are. Instead, they're subsidized out of interest in a nation's economy and in many cases national security. When oil companies need a bailout due to bad oil prices, that's literally because oil is so cheap to produce.

Honestly, where did you think this was going to go?

Dude: Open his links: You will see his SUBSIDY: Is a bald faced lie of epic proportions.

Reference is essentially the USA(lowest world oil,ng,electricity,transportation prices)

Reference uses USA oil price.  Did not explicitly say WTI, but you can infer this.  Literally no one in the world beats WTI except Canada due to idiots blocking their oil pipelines to tidewater. 

Reference link uses electricity power rates of ~essentially the USA(near lowest in world other than Canada/Iceland/ +China-->coal subsidies) due to cheapest nat gas in world.

Reference uses USA transportation as standard....  The USA whom ships a very large portion of its coal via, RIVER BARGE, so only ppl who can compete is Northern Europe. 

Reference as base zero ADDS VAT to reference prices(convenient) so it does not grab the European countries.

Anything price above reference they are calling "subsidies".   What lying piles of crap. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

17 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Dude: Open his links: You will see his SUBSIDY: Is a bald faced lie of epic proportions.

Reference is essentially the USA(lowest world oil,ng,electricity,transportation prices)

Reference uses USA oil price.  Did not explicitly say WTI, but you can infer this.  Literally no one in the world beats WTI except Canada due to idiots blocking their oil pipelines to tidewater. 

Reference link uses electricity power rates of ~essentially the USA(near lowest in world other than Canada/Iceland/ +China-->coal subsidies) due to cheapest nat gas in world.

Reference uses USA transportation as standard....  The USA whom ships a very large portion of its coal via, RIVER BARGE, so only ppl who can compete is Northern Europe. 

Reference as base zero ADDS VAT to reference prices(convenient) so it does not grab the European countries.

Anything price above reference they are calling "subsidies".   What lying piles of crap. 

To me, it didn't matter since the basis of his argument was already stupid. I didn't even have to dispute the facts, because even if what he quoted was 100% true, it doesn't do him any good. 

It should be obvious that fossil fuel energy is cheap as shit. 

Edited March 28, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[Marcin2 + 725]

On 3/19/2020 at 11:44 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

It is the latest in a string of moves by the Chinese government to cut support for renewable energy. The attitude has shifted in recent years as manufacturing costs have dropped. The government now seems focused on getting renewable energy to stand on its own.   ...

China is still subsidizing renewables through massive grid construction investment:

"Yicai Global) March 12 -- State Grid Corporation of China, the world's biggest utility, plans to invest a total of CNY1.2 trillion (USD171.6 billion) on the nation's electricity network this year, Shanghai Securities News reported.

Of that, ultra high-voltage transmission projects to enhance the grid's distribution capacity will cost CNY500 billion (USD71.5 billion), according to Chairman Mao Weiming, the report said today."

Chinese Grid is already the best in the world by most metrics, yet they are still investing astronomical amounts of money to absorb even more generation from renewable, intermittent sources.

[SERWIN + 749]

On 3/20/2020 at 1:32 PM, Enthalpic said:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-prepares-multibillion-dollar-bailout-of-oil-and-gas-sector/

Sure it's Canada but US will get theirs soon.

You say all these THINGS, just like how Trump was GOING to be impeached, but again, you are incorrect...... And FYI, there were SUBSIDIES on electric vehicles, and Musk got a LOT of them in his pocket. But unfortunately, the only people that can afford those Tesla's are wealthy anyway, so it was a complete waste of time to do. And I'd bet you really believe that the government can handle our healthcare really well. Like Canada, and GB, and Italy. Works really great right? 

[neg_entropy + 1]

This is the beginning of the end of the Satanic cult of carbon. The Lord gave us the sun and Satan gave us fossil fuels. Dark, and buried deep below the light, oil has plagued the human race for a century. A century of blood, violence, pollution, and death. Now the end of it approaches but not without a final burst of chaos. The darkness fails, the Light prevails.

[Earth 0]

On 3/19/2020 at 5:44 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

"Renewable" Energy simply cannot survive without government subsidies (aka FREE MONEY).  Especially when competing against exceedingly low oil & gas prices. 

"Renewable" energy train wreck coming soon to China.  Far left Greenies can cry all they want.  Let markets decide if the Green New Deal type enforced Socialism is feasible (it's not).

 

China Takes Axe To Alternative Energy Funding, Slashing Subsidies For Solar And Wind

Things might be going from bad to worse for Elon Musk and his merry band of alternative energy cultists in China. While Musk is currently in the midst of criticism from the Chinese government related to a bait and switch he is pulling on vehicle hardware (while blaming the coronavirus), the Chinese government appears to be set on slashing additional alternative energy subsidies in 2020. 

China is going to cut its budget for new solar power plants in half this year and plans on completely ending handouts for offshore wind farms, according to Caixin. 

It is the latest in a string of moves by the Chinese government to cut support for renewable energy. The attitude has shifted in recent years as manufacturing costs have dropped. The government now seems focused on getting renewable energy to stand on its own.   ...

 

The sad thing about this is oil is competing against greenies. Getting to such a low price knocks them out with zero government funding. Pretty sure they say this coming and it not all about bankruptcy to other countries oil markets. This will knock it back to the stone age because of big oil $$. One day ( hopefully ) it wont be all about the $$ and saving the planet for our kids & grandchildren. 

[Mattias Arnander + 1]

On 3/28/2020 at 3:05 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Dude: Open his links: You will see his SUBSIDY: Is a bald faced lie of epic proportions.

Reference is essentially the USA(lowest world oil,ng,electricity,transportation prices)

Reference uses USA oil price.  Did not explicitly say WTI, but you can infer this.  Literally no one in the world beats WTI except Canada due to idiots blocking their oil pipelines to tidewater. 

Reference link uses electricity power rates of ~essentially the USA(near lowest in world other than Canada/Iceland/ +China-->coal subsidies) due to cheapest nat gas in world.

Reference uses USA transportation as standard....  The USA whom ships a very large portion of its coal via, RIVER BARGE, so only ppl who can compete is Northern Europe. 

Reference as base zero ADDS VAT to reference prices(convenient) so it does not grab the European countries.

Anything price above reference they are calling "subsidies".   What lying piles of crap. 

Sorry, you're absolutely right, the IEA numbers is on coal- subsidies. I'm not going to argue with the definition on subsidy.

Here are some other numbers, from IMF. A couple of pointers.

"Globally, subsidies remained large at $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of global GDP) in 2015 and are projected at $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017."

"By fuel, coal remains the largest source of subsidies (44 percent), followed by petroleum (41 percent), natural gas (10 percent), and electricity output (4 percent).  "

What's my point? My point is.. Up until reently all we ever heard about was that Renewables was this necessary subsidizes good. Almost like philanthropy or charity.

I'm saying, well so are Fossils. Is it any wonder why renewables have had a hard time finding profitability with fossils finding ?% of world GDP in subsidies? And why aren't fossil subsidies ever mentioned when it comes to profitability measures on renewables?

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

Edited March 30, 2020 by Mattias Arnander
spelling

[Mattias Arnander + 1]

On 3/28/2020 at 1:57 AM, KeyboardWarrior said:

Okay, but you're going to have to demonstrate that fossil fuels without subsidy aren't competitive with renewables. Otherwise this strange argument falls apart.

On a different note, fossil fuels are NOT subsidized for lack of profitability, like renewables are. Instead, they're subsidized out of interest in a nation's economy and in many cases national security. When oil companies need a bailout due to bad oil prices, that's literally because oil is so cheap to produce.

Honestly, where did you think this was going to go?

Demonstrate that fossils fuels without subsidy aren't competitive with renewables? Sorry I'm not an MIT proffessor. On the flipside, why should Renewables constantly prove to be profitable without subsidies? Offcourse Renewables have been subsidized for a very long time. It takes capital to build infrastructure, economies of scale, technological advancement and all that. And now we are reaching a point in time where they actually seem to be reaching profitability. And I know there are problems with grid instability, intermittancy, negative pricing, should we build ethanol, hydro or EV capacity etc etc.

My point is... what's the big debacle? We built the world on cheap dirty energy fossils, and it's great but it wasn't like fossils was ever this inherently profitable superproduct from the beginning. Taxpayers have made it cheap and are continuing to do so thank's to subsidies. Just like they have done with renewables.

National securitiy? Aren't US presidents constantly talking about the dangers on foreign oildependency? Well I guess you don't have to worry about that now with that fracking industry of yours.

Edited March 30, 2020 by Mattias Arnander
spelling

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

8 hours ago, SERWIN said:

You say all these THINGS, just like how Trump was GOING to be impeached, but again, you are incorrect...... And FYI, there were SUBSIDIES on electric vehicles, and Musk got a LOT of them in his pocket. But unfortunately, the only people that can afford those Tesla's are wealthy anyway, so it was a complete waste of time to do. And I'd bet you really believe that the government can handle our healthcare really well. Like Canada, and GB, and Italy. Works really great right? 

Trump was impeached. Look it up.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

50 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Trump was impeached. Look it up.

Quite correct...and a certain party turned that tool into a parking ticket. Actually the US now has a elected official claiming Sovereign Immunity...one needs to think about that for more than a moment...One party can do know wrong...the King is dead long live the King....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/videos/adam-schiff-claims-sovereign-immunity-in-impeachment-related-subpoenas/vp-BB11uaJO

https://www.debevoise.com/insights/publications/2014/03/the-king-can-do-no-wrong-sovereign-immunity-and-__

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

6 hours ago, Mattias Arnander said:

Demonstrate that fossils fuels without subsidy aren't competitive with renewables? Sorry I'm not an MIT proffessor. On the flipside, why should Renewables constantly prove to be profitable without subsidies? Offcourse Renewables have been subsidized for a very long time. It takes capital to build infrastructure, economies of scale, technological advancement and all that. And now we are reaching a point in time where they actually seem to be reaching profitability. And I know there are problems with grid instability, intermittancy, negative pricing, should we build ethanol, hydro or EV capacity etc etc.

My point is... what's the big debacle? We built the world on cheap dirty energy fossils, and it's great but it wasn't like fossils was ever this inherently profitable superproduct from the beginning. Taxpayers have made it cheap and are continuing to do so thank's to subsidies. Just like they have done with renewables.

National securitiy? Aren't US presidents constantly talking about the dangers on foreign oildependency? Well I guess you don't have to worry about that now with that fracking industry of yours.

My #1 guess is that you are not from the USA.  USA is national energy secure for the next ~200 years(assuming only easily accessable/good coal) and always has been except there was never political will to use Coal-->Methanol, and build more nuclear reactors.

#2 guess is that you are from a country that is NOT energy secure.  You are 100% correct: In this scenario, renewables are a good supplement. If, and only if, you have a grid which can store energy.  Sorry, there is no such energy storage device other than pumped hydro storage currently.  Even the largest batteries in the world are only economically viable for ripple currents in even the highest cost energy producers. 

The real answer to the renewables, national security, for ALL nations(irregardless of how many hydrocarbons a nation has), is energy storage, not installation of wind/solar.  Solve the energy storage problem first, and then the types of energy, even geothermal, become viable.  No, you will not have low cost of living, but you will be living.  Not 100% dependent on outside powers.