Chinese Energy Stimulus on the way. Approx $700 Billion over 10 Years.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

http://stocks.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2010/Chinas-700-Billion-Clean-Energy-Plan-NLR-TAN-GEX-FCG-PBD0811.aspx

"Jiang Bing, head of China's National Energy Administration, recently made an announcement that it will submit plans to develop cleaner energy, including nuclear power and gas from unconventional sources, in 2011 to 2020. Beijing plans to spend about 5 trillion yuan, or about $738 billion over next decade, developing cleaner sources of energy."


Those in the US that are against a US Energy Bill that creates massive investment in new Energy technologies (as well as existing underutilized technologies) may claim that they are for fiscal responsibility (though for other reasons than mentioned here, that would be a lie), but they can certainly not claim that they are interested in economic growth and global competition.

They're going to roll over and cling to their Fossils while the rest of the World runs over their Country (funny enough, they (the Chinese in this case) are doing it by using the very market forces that those on the US right claim to love).

Comments

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'...including nuclear power and gas from unconventional sources...'

Yea, it's a shame that the US isn't spending 700 billion over the next decade building power plants...

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

I actually just grabbed a snippet (of course you didn't read the whole thing).

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the nuclear push, as you know. I have some faith that it's going to essentially price itself mostly out of existence. Though the idea of nuclear desalinization plants seemed like an application that is bound to be popular.

In any case, it's going all over the sector, including the usual renewable suspects. They talk about the German cuts in subsidies as some kind of global demand crash, but so far they're simply refusing to talk about the Chinese demand that is about to explode.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

"In any case, it's going all over the sector"

In any case, THE MONEY going all over the sector

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

That sounds like a great leap forward!

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Really? I don't think so. You're just making that up because it's easy.

THIS Sounds like solid policy.

Mao wiped out the educated, the intellectuals. That's not happening. Their intellectual strength may not be in "western philosophy," but they've been graduating top notch scientists and engineers in huge numbers. They are in a tech boom, and we're trying to avoid thinking about it, because it's inconvenient, and we don't have a solution.

OUR "Market" solution developed over years by both parties is now anathema to the Republican Party, and so we're at a standstill (as freakin' usual).


OUR "Market" approach would support Nuclear (depending on the version), by giving them the same credits that anyone else would get for producing Carbon-neutral Energy. However, the already massive cost of producing the plants would increase because of the extra carbon cost in the materials / process. In any case, it's not DEMOCRATS that are killing Nuclear, it's Wall Street Investors, who refuse to take the risk (unless the US Federal Government takes all of the risk from the investors).

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Snark is always easy. That doesn't mean it doesn't have some truth in it.

The Chinese are doing is what they always do, implementing top down, command answers to difficult questions, forcing those square pegs into the round holes whether they like it or not. People like Tom Friedman, and you apparently, love this kind of brisk, efficient totalitarianism. I do not. Not only do I think it is a chilling form of government to live under, but it also has proven to be very, very, very bad at achieving results without displacing (at best) and disenfranchising (at best) millions. Which is all well and good, I mean,. this is China and that is what they do there.

A "market" solution developed by both parties, or by anyone really, is a contradiction in terms. Maybe that is why you used the scare quotes? I doubt it, but still it demonstrates that we really haven't really attempted to have a free market at all. But you are right and I agree 100% that government solutions have thus far fallen well short of their goals. Wall Street investors refuse to take risks because they know that it won't be profitable under the current set of regulations, regulations specifically developed to make it investment in nuclear power unprofitable. They don't want to waste their money. Go figure.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Actually if they would pass a law that would limit the ability of environmental groups to hold up construction of the plant with lawsuits I think you'd find that investors would be more than happy to take a risk and that the const of plant construction would decline precipitously.

The reason why they stopped building plants in the 70's was the cost of the constant legal challenges, not the cost of the plants themselves.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

good for the chinese

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

Those in the US that are against a US Energy Bill that creates massive investment in new Energy technologies (as well as existing underutilized technologies) may claim that they are for fiscal responsibility (though for other reasons than mentioned here, that would be a lie), but they can certainly not claim that they are interested in economic growth and global competition.

To better establish an opinion on your political beliefs, what is this a criticism against specifically?

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Right wingers, of course. Like you.

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

I'm not a right winger. Disagreeing with most Liberal policy doesn't equal right winger.

The biggest disappointment as far as legislative potential for energy is the Stimulus package.

[thies.livejournal.com]

when unavailability of oil forces the US to adapt chinese green technology the consequence of waiting so long and leaving the "heavy lifting" to China will be that none of the required infrastructure for such a change will be in place in the US

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Just like we saw with fiber optic telecommunications, right?

If you're talking of infrastructure that is cutting edge, being the first doesn't mean you'll be the best.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

"while we wait for the chinese to do the heavy lifting on alternative energy"

That's exactly the problem.

WE are waiting for someone else to do the work, and "we" just figure we'll suck on that teet when it's all done and snappy. Sounds like a path to obscurity to me.

Energy isn't a convenience, it's the bedrock of economic production, and we're letting someone else have it.

"Although I do agree that we should produce more nuclear power plants."

Nuclear and Clean Coal are the losers of the bunch. IMO

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

"We" aren't letting anything just happen. The gov't doesn't need to do it in this country, people will do it. It's sad that you think otherwise.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

We'll just do what they do, and stop respecting intellectual property whenever it suits us.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a mass murdering sociopath

[reality-hammer.livejournal.com]

Spain says "hi", then looks wistfully at France.

As for myself, I'm wondering what the downside to China investing $$$$ in energy is to the US. Does it matter whether a US, French or Chinese company builds the next nuclear/solar/wind power plant? If the Chinese can do it more cheaply should we insist on paying more money?

Do you generate all of your own energy or are you a slave to the local utilities?

Re: Anyone who disagrees with me is a mass murdering sociopath

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

The local utilities don't have a record of trampling human rights or stealing technology from me.

Well, I don't think so anyway.

This is what I get for learning Spanish... My Chinese sucks...

[rev-proffessor.livejournal.com]

xièxie gěi lǜsè gǎngwèi, zhǔ.