Comments
vitaminkombat t1_iton7i1 wrote
The city is called Chaochow.
It used to be a very interesting city until a mass exodus of talent and culture in the 1950s.
Most the population now are immigrants from other parts of China and the culture of Chaochow is almost extinct.
xFblthpx t1_itgb4ie wrote
Grrrr I don’t like when big polluters receive positive press from making positive changes. Seriously though this is a huge step. Seeing news like this makes me a bit more proud to be a human. Off shore wind seems like a really good source considering what percentage of population of China is within 100 miles of the coast.
eklee38 t1_itgnyax wrote
You know all the pollution they produce from making things for the rest of the world right? If you don't want to take part in the pollution you should make everything yourself.
-The_Blazer- t1_itgv2oo wrote
Besides, their pollution per capita is lower than the USA's by a substantial margin. The countries that actually pollute the most based on their population are the USA and a few Middle Eastern states that do oil refining.
x31b t1_itj3jzt wrote
The only thing that matters is the direction of the curve.
If China is increasing emissions,the world is fsck’ed. If they are decreasing, the world has a chance.
The US and EU are decreasing.
funtex666 t1_itmryzs wrote
The US just outsource their pollution to places like China. That isn't decreasing that is.... outsourcing.
AJ_Gaming125 t1_itgqe7t wrote
They make everything for the old BECAUSE they don't care about environmental regulation, so it's way cheaper for companies to outsource manufacturing to there rather than make it themselves.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_itisg16 wrote
If the narions those corps live in cared for the enciroment then they wouldn't let the corps do so.
AJ_Gaming125 t1_itizktc wrote
Then those corps would LEAVE said nation. Corporations aren't bound to any action mind you. Any benefits they provide to said nation would be lost.
Also corruption runs rampant, so yeah. Countries don't give a single flying fuck about the environment unless it will get them enough votes to replace the bribes they would get otherwise.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_itj08gu wrote
You know those nations could just make that illegal right? Either way its proof that they want to manufacture goods in china so it isn't china's fault that they do.
[deleted] t1_ith25tw wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itgtjzn wrote
[removed]
toweringpine t1_itgbaor wrote
It infuriates me that here in Canada I gotta listen to twits tell me that we can't or shouldn't even try to reduce carbon because China. They refuse to see that China is aggressively changing their ways. A little while longer and they'll be producing more goods for less carbon and they'll be looking at us tapping their feet impatiently waiting for us to catch up. They probably won't wait very long.
Regi0 t1_itgh2ld wrote
China produces the most amount of coal emissions globally, more than most developed countries combined, in order to facilitate the demand for goods in the west. You are, I hope, just woefully ignorant of this.
Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/g20-energy-mix-coal-gas-oil-renewables-power-climate-change/
Kruxx85 t1_itgmrti wrote
You just proved the man's point - while right now they are the biggest polluters, they are also, right now, the biggest renewable energy generators and the fastest moving to a zero carbon emission grid. (they currently have triple the renewable energy generation to that of the US)
You can't control the past, but you can shape the future.
Regi0 t1_itgo4aq wrote
Actually, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2022, China's carbon emissions have been steadily increasing as of 2021.
Page 12, in the carbon emissions table, near the bottom.
Kruxx85 t1_itgp5gi wrote
I have no doubt they are - do you think that refutes what I said?
Do you know the shape of a parabola?
It continues to go up, but goes up at a reduced rate until... it starts going down.
Regi0 t1_itgpsh3 wrote
Considering they are increasing carbon emissions while simultaneously investing in wind energy, yes I think that refutes what you claim. The goal for China is not less carbon emissions. They are trying to achieve carbon neutrality, and within that goal they stated their carbon emissions will 'peak' before 2030. Which means they will continue increasing carbon emissions into the forseeable future, likely until the last second in 2030.
Source: https://climatechampions.unfccc.int/chinas-net-zero-future/
Kruxx85 t1_itgqrh3 wrote
Do you know the shape of a parabola?
It continues to go up(starting off exponentially), but goes up at a reduced rate until... it starts going down.
Regi0 t1_itgr8ie wrote
Actually, their carbon neutrality claim is for 2060, not 2030. Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/world/asia/china-climate-change.amp.html
Which means their 2030 claim is quite literally just saying carbon emissions might stop rising by 2030. No promises. The ice caps are already melting, by 2060 there will hardly be any left.
Kruxx85 t1_itgs3j2 wrote
Yes, and?
They have had the fastest growing economy over the last 20,30,50 years. That economy has been fuelled by fossil fuels.
They are now the largest producers of renewable energy with a current figure triple that of the US, while their total electrical energy generation is less than double that of the US.
If they were as slow as the US (and other countries) at transitioning to renewables, they would be incredibly further behind where they are now.
Nobody expects things to turn around instantly, it's trends that you look at.
The trending of renewable generation, and the trending of the reduction of fossil fuel generation.
Note, your trend can be downwards even though your absolute figures are still increasing. That was my point with the parabola.
Regi0 t1_itgskj1 wrote
I hope you realize that investing in renewables hardly means anything even if the rate of increase in China's carbon emissions is decreasing. The actual amount dumped into the atmosphere is still increasing regardless. The damage has and is still being done. It's permanent.
Kruxx85 t1_itgtvi0 wrote
Then blame our consumerist society for that.
China's economy is built on the back of our consumerist selves. They are just better at manufacturing what we want, better than we are at it.
They seem to be changing direction. Hopefully that's a global change.
As I said, you can't change the past but you can shape the future.
Regi0 t1_itgyydp wrote
I agree completely. China is no more at fault than the United States. The system itself is killing our planet, and it won't stop unless we all consume less.
I want to have hope.
No-Swimmers1622 t1_itqzxr2 wrote
Tell me you don't know anything about ecology without telling me you don't know anything about ecology, you go first:
> The damage has and is still being done. It's permanent.
Regi0 t1_itr4fbv wrote
Please tell me how we can refreeze the ice caps.
No-Swimmers1622 t1_itr5cx7 wrote
Regi0 t1_itr5w3u wrote
"Because of the glacial pace at which natural carbon sinks absorb CO2, much of the carbon dioxide humans have emitted over the past centuries will remain in the atmosphere for many years to come. This will be true even if humans were to stop emitting all greenhouse gases tomorrow—the planet would need hundreds or thousands of years to cleanse all the excess CO2 people have pumped into the atmosphere during the industrial era."
Not only does this have absolutely nothing to do with the ice caps, this further supports my argument that what we're doing to the planet is basically permanent. The timescale to undo what we've done is hilariously beyond any human lifespan, and it hinges on the impossibility of all carbon emissions ceasing simultaneously.
No-Swimmers1622 t1_itr713n wrote
> >Not only does this have absolutely nothing to do with the ice caps,
Lol, you really don't know anything about global warming, do you?
>this further supports my argument that what we're doing to the planet is basically permanent. The timescale to undo what we've done is hilariously beyond any human lifespan, and it hinges on the impossibility of all carbon emissions ceasing simultaneously.
No, it proves you were spewing bullcrap. The damage is not permanent like you claimed and it can be reversed, both naturally and artificially.
Regi0 t1_itr88lv wrote
Technically nothing is permanent since everything changes, dies, erodes, etc. given a long enough timescale. But I digress, yes, technically what we've done is reversible, but like your source claims, it would take an insane amount of time to reverse what we've done. That time estimate hinges entirely on humanity ceasing all excess carbon emissions at once, meaning the amount of time it would take to reverse the effects grows larger with each day of carbon emissions pumped into our atmosphere. I hope you're arguing in good faith, because if you are, you'd agree with me that in our current economy, we're not going to just suddenly stop burning coal, gas, oil, etc.
No-Swimmers1622 t1_itrfzs2 wrote
> it would take an insane amount of time to reverse what we've done.
Naturally, without human intervention.
>That time estimate hinges entirely on humanity ceasing all excess carbon emissions at once,
No, as long as humanity doesn't go extinct and eventually we stop adding carbon dioxide to the environment the change can be reversed. Nothing that China is doing is permanent the same way nothing that the US is doing is permanent, but if you're going to focus solely on China ignoring the centuries of Western pollution to the world then you are not only technically wrong, you are politically blind
Regi0 t1_itrzois wrote
I'm not, in fact I mentioned in other comment reply chains to my original comment that consumerism is the ultimate problem, not China specifically. US has consumerist demands, China fulfills them by whatever means necessary. It's all fucked.
toweringpine t1_itgmiuv wrote
I am aware. I'm also aware that they are making a big effort to move away from that while we object and bicker about building pipelines, blame them for everything and use that as reason to not change anything here.
Regi0 t1_itgo2p8 wrote
Actually, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2022, China's carbon emissions have been steadily increasing as of 2021.
Page 12, in the carbon emissions table, near the bottom.
toweringpine t1_itgoozj wrote
Thank you for making my point. Here we are commenting on an article about them doubling the world's wind generation capacity with one project and you're saying how bad they are. We all know they are bad. Some recognize they are trying to improve. Some screw their eyes shut, stick their fingers in their ears and type foolishness.
Regi0 t1_itgovqb wrote
Investing in more renewable energy hardly means anything if they are increasing carbon emissions simultaneously.
circumtopia t1_iti1jzi wrote
But their share of energy using coal has been decreasing dramatically over the past decade.
Regi0 t1_iti9pgn wrote
Again, bizarre that their carbon emissions are *INCREASING* if their alleged coal usage is going down.
circumtopia t1_itic0d4 wrote
It's not going down in absolute terms but it's certainly going down as a % of their total energy usage. Their electricity usage is spiking because they are making more and more shit.
Regi0 t1_iticani wrote
Exactly, consumerism is increasing, not decreasing. The west demands more and more, so China must produce more and more, for cheap, polluting their part of the world exponentially. It's like an ouroboros. Both superpowers are equally at fault for the state of our planet.
circumtopia t1_itifufn wrote
That's absurd to claim considering the US has double the emissions per capita and has also produced way more emissions throughout its history than China (and benefited from this disregard for the environment).
Even today the most consumerist society on the planet is the US. Period. Demand creates supply not the other way around. If Americans didn't demand a new big TV screen every few years then the Chinese would not build it.
KitchenDepartment t1_itgpq53 wrote
>China produces the most amount of coal emissions globally
And they also produce the most amount of new renewable energy globally.
Turns out that when you are the biggest country in the world. You end up winning a lot of "Most amount" statistics.
Regi0 t1_itgqpxn wrote
Take a look at figure 1 in this source:
fuzzybunn t1_ithergp wrote
Did you also know China has the largest population of any country, more than most developed countries combined? You are, I hope, just woefully ignorant of this.
Source: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/
Regi0 t1_ithk2u2 wrote
What does that matter? They still pump more carbon into the atmosphere than any other country when adjusted for population size. A whopping 70% of their energy is produced via nonrenewables, mostly Coal in this case (Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/pgglqi/oc_chinas_energy_mix_vs_the_g7/). It's done this way to produce goods as cheaply as possible to meet the consumerist demands of the west.
circumtopia t1_iti22do wrote
In what way are they pumping more carbon than any other country when adjusted for population size? When you say that do you mean per capita?
Regi0 t1_iti9cdw wrote
Initially I did, yes, but I'm realizing China's per capita value for carbon emissions is about half that of the US
Source: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
Worth nothing that China produces double the amount of CO2 emissions than the second highest, that being the US.
circumtopia t1_itic7ud wrote
Good at least we can admit that.
mutherhrg OP t1_itgmzu2 wrote
And at the rate that they building wind, solar and nuclear, they'll be moving away from coal soon
Regi0 t1_itgo56a wrote
Actually, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2022, China's carbon emissions have been steadily increasing as of 2021.
Page 12, in the carbon emissions table, near the bottom.
mutherhrg OP t1_itgot1d wrote
China themselves have stated that it will be decreasing carbon emissions by 2030.
Regi0 t1_itgp18x wrote
The damage has already been done, hun, and the trend for the past 40 years has been constant carbon emission growth despite any and all promises to rely more on renewables. The data doesn't lie.
circumtopia t1_iti1g0g wrote
Their energy usage is increasing as they develop. Their share of energy coming from coal has dropped 15% in the past decade though. You're ignorant of something called context.
Regi0 t1_iti9g8v wrote
Bizarre how their carbon emissions continue increasing then, despite that.
circumtopia t1_itic207 wrote
It's in the first sentence why that would be.
PunchFox t1_itj5q5s wrote
A) They have the highest population in the world. No shit dumbass. Now try doing it per capita.
B) You don't get to offload your country's production onto them and then pretend their emissions from that production are solely their responsibility.
Ftr, not at all a supporter of the Chinese regime, but at least choose reasonable things to criticize, not the few areas that are actually progressive in.
Regi0 t1_itjqx56 wrote
There's several comment reply chains to my original comment that explain my stance on both things you mentioned.
AndyInSunnyDB t1_itikdo9 wrote
“They are all going to get wind cancer” - Trump, probably
[deleted] t1_itgduxr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itf948h wrote
[removed]
vwlukefairhaven t1_ithp0r0 wrote
Good for them. They are doing this for strategic reasons as well. Almost any 3rd rate power could cut off China's oil supplies if the US doesn't intervene to stop it.
GraciousVibrations t1_itluarb wrote
What are the negatives of off-shore wind-farms? Does it do the least amount of ecological damage?
FuturologyBot t1_itf433w wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/mutherhrg:
A city in southern China is planning an offshore wind farm bigger than all of the power plants in Norway combined. By comparison, the entire state of Texas only has 32 gigawatts of total windpower. The entire global offshore wind capacity is around 55 gigawatts. This single wind farm would almost double global offshore wind power by itself. It would also be the single greatest "power plant" in existence once completed
Chaozhou, in Guangdong province, intends to start work on the 43.3-gigawatt project before 2025, according to a copy of the city’s five-year plan posted on industry publication bjx.com. The wind farm will be built between 75 and 185 kilometers (47 and 115 miles) off the city’s coast on the Taiwan Strait.
The area has unique topographical features that mean wind will be strong enough to run the turbines 3,800 to 4,300 hours a year, or 43% to 49% of the time, an unusually high utilization rate. The plan didn’t say how much the project would cost.
China set a record by adding 16.9 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity last year, and the country now has the largest fleet of offshore wind turbines in the world. Utilities and local governments continue to pursue ambitious renewable build-out plans as costs fall relative to expensive coal and natural gas, and as President Xi Jinping keeps the nation on course to zero out emissions by 2060.
Earlier this year, a city in neighboring Fujian province proposed a 1 trillion yuan ($138 billion) project that would include 50 gigawatts of offshore wind.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yb6wdo/china_is_building_a_40_gigawatt_offshore_wind/itf05tv/
[deleted] t1_itf4526 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itf7k3x wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itfhl19 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itg0kbp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itg2lqu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itgr49j wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itgu23r wrote
[removed]
pacwess t1_itgxgzq wrote
I'm guessing China doesn't have to deal with environmentalists and bureaucracy.
Southern-Trip-1102 t1_ititx90 wrote
Hahaha, if china cured cancer there would be people like you asking "but at what cost?"
LoganMcWatt t1_ithso0r wrote
Everywhere has to deal with both and it's only going to get more and more.
Lollmfaowhatever t1_iu4ol1n wrote
China 100% deals with bureaucracy, but the Chinese also as a culture really like building massive shit. Great Wall, High Speed Rail, Grand Canal etc.
[deleted] t1_ithcg8c wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ithpv6f wrote
[removed]
Intelligent-Dig1049 t1_itiy5ct wrote
I mean, cool? I dunno the end results bit I like getting away from fossil fuels
[deleted] t1_itj1esr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_itjdl4z wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iu8pgzk wrote
[removed]
winky109 t1_itgble2 wrote
I like this Idea, just hope it doesn’t get halfway done and not finished like their real estate
IMSOGIRL t1_itk33fo wrote
That's like seeing a smart American student and thinking, "Good for them, I hope they don't die in a school shooting."
How brainwashed are you to look at anything a country does and automatically think of something bad about it?
ThisistheInfiniteIs t1_itgyt5g wrote
This is wonderful, the sooner we can get rid of dirty nuclear and fossil fuel energy generation the better!
FallDownGuy t1_itka37c wrote
Make them the spiral type turbines and I'll be happy, if they are the normal prop looking blades then this is most likely going to be a HUGE hit to the world's bird population.
JeremiahBoogle t1_itkkadu wrote
A study this year estimated that 1.1 million birds (ish) are killed by wind turbines in the USA each year.
Might sound like a lot until you consider that a 2014 study estimated that as many as 1 billion birds die from hitting windows each year in the USA. (Think the range was between 20 million and 1 billion)
But even if its 20 million, its still way more than windfarms. I've yet to see the campaign to remove glass from peoples homes.
FallDownGuy t1_itkl5y1 wrote
Oh I never knew this, granted I live in Canada but I'm sure the numbers are just as bad here. A campaign to inform people to put those anti bird stickers on windows would be the best bet.
GeforcerFX t1_itlngkx wrote
It's bigger buildings usually like office building that get a lot of it.
FallDownGuy t1_itlnwto wrote
Oof yeah I live in a rural area so I sometime forget how many big buildings city's like Toronto or New York have.
funtex666 t1_itmscln wrote
Domestic cats kill more birds than wind turbines.
[deleted] t1_itnoizn wrote
[removed]
herbw t1_itm3pgl wrote
& then a cat 4 typhoon hits...... Or a tsunami from Japan, very tectonically active.
Or they PO their neighbors.... which chung hua is very good at lately.
[deleted] t1_itit2ys wrote
It’ll fail because they cut every corner. Then chair-man Pooh will have the project manager executed.
yt1nifnI t1_itj5eur wrote
I thought wind farms have been debunked as rather inefficient opposed to solar power Etc.
Typical-Technician46 t1_ith9v1r wrote
They are making a wind farm in a contested area to power their export driven manufacturing hub that is driven by a class of the population that every day disassociate with the idea of a unified greater future.
So, super?
gofleabiscuit t1_ith05fp wrote
How are they going to store the power? Unless it’s all used I guess. Because battery storage technology isn’t efficient enough yet.
rabbitaim t1_ith1tl9 wrote
They’re using redox flow batteries. The tech is nowhere the energy density of lithium but it’s meant to supplement the traditional power grid at night time. It’s got similar characteristics of a pumped hydro solution except less efficient.
mutherhrg OP t1_ithi4ir wrote
They're building tons of pumped hydro and about a dozen other various energy storage solutions
chesterbennediction t1_iti5oez wrote
They might not have to since wind will likely still blow at night and you have solar during the day for peak usage. They will need excess capacity however for low output days.
Logic_rocks t1_itig40n wrote
1000 bucks says it will be abandoned part way through
owaalkes t1_itgdfdy wrote
"China is building an offshore wind farm potentially generating 40 gigawatts,"
A subtle but important difference to take into consideration when there is no wind.
Germany has 65 GW potential wind generating power but is currently only getting 8 GW. A measly 12%.
Source.
Keks3000 t1_itgfsno wrote
Offshore is more than twice as consistent than onshore though, I think it's something like 30% full load hours? So the 43 GWpeak might translate into somewhere between 12 and 15 GW I assume.
invisiblesock t1_ith4opr wrote
depends on location, size of turbines, spread of turbines, average wind speed at given height, etc.
on average, new offshore wind farms in the UK are already pushing beyond 40%-45% cf.
Kruxx85 t1_itgnlss wrote
The article states the area chosen should give them around 45% utilisation on that 40GW.
This isn't their only renewable source that they are investing heavily in though.
Something that isn't reported on (that I've seen, anyway) is what China are investing in, in terms of grid scale storage.
It's pretty straight forward that the future is oversized renewable energy, along with massive amounts of storage.
rabbitaim t1_ith21w1 wrote
Source? The only ones I know about are the redox flow batteries which are meant to supplement grid power during peak usage (night time).
mutherhrg OP t1_ithjdag wrote
There's there still called google you know. It's pretty much common sense that China would be investing heavily in just about every energy storage solution known to man. They have some of the largest pumped hydro, compressed air, redox flow, thermal storage in molten salt, gravity batteries, lithium ion, green hydrogen projects going on.
rabbitaim t1_ithxai5 wrote
I was hoping for a comprehensive fact sheet like the one here
https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/energy/us-grid-energy-storage-factsheet
Believe it or not Google can be crap to do research on.
Source: Librarian
mutherhrg OP t1_iti04z7 wrote
China does have something like that, but it's mostly in chinese. That's the issues with searching for info on chinese systems.
Kruxx85 t1_itksx0z wrote
So which source were you asking for?
The claim that excess renewables + storage is the future?
If you have any amount of understanding in the energy sector, it's fairly obvious that's the future.
The biggest difficulty is being able to predict the weather in terms of providing the storage generation to overcome the intermittent nature of renewables - but there are already projects around the world working on that technology that are being completed and tested every day.
That's a very very quick Google, there's a lot more information on the WA governments Western Power distributor working in the renewable electrical grid space
invisiblesock t1_ith96lz wrote
8GW is also about 40% of the energy their coal plants produce. It's not "measly" at all.
[deleted] t1_itg4ohz wrote
[deleted]
RuachDelSekai t1_itgfe67 wrote
Lol sounds like it's going to be horrible for the costal marine life.
DangerousBongo666 t1_itgmbhd wrote
Off shore wind is good for marine life as large fishing boats cannot get in around the turbines and the bases of the turbine make artificial reefs.
RuachDelSekai t1_itgn4h6 wrote
Point taken. It just seems to me that the actual construction of said farm will ruin the area around it.
jstantheman t1_itgqg2e wrote
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/offshore-wind-energy/protecting-marine-life
Tldr Yeah possibly disruptive... But for global context we just had a billion crabs die off because of climate change. So to fix it if we disrupt the local fish a bit, I'll call it a win.
JustWhatAmI t1_iti570h wrote
You think it's better or worse than offshore oil drilling?
RuachDelSekai t1_itia217 wrote
Lmao, guys, I'm not against wind farms. I'm not pro-big oil. I just wonder if building them offshore is better than doing it inland.
I don't have the answer, I'm not a wind farm technician. Lol
JustWhatAmI t1_itieykw wrote
Never said you were against wind farms. I just asked how you thought it compared to oil drilling? What do you think?
RuachDelSekai t1_itim0vp wrote
I know it can be done relatively safely but inevitably there is always some sort of accident or spill. Also, offshore rigs built in "developing countries" with looser regulations create a literal ecological hellscape. But I'm also of the opinion that humanity needs to phase out the use of petroleum products. Big oil and the global auto industry have a literal chokehold on human society. The crisis in Venezuela, the crisis in Haiti, are all either directly because of or exacerbated by breakdowns in the petrochemical supply chain. Even the United States doesn't have enough refining capacity to handle its own gasoline consumption. Like I said, I'm no wind power expert. I don't know what the long term or second order or third order impacts are to having massive wind farms everywhere, but I can't imagine that it's anything close to the the risk of our dependence on oil.
By the same token, I'm also extremely worried about the safety of marine environments and our continued destruction of our oceans. I have literal anxiety thinking about what the state of the world might be in 200 years time. I fear for my children and my children's children and I worry that there won't even be a world where they'll be able to enjoy the same level of relative freedom that I've been able to enjoy in my life due to ecological collapse.
GeforcerFX t1_itlonyg wrote
There's pros and cons to both offshore and inland wind turbine farms. Offshore can be larger farms and use larger turbines, winds are also usually more predictable and stable offshore. The downside is building and maintenence, you have to move all that equipment offshore and maintain it there which cost more and adds logistical challenges. We saw offshore become very popular in Europe because there land is so valuable and not all the countries there have a lot of land to devote to inland wind farms. In the USA we have gobs of land with no one living on it and with good winds annually so we still build wind farms inland mainly. They also tend to be pretty close to population centers or industry so the transfer loss isn't terrible, and they are usually replacing existing powerplants in the area so they can reuse that transfer infrastructure dropping the cost. China also has large amounts of land that is relatively empty, but it has most of the disadvantages as offshore for them, very far from industry and transport to site would be a lot harder, building offshore puts the power plant right next to the people and industry for them.
RuachDelSekai t1_itlu09b wrote
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the in-depth explanation.
mutherhrg OP t1_itgmvqo wrote
Wind farms are great for marine life.
Enderswolf t1_itjqis0 wrote
Yeah, fish love wind.
chamillus t1_itgm8an wrote
No, it'll probably help it.
Kruxx85 t1_itgn9sp wrote
Why? What reports have you seen on the effect of offshore wind farms on marine life?
HappyCamperPC t1_ithjzjj wrote
Here's a good article. The effects are mixed but the key points are these:
>"The footprint is minimal compared to the vast area of the sea. The impacts are very localized and small, especially compared to the effects of fishing or warming of the oceans," he said.
>But the long-term consequences of wind turbines on marine life are still unclear
https://www.dw.com/en/how-do-offshore-wind-farms-affect-ocean-ecosystems/a-40969339
leaky_wand t1_itf32bl wrote
Does this have some kind of strategic advantage for them? Like extending their territorial waters or something like that?
clintCamp t1_itf8lxi wrote
If people haven't noticed, energy independence is a very strategic win. Look at Europe right now with Putin cutting off fossil fuel exports. They may step in and offer energy to other countries at a steep cost? Then there is the continued existence factor as we are seeing record lows and high temps, droughts and massive floodings, famines and other climate events, ocean warmings, glacier meetings, sea life population collapse like the 12 billion snow crab population down to 2 billion in the last 2 years, etc. Lots of long term benefits to helping stave off further ecological disaster, and if anything pull more energy from the increased winds.
RuachDelSekai t1_itgg4tf wrote
It's not just Europe. It's Haiti, the USA too. Energy independence is also related to gas & crude oil. Even the USA, which consumes more gasoline than it can refine itself with current capacity is one major natural disasters (or sabotage) away from a transportation catastrophe.
It's wild to me how short-sighted people are.
urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_itg9251 wrote
Also resiliency, stoping those generating power with a single drone hit as Russia does with power plants in ukrania is impossible
also if the poles are fixed to the ocean floor it may act as artificial riffs helping the local marine ecosystems
MachineDrugs t1_itf8j98 wrote
Uhm yeah no. China is in a pretty bad energy crisis right now. Rolling blackouts and shutting down of factories. That's why they are building them
themistergraves t1_itfw21c wrote
175km out from Chaozhou is pretty clearly on the Taiwan side of the Taiwan Strait, though, for what it's worth.
Peanut_Tree t1_itg4cuo wrote
They are building a windpark because they need energy. But the location was probably chosen to have a stronger claim on Taiwan and its surrounding waters.
blastradii t1_itgtpxt wrote
Once the takeover of Taiwan is complete I guess they will just build a massive wind farm out of Taiwan island.
[deleted] t1_itg7hzq wrote
[removed]
VitaminPb t1_itf4m6q wrote
If they haven’t invaded Taiwan by the time they start building they will move a huge naval presence in to “protect” it.
No-Swimmers1622 t1_itr13b6 wrote
They already move huge naval presences around Taiwan without any windfarm to protect. You underestimate the will of China to retake Taiwan
[deleted] t1_itgsb30 wrote
[removed]
Obelix13 t1_itfrlmb wrote
Those wind farms, with their high poles, spinning blades, and all that steel, must wreak havoc on radars. Easy to slip a few fighter jets and commence an assault run on Taiwan.
Funicularly t1_itfh03w wrote
That’s all well and good, but China is Currently Building Over Half of The World’s New Coal-based Power Plants.
> In 2021, China began building 33 gigawatts of coal-based power generation, according to the Helsinki-based Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA). That is the most new coal-fired power capacity China has undertaken since 2016 and, says CREA, three times more than the rest of the world combined.
> However, in the meantime, China still consumes nearly five times as much coal as India, and nearly six times as much as the United States (the second and third largest coal consumers, respectively), and is building a huge number of new plants. According to Enerdata’s 2021 Yearbook, while global coal consumption dropped more than 4% globally, and 19% in the EU, coal consumption went up in China. In other words, China may be planning to cut coal use in several years’ time, but how high will the base level be before the reductions begin?
spkgsam t1_itfr3et wrote
Those are supercritical plants being built to replace the older and much less efficient ones.
You can tell by their relatively flat CO2 emissions from coal, even though the power they generate is still slowly increasing.
Those plants are a stop gap measure to limit emissions while renewable and nuclear plants are being built. Electricity generated from coal as a percentage has been steadily decreasing for more than a decade now. Transition takes time, but they are certainly moving in the right direction.
Corsair4 t1_itfj8yd wrote
I absolutely love how you cut out the paragraph between the 2 you actually quoted. Let me add it back in.
>In fairness, China also leads the world in terms of installed wind and solar power, and investments in energy storage batteries, electric vehicles, and ultra-high transmission lines—all key elements for a clean energy transition. China has also pledged to peak related air emissions by 2030, and the Xi government has said it will drastically cut coal use in 2026 to meet that goal.
I've no idea why you would selectively exclude that section, except to push a biased view of the Chinese energy industry.
China leads the world in most energy metrics. They just need more energy, and they are investing heavily in basically every source.
deltadovertime t1_itfnzq7 wrote
It’s a very North American centric view to think china and India is the real problem with global emissions.
In reality North America has some of the worse per capita emissions and probably the worst outside of the Middle East. But at least people in the Middle East don’t drive around in trucks they don’t need.
Tupcek t1_itfsrev wrote
to understand why it is this way, we have to look at psychology as well as geopolitics.
First, after second world war, US was an industrial powerhouse. Asia didn’t have the know how or technology to produce almost anything and Europe was starting to rebuild itself. Later, Europe did start its own manufacturing at scale, but it wasn’t any cheaper than US, so the US maintained a lot of the industry, making its citizens very wealthy even in factory lines jobs.
China started to gain traction in 80s, but it wasn’t until 00s when they basically could manufacture anything cheaper than US, basically destroying expensive US products. Of course, US had better marketing, better quality control, better management skills and much much better IT, so they kept making high-end goods, but middle class and not-so-smart people certainly had it worse.
Also, people like scapegoats. People don’t like being told you have to work harder to have a good life, it’s much easier to blame someone. For 40 years, it was USSR and communists. But after it’s dissolution, Russia was too weak to be seen as “the cause” of all the troubles. Mexico didn’t cut it either, though took some blame. China, as a rising global star, was the perfect candidate for the blame game. Can’t find work? It’s not because you lack skills, it’s because China took your work. Any other domestic problem? China! Politicians love that, because it can blame shift from domestic issues (better education for more high end jobs etc.) to some common evil they have to fight. They can make strong gestures and they win votes, instead of fixing shit.
So both political parties are pushing anti-China propaganda for three decades now and will happily continue. Even better, Chinese governments ain’t no saints and China does have its own problems, which are very easy to point out, while skipping over any good things they do.
PositivityBear t1_itg5764 wrote
It's easier to blame someone else than to point out if we had invested in automation and advanced manufacturing and upskilled, we could still be a production location. That would mean reinvestment though, and not just sucking money out of production.
The few remaining productive works in the west are those with technological uphands or protective tarrifs etc.
upL8N8 t1_itgfs59 wrote
That's not even half the story. How about international trade rules that were relaxed? How about much lower Chinese wages and worse worker protections (like working hours and overtime rules)? How about that 996 schedule that essentially allowed China to cut a shift at a 24 hour plant by making a 12 hour a day 6 days per week schedule standard practice? China was just one nation like this.
Large corporations, regardless of where they're headquarters were (many were in the US and considered American corporations) started moving production to low wage nations and exporting back into high wage nations to drive up their profits.
Apple is a shining example of this. Even to this day, look at how high the margins are on their hardware products, and that's AFTER Chinese wages have spent 20 years increasing. Look at Tesla, the first car company in China to start massive vehicle exports to the West, whose seem their profit margins jump since starting and expanding production there. (They export to Europe and other higher wage nations because at least Trump knew enough to stop Chinese vehicle imports with a new tariff). Now Biden is squashing any hope of vehicle imports from any low wage nation. (It looks like investors tried to circumvent the Chinese tariff by building factories in Vietnam...see Vinfast)
The US government all but guaranteed this eventuality with the relaxed trade rules (aka no tariffs in imports) back in 2000 and lack of investment at home. Why spend a billion on a new factory in the US, when instead we could experience years of high unemployment and pay out huge amounts for government assistance? Who pays for it? Corporations? Hah... No one pays (at least not right now)... we'll just grow our national debt!
Corporations couldn't have done a better job of enacting legislation to their own benefit if they governed the country themselves. They basically do through their massive lobbying efforts, campaign contributions, and promises of lucrative jobs after a politician is out office.
toweringpine t1_itgbsaj wrote
You put a lot of extra letters in the one word answer: arrogance.
upL8N8 t1_itgci9e wrote
Per Capita emissions certainly matters, but how much? China's population is 4x larger than the US, and the country's total emissions make up 27% of global emissions versus 11% from the US. (If my quick Google search is correct)
Also remember that much of China's population is far poorer than in the US. It isn't that they don't want luxuries, it's that they can't afford them. Often because their labor is overworked and underpaid. Many of their industry workers are crammed into small apartments. Can you imagine the type of energy China would need if their citizens all had enough money to afford A/C, clothes dryers, personal vehicles, and more space in their homes?
Not saying North Americans don't need to live more frugally with little more than a minor inconvenience, but there's a pretty big difference in quality of life for the workers in each nation. In terms of which nation pays their workers a larger share of the revenue their products generate, that's clearly in favor of the US. It's no surprise that for-profit corporations would rather build manufacturing facilities in China than in the US and then export the products to Western nations using highly pollutive container ships. I'd be curious which country those shipping emissions get attributed to.
The solution to stop people from using all their money on things that drive up energy use has always been a carbon tax, but our politicians have failed to act. Probably because it would not only be unpopular, but it would force even more companies to send jobs to nations without those taxes. (As it they haven't already done so to a huge degree) Those emissions taxes would need to be setup in a way to impose a tariff on imported goods based on the emissions from production.
mutherhrg OP t1_itf05tv wrote
A city in southern China is planning an offshore wind farm bigger than all of the power plants in Norway combined. By comparison, the entire state of Texas only has 32 gigawatts of total windpower. The entire global offshore wind capacity is around 55 gigawatts. This single wind farm would almost double global offshore wind power by itself. It would also be the single greatest "power plant" in existence once completed
Chaozhou, in Guangdong province, intends to start work on the 43.3-gigawatt project before 2025, according to a copy of the city’s five-year plan posted on industry publication bjx.com. The wind farm will be built between 75 and 185 kilometers (47 and 115 miles) off the city’s coast on the Taiwan Strait.
The area has unique topographical features that mean wind will be strong enough to run the turbines 3,800 to 4,300 hours a year, or 43% to 49% of the time, an unusually high utilization rate. The plan didn’t say how much the project would cost.
China set a record by adding 16.9 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity last year, and the country now has the largest fleet of offshore wind turbines in the world. Utilities and local governments continue to pursue ambitious renewable build-out plans as costs fall relative to expensive coal and natural gas, and as President Xi Jinping keeps the nation on course to zero out emissions by 2060.
Earlier this year, a city in neighboring Fujian province proposed a 1 trillion yuan ($138 billion) project that would include 50 gigawatts of offshore wind.