China to be 3rd biggest wind power producer: media

Jan 01, 2010
A wind turbine complex on the Zhemo Mountain in the outskirts of Dali, in China's southwestern province of Yunnan in November 2009. China is set to become the world's third largest wind power producer in 2009, state media reported, as the Asian giant seeks various ways to expand energy supply to power its economic boom.

China is set to become the world's third largest wind power producer in 2009, state media reported, as the Asian giant seeks various ways to expand energy supply to power its economic boom.

The country's installed wind power capacity will reach 20 gigawatts this year, said Shi Lishan, vice director of the National Energy Administration's New Energy Department, the Xinhua news agency said Wednesday.

That will lift China to surpass Spain and become the world's third biggest wind power producer after the United States and Germany, the report said.

The United States had 25.2 gigawatts in installed capacity of wind power in 2008, or 20.8 percent of the world's total, compared with China's capacity of 12.2 gigawatts, figures from the Global Wind Energy Council showed.

At the end of last year, Spain had 16.8 gigawatts of installed wind power, the council said.

China, which relies on coal for more than 70 percent of its energy, is the world's largest emitter of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

But it has set a target of generating 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources -- mainly wind and water -- by 2020.

The country was criticised for obstructing the adoption of a treaty on during an international summit in Copenhagen earlier this month.

However, in a move signalling its commitment to cutting emissions, the nation last week adopted a law supporting the industry by obliging firms to buy all the power produced from renewable sources.

Explore further: Evaluating powerful batteries for modular grid energy storage

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

China triples wind power capacity goal: report

May 04, 2009

China has more than tripled its target for wind power capacity to 100 gigawatts by 2020, likely making it the world's fastest growing market for wind energy technology, state press said.

China harnesses mountain wind power

Nov 22, 2009

In the mountains above the southwestern Chinese town of Dali, dozens of new wind turbines dot the landscape -- a symbol of the country's sky-high ambitions for clean, green energy.

Recommended for you

UK wind power share shows record rise

3 hours ago

The United Kingdom wind power production has been enjoying an upward trajectory, and on Tuesday wind power achieved a significant energy production milestone, reported Brooks Hays for UPI. High winds from Hurricane Gonzalo were the force behind wind turbines outproducing nuclear power ...

Global boom in hydropower expected this decade

7 hours ago

An unprecedented boom in hydropower dam construction is underway, primarily in developing countries and emerging economies. While this is expected to double the global electricity production from hydropower, it could reduce ...

User comments : 17

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

fingersinterlaced
4 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2010
20 gigawatts capacity... Yeah, but what's the capacity factor? Typically 0.3 at best for wind right? So that's effectively only 6 gigawatt equivalent typical continuous output. Nothing.

Never mind that in 2007 China had an installed capacity total of 624 gigawatts of electricity generation and consumed a total 2.718 TERAWATT.

20 Gigawatt installed wind at 30% capacity = 6 Gigawat. 6 over 624 is 0.96%.

That's right. 0.96% of China's electricity generating capacity is from wind. Nothing. It makes no difference. (Probably less now, it's 2010 remember, in that time China installed a number of non-renewable plants too).

We better start turning to Japan and France for advise on how best to avoid carbon pollution, they've doing it for decades now.

Spain, China, Australia, America - you're barking up the wrong tree.
Mc3lnosher
3.2 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2010
Yeah your probably right, renewable energy projects are a really bad idea when they aren't enormous. It would be a lot better to release all of that CO2. Why even try if you can't fix it all at once?
Bob_Wallace
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2010
China total installed wind by year...

2005 1,266
2006 2,599
2007 5,912
2008 12,210
2009 22,500

Pretty close to a doubling each year.

China set a goal in 2007 of 20 gigs of installed wind by 2020. They've hit their 2020 goal ten years early.

China now predicts 100 gigs of installed wind by 2020. And an additional prediction of 15% of its energy from renewables by the end of this decade.
daveib6
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2010
Yeah your probably right, renewable energy projects are a really bad idea when they aren't enormous. It would be a lot better to release all of that CO2. Why even try if you can't fix it all at once?

I think fingersinterlaced was making a different point than the one you saw. If not, let me make it. These renewable projects are certainly worth while, but right now, we need to focus on the low hanging fruit. The lowest of the low hanging fruit is efficiency. We could cut emissions in half just by decreasing usage by increasing efficiency with existing technology that is more cost effective than spending it on the energy in the first place! This would have exactly 0 effect on standard of living. It is a win/win. Japan and France, not to mention Denmark got that long ago. It is time we wake up and reprioritise. Does that mean reducing green energy projects? Absolutely not! It means equaling that spending by focusing exactly equally on efficiency. That's the point!
fingersinterlaced
3 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2010
Bob:
snip
China now predicts 100 gigs of installed wind by 2020. And an additional prediction of 15% of its energy from renewables by the end of this decade.


100gigawatt of wind, remember, is only at best 30-40gigawatt due to capacity factor. The wind doesn't blow 100% of the time. So to get 100gigawatt you need 250gigawatt installed capacity, at best.

15% of it's energy from renewables? What about the other 85%?

daveib6
We could cut emissions in half just by decreasing usage by increasing efficiency with existing technology


History has proven again and again that every increase in efficiency has lead to an increase in consumption. As efficiency increases price decreases making the technology available to those with lower income. Computers, cars, air travel, mobile phones.

We still need increased efficiency, and we continually get it. Turbo diesel and electric cars, LCD computer screens. Efficiency happens regardless because it providers a temporary increase
fingersinterlaced
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 01, 2010
a temporary increase in profit.

What would be really good is an energy source that could be used to replace our existing generating capacity, replace it all in 10 years, and make all our new generating capacity from a mix of renewables and non-polluting sources.

And we better hurry up. Even if AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is completely wrong (which I doubt), no one wants to continue breathing the crap we're pumping in to the atmosphere.

Nartoon
1 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2010
Fingersinterlaced said: in 2007 China had an installed capacity total of 624 gigawatts of electricity generation and consumed a total 2.718 TERAWATT.

So they use 4x as much as they make?

Fingersinterlaced said: We still need increased efficiency, and we continually get it. Turbo diesel and electric cars, LCD computer screens.

Hate to burst your bubble but LCD TV's and monitors are less efficient than the old CRT versions. They look snazzy etc. but they consume more power per unit size than CRT's.
fingersinterlaced
not rated yet Jan 02, 2010
Sorry, that should read 2.718 terawatt-hours. Output multiplied by time in hours. Coal and nuclear capacity factor is around 90%, so China's 150 or so gigawatt of installed renewables is pulling down their total capacity factor to around 50%.

Wind 20-40%, photo voltaic (solar) 20% max, solar thermal 15%, solar thermal with storage ~75%.

Renewables look good on paper. Say for example you have a 1GW coal or nuclear powered plan, running at 90% capacity factor, that's 0.9GW (or 900MW).

To get the same 0.9GW from wind you need 2.25GW installed capacity. Try scaling that up to full roll out.

LCD's _are_ more efficient up to around 24-26" ...

So, again, increased efficiency in power consumption and mass production ability has enabled a lot of people to purchased 42" LCD or plasma screens, where as they used to own 22" CRTs. Not many people could afford a 40" CRT. Now you can't get away from LCD and plasma screens, they're everywhere, every pub seems to have at least 5 of them.
mrlewish
not rated yet Jan 02, 2010
All these factoids and solutions are useless unless we can get the world's population to stop growing.
If the world's population were a stable 2 billion I suspect that we could switch off every coal burning power plant.
Bob_Wallace
5 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2010
The world's population growth is slowing down. It would be great if it slowed faster and the eventual peak were lower. Now that Bush is out of office perhaps the US can return to working on population.

In those parts of the world, those ethnic/religious groups who feel that "two aren't enough", perhaps we could start a program of "wait a while". If we could stretch the time between generations that would help.
Bob_Wallace
3 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2010

"History has proven again and again that every increase in efficiency has lead to an increase in consumption."

That's Jeavons Paradox or Jeavons Effect. And it does not always apply.

Jeavons assumes conditions in which supply remains constant and price subsequently drops in response to lower demand. That lower price then boosts consumption.

As we move into new forms of energy production, be they renewables or nuclear, we are likely to see some price increase. Price will drive down consumption. People aren't going to going to switch to efficient light bulbs in order to cut their monthly utility bill and then go out and buy an electric butter warmer.

--

If you follow technology you will see that efficiency is the new goal, not 'faster and bigger'.

Big screen LCDs will be replaced with big screen OLEDs. California has already established the regulation that marks the end of energy hog big LCDs.

Bob_Wallace
1 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2010
"Renewables look good on paper. Say for example you have a 1GW coal or nuclear powered plan, running at 90% capacity factor, that's 0.9GW (or 900MW).

To get the same 0.9GW from wind you need 2.25GW installed capacity. Try scaling that up to full roll out."

Nameplate vs. capacity does not matter. What matters is the cost per kWh of the power produced.

Some renewables such as wind, geothermal and biomass look good when you pay the bill. They are among the least expensive ways to produce electricity.

Solar is rapidly joining the least expensive group. At $2 per watt ($1 panel (almost reached) plus $1 BOS (balance of system)) solar reaches grid parity in sunny parts of the country.

We will have to configure a grid supply that uses geothermal, hydro, and biomass as the 'always on' sources and supplement them with a cocktail of intermittent sources, storage, load shifting, and (for a while) dispatchable natural gas.

getgoa
not rated yet Jan 02, 2010
The only problem with wind energy is the bat population, if the bats are harmed more than what is the risk of more disease from the insects they eat??? It may seem small but malaria is not something I would want. There are better ways of getting power through water and salt. Popular science magazine July 2006--The future of energy.
http://www.youtub...mM6ENHdI
robbor
not rated yet Jan 02, 2010
the government can't even agree on healthcare. the train is screaming toward a brick wall but look who's at the helm.
GJS
not rated yet Jan 04, 2010
To really save energy, how about using more LED bulbs, rather than CFLs which trigger and/or exacerbate numerous medical maladies?

For info on CFL issues, visit

cflimpact.com

It seems it would be helpful to save dispatchable load without deleterious unintended (medical) consequences. That requires more efficient equipment, such as LED bulbs.
Mc3lnosher
not rated yet Feb 28, 2010
@Bob

"People aren't going to going to switch to efficient light bulbs in order to cut their monthly utility bill and then go out and buy an electric butter warmer."

This is wrong. People can and do increase efficiency on their lighting then buy a new gadget. Just because it isn't a butter warmer doesn't mean it doesn't use power. Granted not everyone does this. Power use per capita is and has been steadily increasing even with the radidly growing fraction of people using cfl's.
Mc3lnosher
not rated yet Feb 28, 2010
@ Bob

"We will have to configure a grid supply that uses geothermal, hydro, and biomass as the 'always on' sources and supplement them with a cocktail of intermittent sources, storage, load shifting, and (for a while) dispatchable natural gas."

Great idea. Sounds like a great and reliable mix.