Back from two days at the Joint US - China Cooperation on Clean Energy Forum. We were hit with a barrage of information (I mean that in a good way), and it is hard to succinctly summarize the forum “take-aways.”
More information on the details of the conference can be found at the following locations:
CleanerGreenerChina. Rich has performed a very valuable public service by posting a digest of everything you need to know about each separate panel.
CNReviews. Elliot has put together a nice post which gives you the feel of the conference through some really well-composed pictures and text.
Green Leap Forward. Julian hasn’t posted anything as of this moment, but I am sure he will, and it will be worth reading. He was given the unenviable task of trying to pull the conference together in real time by giving the closing speech. He did a remarkable job.
Here are my two cents:
1. China generally supports the development of clean energy resources, which in China include nuclear and hydro.
2. China’s clean energy sector will be dominated by Chinese companies deploying “conventional” clean energy technologies with proven track records in other countries.
3. China will continue to be a “pilot program” heaven: if you have a technology, product, or service, you would like to test in a low-cost environment, you will probably be able to find a partner in China (as long as it doesn’t cost them anything) to help you test it. But remember, China still doesn’t have that IP protection thing down pat yet.
5. China will continue to be a “pilot program” graveyard: it will remain extremely hard to commercially roll out technologies, products, or services in China even with successful pilot program results. The barriers that you will face depend to a certain extent on the type of technology, product, or service you seek to deploy. But let me give you an example from the forum. There was a presentation at the forum about a Demand Side Management (DSM) pilot project, sponsored at least in part by the National Resources Defense Council, in Jiangsu Province. By all accounts the program was a success [and the forum speakers reported only on these successes, the conclusions I draw below are solely my own]. It demonstrated DSM principles and programs can be deployed in China with significant reductions in the growth of electricity demand. Several years later manuals are still being written and translated that provide the details of how to implement the program. These manuals are reportedly necessary to successfully market the program to other . . . . well that part wasn’t quite clear. There are theoretically only two customers for this program in China — the State Grid Corporation (Beijing) and the Southern Power Grid Corporation (Guangzhou). They have distribution subsidiaries, but presumably there are two people — one in Beijing and one in Guangzhou — who could see that the DSM program was enacted on a national basis now. For some reason, these people have not or will not exercise their power. I suspect their inaction stems from a reticence to expend the political capital necessary to cajole the leaders of the various distribution fiefs to accept DSM. This fragmentation of state political and corporate power in China makes large scale deployment of technologies very difficult. Here’s my suggestion for testing the bona fides of your Chinese pilot-program partner: ask for a clause in the contract or the MOU that states that if the project achieves certain benchmarks, it will be deployed in at least X instances across the country or region. You will never get such a clause approved, but the reasons given for not including it will be very instructive.
6. I’m coming to the conclusion that the “plant-grid” separation reform enacted in 2000 is an impediment to the promotion of clean energy in China, but I’m not yet certain as to what the optimal cleantech friendly alternative would look like. Any suggestions?
7. On a per capita basis, China’s clean energy record sucks. This is an inside-forum joke. In the “myth busters” session we were treated to the fun you can have with numbers when you place 1.3 billion in the denominator. Apparently China has no bigger role to play in climate change negotiations than say, Botswana. But while were playing this game, the next time someone tells you how green China is and points to where China ranks with respect to total installed wind power (for instance), ask them how China compares with Germany or the US on a per capita basis.
I know it may seem that I came away from the forum in a mood about as black as Beijing’s coal-smoked air. Au contraire. It is extremely heartening to see the large number of very smart and very dedicated souls working to change things, especially those who are volunteering their time. 
We will find solutions.
If I’m pessimistic it is about the ability to correct the structural impediments in China to the quick and wide-spread adoption of clean energy solutions.
Here are two things that must happen soon (isn’t the fact that they haven’t happened already Exhibit A in the case which supports my pessimism):
Step 1: pass the Energy Law and staff the National Energy Commission.
Step 2: establish an Energy Ministry and make its Minister the National Energy Czar.
These are hardly radical suggestions, but until China gets serious about its overall energy policy, clean energy is going to be a side show.
Kudos to Peggy and River (and I am sure many others) for putting together a wonderfully engaging conference. Even when a panel moderator failed to show, Peggy stepped up and handled the situation like a pro. Keep up the good work!
6 responses so far ↓
1 Crossroads // Nov 13, 2008 at 1:49 am
Was fun having all us green bloggers together.
All your points are well taken, and while I have yet to put together my real wrap up, here are a few of my own.
1) If China does not learn to manage its water, it is going have a hard time managing to meet its 20% renewable energy goal
2) If China does not learn to manage its water, that map f mega-cities that Jon Woetzel put up is going to look VERY different (wagons south?)
3) Consumers and clients are different than citizens and people need to really keep this in mind when developing solutions.
4) wow.. there are some amazing people who have amazing projects who need to “be here” who are going to lose a lot of money.
5) No one mentioned food… one of the three basic necessities (food, water, and shelter).. which by the way are the three things that people need to address no matter what the pitch is
As with everything related to sustainability, it is all bitter sweat. There are a lot of really smart people with some really good ideas who have their own denominator, but I still think we have a long way to go…
Peggy (and the entire JUCCCE group) did a great job of bringing a lot of different stakeholders together (How many NGOs were at AMCHAM conference?), but the word “citizen” was never mentioned and there was little data to suggest that people are thinking about the hurdle rates that the earth has put in place…
we are still fighting over whether solar would cost 1RMB a KwH or 2.. and failing to mention that the real cost of coal to society cannot be measured by the ton.. and if it were, solar would look crazy cheap.
Anyway… going back into the clean conference cycle again tomorrow, and will have notes from the 2nd rendition live as always on CGC.
R
2 cmcelwee // Nov 13, 2008 at 11:19 am
Rich: As always very insightful comments. Looking forward to your formal wrapup. I really like your focus on citizens which I think incorporates ideas as to the “public commons.” Costs imposed upon the commons should be considered when making any decision.
3 Julian Wong // Nov 13, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Charlie and Rich, pleasure as always to have hung out!
Wait no further….here’s the grand summary:
http://greenleapforward.com/2008/11/13/juccce-clean-energy-forum-closing-summary/
4 Julian Wong // Nov 14, 2008 at 10:56 am
Just to follow up–Charlie, the “fun with numbers” aspect is an excellent point. Its all about using statistics to one’s advantage, and no doubt we’ll continue to see such fuzzy math in Poznan next month at the COP climate talks.
Rich–excellent points about the energy-water nexus, and the food-energy nexus for that matter. I believe the conference in Shanghai this week, and its continuation next Monday and Tuesday, will talk about the Watergy problem? We really need to thinking about what the water shortage means for coal, nuclear, coal-to-liquids and hydro.
5 Greg // Nov 16, 2008 at 9:03 am
“We really need to thinking about what the water shortage means for coal, nuclear, coal-to-liquids and hydro.”
@ Julian
Significant leaps in gray water usage will be necessary or it may come to the point where local and national governments will have to make the choice between industry, power and drinking water.
Water AND power rationing?
BTW, the new Bond movie targets water. See that and then see the movie “Flow”.
6 Greg // Nov 17, 2008 at 2:58 am
Rolling Blackouts Increase in
Tajikistan Due to Low Water Level
DUSHANBE, Tajikistan (OOSKAnews)
R
olling electrical blackouts in Tajikistan are occurring over 17
hours a day as the volume of water in the Nurek reservoir on
the Vakhsh River in west-central Tajikistan is now at less than
8.5 billion cubic meters, according to Sharifkhon Samiev, head of
Tajikistan’s national electrical power company Barki Tochik.
Samiev was quoted by the Tajik Asia-Plus news agency as saying
his company is currently supplying electricity only six and half
hours a day, from 3:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. due to drought and low water levels.
A decrease in the water volume in the reservoir to less than 8.5 bil-
lion cubic meters was called “a catastrophe” by Samiev.
“Every hour I watch the development of the situation,” he said.
“The amount of water inflow… reaches 360 to 370 cubic meters a
second at most; that is a very low figure. So, to save water which
[we have] now we were forced to introduce limits [on supplying
electricity] so that we can provide people with electricity during cold winters.”
According to him, the Nurek reservoir on the Vakhsh River, a
tributary of the Amu Darya, would lose 2 billion cubic meters of
water if limits are not imposed, which means Tajikistan would be
without electricity during the coming winter.
But even under such rolling blackouts, water reserves will last
only until February 1 and, if Tajikistan’s neighbors do not pro-
vide the country with electricity before December, the situation
will be catastrophic, he said.
The Nurek reservoir, with a capacity of 10.5 billion cubic
kilometers, is the largest in the country. Its hydroelectric plant,
built in the 1960s-1980s, has a total generating capacity of 3,000
megawatts of electricity.
Because of the recent extremely cold winter, the volume of water
in the reservoir fell to 6 meters as a result of overloading of its
hydro-electric plant, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting
said earlier this year.
Experts say the reservoir needs to accumulate more water for the
normal seasonal functioning of the hydroelectric plant during the
fall and winter season of 2008-2009.
The country has already concluded contracts with Turkmenistan
and Uzbekistan on supplying 1.8 billion kilowatt-hours of elec-
tricity from them in the fall and winter
Leave a Comment