BYD eBUS-12

China's National Energy Administration (NEA) announced on Sunday that the nation's total consumption of electricity from January 2011 through the end of July shot up approximately 12.2 percent when compared to the same time frame in 2010. It's estimated that China consumed nearly 2.69 trillion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity in the first seven months of 2011. In July alone, electricity consumption was up a staggering 11.8 percent year-over-year, coming in at 434.9 billion kWh, according to the NEA.

With consumption of electricity rising rapidly, some analysts doubt China's grid could support an influx of plug-in vehicles and, with the vast majority of the nation's energy coming from coal, we'd question whether plug-in vehicles should even play a role in the moving forward of one of the world's oldest civilizations. Apparently, we're not alone on this one.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 21 Comments
      Edge
      • 3 Years Ago
      Electricity consumption is more or less matching growth. China can solve all it's pollution problems, if it's willing to make huge investments in those areas. History has shown, that any nation will only tolerate a certain amount of pollution, before the political action gets set in motion to do something about it. What's good for the environment and good for the health of the people, is also good for a nations economy. China will not endanger that, on it's goal to becoming a first world nation.
        Marco Polo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Edge
        @Edge. You have an amazing faith in the government of the PRC! History has shown that communist/authoritarian regimes seldom respond to environmental issues. The economy of the PRC has long since surpassed the standards of being a first world nation, yet 'Political action' on pollution in the PRC occurs only in response to outside trade pressure. Otherwise, the PRC government action follows the tried and proven formulae of denial, accompanied by cunning propaganda. PRC environmental propaganda is well received in certain sections of the Western media and commentators. This reflects a naive desire to placate the dragon by a combination of appeasement, and self-delusion. Over the next 5 years, PRC with bring on line more than 850 gigantic new Coal-Fired power stations! The sole objective of the Beijing government's energy policy, is to obtain cheap, reliable, industrial grade, energy generation at the lowest economic cost. The concept of a wise, environmentally responsible, visionary, benevolent Beijing Government, is pure fantasy, conjured up by a desire to ignore reality.
          Ele Truk
          • 11 Hours Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Except that China also is investing more in renewable energy than the U.S. is. I think China realizes that coal is not limitless, and they need more coal plants for now, but with the large investments they are making in wind, hydro and solar, they are looking farther into the future than just this decade. http://www.renewable-energy-news.info/china-surpasses-united-states-renewable-energy-investments/
      Roy_H
      • 3 Years Ago
      China is the only country working on developing the LFTR see: flibe-energy.com Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors are inherently safe, expected to be much lower cost than conventional nuclear reactors, do not produce long term radio-active waste, and although Thorium is plentiful around the world, China has been stock piling it so have more ready to use than anybody. The question is, how many more coal fired plants will be built before the LFTR design is ready? Hopefully they will announce good progress on the LFTR soon.
        Dave
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Roy_H
        There are several designs being considered for future nuclear power. LFTRs are not the only game in town. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
        EJ
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Roy_H
        I'm all for LFTRs. But, couple of things. LFTR's certainly do produce long-term radio active waste, it's half life however can be measured in tens rather than hundreds of thousands of years. But to me and you, it's still going to be around a hell of a lot longer than we are. Also, there's no need to 'stockpile' thorium. Scoop a ton of dirt from almost anywhere in the world an you can extract enough thorium to run a reactor.
          Marco Polo
          • 11 Hours Ago
          @EJ
          Dear Sirs, For a very resonable fee, I can offer excellent storage of LFTR's vaste! Thousand years is no problems for me! (Am just neeeding a little cash advance to make necessary Castle repairs) Yours in eager anticipation, Count Varney, Castle Vampyre Too creepy for the new fashion Transylvania
          Roy_H
          • 11 Hours Ago
          @EJ
          Radio-active waste from LFTRs takes about 350 years to decay to safe to handle levels vs about 10,000 years for current LWR wastes. I define long term as greater than 1000 years. Thorium is literally free from rare-earth mines. In the US, mining operations that have thorium as a by-product are required to disperse and re-bury the thorium. China has been saving theirs. You can argue that this is not necessary, but not whether they did it or not.
      Roy_H
      • 3 Years Ago
      Forgot to mention, just because present power comes from coal, it does not mean that it is preferable to make gas powered cars. When clean electricity is available all the electric cars will start using it. ICE cars will continue to pollute with gasoline. Also even with coal power, it is possible to keep pollution levels below what ICEs produce.
      Eideard
      • 3 Years Ago
      "Some analysts" doubt the sun will rise in the east, tomorrow morning. That"s why they pray all the time - and try to take credit for sunrise.
      2 Wheeled Menace
      • 3 Years Ago
      Bleh, their population is also rising due to immigration and their quality of life is going up up up.. i don't think this is entirely due to cars.
        Marco Polo
        • 11 Hours Ago
        @2 Wheeled Menace
        @2WM. Is the population of the PRC rising due to immigration? From where?
          2 Wheeled Menace
          • 11 Hours Ago
          @Marco Polo
          http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0719/opinions-china-immigration-illegal-aliens-heads-up.html
          Marco Polo
          • 11 Hours Ago
          @Marco Polo
          @2WM. Thank you for the web reference! Very interesting! Of course, in Burma, Cambodia, Vietnam,Laos, and the Philippines, Chinese citizens are hated, and only physically safe if wealthy. Even in Malaysia, and Indonesia, ethnic Chinese often live in fear of kidnapping. In Vietnam, the large ethnic Chinese population is treated with deep suspicion by the Vietnamese as potential traitors. But the numbers seem to be relatively small, considering the PRC's vast population. Still, how times have changed, for the PRC to have economic migrants!
      asdf
      • 3 Years Ago
      We'll just steal their LFTR design once they get done, just like they steal all of our designs.
        Roy_H
        • 3 Years Ago
        @asdf
        No, we will just buy it like we do everything else. Too lazy to make our own.
        Roy_H
        • 11 Hours Ago
        @asdf
        Besides, it is an American design. Can't steel what we already own.
          • 11 Hours Ago
          @Roy_H
          The patents if any from their work in the 60's will have expired. It is the Chinese and maybe the French who will own patents if the US doesn't get on with it.
      Spec
      • 3 Years Ago
      Well, Australia will rejoice as they get to sell millions of more tons of coal. :-/
        Marco Polo
        • 11 Hours Ago
        @Spec
        Ah, yes, but we will 'Carbon Tax' Coal! This will certainly help the environment for the profligate, but embattled, Australian Treasurer!
      Breconeer
      • 3 Years Ago
      Even with the filthiest of electricity production facilities, there are advantages in taking pollution off the city streets and centralising it. It is easier to control pollution at one power station than under the hoods of a hundred thousand cars, vans, buses, motorbikes and trucks, many of which will be ill maintained and will often be idling in dense traffic in areas heavily populated. I am in favour of environmental improvement at every level - at the energy production end and at the user end. Using slowness at one end as a feeble excuse for doing nothing at the other end is a copout that helps nobody (except the oil suppliers).
    • Load More Comments