Powering the Future

[bhchao]

The August issue of National Geographic has a very interesting article on the current energy dilemma and the future of new energy technologies to replace fossil fuels.

The article talks in detail about the receding supply of fossil fuels; and the benefits/disadvantages of solar, wind, hydrogen, nuclear, and biomass.

Solar is environmentally-friendly because it emits nothing back into the atmosphere, but it is very expensive. Also solar systems need to store excess solar energy for cloudy days. As the cost of installing solar systems declines, solar will make more headway in the energy industry.

Denmark is already experimenting with wind power, which is currently supplying 20% of the nation's electrical needs. The article mentions that one of the main opposition to wind turbines comes from aesthetic reasons. Residents near wind turbines or who live in areas targeted for wind power development (i.e. England's Lake District) argue that turbines ruin the scenic landscape. Opposition has also come from residents in Massachusetts.

China is already experimenting with nuclear energy by embarking on an ambitious program to build more nuclear power plants. Nuclear power can generate a large chunk of electricity, but everyone knows about the potential environmental side effects of nuclear power.

Anyone familiar with biomass? The article talks about using oils from plants to meet automobile fuel needs.

I am gravitating towards renewable sources like solar and wind power, but it will be simplistic to think that they will solve current energy problems. In the very long run they might be effective as more experimentation is done with those technologies. What are you thoughts on all these technologies in solving the energy dilemma?

http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/NG.htm

[gato]

http://nytimes.com/2005/08/03/business/03react.html

[bhchao]

My first initial reaction to the bid abandonment was that the political reaction in Washington was unfair. I have read posts in other forums calling on China to do the same thing to US companies trying to buy Chinese companies in the future.

When a Chinese government-controlled company tries to buy an American oil company, is it a free-market transaction? The answer is no...

"This is good news," Mr. Mulloy said of Cnooc's decision. "Don't call this a commercial transaction when it's not a commercial transaction. This is a government-controlled company. There was no ability for an American company to buy Cnooc; there was no reciprocity."

I kind of have mixed feelings over this issue. It's true that Cnooc is a government-controlled company, and Beijing should not have any leverage in transactions like these. On the other hand I don't think there would be any adverse economic effects towards the US even if Cnooc is government-controlled, since Unocal only represents 1% of US domestic oil consumption..

China needs the energy to fuel its economy and has the money to acquire it, without a malicious attempt to disrupt US oil consumption (at least it seems)

"There was nothing wrong with Cnooc taking over Unocal, and for that reason I didn't oppose the merger," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, a leading critic of China's currency and trade practices. "But the furor over China treating American companies and workers unfairly up and down the line is real. And while it led to an incorrect result in this case, it must be dealt with."

Hmm sounds like revenge was behind the political opposition in Washington. Just curious and to be fair, how has China treated American companies and workers unfairly?

[skylee]

When I saw HK's ranking in the chart "... with money to spare" in #2, instantly I thought "嘩，富可敵國" (the same applies to Taiwan ). Is this a correct interpretation?

[Quest]

Fusion? The ability to get energy output >> energy input => infinite energy

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/06/nuclear_fusion/

[johnmck]

A lot of people are proposing that Nuclear energy (I'm speaking of fission not fusion) will solve the world's energy and CO2 emmissions requirements. This is simply not true. The big problem with Nuclear energy is it needs enriched uranium. While there is a lot of uranium around there is not much of it in high concentrations and purifying most of it so that it can be used in a reactor will take more energy than it will produce. At its current rate of usage the uranium should last quite a long time, but if the world's energy production was switched to nuclear then it would only last 1-2 years.

[gato]

China needs the energy to fuel its economy and has the money to acquire it, without a malicious attempt to disrupt US oil consumption (at least it seems)

I think China bid for Unocal also because it wanted to ensure access to energy in case of a war with Taiwan and the US. Another reason is that it wants to diversify its $700 billion foreign reserve, most of which is currently invested in 4%-interest US government bonds, to invest in higher-earning assets and non-dollar-denominated assets. This is related to the recent revaluation of the Yuan, switching from the US-dollar peg to a basket of currencies. Several other Asian countries, including Korea and Malaysia, are moving along the same course. Interest rate in the US will probably have to rise for the US government to continue to borrow to fund its budget deficit.

Hmm sounds like revenge was behind the political opposition in Washington. Just curious and to be fair, how has China treated American companies and workers unfairly?

Schumer's probably talking about cheap Chinese labor attracting US jobs and certain restrictions on foreign companies operating in China. Is it unfair that Chinese workers don't earn as much as American ones? Yes.

[bhchao]

I think China bid for Unocal also because it wanted to ensure access to energy in case of a war with Taiwan and the US

oooh that's a good point. Beijing usually has a hidden intention in what it does, just like when it tried to lift the European arms embargo several months ago. Sometimes that hidden intention is to give itself an edge in a future conflict over Taiwan. Protecting Taiwan is a no-brainer for me.

[Ian_Lee]

I don't think CNOOC's bid for Unocal has anything related to Taiwan. And neither should the bid become an issue of national security for U.S.

Unocal's principal possession is the natural gas fields in Southeast Asia, i.e. Indonesia. In case there is a flare-up over the Taiwan Strait, the 7th fleet can still impose a blockade on those natural gas fields no matter it is owned by firms from US or PRC.

Today there is a lengthy article on WSJ exploring why PRC recently launched high profile bidding of energy resources all over the world. It is because Beijing don't want to follow the wrong step of Japan for the last two decades -- low profile approach that failed miserably.

[nipponman]

Fusion? The ability to get energy output >> energy input => infinite energy

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/06/nuclear_fusion/

You're a man of many interests Quest.

nipponman

[bhchao]

I guess this thread is somewhat related to this one, http://www.chinese-forums.com/index.php?/topic/5-how-many-characters-do-you-know433, except that the latter is more relevant to automobile fuel.

The sooner countries China and the US can be less dependent on foreign energy sources from the Middle East, and oil in general, the better. I remember the price of gasoline dropping to $.97 a gallon in the months following the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis because of a big decline for oil from the battered Asian economies. Now the whole picture has changed today due to China's need for oil to fuel its economic engine, and the world is paying the price in higher gasoline prices.

Also the current construction of TGD in mainland China will not solve the country's electricity needs, nor will it come close in supplying a significant chunk of electricity.