Reply #30: Once more, let's recap.

[kristopher]

NewJeffCT
1. Aren't they committed to building a bunch of nuke plants over the next decade?

or longer?


kristopher
4. They have been going full bore on all energy fronts.

Coal, nuclear and wind are all being pursued (or have been until recently) with equal vigor.

A difference just manifested itself a week or so ago with a new regulation that requires their grid operators to use renewable energy as their first power choices.

This is extremely significant as it govern the way their entire grid will be built out. Instead of renewables being niche technologies fitting in around coal, the reverse will be true - they will develop generating in a way that fits around the characteristics of wind and increasingly solar.

That has a profound effect on the economics of project development.



joshcryer
Response to Reply #4
5. And if there is no grid to those renewable sources?



kristopher
Response to Reply #5
6. Surely you aren't that obtuse...



joshcryer
Response to Reply #6
9. So they build out the grid or do they just plop on a coal plant?

Hint: it's the latter.


You are trying to defend this statement on the FUTURE direction of China's wind policy with extremely poor resolution maps that show SOME of what has happened in the PAST. You are ignoring extremely significant changes in their policies related to the way their energy build out will proceed in the FUTURE and claiming that these irrelevant maps of the PAST somehow tell us something about the way these NEW policies will (that's future tense) work.

In short, in spite of your intimate relationship with google, you have no idea of what the hell you are talking about. You don't understand the way energy systems are designed, you don't understand the economics of energy (or anything else) and you don't have a clue about how public policy tools work to make things happen.

Worst of all, you also lack even the most rudimentary knowledge of how to just think.

If you were paying attention to the data from the maps and trying to actually understand the topic instead of just panning wind and china, you'd realize that your maps show a distinct problem with your position - why all the wind development where you assert there is no wind?
It's because the maps are a gross representation of the quality of wind resources. There are a lot of localized, high quality resources that do not show on the map - that's why there is so much development in places where there is apparently little wind.

Again, if you were being fair, you'd have to ask these question that your maps do not address:
WHERE, specifially, are the wind farms that are not connected?

Where are the transmission lines that are presently being run?

What kind of agreement regarding transmission goes along with the power purchase agreement that the National Development and Reform

Commission (NDRC) gives to the private investors that are building the wind farms?

Why would private individuals build wind farms that will not produce any return on investment?

Without that minimal data you cannot possibly conclude what you have. Since you don't have that data or anything even remotely like it, it is therefore obvious that your conclusions are nothing but a product of persona bias of some type and that you really don't care about FACTS except as they can be used to support your bias.

It is also very, very evident that your incredulity is limited to renewable resources with absolutely none being applied to nuclear energy.

Why is that?