China Versuis the US on Alternate Energy

Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN) is the magazine of the American Chemical Society (ACS). The ACS is a professional organization and almost all people who call themselves chemists belong to the ACS. C&EN publishes weekly and Rudy Baum is the Editor-in-Chief. He generally includes an editorial by himself in each weekly issue. He also commands the political tone under which each reporter writes his story. Having read his editorials for many years, I tentatively concluded that Rudy is a Commie. His latest editorial in the 10/4/10 Issue has caused me to reconsider partially his political leanings.

The 10/4/10 Issue contains an article entitled, "Chemistry Energizes China ", written by Jean-Françoise Tremblay. The Table of Contents of the Issue changed the name to "Alternative Energy in China". Rudy devoted his complete editorial to that article and entitled his editorial "China Ascendant". Notice the three different titles involving the same subject. Commies usually use word games for political innuendo.

In spite of my negativity, the statement by Rudy, which caused me partially to change my mind, is in his last paragraph. He said, "China's intense focus on developing alternative energy sources presents excellent business opportunities for global chemical firms, but it is profoundly depressing to this US citizen". He apparently still has the welfare of the US at heart, but he still may feel the US would be better off under Communism.

However, let's look at some of the data in Jean-Françoise's article. Jean includes a data table entitled, "Upstart". From that table, the bad news for the US is that in the next 28 years China will increase its total electricity generation by 1687%, the World by 58%, and the US by 22%. This essentially confirms previous claims that the US is declining as a world power of economic significance. It has previously been recognized that a nation's standard of living for its inhabitants is directly related to its per capita usage of non-human energy.

In the year 2035, China's production of electricity from wind and solar will be 0.05% of its total energy production. The US will have the same figure. Notice the similarity of the Chinese and US figures and notice also the very low order of magnitude. In the year 2035, electricity generation from combined wind and solar will be insignificant. This is in direct contrast to Jean's and Rudy's writings which accent the great forward thinking of the Chinese with respect to alternate energy. The facts show that the Chinese understand that coal-fired power plants are significantly more efficient in energy generation than wind turbines or solar panels.

What is then the basis for Jean's and Rudy's interpretation? It is likely true that the Chinese are engaging in high volume manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels, and that in so doing, they need to import or obtain from local production the products of worldwide chemical companies, until such time as they can produce their own. However, I believe from the above data that the Chinese have little intention of using significant numbers of wind turbines and solar panels themselves. China concentrates on exports. That is the basis for their total grand economic growth in the last several years, while the US has taken a second rate position by becoming a purchaser, rather than an exporter.

A fundamental aspect of how the situation has developed is primarily government attitude. The Chinese government encourages local manufacture for export. The US government does the reverse by applying high taxes and various labor and environmental restrictions to manufacturing companies.