Comments on: A Quiet Revolution: China’s Climate Future

By: WildChina Blog · What We’re Reading: “A Quiet Revolution: China’s Climate Future”

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:06:08 +0000

[...] What does this mean for China? Read about the implications of these plans for China’s development in the rest of the entry. [...]

By: Forget about who killed Copenhagen. The right question is ‘Why’? « Hiya Maya

Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:43:04 +0000

[...] green leap forward demonstrates the inexorable logic for low-carbon development – the need to adapt to the [...]

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:10:37 +0000

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your comments, and sorry for my tardy response!

Regarding gas hydrates, I was incorrect on two points. First, a technical one: the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane at a 100 year timescale (indeed all timescales, but 100 is the most commonly used by regulators) is 25, while that of carbon dioxide is 1 (since it is the baseline). This means that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Mining gas hydrates, if it means more methane will escape into the atmosphere, would thus be worse than burning coal. However, since methane can be burned more efficiently, and the gas hydrates will be mined to burn, what I wrote was incorrect. Which leads to the second, more general point: mining of gas hydrates is not the best example of China’s energy security strategy. Coal to liquids or shale oil would be better examples (nod to Bram, Oliver, and Michael Davidson, in a separate email).

So, to restate the point: take your pick of examples, from coal to liquids, shale oil, and recently-announced offshore drilling projects, but all indicators are that China is pursuing an energy security strategy, not a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy.

By: Hongdou

Hongdou — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 04:29:09 +0000

“While the country will expand the use of renewable energy, but it is also gearing up to mine and burn gas hydrates, which are nearly one-hundred percent methane, and hence even worse for the climate than burning coal.”

Hi, just wondering why burning methane is worse for the climate than burning coal??

By: Patrick Lynch

Patrick Lynch — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:45:18 +0000

Great article. The US is really missing the boat, and China is busy building and designing the next generation of boats.

One thing that is often missing in media “looks” at China is a sense of perspective. As a country that plans long term, China is easily misunderstood by those who focus only on next week’s market results.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:09:16 +0000

Burning gas hydrates is equivalent to burning natural gas in terms of CO2 emissions (natural gas contains a very high percentage of methane). Releasing one ton of methane into the atmosphere is worse than releasing one ton of CO2, yes, but in this case, the methane is burned first to produce energy (plus H2O and CO2)! BTW, economic exploitation of gas hydrates is a long way away. Oliver

By: Bram Buijs

Bram Buijs — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:01:05 +0000

Thanks for the nice post, I do agree with your perspective, as energy security, environmental and economic concerns are driving most of China’s very ambitious and progressive policy on energy & climate change. We did a report at Clingendael that shares this analysis (”China, Copenhagen and Beyond”, downloadable at http://www.clingendael.nl/ciep).
Just a one remark, if you burn gas hydrates/methane, it will form CO2 and will not emit more carbon per unit of energy than coal. Just if methane will escape into the atmosphere without getting combusted (for example when mining) its global warming potential is much worse than similar quantities of CO2 (about 21 times as much). A good example of Chinese energy policy that will increase emissions is the pursuit of coal-to-liquid (CTL) technologies, that create liquids that have a larger carbon footprint than ordinary petroleum types (but good for energy security in China’s case).