China’s giant ultra-high voltage grid is ambitious as its high speed rail

Ultra-high voltage energy grids are needed for efficient power transmission across large distances.

A 100 mile (160 km) power line at 765 kilovolt carrying 1000 MW of power can have losses of 1.1% to 0.5%. A 345-kilovolt line carrying the same load across the same distance has losses of 4.2%. China’s 1.1 megavolt line can have power losses that 10 to 20 times less than 345 kilovolt lines.

1.1 megavolt transformer

ABB helped create the 1.1 megavolt transformers and key equipment for world’s first 1,100 kilovolt (kV) project in China.

When fully operational the UHVDC link will be capable of transporting 12,000 megawatts of electricity over a distance of 3,000 km from the Xinjiang region in the Northwest, to Anhui province in eastern China. This vast amount of electricity is equivalent to twice the average annual power consumption of Switzerland.

Asia Super-grid

China’s State Grid company switched on its first million-volt alternating current line in 2009 and the world’s inaugural 800,000-volt direct current line in 2010. State Grid is now by far the world’s biggest builder of these lines. By the end of 2017, 21 ultra-high-voltage lines had been completed in the country, with four more under construction.

If the world wants to move energy around on a continental scale then ultra-high voltage grids are needed.

China’s high voltage grid will be nearly 23,000 miles long. It will be able to deliver about 150 gigawatts of electricity. This is roughly the output of 150 nuclear reactors.

At the end of 2017, China had invested least 400 billion yuan ($57 billion) into the projects. In September, China said it will sign off on 12 new ultra-high-voltage projects by the end of 2019.

In a study published in Nature in 2016, Clack found that using high-voltage direct-current lines to integrate the US grid could cut electricity emissions to 80% below 1990 levels within 15 years.

Chairman Zhenya served as Chairman and CEO of China State Grid (the world’s largest electric utility) from 2004 to 2016 and currently serves as Chairman of Global Energy Interconnection Development and Cooperation Organization (GEIDCO) and Chairman of the China Electricity Council (CEC). Zhenya has described how China plans to connect China and Asia with a massive ultra-high voltage energy grid.

State Grid has signed a deal with Korea Electric Power, Japan’s Softbank, and Russian power company Rosseti to collaborate on the development of a Northeast Asian supergrid connecting those nations and Mongolia.

Feasibility studies show that grid connections between Mongolia, China, Korea, and Japan, as well as a route between Russia and Japan, are both technically and economically feasible.

China could place coal or nuclear power generation in the Gobi desert and then transmit the power to Korea, Japan and the coastal areas of China. Natural gas power could be generated by Russia in Siberia and transmitted to other countries in Asia. Massive solar and wind farms could also be built in Mongolia and Siberia.

Less than half of the ultra-high-voltage lines built or planned to date in China are intended to transmit electricity from renewable sources, according to a late-2017.

State Grid’s main target markets are in poor countries where fossil-fuel plants dominate and Chinese companies are busy building hundreds of new coal plants. So there’s little reason to expect that any ultra-high-voltage lines built there would primarily carry energy from renewable sources anytime soon.

182 thoughts on “China’s giant ultra-high voltage grid is ambitious as its high speed rail”

  1. Connecting with Japan, North and South Korea and China makes ecomic sense. But there’s also a lot of undeniable friction among them.This may turn out to be a bonding experience or the reverse, give the political hatred they have for each other. It would be optimistic to even think this could go smoothly.

    Reply
  2. On which evidence do you state that trial by jury is the only effective way to be tried? Do you any evidence that judges are do corrupted? Please post evidence here

    as for your statement that 40% of Americans “can come up with $400” is such a blatant and misinformed statement that I do not even want to discuss about this
    Either you are an idhiot or a paid troll by the Chinese govt.

    Reply
  3. Define “competent ” criminal attorney.

    Criminal attorneys are everywhere you can hire them paying them

    Cost is market cost.

    If you are too poor, and I bet most of the people under trial HAVE at leasst SOME money to pay a decent criminal attorney, you will be given one by office

    And you said over 2 million people WAITING for trial .
    This is a utter lie

    You should stop lying other wise I will have to make another wall for you like I did for great troll Warren the APe

    Luca Mazza

    Reply
  4. Have you ever had to defend yourself in a criminal action?

    Do you know what it costs to hire a competent criminal attorney?

    How many of our 2,000,000 prisoners have that kind of money?

    How many received a trial by jury?

    Reply
  5. 2 millions without trial!!!??
    Oh you are ruiniing your reputation here.
    Really
    I have to start to think that you are just a troll, dude

    Reply
  6. What you don’t know is that China has the best technology in the world to reduce
    the emission of coal plant, which is 1 10th of a European plant. And yes China emits more and has smaller economy than the US, but ask yourself what China produce for the World and what the US does. And also, comparing emission per capita is fairer.

    Reply
  7. I did look up Operation Menu, turns out I knew what it referred to, expansion of the Vietnam War by bombing North Vietnamese bases in Cambodia (without informing the American People), I just didn’t know the code name until now. And this is relevant how? By the way, just for some context, while Operation Menu was going on, China was in the depths of the Cultural Revolution, the death toll of which ranges from a low estimate of 400,000 to as many as 10 million source: wikipedia. org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

    As to Goat Guy, my interactions with him have indeed been friendly. And FYI, just a helpful hint, if you are trying to call someone an “idiot”, it really helps if you don’t misspell it.

    Reply
  8. “Nobody was killed or injured in Tiananmen Square. Survival was 100%. most are willing to talk and many have.”

    Try 10,000 dead. Source: bbc. com/news/world-asia-china-42465516

    As to Awlaki, he joined up with Al-Queda in Yemen and was killed by a drone strike there. Hardly comparable with the creation of a Chinese version of the gulag system.

    As far as your character assassination of Liu Xiaobo, what he was like or believed doesn’t matter, what does matter is that the Chinese government held him prisoner while he was dying of cancer just because they didn’t like what he had to say.

    “And, for good measure, China is a genuine democracy, not a fake one.”

    You keep using that word (democracy), I don’t think it means what you think it means. China has never been a democracy of any sort and, under Xi, it is becoming more and more dictatorial.

    “Don’t believe me? Read ‘Selling Democracy to the Chinese’ .”

    Look what happened when I plugged that into a search engine, this is the first link I got: unz. com/article/selling-democracy-to-china/ So, in effect it seems that you are saying is “If you don’t believe me, read this article (which I also wrote)”. Here’s a hint for you, saying the same shit in two different places doesn’t increase its credibility any.

    Reply
  9. Means little
    Most americans own either a big car, or a house or both.
    If there is an emergency they can sell any of them
    Home ownership is at above 60% no.w
    Or they can request a loan etc

    Reply
  10. Fewer than 2% of incarcerated Americans received a trial by jury. Check the stats.

    How many people–not just criminals–do you know who can come up with $50,000 cash to defend themselves? According the the Federal Reserve, 40% of Americans (and I’m guessing that that includes 99% of criminals) can come up with $400.

    Reply
  11. “Nobody was killed or injured in Tiananmen Square. Survival was 100%. most are willing to talk and many have. ”

    Quite a few lies here

    https : // en.wikipedia . org / wiki / 1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests

    “The number of civilian deaths has been estimated variously from 180 to 10,454”

    And I was alive when this happened

    Many are willing to talk and have

    ??

    Then why the whole thing is blocked when you access it from China?

    Just asking..

    Reply
  12. the minor group of aggressive leaders were American employees, including the not-so-aggressive Mr. Liu, whose lifetime earnings were over $2,000,000. He even boasted of it.

    Reply
  13. Mm.. reading your sources it turns out the US had a standing army of about 200000 people
    If I read it well.
    I do not know what and how big was the Portoguese army in 1939 but now it stands at 35K
    Regards

    Reply
  14. Read the Tiananmen article. Nobody was killed or injured in Tiananmen Square. See if you can refute a single fact.

    Al Awlaki was executed by order of President Obama for preaching Wahabbist nonsense. What’s so hard to grasp about that?

    Out of 2,000,000 Americans currently imprisoned without trial, how may are dying of cancer? How many receive the kind of medical treatment Liu got?

    China–by any measure–is a democracy and, by the stats, the most successful on earth. Read the article and address the facts.

    Reply
  15. Means little Most americans own either a big car, or a house or both. If there is an emergency they can sell any of them Home ownership is at above 60% no.w Or they can request a loan etc

    Reply
  16. I don’t speculate about effectiveness. I merely state the facts.I understated the proportion of Americans without enough money to defend themselves. Here’s the figure:62% of Americans Have Less Than $1,000 in Savings.

    Reply
  17. It is not my website: it is run by the publisher of the American Conservative.I do not quote myself. In fact, I quote the CIA and other authorities. Here’s the link again:

    Reply
  18. On which evidence do you state that trial by jury is the only effective way to be tried? Do you any evidence that judges are do corrupted? Please post evidence here as for your statement that 40% of Americans “can come up with $400” is such a blatant and misinformed statement that I do not even want to discuss about this Either you are an idhiot or a paid troll by the Chinese govt.

    Reply
  19. Fewer than 2% of incarcerated Americans received a trial by jury. Check the stats.How many people–not just criminals–do you know who can come up with $50,000 cash to defend themselves? According the the Federal Reserve, 40% of Americans (and I’m guessing that that includes 99% of criminals) can come up with $400.

    Reply
  20. I quote Wikipedia frequently but, since it represents the mainstream American POV, only when appropriate. It is wildly inaccurate when describing anything to do with American adversaries, that’s why I rely on original research.Here is the original research: Refute it if you can.

    Reply
  21. Define “competent ” criminal attorney. Criminal attorneys are everywhere you can hire them paying them Cost is market cost. If you are too poor, and I bet most of the people under trial HAVE at leasst SOME money to pay a decent criminal attorney, you will be given one by office And you said over 2 million people WAITING for trial . This is a utter lie You should stop lying other wise I will have to make another wall for you like I did for great troll Warren the APe Luca Mazza

    Reply
  22. “Nobody was killed or injured in Tiananmen Square. Survival was 100%. most are willing to talk and many have. “Quite a few lies here https : // en.wikipedia . org / wiki / 1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests”The number of civilian deaths has been estimated variously from 180 to 10,454″And I was alive when this happenedMany are willing to talk and have ??Then why the whole thing is blocked when you access it from China? Just asking..

    Reply
  23. the minor group of aggressive leaders were American employees, including the not-so-aggressive Mr. Liu, whose lifetime earnings were over $2,000,000. He even boasted of it.

    Reply
  24. Have you ever had to defend yourself in a criminal action?Do you know what it costs to hire a competent criminal attorney?How many of our 2,000,000 prisoners have that kind of money?How many received a trial by jury?

    Reply
  25. Mm.. reading your sources it turns out the US had a standing army of about 200000 people If I read it well. I do not know what and how big was the Portoguese army in 1939 but now it stands at 35KRegards

    Reply
  26. And you think it is OK to “expand” the operations into neutral countries? This is war criminal thing dude think again dude , please You are supporting war crimes And I mispelled that word just not to be censored by vuukle

    Reply
  27. 2 millions without trial!!!?? Oh you are ruiniing your reputation here. ReallyI have to start to think that you are just a troll, dude

    Reply
  28. On which evidence do you state that trial by jury is the only effective way to be tried? Do you any evidence that judges are do corrupted? Please post evidence here

    as for your statement that 40% of Americans “can come up with $400” is such a blatant and misinformed statement that I do not even want to discuss about this
    Either you are an idhiot or a paid troll by the Chinese govt.

    Reply
  29. Fewer than 2% of incarcerated Americans received a trial by jury. Check the stats.

    How many people–not just criminals–do you know who can come up with $50,000 cash to defend themselves? According the the Federal Reserve, 40% of Americans (and I’m guessing that that includes 99% of criminals) can come up with $400.

    Reply
  30. Define “competent ” criminal attorney.

    Criminal attorneys are everywhere you can hire them paying them

    Cost is market cost.

    If you are too poor, and I bet most of the people under trial HAVE at leasst SOME money to pay a decent criminal attorney, you will be given one by office

    And you said over 2 million people WAITING for trial .
    This is a utter lie

    You should stop lying other wise I will have to make another wall for you like I did for great troll Warren the APe

    Luca Mazza

    Reply
  31. “Nobody was killed or injured in Tiananmen Square. Survival was 100%. most are willing to talk and many have. ”

    Quite a few lies here

    https : // en.wikipedia . org / wiki / 1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests

    “The number of civilian deaths has been estimated variously from 180 to 10,454”

    And I was alive when this happened

    Many are willing to talk and have

    ??

    Then why the whole thing is blocked when you access it from China?

    Just asking..

    Reply
  32. Have you ever had to defend yourself in a criminal action?

    Do you know what it costs to hire a competent criminal attorney?

    How many of our 2,000,000 prisoners have that kind of money?

    How many received a trial by jury?

    Reply
  33. What you don’t know is that China has the best technology in the world to reduce the emission of coal plant, which is 1 10th of a European plant. And yes China emits more and has smaller economy than the US, but ask yourself what China produce for the World and what the US does. And also, comparing emission per capita is fairer.

    Reply
  34. What you don’t know is that China has the best technology in the world to reduce
    the emission of coal plant, which is 1 10th of a European plant. And yes China emits more and has smaller economy than the US, but ask yourself what China produce for the World and what the US does. And also, comparing emission per capita is fairer.

    Reply
  35. Read the Tiananmen article. Nobody was killed or injured in Tiananmen Square. See if you can refute a single fact.Al Awlaki was executed by order of President Obama for preaching Wahabbist nonsense. What’s so hard to grasp about that?Out of 2,000,000 Americans currently imprisoned without trial, how may are dying of cancer? How many receive the kind of medical treatment Liu got?China–by any measure–is a democracy and, by the stats, the most successful on earth. Read the article and address the facts.

    Reply
  36. I did look up Operation Menu, turns out I knew what it referred to, expansion of the Vietnam War by bombing North Vietnamese bases in Cambodia (without informing the American People), I just didn’t know the code name until now. And this is relevant how? By the way, just for some context, while Operation Menu was going on, China was in the depths of the Cultural Revolution, the death toll of which ranges from a low estimate of 400,000 to as many as 10 million source: wikipedia. org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution As to Goat Guy, my interactions with him have indeed been friendly. And FYI, just a helpful hint, if you are trying to call someone an “idiot”, it really helps if you don’t misspell it.

    Reply
  37. “Nobody was killed or injured in Tiananmen Square. Survival was 100%. most are willing to talk and many have.”Try 10,000 dead. Source: bbc. com/news/world-asia-china-42465516 As to Awlaki, he joined up with Al-Queda in Yemen and was killed by a drone strike there. Hardly comparable with the creation of a Chinese version of the gulag system.As far as your character assassination of Liu Xiaobo, what he was like or believed doesn’t matter, what does matter is that the Chinese government held him prisoner while he was dying of cancer just because they didn’t like what he had to say.”And, for good measure, China is a genuine democracy, not a fake one.”You keep using that word (democracy), I don’t think it means what you think it means. China has never been a democracy of any sort and, under Xi, it is becoming more and more dictatorial.”Don’t believe me? Read ‘Selling Democracy to the Chinese’ .”Look what happened when I plugged that into a search engine, this is the first link I got: unz. com/article/selling-democracy-to-china/ So, in effect it seems that you are saying is “If you don’t believe me, read this article (which I also wrote)”. Here’s a hint for you, saying the same shit in two different places doesn’t increase its credibility any.

    Reply
  38. Read the Tiananmen article. Nobody was killed or injured in Tiananmen Square. See if you can refute a single fact.

    Al Awlaki was executed by order of President Obama for preaching Wahabbist nonsense. What’s so hard to grasp about that?

    Out of 2,000,000 Americans currently imprisoned without trial, how may are dying of cancer? How many receive the kind of medical treatment Liu got?

    China–by any measure–is a democracy and, by the stats, the most successful on earth. Read the article and address the facts.

    Reply
  39. I did look up Operation Menu, turns out I knew what it referred to, expansion of the Vietnam War by bombing North Vietnamese bases in Cambodia (without informing the American People), I just didn’t know the code name until now. And this is relevant how? By the way, just for some context, while Operation Menu was going on, China was in the depths of the Cultural Revolution, the death toll of which ranges from a low estimate of 400,000 to as many as 10 million source: wikipedia. org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

    As to Goat Guy, my interactions with him have indeed been friendly. And FYI, just a helpful hint, if you are trying to call someone an “idiot”, it really helps if you don’t misspell it.

    Reply
  40. “Nobody was killed or injured in Tiananmen Square. Survival was 100%. most are willing to talk and many have.”

    Try 10,000 dead. Source: bbc. com/news/world-asia-china-42465516

    As to Awlaki, he joined up with Al-Queda in Yemen and was killed by a drone strike there. Hardly comparable with the creation of a Chinese version of the gulag system.

    As far as your character assassination of Liu Xiaobo, what he was like or believed doesn’t matter, what does matter is that the Chinese government held him prisoner while he was dying of cancer just because they didn’t like what he had to say.

    “And, for good measure, China is a genuine democracy, not a fake one.”

    You keep using that word (democracy), I don’t think it means what you think it means. China has never been a democracy of any sort and, under Xi, it is becoming more and more dictatorial.

    “Don’t believe me? Read ‘Selling Democracy to the Chinese’ .”

    Look what happened when I plugged that into a search engine, this is the first link I got: unz. com/article/selling-democracy-to-china/ So, in effect it seems that you are saying is “If you don’t believe me, read this article (which I also wrote)”. Here’s a hint for you, saying the same shit in two different places doesn’t increase its credibility any.

    Reply
  41. I will make a small correction of my assertion, due to re-examining my sources, The US Army was smaller than that of Portugal at the *start* of World War 2. By the time that the US actually entered the War Dec. 8, 1941, OTOH, the “bulk up” procedure was already well under way and the US Army had already grown to something like 1.5 million. This, I would assert, changes nothing about my overall point, I’m just a stickler for accuracy.

    Reply
  42. I don’t mind showing my sources: politifact. com /texas/statements/2014/jun/13/ken-paxton/us-army-was-smaller-army-portugal-world-war-ii/ and here is where they got it: history. army. mil/html/books/070/70-57/CMH_Pub_70-57. pdf (the size of the army at the start of WWII is on page 3) What most people nowadays don’t know (because its largely beyond living memory, so knowing this requires familiarity with US history, rather than memory) is that from the outset, the US had paranoia about maintaining a standing army. Part of this was due to what I regard as hype about the role of the militia in winning the Revolution, the rest of this was from concern that a demagogue might use a standing army as a tool to become a dictator. The remainder of this was down to their appreciation of just how logistically difficult invading somewhere across an ocean really is, so all the potential sources of threat would not likely be emboldened by the lack of a large US army. As a result, the pattern was that when America did go to war (1812, Mexican-American War, the Civil War, Spanish American War, World Wars I & II), we would invariably have to “bulk up”, as I put it, the relatively tiny army that would exist between wars. A side effect of this is that we would go to war unprepared, at the cost of the lives of many US soldiers at the outset of conflicts. The unexpected outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 demonstrated that engaging in the Cold War meant having a large standing army, and we have yet to revert to a pre-Cold War posture, nor do I expect that any time soon.

    Reply
  43. I will make a small correction of my assertion, due to re-examining my sources, The US Army was smaller than that of Portugal at the *start* of World War 2. By the time that the US actually entered the War Dec. 8, 1941, OTOH, the “bulk up” procedure was already well under way and the US Army had already grown to something like 1.5 million. This, I would assert, changes nothing about my overall point, I’m just a stickler for accuracy.

    Reply
  44. I don’t mind showing my sources: politifact. com /texas/statements/2014/jun/13/ken-paxton/us-army-was-smaller-army-portugal-world-war-ii/ and here is where they got it: history. army. mil/html/books/070/70-57/CMH_Pub_70-57. pdf (the size of the army at the start of WWII is on page 3) What most people nowadays don’t know (because its largely beyond living memory, so knowing this requires familiarity with US history, rather than memory) is that from the outset, the US had paranoia about maintaining a standing army. Part of this was due to what I regard as hype about the role of the militia in winning the Revolution, the rest of this was from concern that a demagogue might use a standing army as a tool to become a dictator. The remainder of this was down to their appreciation of just how logistically difficult invading somewhere across an ocean really is, so all the potential sources of threat would not likely be emboldened by the lack of a large US army.

    As a result, the pattern was that when America did go to war (1812, Mexican-American War, the Civil War, Spanish American War, World Wars I & II), we would invariably have to “bulk up”, as I put it, the relatively tiny army that would exist between wars. A side effect of this is that we would go to war unprepared, at the cost of the lives of many US soldiers at the outset of conflicts. The unexpected outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 demonstrated that engaging in the Cold War meant having a large standing army, and we have yet to revert to a pre-Cold War posture, nor do I expect that any time soon.

    Reply
  45. When you have 1 billion people and a poor struggling country back in 89……. It’s not hard to both find and entice 100 million youth student leaders to riot aggressively against their gov. But today the younger generation are fiercely more protective of their gov. Defensive even. A very different generation who is actually optimistic of China. As they saw a different china develop and improve. It appears that humans do tend to support regimes that make them richer. Real Democracy of 1.4 billion people means not everyone can be happy. Ie. 200 million would be displeased while the majority is happy. Plus making 1.4 billion people manage their already poor country means trusting that all.1.4 billion are ideally skilled in macro economics, science policies and truth is, that is a tall order. _______________In a sense, China is a democracy of sorts. At least among the 75 million people who are party members. The vanguard of the proletariat, the CPC, is the one who choose their leaders. They do it through party elections among CPC members. The key differences between the CPC and the West, who is allowed to vote and openness. The CPC restricts voting for those in political power to 15% of the adult population who are CPC members (75 ~80 Million People). Although not a Western style multiparty democracy, its still a democracy. If you where to argue otherwise then a CPC member they would say its not true.Democracy, as it turns out, lacks the imcentive for long term or higher order imperatives. Having to win the public sometime involve making promises that appeal to the masses just to get elected, that may not even be the best for America in the big picture. But in the interest for the short term of the candidates political career. To be popular. And who cares for the future if it doesn’t help your political career. Hence there are pros and cons. Personally I would prefer to live in a democracy as knowing that I have a voice even if its diluted by the majority, is still better. But America is more divided among right wing republicans and left wing democrats. And neither are willing to give each other an inch and compromise. And riots have already caused deaths and violence. It’s not as cut dry as people make it out to be. Plenty of issues with both ideologies that need to be reformed and a perfect government seems impossible among human beings Purely because we all have differing opinions and do not all agree on major issues. __________A dictatorship is obviously not an answer but democracy is a fallacy that ignores the reality that a, democracy is only as good and competent as its people. When they are united.

    Reply
  46. Nobody was killed or injured in Tiananmen Square. Survival was 100%. most are willing to talk and many have. The Chinese Uyghurs should be glad they’re not American citizens. For preaching the same kind of Wahabbist extremism, in 2011 President Obama ordered the execution of Anwar al Awlaki, an American extremist preacher and separately executed al Awlaki, his sixteen-year-old son and eight-year-old daughter, without trial. Liu Xiaobo? both physically and psychologically”, that “most Chinese university students and graduate students were ‘garbage’”.Most Chinese remember him as a colonialist, who maintained undoubtedly that China needed to be a colony for 300 years to have a “real change” and was better to be separated into 18 regions.Most Chinese remember him as lazy. Instead of taking the reformist path and leading governance experiments he simply stirred up trouble by advocating impractical ideas.Most Chinese remember him as a traitor, who asserted righteously, “I am the ungrateful child digging out the graves of his ancestors, and I am proud of being such a child”.Most Chinese remember him as a criminal, who led the 1989 political turmoil that bloodwashed Tian’anmen and caused severe social unrest.Most Chinese remember him as a mercenary who took $2 million from the US government to slander his own country.Most Chinese remember him as a clown, whose meticulously-schemed shows were immensely ridiculed by his fellow Chinese and would go down history as a laughable stain.Most Chinese remember him as a warmonger who praised the Iraq war and George Bush for attacking Iraq.And, for good measure, China is a genuine democracy, not a fake one. No matter how you slice it–constitutionally, electively, popularly, procedurally, operationally, substantively financially, even theocratically–China comes out ahead. In survey after survey, it’s the most trusted government in the world and its policies enjoy the highest support. Don’t believe me? Read ‘Selling Democracy to the Chinese’ .

    Reply
  47. Nobody was killed or injured in Tiananmen Square. Survival was 100%. most are willing to talk and many have. http://www.unz.com/article/tiananmen-square-1989-revisited/

    The Chinese Uyghurs should be glad they’re not American citizens. For preaching the same kind of Wahabbist extremism, in 2011 President Obama ordered the execution of Anwar al Awlaki, an American extremist preacher and separately executed al Awlaki, his sixteen-year-old son and eight-year-old daughter, without trial.

    Liu Xiaobo? both physically and psychologically”, that “most Chinese university students and graduate students were ‘garbage’”.
    Most Chinese remember him as a colonialist, who maintained undoubtedly that China needed to be a colony for 300 years to have a “real change” and was better to be separated into 18 regions.
    Most Chinese remember him as lazy. Instead of taking the reformist path and leading governance experiments he simply stirred up trouble by advocating impractical ideas.
    Most Chinese remember him as a traitor, who asserted righteously, “I am the ungrateful child digging out the graves of his ancestors, and I am proud of being such a child”.
    Most Chinese remember him as a criminal, who led the 1989 political turmoil that bloodwashed Tian’anmen and caused severe social unrest.
    Most Chinese remember him as a mercenary who took $2 million from the US government to slander his own country.
    Most Chinese remember him as a clown, whose meticulously-schemed shows were immensely ridiculed by his fellow Chinese and would go down history as a laughable stain.
    Most Chinese remember him as a warmonger who praised the Iraq war and George Bush for attacking Iraq.

    And, for good measure, China is a genuine democracy, not a fake one.

    No matter how you slice it–constitutionally, electively, popularly, procedurally, operationally, substantively financially, even theocratically–China comes out ahead. In survey after survey, it’s the most trusted government in the world and its policies enjoy the highest support. Don’t believe me? Read ‘Selling Democracy to the Chinese’ https://www.unz.com/article/selling-democracy-to-china/.

    Reply
  48. premier for life? are you misled or try to mislead others? In HK, law-makers can work for life if are continuously elected. Why can be a premier? In USA supreme court justice can work for life, based on what reasons? I like to know the difference.

    Reply
  49. one famous student leader in Tiananmen Square in 1989 said (after 20+ years) that they supposed to be moderate, just like many other demonstrations, eventually it was kidnapped by the minor group of aggressive leaders.

    Reply
  50. You are really an idiout. Please be friend with Goat Guy. Start to google Operation Menu and then you will understadn how idihot you are

    Reply
  51. How much Trump and Obama got, as a % of the total eleorate? Probably 25% Democracies tend to work? Really?China grows 7% per year, Poland much less .. India is filghy poor

    Reply
  52. the US entered World War 2 with an Army that barely made the top 20 in the World, smaller than that of Portugal (the US bulked fast, of course). Sorry I do not buy this

    Reply
  53. Connecting with Japan, North and South Korea and China makes ecomic sense. But there’s also a lot of undeniable friction among them.This may turn out to be a bonding experience or the reverse, give the political hatred they have for each other. It would be optimistic to even think this could go smoothly.

    Reply
  54. People always talk about the “middle income trap” but there is an even more tricky* “upper income trap”.Once you’ve caught up to the leading edge of technology and economic development, you can’t just copy anymore, or even “copy and improve, and skip the (obvious in hindsight) local maxima” that Japan managed during the 1980s. You now need to actually work out new stuff**, and that seems REALLY HARD.Everyone points to Japan, but another example might be Britain. Since about WWI they’ve been hovering at “a bit behind the USA” on a per capita basis. Every generation or so they seem to get their act together, start catching up… and then run into social strains that cause their politics to get weirder and weirder until their economy grinds to a slow crawl again.*It is, of course, much more pleasant to be “stuck” at a high, but not top, income than it is to be stuck at a middle income. But it’s still a strain on the system given that our (ie. 21st century developed countries) level of social spending sort of needs a good growth rate just to stay solvent.**In this context, “new stuff” doesn’t mean “a better way to make a cheap mobile phone” but it means “the next, new big thing that will make mobile phones seem quaint.”

    Reply
  55. premier for life? are you misled or try to mislead others? In HK, law-makers can work for life if are continuously elected. Why can be a premier? In USA supreme court justice can work for life, based on what reasons? I like to know the difference.

    Reply
  56. I was one of the ones who was also hoping that as China developed, it would also liberalize. Alas, Xi seems to be taking them in the exact opposite of that direction. As to China’s foreign policy missteps, they are in the process of learning what the US learned a long time ago (I explicitly exempt the current US President from this as he, seemingly, never learns anything), that when you are the Big Dog, other nations naturally tend to interpret your foreign policy moves uncharitably. My take is that China’s own internal narrative about having regained its “natural” status that was “unjustly”denied it for over 2 centuries, tended to interfere with the perception that others, particularly China’s neighbors, don’t perceive things the same way. Compounding this was what I regard as tactical errors they made. To wit, doing the “sharp elbow” thing to all of your neighbors simultaneously is a great way to drive them towards closer cooperation to contain you. This at a time when the century of bad blood between Japan and Korea, for example, might otherwise have made it easy to drive a wedge between them.

    Reply
  57. one famous student leader in Tiananmen Square in 1989 said (after 20+ years) that they supposed to be moderate, just like many other demonstrations, eventually it was kidnapped by the minor group of aggressive leaders.

    Reply
  58. The energy picture in China is mixed, on the one hand they are pushing renewable energy very hard, as you say. On the other, China is building coal fired plants on a large scale, whereas the US is retiring those coal plants which hit end of life. China, whose economy is still smaller than the US has now surpassed the US as the World’s biggest emitter of CO2. The reason that this picture makes sense is the relative maturity of the energy markets in the two countries (and the emergence of cheap natural gas in the US, due to fracking). In the US, the energy infrastructure is largely built out and the sunk costs involved make running the existing infrastructure the low cost option. Where existing coal plants can no longer be run, natural gas gives solar and wind a run for their money in the competition to replace it. The silver lining here is that since natural gas is significantly less CO2 intensive than coal, even replacing the coal plant with gas turbines still represents a net decrease in CO2 emissions. China, OTOH, is still building to meet its growing power needs, this means they are bringing lots of new renewable power AND coal plants on line. The amount of coal power has had a salutary effect on the thinking of the Chinese leadership, I think, in that they not only emit massive amounts of CO2 but also lots of particulates and regardless of whether the leadership cares about the ordinary folk, they also have to breathe air they can see. That helps them “get religion” about cleaner energy. I do expect the United States to transition to renewables it is just likely to be more stretched out with natural gas as a transition step.As to competition for the World’s top dog, I suspect that China having the same transition from world-beater to nation becalmed that Japan experienced around 1990 to be a best-case scenario for them to understand why I make this assertion, here’s a good video: youtube. com/ watch?v=Fg7jIjmLyWs

    Reply
  59. There have been a few major outages cause by lightning strikes. The 1977 NYC blackout was caused by a lightning strike. Because of this utilities like to spin up in city reserve and reduce their imports.

    Reply
  60. People always talk about the “middle income trap” but there is an even more tricky* “upper income trap”.
    Once you’ve caught up to the leading edge of technology and economic development, you can’t just copy anymore, or even “copy and improve, and skip the (obvious in hindsight) local maxima” that Japan managed during the 1980s. You now need to actually work out new stuff**, and that seems REALLY HARD.

    Everyone points to Japan, but another example might be Britain. Since about WWI they’ve been hovering at “a bit behind the USA” on a per capita basis. Every generation or so they seem to get their act together, start catching up… and then run into social strains that cause their politics to get weirder and weirder until their economy grinds to a slow crawl again.

    *It is, of course, much more pleasant to be “stuck” at a high, but not top, income than it is to be stuck at a middle income. But it’s still a strain on the system given that our (ie. 21st century developed countries) level of social spending sort of needs a good growth rate just to stay solvent.

    **In this context, “new stuff” doesn’t mean “a better way to make a cheap mobile phone” but it means “the next, new big thing that will make mobile phones seem quaint.”

    Reply
  61. I was one of the ones who was also hoping that as China developed, it would also liberalize. Alas, Xi seems to be taking them in the exact opposite of that direction. As to China’s foreign policy missteps, they are in the process of learning what the US learned a long time ago (I explicitly exempt the current US President from this as he, seemingly, never learns anything), that when you are the Big Dog, other nations naturally tend to interpret your foreign policy moves uncharitably.

    My take is that China’s own internal narrative about having regained its “natural” status that was “unjustly”denied it for over 2 centuries, tended to interfere with the perception that others, particularly China’s neighbors, don’t perceive things the same way. Compounding this was what I regard as tactical errors they made. To wit, doing the “sharp elbow” thing to all of your neighbors simultaneously is a great way to drive them towards closer cooperation to contain you. This at a time when the century of bad blood between Japan and Korea, for example, might otherwise have made it easy to drive a wedge between them.

    Reply
  62. The energy picture in China is mixed, on the one hand they are pushing renewable energy very hard, as you say. On the other, China is building coal fired plants on a large scale, whereas the US is retiring those coal plants which hit end of life. China, whose economy is still smaller than the US has now surpassed the US as the World’s biggest emitter of CO2. The reason that this picture makes sense is the relative maturity of the energy markets in the two countries (and the emergence of cheap natural gas in the US, due to fracking). In the US, the energy infrastructure is largely built out and the sunk costs involved make running the existing infrastructure the low cost option. Where existing coal plants can no longer be run, natural gas gives solar and wind a run for their money in the competition to replace it. The silver lining here is that since natural gas is significantly less CO2 intensive than coal, even replacing the coal plant with gas turbines still represents a net decrease in CO2 emissions. China, OTOH, is still building to meet its growing power needs, this means they are bringing lots of new renewable power AND coal plants on line. The amount of coal power has had a salutary effect on the thinking of the Chinese leadership, I think, in that they not only emit massive amounts of CO2 but also lots of particulates and regardless of whether the leadership cares about the ordinary folk, they also have to breathe air they can see. That helps them “get religion” about cleaner energy. I do expect the United States to transition to renewables it is just likely to be more stretched out with natural gas as a transition step.

    As to competition for the World’s top dog, I suspect that China having the same transition from world-beater to nation becalmed that Japan experienced around 1990 to be a best-case scenario for them to understand why I make this assertion, here’s a good video: youtube. com/ watch?v=Fg7jIjmLyWs

    Reply
  63. There have been a few major outages cause by lightning strikes. The 1977 NYC blackout was caused by a lightning strike. Because of this utilities like to spin up in city reserve and reduce their imports.

    Reply
  64. You don’t make it more comprehensible by making it wrong. That way leads to main stream journalism and legislating pi=3.100 TWh per year. How difficult is that?

    Reply
  65. Deng Xi Pong, was the Chinese Premier, in the 1989 Tiananmen incident, he had been in a gulag and the protester, who was negotiating with him, was shouting at him. Wish he hadn’t felt the need, to shout. Xi Jin Ping, made himself premier for life, I admire the Chinese solar and electric vehicles, manned moon mission, Belt Road, High Speed Rail programs. But I to, wish China was a democracy without adventures in the South China Sea and on the Indian border, those last 2 have cost them Indian high speed railways projects and Australian 5G mobile phone contracts.

    Reply
  66. What makes China better, is that with the same sized economy, as the USA, it has 3 times as much solar power, 3X as many electric vehicles, the current USA reduction, in unemployment, is because unconventional hydrocarbons, have fixed its dependency, on Middle Eastern oil. But if the USA doesn’t shift to solar, at 20% of the price per kWh in 2030, it won’t be able to match China, in arms spending, please catch up USA, I like democracy, free press, free markets, a free market of ideas.

    Reply
  67. Makes sense, 1/4 of the worlds deserts alone, can provide 25 times, our current consumption of power, at 1/8th of the price per kWh, in 2030, Australian, Gobi, Sahara, Spanish, Atacalma, US, Indian, desert solar power, is time shifted, sufficiently. By the by, the price per kWh, went down to 1/10th, in the last 8 years, 2010-18, so I’m being conservative, 20% less improvement, in 20% more time, so only 60% of the current rate of progress, to be 20% of the price per kWh, in 2030.It would cost less, than the upgrade, of Belt Road, to high speed rail, as cheap, as a cable car around the world, we already have national, regional, overseas power cables, I’m in Tasmania Australia, we get some of our power from the mainland. We only have 500,000 citizens and it’s economical. Australia, is planning a 20 GW solar farm, in the Pilbara desert, to export the power, to Indonesia and SE Asia.

    Reply
  68. The achilles heel is local grid capacity, and then the national grid. In very broad strokes, replacing all ICE’s (only gasoline powered) in the U.S. with EV will increase power demand by about a third. Mohammed Beshir at USC has done some very good studies around EV adoption rate and grid impact. Anyhow, so everything depends on how many EVs are bought and where. If you get the “keeping up with the Joneses” fast adoption in a populous neighborhood, there will be brownouts and power cuts for sure. Utilities will scramble to add new transformers and then have to add capacity too. But only if customers are willing to pay for it. A really big “if”.Then you have the national grid. There is absolutely no way the entire grid could handle a 30% increase in demand between now and 2023. The capacity build-out rate is not even close. Already today, the California net demand is about 750Gwh per day and generation is 550Gwh, the deficit is interchanged. Nationally, daily power production is about 10,000Gwh. However, the total supply of electric power in the U.S. has decreased in the past 10 years!In 2007 it was 4,208 Twh and in 2017 it was 4,100 Twh power supplied. As you know, utilities run full-tilt, more or less when needed, so no “idle” power capacity. In places like Texas, the power gen is almost the same 24/7 while in Cali you get a 20% decrease in the 2-4 am slot (Ca doesn’t have a relative big industrial base). So what will happen, I think, is that capacity will not keep up with demand. A build-out cost is huge. Bigger than big. And this is a capital/equity resource problem. There is simply no investor appetite. The returns on large-scale power gen is terrible compared to long term investment grade bonds. The only way to make the economics work is for the taxpayer to fork out money, i.e., public utilities that make a loss. Or, double the price of electricity. You also need to factor in charging stations, yada yada. Or, spend a few trillion at the federal level. You also need to put the new power gen plants somewhere. I think NIMBY is a big hurdle. Then you have the time it takes to physically build out capacity (and given the environmental impact regs in Ca you can forget out that).In other words, it will be far cheaper to pay for energy at the pump than at home via the electric cord. EVs will be the big test of the future U.S. energy policy (not that we have one to begin with). Beshir and others think that the tipping point is when EV’s account for about 15% of the national car fleet, but with severe local power problems locally way before that (if everyone in SanFran gets one, it will be lights out). The Chinese have figured all this out. They will just ration out EV’s to fit power gen capacity, and in the meantime build out the grid, damm the torpedos.

    Reply
  69. Clack is the guy who was sued by Mark Jacobson for not being bullish enough on renewables – even though he founded a centre that gives free forecasts for wind and solar developers. Clack criticised Jacobson’s ‘ nothing but wind, sun and water power ‘ paper, and ended up in court for his trouble. The people who have actually cut electricity emissions by 80% in 15 years, rather than writing dodgy papers about how to do it, were the French. By building nukes.

    Reply
  70. Yes, they could have said ‘ the UHVDC link will be capable of transporting 105,120,000 megawatt hours a year ‘- much more comprehensible 🙂

    Reply
  71. ‘.. Hitler went to power democratically ‘He got 43% of the votes in his last free election ( 88% turnout, so 39% of electorate ), and then banned all the other parties. Democracies tend to work, not by putting in a government you hope you’re going to like, but by slinging out governments you don’t like.

    Reply
  72. You’re misinterpreting what they’re talking about. They’re saying they’re running twice the annual consumption of Switzerland, through one power line. That’s insane. China as a country however consumes more than 100 times that of Switzerland annually.

    Reply
  73. You finally did it, Lucky Luca… I was sitting here this evening drinking a nice Darjeeling Second Flush tea, perusing the comments and I came upon your gem. Then I hit the phrase, “Vast amount of electricity is nearly twice that of Switzerland!”. Tea… erupted from my nose. In the context of China, itching, yearning to be the № 1 economy of the world, to somehow be compared to only twice-the-size of the Crazy Clockmakers of Europe … is just amusing as hêll. Not, of course, to make too much fun of dearest Switzerland, but its not like she claims an economy oh, perhaps the size of France or Germany. Anyway, you got your LOL moment. Even a ⊕1.GoatGuy

    Reply
  74. The achilles heel is local grid capacity, and then the national grid. In very broad strokes, replacing all ICE’s (only gasoline powered) in the U.S. with EV will increase power demand by about a third. Mohammed Beshir at USC has done some very good studies around EV adoption rate and grid impact.

    Anyhow, so everything depends on how many EVs are bought and where. If you get the “keeping up with the Joneses” fast adoption in a populous neighborhood, there will be brownouts and power cuts for sure. Utilities will scramble to add new transformers and then have to add capacity too. But only if customers are willing to pay for it. A really big “if”.

    Then you have the national grid. There is absolutely no way the entire grid could handle a 30% increase in demand between now and 2023. The capacity build-out rate is not even close. Already today, the California net demand is about 750Gwh per day and generation is 550Gwh, the deficit is interchanged. Nationally, daily power production is about 10,000Gwh. However, the total supply of electric power in the U.S. has decreased in the past 10 years!

    In 2007 it was 4,208 Twh and in 2017 it was 4,100 Twh power supplied. As you know, utilities run full-tilt, more or less when needed, so no “idle” power capacity. In places like Texas, the power gen is almost the same 24/7 while in Cali you get a 20% decrease in the 2-4 am slot (Ca doesn’t have a relative big industrial base).

    So what will happen, I think, is that capacity will not keep up with demand. A build-out cost is huge. Bigger than big. And this is a capital/equity resource problem. There is simply no investor appetite. The returns on large-scale power gen is terrible compared to long term investment grade bonds. The only way to make the economics work is for the taxpayer to fork out money, i.e., public utilities that make a loss. Or, double the price of electricity. You also need to factor in charging stations, yada yada. Or, spend a few trillion at the federal level. You also need to put the new power gen plants somewhere. I think NIMBY is a big hurdle. Then you have the time it takes to physically build out capacity (and given the environmental impact regs in Ca you can forget out that).

    In other words, it will be far cheaper to pay for energy at the pump than at home via the electric cord. EVs will be the big test of the future U.S. energy policy (not that we have one to begin with). Beshir and others think that the tipping point is when EV’s account for about 15% of the national car fleet, but with severe local power problems locally way before that (if everyone in SanFran gets one, it will be lights out).

    The Chinese have figured all this out. They will just ration out EV’s to fit power gen capacity, and in the meantime build out the grid, damm the torpedos.

    Reply
  75. Clack is the guy who was sued by Mark Jacobson for not being bullish enough on renewables – even though he founded a centre that gives free forecasts for wind and solar developers. Clack criticised Jacobson’s ‘ nothing but wind, sun and water power ‘ paper, and ended up in court for his trouble.
    The people who have actually cut electricity emissions by 80% in 15 years, rather than writing dodgy papers about how to do it, were the French. By building nukes.

    Reply
  76. ‘.. Hitler went to power democratically ‘
    He got 43% of the votes in his last free election ( 88% turnout, so 39% of electorate ), and then banned all the other parties. Democracies tend to work, not by putting in a government you hope you’re going to like, but by slinging out governments you don’t like.

    Reply
  77. When fully operational the UHVDC link will be capable of transporting 12,000 megawatts of electricity over a distance of 3,000 km from the Xinjiang region in the Northwest, to Anhui province in eastern China. This vast amount of electricity is equivalent to twice the average annual power consumption of Switzerland.-> Since when megawatts are an unit of measure for CONSUMPTION of energy? Megawatts hours would be better I guess

    Reply
  78. When fully operational the UHVDC link will be capable of transporting 12,000 megawatts of electricity over a distance of 3,000 km from the Xinjiang region in the Northwest, to Anhui province in eastern China. This vast amount of electricity is equivalent to twice the average annual power consumption of Switzerland.-> Since when megawatts are an unit of measure for CONSUMPTION of energy? Megawatts hours would be better I guess

    Reply
  79. You’re misinterpreting what they’re talking about. They’re saying they’re running twice the annual consumption of Switzerland, through one power line. That’s insane. China as a country however consumes more than 100 times that of Switzerland annually.

    Reply
  80. You finally did it, Lucky Luca… I was sitting here this evening drinking a nice Darjeeling Second Flush tea, perusing the comments and I came upon your gem. Then I hit the phrase, “Vast amount of electricity is nearly twice that of Switzerland!”. Tea… erupted from my nose.

    In the context of China, itching, yearning to be the № 1 economy of the world, to somehow be compared to only twice-the-size of the Crazy Clockmakers of Europe … is just amusing as hêll. Not, of course, to make too much fun of dearest Switzerland, but its not like she claims an economy oh, perhaps the size of France or Germany.

    Anyway, you got your LOL moment.
    Even a ⊕1.

    GoatGuy

    Reply
  81. I tend to agree with you.The US has a huge, semi-centralized (more like “regionally autonomous”) grid, that works. It has sufficient capacity for everything we’re using power-wise, today. Electric vehicles, however, represent a sizeable new reality, and almost certain to grow. Electric cars materially cost less per mile to own and operate, under normal driving load. Take your lease-to-own (AKA “normal financing”), your declining government energy subsidies, your electric car’s almost-complete freedom from having mechanical drivetrain and associated “under the hood” problems, and the fact that the base sticker price is often quite attractive on an absolute scale, and its basically a win.Certainly “a win” if it is your second car in a family. A stay-at-home Mom’s run-about, kids-soccer car, absolutely. A father’s commute-to-work-and-home car, for sure, if not too far distant. For people living in already-congested climes and cities, well … having both the panache and go-to-the-front-of-the-line parking “rights” and commuter lane “rights” is sure helpful. Being able to juice-up at night in one’s garage, or carport, or in some progressive apartment complexes, at the shared high-priority on-site overnight chargers, is again a marvel, and a civic generosity not easily passed over. So, electric cars, so long as they enjoy such opporunities, are here to stay, here to grow, here to become more and more popular. EVEN the “it takes rather much more time” to get an on-the-road-trip supercharge isn’t all that imposing, if one plans out the trip well. Berkeley CA to Los Angeles, with a hour+ long stop at Harris Beef Ranch for a truly fine feedlot beef dinner, drinks and dessert… and fill up that Tesla TO THE TOP, whilst you’re not-actually-waiting. ________________________________________So, that said, it also is the Grid Load Tax that must be dealt with fairly soon. In the next 5 years, I’d say. Question is, how?Consumers (and I argue, especially those that would purchase an electrically powered car) are relative sensitive to “getting a good deal”, or taking advantage of “deals” as they fit into the otherwise fairly flexible Schedule of Life. Enticing consumers to charge their cars after 10 PM, when state-wide demand drops, and drops, and drops isn’t too hard, especially with internet-enabled chargers and electric-company real-time published electricity rates. Keeping the nations Nuclear Power Plants humming away all night long also is quite easy to maintain. As it is, certain heavy industries count on middle-of-the-night cheaper electricity in order to make stuff that has a significant proportion of the making-cost in electrons. Smelting aluminum from ore is the most notable, but a very close second would be alloying steel, monel and other structural metals. Very high power demand. Anyway, I think 5 years is the window. Just saying,GoatGuy

    Reply
  82. ⊕1Because I personally LIKE Monte Carlo analysis. It is surprising just how many “if I were a better mathematician, I could figure this out with calculus“ type problems dissolve into ”3 sig figs is enough“ Monte Carlo cobbled-together results.The Goat uses PERL day-to-day for Monte Carlo sims. PERL is free, its flexible (as are most languages), its really low in setup overhead, and its capable of self-modifying code. Moreover, it supports pretty healthy disregard for tight variable typing, egalitarian RegEx evaluation and smart default actions. And it is fast enough. For instance, on another day, in another article, I decided to try to replicate the claim that the Drake Equation excludes the likelihood of life in not just THIS galaxy, but most of the rest of the Universe itself, due to a whole host of Mama Bear (”just right“) necessary conditions. The claim was, for the authors, that by tallying ALL the known papers’ parameters for the Drake parameters, by ranking them in gaussian distributions of probability, that them all together proved the overwhelming unlikelihood of another civilization ever having risen in at least the Milky Way, and perhaps the local Galactic group. Mmmm… hmmmm… saith I.Mmmm… hmmmm…I did a similar sim. However, — and this is really quite important — I also took the time to carefully consider the genius (or poppycock, you choose) of Drake’s Equation’s parameters, and how they drive probability itself. It is, after all, a weirdly differential-form type equation at its core. Using well over 25 MILLION simulations one evening, arranging for quite the spectrum of possibilities of the driving terms, my code surmised that there’s been well over 100 opportunities for civilizations to arise in our Galaxy alone, in the last 7 billion years. (Long enough to get past the early-adopter stars, with their spectacularly violent histories, not very life-and-civilization friendly. Time for ”time“ to settle down.)Moreover, it can also be shown that the net rate: one in a billion stars over each of their maturity lifetimes, is or should be nearly constant anywhere in the Universe. Of course, as Enrico Fermi so famously said (paraphrased), “That’s nice, but where is everybody?”And that’s quite the good question.I think it is one of practicality. While we seem to have an unending fecundity to imagine Space Opera ideas…The truth is more likely that most — if not all of them — remain out of hand. The exception being “AI’s leave and go on to the Stars”. And in that, who knows. I’m always encouraged by the little coöpted cockroach in Fifth Element, with an antenna and transmitter, walking on the President’s table. That, to me, seems like the spirit of Interstellar Exploration.LOLGoatGuy

    Reply
  83. When fully operational the UHVDC link will be capable of transporting 12,000 megawatts of electricity over a distance of 3,000 km from the Xinjiang region in the Northwest, to Anhui province in eastern China. This vast amount of electricity is equivalent to twice the average annual power consumption of Switzerland.

    -> Since when megawatts are an unit of measure for CONSUMPTION of energy?
    Megawatts hours would be better I guess

    Reply
  84. Transmission line has lighting catcher wires above the main line sets. You can see them. Granted you might want to shut it down during intense thunderstorms however but the line can handle lighting.

    Reply
  85. ???This article has nothing to do with that study or the US and its grid. This article is about China and the intended use of their grid.

    Reply
  86. I wonder just how “moderate” the students in Tiananmen Square in 1989 would say that their government was, if you can find a survivor willing to talk to you, that is: en .wikipedia. org /wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests By way of comparison, the deaths of 4(!) student protestors at the hand of the Ohio State National Guard at Kent State University in 1970 was a national scandal ( en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings ). I would also ask you to first ask any Uighur (provided you can find one outside a “re-education camp” vox. com/world/2018/10/10/17959296/china-reeducation-camps-uighur-muslims-law ) or Tibetan, just how “moderate” the Chinese government has been. Or how about Liu Xiaobo, oh wait, you can’t ask him he died a prisoner, unable to accept his Nobel Peace Prize en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo . That is what lack of democracy is all about, a government that is willing to use any and all means necessary to crush anyone who does not uphold the “party line”. In this time when authoritarianism is on the rise, let no one forget what its triumph means.

    Reply
  87. Level of military expenditures are, I would contend, a really crappy metric for the quality of governance in a country. I say this because the amount of money spent on the military is largely a function of the level of perceived to the country combined with the role in world affairs that the country is inclined to assume. For all of the Cold War the (undemocratic) Soviet Union’s military expenditures as a percent of GDP exceeded that of the US, a factor of the perceived threat that NATO represented plus the desire to maintain their status as a global military superpower. For most of the existence of the US, its military spending was tiny, fun fact- the US entered World War 2 with an Army that barely made the top 20 in the World, smaller than that of Portugal (the US bulked fast, of course).With the advent of the Cold War, the US decided to take on the mantle of a military superpower with the military spending that this entails. Chinese military expenditures during the Cold were similar to that of the US as a percent of its (much smaller) GDP. Post-Cold War, Chinese military spending tailed off as a percent of GDP and has remained stable as a function of GDP since then. The inference I draw is that China has used its remarkable expansion of its economy to fund a military it considers commensurate with its new status in the World (i.e. if you look at military spending in absolute terms, it has expanded rapidly). Like the United States, China apparently believes it self to be rich enough to buy both “guns and butter”. China feels richer than it was right now (for understandable reasons) and it is using this wealth to (potentially) build out an energy infrastructure which just happens to tie the rest of Asia into its system (provided they agree). To me, this seems as much a political as technological/economic project, one similar to its One Belt/ One Road initiative. That isn’t to say the idea is without its merits, but please don’t pretend that this somehow makes China “better” than the US.

    Reply
  88. I tend to agree with you.

    The US has a huge, semi-centralized (more like “regionally autonomous”) grid, that works. It has sufficient capacity for everything we’re using power-wise, today.

    Electric vehicles, however, represent a sizeable new reality, and almost certain to grow.

    Electric cars materially cost less per mile to own and operate, under normal driving load. Take your lease-to-own (AKA “normal financing”), your declining government energy subsidies, your electric car’s almost-complete freedom from having mechanical drivetrain and associated “under the hood” problems, and the fact that the base sticker price is often quite attractive on an absolute scale, and its basically a win.

    Certainly “a win” if it is your second car in a family. A stay-at-home Mom’s run-about, kids-soccer car, absolutely. A father’s commute-to-work-and-home car, for sure, if not too far distant. For people living in already-congested climes and cities, well … having both the panache and go-to-the-front-of-the-line parking “rights” and commuter lane “rights” is sure helpful.

    Being able to juice-up at night in one’s garage, or carport, or in some progressive apartment complexes, at the shared high-priority on-site overnight chargers, is again a marvel, and a civic generosity not easily passed over.

    So, electric cars, so long as they enjoy such opporunities, are here to stay, here to grow, here to become more and more popular.

    EVEN the “it takes rather much more time” to get an on-the-road-trip supercharge isn’t all that imposing, if one plans out the trip well. Berkeley CA to Los Angeles, with a hour+ long stop at Harris Beef Ranch for a truly fine feedlot beef dinner, drinks and dessert… and fill up that Tesla TO THE TOP, whilst you’re not-actually-waiting.
    ________________________________________

    So, that said, it also is the Grid Load Tax that must be dealt with fairly soon. In the next 5 years, I’d say.

    Question is, how?

    Consumers (and I argue, especially those that would purchase an electrically powered car) are relative sensitive to “getting a good deal”, or taking advantage of “deals” as they fit into the otherwise fairly flexible Schedule of Life.

    Enticing consumers to charge their cars after 10 PM, when state-wide demand drops, and drops, and drops isn’t too hard, especially with internet-enabled chargers and electric-company real-time published electricity rates. Keeping the nations Nuclear Power Plants humming away all night long also is quite easy to maintain. As it is, certain heavy industries count on middle-of-the-night cheaper electricity in order to make stuff that has a significant proportion of the making-cost in electrons. Smelting aluminum from ore is the most notable, but a very close second would be alloying steel, monel and other structural metals. Very high power demand.

    Anyway, I think 5 years is the window.
    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

    Reply
  89. Clack is talking about converting the US grid into a HVDC system. Sure, wipe out most of the invested capital of the US power grid. It will certainly NOT “always” be sunny somewhere in the U.S, not will it “always” be windy. Yes, he makes assumptions of that too which is why he accounts for a portion of the power still being hydrocarbons. But his analysis is fundamentally flawed because it’s wishful thinking. Basically blanket Arizona in solar panels and send the power to New York. At night, send the wind (from propellers blanketing the areas where is is actually windy) power and use natgas and nuclear for the rest. This is the “magic wand” solution. “If only I could control the world and start from scratch”. There is another even more important reason why the US ought to keep it’s very large, decentralized and diversified grid. Makes is harder to bring it down. The current grid is very robust. Why change it?

    Reply
  90. We do. While the huge continent we call the U.S. is still a big patchwork of utilities, grids etc, there is a national load balancing system via the RTO’s. It even extends into Canada. Basically the existing system works. Does it make sense for a power plant in Maine to deliver power to California? Of course not. Technically doable but cost prohibitive. The idea of moving intermittent electricity, solar and wind, to “where it’s needed” makes little sense. It is “needed” where it is producing electricity! Why should a solar farm in Arizona be supplying power to, say, Michigan, in the winter? Michigan already has power, and Arizona uses the solar.

    Reply
  91. This is the usual explanation, unfortunately I see the opposite many times All Chinese leaders since 1978 were moderate, while Hitler went to power democratically All US presidents since 1945 they were voted in power, but they were all war criminals Or at least, they should have been considered as such

    Reply
  92. ⊕1

    Because I personally LIKE Monte Carlo analysis. It is surprising just how many “if I were a better mathematician, I could figure this out with calculus“ type problems dissolve into ”3 sig figs is enough“ Monte Carlo cobbled-together results.

    The Goat uses PERL day-to-day for Monte Carlo sims. PERL is free, its flexible (as are most languages), its really low in setup overhead, and its capable of self-modifying code. Moreover, it supports pretty healthy disregard for tight variable typing, egalitarian RegEx evaluation and smart default actions. And it is fast enough.

    For instance, on another day, in another article, I decided to try to replicate the claim that the Drake Equation excludes the likelihood of life in not just THIS galaxy, but most of the rest of the Universe itself, due to a whole host of Mama Bear (”just right“) necessary conditions.

    The claim was, for the authors, that by tallying ALL the known papers’ parameters for the Drake parameters, by ranking them in gaussian distributions of probability, that them all together proved the overwhelming unlikelihood of another civilization ever having risen in at least the Milky Way, and perhaps the local Galactic group.

    Mmmm… hmmmm… saith I.
    Mmmm… hmmmm…

    I did a similar sim. However, — and this is really quite important — I also took the time to carefully consider the genius (or poppycock, you choose) of Drake’s Equation’s parameters, and how they drive probability itself. It is, after all, a weirdly differential-form type equation at its core.

    Using well over 25 MILLION simulations one evening, arranging for quite the spectrum of possibilities of the driving terms, my code surmised that there’s been well over 100 opportunities for civilizations to arise in our Galaxy alone, in the last 7 billion years. (Long enough to get past the early-adopter stars, with their spectacularly violent histories, not very life-and-civilization friendly. Time for ”time“ to settle down.)

    Moreover, it can also be shown that the net rate: one in a billion stars over each of their maturity lifetimes, is or should be nearly constant anywhere in the Universe.

    Of course, as Enrico Fermi so famously said (paraphrased), “That’s nice, but where is everybody?”

    And that’s quite the good question.
    I think it is one of practicality.
    While we seem to have an unending fecundity to imagine Space Opera ideas…
    The truth is more likely that most — if not all of them — remain out of hand.

    The exception being “AI’s leave and go on to the Stars”.
    And in that, who knows.

    I’m always encouraged by the little coöpted cockroach in Fifth Element, with an antenna and transmitter, walking on the President’s table. That, to me, seems like the spirit of Interstellar Exploration.

    LOL
    GoatGuy

    Reply
  93. Transmission line has lighting catcher wires above the main line sets. You can see them.
    Granted you might want to shut it down during intense thunderstorms however but the line can handle lighting.

    Reply
  94. Aristotle would agree with you if we’re talking an on-paper style of rulership. I say ‘on-paper’ because in the real world dictatorship breaks down. Even if you have a good ruler today theres no way to ensure the next ruler isn’t some kinda moronic psychopath .

    Reply
  95. In a study published in Nature in 2016, Clack found that using high-voltage direct-current lines to integrate the US grid could cut electricity emissions to 80% below 1990 levels within 15 years.-> This is not what the article says. The article tals about wind and solar Luca Mazzza

    Reply
  96. The US invests in bombs and fighter planes Sometimes I wonder why it is agreed (?) that a democracy is better than a dictatorship? I would say that China` s dictatorship is by many means way better than the US Just saying.. just look at hat people like WTA and Goat GUy say here..

    Reply
  97. I wonder just how “moderate” the students in Tiananmen Square in 1989 would say that their government was, if you can find a survivor willing to talk to you, that is: en .wikipedia. org /wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests By way of comparison, the deaths of 4(!) student protestors at the hand of the Ohio State National Guard at Kent State University in 1970 was a national scandal ( en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings ). I would also ask you to first ask any Uighur (provided you can find one outside a “re-education camp” vox. com/world/2018/10/10/17959296/china-reeducation-camps-uighur-muslims-law ) or Tibetan, just how “moderate” the Chinese government has been. Or how about Liu Xiaobo, oh wait, you can’t ask him he died a prisoner, unable to accept his Nobel Peace Prize en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo . That is what lack of democracy is all about, a government that is willing to use any and all means necessary to crush anyone who does not uphold the “party line”. In this time when authoritarianism is on the rise, let no one forget what its triumph means.

    Reply
  98. Level of military expenditures are, I would contend, a really crappy metric for the quality of governance in a country. I say this because the amount of money spent on the military is largely a function of the level of perceived to the country combined with the role in world affairs that the country is inclined to assume. For all of the Cold War the (undemocratic) Soviet Union’s military expenditures as a percent of GDP exceeded that of the US, a factor of the perceived threat that NATO represented plus the desire to maintain their status as a global military superpower. For most of the existence of the US, its military spending was tiny, fun fact- the US entered World War 2 with an Army that barely made the top 20 in the World, smaller than that of Portugal (the US bulked fast, of course).

    With the advent of the Cold War, the US decided to take on the mantle of a military superpower with the military spending that this entails. Chinese military expenditures during the Cold were similar to that of the US as a percent of its (much smaller) GDP. Post-Cold War, Chinese military spending tailed off as a percent of GDP and has remained stable as a function of GDP since then. The inference I draw is that China has used its remarkable expansion of its economy to fund a military it considers commensurate with its new status in the World (i.e. if you look at military spending in absolute terms, it has expanded rapidly). Like the United States, China apparently believes it self to be rich enough to buy both “guns and butter”. China feels richer than it was right now (for understandable reasons) and it is using this wealth to (potentially) build out an energy infrastructure which just happens to tie the rest of Asia into its system (provided they agree). To me, this seems as much a political as technological/economic project, one similar to its One Belt/ One Road initiative. That isn’t to say the idea is without its merits, but please don’t pretend that this somehow makes China “better” than the US.

    Reply
  99. Clack is talking about converting the US grid into a HVDC system. Sure, wipe out most of the invested capital of the US power grid. It will certainly NOT “always” be sunny somewhere in the U.S, not will it “always” be windy. Yes, he makes assumptions of that too which is why he accounts for a portion of the power still being hydrocarbons. But his analysis is fundamentally flawed because it’s wishful thinking. Basically blanket Arizona in solar panels and send the power to New York. At night, send the wind (from propellers blanketing the areas where is is actually windy) power and use natgas and nuclear for the rest.

    This is the “magic wand” solution. “If only I could control the world and start from scratch”.

    There is another even more important reason why the US ought to keep it’s very large, decentralized and diversified grid. Makes is harder to bring it down. The current grid is very robust. Why change it?

    Reply
  100. We do. While the huge continent we call the U.S. is still a big patchwork of utilities, grids etc, there is a national load balancing system via the RTO’s. It even extends into Canada. Basically the existing system works. Does it make sense for a power plant in Maine to deliver power to California? Of course not. Technically doable but cost prohibitive.

    The idea of moving intermittent electricity, solar and wind, to “where it’s needed” makes little sense. It is “needed” where it is producing electricity! Why should a solar farm in Arizona be supplying power to, say, Michigan, in the winter? Michigan already has power, and Arizona uses the solar.

    Reply
  101. This is the usual explanation, unfortunately I see the opposite many times
    All Chinese leaders since 1978 were moderate, while Hitler went to power democratically
    All US presidents since 1945 they were voted in power, but they were all war criminals
    Or at least, they should have been considered as such

    Reply
  102. You forgot to mention thunderstorms. You have to shutdown the transmission lines under thunderstorm threat and find replacement power which are more like GT units. At high enough voltage you go DC, superconductors, and UG pipeline. It is all about money. How much it cost and how much it will save. The good thing about UG you don’t have to sweat the thunderstorms.

    Reply
  103. You could do some demand control for the other 20%. Lower voltage and remotely turn off or down resistance heating, air conditioning and refrigeration. Do a kind of rolling brown out.

    Reply
  104. One hour is about 1,000 miles. Just time shifting power a few thousand miles can reduce cost by 20% to 30%. There was a suggestion years ago about a world wide grid. It is still a good idea. It would flatten the demand curve and reduce cost and pollution.

    Reply
  105. Clack believes it is sufficient to interconnect every source of wind, solar, possibly hydro in the country by HVDC transmission to avoid 80% of hydrocarbon fueled generation. It will always be sunny somewhere, the wind without fail will be blowing along some high ridge. He suggests (based on the statistics) that this can sustain the national electrical load with absolutely no power storage.Perhaps the remaining 20% of emissions is straight gas turbine generation, the spot market supply of last resort?

    Reply
  106. In a study published in Nature in 2016, Clack found that using high-voltage direct-current lines to integrate the US grid could cut electricity emissions to 80% below 1990 levels within 15 years.

    -> This is not what the article says. The article tals about wind and solar

    Luca Mazzza

    Reply
  107. The US invests in bombs and fighter planes
    Sometimes I wonder why it is agreed (?) that a democracy is better than a dictatorship?
    I would say that China` s dictatorship is by many means way better than the US
    Just saying.. just look at hat people like WTA and Goat GUy say here..

    Reply
  108. Just want to remind people of the “buh-buh-bûllsnot” factor: the amount of electrical power lost to the transmission line depends on current (squared), cable length, and cross-sectional area of each wire. Period. Whether you lose 4.7% or 1.3% or 0.8% per 160 kilometers is a function of deciding how IMPORTANT it is NOT to lose the energy, and moreover, how much the utility wishes to invest in wire. And heavier towers, bigger insulators, all that. Ultimately a ‘wire’ is able to carry a current that depends on its resistance, and the assigned “safety margin” of how hot it can run relative to ambient temperatures. +100° C is considered one practical limit. Why? Well, when a cable runs +100° over ambient on a hot (40° or higher) degree day, it can expand — and stretch — and sag a lot. Given that utilities like to space out the towers pretty much as far as they can (which depends on the tensile strength of the cable and its current-carrying material density), long wires sagging is a bad thing … around forests. Causes many a fire that way. But in the end? Its all about capital cost. And how much the utility is willing to spend on its wire, its towers and its insulators… with an eye toward a future having higher load, higher current and capped voltage. Just saying,GoatGuy

    Reply
  109. I’m glad they’re doing this. I’ve often thought that here in the US, we should have electrical superhighways, running north to south, bringing energy south in the summer, north in the winter, and moving energy from intermittent sources like solar, and wind to where it is needed, rather than storing it.Electrical utilities here in the US don’t care to try much that is new in the way of generation, or transmission, since they make a profit no matter what.

    Reply
  110. You forgot to mention thunderstorms. You have to shutdown the transmission lines under thunderstorm threat and find replacement power which are more like GT units.

    At high enough voltage you go DC, superconductors, and UG pipeline. It is all about money. How much it cost and how much it will save. The good thing about UG you don’t have to sweat the thunderstorms.

    Reply
  111. One hour is about 1,000 miles. Just time shifting power a few thousand miles can reduce cost by 20% to 30%. There was a suggestion years ago about a world wide grid. It is still a good idea. It would flatten the demand curve and reduce cost and pollution.

    Reply
  112. Just want to remind people of the “buh-buh-bûllsnot” factor: the amount of electrical power lost to the transmission line depends on current (squared), cable length, and cross-sectional area of each wire. Period. Whether you lose 4.7% or 1.3% or 0.8% per 160 kilometers is a function of deciding how IMPORTANT it is NOT to lose the energy, and moreover, how much the utility wishes to invest in wire. And heavier towers, bigger insulators, all that.

    Ultimately a ‘wire’ is able to carry a current that depends on its resistance, and the assigned “safety margin” of how hot it can run relative to ambient temperatures. +100° C is considered one practical limit. Why? Well, when a cable runs +100° over ambient on a hot (40° or higher) degree day, it can expand — and stretch — and sag a lot. Given that utilities like to space out the towers pretty much as far as they can (which depends on the tensile strength of the cable and its current-carrying material density), long wires sagging is a bad thing … around forests. Causes many a fire that way.

    But in the end? Its all about capital cost.

    And how much the utility is willing to spend on its wire, its towers and its insulators… with an eye toward a future having higher load, higher current and capped voltage.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

    Reply
  113. I’m glad they’re doing this. I’ve often thought that here in the US, we should have electrical superhighways, running north to south, bringing energy south in the summer, north in the winter, and moving energy from intermittent sources like solar, and wind to where it is needed, rather than storing it.
    Electrical utilities here in the US don’t care to try much that is new in the way of generation, or transmission, since they make a profit no matter what.

    Reply
  114. In a study published in Nature in 2016, Clack found that using high-voltage direct-current lines to integrate the US grid could cut electricity emissions to 80% below 1990 levels within 15 years.-> This is not what the article says. The article tals about wind and solar Luca Mazzza

    Reply
  115. One hour is about 1,000 miles. Just time shifting power a few thousand miles can reduce cost by 20% to 30%. There was a suggestion years ago about a world wide grid. It is still a good idea. It would flatten the demand curve and reduce cost and pollution.

    Reply
  116. Clack believes it is sufficient to interconnect every source of wind, solar, possibly hydro in the country by HVDC transmission to avoid 80% of hydrocarbon fueled generation. It will always be sunny somewhere, the wind without fail will be blowing along some high ridge. He suggests (based on the statistics) that this can sustain the national electrical load with absolutely no power storage.Perhaps the remaining 20% of emissions is straight gas turbine generation, the spot market supply of last resort?

    Reply
  117. Just want to remind people of the “buh-buh-bûllsnot” factor: the amount of electrical power lost to the transmission line depends on current (squared), cable length, and cross-sectional area of each wire. Period. Whether you lose 4.7% or 1.3% or 0.8% per 160 kilometers is a function of deciding how IMPORTANT it is NOT to lose the energy, and moreover, how much the utility wishes to invest in wire. And heavier towers, bigger insulators, all that. Ultimately a ‘wire’ is able to carry a current that depends on its resistance, and the assigned “safety margin” of how hot it can run relative to ambient temperatures. +100° C is considered one practical limit. Why? Well, when a cable runs +100° over ambient on a hot (40° or higher) degree day, it can expand — and stretch — and sag a lot. Given that utilities like to space out the towers pretty much as far as they can (which depends on the tensile strength of the cable and its current-carrying material density), long wires sagging is a bad thing … around forests. Causes many a fire that way. But in the end? Its all about capital cost. And how much the utility is willing to spend on its wire, its towers and its insulators… with an eye toward a future having higher load, higher current and capped voltage. Just saying,GoatGuy

    Reply
  118. I’m glad they’re doing this. I’ve often thought that here in the US, we should have electrical superhighways, running north to south, bringing energy south in the summer, north in the winter, and moving energy from intermittent sources like solar, and wind to where it is needed, rather than storing it.Electrical utilities here in the US don’t care to try much that is new in the way of generation, or transmission, since they make a profit no matter what.

    Reply

Leave a Comment