President Xi Goal is a Carbon Neutral China by 2060

China’s President Xi has committed to make China Carbon neutral by 2060. China’s top university, Tsinghua, has published an energy plan to reach that goal.

The plan would be increase nuclear energy by nearly 5 times from today’s level and to eliminate coal for electricity by 2050. China would depend upon solar, wind and nuclear energy for electricity. China would double its total energy usage.

The changes would be gradual until 2035 and then they would speed up changes. The plan would need $15 trillion of investment.

China’s carbon emissions would be:
2020 9.6 billion tons a year
2025 10.2 billion tons per year
2030 10.2 billion tons per year
2035 9 billion tons per year
2050 3 billion tons per year
2055 900 million tons per year
2060 200 million tons per year.

China’s non-fossil fuel share of total energy
2019 15%
2025 20%
2030 24%
2050 62%
2060 84%

SOURCES- Bloomberg, Tsinghua
Written By Brian Wang,

39 thoughts on “President Xi Goal is a Carbon Neutral China by 2060”

  1. I guess they don't want to waste the majority of the produced electricity with synthesized fuel. I also doubt that it would get them there quicker.

  2. I think investing in conservation by making more efficient products and coupling battery technology at generation,transportation, and at homes will help achieve the goals. I hope they build reprocessing plants next to their nuclear facilities so they can use the uranium in an efficient manner and extract all the energy from the fuel. Progress is always slow but if you fail to plan you plan to fail.

  3. If you make it, certainly. Have you read Alice Miller "For Your Own Good"? Uses Hitler as intro to Primal Science, altho she would not like the name.

  4. It's pretty far out is right. If he is in time for radical life extension then, by the time we get there, he'll just shrug it off with an: "Oh, bother."

    Still won't excuse him for genocide.

  5. I'll play along. I'll vote: SLS lands crew on Mars. Might not be the first human crew landing on Mars though. Might be one of those recreations of what might have been. Like the Babbage Difference Engine. A sort of proof that it could have worked…had it not been canceled.
    If China was serious, it would not be building coal power plants right now. One would just build nuclear power plants you can run for 80-120 years. And hydro because you can run that similarly long.

    Sounds like the guy reassuring his fiancee that his nudibar days are over…but only after the wedding. If you are serious, you change your actions immediatly.

    The only way China is going carbon neutral is either after someone takes their business away undercutting them (over 50% of their energy is used in industry, so they would have to shut down plants and they would keep the hydro and the nuclear, I would think), or as a result of a major cataclysm…like an antimatter experiment gone bad.

  6. The plan you are thinking of is the Shimizu plan, with circumlunar power cable/panel band, to a centered radar in the middle of the visible side of the Moon. Criswell has pairs of stations with the radars right there at the collection site, perhaps some wires from the near far side, for new Moon conditions. The stations are strung along the limb, but some on the equator. Your tilt idea would certainly help, and is easy for Criswell, by putting the stations in different places on the limb. This seems to be an important new thought, the very reason we do this! The closest thing I have seen is cooling radiator panels for electronics that are 'T' shaped and run equator~= ecliptic (on Moon) so sides face dark above horizon, with mirrors along skirt to reflect away light from base area.

  7. Well, I've personally been demanding that we go to the Moon, see what is there, start ISM/ISRU experiments, build a mass driver, and get started since 1977, before there was lunar water even suspected. It would have been the exact right thing to do. Not premature at all, even then. Launch costs make no difference in the thought process, other than cheaper means faster.

  8. Bridenstein sez China is offering *space* in LEO to other countries, and we simply can't let ISS go away w/o alternative, commercial, as your point supports. ISS is now the only such territory for those who cannot send their own stuff, esp crew. Ideas matter. ISS was to study 0 and low g, for Mars. Landing on Moon from Gateway is a new addition to Mars shot. LEO for LEO is new!

  9. I don't think it would ever make sense to generate power at L5 for use anywhere else. I was merely suggesting it as a manufacturing location, as O'Neill was proposing.

  10. Actually, Criswell only works for Earth, as the radars are cleverly arranged on slopes on the near limb to appear continuous from the Earth and nearby. Smaller radars would share the cells for Moon to Moon, but they would be very small in comparison to the Moon to Earth radars. I suppose redirectors near Moon could be in the main beam eventually? I suspect power beams all over the place, not just one system, and you buy the cheapest. And tugging a few SPSs to Mars seems far better than landing stuff on that "planetary surface". You are already in Sun drenched Space!

  11. On the heat issue: One advantage that lunar solar panels have, is that the light is always coming from an effective point source going along a predictable path. No clouds, no air, essentially no diffuse illumination.

    This means that, if you don't try to achieve a high percentage of panel coverage, you can, by an appropriate arrangement of panels, reflectors, and radiators, use the cold night sky to dump heat even in the middle of the day. Doing this actually gets easier as you move away from the equator. Ironically, this means that placing the solar panels out at 45 or higher latitude is actually more cost effective! Cover the ground with thin film reflector, erect the panels at intervals directly facing the plane of the elliptic, and the heat coming off their back sees the reflected night sky.

    So point 2 is actually easily resolved: Instead of one band of panels at the equator, with an equatorial power line, you have one or two bands distant from the equator, with shorter power lines, and the transmitter on the equator facing Earth.

    This doesn't resolve the duty cycle problem, though, or the need for retransmission, with increased capital costs and efficiency losses.

    The big advantage the SPS in geo has, is that you have near 100% duty cycle cells always in view of the same place on Earth. I don't think Criswell can beat that.

    OTOH, if the ground based panels are originally erected around the pole to supply power to polar industry, you might be able to justify it.

  12. [part 4] So, issues 3 and 4 are the same for LSP and L5. 3, redirectors, are an advantage, being part of Earth to Earth or Moon to Moon power beaming, thus allowing load balancing. The notion of one sat to one rectennae seems to be assumed by most, esp Mankins, who thinks LSP would work that way, and thus(!) would not work, but also Glaser GEO designs. Being able to deliver the power anywhere, to multiple loads, is a huge advantage. The magic of phased array. 4, the transmitter size (edit: actual size, NOT power!), does require ~.5 TWe to be practical, if I read Criswell correctly, to beam to Earth, altho not to start Moon to Moon. All proposals must start with 10 TWe min, or forget talking about global heating. Would not matter at smaller scale. Criswell has ~6 station pairs to handle the load, so he is limiting the transmitter size to get closer to the cells, not struggling with it being too small. I assume local L5 power use would allow things to build up similar to starting with Moon to Moon beaming for LSP. Think big! Now, GEO has light pollution, station keeping, scale up, crowding and junk problems which LSP totally solves, and L5 lessens. No clear answers here, all sorts of starting and scale details, public perceptions, on and on. One thing seems clear, O'Neill was right about Space Solar being the big first Space project. Big payback! Blow the doors open to Space!

  13. [part 3] Comparing LSP and L5 seems to bring up one set of issues, and then GEO can be contrasted to both of them, primarily where it is different from L5. One current big thing is that *we* have suddenly decided to return to the Moon. Every plan has an energy collection or supply component. Some even start power beaming from crater rim to dark floor, at the poles. Like on Earth, Moon to Moon power beaming solves many problems of intermittency and load variability. Cleverly placing the cells where Criswell indicates, plus a few simple lunar orbiting redirectors seems an obvious early way to go, rather than each project struggling with the issue. Importantly, it seems understandable to most planetarians. For L5 one has to be there, and build the sats, using ISM/ISRU. This not only is possible, it MUST happen! Forget the Moon, I say! Except for materials, and perhaps, cheap surface area, and station keeping, for cells. Perhaps the main contribution of LSP will be to capture the support of global heating concerns for Space Solar, without having to also have O'Neill, which still seems obscure to many. Power those lunar settlements and factories! LSP v L5 Space Solar seem to have clear economic/market trades off, but small LSP starter seems likely to me, now that we are no longer waiting for Mars First/Direct/Only. Let the market decide long range, with LSP having to show superiority over L5, the clear initial choice of non planetarians, those few of us.

  14. Once $/kg to LEO is reduced then the people will assess the economic viability of these ideas. Until then it is premature. If it is viable then expect SpaceX to fabricate SPS's and to put them up using Starlink money.

  15. LEO is a big place
    "ISS territory" – lol

    Lowering $/kg to LEO enables construction of habitats with artificial gravity and is all that matters. Lower $/kg to LEO is the Golden Path.

  16. [part 2] As you say, 1 and 2 may have thermal storage solution, but for overview, these issues and dust are a big lump of uncertain expense for LSP. So, now the details get interesting, as LEO, GEO, L5 (by which I mean anything cislunar much beyond GEO) SPS, and LSP are all being considered as Space Solar. "Fresh Look" study excluded (as too far out) ISM/ISRU and then *found* that launch costs made GEO SPS impractical. I am not joking! National Security Space Office, NSSO, was looking at LEO launched small SPS, as they could afford high cost and want it NOW, for remote military bases. They are behind current x plane experiment, a good sign for Space Solar in officialdom. The frequencies must be set. Both of these may indeed be suddenly practical, with Starship, as you say. Criswell and I are against wasting time on demo, as all radars are demos. But that does not mean small projects will not happen. Also, Starship makes ISM cheaper too, so in long run does not replace ISRU, but may allow launched initial efforts, indeed everything, much sooner and easier. Hard to see a downside to cheap launch. Despite the practical timely importance, NSSO LEO is not really in the mix for Space Solar in general, clearly. [on to part 3]

  17. Thanx for serious thoughts! I should point out that there are two *special* reasons I am pushing Criswell. One is that it is generally ignored by O'Neill people, being on a planet (altho, curiously, non-O'Neills also ignore it, because it has stated planet problems. They then fail to see the same planet problems for other projects. Again, curiously, almost a mirror of the usu stance against O'Neill), but also that I have spent effort since the early '90s trying to get NSS to just mention it as a form of Space Solar, which they otherwise heartily endorse.

    Anyway, your considerations are an excellent summary of the issues. Also, I do not see Criswell LSP as the only Space energy system, as anyone collecting energy anywhere cislunar for any use will be able to beam it around, for trade and balance. Space Solar rectennae will take anybody's energy, and are the biggest expense of any such system. Unlike Mars for 40 years, there is nothing immoral about doing other things at the same time.

    So, I will lump 1, 2 and dust together as purely planetary problems, dead costs for LSP uniquely, with no upsides. I figure duty cycle at 2*sqrt(2), 2 for day nite and sqrt(2) for non tracking cells not facing the Sun directly. About 3 times the cells lying on the ground, more than high orbit SPS. Heat should be solved with current cell tech that uses concentrated sunlight, very hot! Dust is the big unknown. [Out of room, onward!]

  18. Add to my analysis, that you can build SPS in a convenient location, (Yes, maybe L-5!) and then take them basically anywhere in the solar system using ion propulsion. Criswell only works for Earth space.

  19. 4 problems with Criswell that will likely give the satellites the win:

    1) Duty cycle. <50% vs nearly 100%; Any given cell is doing nothing for you over half the time. Orbital cells work except during brief eclipses.
    2) High temperatures during the lunar day are not good for solar cells. Requires extra infrastructure to cool them.
    3) Requires power relay system to supply power 24/7 to any given location. On the Moon and off.
    4) Large initial system size due to long distance power beaming.

    Now, 1 and 2 are capable of being avoided by a thermal power system using hot dirt for storage, but 3 and 4 are pretty much unavoidable.

    None of these are technically insurmountable, but if you do the SPS, you don't NEED to surmount any of them. That will, in my opinion, give SPS too much of an advantage over Criswell.

    Once the Starship is up and running, SPS stands a good chance of being cost effective even without ISRU, and once we start building them, why would we go to Criswell?

    Also, the Moon might develop a dust problem once it's industrialized…

  20. Agreed about 5.
    I'm expecting a manned Mars landing before 2030, but the SLS is a little heavy to fit within the Starship's cargo capacity. I expect the project to be canceled once Starship is up and running for a few years.
    China *could* achieve carbon neutrality in a couple decades if they were genuinely trying, they have fewer obstacles to nuclear and hydropower than most countries. The announced schedule is far enough out that I doubt it's a real goal.
    Tokamaks aren't going to generate cost competitive electricity even if they can be made to work.
    The EM drive *might* be scientifically validated, but my money is on it never happening.

  21. Bearing in mind what GoldProcessor says about Rossi, and hence focussing on the first 4, my money would be on a manned Mars landing, with the EM Drive as a good 2nd (on the condition that the validation requirement is 'only' scientific and not yet a practically applicable one).
    A manned Mars landing could be feasible before 2030 or '35 at the latest.
    Until that time fossil fuel use in China and rest of Asia will only increase or level off at the best.

  22. Bridenstein is threatening that China is moving in on ISS territory already, and will pounce if we don't get commercial expansion or replacement. LEO is at stake!

  23. Criswell LSP is an oddity in the O'Neill plan, as it violates the usu rule that Space is better than planets. Our Moon may be about the only place this happens! No atmos in front of Sun, tidal lock to face user base with *fake* phased array, close enuf for beaming. Now, *recently*, we have decided that the Moon is a good place to get resources. Not an oddity in the O'Neill plan, in fact it IS the plan. So, we need energy on the Moon, too. Criswell Earth to Earth power beaming, the first step, can be copied on the Moon, as Moon to Moon power beaming, the next step, and then Moon to Earth for the big bucks. Criticisms welcome on this vitally important topic.

  24. The saying is that there is good news and bad news about Space Solar power beaming. The bad news is that the frequency used is such that it takes huge transmitting antennae just to get the beam to hit also large receiving rectennae. The good news is that the frequency used is such that it cannot be weaponized effectively, at the distances.

  25. China could do it well before 2050 if they simply focused on mass producing small floating nuclear reactors deployed to China's EEZ (marine Exclusive Economic Zone) areas for the production of eMethanol. China is already a leader in methanol fuel production from coal. But nuclear power could make their methanol source– carbon neutral– for domestic use and for export by tankers.

    Methanol can be used in modified natural gas electric power plants or in fuel cell electric power plants. Methanol can also be used to fuel marine vessels. Methanol can also be converted into carbon neutral gasoline and into jet fuel.

  26. I don't encounter anyone criticizing Criswell. Honestly, you're the only person I ever see mention it any more.

  27. Never underestimate the power of a compliant media. His victory will be not be the result of an army of Elon Musks, but of Winston Smiths.

  28. Lets play a game of "What! Happens! First!":

    China is carbon neutral
    SLS lands crew on Mars
    Tokamaks generate cost competitive electricity
    EM Drive validated
    Rossi sells a DIY home E-Cat kit

Comments are closed.