Chinese Economics Thread


TK3600

Junior Member
Registered Member
In the West, they tell you about how the West is diversifying from China.

In reality, China is diversifying from the West.

This is why the US is resorting to tactics like "nobody is allowed to do business with China if they use any US technology," instead of tariffs or export bans - it's because those no longer work.

But as long as China keeps up in the technology race, that won't work in the long term, either.

Countries will just stop using US technology when trading with China, and then gradually, realize that they don't need to use US technology when trading with anyone else, either.
Then US will stary harassing anyone relying on US who also trade with China without US tech. Then they will harass trading partner of China who have nothing to do with US. Then they will overextend in their diplomacy and collapse diplatically.
 

abenomics12345

New Member
Registered Member
You also have to consider that if real estate investment declines, construction workers aren't automatically going to be unemployed with their contribution to GDP going to zero. Economic activity can shift into other sectors as workers take jobs in other industries.

A team at the ADB actually estimated real estate to be 13.8% of GDP in 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Yea I don’t doubt it was 14% in 2017 the problem is what happened since - Evergrande and Country Garden really ballooned out since the shantytown reform starting in 2016-2019 - it *really* grew in those 4 years
 

Minm

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yea I don’t doubt it was 14% in 2017 the problem is what happened since - Evergrande and Country Garden really ballooned out since the shantytown reform starting in 2016-2019 - it *really* grew in those 4 years

And from 2020 to 2022 they've really shrunk. China has already paid the economic price for reducing the housing share of GDP. That's one of the big reasons why 2022 growth is so low. The base effect of an inflated property sector makes growth look smaller than it really is. Now that property is smaller, growth can go up. What I find the most remarkable is that China was able to have positive growth at all while deflating the bubble, but obviously growth has to be higher in the post bubble era than in the bubble deflation years

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Compared to US & EU, Russia is still a small export market for Chinese companies, but I think getting to $100 billion export to Russia a year shouldn't be too difficult. With Russia now essentially aligning its brand and product line to all Chinese products, it's great opportunity for Chinese brands. And unlike in the 90s, China provides a more than worthwhile alternative to all Western products. This is like a great reset for the Russian society to adopt and appreciate Chinese product and to invest in the Chinese economy and export energy products to China. Once Russia completely switches over, then Belarus, Central Asian countries, EAU and Armenia will also all migrate over I think. That's a pretty large sized market for Chinese companies to supply.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
This is why @Patchwork_Chimera laughs at you. You talk like a subject matter expert and tried to explain something that you don't understand, without qualifying that it's just your understanding of the subject. Instead you tried to sound authoritative. And when corrected, you barely even know where you are wrong, and instead of admitting your knowledge is limited, you double down.

Couple of points

Well, I think it's poor form to drag Patch into this discussion as it is completely irrelevant to him.

I will just say that he hasn't responded to the followup where I outline where those SSNs should have a far larger tactical and strategic impact if employed at soft targets beyond the 2nd Island Chain and all the way to the Continental USA. This isn't a new line of thought either. We already had this sort of discussion in the SSN thread (IIRC some years ago) on how SSNs could operate.

And I'll add that when I notice Patch writing glaring errors or something which doesn't make sense to me, I don't use the laugh emoji as I don't think it's very mature or respectful in general.

Electrons don't "rotate" in "orbits" at "2200 km a second". This was the funniest part to me. Like a little ball spinning around the nucleus.

Well, as stated earlier, this is a secondary school level explanation. Do I really want to get into the next level of details about subatomic particles also being a wave function and superposition? Electrons orbiting a hydrogen atom at 2200km per second is good enough, as that is what the scientists estimate is the speed and people can understand this.

OK, let's say that this is just a conceptual misunderstanding. What do you think happens with these electrons when a chemical reaction happens? And you think no chemistry happens inside a battery?

What do you mean "chemical reactions happen at a scale where it's essentially mechanical"? You mean there's no chemical reactions in confined spaces? Orly? Heterogeneous catalysis anyone? How about all of biochemistry?

When I say mechanical, I do mean atoms having to move.
And whilst current batteries predominantly use a liquid lithium electrolyte, it does look like semi-solid state and fully solid-state batteries are viable as they are being used in high-end cars.
And because the technology is still in its infancy, we can expect rapid improvements in cost and performance.


Maybe by "mechanical" you mean "macroscopic energy scales". Yes combustion happens at a macroscopic energy scale. That's why we use it for grid energy and to move heavy vehicles like ships and cars lmao.

But why else? Because combustion fuels have high energy density. Why is that? Because the relevant energy scale (this is what you meant to say btw, not "mechanical") for an electrochemical reaction in battery is on the order of 100-200 kJ/mol.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Combustion reactions for hydrocarbons are on the order of ~1000 kJ/mol for methane and it only goes up from there.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is why combustion is used. It has incredibly high molar energy.

I don't specifically say hydrogen is good either, where did I say hydrogen is good? I said your reasoning doesn't make sense, and it is absolutely true that it doesn't.


Not quite. I said this previously. It's the difference between:

1. In an electricity/battery energy pathway, you can have an entirely solid-state system where only the electrons move and I suspect this will be the norm in the future.

For example, a solar panel produces electrons, they flow through copper conductors almost instantly into the battery. That battery will likely be solid-state in the future, then the battery discharges to an electric motor at which point it is converted into motion to drive the wheels.

2. But in an Ammonia/Hydrogen energy pathway, you always have to move atoms around. You use electricity to split water molecules and then capture the hydrogen atoms. Then you have to mechanically compress the hydrogen, transport the hydrogen in tanker trucks and pump it into a hydrogen station storage tank. Then you have to pump it into yet another storage tank in the car. When the hydrogen is ready to be used, it then has significant losses in a combustion engine or fuel cell. A combustion engine wastes most of its energy, because the heat (moving atoms) can't be captured. All this creates significant losses at each stage and its difficult to create an alternative pathway because you are constrained by the requirement to work with hydrogen in chemical reactions.

I deliberately used the term ""mechanical"" in inverted commas as a gross simplification, because nobody really cares about technical jargon in the real world.

Yes, chemical reactions can and do have a far higher energy density than batteries.
But that by itself isn't directly relevant to the question, which is about energy pathways - hydrogen/ammonia versus electricity/battery energy.

So the underlying question is how much does it cost to propel a vehicle, because the lower-cost solution will be the winner. And I haven't even gone into how electricity is already available everywhere and the average socket is sufficient for the average car-owner. In comparison, a hydrogen energy pathway will require an entirely new and expensive infrastructure buildup.

I recall at least 3? discussions already on hydrogen versus electric vehicles in the NEV and other threads already. I see TPHuang has been helpful enough to post the energy pathway losses for hydrogen

And if you've read the works on future energy pathways (Third Industrial Revolution etc), you'll understand why electricity is going to be the predominant energy pathway in the future. Most cars and grids in the future will not be powered by hydrocarbons.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
By the way, I pointed out a few key points where I think @AndrewS has gotten wrong ('lack of land in tier 1 cities', 'excess deposits misunderstood for savings') - have you re-assessed?

I'll have to do some more research when I have time.
I know there is a lack of land in the Tier-1s, but I'm trying to figure out what theoretical framework could be used to determine a savings versus deposit split.


If the notion is that "Hydrogen is not going to work because its not efficient at 40%" - the comparison has to be made vs. ICE engines, and as @FairAndUnbiased illustrated, energy density is one of the key issues for hauling around a truckload of batteries. I'm just going to leave this well circulated (at least should be) chart from the EIA on energy density. You can see why gas/diesel is so difficult to replace and why you can't power cars on uncompressed natural gas turbines despite it burning more 'efficiently' as compared to diesel or gasoline.

View attachment 105476

Yes, trucks are an issue because the weight of the battery directly impacts payload, which is particularly apparent for long-distance trucking.

But the truck market is significantly smaller in terms of value and numbers, when compared to the passenger vehicle market. In addition, most trucks or delivery vehicles actually travel pretty short distances so they can have a comparatively small battery and can be charged frequently.

My view is that hydrogen could have a place in long-distance trucking and probably in ships, but the majority of transport will be electric.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Colonel
Registered Member
Couple of points

Well, I think it's poor form to drag Patch into this discussion as it is completely irrelevant to him.

I will just say that he hasn't responded to the followup where I outline where those SSNs should have a far larger tactical and strategic impact if employed at soft targets beyond the 2nd Island Chain and all the way to the Continental USA. This isn't a new line of thought either. We already had this sort of discussion in the SSN thread (IIRC some years ago) on how SSNs could operate.

And I'll add that when I notice Patch writing glaring errors or something which doesn't make sense to me, I don't use the laugh emoji as I don't think it's very mature or respectful in general.



Well, as stated earlier, this is a secondary school level explanation. Do I really want to get into the next level of details about subatomic particles also being a wave function and superposition? Electrons orbiting a hydrogen atom at 2200km per second is good enough, as that is what the scientists estimate is the speed and people can understand this.



When I say mechanical, I do mean atoms having to move.
And whilst current batteries predominantly use a liquid lithium electrolyte, it does look like semi-solid state and fully solid-state batteries are viable as they are being used in high-end cars.
And because the technology is still in its infancy, we can expect rapid improvements in cost and performance.







Not quite. I said this previously. It's the difference between:

1. In an electricity/battery energy pathway, you can have an entirely solid-state system where only the electrons move and I suspect this will be the norm in the future.

For example, a solar panel produces electrons, they flow through copper conductors almost instantly into the battery. That battery will likely be solid-state in the future, then the battery discharges to an electric motor at which point it is converted into motion to drive the wheels.

2. But in an Ammonia/Hydrogen energy pathway, you always have to move atoms around. You use electricity to split water molecules and then capture the hydrogen atoms. Then you have to mechanically compress the hydrogen, transport the hydrogen in tanker trucks and pump it into a hydrogen station storage tank. Then you have to pump it into yet another storage tank in the car. When the hydrogen is ready to be used, it then has significant losses in a combustion engine or fuel cell. A combustion engine wastes most of its energy, because the heat (moving atoms) can't be captured. All this creates significant losses at each stage and its difficult to create an alternative pathway because you are constrained by the requirement to work with hydrogen in chemical reactions.

I deliberately used the term ""mechanical"" in inverted commas as a gross simplification, because nobody really cares about technical jargon in the real world.

Yes, chemical reactions can and do have a far higher energy density than batteries.
But that by itself isn't directly relevant to the question, which is about energy pathways - hydrogen/ammonia versus electricity/battery energy.

So the underlying question is how much does it cost to propel a vehicle, because the lower-cost solution will be the winner. And I haven't even gone into how electricity is already available everywhere and the average socket is sufficient for the average car-owner. In comparison, a hydrogen energy pathway will require an entirely new and expensive infrastructure buildup.

I recall at least 3? discussions already on hydrogen versus electric vehicles in the NEV and other threads already. I see TPHuang has been helpful enough to post the energy pathway losses for hydrogen

And if you've read the works on future energy pathways (Third Industrial Revolution etc), you'll understand why electricity is going to be the predominant energy pathway in the future. Most cars and grids in the future will not be powered by hydrocarbons.
lmao holy shit man you just keep doubling down when you're clearly wrong.

I'm not even talking about hydrogen, because I somewhat agree with the conclusions that hydrogen gas alone is not a good energy distribution medium. Hydrogen alone requires many energy conversion steps, each of which is lossy, while electricity has only a few energy conversion steps.

But this is an example of a broken analog clock being right twice a day. Your reasoning is wrong. And like an analog clock compared to a digital RTC, such reasoning is primitive, unrepeatable, and imprecise. It also means that sweeping, authoritative statements on the reasoning and on the extension of that 'logic', you're wrong, because you were only accidentally 'right' (and only somewhat) in the first place. A broken clock being right at 2 PM doesn't mean that the broken clock will be right at 3 PM.

You know in a battery, atoms move too?
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. You know what ions are? atoms. Charged atoms with almost all the mass of the atoms (+/- a few electrons), transported by diffusion. So clearly you do not understand the concept that atoms move in electrochemical processes and that batteries are electrochemical.

You also didn't understand secondary school chemistry if you double down on the 'speed' of an electron being 'estimated' at whatever. That's a popsci thing, not even wrong for a quantum mechanical object.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
as you see linked.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Actual scientists use the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
where electrons are placed in orbitals which represent a probability distribution function, it isn't this little ball spinning around the nucleus.

You also seem to think that just because something is solid state that its better. No, the rate of improvement is hard capped by Carnot efficiency. Easy example of solid state being inferior to mechanical: thermoelectrics. Then, you don't even get solar panels right.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Multijunctions - extremely expensive to fabricate - are hard capped at 50%.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
So clearly, a given energy technology being solid state isn't enough to be superior to combustion.

Finally, you did not understand the concept of molar energy and energy density. IDK what to tell you on this one.

You know, I understand this feeling. I have opinions on many things too that I'm not a SME in. Nobody can be an expert in everything or right all the time. So I listen to the SMEs. I make clear that I'm not an expert and that this is my opinion. If I don't understand something, I ask. I don't make authoritative statements, I don't try to explain to SMEs, using my partial understanding. If I get corrected by a SME, I accept the correction. I misunderstood the role of heat in energy dumping during reentry. I have a degree yet because I am not in aerospace, this specific situation was something I got wrong. I got corrected by a SME, I accepted it, and I learned something about aerospace. Maybe you'll learn too.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Norwegian EV penetration is at 20% of the car parc - electricity demand has not increased nearly the degree you would expect it. Can you walk through the math on at what point will it impact electricity demand?

I'm not really familiar with the Norwegian situation.

You just have to build a model of EV penetration per year and estimate the incremental electricity consumption based on mileage and electric fuel efficiency. Then compare against existing and expected non-vehicle electricity demand. It can be as detailed and granular as you want


Economically it makes *zero sense* to separate the fee of using electricity vs. the grid with which you access electricity. I've had this exact conversation with utility regulators and electric utility companies across the world. You might as well say in Mawsynram India (most rainfall in the world) they should collect rain water on their roof top and not build a water pipe, ("cuz rainwater is cheaper than building water pipes").

The grid is a public good - unless everyone goes off grid, it needs to exist, and the cost of maintaining that infrastructure is necessary and a sunk cost. Whatever generation capacity you can do at roof top scale, you can do it cheaper at utility scale. Economics 101 ser.


In the cloudy UK for example, the final cost of commercial solar installations (eg. commercial buildings, farms, etc) looks around 6-10p/KWh. This is less than the "normal" electricity price of 15p pre-pandemic. which only includes some grid costs.

If you bundle all the grid costs into the unit cost of electricity, then grid electricity will be significantly more expensive. So I suspect even residential solar costs will be cheaper than grid electricity.

So you would want to install as much solar as possible, for your own use and to charge your EV. And then the EV has more than enough battery capacity and lifetime to power the house for a day.

The UK is generally low-density in terms of buildings, housing stock and land-use, so in general, there is enough space for local solar to meet local needs.

So if you were to bundle all the grid costs into the unit cost of electricity, wouldn't you end up with something like a spiral of ever increasing unit costs for utility-scale generated electricity? And wouldn't that be counterproductive if you want to encourage the use of lower-cost utility scale electricity over locally generated electricity.


Lol, walk me through the electricity demand of a 25 story apartment block and the solar efficiency of that apartment block's roof top - if you tell me that "wind is not available where it is needed", you can't possibly suggest that "solar is going to be generated at a place where it is needed".

I said Solar can generate "some or most" demand and its obvious that a 25 storey apartment won't be able to generate much electricity compared with its consumption. Plus using a 25 storey apartment as a reference point looks somewhat high. Isn't 12-18 storeys more the norm in Chinese cities?

But in general, China is a lot more densely populated than the UK and with current technology, only some electricity demand can be met with local solar. You could only get to "most" electricity generated locally in Chinese cities with cost breakthroughs such as solar films or solar windows, but it does look promising.


And where are we going to find the place to park all those cars? If you understand the real estate 'stock' in China - majority of places don't even have parking lots.

Well, there's another implication in the Third Industrial Revolution. You have to add self-driving cars to the mix.

So that will solve the car parking and charging element during daytime peak solar generation.
But then you have estimates that self-driving cars essentially means dirt cheap taxis, so the number of cars required will drastically reduce
And at the same time, large numbers of EVs will be scrapped as they reach the end of their service lives. Those batteries will essentially be available for their scrap value, yet they will be more than adequate to serve as batteries for homes or local storage.

It's difficult enough figuring out the trajectory of the various technologies involved (solar/wind/batteries/EVs/AI) and how they will mature/develop. And all these technologies interact with each other

Then you've got the economic, political, cultural, social etc elements as well, so the number of possible permutations in terms of short-term trajectory is impossible to predict beyond a few years.

I think if I were to summarize what I observe, you mistake/conflate "what is technically possible" with "what is economically feasible" on a regular basis.

What becomes economically feasible frequently depends on the timeframe or technological development.
But at a high-level, you know what is eventually coming and it's nice to have somewhere to exercise the imagination.

I'm an eternal optimist, and I wouldn't change that for the world.
 

abenomics12345

New Member
Registered Member
Look @AndrewS I’m going to stop engaging with you. Considering how big of a fan of an EV future you are, it is actually ridiculous that you know nothing about Norwegian EV penetration. Like I said EV penetration is 20% the car park and the electricity demand has not changed nearly as much as you claim it is. Go study it before you come and make your big claims.

We are engaged in a discussion of reality, not a potential future of the Jetsons or Star Trek.
 

Top