PLAN choke points

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
This dependence on fossil fuel imports (through the choke points) is one reason why the PRC is looking very hard at nuclear and alternative energy sources.

Currently, China only has about 11 working (power producing) reactors, producing just 2% of China's energy needs (~9 GWs). That's a very small number and they're working to increase it.

Nuclear fuel rods can last up to 3 years in a reactor, then reprocessed into MOX fuel to power thermal reactors (now) and fast breeder reactors (in future).

A "cut" in the supply of oil will have immediate impact on your economy and power supply. But nuclear power fuel will last years and you don't have to worry about short-term supply disruptions.

The Chinese government is also looking to supply 10% of its energy needs via renewable sources (solar, wind, bio-fuel) by 2020, which is quite ambitious.
 

RedMercury

Junior Member
For China, electricity is mostly from coal. Oil affects transportation and manufacturing. Of course, logistics affect everything.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
For China, electricity is mostly from coal. Oil affects transportation and manufacturing. Of course, logistics affect everything.

Correct China has no vulnerability in Power Generation Anyway Nuclear is too expensive and take too long to build average 7 to 10 years Better technology is coming on stream like Fuidized Bed Coal generating station Anyway here is article about Coal to Oil conversion courtesy of Mr Unknown from CDF


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China builds plant to turn coal into barrels of oil

By Nao Nakanishi and Niu ShupingTue Jun 3, 8:25 PM ET

With oil prices at historic highs, China is moving full steam ahead with a controversial process to turn its vast coal reserves into barrels of oil.

Known as coal-to-liquid (CTL), the process is reviled by environmentalists who say it causes excessive greenhouse gases.

Yet the possibility of obtaining oil from coal and being fuel self-sufficient is enticing to coal-rich countries seeking to secure their energy supply in an age of increased debate about how long the world's oil reserves can continue to meet demand.

The United States, Australia and India are among those countries looking at CTL technology but are constrained by environmental concerns associated with the process which releases excessive amounts of carbon gases into the atmosphere and consumes huge amounts of water.

But China, which lacks the powerful environmental lobbyists that might stymie any widescale initiative elsewhere, is building a major complex on the grasslands of Inner Mongolia.

"Those countries with large coal reserves, like South Africa, China or the United States, are very keen on CTL as it helps ensure energy security," said Yuichiro Shimura at Mitsubishi Research Institute Inc (MRI) in Tokyo.

"However, the problem is that it creates a lot of carbon dioxide. Also you need a huge amount of energy for liquefaction, which means you end up wasting quite a lot of energy," the chief consultant at MRI in charge of energy told Reuters.

In Erdos, Inner Mongolia, about 10,000 workers are putting the final touches to a CTL plant that will be run by state-owned Shenhua Group, China's biggest coal mine.

The plant will be the biggest outside of South Africa, which adopted CTL technology due to international embargoes on fuel during the apartheid years.

"We cannot fail," Zhang Jiming, deputy general manager at Shenhua Coal Liquefaction, told Reuters. "If things go smoothly, we will start with the expansion next year," he said.

The plant will start operating later this year and is expected to convert 3.5 million tonnes of coal per year into 1 million tonnes of oil products such as diesel for cars.

That's the equivalent of about 20,000 barrels a day, a tiny percentage of China's oil needs as oil consumption in China is around 7.2 million barrels a day.

If all goes well, then Inner Mongolia will push on with an ambitious plan to turn half of its coal output into liquid fuel or chemicals by 2010. This would be around 135 million tonnes, or about 40 percent of Australia's annual coal output.

The region, as big as France, Germany and England put together, hopes CTL will propel development while contributing to Beijing's plan to have CTL capacity of 50 million tonnes by 2020.

That would be about 286,000 barrels a day, or about four percent of China's energy needs based on current consumption.

UNITED STATES LOOKS AT CTL

CTL is also being considered by a number of coal-rich countries such as the United States, which has the world's largest coal reserves.

The relatively low cost of CTL produced oil given current oil prices, plus the chance to be more energy self-sufficient is a powerful incentive.

The technology is being seen in some quarters as offering an opportunity for the U.S. to reduce its dependency on other countries for oil and a small U.S. CTL industry is emerging.

DRKW Advanced Fuels plans to start construction on a plant in Wyoming next year in partnership with Arch Coal Inc and with technologies licensed by General Electric and Exxon Mobil. The defense department is experimenting with CTL in an effort to cut reliance on fuel from countries unfriendly to the United States.

But CTL is highly controversial. Experts say the whole lifecycle releases about twice as much carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas, as fossil fuel. Liquefying coal also requires large amounts of energy and drains water supplies.

The fuel produced through this method has a shelf life of up to 15 years, unlike other motor fuels which is attractive to the military and to governments keen to ensure fuel security.

Though CTL technology was developed about 100 years ago, it has been little used, except in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa, which had difficulty accessing then-inexpensive oil.

Oil prices, which have more than quadrupled this decade to above $130 a barrel, have reignited interest in CTL.

The Oil and Gas Journal in April suggested it costs $67 to $82 a barrel to produce CTL fuel, based on the experiences of South Africa's Sansol. Exact prices would depend on a range of factors including coal and water prices and of course it is very expensive to build CTL plants.

Shenhua will be the first to use direct CTL technology on a large scale. It is different from indirect CTL, proven in Nazi Germany and by South Africa's Sasol, and converts coal directly into liquid fuel, skipping gasifying coal into syngas.

"CTL happened only twice in world history, and both times it's been in nations facing some kind of state of emergency with respect to energy. It should sound an alarm bell," said Gary Kendall, from the WWF conservation group.

"There are two defining issues in the 21st century: one is carbon dioxide and one is water ... And the (CTL) process is horrifically carbon intensive. It is also very water intensive."

The "holy grail" for CTL enthusiasts is to find a way to turn coal into liquid without releasing carbons into the air. The idea is that the carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas, would be captured and stored deep under ground.

Carbon capture and storage, which is still the subject of much research, would alleviate the environmental impact of carbon dioxide being released into the environment, the main argument against CTL by critics. This could spur CTL development in the United States and other western countries.

Coal lobbyists in the U.S. have been clamoring for more research into CTL but they have failed to override environmental concerns due to the carbon emissions of the process. Pro-CTL amendments were dropped from the 2007 U.S. energy bill.

"If there is no good solution for CO2, the (CTL) industry will not flourish," Chen Linming, executive vice president at Sasol China, told a conference last month, urging the government to support carbon capture and storage technology.

Shenhua and Sasol are conducting a feasibility study to build two more CTL plants in the provinces of Shaanxi and Ningxia.

WATER, ELECTRICITY

Whether CTL technology could ever be used on a large-scale will depend on how coal companies deal with the massive amount of water used in the process.

China faces serious water shortages and the Gobi desert, which spans across Inner Mongolia, is expanding rapidly. There are drinking water shortages in northwest China and ground water levels are sinking every year.

Shenhua plans to use ground water and recycled water from coal mines to supply the 8 million tonnes it will need a year.

Yet Zhang said it would need to tap other sources, such as the Yellow River, in the second phase. He would not disclose how much the company spent to build the complex, or how much carbon dioxide it is expected to emit.

"There's no doubt with oil at over $100 a barrel, CTL is very economic ... However the constraint is the availability of water," said Michael Komesarroff from Urandaline Investments.

"The Yellow River often dries up ... In some parts of China, 30 years ago, the water table was 5 meters below the ground. Today it is 35-40 meters below the ground because they take the ground water in an unsustainable way."

Environmentalists say that rather than invest in a process that will probably never be environmentally sound, China and other countries should move towards running cars on batteries rather than liquid fuel.

"If China's primary concern is energy security, then I think you would want to take the most efficient way of using the resources," said WWF's Kendall.

"If you turn coal into electricity at high efficiency, and charge electric vehicles, you can get three times as many kilometers per unit of coal."

Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
China's proven coal reserves is good for ~48 years at 2006 rate of extraction. But I think the rate of extraction has been going up at +7% annually?

GE's ABWR nuclear power plants were built in Japan a little over 3 years. Westinghouse is building AP100's in China and the estimated time is 4-5 years to build a power plant. Taiwan's Lungmen nuclear power plant was severely delayed due to political, not technical reasons. These days it doesn't take that many years to build one.

PRC government has no restrictions on reprocessing spent fuel, and China's large size allows safe geologic disposal away from population centers. If pebble bed reactors are proven to work well, that would provide safe nuclear power as well as hydrogen production. S. Africa's PBR has been used to desalinate seawater, which can be applied to China's coastal provinces.
 

Skywatcher

Captain
Pebble bed reactor production could theoretically be scaled up into assembly lines. It will be very interesting to see where China and South Africa take that technology.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
China's proven coal reserves is good for ~48 years at 2006 rate of extraction. But I think the rate of extraction has been going up at +7% annually?

GE's ABWR nuclear power plants were built in Japan a little over 3 years. Westinghouse is building AP100's in China and the estimated time is 4-5 years to build a power plant. Taiwan's Lungmen nuclear power plant was severely delayed due to political, not technical reasons. These days it doesn't take that many years to build one.

PRC government has no restrictions on reprocessing spent fuel, and China's large size allows safe geologic disposal away from population centers. If pebble bed reactors are proven to work well, that would provide safe nuclear power as well as hydrogen production. S. Africa's PBR has been used to desalinate seawater, which can be applied to China's coastal provinces.

Are you sure about this part? I thought it was 80 years. And with the way global coal trade works these days, they are going to be getting coal from Australia and USA more and more in the future. So, I don't think it's that bleak. But they definitely need to look into alternative energy source in the future. They can't rely on coal as an infinite source. They need to diversity their energy sources more and also work harder on those clean coal, hot air capture technology.

I don't want to put too much hope into PBR. I'm not sure about its commercial feasibility and efficiency compared to the conventional PWRs. The major advantage to PBR is that it doesn't have the huge startup cost. But with the way Chinese government works, that really isn't an issue for China as it is in a Western democracy.

There certainly is political will in China to do whatever it can to get ahead in these new reusable energy sources like wind, solar, hydro and such. So, I think that helps a lot. It's kind of sad when you live in America and realize that there is just so much bickering in an election year about what type of reusable energy to use. Invest in all is the way to go.
 

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
Are you sure about this part? I thought it was 80 years. And with the way global coal trade works these days, they are going to be getting coal from Australia and USA more and more in the future. So, I don't think it's that bleak. But they definitely need to look into alternative energy source in the future. They can't rely on coal as an infinite source. They need to diversity their energy sources more and also work harder on those clean coal, hot air capture technology.

I don't want to put too much hope into PBR. I'm not sure about its commercial feasibility and efficiency compared to the conventional PWRs. The major advantage to PBR is that it doesn't have the huge startup cost. But with the way Chinese government works, that really isn't an issue for China as it is in a Western democracy.

There certainly is political will in China to do whatever it can to get ahead in these new reusable energy sources like wind, solar, hydro and such. So, I think that helps a lot. It's kind of sad when you live in America and realize that there is just so much bickering in an election year about what type of reusable energy to use. Invest in all is the way to go.

Hi Tphung,

I went back and re-did my calculations according to British Petroleum's world energy reserve figures. Assuming the proven reserves are true and fully extractable, China's Coal Reserves can last 94.5 years at 2006 rate of extraction (without increase).

Comparing the consumption rate to extraction rate, China consumed 98% as much coal as it had extracted in 2006. From historical data, China's coal extraction and consumption had doubled over the last 14-15 years:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The spreadsheet is pretty extensive and contains figures for oil, LNG, hydro, energy consumption, etc. for various countries and regions around the globe.

I'm very big on alternative energy but will admit that solar and wind are "geographically restricted". Parts of China would be very good for solar or wind but not everywhere. Nuclear power doesn't have such restrictions and is mostly clean except for the radioactive waste.

Going back to the original topic -- as a nation, China cannot allow itself to be hold hostage to oil. It'd entangle China's foreign policy to the middle east and look where it's gotten the US today:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


That's really not a future that I think the PRC wants to look forward to. If these "choke points" is all about the flow of oil, then it's time to stop being addicted to it.
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
That's really not a future that I think the PRC wants to look forward to. If these "choke points" is all about the flow of oil, then it's time to stop being addicted to it.

This is very true, but oil isn't the only issue here. Obviously oil is the main strategic reason that the PLAN might need to obtain entry into the Indian Ocean, but there's a whole host of imagineble other reasons for them to want to do so. It's a geopolitical hot spot, has always been the center of a network of trade routes and even if China no longer needs much Mideastern oil it still will be important. For example let's say India-China relations go south and India develops SSBNs. China is going to need to be able to delpoy some sort of force into the Indian Ocean to destroy those subs in the event of war, which would require either the ability to force their way through the Straits or a way to get around it via say a base at Gwadar.

Basically my point is that we can't tell what the future holds, so on balance it's safe to assume that an Indian Ocean presence will remain important for China.
 
Top