Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on July 9, 2014
Why China’s Energy Consumption Will Keep Rising
In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was signed. This was to usher in an era where the planet was to tackle climate change, and we were to see an energy transition from dirty, polluting fossil fuels to their low-carbon alternatives.
Instead, here is what happened. Global coal consumption grew more in the last ten years than it did in the previous forty. After decades of global energy consumption growth being dominated by oil and natural gas, coal grew more in the last decade than oil did in the last 25 years and more than gas did in the last 22 years. The comparisons with low-carbon energy sources is even more stark. In the years since the Kyoto Protocol was signed, growth in primary energy consumption from coal was eight times larger than for wind, solar and nuclear energy put together. This incredible growth in coal consumption means that the global energy system is no less carbon intensive than it was when the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997.
And this growth in coal was dominated by one country: China. 87% of the growth in global coal consumption in the years 2003 to 2013 came in China alone, and China now consumes just over half of the world’s coal.
Coal however is not the only thing that China produces or consumes half of. Production of almost all major materials is now dominated by China. Most remarkable is China’s dominance of cement making, with China laying down more concrete in the last three years than America did in the last century; probably the most astounding, and almost literally unbelievable, fact demonstrating the rapid growth of China.
Production of these materials also comes with a massive energy and carbon emissions footprint. Cement and steel making in China alone now require more energy and emit more carbon dioxide each year than major economies such as Germany and Japan.
The rapid expansion of coal in China saw it overtake America as the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in the late 2000s. However, more importantly it is now about to take over the European Union in terms of per-capita carbon dioxide emissions. China now emits over 7 tonnes of carbon dioxide per-capita, more than France, Spain or Italy. And given that China’s carbon dioxide emissions are continuing to rise, while the European Union falls, we can be highly certain that China’s per-capita carbon dioxide emissions will be will above those in the European Union’s by the end of the decade.
However, while China is now at the EU level in terms of per-capita carbon dioxide emissions, it is much lower in terms of per-capita energy consumption. This can be made clear by comparing China’s per-capita coal consumption last year with Britain’s 100 years ago. In 1913, per-capita annual coal consumption was 5 tonnes in the United Kingdom, whereas it was only 2.9 tonnes in China. China then has a long way to go simply to catch up with where Britain was a century ago.
Per-capita energy consumption in Europe and Japan is roughly two times higher than it is in China, while in North America it is four times higher. The United Kingdom’s energy consumption per-capita is closer to those in China. However, this highlights a clear problem. A lot of Britain’s, and other countries’, energy consumption has been outsourced to China. I sit typing this in Britain, yet of the things around me – my computer, my smartphone, my clothes – almost none were made in Britain. Similarly, a large amount of China’s energy consumption is to make stuff for other countries. As shown by the work of Glen Peters and others, China’s per-capita energy consumption is clearly two times lower than any developed country once you recognise that a lot of the energy consumed in China is used to produce stuff for Western consumers.
So China’s energy consumption appears certain to increase significantly, and this can be illustrated by comparing China’s travel patterns with those of the United Kingdom and by considering China’s relatively low levels of domestic electricity consumption.
In 2011, total passenger kilometres over all forms of transport in the United Kingdom was just under 800 billion kilometres, that is around 13,000 kilometres per-capita. In contrast, in China the total was 3,100 billion passenger kilometres, that is around 2,400 kilometres per-capita. So, people in Britain travel around five times further than those in China. This disparity is not likely to persist. Official Chinese statistics indicate that per-capita travel in China roughly doubled in the last decade, while travel in Britain, like many developed countries, appears to have peaked.
Low per-capita travel in China is reflected in its oil consumption. The average person in China consumes almost ten times less oil than someone in Canada. And it is still three times lower than the United Kingdom, which has one of the lowest rates of consumption of developed countries. Naturally, these statistics demonstrate both the low rates of consumption in China and the excessive rates of consumption in North America. Americans may consume two times more energy than Europeans, but they have very little to show for it in terms of quality of life.
In typical Western economies one third of electricity is consumed in people’s homes, whereas in China it is only 12%. China may make our TVs, but they are much less prone to watch them. As a result there are stark differences in how much electricity the average person in China. The average American consumes almost ten times more electricity in their home than the average person in China, while the average person in Britain consumes four times more. This reflects the extent to which China’s economic model is based on production, and not consumption. China’s transition to higher personal consumption levels will inevitably see a marked increase in electricity consumption.
These differences are not likely to persist for long. Per-capita energy consumption in most Western economies has been flat for the last two decades. In fact, it was higher in the 1970s than today in both the United Kingdom and America. However, per-capita energy consumption in China, which has risen by over 5% each year for the last decade, will inevitably continue to rise over the next couple of decades, probably longer.
But two fundamental questions remain. Will China consume energy like Europeans or follow the more excessive American model? And will China’s energy consumption continue to be dominated by coal? The future of the planet may rest on the answers.
20 Comments on "Why China’s Energy Consumption Will Keep Rising"
Makati1 on Wed, 9th Jul 2014 7:47 pm
“… a lot of the energy consumed in China is used to produce stuff for Western consumers…”
Bingo! Key words: PRODUCE & Western.
The Chinese use energy to produce real things that can be sold for money, which they then use to buy more resources. The West uses energy to play and pretend they are still great. Therefore, China (and much of Asia) can afford higher oil, gas and coal prices than the West, as the West is finding out now.
BTW: In the West, the top 10% are sending their kids to learn Mandarin. Here in the Ps, it is taught in high school, along with English and Tagalog. Filipinos are multilingual, as are most Europeans. They know that China is the future.
Davy on Wed, 9th Jul 2014 9:12 pm
Mak, China produces low value junk the US does not need to be healthy society. The same is true for the P’s. So good riddance of the East Asia plastic shit and low value trailer trash furniture. The US has the ultimate resource and that is its huge food potential. It is too bad when BAU sputters Asia will sputter for lack of food.
Plantagenet on Wed, 9th Jul 2014 9:29 pm
China is the largest CO2 polluter on the planet. If you want to know who is to blame for global warming, you can put China at the head of the list.
J on Wed, 9th Jul 2014 10:05 pm
Plant, cumulative emissions:
US: 26%
China: 11%
Russia: 7%
Japan: 4%
Germany 6%
…
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140221_DraftOpinion.pdf
So it’s easy to see who to blame!
Davy on Wed, 9th Jul 2014 10:21 pm
J, Who is to blame now or then? Then we did not know what we were doing. Now we know what we are doing. China is burning more coal than the rest of the world combined and knows what it is doing to the Earth. The argument by China to the rich west goes like this “I can do it now because you did it then.” That is pretty self-centered if you ask me. I am not saying the west attitude is any better I am just tired of the Chinese argument especially considering the huge amount of damage they are doing. Nothing can be done with AGW if China keeps on its path which it will because it is too late for them to go back to the society they once were. It will take a collapse to change China.
Perk Earl on Wed, 9th Jul 2014 11:15 pm
“In the years since the Kyoto Protocol was signed, growth in primary energy consumption from coal was eight times larger than for wind, solar and nuclear energy put together.”
Does that look like a transition to renewables? Ouch!
Makati1 on Wed, 9th Jul 2014 11:36 pm
Davy, ignorance is no excuse and we DID know we were polluting, we just ignored it to make money, as usual. And much of the Chinese pollution is ours by way of importing the products causing it.
BY the way, Exports from China to the US:
China’s exports to the US amounted to
$369.1 billion or 16.7% of overall Chinese exports.
1. Machines, engines, pumps: $86.7 billion
2. Electronic equipment: $82.9 billion
3. Furniture, lighting, signs: $23.1 billion
4. Knit or crochet clothing: $14.8 billion
5. Clothing (not knit or crochet): $13.4 billion
6. Footwear: $13.3 billion
7. Toys, games: $12.9 billion
8. Plastics: $12.2 billion
9. Vehicles: $10.5 billion
10. Medical, technical equipment: $8.6 billion
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_china_exports.html
“U.S. goods imports from the Philippines totaled $9.3 billion in 2013, a 3.3% decrease ($316 million) from 2012, and down 8% from 2003.
The five largest import categories in 2013 were: Electrical Machinery ($3.4 billion), Machinery ($1.6 billion), Knit Apparel ($627 million), Woven Apparel ($505 million), and Fats and Oils (coconut oil) ($454 million).
U.S. imports of agricultural products from the Philippines totaled $991 million in 2013. Leading categories include: tropical oils ($453 million), processed fruit and vegetables ($196 million), tree nuts ($73 million), fruit and vegetable juices ($63 million), and raw beet and sugar cane ($34 million).
U.S. imports of private commercial services* (i.e., excluding military and government) were $3.7 billion in 2012 (latest data available), up 17.8% ($556 million) from 2011, and up 177% from 2002 levels. Other private services (business, professional and technical services), travel and passenger fares categories account for most of U.S. services imports from the Philippines.”
http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/southeast-asia-pacific/philippines
MSN Fanboy on Thu, 10th Jul 2014 4:19 am
They know that China is the future.
Makati, i thought collapse was just around the corner, where is this future?
Unless you mean the future is smog, over-population, polluted soils etc…
Davy on Thu, 10th Jul 2014 7:27 am
MSM, Mak does the so called “double negative speak”. Makster says things that negates other things he says. He is hypocritical with his criticism of US MSM but then when this MSM has an article that is in line with his thinking then he uses it. Mak is a hypocrite in the pure definition of the word. This happens because he is a traveling salesman selling dirt on the US. Instead of balanced intelligent analysis.
M1 on Thu, 10th Jul 2014 8:09 am
CANADA!
Didn’t you snowballs ever hear about INSULATION?
Double wall construction? Triple pane windows?
westexas on Thu, 10th Jul 2014 11:24 am
Some definitions:
GNE (Global Net Exports of oil) = Combined net exports from the (2005) Top 33 net oil exporters (EIA, total petroleum liquids + other liquids)
CNI = Chindia’s (China + India’s) Net Imports
ANE = (Available Net Exports) = GNE less CNI, i.e., the volume of GNE available to net oil importers other than China & India
So, GNE/CNI is the unitless ratio of GNE to CNI.
At a GNE/CNI Ratio of 1.0, Chindia would theoretically consume 100% of GNE. The GNE/CNI Ratio and the ECI Ratio (ratio of production to consumption) are both analogous to an income to expense ratio. At an income to expense ratio of 1.0, net income = zero.
ANE fell from 41 mbpd in 2005 to to 35 mbpd in 2012, and probably declined to between 33 and 34 mbpd in 2013.
The Chindia region’s net imports of oil (CNI) have been rising so fast that based on the 2005 to 2012 rate of decline in the GNE/CNI ratio, in only 16 years China and India alone would theoretically consume 100% of GNE, leaving no net oil exports available to about 155 net oil importing countries. For more info, you can search for: Export Capacity Index.
Of course, the world economy can’t survive at anything like current levels, if two countries are consuming anything close to 100% of GNE, but following is what the data show for the GNE/CNI Ratio for 2002 to 2012.
GNE/CNI Graph:
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Slide1_zps9ff3e76d.jpg
I estimate that the 2013 GNE/CNI data point will fall along the projected decline curve (around 4.5 to 4.6 or so in 2013). So far, we continue to slide toward a projected point in time that we cannot arrive at (when the GNE/CNI Ratio = 1.0).
Quite the conundrum.
JuanP on Thu, 10th Jul 2014 12:24 pm
China’s growth is unsustainable and will not last another 20 years at the rate the author implies.
Proyecting from the past into the future doesn’t work all the time. Sometimes circumstances are unprecedented as with our current predicament.
China is slowing down already and, IMHO, this is the beginning of an irreversible trend. I don’t think many places in the world have 20 years of economic growth ahead of them in our lifetimes.
Davy on Thu, 10th Jul 2014 1:06 pm
Juan, Much of China’s growth was waisted growth yielding ghost cities and hwy’s to nowhere.
Northwest Resident on Thu, 10th Jul 2014 1:18 pm
Makati1 — A large percentage of the products being produced in China — perhaps even the majority — are being produced in factories moved to China from America and other countries. China did not wake up one day and find trillion$ of dollars laying around to build itself into the economic powerhouse that it is today. What actually happened is that Western companies moved their production to China so they could exploit the cheap labor, total absence of environmental laws and/or regulations, and take advantage of no worker’s rights — in other words, absolute authoritarianism as it exists in China. I just don’t understand how you can see China as having any kind of great future while the rest of the world (or even just America) collapses. That point of view is totally illogical and unsupported by any kind or reasonable thought process.
But wishful thinking works just fine, until it doesn’t.
Shaved Monkey on Thu, 10th Jul 2014 5:07 pm
China is just a way capitalism exports slave labour and polluting to the 3rd world.
Its our factory.
Its CO2 emissions are our CO2 emissions.
The coal it burns is ours( mainly Australia’s coal).
Makati1 on Thu, 10th Jul 2014 8:12 pm
Noerthwest, China is growing by any means it can, and yes, greedy Westerners moved their factories/tech to China. Does that mean that we got powerful because we took the German rocket engineers after WW2 and used them to build our rockets that took us to the moon and to build missiles for war? Or that we constantly import engineers and scientists that are smarter than we are, to build our tech industry, which we have shipped to Asia? What country does not steal ideas and people to build their country?
Look close. You now live in a Fascist country.
(A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.)
Obama ignores International law, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights. He does much of what his owners tell him to do. YOU are NOT his owner. Democracy is dead in the US. Your vote means nothing today. Your owners already know who will be President next, if there is to be an election in 2016. We shall see. I give it 50:50 at this point.
Northwest Resident on Thu, 10th Jul 2014 8:28 pm
Makati1, America is not a Fascist country, not by any stretch of the definition. Not yet, anyway, though there are plenty of fascist elements in America that given a chance, would certainly do their best to turn it into that. You over-emphasize and conjure up negatives about America while minimizing or simply not counting negatives about China, simply to maintain your illusion that China is the one country that will still be standing tall after TSHTF. I don’t care, unlike Davy who you drive crazy. Just thought I’d mention the fact that if it wasn’t for hundreds of billions of Western investment in China combined with the fact that many Western factories were moved to China, then China would still be a very third world country and probably still murdering and starving millions of their own people just to maintain power. But hey, you’re entitled to your illusions, don’t let me disturb you. Back to our regular programming now…
Davy on Thu, 10th Jul 2014 8:32 pm
Mak, NR just wak’d ya. How did it feel?
Makati1 on Thu, 10th Jul 2014 10:16 pm
Davy, all he did was prove he is in deep denial. As for China, I never said it would rule the world, just take it’s place as number one. Countries change. Look at what the democratic US has turned into. The world’s biggest terrorist organization. Desperation is obvious in US diplomacy and economy. Nuff said.
Davy on Fri, 11th Jul 2014 6:57 am
Mak, the Nuff, he wak’d you because you are a China jockey for reasons of competition not the study of the realities of the current interconnect global system in limits of growth facing diminishing returns and in a state of overshoot with the predicaments of PO, food/water stress, and overpopulation. If you would be aware of these conditions and not using them as a tool to bash with then you would see both sides suffer from these predicaments. You would also have to agree that the worst of both worlds is overpopulation coupled with inadequate food production abilities. Mak, that is China in a nutshell. Mak, you are on a mission to soil the US and pump up your “Eastern Nirvana”. You are doing this to justify your move from the States to an East Asian overpopulated Island in ecological decline. Granted a paradise but a paradise lost from exploitation and degradation from too many people. Sorry Mak, wake up bloke.