subject: quot;New energy" is a reserve of 30 years can not become the main force - new energy, solar energy - heat pump industry [print this page] quot;New energy" is a reserve of 30 years can not become the main force - new energy, solar energy - heat pump industry
Some view the "Clean Energy "Equal to" new Energy "This is a misunderstanding. Can be said that the" new energy "is clean energy, clean energy, but not all" new energy. "In fact, the" clean energy "of the definition is very simple: those who can be called clean energy" clean energy ", this definition refers to the results, do not ask the source, regardless of" clean "come from?? the original or subsequent ecological change?? as long as clean on the line. If the clean energy equivalent to" new energy ", implying That is the "new energy" is dirty energy than, that in discussing the energy of the initial shape Shihai justify, but into "clean energy" of the topic, will be misleading, a lot of that can be clean of the Fossil energy will be marginalized, and this carbon is clearly detrimental to China's energy structure, and not in line with national conditions. from China's national conditions, we need to correctly treat "clean energy" and "new energy."
"New energy" is the reserve, 30 years can not become main players
"New energy" that is wind, Solar Energy , Nuclear energy, biomass, geothermal energy, ocean energy, China's energy structure in the current share of only around 7%. The current "hottest" and "new energy" wind, solar, nuclear energy, for example, in 2008, the total power generation, wind power accounted for only 0.4%, nuclear power accounted for only 0.6%, solar energy accounts for only 0.8%. Their impact on China's industrialization, urbanization, modernization of the contribution is clearly low in the early stages of reform and opening up 30 years of great development of the process of industrialization, "new energy" is only just entering the substitutes.
The next 30 years, the development process of China's "new energy" can play a "supporting" role in it? Is definitely not. On the one hand, from a cost perspective, the "new energy" in the process of development is a burn, compared to coal, the costs are 10 times higher or more. "2050 Report of China's energy and carbon emissions," expected, after 2010 China's annual industrial investment in low carbon economy about 1 trillion yuan, a year after 2020 for the construction, transportation investment in low carbon economy is about 1.5 trillion yuan . It was explained that much of the money there is to be used for "new energy," the development. Such a large sum of money, if spending 30 consecutive years, then our GDP would show a lot of holes to fill, to do so will certainly affect the development, livelihood and stability; the other hand, from the existing energy structure, even if the We are not bad money, subjectively willing to do, but the fundamental objective is difficult to break the fossil fuels as the main structure. 30 years of reform and opening up into the coal, Oil , Natural gas, electricity (thermal, hydro) and other large Project The life cycle generally have 20 - 30 years, dismantled them one by one is simply unthinkable. This energy structure of the long-period locking effect is rigid, with local development, employment, livelihood and social stability are highly correlated, in fact, is technically difficult to do the short term, as the Car Access very difficult operation to the left as truth. After all, in the 2040s before the 30 years, the "new energy" did not support China's rapid development into the main players, but they just reserve it. Rational perspective, the development of "new energy" is a long-term, strategic choice, not in advance of its expected effect.
Things are not absolute, even primitive forms of clean energy (the so-called "new energy"), as long as human beings to use it, will still result in carbon emissions, both in front of their material flow, in the end, end, or in its external value chain or the products entire life cycle. Wind, solar, nuclear, biomass and other energy forms, their production process itself is carbon emissions, they are tools, operation, energy consumption are indirect carbon emissions. So, no need to bring "new energy" myth to demonize fossil fuels, the world is not absolutely "clean" and "unclean."
