Priligy online now, save money

FEB 23

Recent Comment

"Per the EIA, in 2006 the US was more than 4 times higher in CO2 emissi..."

View all Comments

Hillary Tells Chinese To Help Reduce Emissions, But Applauds New Tri-Gen Plant

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is visiting China this week, and she seems to be making climate change a key issue on canadian pharmacy levitra her trip. While in Beijing, she talked about how although the Chinese people are certainly entitled to enter site cost of levitra improve their standard of living, the issue of greenhouse gas emissions must be addressed.

It’s no secret, of course, that China has been building coal-fired power plants at a blistering pace (two per week) to provide electricity to its rapidly growing middle class. The argument in defense of this has traditionally been: Yes, China is emitting lots of very good site how to get viagra in canada greenhouse gases, but it’s still less than the levitra 10 mg US when you consider emissions per capita. Plus, the US used coal to develop quickly, so why shouldn’t China?

Secretary Clinton responded by saying that, first of all, China’s per-capita emissions have now exceeded the US. Secondly, climate change doesn’t care about per-capita anything – it’s about the total amount of emissions, period. And lastly: True, the US developed using coal, but that was a mistake. Please don’t repeat our mistake.

The subtle finger-pointing was put aside, however, when Secretary Clinton took a tour of Beijing’s new Taiyanggong Thermal Power Plant. This CHCP (combined-heating-cooling-and-power plant) uses natural gas to drive the turbine, part of the waste heat for municipal heating and viagra online order the rest of the waste heat for cooling (via absorption coolers). This power plant does not emit the buy viagra in amsterdam particulates found in coal exhaust, emits less CO2, and is viagra professional far more efficient. It’s a poster child for the getting levitra next generation of Chinese power production.

But let’s be realistic for a second. It’s not going to be easy to replace the two weekly coal plants with two of free sample pack of cialis these things. This plant was paid for in part by the UN Clean Development Mechanism, a fund that helps pay for clean energy projects in the “developing world”. This was great for publicity, but what we really need is either some favorable economics (maybe these plants would pay for themselves over time if there were a carbon tax/cap), or a serious government initiative to bring coal to a halt.

Via Treehugger
Image via Reuters

Hits: 9400
Comments (5)Add Comment
Coal Replacements - Economics with emiss
written by Carl, February 23, 2009
We hear a lot about new coal power plants in China, but not much on what percentage of new plants replace old ones. No need to go to the newest demonstration technology-- even a ordinary modern coal plant with emissions controls can be a big improvement if it replaces a couple of equivalent old plants.

Unfortunately, neither China or the US has an emissions policy that makes sense. We tax income and use the money to pay polluters to stop. We "grandfather" old plants (in the US ones that were supposed to have been decommissioned), and let them pollute at no cost. How about making polluters pay a cost, then give it to the people (who end up paying for the electricity, etc.)? It's silly to buying viagra online canada do it the other way around.

I don't really see that this new gas cogeneration plant needs to rely on a subsidy-- we need a reference on that claim. I read the project report at
and see that the cost of this plant is lower than the baseline coal plant, but electricity generated is more. Levelized cost (excluding cogenerated heat sales) is 4.4 US-cents/kWh and the baseline coal plant would be 3.3 c/kWh. The project give an unfavorable return on investment 6%, compared to 10% with emissions credits (the coal baseline is 8%). It looks like the credit is ~$5/tonne-CO2. Note the price of electricity is still pretty low.
Natural gas plants in the USA?
written by Loosely_coupled, February 23, 2009
While we are in the transition to renewable energy infrastructure, why aren't we using natural gas electricity plants???
Per-capita emissions wrong ?
written by Andy Simpson, February 23, 2009
While Clinton is correct that total emissions are what counts as far as the planet goes, she is only for you buy canadian cialis online very wrong if she believes that Chinese per capita emissions exceed those of the USA (as reported).

China's per-capita emissions are under 1/4 of those of the USA and a fair amount of the related energy is used to make goods for the USA.

written by Ivan, February 24, 2009
"China’s per-capita emissions have now exceeded the US" oO
you must be meaning the gross emissions!
please watch out for such mistakes if you aim for any credibility by fellow geeks ;)
Ditto the per capita ; CDM -> all
written by Scott, February 24, 2009
Per the EIA, in 2006 the US was more than 4 times higher in CO2 emissions per capita than China.

China applied for CDM credits for ALL of the natural gas plants it started building in 2008.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?

The Most Popular Articles