Thanks to Professor Qi Ye for joining us on Cleaning Up. Subscribe to the channel for all the latest episodes, and find out free newsletter at cleaninguppod.substack.com
The host mentioned there must be rules. Yes, there must be rules, but any rule must be accepted by EVERYONE. One contestant CANNOT IMPOSE rules that he made up on his own. AND under any rule, doing a Tonya Harding kneecap sabotage is NEVER, EVER acceptable.
Using high speed electric rail + EVs is a real win with efficiency for transport. The UK imports nearly 50% of its diesel , bad for the economy and energy security.
A bit depressing. It is very true that countries that are fossil fuel rich have less incentive to increase the pace of the transition. People seem to underestimate the fact that China has limited fossil fuels so EV's and renewables are far more desirable for China than for the US. The story is that China has subsidised EV's and Solar so that they can dominate the global industries. Possibly some part of the plan but if China is trying to be reasonably self sufficient for energy and have maybe an economy double the size with say 2-3 times the vehicles and a per capita income even 50% of US then the energy requirements will be vast. Without renewables the imports of fossil fuels would be massive. It is a huge security issue as well.
@DavidL-v9o Wrong perspective. Why do you assume that "they" (China) "subsidise" EVs and solar? Why do you assume they do so to "Dominate Global industries"? . How about ... They build the tech at lower cost because although their workers (apparently) "Earn less than others", they have a high standard of living/ quality of life due to vastly improved infrastructure which reduces the *COST* of living. How about that low cost is also achieved by building the "system" rather than just "Thee Product".... AKA "vertical integration"? How about.... If they were trying to "Dominate", they would sell their products at lets say 10-20% less than "The Competition" and take the profit then re-invest that extra profit to REALLY dominate. . In my opinion They saw a problem. They developed a plan which might achieve the desired solution. They implemented the plan and whole doing so became very good at the solution. . Maybe you should ask not why China "dominates", Not why Chinese products are "Cheap", but why others can't MATCH the price OR quality. . In case you haven't noticed (or Looked) they are not aiming for "2-3 times the number of vehicles per Capita". They ARE building (Have BUILT) a Wold Leading Mass Transit system for both cities and long distance travel. . As I said, never assume that another country/ culture has the same mindset, perspective or values as yours.
@@rogerstarkey5390 Nobody is assuming that China subsidizes solar and batteries, it's a well-known policy of the CCP..... :) Actually, they have just ended the policy recently due to overproduction and dropping lithium prices. That's why CATL is shutting down factories, it's not just the economic downturn in China, it's CCP policies too. Maybe it's a good move by the CCP, but I think people generally overestimate their competence, because... propaganda.
@@rogerstarkey5390 Very true. But don't always assume that they have a different mindset, perspective, or value than ours. Either of your posts may be true, and frankly, both may be true. Both your concepts have doubtlessly been considered/thought of by China, and not China alone.
What a shame, if the world worked together we would have the clean energy transition licked. Imagine if countries didn't fight wars, we could put all that money into climate. How about no trade barriers. A fair system for all mmm As an Aussie the swimming analogy was telling..... Ask the Aussie wine and barley growers about trade barriers.
But, what power would Governments have? If everyone worked together, there'd be an excess of food and most raw materials but also labour. We can have everything we want, or investor income, but not both.
So trusting in science, planning and investing long term, and having a domestic market are unfair advantages? Chinese scaling made PV cheap and available - that is a problem?
I'm a fan of Cleaning up, and I am also a fan, broadly, of the leading role that China has taken in PVs etc. You pick you enemies, and climate change is the biggest. That said, this interview gave Qi Ye so many free passes, I thought that perhaps CCP had joined the leadership circle. His analogy of the olympic runner being asked to slow down was met with the weakest of resistence and the issues of slavery and forced labour, as well as the fact that the energy sector is China is essentially owned by single party dictatorship was passed by as inconsequential matters. Again, I'm not a China beater, but we need candour here. If we want to talk about rules, you can't talk about democracy (and the challenges that come with it) as a detail. Some might say that the transition fight currently being waged is fundementally a fight between the rights of people and the rights of economic entities, which will always lead the discussion back to the relationship between the market and modes of governance/public interest. And the way Worthington let Ye downgrade the security issues of EVs (mobile observation units wired back to the motherland) and the corrosive potential effect of social media/Tik Tok (in the face of Cambridge Analytica to name just one) was just offensive to people who rightly take these things seriously. Has no one read Carole Cadwalladr there? If that can be done in a so called democracy, do you really think taking social media seriously is a joke? You guys know your energy, no question. But that interview made you look as politically astute as a bumbling fluffy kitten.
Democracy? Human rights? Do you seriously want to raise these questions while the US helps Israel commit a genocide in Gaza? The US has no credibility on these things and only raises them as political clubs to beat up its rivals and enemies. You are being extremely gullible in not realizing this. These things only matter when the US says they do and they don't apply to US allies. That means, quite frankly, they don't apply to anyone.
Is China and its diplomatic and PR cor smart enough to make use of the Trump clown show? There is a HUGE opportunity for China, but Im not sure that they are politically or culturally or economically equiped to do so
Can Michael Liebreich please address the peer-reviewed Simon Michaux paper on the enormous bottleneck in minerals for the green transition? No ad-hominem. A systematic review of the study explaining why he is wrong. Because it looks very much like he is right. And we need to go back and think of a new plan.
Sure. It's bollox. If you make stupid assumptions about how much battery storage you need for each unit of renewables you add to the grid, you get a silly figure for total demand for minerals. And then as long as you state your assumptions and your maths adds up, you can get it peer reviewed. That doesn't make it worth the pixels it occupies on anyone's computer screen. All that Michaux proves is that there is a living to be made telling people that are scared of change what they want to hear.
@MLiebreich Do a video on it. I'm a renewables engineer in Ireland - i believe Michaux is correct. Ireland is a good example - our only choice for storage is batteries. Jean-marc Jancovici's NGO The Shift Project also point to minerals shortages, and calculate a massive drop in energy supply by 2050 in Europe. My suggestion - read Michaux and Jancovicis work, then do a video on how Ireland could have a completely renewable future.
@@Zanderzan1983 Ireland, Finland and Lebanon are extreme cases for energy storage. Mainland Europe, China, Japan, North America, and Australia all have enough land with elevation differences to use pumped storage if the price for battery materials starts to climb too high because of shortages. Yes, countries like Ireland Finland and Lebanon may have to get interconnects and rely on neighbours for energy storage but none of these countries are self-sufficient in energy now so why do they need to be self-sufficient after a switch to renewables?
@ryuuguu01 So everyone will keep this standard of living as we simply switch in renewables for fossil fuels? I'm a renewables engineer and I agree with Jean-marc Jancovici that there isn't a snowballs chance in hell of keeping the same standard of living. That's okay, the choices are a collapse, or regrowth with renewables. Too many people in renewables are lying about the need for degrowth, helping to postpone the conversation just as the FF industry is.
@@Zanderzan1983 It's not my job to debunk every gadfly's mad theory about what a clean grid of the future will look like. What Michaux and Jancovici both do is postulate a grid design that no one in the energy sector would ever suggest building. Then they use outdated data on the mineral demand from technologies. It's an industrial-scale gaslighting operation and I have NO INTEREST IN GIVING IT OXYGEN. The fact you think it is correct is, well, sad. You are quite capable of finding the grossly absurd assumptions yourself. As for Ireland, get serious about EVs with smart charging, interconnections, a Danish-style strategic approach to using your extraordinary bioenergy resources, electrification of heat with thermal storage, and nuclear power. Then report back.
CATL has cut back battery production and closed factories, because the CCP has stopped subsidizing their production. Juiling Lithium are also scaling back production, the drop in lithium price is hurting them. The downturn in China is big, but difficult for the western media to see through the fog of propaganda. I wish the students of China luck as they bicycle to Tiananmen Square to get their 'dumplings' and freedoms from the CCP! 👍
Thanks to Professor Qi Ye for joining us on Cleaning Up. Subscribe to the channel for all the latest episodes, and find out free newsletter at cleaninguppod.substack.com
Co2 is a scam. Climatechanged had have happened bi millions of years.
Podcast tip. Put your camera at eye level.
The host mentioned there must be rules. Yes, there must be rules, but any rule must be accepted by EVERYONE. One contestant CANNOT IMPOSE rules that he made up on his own. AND under any rule, doing a Tonya Harding kneecap sabotage is NEVER, EVER acceptable.
Using high speed electric rail + EVs is a real win with efficiency for transport. The UK imports nearly 50% of its diesel , bad for the economy and energy security.
Once installed you know how much wind or solar cost.
A bit depressing. It is very true that countries that are fossil fuel rich have less incentive to increase the pace of the transition. People seem to underestimate the fact that China has limited fossil fuels so EV's and renewables are far more desirable for China than for the US. The story is that China has subsidised EV's and Solar so that they can dominate the global industries. Possibly some part of the plan but if China is trying to be reasonably self sufficient for energy and have maybe an economy double the size with say 2-3 times the vehicles and a per capita income even 50% of US then the energy requirements will be vast. Without renewables the imports of fossil fuels would be massive. It is a huge security issue as well.
@DavidL-v9o
Wrong perspective.
Why do you assume that "they" (China) "subsidise" EVs and solar?
Why do you assume they do so to "Dominate Global industries"?
.
How about ...
They build the tech at lower cost because although their workers (apparently) "Earn less than others", they have a high standard of living/ quality of life due to vastly improved infrastructure which reduces the *COST* of living.
How about that low cost is also achieved by building the "system" rather than just "Thee Product".... AKA "vertical integration"?
How about.... If they were trying to "Dominate", they would sell their products at lets say 10-20% less than "The Competition" and take the profit then re-invest that extra profit to REALLY dominate.
.
In my opinion
They saw a problem.
They developed a plan which might achieve the desired solution.
They implemented the plan and whole doing so became very good at the solution.
.
Maybe you should ask not why China "dominates", Not why Chinese products are "Cheap", but why others can't MATCH the price OR quality.
.
In case you haven't noticed (or Looked) they are not aiming for "2-3 times the number of vehicles per Capita".
They ARE building (Have BUILT) a Wold Leading Mass Transit system for both cities and long distance travel.
.
As I said, never assume that another country/ culture has the same mindset, perspective or values as yours.
@@rogerstarkey5390 Nobody is assuming that China subsidizes solar and batteries, it's a well-known policy of the CCP..... :)
Actually, they have just ended the policy recently due to overproduction and dropping lithium prices.
That's why CATL is shutting down factories, it's not just the economic downturn in China, it's CCP policies too.
Maybe it's a good move by the CCP, but I think people generally overestimate their competence, because... propaganda.
@@rogerstarkey5390 Very true. But don't always assume that they have a different mindset, perspective, or value than ours. Either of your posts may be true, and frankly, both may be true. Both your concepts have doubtlessly been considered/thought of by China, and not China alone.
Compare and contrast Trump's world view.... Go China
What a shame, if the world worked together we would have the clean energy transition licked.
Imagine if countries didn't fight wars, we could put all that money into climate. How about no trade barriers.
A fair system for all mmm
As an Aussie the swimming analogy was telling.....
Ask the Aussie wine and barley growers about trade barriers.
But, what power would Governments have?
If everyone worked together, there'd be an excess of food and most raw materials but also labour.
We can have everything we want, or investor income, but not both.
Great video, thank you.
Good one👍
Must protect people from cheap prices!
So trusting in science, planning and investing long term, and having a domestic market are unfair advantages? Chinese scaling made PV cheap and available - that is a problem?
I'm a fan of Cleaning up, and I am also a fan, broadly, of the leading role that China has taken in PVs etc. You pick you enemies, and climate change is the biggest. That said, this interview gave Qi Ye so many free passes, I thought that perhaps CCP had joined the leadership circle. His analogy of the olympic runner being asked to slow down was met with the weakest of resistence and the issues of slavery and forced labour, as well as the fact that the energy sector is China is essentially owned by single party dictatorship was passed by as inconsequential matters. Again, I'm not a China beater, but we need candour here. If we want to talk about rules, you can't talk about democracy (and the challenges that come with it) as a detail. Some might say that the transition fight currently being waged is fundementally a fight between the rights of people and the rights of economic entities, which will always lead the discussion back to the relationship between the market and modes of governance/public interest.
And the way Worthington let Ye downgrade the security issues of EVs (mobile observation units wired back to the motherland) and the corrosive potential effect of social media/Tik Tok (in the face of Cambridge Analytica to name just one) was just offensive to people who rightly take these things seriously. Has no one read Carole Cadwalladr there? If that can be done in a so called democracy, do you really think taking social media seriously is a joke?
You guys know your energy, no question. But that interview made you look as politically astute as a bumbling fluffy kitten.
Democracy? Human rights? Do you seriously want to raise these questions while the US helps Israel commit a genocide in Gaza? The US has no credibility on these things and only raises them as political clubs to beat up its rivals and enemies. You are being extremely gullible in not realizing this. These things only matter when the US says they do and they don't apply to US allies. That means, quite frankly, they don't apply to anyone.
Is China and its diplomatic and PR cor smart enough to make use of the Trump clown show? There is a HUGE opportunity for China, but Im not sure that they are politically or culturally or economically equiped to do so
LOL...China is who Trump answers to. They installed him with the BRIC coalition.
Can Michael Liebreich please address the peer-reviewed Simon Michaux paper on the enormous bottleneck in minerals for the green transition? No ad-hominem. A systematic review of the study explaining why he is wrong. Because it looks very much like he is right. And we need to go back and think of a new plan.
Sure. It's bollox. If you make stupid assumptions about how much battery storage you need for each unit of renewables you add to the grid, you get a silly figure for total demand for minerals. And then as long as you state your assumptions and your maths adds up, you can get it peer reviewed. That doesn't make it worth the pixels it occupies on anyone's computer screen. All that Michaux proves is that there is a living to be made telling people that are scared of change what they want to hear.
@MLiebreich Do a video on it. I'm a renewables engineer in Ireland - i believe Michaux is correct. Ireland is a good example - our only choice for storage is batteries. Jean-marc Jancovici's NGO The Shift Project also point to minerals shortages, and calculate a massive drop in energy supply by 2050 in Europe. My suggestion - read Michaux and Jancovicis work, then do a video on how Ireland could have a completely renewable future.
@@Zanderzan1983 Ireland, Finland and Lebanon are extreme cases for energy storage. Mainland Europe, China, Japan, North America, and Australia all have enough land with elevation differences to use pumped storage if the price for battery materials starts to climb too high because of shortages. Yes, countries like Ireland Finland and Lebanon may have to get interconnects and rely on neighbours for energy storage but none of these countries are self-sufficient in energy now so why do they need to be self-sufficient after a switch to renewables?
@ryuuguu01 So everyone will keep this standard of living as we simply switch in renewables for fossil fuels? I'm a renewables engineer and I agree with Jean-marc Jancovici that there isn't a snowballs chance in hell of keeping the same standard of living. That's okay, the choices are a collapse, or regrowth with renewables. Too many people in renewables are lying about the need for degrowth, helping to postpone the conversation just as the FF industry is.
@@Zanderzan1983 It's not my job to debunk every gadfly's mad theory about what a clean grid of the future will look like. What Michaux and Jancovici both do is postulate a grid design that no one in the energy sector would ever suggest building. Then they use outdated data on the mineral demand from technologies. It's an industrial-scale gaslighting operation and I have NO INTEREST IN GIVING IT OXYGEN. The fact you think it is correct is, well, sad. You are quite capable of finding the grossly absurd assumptions yourself.
As for Ireland, get serious about EVs with smart charging, interconnections, a Danish-style strategic approach to using your extraordinary bioenergy resources, electrification of heat with thermal storage, and nuclear power. Then report back.
It's China's climate risk assessment publicly available?
It’s the EU and US on track to meet their Paris commitments.
False
.... China is also N.1 today in Intellectual Property !
CATL has cut back battery production and closed factories, because the CCP has stopped subsidizing their production.
Juiling Lithium are also scaling back production, the drop in lithium price is hurting them.
The downturn in China is big, but difficult for the western media to see through the fog of propaganda.
I wish the students of China luck as they bicycle to Tiananmen Square to get their 'dumplings' and freedoms from the CCP! 👍