Really thorough breakdown here. The refining dominance point is where things get interesting tho - it's not just that China mines 90% of manganese, it's that they deliberately moved the dirty parts of the supply chain offshore while keepign control of the high-value refining. Saw this firsthand in Indonesia with nickel processing, where nominally 'Indonesian' factories are basically Chinese operations with local labor. The genius is they get the geopolitical diversification narrative while maintaining actual supply chain control. Nuclear being the exception makes sense given how much regulatory friction there is - ironically the same bureaucracy that makes it expensive also makes it less vulnerable to foreign capture.
The West has completely ransomed itself to China to produce materials and equipment for Net Zero and there burning through nearly 5 Billons Tonnes of coal a year so we can deliver NZ. Pretty sure thats the definition of madness.
Interesting article, thank you. But why write about Britain achieving Net Zero without pointing out that most of these Chinese supplies are powered by China's vast coal-burning power generation system. Can you estimate what is the net effect on global decarbonization if Britain continues to buy Chinese supplies to achieve Net Zero by 2050? And what assumptions would this include about China's power supply infrastructure?
Hi Jeff- that is covered in the last piece in the series. As you'll have seen here and in some future pieces there are lots of good reasons to be sceptical of Chinese green goods. But I don't think this is one of them. https://www.samdumitriu.com/cp/181663274
Firstly, your comment about steel being made everywhere by blast furnace is untrue. China and the UK are antiques in steelmaking, but the following countries make 70% or more of their steel by EAF which as you know is much cleaner: USA, Italy, Slovenia, Turkey, Spain, Portugal. Why would Britain mortgage its future to China to achieve a NZ goal that is insignificant at a global level, while simultaneously boosting China's economy and thereby encouraging it to maintain its dirty processes? Comparing the carbon emissions of any product at a single moment in time is really irrelevant compared to evaluating where we are heading over the decades to come. Sadly, Britain is not only chasing a silly self-flagellating goal, but selling off its economy to China, India, and others in the process. A century of relative economic decline is now leading to reverse colonization: industry is owned and controlled by companies in former colonies and UK governments manufacture illusory goals to distract the population from the fact that they have no idea how to pursue prosperity. Why should a country hurtling towards a position as one of Europe's poorest think it can lead the world towards "green goals"? It is as silly as Rishi Sunak saying the world admires Britain for the teams in the Premier League or others saying the world admires Britain for its Royal Family. It's so sad.
Really thorough breakdown here. The refining dominance point is where things get interesting tho - it's not just that China mines 90% of manganese, it's that they deliberately moved the dirty parts of the supply chain offshore while keepign control of the high-value refining. Saw this firsthand in Indonesia with nickel processing, where nominally 'Indonesian' factories are basically Chinese operations with local labor. The genius is they get the geopolitical diversification narrative while maintaining actual supply chain control. Nuclear being the exception makes sense given how much regulatory friction there is - ironically the same bureaucracy that makes it expensive also makes it less vulnerable to foreign capture.
Interesting. The fact i've never been to SE Asia is my biggest China blindspot I think!
The West has completely ransomed itself to China to produce materials and equipment for Net Zero and there burning through nearly 5 Billons Tonnes of coal a year so we can deliver NZ. Pretty sure thats the definition of madness.
Interesting article, thank you. But why write about Britain achieving Net Zero without pointing out that most of these Chinese supplies are powered by China's vast coal-burning power generation system. Can you estimate what is the net effect on global decarbonization if Britain continues to buy Chinese supplies to achieve Net Zero by 2050? And what assumptions would this include about China's power supply infrastructure?
Hi Jeff- that is covered in the last piece in the series. As you'll have seen here and in some future pieces there are lots of good reasons to be sceptical of Chinese green goods. But I don't think this is one of them. https://www.samdumitriu.com/cp/181663274
Firstly, your comment about steel being made everywhere by blast furnace is untrue. China and the UK are antiques in steelmaking, but the following countries make 70% or more of their steel by EAF which as you know is much cleaner: USA, Italy, Slovenia, Turkey, Spain, Portugal. Why would Britain mortgage its future to China to achieve a NZ goal that is insignificant at a global level, while simultaneously boosting China's economy and thereby encouraging it to maintain its dirty processes? Comparing the carbon emissions of any product at a single moment in time is really irrelevant compared to evaluating where we are heading over the decades to come. Sadly, Britain is not only chasing a silly self-flagellating goal, but selling off its economy to China, India, and others in the process. A century of relative economic decline is now leading to reverse colonization: industry is owned and controlled by companies in former colonies and UK governments manufacture illusory goals to distract the population from the fact that they have no idea how to pursue prosperity. Why should a country hurtling towards a position as one of Europe's poorest think it can lead the world towards "green goals"? It is as silly as Rishi Sunak saying the world admires Britain for the teams in the Premier League or others saying the world admires Britain for its Royal Family. It's so sad.