News on China's scientific and technological development.

[interestedseal]

Don’t forget biomass is another good source of carbon. Here are some Biomass/biowaste to chemicals projects, including a straw to olefin pilot project.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China alone produces nearly 1 billion tons of straw per year as a byproduct of agro production, which used to be a major source of air pollution because farmers had no use of them but to burn them.
Here is a straw to SAF air fuel project

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[antiterror13]

Don’t forget biomass is another good source of carbon. Here are some Biomass/biowaste to chemicals projects, including a straw to olefin pilot project.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China alone produces nearly 1 billion tons of straw per year as a byproduct of agro production, which used to be a major source of air pollution because farmers had no use of them but to burn them.
Here is a straw to SAF air fuel project

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

1 billion tons of straw per year is huge. China really does use massive amounts of straw to stabilize sand and “green” the desert, and the method is scientifically proven and widely deployed. The technique is called the straw checkerboard system, and it has become one of the world’s most successful low‑tech desert‑control solutions. China has applied it across huge areas of the Taklamakan, Tengger, and Kubuqi deserts, with measurable ecological results

 

[AndrewS]

Sounds like a distinction without a difference. The bottom line for energy security is how much oil you are importing. The less you need, for any and all applications, the less you import.

Domestic production of olefins with coal—which was the whole point—obviously doesn't use oil.

Then you're talking about oil security, not energy security.

There is a difference

 

[Wrought]

Then you're talking about oil security, not energy security.

There is a difference

Oil security is a type of energy security. Squares, rectangles, etc. There is a difference, but it's not relevant in this context. What's the point of all this pedantry?

 

[AndrewS]

Oil security is a type of energy security. Squares, rectangles, etc. There is a difference, but it's not relevant in this context. What's the point of all this pedantry?

It's not pedantry.

As I pointed out, eliminating oil imports used to produce plastics does not improve China's energy security.

 

[supercat]

China's exports have become high-tech. Last year, China's trade surplus of electrical and mechanical goods was actually greater than China's overall trade surplus: $1.27 trillion vs $1.19 trillion.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2011891889599816038

High-Tech Engine Powers China’s Trade to New Heights​

In dollar terms, mechanical and electrical exports reached $2.3 trillion in 2025, while imports totaled $1.03 trillion, yielding a $1.27 trillion surplus — larger than China’s overall trade surplus of $1.19 trillion. These goods include automobiles, integrated circuits, ships and other high-tech products.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[siegecrossbow]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Wrought]

It's not pedantry.

As I pointed out, eliminating oil imports used to produce plastics does not improve China's energy security.

You are claiming that eliminating a dependency on foreign imports does not improve security based on the semantics of "oil" vs "energy."

It is the literal definition of pedantry.

 

[AndrewS]

You are claiming that eliminating a dependency on foreign imports does not improve security based on the semantics of "oil" vs "energy."

It is the literal definition of pedantry.

Oil and energy are two distinctly different things.

Oil has more uses than just energy.

And as I've pointed out, a reduction in oil imports (and therefore oil stocks) means that in a crisis, there is less oil available to be diverted to energy uses.

That does not improve energy security.

 

[Wrought]

Oil and energy are two distinctly different things.

Oil has more uses than just energy.

And as I've pointed out, a reduction in oil imports (and therefore oil stocks) means that in a crisis, there is less oil available to be diverted to energy uses.

That does not improve energy security.

Why on earth would a reduction in oil imports mean a reduction in oil stocks? You do realize China is one of the biggest oil producers in the world? It's just not enough to cover the even bigger demand, hence imports. To the extent that demand drops—thanks to substitutes like coal—imports can drop as well. Hence energy security.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Your point is pure pedantry, and I'm frankly at a loss why you keep doubling down on it. What a dumb hill to die on.