7 ms·

So, the figures in that Oxfam report, when that Guardian article was published, was from 2007/2008. The report was written in 2015, but the data was already out

So, the figures in that Oxfam report, when that Guardian article was published, was from 2007/2008. The report was written in 2015, but the data was already out of date. I mention that because from 2007 to 2019 (figures from 2020 aren't available yet), China's per capita emissions increased by 55% while those of the West have declined. China's per capita emissions have risen from 5.25 tCO2/capita in 2007 to 8.12t in 2019 while the UK's have dropped to now just 5.45tCO2. On the other hand, your point about solar vs coal is wrong. It takes less time now to build a solar power plant than a coal power plant. Especially for developing countries that don't already have substantial port and/or rail infrastructure. And this applies somewhat to natural gas, too. It's diesel that they tend to run for this reason. Solar, and now solar + storage, can compete just fine with diesel (and solar + storage + diesel is a pretty resilient combination that also can be built out super fast, is very cheap to build and operate, and also happens to get you to like 80-90% carbonfree... so there's decent hope out there).

Aunche 6y ago
Thanks for the updated figures. It's worth noting that China does 28% of the world's manufacturing, much of which is exported to developed countries. As far as solar goes, clearly coal is cheaper than solar in Nigeria because that's what they're mostly building now. Regulations and subsidies are what make solar cheaper than coal in the US. Edit: To be clear, I'm completely in favor of coal being replaced by renewables. I'm just pointing this out to raise awareness of the economic realities that are incentivizing coal power in developing countries.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  This is absolutely not true. Solar and wind, unsubsizded, are the cheapest forms of energy currently. I highly recommend reviewing both links below to better understand the economics. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewa...
  - Aunche 6y ago
    I'll admit solar and wind are more attractive than I had thought, which makes me somewhat more optimistic. That said, I think this analysis misses two important factors when it comes to impoverished countries. Otherwise, you would see more solar there. Developing countries have much lower standards when it comes to building a new power plant, so don't need to pay for sulfur scrubbers. The other factor is that unskilled labor much cheaper there. Solar and wind require much higher-skill labor as there is much more maintenance that needs to be done.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - avmich 6y ago
      > Solar and wind require much higher-skill labor as there is much more maintenance that needs to be done. Are you sure that the steam turbine (high RPM, balancing, thermal stress to blades, steam conditioning) is easier to maintain than a electric generator or an array of photovoltaics with control circuits?
      - throwaway201103 6y ago
        Coal/steam power generation is old, old tech. China will be happy to build a coal plant in Nigeria and train up the operators.
        Robotbeat 6y ago
        Modern steam turbine plants are not that old, and they require a lot more maintenance. Plus, Nigeria produces hardly any coal, so you'll have to either import coal (requires import terminal and rail plus reliance on foreign coal) or mine more coal (open coal mine infrastructure, rail). Solar just produces electricity and doesn't need a bunch of infrastructure.
    - rstuart4133 6y ago
      More attractive might be understating it: https://www.abc.net.au/news/12990532 https://www.abc.net.au/news/12990532 > The owners of Australia's newest coal-fired power station have written down the value of the asset to zero, wiping out a $1.2 billion investment in the face of an onslaught of renewable energy. ... The decision was booked in Sumitomo's September accounts, in which the company acknowledged the facility was worthless despite being barely 10 years old.
- gibbonsrcool 6y ago
  > Regulations and subsidies are what make solar cheaper than coal in the US. Please stop parroting this. Coal is cheaper than solar in the same way that a house with no down payment is free. The environmental debt from coal's CO2 emissions will far exceed costs of solar.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    This is on point - pollution is the loanshark in everyone's blindspot. To 'save' a dollar on renewables is to codemn your kids to pay a thousand
    - avmich 6y ago
      The point is that even without pollution costs - and without subsidies either way - it might be more expensive to build coal plant than an equivalent solar plant. Operation costs are clearly higher in case of coal. Pollution is the cherry on top, or possibly the proverbial elephant in the room.
  - disown 6y ago
    > Coal is cheaper than solar in the same way that a house with no down payment is free. Except that rich europeans got the "house with no down payment" for centuries, but now expect poor africans to put down a down payment? That's going to be a hard sell to poor africans desperate to get out of poverty. > The environmental debt from coal's CO2 emissions will far exceed costs of solar. Expecting poor africans to give a shit is going to be a real hard sell. Especially when the climate problem is almost exclusively a rich european creation and poor africans had nothing to do with it. Caring about climate is an enterprise of the privileged few. Unless we are willing to subsidize billions of poor africans and others around the world to the tune of trillions of dollars, I think africans and everyone else are going to go with the lowest hanging fruit. It's 2021 and hundreds of millions of africans live with electricity today. Think about that. It's insane. Considering the centuries of suffering they endured, if they have to burn down the planet to get some semblance of good life, then so be it. Let europe live in mud huts for a few centuries. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/600-million-africans-go-without-electricity-iea-chief/1502097 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/600-million-africans-go-with...
- avmich 6y ago
  > As far as solar goes, clearly coal is cheaper than solar in Nigeria because that's what they're mostly building now. If we want to find out what's cheaper in order to decide what it is more reasonable to build, we can't rely on the fact that something is actually being built as an argument. It's the other way around - first we decide what's better, then do it, otherwise whatever we do would be right since we're doing that. Or - in this case - if you assume that those calculations were made and it was found that the coal is cheaper - and that's why they're building coal plants - then there is a question of discrepancy (coal is more expensive lately than solar according to <sources>), which needs to be addressed, otherwise it might be assumed that a mistake was made. > Regulations and subsidies are what make solar cheaper than coal in the US. Doesn't coal industry also receive subsidies, and aren't those subsides comparable or bigger than subsidies for solar? I'm not sure; are you?
  - qwantim1 6y ago
    > otherwise whatever we do would be right since we're doing that. I didn’t follow the logic there. Are you saying everything everyone does is right? I dig that, but it’s a strange thing to see in an argument.
    - avmich 6y ago
      That's what I'm questioning. We can't assume a proposition is correct if we're trying to figure out if it's correct or not. The post I'm replying to was in effect "coal is cheaper since they're building coal plants". I disagree, and show why the logic is "illogical".
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  "Coal is cheaper than solar in Nigeria because that's what they're mostly building now" Firtly, thats a circular argument:"clearly bloodletting works because everyone is using it" Secondary, the argument is meanongless without a timespan - for example a hydroelectric dam is the chepest source of electricity ever, but is very expensive upfront: no private investor wants to fund that because their returns will take decades. Channel tonnel is profitable now, but initial investort got wrecked, etc. A hypothetical asset that lasts forever has infinite ROI but if it takes you 200 years to make your money back noone will invest.
  - xupybd 6y ago
    Nigeria may not have the funds to bank roll renewables even if they are cheaper in the long run. Cash flow often matters a lot more than people realise.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      Coal is worse in that regard because of potential for delays and the binary nature of operating a coal power plant. You either have built the whole thing and it's making some money or you haven't and it's a money pit.
      - seg_lol 6y ago
        Solar also doesn't have to be centralized like a Coal plant. Not only can solar start delivering power on day 1, it can be incrementally added closer to the point of use, also saving on distribution costs. If someone said a coal plant is being built in Nigeria, my first thought that this is being forced on them by creditors that probably already own a bunch of coal.
- vbtemp 6y ago
  > It's worth noting that China does 28% of the world's manufacturing, much of which is exported to developed countries. You don't have to go to bat for china, you know. Does the fact that they have so much manufacturing make their emissions ok? If those manufacturing emissions we're instead from the US, would you make the same note?
  - convolvatron 6y ago
    the point being that an importing country should be held at least partially responsible for the emissions of the manufacturing country. if the importing country made the widgets themselves, their emissions would increase. if the importing country didn't buy the widgets at all then the manufacturing country wouldn't produce them and not emit as much CO2
    - steve76 6y ago
      For the sake of the oceans, embargo all marxist countries, the worst slavers in history actively trying to enslave us all, back into starvation and cannibalism. All they can do is lie and bully.
    - vbtemp 6y ago
      > the point being that an importing country should be held at least partially responsible for the emissions of the manufacturing country. Ok, so Saudi Arabia is responsible for America's emissions. Russia is responsible for Europe's emissions. America is responsible for China's emissions. But let's just keep playing word games to deflect responsibility from China and make sure it's all America's fault.
disown 6y ago
> China's per capita emissions increased by 55% while those of the West have declined. Well that's because china was late to industrialization ( by 150 years ) has come from a low emission base. And even if ignore the fact that a significant chunk of china's emissions are dedicated solely to manufacturing goods/junk for the west, if we completely stopped all emissions, it would still take china many decades of emissions to catch up to the emission's put out by the west the past 200 years or so. > China's per capita emissions have risen from 5.25 tCO2/capita in 2007 to 8.12t in 2019 while the UK's have dropped to now just 5.45tCO2. That's deceptive since much of UK's emissions was export to china via manufacturing. It's like your roommate "cleaning" his room by dump his trash in your room. Just by something as basic as "standard of living", it's a certainty that the west, and especially the UK, accounts for far more emissions on a per capita basis. It's impossible that on a per capita basis, a brit has lower emission footprint that a chinese person, indian, african, etc. Certainly, we aren't any better here in the US. I remember watching a documentary that said that if everyone on earth lived like us, it would take like 5 additional earth's resources.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  >That's deceptive since much of UK's emissions was export to china via manufacturing. Total UK emissions including imported emissions have been falling since 2007. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/compendium/economicreview/october2019/thedecouplingofeconomicgrowthfromcarbonemissionsukevidence https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoracco...
chelical 6y ago
To be fair, solar mix places more stress on the electrical grid and likely requires more expertise to maintain in countries struggling with brain drain. That said it's still preferable to building more coal plants.

Aunche 6y ago

Thanks for the updated figures. It's worth noting that China does 28% of the world's manufacturing, much of which is exported to developed countries. As far as solar goes, clearly coal is cheaper than solar in Nigeria because that's what they're mostly building now. Regulations and subsidies are what make solar cheaper than coal in the US. Edit: To be clear, I'm completely in favor of coal being replaced by renewables. I'm just pointing this out to raise awareness of the economic realities that are incentivizing coal power in developing countries.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
This is absolutely not true. Solar and wind, unsubsizded, are the cheapest forms of energy currently. I highly recommend reviewing both links below to better understand the economics. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2020/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewa...
- Aunche 6y ago
  I'll admit solar and wind are more attractive than I had thought, which makes me somewhat more optimistic. That said, I think this analysis misses two important factors when it comes to impoverished countries. Otherwise, you would see more solar there. Developing countries have much lower standards when it comes to building a new power plant, so don't need to pay for sulfur scrubbers. The other factor is that unskilled labor much cheaper there. Solar and wind require much higher-skill labor as there is much more maintenance that needs to be done.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - avmich 6y ago
    > Solar and wind require much higher-skill labor as there is much more maintenance that needs to be done. Are you sure that the steam turbine (high RPM, balancing, thermal stress to blades, steam conditioning) is easier to maintain than a electric generator or an array of photovoltaics with control circuits?
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      Coal/steam power generation is old, old tech. China will be happy to build a coal plant in Nigeria and train up the operators.
      - Robotbeat 6y ago
        Modern steam turbine plants are not that old, and they require a lot more maintenance. Plus, Nigeria produces hardly any coal, so you'll have to either import coal (requires import terminal and rail plus reliance on foreign coal) or mine more coal (open coal mine infrastructure, rail). Solar just produces electricity and doesn't need a bunch of infrastructure.
  - rstuart4133 6y ago
    More attractive might be understating it: https://www.abc.net.au/news/12990532 https://www.abc.net.au/news/12990532 > The owners of Australia's newest coal-fired power station have written down the value of the asset to zero, wiping out a $1.2 billion investment in the face of an onslaught of renewable energy. ... The decision was booked in Sumitomo's September accounts, in which the company acknowledged the facility was worthless despite being barely 10 years old.
gibbonsrcool 6y ago
> Regulations and subsidies are what make solar cheaper than coal in the US. Please stop parroting this. Coal is cheaper than solar in the same way that a house with no down payment is free. The environmental debt from coal's CO2 emissions will far exceed costs of solar.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  This is on point - pollution is the loanshark in everyone's blindspot. To 'save' a dollar on renewables is to codemn your kids to pay a thousand
  - avmich 6y ago
    The point is that even without pollution costs - and without subsidies either way - it might be more expensive to build coal plant than an equivalent solar plant. Operation costs are clearly higher in case of coal. Pollution is the cherry on top, or possibly the proverbial elephant in the room.
- disown 6y ago
  > Coal is cheaper than solar in the same way that a house with no down payment is free. Except that rich europeans got the "house with no down payment" for centuries, but now expect poor africans to put down a down payment? That's going to be a hard sell to poor africans desperate to get out of poverty. > The environmental debt from coal's CO2 emissions will far exceed costs of solar. Expecting poor africans to give a shit is going to be a real hard sell. Especially when the climate problem is almost exclusively a rich european creation and poor africans had nothing to do with it. Caring about climate is an enterprise of the privileged few. Unless we are willing to subsidize billions of poor africans and others around the world to the tune of trillions of dollars, I think africans and everyone else are going to go with the lowest hanging fruit. It's 2021 and hundreds of millions of africans live with electricity today. Think about that. It's insane. Considering the centuries of suffering they endured, if they have to burn down the planet to get some semblance of good life, then so be it. Let europe live in mud huts for a few centuries. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/600-million-africans-go-without-electricity-iea-chief/1502097 https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/600-million-africans-go-with...
avmich 6y ago
> As far as solar goes, clearly coal is cheaper than solar in Nigeria because that's what they're mostly building now. If we want to find out what's cheaper in order to decide what it is more reasonable to build, we can't rely on the fact that something is actually being built as an argument. It's the other way around - first we decide what's better, then do it, otherwise whatever we do would be right since we're doing that. Or - in this case - if you assume that those calculations were made and it was found that the coal is cheaper - and that's why they're building coal plants - then there is a question of discrepancy (coal is more expensive lately than solar according to <sources>), which needs to be addressed, otherwise it might be assumed that a mistake was made. > Regulations and subsidies are what make solar cheaper than coal in the US. Doesn't coal industry also receive subsidies, and aren't those subsides comparable or bigger than subsidies for solar? I'm not sure; are you?
- qwantim1 6y ago
  > otherwise whatever we do would be right since we're doing that. I didn’t follow the logic there. Are you saying everything everyone does is right? I dig that, but it’s a strange thing to see in an argument.
  - avmich 6y ago
    That's what I'm questioning. We can't assume a proposition is correct if we're trying to figure out if it's correct or not. The post I'm replying to was in effect "coal is cheaper since they're building coal plants". I disagree, and show why the logic is "illogical".
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
"Coal is cheaper than solar in Nigeria because that's what they're mostly building now" Firtly, thats a circular argument:"clearly bloodletting works because everyone is using it" Secondary, the argument is meanongless without a timespan - for example a hydroelectric dam is the chepest source of electricity ever, but is very expensive upfront: no private investor wants to fund that because their returns will take decades. Channel tonnel is profitable now, but initial investort got wrecked, etc. A hypothetical asset that lasts forever has infinite ROI but if it takes you 200 years to make your money back noone will invest.
- xupybd 6y ago
  Nigeria may not have the funds to bank roll renewables even if they are cheaper in the long run. Cash flow often matters a lot more than people realise.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Coal is worse in that regard because of potential for delays and the binary nature of operating a coal power plant. You either have built the whole thing and it's making some money or you haven't and it's a money pit.
    - seg_lol 6y ago
      Solar also doesn't have to be centralized like a Coal plant. Not only can solar start delivering power on day 1, it can be incrementally added closer to the point of use, also saving on distribution costs. If someone said a coal plant is being built in Nigeria, my first thought that this is being forced on them by creditors that probably already own a bunch of coal.
vbtemp 6y ago
> It's worth noting that China does 28% of the world's manufacturing, much of which is exported to developed countries. You don't have to go to bat for china, you know. Does the fact that they have so much manufacturing make their emissions ok? If those manufacturing emissions we're instead from the US, would you make the same note?
- convolvatron 6y ago
  the point being that an importing country should be held at least partially responsible for the emissions of the manufacturing country. if the importing country made the widgets themselves, their emissions would increase. if the importing country didn't buy the widgets at all then the manufacturing country wouldn't produce them and not emit as much CO2
  - steve76 6y ago
    For the sake of the oceans, embargo all marxist countries, the worst slavers in history actively trying to enslave us all, back into starvation and cannibalism. All they can do is lie and bully.
  - vbtemp 6y ago
    > the point being that an importing country should be held at least partially responsible for the emissions of the manufacturing country. Ok, so Saudi Arabia is responsible for America's emissions. Russia is responsible for Europe's emissions. America is responsible for China's emissions. But let's just keep playing word games to deflect responsibility from China and make sure it's all America's fault.

disown 6y ago

> China's per capita emissions increased by 55% while those of the West have declined. Well that's because china was late to industrialization ( by 150 years ) has come from a low emission base. And even if ignore the fact that a significant chunk of china's emissions are dedicated solely to manufacturing goods/junk for the west, if we completely stopped all emissions, it would still take china many decades of emissions to catch up to the emission's put out by the west the past 200 years or so. > China's per capita emissions have risen from 5.25 tCO2/capita in 2007 to 8.12t in 2019 while the UK's have dropped to now just 5.45tCO2. That's deceptive since much of UK's emissions was export to china via manufacturing. It's like your roommate "cleaning" his room by dump his trash in your room. Just by something as basic as "standard of living", it's a certainty that the west, and especially the UK, accounts for far more emissions on a per capita basis. It's impossible that on a per capita basis, a brit has lower emission footprint that a chinese person, indian, african, etc. Certainly, we aren't any better here in the US. I remember watching a documentary that said that if everyone on earth lived like us, it would take like 5 additional earth's resources.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago
>That's deceptive since much of UK's emissions was export to china via manufacturing. Total UK emissions including imported emissions have been falling since 2007. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/compendium/economicreview/october2019/thedecouplingofeconomicgrowthfromcarbonemissionsukevidence https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoracco...

chelical 6y ago

To be fair, solar mix places more stress on the electrical grid and likely requires more expertise to maintain in countries struggling with brain drain. That said it's still preferable to building more coal plants.