3 ms·

You’d think if this were true, I wouldn’t be seeing stories like this: “China’s Coal Power Boom Beijing is building more coal-fired capacity than the rest of

You’d think if this were true, I wouldn’t be seeing stories like this: “China’s Coal Power Boom Beijing is building more coal-fired capacity than the rest of the world combined, U.S. climate lectures notwithstanding” https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-coal-power-boom-beijing-xi-jinping-climate-energy-biden-administration-11650480857?mod=mhp https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-coal-power-boom-beijing-... Coal generates a lot of pollution, in addition to a lot of CO2. If renewables were a better option, it’s unlikely China would need to continue to build coal power plants. “China starts building 33 GW of coal power in 2021, most since 2016” https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-starts-building-33-gw-coal-power-2021-most-since-2016-research-2022-02-24/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-starts-bui...

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
You definately shouldn't get your climate, renewable or China news from WSJ editorials.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gardenfelder 4y ago
On the surface, that seems reasonable. But, the surface elides the idea that renewables are being built at a furious pace in China as well, and that renewables have the distinct problem of not always "being there when you need them"; people speak in terms of base load, peaking power, and all manner of issues in "wheeling" power from one place to another. China's energy needs, especially in terms of providing energy when renewables are not around, seems to be enormous; coal is a logical backstop until things such as batteries come along. At one time, hydro was going to be the primary source, but headlines tell of drying up rivers and so forth. Lots of other chatter around HN suggests that we are still stuck with fossil fuel sources, at least for a while. One in particular today tells how California made a long term investment in "grid storage" - batteries on the grid, which, according to the latimes.com piece, helped prevent rolling blackouts during the massive heat wave in the southern part of the state. To your point "if renewables were a better option", I'd like to think they are; almost.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

You definately shouldn't get your climate, renewable or China news from WSJ editorials.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

gardenfelder 4y ago

On the surface, that seems reasonable. But, the surface elides the idea that renewables are being built at a furious pace in China as well, and that renewables have the distinct problem of not always "being there when you need them"; people speak in terms of base load, peaking power, and all manner of issues in "wheeling" power from one place to another. China's energy needs, especially in terms of providing energy when renewables are not around, seems to be enormous; coal is a logical backstop until things such as batteries come along. At one time, hydro was going to be the primary source, but headlines tell of drying up rivers and so forth. Lots of other chatter around HN suggests that we are still stuck with fossil fuel sources, at least for a while. One in particular today tells how California made a long term investment in "grid storage" - batteries on the grid, which, according to the latimes.com piece, helped prevent rolling blackouts during the massive heat wave in the southern part of the state. To your point "if renewables were a better option", I'd like to think they are; almost.