5 ms·

Note that China's coal usage was basically flat in 2023 and expected to decline in 2024. China's coal capacity is increasing dramatically, but they're increasi

Note that China's coal usage was basically flat in 2023 and expected to decline in 2024. China's coal capacity is increasing dramatically, but they're increasingly using their coal plants as peaker plants rather than for base production.

mrguyorama 2y ago
For those unaware, China and India do NOT like getting their power from coal. They've both had decades now of abysmal smog and pollution that literally (like, statistically trackable) kills people every year, including people otherwise productive in society. China is absolutely dumping the price of solar panels. A fully renewable energy China is one that is harder for Western countries to sanction, has more prestige with bright blue skies, and exports cheap solar panels to everyone else. India will trend the same way. Every geopolitically relevant country will feel more secure with renewable, and therefore utterly independent, energy generation. A reminder that Texas, a uniparty state literally run by Oil Barron families for decades, still gets at least a third of it's power from renewable sources, because it's so goddamned cheap. It doesn't matter how profitable oil is, or how much you pump, it will always be cheaper, and therefore more profitable, to replace it with power that just manifests itself out of the sky or wind for merely the cost of maintenance. Each oil well requires tens of highly skilled, rather well paid tradespeople to manage, drill, run, explode, etc. An entire field of wind turbines requires one or two small teams of somewhat well paid maintenance engineers.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  China & India get almost all of their coal internally, so coal is also fairly sanctions proof. The rest of your post is spot on, though.
- cm2187 2y ago
  As far as I am aware, Texas offsets the volatility of renewable with carbon based energy. Those renewable are not viable in a world with no carbon based energy. https://grid-analytics.ece.utexas.edu/chart/fuel-type-generation https://grid-analytics.ece.utexas.edu/chart/fuel-type-genera...
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Yes, they mostly use carbon energy to offset volatility. That doesn't mean that there aren't other viable ways to do so.
    - cm2187 2y ago
      Like what? Energy storage would push the combined price of renewable way beyond nuclear. You would need an alternative source of energy that is 1) on demand, and 2) which does not cost much when it is not activated. Not sure what that would be.
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        California pays 4 cents per kilowatt hour for solar + storage.
        cm2187 2y ago
        That's storage for a few hours to smooth the volatility intraday. Nothing like the sort of storage capacity you would need if you don't have an alternative source of energy when there is no wind for a week.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Your original comment was talking about the volatility.
        cm2187 2y ago
        No wind for a week is the volatility of renewable. And that's a common occurence. You can easily have 3 weeks without wind.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Texas would be a lot less vulnerable to such volatility if they got out of their own way and connected their grid properly to either (or both) of America's east and west grids.
onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
Medium term - China is going to lead the world in emissions reductions. They have the most to reduce and the most to lose if they don't move to renewables rapidly. Short term - nothing much is happening. Rome wasn't built in a day. The US can idly sit around and burn it's own natural gas and oil. The US at least has the option to maintain the status quo for a long time (it won't). But China doesn't even have this option. Additionally, auto manufacturing (ICE cars) accounts for ~5% of US employment. For China ICE auto manufacturing is ~0, and they have the opportunity to produce a huge chunk of the worlds EVs. They're not only incentivized massively to get off oil - they're incentivized to get EVERYONE ELSE off of oil, too. China needs to IMPORT natural gas and oil. They'd much rather lead the world in renewables EXPORT EVs and renewable generation than be reliant on Russia & KSA for energy (the basis of their current economy)... China will likely cut their emissions faster than the US has - which if you're realistic - the US has done an impressive job. The US emits ~30% less carbon per capita than it did in 2000. And we're on pace to be at ~40% less by the end of 2030: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon... In 20 years, China is likely to be around ~75% less than today. The US probably won't get from ~40% to ~75% over that time. The lobbying from our own energy producers will too much to cut that deep that quickly. The US and China are close to ~50% of emissions: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi... No one else besides India is really going to move the needle (certainly not in the wrong direction - no one else is growing fast enough). India will be the wild card. Will they import renewable energy generation from China or fossil fuel from Russia and KSA?
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  China will (supposedly) reach as well as potentially exceed their 2030 renewables target by the end of this year [1], and the solar manufacturing and deployment flywheel is still coming up to speed (global solar deployment is anticipated to reach ~660GW/pa by end of year, should achieve 1TW/pa within the next 18 months assuming current trajectories [2]). China and India being close geographically while also having enormous fossil generation to push out of the generation mix is convenient; not far from factory to solar farm. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-leads-renewables-charge-asia-others-need-catch-up-russell-2024-06-04/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-leads-renewabl... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40727619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40727619

mrguyorama 2y ago

For those unaware, China and India do NOT like getting their power from coal. They've both had decades now of abysmal smog and pollution that literally (like, statistically trackable) kills people every year, including people otherwise productive in society. China is absolutely dumping the price of solar panels. A fully renewable energy China is one that is harder for Western countries to sanction, has more prestige with bright blue skies, and exports cheap solar panels to everyone else. India will trend the same way. Every geopolitically relevant country will feel more secure with renewable, and therefore utterly independent, energy generation. A reminder that Texas, a uniparty state literally run by Oil Barron families for decades, still gets at least a third of it's power from renewable sources, because it's so goddamned cheap. It doesn't matter how profitable oil is, or how much you pump, it will always be cheaper, and therefore more profitable, to replace it with power that just manifests itself out of the sky or wind for merely the cost of maintenance. Each oil well requires tens of highly skilled, rather well paid tradespeople to manage, drill, run, explode, etc. An entire field of wind turbines requires one or two small teams of somewhat well paid maintenance engineers.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
China & India get almost all of their coal internally, so coal is also fairly sanctions proof. The rest of your post is spot on, though.
cm2187 2y ago
As far as I am aware, Texas offsets the volatility of renewable with carbon based energy. Those renewable are not viable in a world with no carbon based energy. https://grid-analytics.ece.utexas.edu/chart/fuel-type-generation https://grid-analytics.ece.utexas.edu/chart/fuel-type-genera...
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Yes, they mostly use carbon energy to offset volatility. That doesn't mean that there aren't other viable ways to do so.
  - cm2187 2y ago
    Like what? Energy storage would push the combined price of renewable way beyond nuclear. You would need an alternative source of energy that is 1) on demand, and 2) which does not cost much when it is not activated. Not sure what that would be.
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      California pays 4 cents per kilowatt hour for solar + storage.
      - cm2187 2y ago
        That's storage for a few hours to smooth the volatility intraday. Nothing like the sort of storage capacity you would need if you don't have an alternative source of energy when there is no wind for a week.
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Your original comment was talking about the volatility.
        cm2187 2y ago
        No wind for a week is the volatility of renewable. And that's a common occurence. You can easily have 3 weeks without wind.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Texas would be a lot less vulnerable to such volatility if they got out of their own way and connected their grid properly to either (or both) of America's east and west grids.

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago

Medium term - China is going to lead the world in emissions reductions. They have the most to reduce and the most to lose if they don't move to renewables rapidly. Short term - nothing much is happening. Rome wasn't built in a day. The US can idly sit around and burn it's own natural gas and oil. The US at least has the option to maintain the status quo for a long time (it won't). But China doesn't even have this option. Additionally, auto manufacturing (ICE cars) accounts for ~5% of US employment. For China ICE auto manufacturing is ~0, and they have the opportunity to produce a huge chunk of the worlds EVs. They're not only incentivized massively to get off oil - they're incentivized to get EVERYONE ELSE off of oil, too. China needs to IMPORT natural gas and oil. They'd much rather lead the world in renewables EXPORT EVs and renewable generation than be reliant on Russia & KSA for energy (the basis of their current economy)... China will likely cut their emissions faster than the US has - which if you're realistic - the US has done an impressive job. The US emits ~30% less carbon per capita than it did in 2000. And we're on pace to be at ~40% less by the end of 2030: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon... In 20 years, China is likely to be around ~75% less than today. The US probably won't get from ~40% to ~75% over that time. The lobbying from our own energy producers will too much to cut that deep that quickly. The US and China are close to ~50% of emissions: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi... No one else besides India is really going to move the needle (certainly not in the wrong direction - no one else is growing fast enough). India will be the wild card. Will they import renewable energy generation from China or fossil fuel from Russia and KSA?

toomuchtodo 2y ago
China will (supposedly) reach as well as potentially exceed their 2030 renewables target by the end of this year [1], and the solar manufacturing and deployment flywheel is still coming up to speed (global solar deployment is anticipated to reach ~660GW/pa by end of year, should achieve 1TW/pa within the next 18 months assuming current trajectories [2]). China and India being close geographically while also having enormous fossil generation to push out of the generation mix is convenient; not far from factory to solar farm. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-leads-renewables-charge-asia-others-need-catch-up-russell-2024-06-04/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-leads-renewabl... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40727619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40727619