3 ms·

Coal consumption in China peaked 2 years ago. China is leading the world (by far) in new renewable generation. China is the largest carbon emitter in the worl

Coal consumption in China peaked 2 years ago. China is leading the world (by far) in new renewable generation. China is the largest carbon emitter in the world, but they are also moving RAPIDLY in the right direction. Rome wasn't built in a day.

sgu999 2y ago
> China is the largest carbon emitter in the world In part because they are also the largest producer of all the shit we buy but don't account for in our carbon footprints because it's imported
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  Sure, but their economy also depends on it. We could stop importing from them, which would certainly lower their carbon emissions, but it would also crater their economy and cause millions of deaths. Putting the blame for China's emissions on Western countries is a really weird way of shifting governmental responsibility.
  - sgu999 2y ago
    Shifting the blame wasn't my intention, my comment intended to be fair. > We could stop importing from them Not without causing millions of deaths in the west as well. We've learned the hard way how much of our medical supplies depend on these imports for instance. Here in France comparing the country's carbon emissions to China's is a common argument for not doing anything about it.
lolinder 2y ago
Do you have a citation for China peaking coal consumption? The sources I can find say that China is still adding coal at a rate that far outstrips the rest of the world, with a rate of new coal construction up 4x since 2019 [0]. They're also adding solar at an even higher rate [1] so maybe you meant that coal as a percentage of electrical consumption peaked two years ago? [0] https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-coal-power-construction-in-2023-report-says/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-... [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-brief/china-added-more-solar-panels-in-2023-than-us-did-in-its-entire-history/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-brief/china-added-more-sol...
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  As with all things China - the numbers are debated - but here's a source from the same website that there's no growth since 2022: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-contradictory-coal-data-clouds-chinas-co2-emissions-rebound-in-2022/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-contradictory-coal-data...
  - lolinder 2y ago
    That's in 2022, not since 2022—the date on that is in early 2023, so it predates my linked article by a year. And even your source doesn't say "there was no growth" it says "the numbers for 2022 are confusing and contradictory". From your article: > The scale of the uncertainty over the true nature of China’s coal demand means it is hard to establish whether there was an overall rise or fall in the country’s CO2 emissions in 2022. This difference could have global implications for action on climate change. > Whether the official coal data for 2022 is correct or not, the country moved further off track against its near-term targets for carbon and energy intensity. Also, it's measuring something different—emissions in the year—while the article I linked is talking about new coal construction. New coal construction is pretty easy to measure relative to emissions, and is a leading indicator suggesting future emissions are coming.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
      > New coal construction is pretty easy to measure relative to emissions, and is a leading indicator suggesting future emissions are coming. It's not that simple. * The power plants are running at lower capacities: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants * Not all coal is equal. High-volatile bituminous coals have ~5% less emissions: https://gaftp.epa.gov/ap42/ch01/s01/reference/ref_77%20c01s01_1995.pdf https://gaftp.epa.gov/ap42/ch01/s01/reference/ref_77%20c01s0... * Some of the new plants are "clean" (not actually clean, but produce less emissions): https://globalenergyprize.org/en/2024/03/29/china-remains-world-leader-in-clean-coal-fired-power-generation-technologies/ https://globalenergyprize.org/en/2024/03/29/china-remains-wo... * You can build newer, more efficient coal power plants (~45%) which slightly reduce the amount of coal you need to burn at older, less efficient coal power plants (~33%): https://www.google.com/search?q=how+efficient+are+newer+coal+power+plants+vs+older&sca_esv=0568c64b8556c91d&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIJw5tv6lcEj5kglNkYpUeiTwLNXAw%3A1725243015181&source=hp&ei=hx7VZoLKCKjEp84PjcjwkQQ&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZtUsl-Y7j57zvsgV1zF8O79Z0ru-_TEr&ved=0ahUKEwjCqcaIl6OIAxUo4skDHQ0kPEIQ4dUDCBk&uact=5&oq=how+efficient+are+newer+coal+power+plants+vs+older&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjJob3cgZWZmaWNpZW50IGFyZSBuZXdlciBjb2FsIHBvd2VyIHBsYW50cyB2cyBvbGRlcjIHECEYoAEYCjIHECEYoAEYCjIHECEYoAEYCjIHECEYoAEYCkjtL1AAWM4ucAB4AJABAJgBpAGgAbYjqgEFMzUuMTW4AQPIAQD4AQGYAjKgAp8kwgIEECMYJ8ICChAjGIAEGCcYigXCAgoQABiABBhDGIoFwgILEAAYgAQYkQIYigXCAhEQLhiABBixAxjRAxiDARjHAcICChAuGIAEGEMYigXCAgUQABiABMICChAAGIAEGBQYhwLCAgYQABgWGB7CAgcQABiABBgNwgIFECEYoAHCAgUQIRirAsICBRAhGJ8FwgILEAAYgAQYhgMYigXCAggQABiABBiiBMICBxAhGAoYqwKYAwCSBwUzNC4xNqAHu6cD&sclient=gws-wiz https://www.google.com/search?q=how+efficient+are+newer+coal... * ~5% of the new additions replaced retirements.
Yizahi 2y ago
This is correct by misses a lot of nuance. E.g. China has an enormous renewable generation, yes. Only it is mostly in the uninhabited deserts of north west, while the bulk of population lives close to the coast. And the their power delivery is both suboptimal and deliberately sabotaged for political reason. I don't remember full explanation (I think Economics Explained did a video about it) but it is much better for some regional head of a high population province near the coast to fire coal plants IN his own province, than to get renewable energy from some far away province. And other issues, mostly economical, meaning coal will be a major factor in China and all other countries for long time.
- maxglute 2y ago
  >misses a lot of nuance OP is acknowledging the direction / trend. The nuance is whatever central gov incentivizes. Local gov have been (and still) incentivized to use provincial power because it's in their control, it enables them to hit other good for promotion metrics without worrying about politics/dependencies. Coal is simply reliable and local gov don't even like depending on grid of adjacent provinces, especially when renewable generation has been fluctuating with extreme climate last few years. But if central gov starts hinting promotions is going to be based on enhancing cross border power, bureaucrats will start indexing on that. Economics of utility scale renewables projecting to cheaper than coal without considering externalities. Right now still in phase of building out enough renewables so grid is resilient. West-East Electricity Transfer Project is a multi decade project spanning back to the 10th 5 year plan in the 00s, once there's enough resiliency, central gov will push local gov to play better with state grid.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  UHV also isn’t quite built out enough yet, they have some capacity to move energy from west to east, just not nearly enough. Instead, they are focusing on more nuclear in the east, and can maybe rebalance more industrial production out west if water isn’t a concern.

sgu999 2y ago

> China is the largest carbon emitter in the world In part because they are also the largest producer of all the shit we buy but don't account for in our carbon footprints because it's imported

Ferret7446 2y ago
Sure, but their economy also depends on it. We could stop importing from them, which would certainly lower their carbon emissions, but it would also crater their economy and cause millions of deaths. Putting the blame for China's emissions on Western countries is a really weird way of shifting governmental responsibility.
- sgu999 2y ago
  Shifting the blame wasn't my intention, my comment intended to be fair. > We could stop importing from them Not without causing millions of deaths in the west as well. We've learned the hard way how much of our medical supplies depend on these imports for instance. Here in France comparing the country's carbon emissions to China's is a common argument for not doing anything about it.

lolinder 2y ago

Do you have a citation for China peaking coal consumption? The sources I can find say that China is still adding coal at a rate that far outstrips the rest of the world, with a rate of new coal construction up 4x since 2019 [0]. They're also adding solar at an even higher rate [1] so maybe you meant that coal as a percentage of electrical consumption peaked two years ago? [0] https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-coal-power-construction-in-2023-report-says/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-... [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-brief/china-added-more-solar-panels-in-2023-than-us-did-in-its-entire-history/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/daily-brief/china-added-more-sol...

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
As with all things China - the numbers are debated - but here's a source from the same website that there's no growth since 2022: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-contradictory-coal-data-clouds-chinas-co2-emissions-rebound-in-2022/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-contradictory-coal-data...
- lolinder 2y ago
  That's in 2022, not since 2022—the date on that is in early 2023, so it predates my linked article by a year. And even your source doesn't say "there was no growth" it says "the numbers for 2022 are confusing and contradictory". From your article: > The scale of the uncertainty over the true nature of China’s coal demand means it is hard to establish whether there was an overall rise or fall in the country’s CO2 emissions in 2022. This difference could have global implications for action on climate change. > Whether the official coal data for 2022 is correct or not, the country moved further off track against its near-term targets for carbon and energy intensity. Also, it's measuring something different—emissions in the year—while the article I linked is talking about new coal construction. New coal construction is pretty easy to measure relative to emissions, and is a leading indicator suggesting future emissions are coming.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
    > New coal construction is pretty easy to measure relative to emissions, and is a leading indicator suggesting future emissions are coming. It's not that simple. * The power plants are running at lower capacities: https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants * Not all coal is equal. High-volatile bituminous coals have ~5% less emissions: https://gaftp.epa.gov/ap42/ch01/s01/reference/ref_77%20c01s01_1995.pdf https://gaftp.epa.gov/ap42/ch01/s01/reference/ref_77%20c01s0... * Some of the new plants are "clean" (not actually clean, but produce less emissions): https://globalenergyprize.org/en/2024/03/29/china-remains-world-leader-in-clean-coal-fired-power-generation-technologies/ https://globalenergyprize.org/en/2024/03/29/china-remains-wo... * You can build newer, more efficient coal power plants (~45%) which slightly reduce the amount of coal you need to burn at older, less efficient coal power plants (~33%): https://www.google.com/search?q=how+efficient+are+newer+coal+power+plants+vs+older&sca_esv=0568c64b8556c91d&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIJw5tv6lcEj5kglNkYpUeiTwLNXAw%3A1725243015181&source=hp&ei=hx7VZoLKCKjEp84PjcjwkQQ&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZtUsl-Y7j57zvsgV1zF8O79Z0ru-_TEr&ved=0ahUKEwjCqcaIl6OIAxUo4skDHQ0kPEIQ4dUDCBk&uact=5&oq=how+efficient+are+newer+coal+power+plants+vs+older&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IjJob3cgZWZmaWNpZW50IGFyZSBuZXdlciBjb2FsIHBvd2VyIHBsYW50cyB2cyBvbGRlcjIHECEYoAEYCjIHECEYoAEYCjIHECEYoAEYCjIHECEYoAEYCkjtL1AAWM4ucAB4AJABAJgBpAGgAbYjqgEFMzUuMTW4AQPIAQD4AQGYAjKgAp8kwgIEECMYJ8ICChAjGIAEGCcYigXCAgoQABiABBhDGIoFwgILEAAYgAQYkQIYigXCAhEQLhiABBixAxjRAxiDARjHAcICChAuGIAEGEMYigXCAgUQABiABMICChAAGIAEGBQYhwLCAgYQABgWGB7CAgcQABiABBgNwgIFECEYoAHCAgUQIRirAsICBRAhGJ8FwgILEAAYgAQYhgMYigXCAggQABiABBiiBMICBxAhGAoYqwKYAwCSBwUzNC4xNqAHu6cD&sclient=gws-wiz https://www.google.com/search?q=how+efficient+are+newer+coal... * ~5% of the new additions replaced retirements.

Yizahi 2y ago

This is correct by misses a lot of nuance. E.g. China has an enormous renewable generation, yes. Only it is mostly in the uninhabited deserts of north west, while the bulk of population lives close to the coast. And the their power delivery is both suboptimal and deliberately sabotaged for political reason. I don't remember full explanation (I think Economics Explained did a video about it) but it is much better for some regional head of a high population province near the coast to fire coal plants IN his own province, than to get renewable energy from some far away province. And other issues, mostly economical, meaning coal will be a major factor in China and all other countries for long time.

maxglute 2y ago
>misses a lot of nuance OP is acknowledging the direction / trend. The nuance is whatever central gov incentivizes. Local gov have been (and still) incentivized to use provincial power because it's in their control, it enables them to hit other good for promotion metrics without worrying about politics/dependencies. Coal is simply reliable and local gov don't even like depending on grid of adjacent provinces, especially when renewable generation has been fluctuating with extreme climate last few years. But if central gov starts hinting promotions is going to be based on enhancing cross border power, bureaucrats will start indexing on that. Economics of utility scale renewables projecting to cheaper than coal without considering externalities. Right now still in phase of building out enough renewables so grid is resilient. West-East Electricity Transfer Project is a multi decade project spanning back to the 10th 5 year plan in the 00s, once there's enough resiliency, central gov will push local gov to play better with state grid.
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
UHV also isn’t quite built out enough yet, they have some capacity to move energy from west to east, just not nearly enough. Instead, they are focusing on more nuclear in the east, and can maybe rebalance more industrial production out west if water isn’t a concern.