China's Wind and Solar Energy Surpass Coal In Historic First (oilprice.com) 95
According to China's National Energy Administration (NEA), wind and solar energy have collectively eclipsed coal in capacity for the first time ever. By 2026, analysts forecast solar power alone will surpass coal as the country's primary energy source, with a cumulative capacity exceeding 1.38 terawatts (TW) -- 150 gigawatts (GW) more than coal. Oil Pricereports: This shift stems from a growing emphasis on cleaner energy sources and a move away from fossil fuels for the nation. Despite coal's early advantage, with around 50 GW of annual installations before 2016, China has made substantial investments to expand its renewable energy infrastructure. Since 2020, annual installations of wind and solar energy have consistently exceeded 100 GW, three to four times the capacity additions for coal. This momentum has only gathered pace since then, with last year seeing China set a record with 293 GW of wind and solar installations, bolstered by gigawatt-scale renewable hub projects from the NEA's first and second batches connected to the country's grid.
China's coal power sector is moving in the opposite direction. Last year, approximately 40 GW of coal power was added, but this figure plummeted to 8 GW in the first half of 2024, according to our estimates. Despite the expansion of renewable energy under supportive policies, the government has implemented stricter restrictions on new coal projects to meet carbon reduction goals. Efforts are now focused on phasing out smaller coal plants, upgrading existing ones to reduce emissions and enforcing more stringent standards for new projects. As a result, the annual capacity addition gap between coal and clean energy has widened dramatically, reaching a 16-fold difference in the first half of 2024.
China's coal power sector is moving in the opposite direction. Last year, approximately 40 GW of coal power was added, but this figure plummeted to 8 GW in the first half of 2024, according to our estimates. Despite the expansion of renewable energy under supportive policies, the government has implemented stricter restrictions on new coal projects to meet carbon reduction goals. Efforts are now focused on phasing out smaller coal plants, upgrading existing ones to reduce emissions and enforcing more stringent standards for new projects. As a result, the annual capacity addition gap between coal and clean energy has widened dramatically, reaching a 16-fold difference in the first half of 2024.
Re: (Score:1)
They can't. They lie. About everything.
Re: if China can do it ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
They can't. They lie. About everything.
Awww. You're upset that the USA is not number 1. Don't cry you poor little coal-flake.
Re: if China can do it ... (Score:2)
They have. Suck it up.
Just say, "Well done" and try to replicate it in your country.
Re: (Score:1)
Assuming china is telling the truth. How many impossible world records have they broken so far this year and the last olympics? Nope, no steroids here. While I encourage the use of non-polluting sources of energy, that doesnt also mean they arent also sweeping some coal plants under the rug too. China will do or say anything to prove they are #1 at everything. This includes lying or cheating. The USDOE could equally make such an unsubstantiated claim, but if wishes were fishes, we would eat for life.
Re: (Score:3)
The Chinese are obsessed about losing face. If they have first promised the world that they are shifting away from coal, then they come out with something like this and then we found out they they were lying (remember, we can measure CO2 emissions from space, see https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5121... [nasa.gov]) that would be a PR disaster for them, also domestically.
I think you are wrong in assuming that it's somehow likely that they would lie about this, it's very much in line with the massive investments in solar and w
Re: (Score:2)
But this is an easy lie. They’re not claiming they cut emissions. They are claiming their producing more power from solar and wind than they are from Coal. That’s harder to prove since you can’t measure that from space. They are not even claiming a lack of increase in coal use. You might even see an increase in pollution. They are simply claiming that they produce more power from these two sources than they do from a coal fired plant. They are still bringing new Coal plants online.
Re: (Score:3)
They are not even claiming a lack of increase in coal use.
Actually the are claiming exactly that.
They are still bringing new Coal plants online.
The claim is that these are much more efficient plants and that other, older plants are being shut off. That is the kind of claim which is definitely easy to measure by satellite. Also that they are plants that can be run in a variable mode which means that the primary power production is wind or solar and these come in when peaks of demand don't match output. Again, heat and CO2 output from these plants can be measured so if they are actually lying that should be easy
Re:if China can do it ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was in Shenzhen last week.
I can't confirm or deny China's claim, but there are lots of solar panels installed, and more are being installed on the roofs of buildings. There's a lot of activity.
I was more impressed by the vehicles. All the scooters and motorcycles are electric since two-cycle engines are banned in the city. Most of the cars are EVs as well.
Re: (Score:2)
2-cycle is dirty as hell. It makes sense for small engines like chainsaw, string trimmers, and model aircraft where there is no room for an oil reservoir. a 4-cycle moped isnt so bad since they get pretty damn good mpg, so long as you can get everywhere you need doing 30mph.
I have seen an increase in electric bicycles, which doesn't have the greatest durability. They start out good but the ongoing expense to either fix or replace is pretty high. Are those scooters similar in size/shape has the gas v
Re: (Score:2)
Are those scooters similar in size/shape has the gas versions? Or are we talking the stand-up kind not the moped type?
Mostly moped types, but some stand-up scooters and some electrified bicycles.
Shenzhen is a warm subtropical city (just north of Hong Kong), so mopeds/scooters can be used year-round and are way more common than cars.
Re: if China can do it ... (Score:2)
Beijing is not subtropical, but it's similar. Lots and lots of small motorbikes (not mopeds because they have no pedals) all running off batteries. I imagine shenzhen has more EVs than Beijing, but there are still loads of them, a significant number are tesla's (Y mostly).
Similarly for buses. There are still some that are diesel, but the vast majority are EV (maybe a significant proportion are hybrid).
I doubt this makes much difference to the world environment, but it does move the pollution away from the c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How was the air quality? If you don't mind me asking.
Way better than when I lived in Shanghai 20 years ago.
Back then, there was always a brown haze, and I coughed a lot. Now the sky is blue, and the air is clear.
But Shenzhen isn't a typical Chinese city. It is ultramodern, built from scratch over the last 40 years, and its household incomes are much higher than the national average.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: if China can do it ... (Score:2)
> The Chinese are obsessed about losing face
I think you'll find this is no longer as true as it once was. My impression is that they're a lot less interested I what others think these days, to the point where it's really not true any more. They realise "the west" are basically full of it and so are not an example of anything good, so it doesn't matter what they think.
Re:if China can do it ... (Score:5, Interesting)
These things measurable from satellites [science.org]. Some level of fraud is inevitable in China, but large scale misinformation could be spotted remotely.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to look at the lie. At no point did they say they reduce emissions. At No point did they deny an increase in emissions. they are simply saying that their output from solar and wind exceeds the output from coal and oil how do you measure that from a satellite? We’re not measuring electricity generated.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to look at the lie. At no point did they say they reduce emissions. At No point did they deny an increase in emissions. they are simply saying that their output from solar and wind exceeds the output from coal and oil how do you measure that from a satellite? We’re not measuring electricity generated.
If they don't say that they reduce emissions then it's not a lie when they do exactly what they said. What you need to look at is the claim which is not yet a reduction. The claim is that they are accelerating renewables enough that they will soon be reducing emissions. The claim is also that the new coal plants produce less CO2 pollution than the old ones and so they are reaching a plateau in pollution from coal. Each of those claims is verifiable and has not been shown to be false. If you think it's false
Re:if China can do it ... (Score:4, Informative)
China has said that they will reach peak emissions by 2030. That was their publicly agreed target at the Paris conference.
Based on their own data, and confirmed by satellite measurements, they are on track for 2024 or 2025 to be the peak, reaching what was considered an ambitious goal 5 years early. Even the Chinese government underestimated the speed at which renewables and storage would be deployed and displace fossil fuels.
It's why they are scaling back their nuclear programme too. They just don't need it. The next step is big flywheels to add inertia to the grid, like Ireland is doing.
Re: (Score:2)
send me an article on the flywheel technology and what it does. I am unfamiliar with that physics role in power production.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't you operate Google?
The Irish converted an old coal power station into a giant flywheel to spin the generators. It is spun up with renewable energy, and then provides inertia for the grid to keep the frequency stable.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea i did not get that result googling. With that added information I found this article https://t.ly/btlOj [t.ly] . I always wondered about the dc output of solar and the variable wind speed of wind turbines. 500kWh each will need a few. Probably one of these for every wind turbine depending on wind variances. Cleaning up solar would be easier since all you are really doing is giving more curve to the square-formed DC-to-AC conversion. Essentially this is a mechanical AC version of a DC capacitor. One rated at 50
Re: (Score:3)
They are estimating they will need 6 for the entire country to be wind/solar powered.
Re: (Score:2)
probably a lot larger than the one in that article :-) if its just 6, thats a metric fuckton of mass. I wonder if its oil fed sleeve bearings or grease packed roller bearings. Sleeve bearings have less friction. That much mass, something like friction is going to really be an engineering factor. I would imagine sleeve bearings are the way to go, but they do consume power to run the oil pumps. Even on steam turbines the pumps are electrical not mechanical linkage from the turbine. This ensures oil pressure
Re: if China can do it ... (Score:2)
Omg, could be projecting any more than you are? You have it totally backwards. They are not what you think they are, but you are what you think they are.
It's actually quite extraordinary how deluded you guys are.
Re: (Score:2)
tell that to all the prisoners forced to do free labor in Uighur. China is one of the nations that still practice sanctioned slavery. But go ahead and be a cocksucking shill for them. Just make sure you swallow and wipe your chin when you are done. Maybe if we are all lucky you find yourself forced into slavery during one of your cock-gobbling tours there. Im sure Taiwan and Tibet have nothing but nice things to say about china.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a race which source can provide more (Score:5, Insightful)
"Surpassing" is the wrong metric. Only a decline of burning coal helps. As long as China adds coal fired power plants, it's still going in the wrong direction.
Re: (Score:3)
"Surpassing" is the wrong metric. Only a decline of burning coal helps. As long as China adds coal fired power plants, it's still going in the wrong direction.
True but at least coal plant installation in China has been flatlining and that does help simply because it beats a steady increase in coal plant construction. It doesn't help as much as a net reduction would, but at least this is a clear sign that the Chinese are shifting priorities in a big way. Meanwhile the USA can't hold a candle to China or the EU in renewables installation and it has 133 new gas-fired power plants in the works because ... "Drill baby drill!!!" will make the 'libruls' cry.
Re: (Score:1)
the USA can't hold a candle to China or the EU in renewables installation
wait until all those "green" hydrogen plants eu is building actually start running ... on natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
the USA can't hold a candle to China or the EU in renewables installation
wait until all those "green" hydrogen plants eu is building actually start running ... on natural gas.
Green hydrogen is produced using water and renewable electricity. Try again
Re: (Score:2)
i know. it is also very hard and expensive to store which is why all those plants will end up burning gas instead.
it's not even a pipe-dream, they know perfectly what they're doing.
Re: (Score:2)
i know. it is also very hard and expensive to store which is why all those plants will end up burning gas instead.
it's not even a pipe-dream, they know perfectly what they're doing.
There is always going to be some remnant that has to bur nat gas due to lack of alternatives and most of that can be mitigated through carbon capture. Nat-gas is being out-competed on price for grid level electricity generation by renewables. The only reason anybody would build a nat-gas powerplant these days is because of political ideology, not because it makes economic or environmental sense especially if we star making gas consumers pay the externalised costs they are currently allowed to offload on the
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/20 [abc.net.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not a race which source can provide more (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile the USA can't hold a candle to China or the EU in renewables installation and it has 133 new gas-fired power plants in the works because ... "Drill baby drill!!!" will make the 'libruls' cry.
Solar and wind energy are absolutely strategic, both on an industrial and on a military level and the level of deployment should probably be the primary measurement of the success of governments right now. Because they aren't concentrated in one single installation in one location, wind and solar are much more difficult to destroy militarily than nuclear plants and the implications of your enemies doing that are much less serious. Electrical energy is easy to transmit from place to place and once it is cheap enough it becomes possible to start creating hydrocarbon or hydrogen fuel reserves in place in small installations. As an example of how that changes things, that can easily mean each military unit could maintain a fuel reserve without the need to give itself away by having incoming deliveries.
We need to move away from an attitude that "maybe China's crap and we can ignore them" to an attitude that "maybe they are doing clever things and we need to make sure we stay ahead of them". The US has been falling hugely behind in this area, party because the fossil fuel reserves have allowed US politicians to be complacent. Obama made some moves but not nearly enough. Biden is again beginning but pretty slowly given that the Republican congress blocked progress. In between the best guess at Trump's energy policy is that he's getting orders from Xi via Putin to destroy the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to move away from an attitude that "maybe China's crap and we can ignore them" to an attitude that "maybe they are doing clever things and we need to make sure we stay ahead of them".
The only "clever" things they are doing is a one party state, where the government is quite literally above the law and can make things happen by decree. Coupled with a complete lack of anything resembling a body politic. Combine this with ultra protectionism and making sure everything is economically rigged.
It works well when times are good. When times are bad, it implodes REALLY hard. Right now China is desperately racing against time, they need to either figure out how to save tens of trillions to kee
Re: (Score:2)
If you have an enemy capable and crazy enough to strike nuclear plants you're pretty screwed anyway...
If you look at Ukraine, you will see most of their coal/gas/hydro plants have been destroyed, but the russians so far aren't daring to fire missiles at the nuclear plants.
Solar and wind are more spread out and harder to attack, but they are also not adequate on their own - you need something else to supply power when its dark and not windy. Energy storage to offset the times when wind/solar is not providing
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, solar installations and windmills are impossible to harden (unlike a natgas plant, though few if any natgas plants in the US are hardened against attack). It would be easier for a saboteur to destroy wind/solar installations, and it would be trivial for airstrikes to take them out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, they aren't hardened. Meanwhile a solar or wind installation has exposed wiring that can be cut, exposed power delays that can be shelled or bombed, and acres of fragile surface area that can be wiped out in any number of ways. You can't protect it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Relays not delays.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar and wind energy are absolutely strategic, both on an industrial and on a military level and the level of deployment should probably be the primary measurement of the success of governments right now.
Really? Like, people could be starving, but if they have solar panels, that's success?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Like, people could be starving, but if they have solar panels, that's success?
Generally people are starving for a reason. Some of the primary reasons include
Re: It's not a race which source can provide more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you make a good sounding argument, but the source of all problems in life, including environmental problems, is racism and colonialism. That is the only true variable by which governments should be evaluated, and if you disagree, you're a racist fuck. That is how you sound.
That's not my position at all and I'm not sure where you got that from. I think racism an colonialism are bad things. However, I know enough history to know that they have been eternal problems with Europe suffering from them just as much as anywhere else. In fact, in this particular case, without the work of Bell Labs in the USA, there would be no solar panels being made and delivered in China. It's really sad that America isn't getting the full benefits of that work whilst China is clearly showing that it
Re: (Score:2)
What is it you think they're doing that's clever?
What they are doing is forcing some economic changes that are inevitable in any case to happen earlier so that their industry develops the solutions and is able to cope with them better than other people's whilst also being able to sell on the solutions to other countries for money.
Simply looking at existing technology, in 20 years time there will be a huge amount of very cheap off peak energy. There will be a new set of technologies which take advantage of that by doing things related to that. The countrie
Re:It's not a race which source can provide more (Score:5, Informative)
Don't mistake new coal plants for more coal burning. The new ones are more efficient and replace older ones.
It's likely that China will heat peak CO2 emissions this year or next.
Re: (Score:2)
They are still adding additional coal capacity as well as replacing existing plants.
There is always some level of replacement going on as older stuff wears out.
Re: It's not a race which source can provide more (Score:2)
https://www.americanprogress.o... [americanprogress.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To make solar panels you need high-purity silicon.
Oh right, so.. about that silicon. Let's hope they're not trying to find an alternative use for unprocessed sea sand.
Poor-quality Chinese concrete could lead to skyscrapers collapsing
https://www.wired.com/story/ch... [wired.com]
Honestly though, I applaud the idea of anyone making the effort to use more non-(air)polluting/renewable energy technologies. If only we could find a way to pluck hydrocarbons out of thin air, that would be great.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's not a race which source can provide more (Score:2)
That's not true.
It also matters HOW the coal is burnt. Ie how much pollution is produced and how much electricity is produced from that coal. China leads the world in clean(er) coal tech.
https://www.americanprogress.o... [americanprogress.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot avoid turning the carbon into carbon dioxide. That reaction is what creates the heat.
Re: Or so they say. China lies a lot. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or so they say. China lies a lot. (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't lie about solar and wind deployments because they are visible from space. Even commercial satellite imagery can see them easily.
Similarly, CO2 emissions can be detected by satellites, along with other types of pollution.
You can also just get a tourist visa and go look for yourself.
China isn't North Korea. We get video of their rockets exploding off people's cell phones, and official acknowledgements. And why would they lie about this?
Re: (Score:2)
Either you're remarkably naive or just being obtuse for its own sake. Dictatorships don't care whether you believe them: They lie as an expression of impunity. Russia insisted it wasn't going to invade Ukraine, just days before it did so, with troops massed on the border and the entire world seeing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, they lied... But why has nobody shown any evidence of this? Why have none of their rivals pointed to satellite imagery of areas that are supposed to have solar panels or wind farms that show empty space instead?
This is moon landing denial level of bullshit, Enuomion. It's easily disprovable. You can even apply for a tourist visa and go look for yourself. They are not hard to get and you can tell us if they bar you from visiting those sites (they won't).
Oil - the world's biggest blunder (Score:3)
Instead of building solar and phasing out coal they (and we) should have done whatever it takes to eliminate gasoline cars and thus get rid of oil dependency. Oil has been the biggest disaster, by helping prop up uneducated religion-mad countries that funded madrasas and terrorism. Religious psychotism is a far more deadly and immediate threat than climate change. Instead of building solar they (and us) should have aggressively mandated EVs and powered them with coal plants and THEN phased coal out.
Re: Oil - the world's biggest blunder (Score:2)
They have done this. Haven't you been paying attention? EVs are everywhere in China.
Lies (Score:1)
In related EU news (Score:5, Informative)
It is not just coal but fossil fuels, i.e. coal, oil and gas.
See https://electrek.co/2024/07/30... [electrek.co] and https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No mention of China's nuclear power constructi (Score:2)
Lots of R&D too, with some new types coming. There was something in the news recently, iirc.
Every summer this happens (Score:1)
Solar meets all power demand! China, California, it doesn't matter.
Winter arrives and crickets. 14 to 16 hours of night, overcast days, sun ant a lower angle in the sky, and the story is different.
The question becomes do you save enough fuel in the summer to pay for the installation?
fine (Score:2)
let us say china is exaggerating with numbers and capacity!=production and they are still adding coal,
fine
but they are investing heavily in solar and wind. and the number of coal is decresing. good job china. I know the US can be competitive and i hope we take this as a challenge instead of trying to justify why coal is better.
Apples and oranges (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
> burn coal, 24 x 7.
China's new coal plants do not burn coal 24x7. They're peaker plants that only run when other sources aren't sufficient.
Re: Apples and oranges (Score:2)
Right, which is a bit of a departure from normal coal installations which are to provide the base level, and other plants are turned off and on to flatten the curve.
https://www.americanprogress.o... [americanprogress.org]
not clear (Score:2)
Not clear what this means, because capacity is being measured in watts, not watt-hours. In the US, for example, installed battery capacity is measured in watts, which is typically, but not necessarily, what can be supplied for 4 hours.
I don't care what your windmills can provide for 10 seconds on one day of the year; what can they provide on average all year?
Re: (Score:2)
Capacity, i.e. energy is watt-hours!
Watts is rate of delivery, or power. Batteries store energy in watt-hours, they are filled and discharger at a power rate of watts.
Re: (Score:2)