By Ed Ireland — September 21, 2023
“According to Reuters, China is justified in burning massive amounts of coal because it uses some of that electricity to charge EVs, enabling it to reduce its crude oil imports, which is even more evil than coal. The world, in other words, can continue to ignore the fact that China and the other countries in Asia emit more CO2 than the rest of the world combined.”
We are constantly told that burning coal must be eliminated because it contributes to climate change. Coal is so bad that the EPA has proposed rules that will force the closure of all U.S. coal-burning power plants, as well as natural gas generators by 2040, if not sooner. U.S. power grids are showing the effects of the early retirement of coal power generation plants, meanwhile, and grid operators are demanding that the EPA stop their proposed regulations. But the war on coal is unabated.
Apparently, the war on coal plants does not apply to China. According to an article this week in Reuters by Clyde Russell, “China’s Huge Coal Plant Building Has Weird Climate Logic,” China’s CO2 emissions from its massive coal-burning power plant program pose little problem on the road to solving “climate change.”
His article begins by explaining that China is indeed the world’s largest coal-burning country in the world and is building more plants quickly:
China is building two-thirds of the coal-fired electricity generation capacity currently under construction globally, and this may not be as disastrous for the climate as it sounds (emphasis added).
The world’s largest producer and importer of coal has 136.24 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired generation under construction, according to data released in July by the Global Energy Monitor.
This represents 66.7% of the global total of 204.15 GW, and China is streets ahead of second-placed India, with 31.6 GW being built and third-placed Indonesia with 14.5 GW.
These three countries represent 89% of the coal-fired plants currently under construction, and it’s not a coincidence that all of them have large populations, growing energy demand and vast domestic coal reserves.
China’s under-construction coal generation is about 12% of its existing capacity, and adding more coal-fired power would seem incompatible with the stated goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2060.
So the energy elephant in the CO2 mitigation room is to be papered over? Given a pass with COP28 coming up? We can ignore everything we’ve ever heard or read about “planet-destroying CO2 emissions from coal plants” because:
The large coal-fired construction programme can be seen in the wider context of China’s rapid shift to electric vehicles (EVs) and away from internal combustion engine (ICE) cars and trucks.
This is a strange detour. China’s massive fleet of coal-burning power plants are saved by coal-based EVs, what Amory Lovins called emission elsewhere vehicles (EEVs)? The article doesn’t mention that China has been unsuccessful in forcing its population to purchase EVs, so massive numbers have been left to rot in fields.
Never mind this detail because this all leads to the not-so-obvious conclusion that China’s use of coal-fired electricity to charge their EVs will enable them to reduce their imports of crude oil, which is much worse for the environment than coal. Continuing the article’s “weird logic”:
While it would obviously be better for the environment for China to stop building coal-fired power plants and instead accelerate the deployment of renewables, there is some logic to the current policy.
Using mainly domestic coal and some relatively low-cost imports will allow China to lower crude oil imports over time, increase the penetration of EVs and have a lower emissions profile than if it carried on with a predominantly ICE vehicle fleet.
There you have it. According to Reuters, China is justified in burning massive amounts of coal because it uses some of that electricity to charge EVs, enabling it to reduce its crude oil imports, which is even more evil than coal. The world, in other words, can continue to ignore the fact that China and the other countries in Asia emit more CO2 than the rest of the world combined:
The fact that China’s carbon dioxide emissions are being ignored while U.S. energy policies are destroying the reliability of its power grids and undermining its energy independence is telling. This suggests that the war on fossil fuels is a dangerous diversion from the actual agendas, which could include eliminating the dominance of the United States, establishing global governance, population control, and more.
—————
Ed Ireland, adjunct professor at TCU’s Neeley School of Business, received his B.S. from Midwestern State University and Ph.D. from Texas Tech University. This analysis was originally posted at Thoughts About Energy and Economics.
Ang natural gas? That bears clicking on a bigger screen from home
“And”… very first word of very first comment is a typo. You can delete it if you’d like.
One should not ignore the fact that China is building the most advanced ultra super-critical (AUSC) technologies available coal fired power plants. These plants are far more efficient. The CO2 emissions are on par with the present generation of NG fueled power plants.
Not true. In the US, conventional coal is about 32% thermal efficiency. The single US USC coal (Turk in Arkansas) is about 41%. The new, larger than Turk China USC plants are about 43-45%. CCGT is 61% at full load, and 60% at 80% load, and emits about 35% CO2 compared to USC for two reasons: methane combustion produces 2 H2O and one CO2 for 2 O2, USC produces 2 CO2 for 2 O2, and CCGT is more efficient consuming O2.
Nice try. Could have got away with it on Ars, Real Climate, Skeptical Science, the Guardian, Washington Post, NY Times…etc
But not here.
They’re not far more efficient They’re incrementally more efficient.
I think Reuters has some leftists who will excuse whatever the Chinese Communist Party does because it is labeled “communist”. Nevermind that the current philosophy of the CCP is much closer to Italian Fascism than Leninism or Stalinism, it is called communism.
Tom, sort of like opportunism and bad intentions on the part of China and corruption on the other sides? Almost like China has paid for disgusting support?
I have seen reports the Chinese regard their Western supporters as so many baizou, a term of contempt.
Agreed Tom, but we mustn’t use the “F-word” when referring to China or Russia, where it’s applicable. It’s now reserved for anyone who doesn’t subscribe to full-on climate alarmism, gender ideology or race-baiting, i.e. folk like you and me, and of course the antichrist/arch-criminal/white supremacist formerly known as orange man, who also gets referred to with the “N-word” (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei).
So? Iosip Vissarionovich Dzugashvili referred to the Old Bolsheviks he purged as “right wing”.
Calling such activists as DiAngelo and Kendi as racists returns to a more reasonable historical definition of the term. George Orwell was quite pointed on the preference for radicals to distort language.
China has more billionaires than any other nation- poor excuse for communism or socialism.
If I had the power of the leader of China, I could make all my rowdy friends billionaires.
That doesn’t mean the Chinese people would be free.
I saw a story the other day claiming 10,000 Chinese millionaires left China last year, and it is estimated that 15,000 Chinese millionaires will leave China this year. Those with the ability are getting out. Something in their country does not suit them.
From what I’ve read, “getting out” is not as simple as packing your bags and getting on a plane. The CCP has ways to continue to enforce its will on expats, ranging from threatening family members still in China all the way to operating “rogue” police stations in foreign (yet friendly) countries. You can leave the country, but the country doesn’t leave you…
The future? Both China and India, each, will additionally burn 500 MMT more coal each year in 2030 than they each burn now. The US is actively reducing it’s annual 477 MMT coal burn.
Can anyone explain to me why?
There are two reasons why—capital cost and fuel availability.
I do t want to live there.
story tip
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/China-Says-Fossil-Fuel-Phase-Out-Is-Unrealistic.html
China Says Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Is Unrealistic
By Tsvetana Paraskova – Sep 22, 2023
“It is unrealistic to completely phase out fossil fuel energy,” Xie, who will represent China at COP28 in Dubai in November, told ambassadors in Beijing ahead of the climate summit.
Let Reuters eat that!
Reuters should have stuck to reporting facts, not ill-informed opinions.
As should the Mainstream Misleadia
IMO, this convoluted logic arises only because everybody knows China won’t be shamed into changing coal usage the way Kerry wants the US and EU to be shamed into changing. So if nothing can be done about China, then China does’t count and illogical green excuses must be made.
It really is that simple isn’t it.
The climate change alarmists cannot make China budge on coal usage, so they make excuses for China, or ignore China, while continuing to try to destroy the Grid in Western nations.
There is a huge mental illness (mass hysteria) afflicting the Western world over CO2. An orchestrated mental illness.
Does Reuters also thin coal will be used in the massive oil refineries in China and their emergence as oil product exporters to a hobbled world? Maybe a chart of refinery capacity in China by year is in order.
China isn’t as stupid as the West when it comes to protecting their hard earned lifestyle. They’ve said time and time again it’s their economy first, then the rest of the world. What’s surprising is no one seems to care and give them a free pass. Or is it comrades of a feather stick together?
They know it is a scam and that they will not get China or India etc on board, but that is not gonna deter them from fleecing the rest of us.
That’s right. The Chinese are already communist, so the climate alarmists just have to work on changing the Western world.
“China isn’t as stupid as the West”
One doesn’t have to be very smart to be smarter than Western leaders. I think Western leaders have taken a “stupid” pill. Idiocracy isn’t just a movie.
‘Establishing Global Governance’… excluding China, of course… unless China is the one pulling the strings.
An interesting point there.
To establish a global world order it must first be necessary to depose the existing incumbent.
That would be the established western civilisation led by the Anglosphere.
Is that what this is really all about ?
I’m not generally a conspiracy theorist but that fits the facts awfully well.
“Is that what this is really all about ?”
I think it is, as far as the authoritarians of the world are concerned. They want to be the ones in control. They want to control every aspect of our lives.
We should fight them tooth and nail.
quote:“”The large coal-fired construction programme can be seen in the wider context of China’s rapid shift to electric vehicles
‘the wider context‘ of what. That fish swim and birds fly – is THAT why China builds power plants?
That is simply garbage. They are confusing consumption of ‘a product’ with its production – they are exactly opposite things/mechanisms/processes.
Consumers are not = makers
So how do they get away with such nonsense? Who writes, proof-reads and checks it? Why doesn’t the Editor-in-Chief say something?
Here’s why:“”Generation Z can’t work alongside people with different views and don’t have the skills to debate
We are now on Planet Dumb.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12542363/generation-z-alex-mahon-channel-4-gen-z-cambridge-convention.html
“We are now on Planet Dumb”
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/at-13-baltimore-city-high-schools-zero-students-tested-proficient-on-2023-state-math-exam
This is going on all over the nation, and has been going on for years, so the dumbing down going on in our schools may be one reason why we are now living in Stupid Nation.
Have you seen the “man in the street” interviews? It’s scary how clueless some of these people are. And they can vote. That may be why we are in the position we are in now.
If you can’t pass a math test, then you are probably susceptible to climate change propagada.
“China’s rapid shift to electric vehicles”
Whilst it is true that China dominates global sales of EVs responsible, according to the IEA, for 60% of all EV sales in 2022 that only amounted to 6m EV sales. China’s population is 1.46bn (Worldometers).
I wouldn’t call that a rapid shift.
“Weird logic“? Logic hasn’t been part of the discussion for quite some time.
Weird logic goes hand in hand with weird science.
The US is also trying to force consumers into EVs. Does that mean we can keep our remaining coal plants? We aren’t even building new ones.
Am I the only one who saw this story?
This is so downright evil of a plan, I really do not know what to say about it.
Bloomberg Invests $500 Million More to End Fossil Fuels in the U.S. (msn.com)
A fool and his money are soon parted.
Well, he has 93 billion, and he is not a young man.
The organization he is funding with this money claims to have been responsible for shutting down over 300 coal plants so far.
Now, I am pretty sure that they are at best a bit player in getting those things closed, but I could be wrong.
Money given to political campaigns and PACs and such is leveraged enormously over what can be done by trying to buy something.
He is talking about shutting down the majority of remaining power generation capacity in about 6 years.
Let’s stipulate for the sake of discussion he achieves this goal.
What is the net effect?
Not enough of an economy or industry left to build any of that renewable capacity.
I wonder if he takes the subway getting around NYC, and Amtrak to get around America. And a boat to get overseas. And is he a vegetarian? His clothes are all just cotton and wool?
And why wouldn’t that licit apply to every country that builds EVs
It would appear that China understands that carbon dioxide is a good gas and essential to life. the amount in the atmosphere created by man is neglible and has no effect on the climate. They must be laughing while the west impoverishes itself without achieving anything to help the planet.
Very nice article Ed, keep them coming.
Only governments can screw things up this bad. When will leftists open their eyes. There is no way that a select group of experts/professionals can compete with the rest of the population. We will always know more than them and when our ideas don’t work they go on the scrap heap. When their ideas don’t work they throw more money at it.
There is no war on coal just a lot of hot air.
This reminds me of juvenile response to a threat, ‘You and who’s army’?
Coal is still king and kicks ass.
When I was 15 I got into 3 fights in a month. The result of being the new guy and the smallest. In the first fight I got sucker punched and knocked out. Turns out i have a glass jar. When I cam to, I cleaned the clock of the guy who hit me and then went after the biggest guy who was the ring leader.
In the second fight fight 5 guys surrounded me. I knocked the biggest guy on his ass. Every time he threw a punch, I drew blood from a different part of his face.
The third fight was on the second day of school where I had the misfortune of having a locker next to the center of the football team. The football coach pulled me off before I could do much damage.
What I learned is nobody wins a fight. The best you can do is make bullies not want to get into a fight with you.
Coal will win every fight in court they choose.
I have been watching Clinton, Obama, and Biden with some short sight governors go after coal plants in the US. They lose every time until the coal plant is old and can not compete with a new CCGT plant.
Because of the shale revolution, we have cheap natural gas.
There is a class of people who produce things like food and energy. Sometimes they die doing it.
Then there is a class of people who claim to fight for you. Unless they have gone put on a uniform and gone to war, they do not know what war is.
That’s a mighty exciting story.
“This is a strange detour.”
On a per capita basis it’s still much, much less than the USA and it’s a large part of their energy. They can’t magic up energy so what would they do without coal? Decimate the global gas reserves in a decade or two maybe?
The day I see the Climate Change evangelists, e.g. Just stop Oil etc., protesting in China and India I might ‘think’ about the climate.
Cannibalising? Well it’s straight out Econ101 dumping-
Rooftop solar ‘cannibalising’ power prices as Australian generators pay to stay online (msn.com)
but you can’t afford not to be in on the fallacy of composition act at the rooftop level if you have the readies and a roof over your head. Sorry about that poor folks but lefties make the rules and there’s not much up top between their ears.
The Bloomberg Green Energy team estimates it will cost $US 200 Trillion to stop so-called climate change by 2050 and says that is cheap. There are about 2 billion households so that is $US 100,000 per household. 90% of the world can’t afford to pay anything so for the rich countries it will be $US 1 million per household or about $US 30,000 per year. That’s completely ridiculous.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain#xj4y7vzkg
Roof-top solar energy has great potential, but it will take a long time to fully exploit it because most houses are not designed to maximize the use of solar panels.
Rooftops are areas that are generally wasted. It’s far more sensible to utilize that ‘free’ space to generate electricity, than it is to build solar farms on vacant land that could be used for other useful purposes, such as grazing cattle or growing food, or generating a new forest.
Most houses in Australia that have solar panels on the roof, are using only about 1/8th of the entire roof area. In other words, only a quarter of the roof faces the sun most of the time, and about half of that quarter is covered with panels. Rarely does one see a full quarter of the entire roof area covered with solar panels.
Now imagine a scenario in the near future when safe, affordable and durable battery storage is available. A person builds a new house on a vacant plot of land (or tears down an old house which has a rusty roof). The new house is designed to maximize the full potential of solar energy, which means the entire roof area will be oriented towards the sun, using solar tiles to build the roof, which also reduces the cost, compared with installing solar panels on a roof that is already built.
Also, a new technology currently under development is a type of transparent fillm that can be applied to windows to generate solar power. Refer attached links.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/transparent-solar-panel-windows/
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/04/27/chalk-up-another-win-for-invisible-solar-windows/
So, imagine how much electricity could be generated if the entire roof was built with solar tiles, and all the windows on at least 3 sides of the house, were solar windows. I guess it could be about 4 times the energy usage for traditional household activities.
If this scanario is a few decades into the future, then the home owner will no doubt have an electric vehicle which can be recharged every day without any additional cost, provided the owner has a battery-storage room in the house, and/or a connection to the grid.
With a connection to the grid, the surplus energy, which might be as much as half the total energy generated, on average, could be sold at wholesale prices which pay for the connection to the grid, and perhaps also pay for the water supply to the house.
Now, isn’t that real progress? One builds a new home, but instead of spending extra money on a fancy design to impress the neighbours, one spends the extra money to maximize the energy production, which results in no electricity bills, no water bills and free fuel for one’s BEV, for the next 40 years. What could be better?
“Roof-top solar energy has great potential”
only in a few places & is weather dependent.
You cant run an industrial society on solar.
“provided the owner has a battery-storage room in the house”
Are you stark staring mad you want to risk putting a battery-storage room in the house !!!
Let’s get down to the basics.
(1) Energy supplies are essential for everyone’s prosperity and well-being.
(2) Fossil fuel supplies are limited, therefore, using a portion of our current supplies of fossil fuels to develop renewable supplies of energy, in order to avoid any future ‘peak-oil’ and ‘peak-coal’ events, is very sensible.
Imagine a world in which there was no alarm about the bad effects of continued use of fossil fuels, and every country continued to expand its use of fossil fuels on the basis that there will always be more reserves discovered to meet demand.
Imagine such a world, a hundred years in the future when consumption of fossil fuel has become at least quadruple the current usage, as undeveloped countries develop, and the currently developed countries continue to increase their wealth.
Imagine what a catastrophe could follow when the alarm about diminishing supplies of fossil fuels occurs, a hundred years from now, when yearly consumption is 4 times the current consumption.
Is it not sensible to begin the development of alternative and renewable energy sources right now, to avoid a future catastrophe?
However, there’s a major political problem in persuading the population to accept the enormous expense involved in the transition to other forms of energy supplies, especially when it is often repeated that there are 2 or 3 hundred years of fossil fuel reserves in the ground, at the current rate of usage.
Populations as a whole are not particularly rational. They tend to be stuck in their traditional life-styles and are reluctant to make any changes, which is why it’s necessary to create an alarm about the use of fossil fuels.
By slowly increasing the percentage of renewable energy use, world-wide, the increase in the use of fossil fuels, world-wide, could remain stable for a while then decrease very slowly, so we could in reality have more than 2 or 3 hundred years of reserves in the ground for fertilizer use and other essential products.
“there’s a major political problem in persuading the population to accept the enormous expense involved in the transition to other forms of energy supplies”
When fossil fuels really start to run out- and their price is truly above that of renewable energy – then it’ll take no persuading to convince people to switch. My dad used to say “when you can’t get something to work- don’t try forcing it”.
Joseph, there is no need for much renewable energy as such when one has more efficient and cheaper long-term baseload generation, in either upgraded fossil fuel technology or new nuclear generation, which could be fission or fusion. We just have to be willing to take the time and spend the money to do the research. Governments should not cherry pick or fund these projects, let them emerge naturally from private enterprise research.
Meanwhile we should utilize the most efficient technology available to generate power for all.
You can’t suddenly switch to technologies that don’t yet exist. The current renewables exist as a result of the alarm created about the potential disasters claimed to result from the continued use of fossil fuels. The continued development and improvement of these renewable technologies are dependent upon the continuation of the alarm.
The huge intermittency problem of renewables can be fixed by a combination of improved battery technology and the construction of long-distance, underground UHVDC lines which transport energy from where the sun shines to where it doesn’t.
It takes a lot of time and resources to construct thousands of miles of underground cables, and the goal of developing an affordable, durable, safe, and efficient battery, that doesn’t require the use of relatively scarce materials, could take a long time.
I have zero interest in renewables- and I didn’t say anything positive about them – only if and when they actually got cheaper, then and only then they might be worth considering- but if everything is counted, like the waste of the landscape, the shortage of minerals needed for them, their unreliability, etc- then of course they are likely to never be feasible. I’m well aware of their negatives since I read everthing on WUWT, and I have a ******* solar farm built behind my house which I legally fought, and I know people who were threatened by wind “farms”.
Joseph writes “if and when they actually got cheaper, then and only then they might be worth considering”
Given that energy cost underlies the cost of constructing renewable energy devices, what makes you think they’ll ever be cheaper?
To put that argument in perspective, imagine you’re considering making your own cheese but you think buying and owning a cow would be too expensive so you think you’ll wait until cheese becomes so expensive that buying and owning the cow makes economical sense. Is that a sensible argument?
Solar on roofs makes sense in some places, like large parts of Australia, India and Africa, but doesn’t fare too well in many other parts of the world such as much of central and northern Europe.
Here in Wokeachusetts, the climatistas now are turning against industrial wind and solar on the land. Instead, they say just cover all the roofs with solar. But, a few years ago, the state’s “energy czar” said that even that wouldn’t come close to meeting all the existing power needs, never mind help to get to net zero. I remind the climatistas about what he said but they of course just block their ears. I suppose some solar on houses is fine, but perhaps without the subsidies. It might be good to really end all subsidies for all energy and see what happens but then all the externalities- like wasting vast areas of the landscape will need to be counted- and put a value on the dependability gotten from fossil fuels and nuclear.
Here, the climatistas are now big also on wind at sea- but this state doesn’t have a large coastline so I don’t know where they’re going to put all the turbines and of course they cost will be huge.
Not only does this Reuters article suffer from weird logic, it also runs into a brick wall, if you accept the U N’s International Resource Panel Report: Green Technology Choices. In one section, the report rates the ‘change of environmental impacts’ by global regions of two actions–‘improving efficiency of gasoline cars’ and replacing all gasoline cars so that ‘all cars are battery electric’. They assess eight environmental categories: greenhouse gas emissions; particulate matter; freshwater ecotoxicity; freshwater eutrophication; human toxicity; metal consumption; water consumption; and land occupation. In every region, super-efficient gasoline cars (71 mpg) would improve the environment in all 8 categories while changing to all EV’s increases environmental damage in 7 of the 8 categories in all regions of the world. In the sole category where EV’s do improve the environment, i.e., greenhouse gas emissions, they only do so in most regions—but not China, India, or Africa. Changing to EV’s in those regions increases greenhouse emissions over their present gasoline cars, in addition to all the other environmental harm EV’s cause
China’s pushing of domestic EV adoption is not because of any environmental concerns, but purely strategic: Their access to inexpensive coal is far more secure than their access to inexpensive oil. They couldn’t care less about CO2 emissions beyond using it as a political and economic cudgel against gullible western Progressives.