Essay by Eric Worrall
“…In 2024, coal power construction activity surged to 94.5 GW, its highest level since 2015, reinforcing coal’s entrenched role in the power system. …”
PRESS RELEASE
China’s coal power expansion undermines clean energy progress
BEIJING, 13 February 2025 – Even as China’s renewables skyrocketed in 2024, with solar and wind surging month after month throughout the year, the country remains embroiled in coal, leaning on the dirty fuel to meet high energy demands.
China’s continued coal power expansion is undermining the country’s clean energy progress, according to a new report from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air and Global Energy Monitor. In 2024, coal power construction activity surged to 94.5 GW, its highest level since 2015, reinforcing coal’s entrenched role in the power system. Meanwhile, the country approved 66.7 GW of new coal-fired power capacity, with approvals picking up in the second half after a slower start to the year.
While China is leading the world in renewable energy deployment—adding a record 356 GW of wind and solar capacity in 2024—the simultaneous expansion of coal power raises critical concerns about its ability to transition away from fossil fuels. Instead of replacing coal, clean energy is being layered on top of an existing fossil-fuel-heavy system, making it increasingly difficult to achieve the intended shift toward a renewables-driven power sector.
Despite the slow-down in previous years and early 2024, the coal power permit rebound in the second half of 2024, was not insignificant and contradicts policy commitments to curb coal consumption. The uptick in coal power permits threatens to lock in fossil fuel reliance at a time when China’s power system needs greater flexibility to integrate renewables.
In 2024, more than 75% of newly approved coal power capacity was backed by coal mining companies or energy groups with coal operations, reinforcing coal’s dominance even when market fundamentals do not justify expansion. Long-term coal power contracts, as well as local government justifications for new plants – often based on economic growth rather than grid reliability – and the strong influence of coal mining companies in financing new projects are further delaying the energy transition.Competition between coal and renewables is intensifying, with growing curtailment of wind and solar generation, particularly in the fourth quarter of 2024.
These trends challenge China’s climate commitments, including the targets set out by President Xi Jinping personally to “strictly control coal-fired power generation projects, and strictly limit the increase in coal consumption over the 14th Five-Year Plan period and phase it down in the 15th Five-Year Plan period”. The report warns that without urgent policy shifts, China risks reinforcing a pattern of energy addition rather than transition, limiting the full potential of its clean energy boom.
‘China’s rapid expansion of renewable energy has the potential to reshape its power system, but this opportunity is being undermined by the simultaneous large-scale expansion of coal power. The continued approval and construction of new coal plants—often driven by industry interests and outdated contracts rather than actual grid needs—risks locking China into fossil fuel dependence at a time when flexibility is crucial for integrating clean energy. Without decisive policy shifts, China’s energy transition will remain an ‘energy addition’ rather than a true transformation away from coal, said Qi Qin, lead author of the report and China Analyst at CREA.
‘Chinese coal power and mining companies are sponsoring and building new coal plants beyond what is needed to back up the country’s impressive growth in solar and wind power. The continued pursuit of coal is crowding out the country’s use of lower-cost clean energy, and is threatening to undermine President Xi’s 2021 pledge to strictly limit coal consumption and phase it down over the next five years’, said Christine Shearer, Research Analyst at Global Energy Monitor.
-END-
Contacts
Qi Qin, China Analyst, CREA
qi@energyandcleanair.orgChina team, CREA
queries-china@energyandcleanair.orgChristine Shearer, Research Analyst, Global Energy Monitor
christine.shearer@globalenergymonitor.orgNote to editors
The publication related to this press release is available here. About CREA The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) is an independent research organisation focused on revealing the trends, causes, and health impacts, as well as the solutions to air pollution. We use scientific data, research and evidence to support the efforts of governments, companies and campaigning organisations worldwide in their efforts to move towards clean energy and clean air.
www.energyandcleanair.org
About GEM
The Global Energy Monitor (GEM) develops and shares information in support of the worldwide movement for clean energy. By studying the evolving international energy landscape, and creating databases, reports, and interactive tools that enhance understanding, GEM seeks to build an open guide to the world’s energy system.
www.globalenergymonitor.org
Source: https://energyandcleanair.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Press-release_CREA_GEM_China_Coal-power_H2-2024_FINAL.pdf
The report is available here.
I see the hilarious spectacle of China building coal plants to firm renewables as a glimpse of what life must have been like in the imperial age.
Emperor Xi wants renewable energy plants, and the commands of the emperor are absolute. But you can still solve your energy problems by building coal plants. That way the emperor gets to see his Potemkin Village solar and wind installations, while hidden behind a hill somewhere the old tech coal plant produces the energy which actually powers provincial industry.
Update (EW): Is emperor Xi serious about green energy? We can’t know for sure, but Xi Jinping once accidentally shut down the Chinese economy because he imposed a strict carbon quota, so I think he does genuinely want to reduce CO2 emissions. Possibly for strategic / fuel dependency reasons rather than environmental reasons.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, is China installing bag houses and electrostatic scrubbers on its coal plants? Other wise, who cares and why?
Smog in cities is a major concern to the urban Chinese and hence the CCP even ran by XI the dictator hence restrictions on pollution and the pushing of EV’s to clean up the air. CO2 does not come into it, the installation of PV and Turbines is more to get their industry technology in place to export to the gullible.
The Chinese could easily follow the example of western clean air policies (between 1950 and say, 1995) if they wanted to.
China is building coal because coal is reliable. China is building unreliable renewables as a sign to the virtue signaling world
“the installation of PV and Turbines is more to get their industry technology in place to export to the gullible.”
I think so, too.
There won’t be any blackouts in China when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow because unreliable solar and wind are secondary to the Chinese grid, not primary.
China has a lot of coal, with the world’s fourth largest coal reserves. China is the world’s largest coal producer, and coal is a vital part of its energy security and economy.
In 2024, China consumed about 4.85 billion metric tons of coal, which is more than half of the world’s total coal consumption. China is the world’s largest consumer of coal. Only 542.7 million (1.1%) metric tons was imported in 2024
Chiaa has a lot of coal and not enough oil and gas.
China is the world’s second largest consumer of oil and gas, but only the sixth largest producer; therefore, it primarily relies on oil imports to meet its demand.
“Only 542.7 million (1.1%) metric tons was imported in 2024”
What percent?
What’s a mere order of magnitude error?
They install them for inspectors to see.
The new, highly efficient, coal plants in China have the latest air quality control systems in accordance with, and often exceeding, western standards, to reduce particulate matter and smog.
China also promotes domestically produced EVs in urban areas.
China is making a major POSITIVE contribution to CO2 ppm, which increases the growth of flora and fauna worldwide.
China should be lauded, not vilified for adding CO2 by using 4.3 billion metric tons of coal per year.
And of course we see the effect of China’s ever increasing EV usage too
And then there’s this report
China is at the bleeding edge of BEV technology. Their manufacturing superiority has been predominantly built on western technology which has evolved through some expensive lessons along the way. Now they are learning the lessons.
I expect the incidence of battery melt downs in new vehicles will decline but there are already millions of ageing BEVs that are likely to end life in a melt down unless scrapped while still operational.
China is building “Advanced Ultra-Supercritical” (AUSC) or “700°C technology” The water is above 700 °C (1,292 °F). The term High-Efficiency, Low-Emissions (“HELE”) has also been used by the coal industry to describe supercritical and ultra-supercritical coal generation. AUSC Coal plants are as efficient, if not better, than NG CCTG plants, plus, since US prohibits the use of Coal it is CHEAPER for China to use than NG.
Coal fired USC power plants are up to 47% efficient, up to 43% efficient fully loaded with AQC systems.
Gas fired CCGT power plants are up to 60% efficient. They do no need AQC systems
China creates a lot of air pollution which offsets the benefits of more CO2.
Some Chinese air pollution drifts east to the US left coast where it lowers the average IQ by 1 point a year, scientists say.
The pollution is mostly local, the CO2 is world wide
China has the UK in its pocket.
From Guido Fawkes
“[Starmer’s] best buddy and fellow legal beagle Philippe Sands KC visited British Indian Ocean Territory as part of an expedition that landed without permission and raised the Mauritian flag on the UK overseas territory. “
“One of the international judges who ruled against Britain over the Chagos Islands is a former Chinese government official who backed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In 2019, as vice-president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Xue Hanqin ruled that the UK should give the islands to Mauritius “as rapidly as possible”.
It’s a dodgy clique of lawyers alright.
“Revealed: How China has been allowed to takeover Britain’s energy industry in the name of Ed Miliband’s Net Zero dream – as astonished experts warn of the chilling impact it could have on our national security”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14390927/China-Britains-energy-industry-Ed-Miliband.html
You simply have to suspend all disbelief at the antics of our government. They won’t complain about Chinese two-facedness. No, they’ll probably applaud it.
Meanwhile…
Giant gas field discovery could power Britain for a decade
Exploiting the find could add up to £112bn to GDP and create tens of thousands of jobs
A giant gas field has been discovered under Lincolnshire that could fuel the UK’s entire needs for a decade, reducing dependence on imports and generating tens of thousands of jobs, an energy company has claimed.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/13/giant-gas-field-discovery-could-power-britain-for-decade/?irgwc=1
Who is going to win in the UK…
.. the Chinese… or the Islamists ??
Yeah, but Lincolnshire is a prime agricultural area so no doubt Milliband will want to dig it all up and plant wind mills
It’s yet another headache for the Flywheel.
Excuse me…windmills indeed. It will actually be solar panels. That Lincolnshire is a prime growing area for solar panels and Ed along with his mate Vince love destroying farmland with solar that produces power less than 10% of the time in these northerly latitudes.
Unfortunately these days large parts of Lincolnshire are already being turned from traditional farms to massive ‘solar farms’
(I now see that Rod Evans has already made this point with added detail)
And Fracking is only banned for Gas in UK, if you want to Frack for thermal heat and you are a Greeny then its fine.
https://medium.abundanceinvestment.com/fracking-for-geothermal-energy-as-important-as-fracking-for-gas-85811129b3d8
The UK leadership talks big, but carries no stick
The UK leadership, and the rest of the world., know the UK is tied up in knots, on a trajectory of demise, beyond help, somewhat like the Soviet Union in 1990.
My heart really goes out to Caudrilla’s Francis Egan, the British fracking entrepreneur. He could have made a heap of money using his talents in another country, but for decades he has tried to help Britain, only to be blocked at every turn by your idiot politicians. What a patriot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Egan
Let’s see. Windmills last about 20 years; while coal power plants last 60 years so after three 5 year plan periods all of those projects have to be replaced. Who says this will happen. What a farce.
Windmills make between 10 and 15 years at best. It’s that pesky 3% decline per annum….
Calculated MTBF of 4.5 years. Close to 50% of the failures are serious.
“These trends challenge China’s climate commitments, including the targets set out by President Xi Jinping personally to “strictly control coal-fired power generation projects, and strictly limit the increase in coal consumption over the 14th Five-Year Plan period and phase it down in the 15th Five-Year Plan period”.”
Sure. China will “strictly limit” the use of coal to only what is necessary to obliterate the energy-intensive industrial base of the CO2-mind-locked West. And “a record 356 GW of wind and solar capacity” has sufficient propaganda value – not capacity value due to intermittency – for this giant illusion of a “transition away from fossil fuels” to keep going for a few more years.
The press release is just hilarious in a very sad way. Hilarious because of the obvious dancing around China’s obvious intent, and sad because it reveals the debilitating CO2-mind-lock of the authors.
Source: Global Energy Monitor Coal-fired Power Stations 2024
No USA on chart. Time to Google again.
“This is a list of the 212 operational coal-fired power stations in the United States. Coal generated 16% of electricity in the United States in 2023, an amount less than that from renewable energy or nuclear power, and about half of that generated by natural gas plants. Coal was 17% of generating capacity.”
Anonymous general-info sources at the top of the search results do things like lump burning trash and hydroelectric into renewable to hide how little comes from wind and solar. I always have to do one more carefully worded search to get “the real” answer. Burning s*&% doesn’t seem like what one would think of, and hydro is second only to nuclear in “hasn’t changed in decades”-iness
I believe it was back during the Carter years. They had regulations dictating that when utilities replaced coal plants, they had to replace them with new designs that were a lot cleaner than the old designs.
One, I think, Midwest power company had scheduled maintenance on there existing power plant. During this maintenance, they had planned to replace the turbine with one that was something like 2 – 3% more efficient.
Prior to Carter, the permits to do this were pretty much automatic.
Under Carter, the EPA rejected the permits and told the utility that replacing turbine counted as “replacing the plant”. If the utility wanted to improve the plant, they would have to tear down the entire thing and rebuild it to the modern standards. It only took a few days for the utility to cancel the entire project.
The utility proposed a small increase. The EPA decided to hold out for a big increase. The result was no increase. The plant in question ran for another 20 years before it was finally closed.
Current coal could produce considerably more, but by law plays third fiddle to wind and solar.
A very old version of this chart was used in a previous thread comment by David Wojick. It was complete BS
Least accurate chart ever presented at WUWT.
This new chart is accurate for 2024
Clutz has some good articles at his Canadian Science Matters website that I recommend on my blog:
Science Matters | Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.
He also believes CO2 is 97% natural — no one is perfect.
You’re replying to his comment. Why don’t you speak to him instead of about him.
and why the heavy salt….
“It was complete BS
Least accurate chart ever presented at WUWT.”
David, Or China is just proceeding with their agreement with Obama back in 2014..
At the same time, President Xi Jinping of China announced targets to peak CO2 emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early, and to increase the non-fossil fuel share of all energy to around 20 percent by 2030.
In political spin talk, China will grow CO2 at the rate they want till 2030, then will increase the mix of non-fossil fuel (think nuclear power, thorium reactors & hydro growth of 3X the size of the Gorges Dam). Their planned growth doesn’t need what the West considers ‘renewables’. If you actually look at China Power future growth plan, Obama gave away the store to get exactly what China was planning to do anyway.
Even if they don’t change or make the targets, what is the penalty? Remember, as some have said, “Communists always lie.”
China now has also developed more nuclear power in a big way, and overall has over 30% of all electric generating capacity in the world, with only 17% of world population. China accounted for over 50% of all the capacity increase in the world over the decade 2013-2023. Quite a lot is happening there. https://epminst.us/states/World_Electricity_Generation_2013-23.pdf
China spends a lot of labor hours and money building things desired by their dictator. Keeps people busy but they also end up with lots of empty apartment buildings
If building solar panels and windmills is not a good idea elsewhere, how can they be a good idea in China?
Maybe building them are like a subsidy to the Chinese solar panel and wind turbine industries?
At least the government gets something for the money. In the US, these companies would get DOE loans and then often go bankrupt and never repay the loans.
China is building the world’s largest hydropower dam on the Yarlung Zangbo River in Tibet. The dam is expected to cost $137 billion and will be nearly three times the size of the Three Gorges Dam.
I remember when “transition” had a positive connotation.
“clean energy is being layered on top of an existing fossil-fuel-heavy system, making it increasingly difficult to achieve the intended shift toward a renewables-driven power sector.”
INTENDED? You don’t “intend” to shift to wind and solar when you are building coal plants at the rate China has for the last couple of decades. The Chinese are clearly aware of the inability of “renewables” to power a major economy with present technology. The fools who think that’s possible are the ones to ignore.
Yes I was laughing at that too…
WHAT “intended shift?!”
Only in the wet dreams of the climate deluded is China “transitioning” to worse-than-useless wind and solar from power generation that WORKS.
Some years ago I remember reading that China propped up it’s economy by building housing that was not really needed. Millions of units in high-rise buildings, almost entire cities that were never inhabited.
Could it be that China is now propping up its economy by creating “green jobs” putting up windmills and solar farms to show the world how they are committed to renewables while understanding that a modern society requires mega-gigawatts of reliable electricity. Their renewable energy is a Potemkin village, but a Potemkin village with a purpose.
By essentially pretending to commit to renewables China can keep people employed, and can lecture the free world about committing to renewables, and can partner with environmental organizations to further erode the free world’s energy supply. By de-stabilizing energy in the free world, China positions itself as the only place where high-energy manufacturing (such as windmills!) and computing can take place.
Just a thought, but China does take the long view in world politics.
“coal power construction activity surged”
But… but… solar and wind energy is much cheaper! /s
It sure is! Especially when you factor in backup requirements – either from non-intermittent domestic generation or buying from abroad in high-demand time slots.
And the not so frequent replacement of essential components (windmill wings, batteries, PV panels).
(yes, also /s)
Manufacture, install, then dismantle and dispose.
Mine, process, transport, manufacture, etc., to hazardous waste landfills
That chart is a lie.
Do some research
False claims that sound good to conservatives are not more accurate than false claims that sound good to liberals.
CCP are venal, backstabbing liars, they ain’t stupid. Of course they are building more coal plants.
What the CCP have is what the Democrats and most socialists are working towards.
But Biden, Harris, Trump and Musk always tell the truth?
So you choose to defend China. Nice look, buddy.
Got a real Cathy Newman thing going on there.
I just laugh and wonder just how deep the cognitive dissonance must go to write something like this. Does the writer REALLY think that if Xi Jinping didn’t want continued coal expansion that any one in ‘industry’ would have a say in the matter? Seriously? Reallly? The man dispatches and even has people killed if they don’t follow his ‘party line’ and some local coal company exec or ‘community leader’ is going to take the chance their head isn’t on the block? Wow.
The article is being written as if the Chinese power market is at similar to the West’s, clearly it isn’t. Geez they even count their great ‘5 year plans’, yeah that’s a signal of a ‘free market’.
Seriously, what level of total denial do you have to have to write this “China’s rapid expansion of renewable energy has the potential to reshape its power system…”…yeah, sure, ‘reshape its power system’…for the worse clearly…
Many companies also have 5 year plans, the difference is that for the companies, the 5 year plan is not a top down diktat.
It’s more of a guess as to where the company is headed.
Other teams take these “plans” and try to see how it will impact there division.
The plan says that they anticipate that the market for product Y will X units.
In order to build X units using our current methods, we will need Z tons of resource A.
Will the market be able to provide that much of resource A. If it can great. If not what do we do?
Do we sign long term contracts with suppliers? Are there any substitutes? Can we adjust our processes so that we don’t need as much of resource A?
Another group looks at the plans and says, if we are creating this many products, how many employees will we need? Do we have enough manufacturing capacity?
If not, what do we do? Can we make our processes more efficient? If we need to build more capacity, we will need to start planning now since it takes years to build new capacity.
Etc.
If one of these next level teams finds an obstacle that is impossible or difficult to over come, that is fed back to management so that they can either assign more resources to the area with the problem, or change the 5 year plan.
Not all companies do this. Just the successful ones.
My reference to their 5 year plans is they ‘count them’ as if they are some great guidance from above. So yes many companies have 5 year plans, and I’ve been involved in making ‘5 year projections’ for product development inside a company but the analogy fails in so many respects, not the least of all is that the ‘CEO’ of China can have you killed no questions asked…or he causes great chaos (see Eric’s posting below) when he decides his ‘plan’ HAS to be implemented…
In fact Eric’s link below is the only evidence needed to directly contradict the tone of the head posting…Xi had all the coal power plant provides so scared they caused serious problems across a country & the world…so does anyone really think the expansion in coal fired power is because of ‘greedy capitalist coal power plant’ owners and local politics? Seriously? I can just imagine that after causing such a severe problem Xi woke up and went “Scr*w that noise…build baby build”…
I worked on four year engineering plans for products that required four years of product development.
There were related financial plans estimating the return on investment on up to $1billion invested They were usually grossly overoptimistic except for the Ford F150 (before there was a electric F150)
The CBO does 10 year cost estimates for new legislation. Almost always underestimating actual expenses. The IRA law estimate was the latest example.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) initially estimated that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) would reduce the deficit by $238 billion over the 2022 to 2031 period.
Private economists estimate: The Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) climate and energy provisions are estimated to cost over $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
And your point vis-a-vis the head post clearly being propaganda?
Xi once accidentally shut down the Chinese economy because he imposed a strict carbon quota, so I think he does genuinely want to reduce CO2 emissions. Possibly for strategic rather than environmental reasons.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/09/28/china-suffers-widespread-blackouts-as-climate-targets-bite/
WOW! I missed that one. But this doesn’t tell me he actually believes in reducing CO2 because ‘CO2 bad’, it tells me he’s an overbearing, dick..tatorial (see what I did there?) idiot. Whatever stupid idea gets in his head for whatever reason if he believes in it enough he’s going to execute…the idea and the people that get in his way…
He’s a dictator not a ‘benevolent monarch’ or just head of state providing direction and guidance. I don’t think anyone knows what he believes in other than maintaining his power.
When one clears away the obscuring fog, one sees that China’s approach is not unreasonable.
Supplementing with wind and solar work, so long as there is sufficient “traditional” generation capacity to keep the grid stable and meet the needs.
Maryland has several significant solar farms. When the sun shines, it reduces the price of energy to consumers. When the sun is not shining, energy continues to flow.
There are problems with wind and solar, of course. When application is niche oriented the problems do not affect the grid. The crash course to Net Zero is fundamentally flawed in that it puts energy dependence on generators that are fundamentally not dependable. It’s almost a Rube Goldberg implementation.
I have guessed that China puts W&S where it adds value to the grid, not as a replacement for coal. And if there is a remote area that is difficult to get power and transmission to, then W&S could form a transition to real power. Of course, this is raw speculation on my part.
China has built 50 Ghost Cities to grow its economy. It is likely doing the same with wind and solar whilst relying on coal to provide its real economic engine.
It’s not so much to grow their economy, as wasting resources on non-functional assets destroys the economy, it doesn’t grow it.
It’s more a slavish devotion to 5 year plans, a strict adherence to disproven Keynesian economics, and the fear of telling the boss, that his plans are f’d up.
It has built large renewables farms in the Gobi desert
https://www.cidb.gov.my/eng/chinas-massive-renewable-energy-project-in-the-gobi-desert/
To be any use it has to be hooked up to demand. Which is not in the Gobi desert. There is a long history of Chinese wind and solar being installed, but not grid connected. The plan will have been fulfilled by the installation.
I seem to recall reading that they don’t even connect it to the grid. Which wouldn’t surprise me in the least, since it would only increase grid costs and decrease grid reliability.
But building it for show provides the Chinese with an excuse to keep barking about the need for “western” nations to do more (they’ll be happy to profit both in monetary terms and in terms of weakening geopolitical rivals while they laugh at us behind closed doors).
Wind and solar add cost but provide no benefit to the grid.
Because of the problem of intermittency, you have to keep your traditional power plants running all of the time, ready to pick up the load on short notice. As a result, fuel and maintenance costs for traditional power sources barely drops at all.
The CO2 and energy reductions of W/S are eaten by the increased inefficiencies of the rest of the power system
This has been empirically proven by energy systems analysts well before 2000, but the denial machine has been in full brainwashing mode, which ended up screwing all of us up an down and sideways
I have heard. that China has tremendous exports of wind and solar tech.So a limited amount in their own yard, promoting the nonsense is maybe a net gain. And if their nuclear really grows, as I think it is, then that to can generate tremendous electrical power.
I’m highly skeptical about that claim. Sounds like someone isn’t counting all of the costs of putting solar into their grid. Solar and wind scams always involve “incentives” to build at taxpayer and ratepayer expense, including “requirements” to “use” the intermittentsolar in favor of dispatchable generation.
What was the price of electricity before the “solar farms” were built? And where did the rates go after the “solar farms” were built?
I suspect they’re at best getting a “reduction” from higher prices, the end result being “more expensive than *without* the solar/subsidy “farms.”
I just wonder how much CO2 China emits for real. Last year they burned like 5Gt of coal, 55% of world wide consumption. “Only” 13Gt of total CO2 emissions make little sense, given there must be 4Gt from other sources and you get about 2.5t of CO2 for every ton of coal.
China, the world’s biggest CO2 emissions nation, set in 2020 a goal to have at least 1,200 gigawatts (GW) of solar and wind capacity by 2030. They already met that goal in 2024.
According to recent reports, China is currently building almost twice as much wind and solar power capacity as the rest of the world combined, solidifying its position as the global leader in renewable energy development.
China manufactures around 58% of the world’s electric vehicles (EVs), making it the world’s largest EV producer. This includes both battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).
As an electrical engineer having managed electric power company operations and lifelong skeptic I’m confused by the downvoters. Is Richard’s post factually inaccurate? If so, what is the truth concerning his inaccurate statements?
True skeptics must not let ideology dictate their responses to others.
My posts get automatic downvotes as a WUWT tradition.
I try to add data to articles for context and give other commenters a hard time when they claim CO2 Does Nothing or some other baloney.
I try to keep this comment section from being a conservative echo chamber. I once got about 50 thumbs down for a comment. A record I am proud of, which I added to my resume.
I know, right? I mean, come to someone’s blog, insult almost every post, tell everyone that you know better than almost everyone, and they’re obviously wrong because of ignorance or stupidity, and people keep downvoting you!
It’s beyond strange…
According to World Energy Statistics as of 2023 China had 610GW of solar and 441GW of wind producing 584TWh and 886TWh in the year respectively. A recent report claimed they had added 277GW of solar and 79GW of wind in 2024.
Their sources of generation in 2023 were
Oil 0.1%
Natural Gas 3.1%
Coal 60.8%
Nuclear energy 4.6%
Hydroelectric 13.0%
Other Renewables 17.6%
Other 0.7%
This is not world leading: eclipsed by the continents of North and South America and Europe for share of zero carbon generation.
The extra generation from extra wind and solar together is probably a bit less than from the incremental coal capacity: a further 3.3GW of stalled coal projects were restarted in 2024.
He creates his own problems and it is now a vicious circle. Zig’s comment is accurate. I do not trust any of the numbers from China, and I do not know their real numbers, and neither does Richard.
see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/02/14/claim-chinese-coal-plant-construction-is-undermining-their-renewable-transition/#comment-4037438
as a small example
Usually it says more about the downvoter than it says about the post.
You have got your numbers horribly wrong!! Not 1200 GW!!
The wind and solar provide only supplementary power. If they were as effective as you seem to think, China would be closing down its coal plants because renewables would be able to make up for the energy shortfall. Instead they’re adding to their coal-generating capacity. Do they realize something that the green promoters are overlooking?
There’s the rub! Wind and solar promoters constantly act as if a watt of “installed” wind or solar “capacity” is comparable to a watt of installed coal, oil, gas or nuclear power.
It is not.
Being a “leader” in doing something colossally stupid is nothing to champion or be proud of.
In China’s case what the build is for show; they build coal to provide the needed energy, which wind and solar can never do.
Accepting anything the CCP releases is pure baiguo behavior. Unless one is also a CCP member, in which case it is War Is Peace. Which is a Chinese version of “Don’t you give me no lip, peasant scum”.
I wrote a financial and economics newsletter for 43 years. All economic data from China were banned except for electricity usage, which I thought could be a better indicator of Chinese GDP growth than their “managed” GDP numbers.
I think not, especially given the pure politics of power generation and China’s multiple reasons to play the game.
Now how can that work?
If clean energy was lower-cost, it would crowd out those expensive fossil fuel plants.
Not sure these experts have the exact expertise China needs.
They don’t have the expertise it needs but they do have the expertise that it wants.
It can’t. Only in the world of the climate deluded does occasional, unpredictable, erratic, inconsistent energy produced at the whim of the weather and/or time of day “crowd out” 24/7 reliable, consistent power sources.
No utility would voluntarily give such garbage electricity priority in the grid without the government forcing it to.
Yes, China has bet the house to be the dominant global supplier of “Green” energy hardware like wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and batteries. Their great success makes them vulnerable should the rest of the world realize these are impractical solutions for an imaginary problem.
https://rclutz.com/2025/02/13/why-overturning-net-zero-hurts-china/
Good chart Ron, and not the worst chart ever posted on WUWT. I would be curious on their other wind and solar exports. They have many reasons to lie about their energy production. If they build fake cities, who knows what else.
Xi and the CCP are not “green”….the production of EVs and windmills and solar panels is for $$$$ and their military must have liquid fuels which means they don’t want IC vehicles at home using liquid fuels. They would like less water and air pollution but CO2 is not their concern.
CO2 should not be *anyone’s* “concern.”
A warmer climate IS BETTER.
NOT that CO2 “drives” the climate (Earth has experienced a full-blown glaciation with *ten times* today’s atmospheric CO2 level). But if it did, any “contribution” to making the climate warmer would IMPROVE the climate, not make the climate “bad.”
That’s the big lie.
“undermines clean energy progress”
Going to google the etymology of the excellently used word “undermine”. The definition is well known, but where did it come from. I hope it was the coal mining industry.
“The word undermine comes from the Middle English words under and mine, meaning “to dig”. It was first used as a verb in the 1150–1500 period. ”
Oh well I think that’s safely pre-coal-electricity. Not many jousting matches had environmentalist knights on Tesla Dual Motor horses.
I still love the word use. Someone chuckled when they thought of it.
I’m pretty sure that the term came from the sieging of castles.
Engineers would dig tunnels underneath the castle walls using timbers to brace the tunnels.
They would then set fire to the braces and get out of the tunnels forthwith.
Once the braces were weakened enough, the tunnels would collapse, and so would the walls above them.
“Everyone said I was daft to build a castle in a swamp…”
You can’t undermine something that doesn’t exist.
I have several problems here.
Number one can we trust the numbers coming out of China?
Number two who actually expects China to carry out it’s promises!
Number three if you find out China is not doing what it promised what are you going to do about it? I can tell you, not a damn thing.
Number four think about how many hours out of twenty four hours a coal plant will be producing power. Now think about how many hours out of twenty four hours wind and or solar will be producing power. Coal twenty four hours wind and solar it is anyone’s guess but not even close to twenty four hours.
Number five will coal power disrupt the grid? Will wind and or solar disrupt the grid? Coal will not wind and solar will.
Number six will coal operate during inclement weather rain or shine? Will wind and or solar operate during inclement weather rain or shine? Coal will wind and or solar will not.
This is not rocket science people, wind and solar don’t work stop building them. Fossil fuel and nuclear work, build them.
China’s coal fired capacity ran at an average of around 67%. You wouldn’t expect a whole lot more, because that is about the percentage that average demand is compared with peak demand.
Most of China’s PV and wind is not connected to the grid. It is there for R show, propaganda and marketing. Wh e n I was in China some
No one should be surprised here because China, like other developing nations, wants to go with a energy source that it can depend on to boost its economy, create jobs, and raise living standards. It knows that renewables can’t do this so it relies on them only for supplementary power, while fossil fuels continue to dominate—as is the case in the rest of the world.
China’s renewables are undermining their coal plant construction.
Nah, they’re not even capable of that! 😄
Could it possibly be that the coal plants are required to build the export PV panels, and CCP solar farms are made from line QC discards?
Presupposes that there is such a thing as QC, and that discards aren’t just shipped, anyway.