Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The South China Morning Post article actually says coal is expanding, but you have to read halfway down to get to that bit.
Climate change: Renewable energy to meet over 70 per cent of China’s additional power needs in next three years, says IEA
Even as state subsidies are being phased out, the rapid growth of onshore wind and solar farm installations is expected to continue
Renewable energy expansion is the mainstay of China’s strategy to gradually decarbonise its coal-dominated electricity supply
Renewable energy will meet over 70 per cent of China’s additional electricity demand in the next three years as coal’s role in powering the world’s second largest economy continues to decline, according to the International Energy Agency’s latest projection.
Additional demand refers to any increase from today’s level.
Even as state subsidies are being phased out, the rapid growth of onshore wind and solar farm installations is expected to continue, with their combined generating capacity surging 75 per cent to 930 gigawatts by 2024 from 530GW in 2020, it projected.
Renewable energy expansion is the mainstay of China’s strategy to gradually decarbonise its coal-dominated electricity supply, as it aims for peak coal consumption by 2025 and peak carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 to help fight global warming and climate change.
…
“Renewable energy sources are set to meet over 70 per cent of additional demand during 2022-2024, while coal meets 25 per cent of the increment.”
…
Read more: https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3163644/climate-change-renewable-energy-meet-over-70-cent-chinas-additional-power
I call BS. I have no doubt Xi Jinping’s administration told the IEA this is the plan, but Xi Jinping almost crashed the Chinese economy late last year by trying to switch off coal, a follow on from Xi’s catastrophic gas conversion directives, which caused millions to suffer through winter in 2018 without home heating. So I can’t help feeling Xi’s contact with reality is a little tenuous, when it comes to energy planning.
Playing games with numbers.
The drunk said he was only going to consume half of his last cocktail.
Game on!
Just what are those?
4th Covid booster shot. You stick it between your cheeks for perfect protection.
CoVid test strip casings.
Money makers for big pharma.
Pregnancy Tests
Bryan A – they have not any kind of pregnancy tests and anyone remaining uncertain can search on-line for comparative images.
Plastic thingy !
I’m not going to drink any more.
Of course I won’t drink any less either.
The headline is a bit misleading. China has no intent to be 70 percent renewable in three years. The assertion was “Renewable energy will meet over 70 per cent of China’s ADDITIONAL electricity demand”
Like the author I am skeptical of that as well..
Just classify coal as renewable. Job done.
Next?
Yes, coal is very renewable. Just go dig some more.
Same applies to oil and gas.
Are those numbers Nameplate Capacity or actual generation prediction #s?
Hmmm…70% of the “additional demand” will be met by increasing renewables. What if China only has an increase in demand of 10GW? They will only need to increase renewable supply by 7GW to claim meeting their goal.
My thoughts exactly except China would need to install 28GW of wind to get the 7GW required, plus a further 7GW of reliable fuels for when the wind don’t blow
I think China is considering their nuclear plans…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-02/china-climate-goals-hinge-on-440-billion-nuclear-power-plan-to-rival-u-s
Yes. Peat + time + pressure -> coal. Burn the coal for heat and power. Plants do better. Re-peat.
Safe and effective.
You do even better. Just classify coal as recycled solar energy. Which, incidently, it is.
Over a suitable period of time coal is perfectly renewable and is also solar derived , win win !!
It’s IEA’s green propaganda division again.
Absolute Chinese comie party bull dust. Do they really believe that is why the world is turning against them? they are deluded
It has nothing to do with green energy.
Agreed ! the Chinese don’t give a crap about green energy or Global warming and only appear to support it because they realise it is a perfect way to limit western growth and competition .
Chinese coal is definitely renewable. All you have to do is import more or dig it out of Chinese ground. 70% renewable is easy to achieve.
It’s just 70% of “increased demand” that is being talked about. All they need to do is eliminate potential “additional demand”
Laugh of the day, thanks.
Anyone in the market for a good used bridge? Compatible with flying pigs.
The headline is inaccurate and misleading. The key is in the wording. Additional power needs not total power needs to come 70% from “renewables”. China is still increasing coal generation unlike the US and Eurozone. The baseline year will also matter since China’s economy is slowing and the need for additional power beyond what they already have under construction may be moot. It’s a game of words and politics. Gives the Chinese a free pass for the next few years.
That’s pretty much how I read it, John.
Anything not in the works or on the books or in a future plan is “additional”. So, in 70% of the cases, they will put up a wind turbine and some solar panels to provide some electricity to some of their remote villages. And the solar or wind won’t be connected to any grid.
They won’t bother with the other 30% because there’s a power plant in the works that will reach those towns and villages soon enough that a solar or wind installation would be a waste.
It’s also in Gw not Gwh
That’s probably on the “Studies” or “Arts” graduate who wrote the article, Dave.
Generation capacity should be in GW. Battery capacity would be in GWh.
Bingo!
Commented previously on IEA. Did a deep dive for 2012 book Gaia’s Limits. Their historical/current data, graphs, and occasional special studies (two important ones are the 2008 decline survey of the 700 largest oil fields producing >80% of the worlds oil, and the Brazil deepwater subsalt basin analysis) are generally solid.
Their conclusions from them and future extrapolations are, to put it kindly, quite dubious. In fact often the exact opposite of what their data tables and graphs actually say, but in line with EU fantasies as here. IEA is based in Paris.
The IEA shares the same building as the OECD and is really just a subsidiary organisation of the OECD, so the fantasies stretch somewhat wider than just the EU. Indeed it was originally formed in response to the Arab oil embargoes of the 1970s with a view to developing policies to improve security of energy supply for OECD members. That included agreements to hold strategic stocks, and potentially to share out oil in the event of shortages, as well as promoting development of energy resources. It got subverted into being a primary agent for the climate change agenda, and thus creating supply risks rather than solving them, over the past 20 years or so.
Read the article carefully, the renewables will supply 70% not of the total needs of China but of the additional needs. The current needs will be met by the usual suspects but additional needs will be supported by renewables for the next three years. what happens after that period is up in the air. Don’t hold your hand over your ass, you might never tell time again. ( a Navyism related to the flying pig)
True they are saying 70% of only additional power required will be produced by renewables but on past experience of anything the CCP has said before I believe ‘pigs will fly first’ is an excellent appraisal of the article .
Just maybe… I was in China a few years back and saw a couple of massive wind farms in Xinjiang nearing completion – 10,000 or so turbines which looked to be in the 3MW size range, and over a few days, passed dozens more being transported to the area by road. Also, in and near Tibet, some major hydro schemes under construction as well as a lot of local micro-hydro to replace or supplement diesel generators. I guess they will also count garbage fueled power stations as renewable. I also saw a couple of cities where most streetlights had their own solar panels and/or wind turbines, which makes good sense as it saves a great deal on cabling and digging up streets for cables.
If they do continue to damage their economy as they have the last few years, maybe the growth in energy use will also slow considerably, but it is a nation with millions still living in caves and hundreds of millions living a subsistence lifestyle – oil lamps and kerosene heaters and donkey carts – it’s not all like the major coastal and river cities.
Solar powered street lamps! We should get some of them in the UK.
That’s how I read it. But you can’t trust Red China and whatever they claim is meaningless.
“So I can’t help feeling Xi’s contact with reality is a little tenuous, when it comes to energy planning.”. All the western leaders’ contact with reality is a lot more tenuous than Xi Jinping’s. At least China is aiming for peak coal at a future date, IOW they are still actively expanding coal usage. Some of their statements are for western consumption anyway.
I wonder really seriously about our leaders, and how they can spend such vast amounts of our money on the obviously totally mistaken idea that unreliable energy can be relied on. In the past, we didn’t expect our leaders to be geniuses, but we did expect them to have common sense and to make sure they had competent advisers. We also expected the media to keep them up to the mark. Now we have sunk into a socialist swamp in which the politicians are wilfully ignorant, the media are reporting only what they are paid to report, and all possible ways out of the morass are actively blocked.
Stop the world, I want to get off, was made in 1966. The situation is a lot worse now.
SCMP citing IEA. I did some quick research and found a recent very enlightening article at Time.com.
In 2020 China was 50% of that years world growth in renewable nameplate capacity.
In 2020 China built 300% more coal capacity than the rest of the world combined.
In 2021 China announced construction of an additional 43 new USC coal generating stations, each well over 1GW.
Apparently IEA also thinks pigs can fly.
Just saw a CSX coal train today headed for the local utility….maybe 80 to a 100 cars…2 engines in front and another maybe 2/3 back.
That was the last train.
I got a bridge in Brooklyn… for you.
From the above article’s quoted text:
Hmmm . . . just wondering if Las Vegas is taking bets on this, and what the odds might be?
Take the under.
Thanks Rud, sounds like good advice . . . I’ll go with that.
All they need to do is control “additional demand” for the next 3 years
Two years from now, China will say they’re going 70% renewable in three years. 😉
Largest maker of alternate energy, not using the alternate.
China can out virtue signal anyone, just ask. I heard their latest 10 year plan to reduce emissions is to double their population thereby halving the per capita number.
See president XI made a little speech because his advisors have warned him China is exposed
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jan/17/china-warns-west-against-rapid-interest-rate-rise
“ So I can’t help feeling Xi’s contact with reality is a little tenuous, when it comes to energy planning.”
Wow, Xi really IS an environmentalist!
The contribution to the total electric energy production remains modest as the average capacity factor of solar power plants is relatively low at 17% on average (wind is 22%) 70%x20%=14% net W&S.
I remember when The Guardian lauded China for being so environmentally friendly because of the way they so eagerly signed onto any treaty put before them, as opposed to those big bad Americans.
I argued in the comments that signing treaties was easy, but China was in the midst of an incredible building spree of coal-fired power plants, and environmentalists would have to be damn fools to think China was somehow on their side.
Got some flack for that opinion.
No sweat Commies. We’ll see that and raise you a one hundred percent renewable coal port-
World’s largest coal port flicks switch to 100% renewable energy – pv magazine Australia (pv-magazine-australia.com)
It’s only 307kms as the crow flies for a transmission line from Newcastle to Dubbo inland but 381 kms for the bulldozers etc-
distance dubbo to newcastle – Bing
for the Bodangora wind farm and all that concrete, steel, coppe,r fibre reinforced composite, rare earth etc-
Bodangora Wind Farm | Iberdrola Energy
Child’s playCommies!
The headline is not supported by the body. If China increases its demand by say 1% in the next 3 tears then 70% of that is planned to come from other than fossil fuel. So an increase of say 0.7% from other than fossil fuel – do able. Particularly given nuclear and hydro are, indeed, “renewable”.
Quote from the article:-
“So I can’t help feeling Xi’s contact with reality is a little tenuous, when it comes to energy planning.”
He’s a long way from being alone, few countries seem to get energy planning right?
It is abundantly clear China is going to go for “stored” solar for the foreseeable future. With Australia having the largest reserves of stored solar to supply them, China can claim any green badge of honour it chooses. The climate alarmists will always go along with it, while saying, China is the world example of solar energy deployment,. or should that be coaler…….
I am sure renewables with account for 70% of the increase in energy China is going to consume. The increase is a fraction of the total volume so 70% of that increase is a small fraction of the total energy scheduled for consumption.
We can put this latest fudge story from China in the factually selective pile.
It is abundantly clear China is going to go for “stored” solar for the foreseeable future.
You could be right but that won’t leave much storage for the rest of the climate changers as they’re quickly discovering-
Record High Lithium Prices Threaten The EV Boom (yahoo.com)
You gotta get digging refining and processing watermelons as no amount of lithium battery subsidies will cut it. You like your hockey sticks then deal with that one but if it were me I wouldn’t be wasting scarce light weight battery resources on short run grid firming by the subsidy miners.
The keyword here is ‘additional’.
If additional is in kW, maybe. If it is in kWh, nebba happen, GI. [As the Vietnamese B-girls always told me.]
In other words, renewables cannot even keep up with the increase in demand!
Here is the report :
Study forecasts China investment of $75 trillion in carbon neutrality
https://asiatimes.com/2022/01/china-projects-75-trillion-in-carbon-neutrality-investment/
This is PBoC strategy, the chief banker Ma Jun there defines what green means : nuclear and clean coal.
Goldman Sachs made a flawed estimate of around $17 trillion. Marc Carney at COP26 floated $100 trillion. And here at WUWT this week $433 trillion was estimated for the US alone.
Eye-watering liquidity, what?
Why on earth is China doing this ? I thought they had brains and would not follow this “fairytale” nonsense??? China of all countries should be sensible and leave it to the WEST to completely destroy our societies and heating systems !
Things are not always what they seem.
The Chicoms are blowing smoke.
Thats exactly what they are doing !
The post headline is wrong. What was said was “70% of additional needs”. That is a very different thing from what the headline says. I don’t know if the statement is correct or not (I doubt it), but misrepresenting what someone said is not the way to go.
From the article: “Renewable energy expansion is the mainstay of China’s strategy to gradually decarbonise its coal-dominated electricity supply”
Those Chicom leaders aren’t as smart as I thought they were, if they think this is the path forward.
I’m thinking this is more propaganda meant to cause the Chicom’s enemies to destroy their economies by using “renewable” energy. The Chicoms are cheerleading the West to destruction.
Sure, China, sure. Pull the other one. It’s got bells.
The key words here are ADDITIONAL and DEMAND.
If you have a 10,000 MW system growing at 10% per year, you need 1,000 MW of new generation. At 70% RE, that’s 700 MWs.
Adding 700 MWs of RE to a 10,000 MW system is a big nothing burger. It is 7%. Not 70%.
RE runs at low capacity factor. Depending on the load shape and generation mix, a system with 7% RE capacity will get 2-3% of it’s energy from RE.
70% = 2-3%
“Renewable energy sources are set to meet over 70 per cent of additional demand during 2022-2024”
The cartoon with the article sez it all….when pigs fly. Chicoms will say anything ya wanna hear, as long as ya don’t hold ’em to it down the road. Same with the dems/leftists/progs, et al.
And when the lower-level bureaucrats fiddle the numbers, erect dangerous and shoddy wind farms, set up seconded solar panels, and report up the chain that the targets have been reached. our media will of course credulously parrot the declaration China Succeeded! WhatsthematterwiththeUS?!?
The key word was “additional”.
Unfortunately, they have started (I cannot find any info on the operation of) a Thorium MSR in the NW of the country. Now that is a truly renewable tech, which they seem to be far ahead of the West in rolling out.
Bad Headline. Should be “China Adds to be 70% Renewable in Three Years”, but still BS.
Hm, I’m not sure about this. Chinese GDP growth for 2021 was 8.1%, it’s pretty far from being “almost crashed”. My guess is this “almost crashed” is more like wishful thinking from the butthurt “West”. Furthermore, I can’t see anything BS in the article quoted. Coal’s share is decreasing in China (while this still means expansion in absolute numbers). They plan to start decreasing absolute coal usage from 2025. It’s been their public plan for a while and they are more or less following it. Eric, you either have problems understanding simple things or intentionally report them in a distorted way.
Yes, ummmum, well, not really.