Skip to main content

China - wind and solar overtake coal

China has been pushing ahead with renewables on a very large scale- stunningly so. Four times faster than the G7 country norm. It’s on track for having 1,200GW of wind & PV installed  by the end of 2024 - 6 years ahead of its government target. But there are issues- so far it’s not been enough to meet rising demand and there are problems with rapid expansion. 

As I noted in an earlier post, although its renewables capacity is expanding rapidly, the actual amount of power delivered to users in not increasing quite so fast- power is being lost due to poor grid links, congestion and curtailment. Major efforts are being made to deal with this, with a vast new supergrid network being built to link to remote areas where much of the green energy resource is located. However, some say that the data we have available on the final result in terms of green power usage is not always reliable and some has allegedly been blocked.  

A perhaps an even more worrying issue from a global perspective, is that, despite rapid expansion of renewables, and energy use and demand for coal is also expanding.  China is by far the world largest coal user and largest carbon emitter, so it’s an important issue.  But with an expanding economy and rising energy demand, it has proved hard to slow, much less cut, emissions. There is nevertheless talk of a slow down, with fewer new plants being built, on the way to peak carbon. But not just yet!

However, although there is still a way to go, some progress is being made and certainly it is good to see that Carbon Capture technology is being fitted to some power plants. But that is only a temporary fix- as is the use of fossil plants run part-time to back up renewables. What is really needed for a sustainable energy future is much more energy demand reduction efforts, so that renewables can really eat in to fossil use.  Cutting demand is not going to be easy, as has been found in the West – it’s easier to expand energy supply. Though, up to a point, that’s not necessarily a bad thing in itself - as long as its low impact green power. Certainly it’s good to see that wind & solar have now overtaken coal in generation capacity terms in China. A big step.  And hopefully they will do even better in future, making high cost nuclear even more irrelevant. Though, to be fair, despite its costs and other problems, China is one of the few places where nuclear is still expanding - it’s got to 58 GW so far. However, its growth is slowing and renewables, already at around 1500GW including hydro, are being pushed very much more strongly. They are evidently seen as the main way ahead. 

A new Ember report looks to the next phase- when ‘coal power will be in absolute decline, creating an immediate need to go beyond diversification’. However, as it admits, there are all sorts of issues to face in making the transition, given the major role coal plays in China at present. It says there is in effect a ‘coal-electricity ecosystem’ which is is characterised by ‘extensive cross-industry and cross-ownership linkages encompassing coal production and supply, logistics, the coal chemical industry, power generation and relevant equipment manufacturing’. While it says that ‘the growth of clean industries like solar PV, wind, and battery storage can generate economic and employment gains to offset socio-economic losses from the transition...coal-dependent regions may not benefit equally, as they do not always have a clear advantage over other regions in the clean energy economy. Managing the transition in these regions will be increasingly important as coal consumption declines.’ 

In addition, as I have already indicated, there will be issues in terms of getting green energy supply to users and also in terms of balancing variable local energy demand and supply. And, more generally, there is also the issue of the non-energy material resource requirements- see my earlier post. Some see this as a show-stopper, not just for China but globally. However, from a more optimistic perspective, the materials extraction volumes needed for building and running renewable technologies, and the eco-impacts of the extraction process, will, like the direct impacts of their use, be far less than for fossil fuels. And they can be reduced by better tech and by recycling. 

Even so, the materials-related impacts of renewable energy development and use are not negligible. So there are issues with making the transition, not least in terms of the role of renewables in supporting overall economic growth and hence material consumption. It may be possible to minimize the impacts of using resources, but given that we live on a planet with finite reserves, China, and the rest of us, really do have to think about reducing energy and material demands and moving to a stable state economy. That’s quite a big challenge, given that accelerated growth is ‘baked in’ to most economic systems, including China’s, and growth is treated as fundamental to the global competitive economic system.  But, given the scale of the global climate and eco-crisis, it may be possible to win acceptance for limits to growth, an economic slow-down with lower rates of growth, even if we can’t face full-on radical degrowth. 

Certainly there are many ways in which energy and materials wastage can be avoided and end-use efficiency increased, and China clearly needs to pay more attention to energy saving and demand management. So do we all. But deep greens will no doubt say that a few technical, behavioral and lifestyle changes will not be enough and that more radical social and political changes are needed- more than just minor adjustments to consumption patterns, coupled with supply-side technical fixes like renewables.  Well maybe, but will China, or anyone else, be up for that? That seem to be one of the big policy issues of the day, arguably updating and hopefully replacing the rather tired old debate over centralised nuclear versus decentralised renewables. But not escaping the big unresolved political issues- like who decides on all this!  Not least in neo-communist China...So there are plenty of arguably urgent political issues to explore, if you are so inclined. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Global Energy Outlooks - BP v Jacobson

The share of renewables in global primary energy may increase ‘from around 10% in 2019 to between 35-65% by 2050, driven by the improved cost competitiveness of renewables, together with the increasing prevalence of policies encouraging a shift to low-carbon energy’. So says BP in its latest Global Energy Outlook . It does see wind and solar accounting ‘for all or most of the growth in power generation’, but even at the top of the range quoted, it still falls a lot short of the renewable ‘100% of total energy’ scenarios that have been produced by some academics in recent years.  To fill the gap to zero net carbon, BP sees wide-scale use being made use of carbon capture technology, as well as some nuclear power. And it says ‘Natural declines in existing production sources mean there needs to be continuing upstream investment in oil and natural gas over the next 30 years’. You won’t find much support for these fossil and nuclear options in the scenarios produced by Stanford Universities

Renewables beat nuclear - even with full balancing included

A new Danish study comparing nuclear and renewable energy systems (RES) concludes that, although nuclear systems require less flexibility capacity than renewable-only systems, a renewable energy system is cheaper than a nuclear based system, even with full backup: it says ‘lower flexibility costs do not offset the high investment costs in nuclear energy’.  It’s based on a zero-carbon 2045 smart energy scenario for Denmark, although it says its conclusions are valid elsewhere given suitable adjustments for local conditions. ‘The high investment costs in nuclear power alongside cost for fuel and operation and maintenance more than tip the scale in favour of the Only Renewables scenario. The costs of investing in and operating the nuclear power plants are simply too high compared to Only Renewables scenario, even though more investment must be put into flexibility measures in the latter’.  In the Danish case, it says that ‘the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av