China is building coal because you can’t replace reliable generating capacity with solar and wind.
The notion that you can has been disproven repeatedly. One day there may be a form of affordable storage which makes this feasible. Meanwhile they have to build dispatchable power. They are building nuclear and coal and gas. Ultimately nuclear will probably replace coal as the stations last much longer.
Would it make sense to build a significant overcapacity of power stations if you were concerned that at some point in the not too distant future you might be involved in a conflict that could result in some power stations being destroyed?
Hi Hannah, Michel's comment is accurate, but perhaps a little sparse and condescending.
Focus on rooftop solar. As it grows, everybody selling into the grid sees their income drop (including wind and solar farms). And what is worse, it hits the most profitable (retail) part of the market. So wind/solar farms only become profitable in such areas if they can sell their product elsewhere. Which is one of the reasons South Australia spent $2.1 billion on interconnectors to take excess w+s somewhere else. But building enough bandwidth is really expensive and only works if the somewhere else has low rates of rooftop solar. The obvious analogy is cars and mass transit. A high penetration of cars will make efficient/profitable mass transport impossible (e.g US, Australia).
Now think about China. Why build coal? China has a different approach to profitability. It's more focused on having a system which works, because electricity is a public good. On still nights, you effectively need a second fully functioning system to be able to take over. What would the capacity factor be for such a system? That would be the roughly the ratio of night to day. What about batteries? Coal is much cheaper.
And the last point is that the Chinese are working on a nuclear reactor which can be a drop in replacement for a coal boiler. This decarbonises the power plant while saving the rest of the infrastructure. The first of these reactors went commercial last year (HTR-PM). Is it ready (cheap enough) to be rolled out to China's coal fleet? I've no idea ... but that's been their plan for quite a while. Unlike western countries, China actually plans. They planned their EV and battery coup and the mineral processing required. That took about 20 years to produce fruit, but the harvest is in full swing now. Will their nuclearisation of coal work as planned? We'll see.
China appears to following a logical, if unimaginative strategy towards a low carbon (but not zero carbon) economy.
1. Electrify what can be electrified. China is ahead of us in electrifying transport, and no doubt they are mandating heat pumps where ever needed.
2. Work out the maximum electricity demand. For the North of China, that will be in mid winter, for the South, with aircon, not so sure. (For the UK, I estimated typical demand in 2050 might be 60GW, but the grid might need to supply 120GW, perhaps for one day per decade).
3. Given people need heating and electricity, that peak demand is almost non negotiable. Sure, you can shut down industry for a week, but would China want to?
4. Assume the worst. That peak demand is on the day/week of minimum yield from renewables, and that it lasts long enough to deplete batteries and pumped storage. (The minimum yield will be higher over a wider geographical area - it will always be windy "somewhere in China", and with a mix of renewables - wind and solar yields are usually negatively corelated).
5. Assume the rest has to come from nuclear, coal, gas, biofuels, maybe hydrogen if in the strategy. That gives you the required coal or gas capacity. Storage can significantly reduce the use of coal and hence the capacity factor, but doesn't impact the peak capacity required.
6. Implement a capacity market. No one will build a coal plant that is needed one week 4 years, even if they can charge $1000/MWh (someone please tell Texas).
Does the Chinese carbon market play a role here in guiding incentives? It targets carbon intensity rather than absolute emissions. New plants likely to be more efficient than old ones.
Thanks for a balanced view of the issues discussed here. Nearly everything you see is from an author who has obviously made up their mind in advance.
I would quibble, though, with your final sentence. The rest of Southeast Asia has about as many people as China and is likely to burn more coal. India has about as many people as China and is likely to burn more coal. Africa has about as many people as China and is likely to burn more coal, though at least some of that will displace burning biomass. It looks to me like human CO2 emissions have nowhere to go but up.
Running coal-burning plants as “peakers” is not necessarily going to lower carbon dioxide emissions. Typically, it takes over 24 hours of run time to bring coal-burning plants to peak energy-efficiency.
During the time the plant is warming up, it is producing more carbon, more pollution, and little or no electricity. So what is the point?
My guess is that this happening in China now. That is exactly why Western nations choose natural gas or hydro as peakers to load balance renewables with consumer demand.
I think that it is going to be very difficult for China and the reast of Asia to replace coal with wind and solar. Here are more reasons why:
I was surprised not to read anything about "newer coal plants' high efficiency relative to older coal plants" being a contributer to lower emissions despite adding new coal capacity. Is that just not a very relevant factor?
Yes....before they understand the difference. While they're using the same technology to drill the holes and place the pipes, only what is pumped in is pumped out. This limits the amount of damage .....plus these holes will go down into solid rock 3 to 10 miles below ground much unlike shale.
What's the status of China's grid? Much had been said about the current status of the US grid, and its fragility in the face of weather events, solar storm impacts, extent of EV charging increasing demand, lack of reliable back-up as natural gas supplies get strangled.... How does China manage their load balancing? Simply by having a bunch of local plants, ready to turn up or down as demand suits? Do they even have a grid in the manner of what Western nations have built out?
China is building coal because you can’t replace reliable generating capacity with solar and wind.
The notion that you can has been disproven repeatedly. One day there may be a form of affordable storage which makes this feasible. Meanwhile they have to build dispatchable power. They are building nuclear and coal and gas. Ultimately nuclear will probably replace coal as the stations last much longer.
Would it make sense to build a significant overcapacity of power stations if you were concerned that at some point in the not too distant future you might be involved in a conflict that could result in some power stations being destroyed?
Hi Hannah, Michel's comment is accurate, but perhaps a little sparse and condescending.
Focus on rooftop solar. As it grows, everybody selling into the grid sees their income drop (including wind and solar farms). And what is worse, it hits the most profitable (retail) part of the market. So wind/solar farms only become profitable in such areas if they can sell their product elsewhere. Which is one of the reasons South Australia spent $2.1 billion on interconnectors to take excess w+s somewhere else. But building enough bandwidth is really expensive and only works if the somewhere else has low rates of rooftop solar. The obvious analogy is cars and mass transit. A high penetration of cars will make efficient/profitable mass transport impossible (e.g US, Australia).
Now think about China. Why build coal? China has a different approach to profitability. It's more focused on having a system which works, because electricity is a public good. On still nights, you effectively need a second fully functioning system to be able to take over. What would the capacity factor be for such a system? That would be the roughly the ratio of night to day. What about batteries? Coal is much cheaper.
And the last point is that the Chinese are working on a nuclear reactor which can be a drop in replacement for a coal boiler. This decarbonises the power plant while saving the rest of the infrastructure. The first of these reactors went commercial last year (HTR-PM). Is it ready (cheap enough) to be rolled out to China's coal fleet? I've no idea ... but that's been their plan for quite a while. Unlike western countries, China actually plans. They planned their EV and battery coup and the mineral processing required. That took about 20 years to produce fruit, but the harvest is in full swing now. Will their nuclearisation of coal work as planned? We'll see.
China appears to following a logical, if unimaginative strategy towards a low carbon (but not zero carbon) economy.
1. Electrify what can be electrified. China is ahead of us in electrifying transport, and no doubt they are mandating heat pumps where ever needed.
2. Work out the maximum electricity demand. For the North of China, that will be in mid winter, for the South, with aircon, not so sure. (For the UK, I estimated typical demand in 2050 might be 60GW, but the grid might need to supply 120GW, perhaps for one day per decade).
3. Given people need heating and electricity, that peak demand is almost non negotiable. Sure, you can shut down industry for a week, but would China want to?
4. Assume the worst. That peak demand is on the day/week of minimum yield from renewables, and that it lasts long enough to deplete batteries and pumped storage. (The minimum yield will be higher over a wider geographical area - it will always be windy "somewhere in China", and with a mix of renewables - wind and solar yields are usually negatively corelated).
5. Assume the rest has to come from nuclear, coal, gas, biofuels, maybe hydrogen if in the strategy. That gives you the required coal or gas capacity. Storage can significantly reduce the use of coal and hence the capacity factor, but doesn't impact the peak capacity required.
6. Implement a capacity market. No one will build a coal plant that is needed one week 4 years, even if they can charge $1000/MWh (someone please tell Texas).
Does the Chinese carbon market play a role here in guiding incentives? It targets carbon intensity rather than absolute emissions. New plants likely to be more efficient than old ones.
Hannah,
There seems to be some diversity of opinion about the role nuclear energy will play in the net-zero energy transition for the U.K. I found this publication from your DES, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6464ac150b72d30013344604/annex-o-net-zero-power-sector-scenarios.pdf that projects levels of nuclear generation in 2050 ranging from 15% ( equal to the amount in amount today) to 25% with the balance provided by renewables.
What is your opinion?
Thanks for a balanced view of the issues discussed here. Nearly everything you see is from an author who has obviously made up their mind in advance.
I would quibble, though, with your final sentence. The rest of Southeast Asia has about as many people as China and is likely to burn more coal. India has about as many people as China and is likely to burn more coal. Africa has about as many people as China and is likely to burn more coal, though at least some of that will displace burning biomass. It looks to me like human CO2 emissions have nowhere to go but up.
China is an inscrutable enigma and the emitter of the most CO2 by far. Unfortunately, the planet is stuck with what they do.
Running coal-burning plants as “peakers” is not necessarily going to lower carbon dioxide emissions. Typically, it takes over 24 hours of run time to bring coal-burning plants to peak energy-efficiency.
During the time the plant is warming up, it is producing more carbon, more pollution, and little or no electricity. So what is the point?
My guess is that this happening in China now. That is exactly why Western nations choose natural gas or hydro as peakers to load balance renewables with consumer demand.
I think that it is going to be very difficult for China and the reast of Asia to replace coal with wind and solar. Here are more reasons why:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/can-increased-windsolar-retire-asian
US faced the same situation, while its coal electricity generation peaked between 2005 and 2007, US coal generation capacity peaked in 2012.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/use-of-coal.php
https://www.brattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/A-Review-of-Coal-Fired-Electricity-Generation-in-the-U.S..pdf
Here's a simple explanation:
China is preparing for war(s). And maybe civil unrest. For that, redundancy is king.
I was surprised not to read anything about "newer coal plants' high efficiency relative to older coal plants" being a contributer to lower emissions despite adding new coal capacity. Is that just not a very relevant factor?
Yes....before they understand the difference. While they're using the same technology to drill the holes and place the pipes, only what is pumped in is pumped out. This limits the amount of damage .....plus these holes will go down into solid rock 3 to 10 miles below ground much unlike shale.
What if the new coal plants are temporary place maker for new EGS which China is known to be investigating. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652622007417 like the new EG System in Nevada that feeds into the Nevada grid....e.g. the one built by Fervo for Google .https://fervoenergy.com/
What's the status of China's grid? Much had been said about the current status of the US grid, and its fragility in the face of weather events, solar storm impacts, extent of EV charging increasing demand, lack of reliable back-up as natural gas supplies get strangled.... How does China manage their load balancing? Simply by having a bunch of local plants, ready to turn up or down as demand suits? Do they even have a grid in the manner of what Western nations have built out?
Interesting thread. I guess it is consistent with how China must keep workers busy even on projects with poor economics. @doomberg