• Cummunism [they/them, he/him]
    ·
    10 months ago

    im far from a China hater, but the massive number of coal fired plants they are putting online with each passing year really reduces the impact. i used to be against nuclear but now im kinda for it, i think it has to be part of the equation.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      hexagon
      ·
      10 months ago

      Emissions in China have now entered structural decline and Clean energy was top driver of China’s economic growth in 2023, and they're building nuclear reactors faster than any other country.

      • https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carbon-emissions-set-for-structural-decline-from-next-year
      • https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-was-top-driver-of-chinas-economic-growth-in-2023/
      • https://www.economist.com/china/2023/11/30/china-is-building-nuclear-reactors-faster-than-any-other-country

      Also worth noting that China has a concrete plan for becoming carbon neutral, and short term coal usage has been found to be in line with China's climate pledges

      • https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chinas-energy-transition-in-5-charts/
      • https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-2060-climate-pledge-is-largely-consistent-with-1-5c-goal-study-finds
    • FunkyStuff [he/him]
      ·
      10 months ago

      The coal plants are normally not active, actually. They have a policy that when building renewable energy, they need to hedge it with some amount of active power generation that can be used to supplement the green energy in times of exceptional demand. Since the new plants are rarely used, it's actually more eco-friendly than having to vastly overprovision solar panels or batteries for the 99.99% power requirement, when the 95% or 90% power requirement is a fraction of that (and the footprint of the coal plant used to stretch to the maximum power requirement is vastly smaller than equivalent solar power).

      It probably would still be better to use nuclear power as a hedge, not coal, but it's not as economically viable to build a nuclear power plant that is rarely going to be active.

      • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]
        ·
        10 months ago

        Since the new plants are rarely used, it's actually more eco-friendly than having to vastly overprovision solar panels or batteries for the 99.99% power requirement, when the 95% or 90% power requirement is a fraction of that (and the footprint of the coal plant used to stretch to the maximum power requirement is vastly smaller than equivalent solar power).

        Where can I read more about this so that I can shut up the redditors

        • FunkyStuff [he/him]
          ·
          10 months ago

          https://chinadialogue.net/en/climate/chinas-five-year-plan-for-energy-one-eye-on-security-today-one-on-a-low-carbon-future/

          Wish I could read the actual 5 year plans cited in this article, but that's the best source I could find. Sadly, if you look up terms like "China coal backup" you get Reuters articles that fail to mention the fact the new coal power plants are only being opened for energy security, not for around-the-clock generation.

    • SkingradGuard [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      10 months ago

      im far from a China hater, but the massive number of coal fired plants they are putting online with each passing year really reduces the impact.

      I understand the concern, but I'm pretty sure those new coal plants are used for developing regions that don't yet have sufficient clean energy (renewable or nuclear) due to development (and therefore poverty alleviation, quality of life improvement) taking priority.