Slashdot Mirror

China hit peak coal years ago and has been in decline ever since:

http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-...
https://www.brookings.edu/2018...

The "new" capacity is replacing old plants with more efficient, cleaner ones. Same thing happened in Germany.

Except it's not reality. The Indians have already announced their plans to build 370 new coal fired power plants over the next three decades, climate change be damned.

You need to keep up with reality. They no doubt did announce plans to build 370 new coal fired power plants, but have already cancelled most of them. As of August 23, 2018 the number of coal plants currently planned or under construction has fallen to 102 with 581 plans cancelled or shelved, or plants closed in the past 8 years. And at the time that article was written "India’s coal-fired pre-construction project pipeline has shrunk by a quarter in the last six months".

So India's previous plans for coal are rapidly being scrapped as I type.

China to add 259 GW of coal capacity, satellite imagery shows

How do you square that with the fact that China hit peak coal 4 years ago?

http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-...

The new plants are replacing older ones and are also much more efficient.

As I pointed out to you last time, China is no 4 years past peak coal and declining.

http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-...

New plants are more efficient, cleaner ones to replace older plants that are EOL.

China is now four years past peak coal. They are fixing their problems.

http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-...

Again with the anti China lies WindTroll. CoalSwarm

Aiqun Yu, an analyst with CoalSwarm, a think tank that tracks coal-fired electricity generation globally, said that in just the past two years, the Chinese government has essentially cancelled or suspended some 444 gigawatts of new coal-fired generation capacity. The program has been enforced rigorously, she said, and to the point that several completed coal plants have been barred from hooking up to the transmission grid, effectively placing them in mothball status. The policy has pushed down the amount of new coal capacity coming online from 60 gigawatts in 2015 to 34 gigawatts in 2017—the lowest number in more than a decade.

Still trolling your anti-China nonsense. Even when the very study you cite no longer says what you want it to say.
You still constantly lie and claim China's government is pushing coal.

Aiqun Yu, an analyst with CoalSwarm, a think tank that tracks coal-fired electricity generation globally, said that in just the past two years, the Chinese government has essentially cancelled or suspended some 444 gigawatts of new coal-fired generation capacity. The program has been enforced rigorously, she said, and to the point that several completed coal plants have been barred from hooking up to the transmission grid, effectively placing them in mothball status. The policy has pushed down the amount of new coal capacity coming online from 60 gigawatts in 2015 to 34 gigawatts in 2017—the lowest number in more than a decade.

China hit peak coal about four years ago and continues to decline.

All new nuclear that wasn't already under construction was put on indefinite hold after the March 2011 disaster in Japan. They are finishing off what they had already started but not beginning anything new. Also, it's not non-carbon electricity. Nuclear plants release around 100g of CO2/kWh, much better than coal but also much worse than wind and solar.

They are investing very heavily in renewable energy and storage. That's clearly the future for China.

You are confusing coal generation capacity with coal consumption.

The amount of coal they burn but peak a few years ago. Old plants are being replaced with more efficient, cleaner ones.

http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-...

China hit peak coal a few years ago and has been in decline ever since.

http://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-... (article from a year ago, so 4 years past now)

The new plants are just replacing old ones with cleaner technology and better load following capability to back up wind.

Someone mentioned a solar plant in Spain using a molten salt reservoir to store energy that has managed to produce 24/7 for more than a month. In the Netherlands the water boards decided to pump out water from low lying areas preferably when there is excess electricity. They are turning the water management infrastructure of an entire country into an energy storage system and it saves them money because they get electricity cheaper.

Storing and retrieving energy certainly isn't lossless, but as energy from sustainable sources gets cheaper that becomes less problematic. Solar and wind energy that isn't captured in the first place is lost too. Solar energy is getting so cheap to produce that India decided to cancel 13.7 GW worth of planned coal plants.

This isn't backwards, the technology is actually moving forwards. I don't know if "the tech is gonna get there eventually" for the full 100%, but it's obvious it will get there for more than 0%, it already has. It doesn't need to be 100% to become useful.

True only if the current government subsidies continue. Let's assume that government subsides didn't make the difference, that solar was considered inexpensive even if unsubsidized, then there is still the problem of placement. There's a lot of people that live in not so sunny areas. Rooftop solar might work in Sacramento but I doubt it will in Seattle.

Both your statements are partially true. Subsidies make things more profitable for solar companies - but there are many places where it would continue to be profitable without. And the more sun there is, the more profitable solar is - but solar works anywhere the sun shines. Disproportionately, that's also where people tend to live.

I'm all for letting the market decide. This means ending those solar subsidies. This, at least IMHO, should mean ending residential backfeeding unless the utility actually asked for it. Laws requiring the utility to act as a battery for solar equipped homes is a subsidy in disguise.

If we're going to end solar subsidies, then maybe we could start with coal and move to solar after?
http://ieefa.org/u-s-coal-subs...

I agree with another poster that forcing utilities to accept backfeeding is a reasonable thing to do with monopolies - though there are *very few* places where that can become a problem. Hawaii is one of those, but I expect that issue to be tackled from another angle in the medium future (probably with battery farms).

No doubt. It could also be the utilities getting fed up with having to accommodate the residential solar backfeeding to the grid. This back feeding is dangerous to line crews, a headache for demand planning, and a means to divert funds from those that can afford to buy solar power kit (the wealthy) on the backs of those that cannot (the poor).

* Back feeding of professionally installed solar is not a problem to line crews, as it cuts out when power cuts out.
* Utilities are fully capable of planning for the changes that solar creates.
* In many many cases, it is just as easy for poor to install solar as wealth, as it is done $0 down and reduces power payments.

Part of the problem here is that the utilities are rarely ever asked if they want solar power on their grid. Laws require them to buy this power even if they don't want it.

No consumer is asked if they want coal/nuclear/hydro/hamster wheel. They get whatever the local sanctioned monopoly provides. You're suggesting that a free market means consumers should get less choice than the locally sanctioned monopoly. I disagree.

This law, in particular, would impose further fines on the power companies for choosing a source that is becoming cheaper than coal.

Let's bring this free market, I expect solar power to lose, and badly.

I'll take that bet. In fact, I probably have - given the new administration. The price of solar continues to drop. The price of coal does not. That only ends one way.