Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

autotldr t1_ja729lx wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 68%. (I'm a bot)

> China approved the construction of another 106 gigawatts of coal-fired power capacity last year, four times higher than a year earlier and the highest since 2015, research shows.

> Over the year, 50GW of coal power capacity went into construction across the country - up by more than half compared with the previous year - driven by energy security considerations, the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air and Global Energy Monitor said on Monday.

> The amount of new capacity connected to the grid had slowed in recent years after a decline in new approvals over the 2017-2020 period, but it is set to rebound over the next few years, driven by concerns about power shortages.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: year^#1 power^#2 capacity^#3 construction^#4 last^#5

8

wart365 t1_ja72hfw wrote

"but China will lead the climate transition" - says somebody

122

waitinp t1_ja73prg wrote

Where's Greta now?

−21

OldMork t1_ja74jk0 wrote

ditching my plastic straw feels so worth now

45

pascualama t1_ja75uf3 wrote

The world is short energy, this is only the beginning.

−12

2-Legit-2-Quip t1_ja7dnow wrote

Can't depend on oil if they go to war with their neighbors in their expansionist conquest

10

Propagation931 t1_ja7hqt9 wrote

Replying to zoidalicious (#2,052,750)

>But never in Asia?

I mean realistically, she has more chance of success getting any changes done in say... Norway than in China. Even if China is the biggest polluter, what would be the point of going to China to protest only to wind up getting arrested? Better a small chance to make a small change than a 0% chance of getting anything done.

3

thermalhugger t1_ja7jegu wrote

Last year China opened 95 new coal fired powerplants and a total of 200 in all of Asia. One new coal plant every other day.

There are 256 in Europe. Even if they are all closed nothing changes.

−1

Runaround46 t1_ja7jxc7 wrote

50 gigawatts. Fucking 50.

We have a 1.8 gigawatt coal plant here that takes up 1,400 acres.

The scale on this is insane

54

ASoundAssessment t1_ja7nsmo wrote

106 gigawatts would be around 220 new high functioning coal plants.

Or around 350 smaller coal plants depending on the quality of coal and expenditure on plant infrastructure. To put into perspective how much coal is being burned,

To power most of a household's electrical appliances for a year it would take around 4,750 pounds of coal.

25

turbo-unicorn t1_ja86cu6 wrote

No no no no, this is clearly disinformation! We all know Glorious China is bringing about a renewable revolution! /s

Let's ignore the fact that much of the renewables exist only on paper. And much of those that do exist, are incredibly inefficient due to corruption - As long as they're visible and functional, it's all good. And so, they use low quality parts and fake numbers at every level of the manufacturing process.

8

Shillofnoone t1_ja86e49 wrote

To give a perspective, the number of coal plants that these guys are opening are more than all the coal plants opened by rest of the world. Why aren't they moving to nuclear reactors. They did started making molten thorium reactors. What happened to them

8

Wildercard t1_ja8cxe4 wrote

I am going to ask this in full sincerity.

At what point does "Stop speeding up global warming, you are fucking it up for everyone!" become a valid reason for war?

21

Wade8869 t1_ja8dsro wrote

Taking away gas ranges is going to make a difference...

4

House13Games t1_ja8f7wz wrote

Why the fuck am i drinking a milkshake out of a floppy paper straw???

10

AltNationReality t1_ja8qvng wrote

So...... climate conference talks were ACTUALLY total bullshit? Shocker.......

15

Wildercard t1_ja8tlq8 wrote

Replying to grchelp2018 (#2,065,392)

Imagine China doubles their coal usage every fifth year. Seas are rising. Hurricanes are a monthly event. Snow caps, what snow caps? Natural disasters threaten the stability of global shipping, coastal cities can't keep up rising the sea walls, widespread droughts are seen as normal, and there is one player contributing more to this than next ten countries combined.

What year is it acceptable to do more than write a strongly worded letter about knocking off the assault on human's race survival?

−1

Tagan1 t1_ja8uw5q wrote

Replying to Shillofnoone (#2,059,461)

I assume those take time to set up and get working. China has a number of large cities that get most of their energy from hydro, but late last year there was a big heat wave that caused lower water flow and affected energy production.

They're probably looking to diversify more and need something quick to set up in the meantime, leading to the larger expansion of coal power. Here's an article touching on the heat wave if you're interested:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/22/china-drought-causes-yangtze-river-to-dry-up-sparking-shortage-of-hydropower

11

drogoran t1_ja8v1hl wrote

Replying to Wildercard (#2,061,157)

when a nation does it intentionally and not as a side effect of industrialization

we want to reduce pollution the fastest?

innovate, build and help these nations skip the polluting fuels

no one is gonna volunteer to keep living in mudhuts because upgrading to a modern infrastructure is polluting the air

8

grchelp2018 t1_ja8vn3e wrote

Replying to Wildercard (#2,065,606)

If things have already gone so bad, war isn't happening anyway. Everyone will be too busy dealing with their own problems.

The only realistic way out of this is rich western countries subsidizing the poorer ones to switch to cleaner sources.

2

molazcheng t1_ja95ew4 wrote

Here comes Great Leap Forward 2.0 😓

6

UniquesNotUseful t1_ja9at98 wrote

Replying to mammamiapizzacrust (#2,067,251)

So the Paris Agreement means targets for different countries at different times.

The agreement was that everyone would scale back but advanced economies that already benefitted from cheap dirty energy would stop sooner.

China target under the Paris Agreement was peak CO2 emissions 2030 then cutting down afterwards to be carbon neutral in 2060. China revised to be peak 2025 (they only seem to set publicly once on target) and agreement not to build coal power stations outside China.

So whilst we can agree it's bad news, it is still within the agreement.

7

DaemonAnts t1_ja9dtux wrote

No worries. Canada's carbon tax more than makes up for it. /s

2

acebandaged t1_ja9lftd wrote

Replying to CluelessTurtle99 (#2,071,482)

I mean, with that approach there are 15 other countries with higher per cap emissions. This shouldn't be a whatabout issue, this should be a "yes, what china's doing sucks and should stop" issue.

US emissions are also a problem, yes. Now, back to China, which is the topic at hand.

−3

Mg_Lv t1_jaa304w wrote

Did the hottest summer in majority of China really not convince the top brass, that this mighr not be the best idea... Come on China, feels like any decently educated person would do better at running that country.

4

Runaround46 t1_jaa8yea wrote

Replying to keithps (#2,079,741)

Oh dude your not supposed to change shit.

Somehow the companies that pollute shit convinced the public that they need be responsible.

It was a time where a company or corporation had a responsibility to the public to recycle the items that they produced. Or invest in facilities for the recycling.

Companies and governments (see military) are the massive users of energy and polluters of the environment.

Fuck big pickup trucks on the roads though. Our shit wasn't designed for that. Better save it for the rare people using it in professional use.

What we should be doing is driving economy vehicles but then have off-roaders or drag cars or something.

Or just not even have personal vehicles. Use trains and streetcars to get around walkable towns. Then have faster trains for transport in-between cities.

There was a point in time in this country you could get from NYC to like Ohio by streetcar alone.

3

NewlyOld31 t1_jaabj9w wrote

This planet is fucked. There's no way we will turn it around.

3

flamehead2k1 t1_jaagead wrote

Replying to akkelerate (#2,077,279)

Increasing the percentage of renewables is great but it isn't enough considering China is focused on high GDP growth.

If the economy grows so fast that they still need to add massive amounts of coal to meet their goals, we're still fucked.

3

fastone1911 t1_jaahqif wrote

Replying to Bakanyanter (#2,082,223)

I'm simply stating a fact that developing countries developing will doom the world. The US, Europe etc already living with air travel, heating/cooling, cars, meat-rich diets, high-consumption etc has caused this much damage, how do you think the world will fare with 8 billion living at that level? The answer is total systems collapse.

And don't quote the 100 companies statistic, since those companies are what facilitate our lifestyles.

1

acebandaged t1_jaaj5t5 wrote

Replying to akkelerate (#2,076,793)

I know everyone says lots of smaller countries are much worse than one big one, but there's definitely a population between 1.5bn and 1 that's more stable than 1.5bn...the point where the power those small nations hold is too small for their inherent instability to matter.

Montenegro isn't going around picking on other nations, while China is happily spying and murdering and threatening and generally having an overall negative impact on the world.

−2

flamehead2k1 t1_jaajmin wrote

Replying to Runaround46 (#2,080,059)

>Oh dude your not supposed to change shit.

. . . >What we should be doing is driving economy vehicles but then have off-roaders or drag cars or something. > >Or just not even have personal vehicles. Use trains and streetcars to get around walkable towns. Then have faster trains for transport in-between cities.

This is a pretty big change for most Americans

4

Bakanyanter t1_jaam46e wrote

Replying to fastone1911 (#2,082,700)

>I'm simply stating a fact that developing countries developing will doom the world. >The US, Europe etc already living with air travel, heating/cooling, cars, meat-rich diets, high-consumption etc has caused this much damage

The US and Europe live in luxury with air travel, AC everywhere, many cars like you said but even the developing countries have to bear the brunt of climate change as well. So why should only the west live comfortably? Do you think the ozone hole formed in Africa and Antarctica was because of people in Antarctica? Obviously no, countries have had bad environmental effects in other countries since long time now.

>how do you think the world will fare with 8 billion living at that level? The answer is total systems collapse.

I agree, but that doesn't mean we stop uplifting people. It only means that we should experiment and keep researching new technologies that reduce our impact on developing while developing. For example, China is still going to create 300+ nuclear plants, and is the leader in green energy capacity developed per year.

If you are so concerned about development and environment, there is an easy way if you are EU/America. Just reduce your development and go back to 1970s, but obviously they won't reduce airports or their ACs or whatever, they are already used to it.

2

fastone1911 t1_jaapqam wrote

Replying to Bakanyanter (#2,083,966)

My entire point is that NO ONE should be living this high consumption lifestyle, but your point is that EVERYONE should.

Your way, everyone dies. My way, everyone lives simpler lives, but at least the biosphere doesn't collapse by 2060.

Also, you don't seem to understand that even green growth is an ecological disaster. There's no point getting emissions to 0 if we've destroyed ecosystems to do it. We've totally overextended in terms of ground water, top soil, fishing stocks, novel entities, land-system change and biochemical flows. These planetary boundaries, if continuously overshot, are enough to destroy us, even if emissions go to zero and atmospheric CO2 goes back to 350ppm.

1

Bakanyanter t1_jaau1uh wrote

Replying to fastone1911 (#2,085,034)

>My entire point is that NO ONE should be living this high consumption lifestyle, but your point is that EVERYONE should.

Then you should complain about the west having X airports already instead of complaining about India building 80 more.

>Your way, everyone dies.

No, maybe we fuck up the environment very badly but we'll find a way to live. We're tenacious fucks.

>Also, you don't seem to understand that even green growth is an ecological disaster.

So you are indeed advocating for developing countries to stop developing. Sorry but not going to happen. Climate change is important but secondary compared to growth.

Obviously you are right in the sense that if tomorrow everyone stops living high maintenance life then the earth would be much better off but developing nations are simply not going to stop developing.

1

JustVGames t1_jaawity wrote

Everyone mad at China but China uses a lot of this energy to manufacture the shit you buy.

1

Bakanyanter t1_jab46h5 wrote

Replying to fastone1911 (#2,087,927)

>If you think collapse is secondary to growth your shit is gonna get rocked by the next 20-30 years.

Life in luxury for 30 years is better than shit in 60 years...but I am not pessimistic like you. We figured out Ozone hole and covered it up and recovered it, we will figure out a way to sustain ourselves. My home is almost fully solar powered, my nation is on its way to be carbon neutral by 2070, etc.

2

Bakanyanter t1_jabewqc wrote

Replying to fastone1911 (#2,089,458)

You're a doomer. You disregard entire humanity's effort and the fact that we have faced multiple crises and have overcame them. You think there is only one solution and that is simply not the truth. We will overcome this as well.

2

Kewenfu t1_jabgsfv wrote

The Chinese will suffer big time from climate changes, maybe moreso than most countries.

2