Monthly Drop Hints That China's CO2 Emissions May Have Peaked in 2023 (carbonbrief.org) 122
CarbonBrief: China's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 3% in March 2024, ending a 14-month surge that began when the economy reopened after the nation's "zero-Covid" controls were lifted in December 2022. The new analysis for Carbon Brief, based on official figures and commercial data, reinforces the view that China's emissions could have peaked in 2023.
The drivers of the CO2 drop in March 2024 were expanding solar and wind generation, which covered 90% of the growth in electricity demand, as well as declining construction activity. Oil demand growth also ground to a halt, indicating that the post-Covid rebound may have run its course. A 2023 peak in China's CO2 emissions is possible if the buildout of clean energy sources is kept at the record levels seen last year.
The drivers of the CO2 drop in March 2024 were expanding solar and wind generation, which covered 90% of the growth in electricity demand, as well as declining construction activity. Oil demand growth also ground to a halt, indicating that the post-Covid rebound may have run its course. A 2023 peak in China's CO2 emissions is possible if the buildout of clean energy sources is kept at the record levels seen last year.
China and greentech (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing that interests me about China and greentech is that, while its actions are rich fodder for culture wars in the US and Europe ("they're the dirtiest nation of all!" "they're building more solar than anyone!" etc, the combination of their focus on strategy with scant regard for policy popularity or otherwise, plus public sentiment that's got little sentimental attachment to existing tech, whether it's ICE cars or fossil fuel generation, means that the Chinese build-out is completely independent of the noise in the West. It has its ups and downs, but is insulated from things that seem so important here like "drivers won't give up their gas cars"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They are diversifying their electricity mix: solar/wind for cheap intermittent electricity, and nuclear/hydro for reliable base load.
Re: (Score:1)
The article is about solar hitting 100% demand during max output, but the graphs show that all renewables provided 24/7 baseload at 40-45%.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They have far more MWe under construction than anybody else
This is what I keep telling the fuckwits here on Slashdot who keep yelling "we need more nuclear!"
We do, but we're never going to have it with free market nuclear. Free market nuclear is dead and keeping free market nuclear will only mean that solar will eat it's lunch. The United States need to fully subsume the domestic nuclear energy program. Free market will never answer the problem to nuclear. China is a clear example of this. They are killing it in nuclear and solar because they know that investo
Re: (Score:1)
It's also absolutely necessary for a couple decades until renewable+storage is fully grid scale. Given that California is at 40% renewable baseload *today* (linky [cleantechnica.com]), the question is whether we have enough nuclear to bridge the couple decade gap.
Nuclear's useful quality is lack of CO2 release. Except in very specific edge cases, it's downsides are just too much compared to other options.
Re: China and greentech (Score:2)
"Nuclear's useful quality is lack of CO2 release."
Nope.
It's lack of CO2 release during operation.
Catttle to grave, nuclear plants are responsible for more CO2 per MWh than solar or wind.
Re: China and greentech (Score:2)
Sigh. Cradle to grave. I even corrected it and then my correction was undone by my keyboard. Sigh again.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but even counting CO2 emission during construction, and in mining fuel, nuclear still generates an order of magnitude lower CO2 emissions per MW-hr than fossil fuel.
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-che... [dw.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We need low/no CO2 base load power *today*. Nuclear is the only option at scale that currently exists. Probably a couple decades before renewable+storage is capable at full grid scale.
CA is amazingly at 40% renewable base load. The rest has to come from somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, what we need to do today is spend every marginal dollar we can on reducing carbon intensity as quickly as possible. And the carbon return on investment for solar and wind is an order of magnitude higher than for nuclear, because nuclear is pricey and slow. In other words, rather than tie up tens of billions over decades in building nuke power plants, we would be better off spending that same money over a much shorter period building out renewables (and storage), which would see a much much faster
Re: (Score:2)
Good Day.
Re: China and greentech (Score:2)
We definitely need 100% renewable and storage yesterday. It's not here now and won't be fully grid scale for *at least* a decade.
The question is whether we have enough nuclear already to bridge to that future time. We might need *some* new plants if it takes longer. My money is on we won't given how fast renewable and storage is growing.
But *today* nuclear is absolutely required for day to
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so what you meant was “we shouldn’t shut down existing nuclear because it provides baseload”, and not “we should build new nuclear”? I mean, kinda sorta if we ignore Germany having shut down nuclear and still reached 60% low carbon electricity generation in 2023. But also: your previous post said “the question is whether we have enough nuclear to bridge the couple decade gap”. Which does rather sound like you’re talking about *new* nuclear in your subseque
Re: China and greentech (Score:2)
Good Day
Re: (Score:2)
The very fact that you make a basic English mistake in your defensive reply about your posts ("my posts is [sic] quite clear" is an excellent example of how you're not the clear communicator you think you are. What you mean is that *you find* your posts quite clear. But that's irrelevant. What matters is whether people readily apprehend the message you are trying to convey to them. And here, they did not, because your first post explicitly talked about the question of new nuclear and you now claim your seco
Re: (Score:2)
I should have also said: you can get much further than CA. The UK was at about 58% low carbon over the course of the last year, despite much shittier insolation than CA, not much hydropower, and a government that is almost unrivalled in its incompetence driving energy policy decisions (five weeks left of this band of idiots). Germany was about the same, and it still has worse insolation than CA and much less offshore wind potential. CA has the sun and coastline to get well beyond 40% fast. The politics and
Re: (Score:2)
Given the speed and growth of renewable and storage, even in the US political climate, we might not actually need more nuclear.
The math of a stable grid is a harsh mistress and storage isn't yet at the level.
Denial of reality, helps the climate denial argument.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, self-evidently storage today is inadequate to support a 100% grid. But it also doesn't need to. The question is whether storage (and all the other techniques for grid stability management: demand management, interconnectors, mixed generation, etc) will be outpaced by renewables growth and thus lead to grid instability in the future. And my point is that other countries have achieved much more than CA today, with today's technologies and techniques and costs-to-serve, so we can be confident CA can go
Re: (Score:2)
My other point was: Germany achieved 60% renewables, with stability, while shutting down nuclear. So CA can go further than 60% with nuclear. How much further? I can't say. But to get to 60% will be the work of several years, so it's not something to worry about for a good while
Re: (Score:2)
We need low/no CO2 base load power *today*
pls stahp [theconversation.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Base load isn't a myth, it's math. Renewable + storage absolutely will be able to do that, but they also absolutely can't *today*.
That CA is 40% there *today* is amazing and shows it will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think we can build enough nuclear base load to meet needs cheaper or faster than building enough wind and solar to have enough production year round then no one can help you.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an alternative - stop building one-off bespoke plants while changing the design twenty times during construction and then never hiring all the workers who so agonizingly learned how to do everything to build another one - but that would require the US nuclear industry to undergo a surgical pr
Re: (Score:2)
Free market nuclear has always been dead. It only ever worked because it had military applications. Loads of money for R&D and for plants that can supply nuclear material for military applications. No country has ever decided to have just civilian nuclear power and no military use.
Shame you can't make a solar powered bomb, although a wind turbine powered ship is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Not trolling, but genuinely curious: what is China's plan for dealing with nuclear waste? Are they building some underground repository? Are they recycling it through breeder reactors? Are they pretending they'll never have to address the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, they've mostly been keeping spent fuel on site at the power plants. They've been discussing locations for a dedicated underground high-level waste storage facility since the mid '90s. They're doing testing in the Gobi Desert [iaea.org] since last year, so they may be getting close.
Re:China and greentech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A combination of both, if you really want to be fair.
The real question is: if indeed China's emissions peaked in 2023, what will be the US next excuse for doing (almost) nothing?
Re: (Score:2)
The US already hit peak CO2 emissions years back and we've been on a slow and steady decline year over year.
Now to be fair a lot of that is switching from coal to NG but a drop is a drop just the same and eith renewables and EV and all the other efforts it will continue to decline.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2... [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, I was expecting a better excuse than this.
Or at least an excuse that could remain valid slightly longer than the previous one. With China's current pace, their reduction rate will soon match that of the US. Given that China peaked at around 8 tons of CO2 equivalent per capita, while the US peaked at 23.1 tons per capita, China's absolute and per capita emissions will eventually fall below those of the US. Eventually, it will become evident that the US is not genuinely committed to reducing emiss
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually? It's pretty evident, since there's half of the US that believes climate change is SJW woke nonsense and a political party that is trying to eliminate all woke in all its forms.
You should've seen the outcry when Microsoft changed the default of their Xbox consoles from "sleep" to "off" - because it turns out booting it from "off" takes only a few seconds longer than waking it up
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not gonna say you're wrong because it's too early to tell but at the end of the day that is up to American's, quite soon actually.
We get to choose and that's still important to me and if democracy means we are not as fast then so be it.
And really both countries on the per-capita scale are behind France who made the smartest choice during the oil crisis and it's paid off for them. That's really who we should be taking lessons from.
Re: (Score:2)
Where the South park clip of Steve jobs saying "Why doesn't it read?!?!"
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
China can't import as much fuel as it used to, prices went up. On top of that is troubles getting fuel through the Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden, and other places where piracy, war, or poor management of infrastructure, is slowing transit. Any shipments of fuel that get through could be bought up by markets between China and the source, like India, Japan, Philippines, and Indonesia.
With trade restricted out of Russia because of Putin's little war there's potential for China to buy fuel from Russia. The prob
Re: (Score:1)
Oooh look, here's a culture war participant right here, proving my point
Re: (Score:1)
China can't import as much fuel as it used to
Russia broke natural gas contracts with EU and has to sell it to China for 1/3 of the price and China asks for even lower price.
So, China is benefitting from Putin's war as no one else and will have cheap fuel untill war ends
Re: (Score:2)
Growth in China is predicted to be 5% this year, which is massive by almost any other country's standards.
What is happening is a transition that took us many many decades. From agrarian to industrial to services. It's just happening so fast that some employment in some sectors rapidly declines (because they are mechanising, not because they are dying) as people move into new jobs.
It's a huge upheaval, but people are mostly happy with it because wages and quality of life are rapidly improving too. The fact t
Re: (Score:2)
Chimneys arent pumping out gases because the factories are shuttering and unemployment is piling up.
That is quite a claim. I am left wondering why you didn't provide any links to back up your argument. It may or may not be true, but we will never know without doing our own research and I find your claim not to be credible enough to actually do full research on it. A simple hyperlink would have made your argument MUCH more persuasive, but as it is, I relegate your comment to the "incessant chatter" box.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for starters you can't have solar without North Carolina. Iirc that's where almost all of the extreme high quality quartz sand comes from. I could be wrong about specific state. It's that weird mountain where it's mined from that's geologically quite unique. Regardless, it's in US.
Same applies for coal. Can't have that without coal, and Chinese leftover coal is of very low quality. Something Chinese themselves discovered when they banned imports of Australian high quality coal for political reasons a
Re: (Score:2)
What you have instead is some kind of book-oil. Russia is still transporting its oil to Europe, where it is relabeled as e.g. Arabian oil, while in Arabian harbors, Chinese tank ships are boarding oil that is supposedly Russian.
Re: (Score:2)
They're trying, but capacity is missing. And China has turned down financing pipeline from Russian main oil fields in Central and Western parts of that nation towards China.
So growth is from a fairly small percentage of total exports. The problem is distance. It has to steam all the way from Baltic and Black Sea to South China Sea.
Sand [Re:China and greentech] (Score:2)
Well, for starters you can't have solar without North Carolina. Iirc that's where almost all of the extreme high quality quartz sand comes from. I could be wrong about specific state. It's that weird mountain where it's mined from that's geologically quite unique. Regardless, it's in US.
Spruce Pine, North Carolina. It does have large deposits of very high-quality silica sand, but no, it's not the only place silica sand is mined, not even the only place in the U.S.. https://www.coviacorp.com/sili... [coviacorp.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If I remember the expert lecture correctly, special thing about North Carolina one is purity and specifics of composition. You can retrofit other silica sands for high end usage like solar panels and high end semiconductors, but it would require extremely costly refining for which there's almost no capacity.
Most capacity available is expecting that high purity sand from North Carolina. That allows for much cheaper refining.
Re: (Score:2)
No, really. Chip-grade silicon is from Spruce Pine.
https://www.bbc.com/future/bes... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Costs would be much lower if it weren't for the culture war and attachment to old tech, because those factors make a strategic decades-long effort supported by the government to switch subsidies away from fossil fuels and into lowering the costs of the new tech completely unthinkable. Yet that's exactly what happened in China, and it even did this in a quasi-market like approach for BEVs (it didn't put big bucks into a single state manufacturer, it allowed a thousand flowers to bloom and lots to wither). I'
Re: (Score:2)
1. Price parity was totally possible, with subsidies and scrappage. It's all a question of government will to intervene.
2. I'm really confused. I don't have a garage either. I have a charger on a wall outside. If I did have a garage, I'd have the same kind of charger inside, too. It would still cost quite a lot of money, because it's robust enough to be able to deliver 7kW+ for hours on end. The charger would cost you hundreds of dollars, correct -- but the costs aren't to do with the weather-proofing, it's
Re: (Score:1)
Oh up your bum with a rusty pitchfork, you muppet. I'm not suggesting for a moment that China's system of governance is preferable to that of the West, nor do I think it is anything other than morally repugnant. I am not making a naive fucking comment about running the railways on time, and you're a blithering fucking fool for suggesting I am. There is, though, ample evidence that there is a meaningful effort in China to do some long term strategic thinking and then focus long term effort behind it, and tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, quite! Kinda proves my point about the drag effect of these culture wars. All that noise drowns out thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To your point about nuance and thinking, I found this pretty interesting, informative and insightful on China and EVs: https://youtu.be/LiamzUP6rjo?s... [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a video clip from CNBC. YouTube is just a convenient place to find it. It's not a YouTuber in their basement, it's an actual business TV channel
Re: (Score:2)
Ohhh (Score:2)
China's economy ... (Score:4, Informative)
In part, you can thank Biden and his sanctions on Chinese suppliers.
Re:China's economy ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Also there's a crisis of confidence among foreign investors that has been greatly diminishing foreign investment into the country over the last several years (triggered initially by COVID
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm, maybe. I think there are multiple contributing factors, though. The regulatory environment, and rising global awareness of the extent to which domestic companies are treated preferentially, for example, are also having an impact.
Re: (Score:1)
> poor planning, and incompetent government interventions in their economy
That.
Re: (Score:2)
Economic growth in China seems to be down to about 5% / year. Only twice the US.
"Not doing so well" is relative. Well, the part that isn't propaganda or imagination.
Re: (Score:3)
The GDP numbers are more opaque though. China's property woes could easily be solved by government intervention-- dropping $1T to make it just go away is easy enough, but they want to avoid that for ideological reasons. The demographic issues are much more serious though, but the pain won't be felt for another decade.
This article reminds me about commentary on their emissions dropping in 2020. It is important to look beyond our noses.
Not impressed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It will never be enough to please some people.
China is peaking well, well below where most Western countries peaked, per capita. They reached the peak faster, and if the current rate of change holds they will fall much faster as well. China also installed more solar and more wind than the rest of the world combined last year. In fact by around October they had installed more new solar that year, than the US had in its entire history.
I'm sure you would be the first to complain if people demanded that the US
something doesn't add up (Score:2)
Why are global levels continuing to rise? https://www.co2levels.org/ [co2levels.org]
It doesn't seem like #3 India, can put out enough to offset decreases by the top 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that most of the new coal-fired plants are replacing old coal-fired plants. I'd assume newer designs are more efficient so even replacing old coal tech with newer, more efficient tech lowers CO2.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We have a lot more reduction to do before the CO2 we put in over a year comes back out over a year and we reach balance again.
I Wonder (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Probably a response to (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
?? no reason to doubt ??
I doubt that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: If true (Score:2)
Did you like it when Trump said it would be "a beautiful thing" if all of his followers would get the COVID vaccine?
Re: (Score:2)