The article claims that China has installed enough alternative energy generation for carbon dioxide emissions to be falling and will continue to do so.

BBC News

China's emissions may be falling - here's what you should...

Experts are divided if the drop over really means China has reached the peak of its emissions.

China has relatively little fossil fuel production or reserves, compared to other populous nations, and so I would guess they are more motivated to gain some energy independence and not be too dependent on imported FFs. Being a totalitarian society also helps, in terms of implementing large-scale plans to transition to sustainable energy. And they are also achieving some global market dominance in production of PV panels, which will further their geopolitical goals. While regressive nations like the US have been busy fighting with themselves over the inevitable and essential transition, China just cut through all that bullshit, rolled up their sleeves, and are getting the job done.

My guess is that China's success, and its implications, will eventually penetrate even thicker American skulls, as people realize how China has cheap power and affordable electric cars (which cars many American consumers have started to notice and has set them wondering why they can't buy a decent no-frills EV for under 20K).

I think it is too early to tell. China had multiple slowdowns and even some short-term plateauing pre-COVID, fuelled by aggressive investment into renewables. Part of it was a drive to be a leader in this segment. However, following those dips (I think around 2015ish) there was then an uptick in fossil fuel use due to expansion energy production via coal. It is possible that the recent slowdown could be part of a larger trend, but might as well be reversed if they see a short-term need for fast energy expansion.

Given that solar and wind are often cheaper than the FF alternatives, even if the inflection point hasn’t quite been reached, it’s trending in the right direction.

Around 62% of China’s electricity still comes from coal fired power stations - and they are the world’s largest electricity producer too, producing around 8.534 TWh of electricity, or roughly 30% of the world’s entire output.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China

The Chinese were using steam-engines for mainline passenger train services and freight haulage all the way up until 2005, and they still possess the fourth largest coal reserves in the world. So they have no shortage of fossil fuels.

As of 2023 China’s total installed generating capacity was 2.92 TW, of which 1.26 TW was renewable (376 GW wind power and  425GW from solar power). They also possess very large hydroelectric resources as well.

One of the larger geographical problems facing China however is a mismatch between the location of these energy resources, and the locations of their fast growing industrial centres where the power is most needed - which is in the east (Shanghai-Zhejiang) and the deep south (Guangdong, Fujian).

Many of China’s coal-fields are located in the north-eastern provinces up near the borders with North Korea and Russia, in what used to be known as Manchuria - nowadays the provinces Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning.  Much of China’s hydroelectric power resources by contrast are buried in the remote mountains of far south-western provinces like Sichuan, Yunnan and in Tibet. The famous Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River is located near Yi Chang in the central province of  Hubei - still a very long way from Shanghai, Shenzen and Fuzhou.

China has previously made pledges to achieve peak coal consumption by 2030, and carbon neutrality by 2060 in accordance with the Paris climate accord of 2020. Whether that is achievable or not remains to be seen.

In 2023, The Economist wrote:

Building a coal plant, whether it is needed or not, is also a common way for local governments to boost economic growth. ... They don't like depending on each other for energy. So, for example, a province might prefer to use its own coal plant rather than a cleaner energy source located elsewhere.

7 minutes ago, toucana said:

The Chinese were using steam-engines for mainline passenger train services and freight haulage all the way up until 2005, and they still possess the fourth largest coal reserves in the world. So they have no shortage of fossil fuels.

Yes, I realized that I meant oil reserves, NOT coal, in my post, but missed the edit window here. Sorry. Small oil reserve, large coal reserve.

1 hour ago, toucana said:

As of 2023 China’s total installed generating capacity was 2.92 TW, of which 1.26 TW was renewable (376 GW wind power and  425GW from solar power). They also possess very large hydroelectric resources as well.

2024 estimate is 887 GW of solar, according to the US EIA.

“Planned solar capacity projects will likely lead to continued growth in China’s solar capacity. More than 720 GW of solar capacity are in development: about 250 GW under construction, nearly 300 GW in pre-construction phases, and 177 GW of announced projects, according to the Global Solar Power Tracker compiled by Global Energy Monitor.”

Like I said, trending in the right direction.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65064

Heading in the right direction. China's coal use peaking 5 years earlier than their 2030 commitment under existing international agreements has to be a good thing if it turns out true - their commitment to push ahead with economic development, lifting hundreds of million people out of poverty was why/how ongoing growth of coal use up to 2030 was justified, with nations like my own (Australia) happy to go along with that to sell a lot of coal - which emissions don't count against Australia's.

All well short of what the global warming problem really requires but better in some ways than expected and a lot better than nothing but it does look like lots of people are being lifted out of poverty along the way - a greater good that unbridled capitalism rejects as their job and seems to oppose in their governments. The very large scale construction of not-fossil fuels the transition requires seems to be the necessary precursor to emissions starting to go down.

It does appear that ongoing emissions reductions depends on renewable energy being taken up preferentially primarily because it delivers least cost electricity rather than for the low emissions although high populations and coal energy has serious pollution issues beyond CO2. Ultimately not good enough but still looks like we are in a better place to do more than the gloomy doomist pundits defending going slow and doing nothing radical insist.

I do think that introducing lots of solar and wind ends up bad for the economics of coal electricity - eating it's lunch so to speak, making it harder to recoup costs because more hours each day coal power doesn't make money yet cannot turn off. They end up competing outside those times with more flexible generation and with battery storage that is the most flexible of all - able to go from high levels of discharge to charging in milliseconds. As well as providing voltage and frequency control and virtual 'spinning inertia'. And then there is pumped hydro.

I don't know that all the challenges of managing very high RE grids are fully worked out - I suspect for example we may need better, dedicated low latency data networks for system monitoring and fine control.

Edited July 11Jul 11 by Ken Fabian

Just now, Ken Fabian said:

which emissions don't count against Australia's.

So if we sell coal to you ((oil) and you sell coal (oil) to us does that mean this sold coal (oil) is not counted by anybody ?

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

As well as providing voltage and frequency control and virtual 'spinning inertia'...

Now that's an interesting concept!

I would have thought the most cost effective means of simulating the frequency stiffness of a bunch of large synchronised turboalternators would involve a bunch of large synchronised alternators mounted on flywheels. Difficult to see how the magnitude of rapid energy interchange involved in this process could be handled by static components. Do you have more information on this?

@studiot No, the emissions still get counted where they happen, where the fuels are used. Australia's policies in practice give support to renewable energy domestically - more get out of the way of a solar boom already happening and taking credit - in parallel with giving support to apparently unlimited expansion of fossil fuel extraction as long as it is for export. With gas there are big and problematic production emissions, which are counted as Australia's, especially from low grade raw gas high in CO2 that has to be got rid of, for which there are a lot of CCS promises and carbon offsetting and accounting games with land sector emissions that fluctuate hugely) to maintain a pretense that Australia's emissions are declining in line with climate commitments.

This is from the 'side' that presents as committed to Net Zero - the conservative side is currently regrouping after election loss and busy working out new ways to better present and market opposing and obstructing climate action and renewable energy. Call me cynical.

@sethoflagos I could be wrong calling it virtual spinning inertia but the Hornsdale Power Reserve battery trialed a virtual machine mode for providing inertia.

https://arena.gov.au/assets/2023/09/HPRX-VMM-Modelled-vs-Actual-Report.pdf

My understanding it does now provide that service and how well it does being assessed although the grid operator is not yet ready to green light that in place of synchronous condensers. Nor yet prepared to create a market mechanism for inertia services; I think virtual inertial does involve holding back some storage and inverter power in reserve, ie does represent a cost to battery operators, as does for syncons and I suppose for FF plants. I think it is just a matter of trials proving it works, and overcoming any problems that emerge.

Just now, Ken Fabian said:

@studiot No, the emissions still get counted where they happen, where the fuels are used.

Thanks for the reply. Good to know.

For those experiencing curiosity as to what Seth and Ken were talking about, here is a brief on virtual inertia (which concept was new to me):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128194324000196

The concept of virtual inertia is adopted from the moment of inertia of synchronous generator (SG) rotating masses. The conventional power systems profit from the inertial function of numerous existing SGs to solve or improve the frequency challenges, e.g., low damping and high nadir due to the load/generation disturbances. However, the modern power systems are penetrated by a large number of the inertia-less power electronic–interfaced distributed energy resources (DERs). Hence, the rotational DER portion decreases impressively and the power system frequency experiences more intensive changes due to disturbances than the conventional SG-dominated power systems. In order to solve the low-inertia challenges of the power electronic–based power systems, the concept of virtual inertia is introduced, which is realized by applying a control function on the power electronic–interfaced DERs to mimic the SG inertial dynamics and provide the inertia, virtually. The main source of the virtual inertia is the short-term stored energy in the DC link of the DER power converters, which should be injected to the AC side according to the virtual inertia control objective. In fact, the DER power converters are controlled to surmount the low-inertia challenges including high-frequency nadir and high rate of change of frequency (RoCoF), low frequency/power oscillation damping, frequency instability, and severe changes triggering protection devices mistakenly.

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

@sethoflagos I could be wrong calling it virtual spinning inertia but the Hornsdale Power Reserve battery trialed a virtual machine mode for providing inertia.

https://arena.gov.au/assets/2023/09/HPRX-VMM-Modelled-vs-Actual-Report.pdf

My understanding it does now provide that service and how well it does being assessed although the grid operator is not yet ready to green light that in place of synchronous condensers. Nor yet prepared to create a market mechanism for inertia services; I think virtual inertial does involve holding back some storage and inverter power in reserve, ie does represent a cost to battery operators, as does for syncons and I suppose for FF plants. I think it is just a matter of trials proving it works, and overcoming any problems that emerge.

You're not wrong in your understanding, and thank you for the reference - it was very illuminating.

So VMM attempts to address AGC (Automatic Generation Control - ie basic electrical loading); RoCoF (Rate of Change of Frequency); and FCAS (Frequency Control Ancillary Services) all at the same time.

Even ignoring Power Factor Control, it sounds like they have an almighty Degrees of Freedom challenge there!

Nevertheless, I've learnt something new today, Thanks again.

9 minutes ago, TheVat said:

For those experiencing curiosity as to what Seth and Ken were talking about...

Timely intervention! Yes, some of the jargon does need an explanatory glossary. Thanks.

11 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Timely intervention! Yes, some of the jargon does need an explanatory glossary. Thanks.

You're most welcome. As I was reading your exchange I began to hear small whimpering sounds and after some looking around realized they were coming from me. Though the Science Direct article provided some amelioration, there were periodic resumptions of the pitiful sounds when my eyes passed over phrases like "low damping and high nadir." Overall, I welcome any opportunity to expand my understanding of how grids deliver power to a home. (Once it's delivered to my 200 A load center I become more expert, having wired four houses so far, with no electrocutions to date)

Virtual inertia ?

They could of course reintroduce real inertia by using large old fashioned conditiong chokes.
After all they still use large old fashioned power transformers.

25 minutes ago, TheVat said:

...my eyes passed over phrases like "low damping and high nadir."

... = high sensitivity of system frequency to generation/load imbalance and thus larger maximum dips in frequency.

Due in context to reduced tonnage of the rotating machinery that historically kept frequency stable via a large reserve of RKE.

I think some people prefer the word 'damping' over the 'stiffness'. Especially in the context of Droop Control.

(Old CEGB joke)

39 minutes ago, studiot said:

Virtual inertia ?

They could of course reintroduce real inertia by using large old fashioned conditiong chokes.
After all they still use large old fashioned power transformers.

Not sure what you mean by the inertia of a choke (or a transformer come to that). They're fairly static. Do you mean syncons?

(= synchronous condensers as mentioned by @Ken Fabian )

Just now, sethoflagos said:

Not sure what you mean by the inertia of a choke (or a transformer come to that). They're fairly static. Do you mean syncons?

(= synchronous condensers as mentioned by @Ken Fabian )

A choke is a high value inductor (at the frequency of use) .

Old fashiioned ones were realised by providing series coil or coils wound on cores as are transformers.

Electronic ones can be reslised by gyrator circuits.

Either way the equations defining their response correspond to the electrical equivalent of mechanical inertia.