Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

China's coal use has fallen below 50%, and at their current low carbon deployment rates, renewables share of total electricity generated increases ~10%/year. They account for half of all solar deployed globally. They potentially reach net zero as it relates to electricity generation in the next 5-10 years, and are expected to reach low carbon energy generation being ~70% of their total electrical generation in 2027.

"If China maintains expansion at the 430-gigawatt-per-year level, installed wind and solar capacity would reach roughly 2,700 gigawatts by 2027. That would be more than five times the entire wind and solar capacity in the EU. Whether this value is realistic depends mainly on two factors: expansion of high-voltage transmission lines connecting generation and consumption regions, and political will to actually decommission the coal power plant fleet."

The US could replace all of it's coal fired generation in a year if they went as fast as China (even accounting for capacity factor of solar vs coal). They choose not to.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49525501 (citations)

HN Search: china batteries - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

what's your forecast for crossover point of total carbon emission from coal China vs. US?

Why is it relevant? It doesn't matter, except to perhaps the US consumers who will have to pay billions of dollars more as ratepayers for coal generated power versus renewables over the remaining life of these generators. There is only one coal plant, in Dry Forks, WY, where coal is still cheaper than renewables.

> The cost of running existing coal power plants in the United States continues rising while new wind and solar costs keep falling. Our first Coal Cost Crossover report (2019) found 62 percent of U.S. coal capacity was more expensive to run than to replace with renewables, while our second (2021) found 72 percent of capacity more expensive than renewables. Our latest Coal Cost Crossover research finds incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act accelerate this trend – 99 percent of all U.S. coal plants (209 out of 210) are now more expensive to run than replacement by new local solar, wind, or energy storage.

> This report finds 99 percent of the existing U.S. coal fleet is more expensive to run compared to replacement by new solar or wind. Replacing coal plants with local wind and solar would also save enough to finance nearly 150 gigawatts of four-hour battery storage, over 60 percent of the coal fleet’s capacity, and generate $589 billion in new investment across the U.S. Our report provides policy recommendations to facilitate a just transition through the Coal Cost Crossover.

https://energyinnovation.org/report/the-coal-cost-crossover-...

(report is from 2023, the economics of renewables and solar have only improved since then)

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

I did not realize your primary concern was saving US consumers money. If that's the case then my question is irrelevant. The original article was focused on global carbon emissions, which was the context for my question.

Feel free to review the resources provided to answer any further questions you might have.

I don't think China will ever pass the per capita historical emissions of the USA.

Estimates are tricky but it seems like there is a rough consensus that CCP cumulative carbon emissions will pass the US between 2035 and 2050. The calculation that matters for global impact is total emission levels. We only have one atmosphere. While decision making that affects the total is a mix of individual and governmental, in a totalitarian state government decisions outweigh individual ones by orders or magnitude.

Certainly not per capita.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com