It is deceptive to compare coal % of power generation, because China specifically substitutes coal for gas because they have none of that (and no reliable source). This also means those coal plants run at lower/decreasing utilization because a big part of their role is to provide dispatchability. So for China you have 55% coal and 3% gas while the US uses 16% coal and 40% gas for electrical power.

If you compare numbers, you will also find that lower per-capita consumption more than compensates for currently still higher CO2 intensity of chinese electricity (3000kWh/person * 0.5kgCo2/kWh for China vs 5500kWh/person * 0.35kgCo2/kWh, i.e. 1.5 vs 1.9 tons of Co2/year/person from electricity for China vs the US).

▲

AnthonyMouse 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It is deceptive to compare coal % of power generation

It isn't, because coal emits significantly more CO2 per unit electricity than natural gas, since it's pure carbon instead of a hydrocarbon, and therefore should be getting discontinued by everyone rather than installed by anyone.

The "it's a developing country" arguments seem like a dodge when the real reason is that they'd rather emit 80% more CO2 so they can burn coal instead of buying oil or building enough nuclear and renewables to not do either one.

> This also means those coal plants run at lower/decreasing utilization because a big part of their role is to provide dispatchability.

Those percentages are for power actually generated and already take into account capacity factor.

> you will also find that lower per-capita consumption more than compensates for currently still higher CO2 intensity of chinese electricity

What excuse is that for burning coal? Should Germany and the UK be justified in burning more coal too, since they have lower electricity consumption per capita than China?

	▲	myrmidon 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		My point isnt that gas is just as bad as coal. My point is that coal (in China) fills the same role that gas has for electricity in other countries. Saying "China is >50% coal while the US is only 15%" misses half the picture, because the combined gas + coal percentage is actually almost the same, and the US only really gets to enjoy that cleaner gas in its energy mix because it has so much of it (while China has none). Blaming China for using coal instead of gas just feels like blaming non-Norway countries for not using enough hydro power to me. In my view, you only have a solid position to throw shade at China if your countries economical position is somewhat comparable (i.e. not rich as fuck) and you did manage to "resist" the temptation of big fossil reserves. You could make an argument that Spain was a bit of a poster child in this regard in the 1990s, but even in that comparison they were much wealthier (both absolutely and comparatively to China now). I could turn the argument around, and ask "why is the US still using >50% fossil fuels in its energy mix, despite being super rich"? What makes gas power acceptable and coal not? And the obvious answer is just that fossil fuels are a really attractive as dispatchable power. If the more-than-twice-as-rich US can not resist the temptation of gas power, why would you expect much poorer China to resist the twice-as-bad coal? [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank-...

▲

_heimdall 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

While power consumption per capita is sometimes useful, I don't think it fits here. They continue to invest heavily in coal, that isn't leading in green energy.