cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/50183000

In 2025, China’s new and reactivated coal power project proposals surged to a record high, while capacity additions that came online reached the highest annual level in a decade, even as clean energy put China’s CO2 emissions into reverse for the first time and drove down coal power generation.

Archived

TL;DR:

  • 2025 saw China’s current coal power build-out cycle reach a new high. Coal power capacity additions reached their highest level in a decade, even as coal power generation declined, and clean energy met all net growth in power demand.
  • New and reactivated coal power project proposals surged to a record high. If built, the projects proposed in just this one year would commit China to years of coal expansion beyond power demand growth and climate requirements, reflecting a rush by the coal industry stakeholders to advance projects ahead of tighter policy constraints.
  • With a large pipeline of projects still under construction and permitted, rapid growth of coal power capacity risks extending into the early years of the 15th Five-Year Plan (FYP) period, while coal power retirements remain low.
  • Meeting China’s 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) target implies a shift away from baseload coal power and a decline in operating hours. Yet coal capacity commissioned in 2025, and much of the remaining pipeline, remains dominated by large units designed for high-utilisation, reflecting incentives that favour energy and capacity over flexibility.
  • Dave@lemmy.nzEnglish
    1·
    2 days ago

    When I say “we” are blameless, “we” includes the government “we” voted in.

    Our government could have easily applied regulations to imports to counteract this.

    It reminds me how we introduced pig farm welfare regulations. Almost overnight, the pork industry collapsed and was replaced by an import industry from countries without the regulations. The government could have easily said you also can’t import pork that wasn’t raised in those welfare conditions, but they chose not to.

    I see this the same. Surely we could have regulations around the emission history of products regardless of the country of manufacture.

    • menas@lemmy.wtfEnglish
      2·
      1 day ago

      You had an interesting debate, but if I may, I think that looking for someone to blame is misleading.

      Firm moving offshore, allowing China to have economical power is a structural effect. A firm earn money in doing so, a country earn power in doing so. Blaming one firm or one countries will, at most, make another one do the same thing afterward. The incentives are still there, so the outcome shall be the same. We have to build other incentive to make thing change

      You underlined how governments could reduce this incentive, but their is 2 issue :

      • without pression from direct action like strikes, blockade, sabotage or protests, vote would not work : People in charge relinquish to do so. They carrer depend of the economical growth, and their social environment (the bourgeoisie) taught them not to. Attacking the economy or what they think is the “social order”, could work
      • industrial and international mobilization of the workers is needed Workers from “the west” and the production center, like China, have common interests : better wages and working conditions in China will make corporation stay and let workers in “the west” have more jobs and space to mobilize for their own working conditions. Furthermore, the solidarity built internationally will help those mobilizations. You may thing it’s too jate if the firm have moved. It is not. Production have to be brought, distribute and sold. This is the working place that could have an impact. And this is an “industrial mobilization”