The idea that energy is neatly divided into "clean" and "dirty" is overly simplistic, but the way China’s energy strategy is often framed also misses key nuances. While China is indeed building a lot of coal *capacity*, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s burning significantly more coal. The distinction matters.
When you build out renewables, you need backup power to handle fluctuations in supply. Flexibility can come from electrochemical batteries, pumped hydro, or backup generators. China has chosen to use coal plants as flexible generators—a costly and inefficient approach—but one that aligns with its obsession with energy security. Unlike many Western countries, China avoids relying on gas or diesel for backup, even though those options would be more economical. Their priority is avoiding dependence on imported fuels, even at the expense of efficiency.
It’s entirely possible to achieve 80–90% renewables penetration at a relatively low cost with current technology, provided you have the right storage and grid management. But this discussion often overlooks nuclear, which faces a similar challenge: it’s an inflexible power source. Nuclear plants can’t easily ramp up or down to match demand fluctuations, which is why Europe historically paired nuclear expansion with pumped hydro projects. Fortunately, modern lithium batteries can now help compensate for nuclear’s inflexibility, just as they do for renewables.
Finally, comparing graphs of renewables and coal build-out without context is misleading. In the West, renewables expanded during periods of stagnant or declining energy demand, so every unit of renewable energy directly displaced fossil fuels. China’s situation is different—its energy demand is still growing rapidly. Without renewables, coal demand would be even higher. The fact that coal’s *share* of China’s electricity mix is decreasing—despite absolute coal capacity increasing—shows that renewables are meeting new demand that would otherwise have been filled by coal.
So yes, nuclear needs storage or flexible backup just like renewables. China’s reliance on coal for flexibility is a deliberate (if inefficient) choice driven by energy security concerns. But the broader lesson is that any low-carbon energy system—whether based on renewables, nuclear, or even coal—requires storage and flexibility to function effectively. The real question isn’t just about building capacity, but about how to integrate it intelligently.
You make a strong claim that Chinese grid planners know coal (an inflexible power source) MUST complement renewables, and this is abundantly obvious to them. Can you provide a report from a Chinese planning committee or a quote from a bureaucrat to support this?
No, you got it backwards. Renewables complement coal, which is the backbone of the Chinese energy system. And we don’t need a report or a quote. We can just look at their actions.
You say very confidently that planners know that renewables complement coal.
In reality, you have no evidence that anyone in China believes this, and are just projecting your worldview onto unnamed Chinese planners to support your own argument?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that nuclear power plants, unlike solar or wind generators, can operate whether or not the sun's up or wind is blowing and their output isn't affected by variations in wind speed or cloud cover. Are they not therefore suitable for providing baseline power, whereas wind and solar facilities are not? And is that capability not important? Doesn't this suggest that the best option for low-carbon-emission power generation is nuclear baseline power backed with gas-fired generators to deal with fluctuations in demand?
Sorry; I had to re-read your blog entry to discover that you'd stated the same bottom-line conclusion at the very end. But at least give me credit for mentioning nuclear's advantage of immunity to momentary fluctuation with variation in cloud cover and wind velocity and direction (which this layman assumes is also important, along with its capability to operate after sundown).
The idea that energy is neatly divided into "clean" and "dirty" is overly simplistic, but the way China’s energy strategy is often framed also misses key nuances. While China is indeed building a lot of coal *capacity*, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s burning significantly more coal. The distinction matters.
When you build out renewables, you need backup power to handle fluctuations in supply. Flexibility can come from electrochemical batteries, pumped hydro, or backup generators. China has chosen to use coal plants as flexible generators—a costly and inefficient approach—but one that aligns with its obsession with energy security. Unlike many Western countries, China avoids relying on gas or diesel for backup, even though those options would be more economical. Their priority is avoiding dependence on imported fuels, even at the expense of efficiency.
It’s entirely possible to achieve 80–90% renewables penetration at a relatively low cost with current technology, provided you have the right storage and grid management. But this discussion often overlooks nuclear, which faces a similar challenge: it’s an inflexible power source. Nuclear plants can’t easily ramp up or down to match demand fluctuations, which is why Europe historically paired nuclear expansion with pumped hydro projects. Fortunately, modern lithium batteries can now help compensate for nuclear’s inflexibility, just as they do for renewables.
Finally, comparing graphs of renewables and coal build-out without context is misleading. In the West, renewables expanded during periods of stagnant or declining energy demand, so every unit of renewable energy directly displaced fossil fuels. China’s situation is different—its energy demand is still growing rapidly. Without renewables, coal demand would be even higher. The fact that coal’s *share* of China’s electricity mix is decreasing—despite absolute coal capacity increasing—shows that renewables are meeting new demand that would otherwise have been filled by coal.
So yes, nuclear needs storage or flexible backup just like renewables. China’s reliance on coal for flexibility is a deliberate (if inefficient) choice driven by energy security concerns. But the broader lesson is that any low-carbon energy system—whether based on renewables, nuclear, or even coal—requires storage and flexibility to function effectively. The real question isn’t just about building capacity, but about how to integrate it intelligently.
You make a strong claim that Chinese grid planners know coal (an inflexible power source) MUST complement renewables, and this is abundantly obvious to them. Can you provide a report from a Chinese planning committee or a quote from a bureaucrat to support this?
Did you make up this anecdote?
No, you got it backwards. Renewables complement coal, which is the backbone of the Chinese energy system. And we don’t need a report or a quote. We can just look at their actions.
You say very confidently that planners know that renewables complement coal.
In reality, you have no evidence that anyone in China believes this, and are just projecting your worldview onto unnamed Chinese planners to support your own argument?
I am not projecting anything.
I am looking at their actions: massive production of coal-burning plants.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that nuclear power plants, unlike solar or wind generators, can operate whether or not the sun's up or wind is blowing and their output isn't affected by variations in wind speed or cloud cover. Are they not therefore suitable for providing baseline power, whereas wind and solar facilities are not? And is that capability not important? Doesn't this suggest that the best option for low-carbon-emission power generation is nuclear baseline power backed with gas-fired generators to deal with fluctuations in demand?
That’s the whole point yes!
Sorry; I had to re-read your blog entry to discover that you'd stated the same bottom-line conclusion at the very end. But at least give me credit for mentioning nuclear's advantage of immunity to momentary fluctuation with variation in cloud cover and wind velocity and direction (which this layman assumes is also important, along with its capability to operate after sundown).
Are you bearish on advanced geothermal scaling, then?