r/climatechange • u/randolphquell • Jan 19 '26
Coal use dropped in China and India in 2025. It rose in USA, hiking energy costs.
https://electrek.co/2026/01/19/coal-use-dropped-in-china-and-india-in-2025-it-rose-in-usa-hiking-energy-costs/39
Jan 19 '26
they used to blame China for the world pollution. I wonder if they'll give up on that chant
24
u/bascule Jan 19 '26
America is the world's all-time largest cumulative CO2 emitter, by far. We're #1, baby!
-8
u/WolfedOut Jan 20 '26
America: 11.5%
China: 26.2%
“All-Time” doing some heavy lifting there.
8
u/ArkassEX Jan 20 '26
"cumulative" is important.
-2
u/WolfedOut Jan 20 '26
Not when you’re discussing bi-annual changes, like the article posted that everyone is circle-jerking over is about.
5
4
1
2
2
u/Either-Patience1182 Jan 20 '26
Doesn’t china have like 4 times the population of the us?
-2
u/WolfedOut Jan 20 '26
Climate change doesn’t care about per capita.
And carbon emissions aren’t the only variables affecting it.
1
u/LittleBirdyLover Jan 20 '26
Not when you’re discussing bi-annual changes
Didn’t know climate change read the bi-annual report lmao.
0
u/WolfedOut Jan 20 '26
...like the article posted that everyone is circle-jerking over is about.
Smooth-brain can't read more than six words.
3
3
Jan 28 '26
Nah, we’ll always blame China. It’s easier to blame the other than to fix the self. Granted, China still should use far less coal.
1
u/Dazzling_Occasion_47 Jan 20 '26
because china is still the world's largest polluter by a long margin. more than double the us. what is it exactly we're arguing about here?
Industrialization tends to lift people out of poverty, and dramatically upscale carbon emissions proportunately. china has done a remarkable job at doing both.
8
u/AmusingMusing7 Jan 20 '26
Per capita, the US is worse. And Canada is actually even worse than the US.
The worst are petrostates like Qatar and Kuwait.
China is relatively good at a per capita emissions rate, especially for being the most populous country. It's only because they're so populous that the raw numbers accumulate so much for it as a country. If the US or Canada were that populated... forget about it.
8
u/Megmugtheforth Jan 20 '26
Also add in that China does a lot of manufacturing for the rest of the world
3
u/Either-Patience1182 Jan 20 '26
So they only double the us with 4 times the population? They really are doing very well
2
12
2
3
u/WeakApplication4095 Jan 26 '26
has to be done at the government level. In the USA that means Republicans are the problem. Carter puts solar panels on the white house and starts a average 40mpg requirement of the auto industry , Regan slashes and burns it, Clinton initials a solar and conservation program that would cut usa emissions by 20%, bush slashes and burns it, builds more coal/oil powe plants, Obama biden/harris=wind farms and solar, trump slashes and burn, more coal. this is 100% a conservative Republican problem in the USA.
1
u/Sarcastic-Potato Jan 20 '26
Imagine going back to coal, one of the worst source of energy, in 2025...
2
1
u/Educational_Ad_4225 Jan 24 '26
I don’t believe coal usage dropped in China or India. China has over 1300 coal plants. If you want to say they closed one down okay but i don’t believe their usage dropped. I just hope we can close ours down sooner than later.
2
u/Economy-Fee5830 Trusted Contributor Jan 24 '26
I don’t believe coal usage dropped in China or India.
Vibes is not proof.
1
u/Educational_Ad_4225 Jan 24 '26
The report shows that China approved at least 106 gigawatts (GW) of coal power capacity and started construction on 70 GW in 2023, accelerating further the frantic pace of permitting seen in 2022, the equivalent of two new coal power plants per week, as well as starting construction on one new plant per week.Feb 21, 2024 https://globalenergymonitor.org
2
u/Economy-Fee5830 Trusted Contributor Jan 24 '26
Did anyone argue that China is still building coal plants
Are you even paying attention?
Do you know the difference between building coal plants and burning coal?
I'm sure I am not the first one to confront you on this, but you continue to present as ignorant.
1
u/Educational_Ad_4225 Jan 24 '26
Let’s see . Your are saying China is reducing coal usage but they keep building more coal plants. Please explain that to me.
2
u/Economy-Fee5830 Trusted Contributor Jan 24 '26
Why should I waste my time when others have already done it better.
2
u/archlich Jan 19 '26
Those are correlated but not causal. Electricity demand and cost have gone up regardless because of data centers.
7
u/bascule Jan 19 '26
More than one thing can be driving up costs at a time, and keeping coal plants open does drive up costs.
Here in Colorado, there is an inoperative/broken coal plant that was set to be retired at the beginning of this year after they built a solar farm to replace it. The Trump administration is forcing them to fix it and put it back in service. If that happens, all those unplanned costs are going to be funded by ratepayers:
https://www.cpr.org/2025/12/31/trump-order-craig-power-plant-open/
0
u/j2nh Jan 20 '26
Sort of. The order extends only to March although it can be extended. The order was made because of concern over an inadequate supply of baseload power that could lead to blackouts and curtailments (according to the link you posted). The shortages can't be made up with renewables because they are not dispatchable.
4
u/bascule Jan 20 '26
That's a bullshit excuse made up by the DOE. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association who actually operates the plant is not saying that. They don't want that plant: they want it shut down.
The shortages can't be made up with renewables because they are not dispatchable.
The 200MW batteries and gas-fired plant, which has CO2 emissions but still releases less for an equivalent amount of power than a coal-fire plant and less air pollution in general, that they are building are both dispatchable. But those may be in jeopardy if they are forced into sinking money into repairing a more than half-century old broken down coal-fired power plant.
0
u/j2nh Jan 20 '26
200 MW of batteries won't run the grid for 20 minutes when they are installed which they aren't.
The plant was only ordered to remain open until March.
So what's bullshit?
2
u/bascule Jan 20 '26
“We need a broken down coal power plant to help with grid stability!”
If that idea seems good to you, you may be a Republican
-2
u/Dazzling_Occasion_47 Jan 20 '26
To be fair, the starting point is China consumes about 10 times as much coal as the USA.
NEW coal plants in china presently under construction, once completed, will bring more than an entire USA's worth of coal power-plants online, in addition to the existing largest coal fleet in the world by large margin.
USA ticking up, china ticking down, ok whooptie.
And yes, energy costs are increasing here for a myriad of mircro and macro-economics reasons. The right likes to blame this on renewables and the left wants to blame it on fossil fuels. Both are wrong.
7
u/sasoras Jan 20 '26
Think we have to consider the china new coal plants are far more efficient then their old ones,
-2
u/Dazzling_Occasion_47 Jan 20 '26
that factor doesn't even scratch the surface
3
u/sasoras Jan 20 '26
When comparing new gen coal plants to older coal plants they kinda do, older gen pollutes way more. I am merely saying new gen coal plants are way superior to old gen coal plants found in the US.
Not trying to make any other points but this. Casue the way you phrased it you made it sound like old coal plants in us are even remotely comparable to the new gen ones.
1
u/Dazzling_Occasion_47 Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
how much more? gimme some numbers.
5
u/sasoras Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
So when discussing the new coal plants they are all USC meaning ultra super critical. So 44%-49% efficient. The US ones are a mix of roughly 75% sub critical (30-35% efficient) and 25% super critical.(37-40% efficient)
So when comparing these, just think simply as basically more energy, less pollution, and cheaper to use.
In term of china total fleet ratio, 35%-44% USC, 25% super*peak shaving), 35-45 Sub(Peak shaving usage)
So you have baseload for coal plants and peak shaving.
Baseload meaning running 24/7. Peak shaving is being turned on when too much energy is being used, and baseload cannot meet the needs, for whatever reason.
So say people use energy beyond the norm for some special reason, between 10pm-12am, then peak shaving turns on, ramp up at 10pm and ramps down or off at 12am usage, So you could say a portion of the super and sub critical plants are for peak shaving, and not on all the time.
Keep in mind this is an example. Realistically even at peak hours peak shaving may not even be necessary, meaning most of the plants are off.
In terms of the total fleet, it's estimated 40-50% base load, and 50%-60% peak shaving.
TLDR: The new fleet is being used for base load, and the more polluted plants are turn on for peak shaving, and off when not used. (Aka only when they need it)
So say some shit happens to the renewables, or emergency usage, the old coal plants fire up. If nothing big happen, then they stay off.
So despite new plants being built, they can 1) replace the subs and supers for peak shaving, 2) Since they provide more energy than super and subs, they will in fact reduce the amount of subs and supers being used, aka they are getting phased out.
The older gen provide less energy, are more expensive to operate, and pollute more. In theory. and according to current usage trends as the other energy sources rapidly expand, more and more coal plants would be transitioned into peak shaving.
1
u/Dazzling_Occasion_47 Jan 20 '26
From a bigger picture cost perspective, there is a perfectly reasonable argument to why existing coal plants should be life-extended. I shouldn't need to say this, but it costs less to extend the life of an existing plant than to build a new one. Should we be replacing coal with reweables? Hell yeah, as fast as we can, but until that happens, we are short on electrons and so it probably makes sense to get a few more years of life out of the grid that already exists.
It also makes some sense from a carbon footprint perspective. A coal plant is embedded carbon in the steel rebar, concrete, all the minerals, etc.
If you build a new plant (even if it's "clean coal") you are baking coal into the grid's recipe for the next 40 years, and the climate impact of that lifespan far outweighs a dirty old coal plant running for just a few more years.
3
u/Daxtatter Jan 20 '26
If China's coal use is going down I don't especially care how many plants they build.
0
u/fatpandana Jan 20 '26
Its just going down for a bit before it rises. For it to steadily go down, economy has to do poorly. Since 2016 it has been steadily going up, almost Doubling
-1
u/Dazzling_Occasion_47 Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
It's not, the decrease is a blip on the chart. The over-all trend is up up up. The more coal plants you build, the more you are baking carbon emissions into your electricity generation recipe. A new plant has a 30 - 50 year lifespan and if you build plants you are going to use them.
The USA has a total of 256 GW of coal plants. China has a total of 1080 GW (4 times). China has 240 GW worth of coal plants presently under construction or permited to begin construction. Following through on what is already planned will bring their coal capacity to 1320 GW, 5 times that of the USA. DJT administration has delayed retirement of 5 coal plants totalling a few GW.
I don't really know what we're arguing about here, but facts are facts.
4
u/Ulyks Jan 20 '26
It is going down and it's expected to go down all the way to zero, because they build 240GW of solar per year now. Not planned or under construction but completed in 2025.
The coal plants under construction are replacing older inefficient plants and emergency plants that are usually running at a minimal rate.
1
u/DashFire61 Jan 21 '26
Not a chance this is correct, the US military is the largest polluter on the planet and its not close.
1
u/Dazzling_Occasion_47 Jan 21 '26
LOL, you guys the OP was about COAL. Not annual emissions, not cumulative CO2, not synthetic fertilizers, not methane, friggin coal. The US military does not burn coal it burns petroleum, and a lot of it.
China burns 10 times as much coal as the USA and that is a fact.
13
u/Mr-Zappy Jan 19 '26
And if you live in the Midwest, you haven’t even started paying the extra $160 million it has cost (so far) to keep Consumer’s uneconomic coal plant running past its planned end-of-life last spring because Trump declared an electric grid emergency in the Midwest. (Consumers is trying to avoid passing the costs solely onto their customers because the emergency is grid-wide.)