Electric Vehicle Emissions 27-50% Greater
Than Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
Image: Qiao et al., 2017
Sales of electric vehicles (EV) in China have exploded in recent years.
According to the New York Times (October, 2017), between 2014 and 2017, annual EV purchases by China’s citizens more than doubled, from 145,000 in 2014 to 295,000 (projected) for 2017. By 2019, the annual sales of EVs are expected to swell to 814,000 for China alone, which will eclipse the expected EV sales for the rest of the world combined (602,000).
Good news for the climate, right? After all, driving an EV is green. Driving an EV reduces CO2 emissions. Driving an EV is sustainable. Right?
Well, no. According to recently published scientific papers, driving an EV in China dramatically increases CO2 emissions relative to driving an internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV).
Why? Because China’s electricity grid is overwhelmingly powered by fossil-fuels (i.e., 88% of China’s energy consumption (2015) is derived from coal, oil and gas). Therefore, the energy used to charge up an electric vehicle in China is derived from a rapidly growing fossil fuel-based electrical grid.
Fossil fuel-powered electricity grids are growing in prevalence across the world. And this will continue to be the case as “1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries” which will “expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent” (New York Times, July, 2017).
As long as EVs continue to be predominantly powered by the growing fossil fuel infrastructure in China (“Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world”), driving EVs will not reduce CO2 emissions relative to driving ICEVs.
Put another way, purchasing and driving a conventional internal combustion engine vehicle will actually reduce China’s CO2 emissions.
According to Barkenbus (2017), “when EVs receive electricity with emission levels exceeding 559 gCO2/kWh, they, unfortunately, are net contributors to climate change when compared with conventional vehicles.”
China’s EVs receive electricity with emissions levels of 712 gCO2/kWh, which is 27% greater than the emissions associated with driving the average ICEV.
Image: Barkenbus, 2017
Not only that, but as the introductory image above indicates, the manufacture of battery-powered EVs emit 50% more greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) than ICEVs do.
Qiao et al., 2017
“In this study, the life cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of vehicle production are compared between battery electric and internal combustion engine vehicles in China’s context. … Greenhouse gas emissions of battery electric vehicles are 50% higher than internal combustion engine vehicles.”
“Electric Drive Vehicles (EDVs) are considered to be environmentally-friendly and have attracted much attention worldwide, and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) are the most popular vehicles among all kinds of EDVs. In China, the country with the world’s largest automotive market, the government is determined to develop BEV industry and produced over 250 thousand BEVs in 2015, and the annual growth rate was 420%. In addition, according to the production plan, the cumulative output of BEVs in China will reach 5 million in 2020, meaning that BEVs will gradually replace Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEVs). BEVs [Battery Electric Vehicles] are designed to obtain more environmental benefits, but the energy consumption and GHG emissions of BEV production are much larger than those of ICEV [Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles] production in China.”
So why is it that advocates of CO2 emissions reductions so readily extol the explosion of EV purchases and use worldwide?
Is there any way to actually read what Barkenbus and Qiao wrote? Both papers seem to be located behind a paywall.
So just a short comment for now:
Primary energy consumption charts are not displaying the composition of the electricity gird power sources. Not the first time you get this wrong.
One should always doubt that such a claim has anything to it. It’s not possible to compute a limit like that, because the amount would depend on a) the EV and the ICE car gets compared with and b) the distance these cars will drive in their lifetime and c) on the lifetime of the cars itself
Because what you claim isn’t true. You can easily find better sources for comparisons between BEV and ICE cars regarding their lifetime CO2 emissions.
Don’t believe me? Then let’s take that 559 gCO2/kWh figure from above. A Renault ZOE uses 16.60 kWh per 100 km (link). It’s counterpart the Renault Clio uses 7.01 l gasoline per 100 km (link). Assuming 20% of the power get lost in transmission and while charging the ZOE, it causes CO2 emissions of 11.14 kg per 100 km. The gasoline needs to be refined and transported to the gas stations which also adds around 20% to the 7.01 l figure, resulting in 19.60 kg of CO2 per 100 km.
Assuming both cars drive 150000 km, we get 16.7 t vs. 29.4 t of CO2 emissions from driving alone. I am sure we can build a ZOE battery while emitting less than 12.7 t of CO2, can we? How does that compare to the claim of Qiao that BEV vehicles would emit 15.0-15.2 t CO2 and ICE vehicles just 10.0 t of CO2? Is that in total? How does that work? Even with 712 gCO2/kWh, one can’t arrive at those numbers.
I’d really like to have access to a non-paywalled version of that paper to find out what is going on.
I will come back to this later when the usual suspects have replied how wrong I am.
Found this:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.6b00830
It’s from a source that should know how much CO2 is emitted per kWh battery that gets mass produced. 140 kg per kWh. They estimate 39% more CO2 emissions for manufacturing a BEV than it’s ICE counterpart.
The Qiao paper seems to be only about the actual manufacturing emissions. Mayble that little detail got past your sharp interpretation skills.
So the question is, can a BEV make up the 5 t CO2 difference during its lifetime? Definetly yes!
In China, because of the fossil fuel-based electrical grid, it’s 50% greater emissions from the manufacture of battery electric vehicles. And this helps your case how?
Both the abstract and the cited paragraphs included in the article from the full paper clearly state this is about the manufacturing process. What detail are you referring to in your condescending comment above?
As the article clearly indicates, the geographical location where an EV is driven determines its emissions contribution. In China, driving an EV increases CO2 emissions. In France (nuclear), driving an EV reduces CO2 emissions. The problem is, there are a lot more drivers (and potential drivers) in China than there are in France.
Sorry, I didn’t see that you actually wrote “manufacture of battery-powered EVs” on top of that quote. Nevertheless, it doesn’t fit the headline of this article, not at all.
They had over 25% renewables in their grid in 2016 and pledged to vastly increase the share of non-fossil sources of electricity.
Also, the production emissions are not the biggest part of the lifetime emissions of a car.
China is building 700 new coal plants…in addition to their “pledge” to increase their share of renewables.
What you apparently don’t understand is that even if 25% of their grid is renewables, their fossil fuel energy production and consumption continues to grow too…meaning their CO2 emissions will not be declining anytime soon. This is happening all over the world, as seen here:
https://fractionalflow.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/fig-3-world-growth-in-fossil-fuels-versus-solar-and-wind-1990-to-2013.png
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/china-india-will-continue-increase-oil-coal-consumption-paris-agreement-notwithstanding/
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, the United States had the greatest share of wind and solar electricity (5.4 percent) among the 3 countries in 2015—the year of the most recent data available. China had a 3.9 percent share and India had a 3.7 percent share of wind and solar power to total electricity generation. Both China and India are building coal-fired power plants (the United States is not) and both countries are increasing their demand for petroleum. According to the Energy Information Administration, they are even importing oil and petroleum products from the United States.
According to Bloomberg, China’s coal-fired generation capacity may increase by as much as 19 percent over the next five years. While the country has canceled some coal-fired capacity due to lack of demand growth, China still plans to increase its coal-fired power plants to almost 1,100 gigawatts, which is three times the coal-fired capacity of the United States.
“They [China] had over 25% renewables in their grid in 2016”
A large proportion of it being HYDRO. !
They have promised to aim for over 20% iirc 😉
Planning to build. They have massive overcapacities. They are also capping their coal percentage on primary energy consumption at 58%.
I do, but you don’t seem to understand, that growth in non-CO2-emitting power sources will overtake growth in fossil fuels worldwide in the next decade or so (and has already achieved this milestone in many western countries). Also, you wrote an article about the emissions caused by EVs and whether or not they would cause more/less than ICE vehicles. That depends on the renewables share (even though there are studies that see EVs reducing emissions even in a 100% coal power grid scenario).
Indeed they will, but that has nothing to do with EVs being the better choice, even in China. BTW: China is adding more solar capacity to its grid in 2017 than the German total solar capacity. They’ll have more renewable energy in their grid in the 2030s than what the US consumes today.
Yes, that’s how it works. It starts with a plan…just as it does across the world, where 1,600 new coal plants are expected to be built. China is building coal plants not just for them, but to export to the world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/climate/china-energy-companies-coal-plants-climate-change.html
China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.
These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.
Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/china-india-will-continue-increase-oil-coal-consumption-paris-agreement-notwithstanding/
China had a 3.9 percent share and India had a 3.7 percent share of wind and solar power to total electricity generation.
Both China and India are building coal-fired power plants (the United States is not) and both countries are increasing their demand for petroleum. According to the Energy Information Administration, they are even importing oil and petroleum products from the United States.
According to Bloomberg, China’s coal-fired generation capacity may increase by as much as 19 percent over the next five years. While the country has canceled some coal-fired capacity due to lack of demand growth, China still plans to increase its coal-fired power plants to almost 1,100 gigawatts, which is three times the coal-fired capacity of the United States.
Solar and wind power sources have been growing exponentially for decades, and yet fossil fuels have consistently held pace, accounting for two-thirds of the world’s electricity production throughout the entire solar/wind explosion. Why do you think this is going to change anytime soon considering coal use is set to increase by 43% in the coming decades?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/world/as-appetite-for-electricity-soars-the-world-keeps-turning-to-coal/1842/
“[T]wo-thirds of the world’s electricity is still produced by burning fossil fuels, mostly coal — a proportion that hasn’t budged for 35 years. Emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants have more than doubled since 1980 as the world’s demand for electricity keeps rising.”
China still plans to increase its coal-fired power plants to almost 1,100 gigawatts, which is three times the coal-fired capacity of the United States.
Better choice why?
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
How exactly does the increase of coal power plants make driving EVs less green when the renewables share is increasing as the same time?
China (and the world) could triple the amount of coal they burn, but when they manage to increase the renewables share to 40% at the same time, then driving an EV is causing less emissions as with current coal usage and lower renewables share. Simple math.
We are just at the beginning.
Have you actually read that BP Statistical Review of World Energy you link to above?
Seriously, are you just asking these distractive questions to troll me? See the very title of this blog post. Better choice regarding CO2 emissions.
Solar and wind power sources have been growing exponentially for decades,
Yes, just at the beginning for fossil fuels too. Does this graph look to you like fossil fuel growth has been impacted by the exponential growth in wind and solar for the last 3 decades? Has there been ANY slowing down? All you seem to do is consider the growth in renewables. You’re so excited about that that you ignore and/or dismiss the synchronous (and superseding) growth in fossil fuels.
https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/global-fossil-fuel-consumption.png
Hey Kenneth,
About how many wind turbines do you think it would take to match the 24/7 output of those 1600 new coal fired power stations ?
Is it even possible to obtain 24/7 guaranteed supply from any number of wind turbines?
Having seen how badly the German wind turbines work..
I very much doubt it.@!
https://s19.postimg.org/4z7h09rlf/German_Windpower.png
“that growth in non-CO2-emitting power sources will overtake growth in fossil fuels worldwide in the next decade or so”
roflmao..
No country has that much subsidies to WASTE any more.
You live in your own little FANTASY world, seb.
How hard can it be to understand exponential growth, Kenneth?
Again, we are just at the beginning. It’s easy to do the math when the growth of solar/wind will significantly impact other sources of energy.
Nope, i am telling you that solar/wind growth will cover the yearly energy consumption growth in a decade or so. That includes consideration of fossil fuel growth rates.
Stop making up those distracting arguments with the goal to distract your opponent. It was about EVs in China, wasn’t it?
Just one example which doesn’t use insane consumption figures and an approach that includes the distance driven / lifetime of the car vs. a single number aimed to cover it all:
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-09-18/china-electric-cars-run-on-coal-but-are-still-cleaner
Looking at this graph, have we had exponential growth in fossil fuel energies since the 1950s? Yes or no?
https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/global-fossil-fuel-consumption.png
So what does “significantly impact” mean here? We’ve had exponential growth in wind and solar for decades, and yet fossil fuel energies continued to explode right along with them.
And over the course of the next decade, will the world’s CO2 emissions continue to rise or start falling considering 1,600 new coal plants are being built and places like Germany can’t meet their targets despite valiant efforts and tossing millions into energy poverty?
Yes, of course.
When you have two expontential curves and one has a higher exponent it will eventually make up a larger and larger part of the sum of both curves. Significant is a subjective term in this case, I meant the moment in time when the absolute growth of solar/wind/other no-CO2-sources is bigger than the absolute growth of fossil fuels. Another significant point is the moment when fossil fuel is not growing anymore since wind/solar/etc is growing as fast or faster as the demand does.
I have to wonder why you continue to bring this up. It’s highly unlikely that 1600 new coal power plants will actually be build (massive overcapacity and solar/wind becoming cheaper every day).
The world’s CO2 emissions will continue to rise for quite some time and that has its own problems attached. But this article of yours was about the emissions of EVs, wasn’t it? They are emitting less CO2 in their lifetime in most countries on this planet (even in China) and the yearly amount will only reduce further with the increasing renewables share in power mixes.
Now, I still like to read the full paper of Barkenbus. You linked to some kind of news article about this paper in July, but that has no further information either. So how did this author come up with a singular value (559 gCO2/kWh) as the limit when clearly no such limit can exists that is valid for all cars and situations?
Consumption charts are not “wrong”. The energy actually consumed is the real number. The energy potentially available from renewable sources relative to fossil fuel sources based on hypothetical capacity figures is nice to consider, but it’s like comparing the intended budget to the actual revenue/expenditures.
It isn’t my claim. It’s the authors of peer-reviewed scientific papers who have reached the conclusions above.
So when you read that the CO2 emissions from the manufacture of battery-powered EVs in China are 50% greater than ICEVs, your immediate assumption is that the authors must be wrong. And you expect us to just take your word for it?
Other authors have reached the same conclusion for other countries regarding the electrical grid’s power sources. Are they wrong too?
Onn et al., 2017
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920916308823
EVs [electric vehicles] running with Malaysian electricity grid produce substantial GHG emissions. … [T]he benefits of grid-dependent EVs can only be harvested under the condition that their use is coupled with a low carbon electricity grid. Thus, it is an additional challenge for Malaysia’s that are largely dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation. … Overall the GHG emissions produced through the usage of EVs are substantial based on the well-to-wheel analysis, as the environmental profile of EVs is linked with the national grid.
I wrote that you are wrong, not the chart. Primary energy consumption isn’t equal to the electrical power mix as only a small part of that consumption actually produces electricity. This has nothing to do with capacity figures, where ever you got that one from.
I see, so when you write that driving electric vehicles in China increases CO2 emission, it isn’t your claim? But you clearly came to that conclusion on your own, because the first paper gives you a limiting figure (559 gCO2/kWh) and the second paper doesn’t write about the driving itself, but the manufacturing process.
Not really, I just assumed that the author’s figures were still about the driving part. My later reply should have made that clear. Anyway, you seem to still ignore that the 5 tonnes gap between a BEV and an ICE vehicle is easily compensated by the fewer emissions during the driving part of the vehicle’s life, even in China.
I didn’t write that it was “equal” to the electrical power mix. In China, the vast majority of electrical energy is supplied by fossil fuels. So when EVs are charged in China, it’s with fossil fuels.
Similarly, even though it’s claimed that Costa Rica is run on 100% renewable energy, 70% of its energy comes from fossil fuels.
http://grist.org/briefly/costa-rica-got-98-percent-of-its-electricity-from-renewables-in-2016/
And while Costa Rica’s grid is almost completely renewable, 70 percent of the country’s energy still comes from oil, which powers its transportation systems.
That’s the finding of Birkenbus, 2017. The average ICEV uses the equivalent of 559 gCO2/kWh. In China, the average EV emissions equates to 711 gCO2/kWh. Therefore, powering EVs increases CO2 emissions more than powering ICEVs does in China.
“when EVs receive electricity with emission levels exceeding 559 gCO2/kWh, they, unfortunately, are net contributors to climate change when compared with conventional vehicles.”
May i remind you of what you actually wrote?
“Why? Because China’s electricity grid is overwhelmingly powered by fossil-fuels (i.e., 88% of China’s energy consumption (2015) is derived from coal, oil and gas). Therefore, the energy used to charge up an electric vehicle in China is derived from a rapidly growing fossil fuel-based electrical grid.”
You took the primary energy consumption chart and came to the conclusion that China’s electricity grid is powered by fossil fuels. How is that not comparing apples to oranges? An equal conclusion would be that the transportation sector is power by 60+% coal … which you surely recognize, can’t be the case.
Not really. It will be charged with whatever power mix is locally available. Near a hydro station, it will be most likely just hydro, etc. For simplification we can average over the whole country and conclude, that more their power mix 1/4th renewables. If you really want to look at a country where EVs make little sense right now, then take a look at Poland.
And do you think EVs don’t connect to the electricity grid to charge? This is a weird sentence to throw at me in this discussion, Kenneth.
I am not able to read the full paper (link?), but I have shown you how that is nonsense. Above it was a Renault ZOE vs. a Clio. Let’s take a look at a Mercedes E class vs. a Telsa Model S, shall we? Again, actual consumption taken from here: https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/
11.64 l of gasoline vs. 20.55 kWh (per 100 km) of electricity. Both sides plus their usual 20% overhead for production, transport and losses equals 325 gCO2/km for the E class. In a 559 gCO2/kWh power grid, you could use 48.45 kWh per 100 km to cause the same kind of emission. And surprise, the Model S uses less than half of that figure.
So either this figure (the 559 gCO2/kWh as a limit) also includes production and a very low total distance driven or it’s made up.
China’s electricity grid IS powered by fossil fuels, SebastianH.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Electricity_Production_in_China.png
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/China-electric-e1450707675524.png
77% of the electricity generation in China is from fossil fuels
So when EVs are charged in China, it’s [predominantly] with fossil fuels.
OK, SebastianH. You’re welcome to make up your own opinions.
The average ICEV uses the equivalent of 559 gCO2/kWh. In China, the average EV emissions equates to 711 gCO2/kWh. Therefore, powering EVs increases CO2 emissions more than powering ICEVs does in China. [Birkenbus, 2017]
You have shown me nothing to indicate Birkenbus is writing nonsense. But again, you’re welcome to make up your own opinions.
The proper temporal term would be “was”. I know this exponential thing is hard, but 4 years difference matter in those cases of growth.
Please tell me more about renaming facts as “opinions” (and inserting words into quotes to completely change their meaning).
So you are saying a back-of-the-napkin calculation to confirm if something could be correct, is an opinion. Yeah right. 559 gCO2/kWh as the limit assumes cars with 4 l/100 km gasoline consumption equal to EVs with 16.x kWh/100 km usage. You should be able to recognize that 4 l/100 km is not a realistic figure for average gasoline usage.
BTW: even 711 gCO2/kWh as a limit would just match up 5 l/100 km cars against a ZOE. I’ve shown you that it’s 7 l/100 km cars that are comparable to the ZOE and for larger cars (Model S vs. E class) the difference becomes even bigger.
I don’t know about this. An EV uses electric power from coal. Efficiencies are Coal to electric: 35%; electric to battery :90%: battery to road 90%. Overall 28%. For an IC engine efficiencies are about 15%, and this does not consider energy to refine the fuel. It gets even worse for hydrogen powered vehicles.
This exactly. You could burn Diesel in a generator and charge your BEV with the electricity generated from it, and you could drive a longer distance with it than the same car with a Diesel engine. The difference is so large that it more than makes up for the increase in emissions on the production side (battery). And that increase is shrinking every year as more and more renewables are being added.
Plus you don’t have all the other emissions (besides CO2) inside cities anymore.
I don’t think you’re saying much here except that the engineers did a good job in each case. In the real world your diesel-electric Renault uses about 18 kWh/100km, or about 5 l/100km. The most fuel efficient Renault Clio diesel claims 3.6 l/100km so it’s probably about the same in the real world. Around town your diesel-eletric wins. On a long winter motorway journey the diesel wins because it can make use of the waste heat. Of course the cost and depreciation of the diese-electric is higher than the diesel and you might make enemies of your neighbours too.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Whoda thought it?
Any sensible person not blinded by green dogma and lies.
Just to add to the absurdity, China has launched it’s first all electric river freighter. The range of this ship is only 80km, but it can be fully recharged while unloading it’s cargo at each stop. It’s only current use is transporting coal to supply all of the coal fired generating stations along it’s route on the Pearl River. It’s top speed is only 8 mph so it only has about 6 hours run time between charge. I wonder what % of each load is needed for it’s own recharge?
Forgot to include a link: https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/02/china-launches-worlds-first-electric-cargo-ship-will-use-haul-coal/
You also forgot how to spell “its” (six times in fact)…
According to the World Bank, China’s electricity production has been more than 2/3 due to burning coal for the past two decades, averaging roughly 3/4 over the period.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.COAL.ZS?locations=CN
So if you’re charging your e-car in China, the battery is overwhelmingly being topped up thanks to coal combustion.
… make that the last three decades.
Three decades ago, nobody had any significant amount of renewable power sources in their mix. Unimaginable that this could have changed in recent years, right? China is on track to reach 40% renewables in less than a decade from now. An EV bought now will actually be driving with almost half the emissions per km at the end of its lifetime than right after production.
@ Seb:
You wrote, “China is on track to reach 40% renewables in less than a decade from now.”
Perhaps in your alternate world, it is.
For realists, coal alone will provide 60-70% of electricity produced in China for the decade ahead. Gas, Nuclear and Hydro will be competing for second place. That leaves boutique “renewables” such as wind and solar competing for fifth place (low single digits). Sad, but true. Reality bites.
Fossil fuels will be responsible for > 75% of primary energy in China a decade from now, even with an aggressive program to scale back.
But do carry on. It is entertaining.
Hydro is generally counted as renewable.
China’s renewable share was 24.8% in 2016 and they have a new 58% cap for coal in place (https://www.nrdc.org/experts/alvin-lin/understanding-chinas-new-mandatory-58-coal-cap-target).
They have a plan:
https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/renewables-could-represent-86-chinas-power-mix-2050.html
Don’t know the alternate world you are living in.
When ever someone waves a flag jumping up and down for joy at the % of renewable s in a country the actual output compared to nameplate always seems to be ignored. % of renewables should always be an average of actual output not nameplate. Lets be honest, oh wait, honesty, now there is a chuckle.
And when that output is virtually zero percent of total output worldwide,…
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#
…well, just ignore that inconvenient fact.
What a lot of nonsense written by some of the commentators here. Clearly they a) do not understand technology b) they do not understand economics d) they have never been to China e) they do not understand the Chinese
The Chinese know as anyone who understands the engineering subjects of thermodynamics and heat transfer talking about CO2 emissions has no point. Note the president of China (Xi Jingping) has qualifications in Chemical engineering. The Chinese have a long term aim to diversify their energy supply and usage. As Japan grew they had also that aim and that is why they import coal from many countries and from different ports. That is why they built nuclear power stations (although more expensive at the time than coal) and that is why they have signed contracts for LNG supplies from different countries such as Australia.
In the case of China their aim for electric power generation is 50% coal, 15% nuclear, 5% natural gas and LNG, and 20% so called renewables of which close to 100% is Hydro. Has anyone here visited the 3 gorges dam which has a capacity of 22,000 MW larger than the total generation in most countries. China has Tibet as a province. They have started on some hydro there. The schemes planed are multiples of the 3 gorges power station.
Next realise that China plays politics. They have no solar or wind farms that are connected to the grid. They have some test plants so they can sell this junk to the stupid politicians in other countries where costs will escalate to make industry uncompetitive with Chinese produced goods. The Indians have worked this out also and are doing the same. TATA bought steel works in UK and closed them down getting credits for lower emissions but then import steel from their works in India.
[…] Link: https://notrickszone.com/2017/12/11/driving-electric-vehicles-in-china-increases-co2-emissions-drivin… […]