JohnD if you think comparing Australia's tiny CO2 emissions to China's and claiming theirs in isolation would also have a negligible effect on climate maybe you are also actually acknowledging that these are not the main driver of climate change - as many notable international scientists not reliant on government subsidies have clearly stated.
There is no denying facts as stated earlier regardless of whether some of these plants are intended as "back-ups".
"China began building 94.5 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-power capacity and resumed 3.3GW of suspended projects in 2024, the highest level of construction in the past 10 years..."
The atmosphere can't tell the difference between CO2 from full time or part time power stations or the huge volumes of CO2 and other gases including water vapour (a much more effective greenhouse gas) emitted by volcanos above and below sea level.
And I don't think any of our coal miners are engaged as slave labour like China's persecuted Uyghurs.

John D
I can’t see why the same logic re clever flexible use of coal power shouldn’t apply here.
You’ve convinced me it’s a commendable idea.
Always good to see new flexible thinking.
Very rare with green activists of the angry left but you’ve broken the mould.
I’ll certainly use this in future.
Bravo!

Mikko,

No, acknowledging that China’s emissions in isolation would also have a negligible global effect doesn’t mean CO2 isn’t a main driver - it means climate change is a cumulative problem.

The same maths applies to every country, which is exactly why “we’re small so it doesn’t matter” is the same excuse every other nation could use to do nothing.

Regarding coal, yes, 94.5 GW is a big number - but context matters. Many of those plants are flexible backup stations, and China is also adding renewables faster than the rest of the world combined. Pretending one fact cancels out the other is cherry-picking.

And volcanoes? You're slow on this one - human activity emits over 60 times more CO2 annually than all volcanoes combined. And water vapour? It responds to warming, it doesn’t drive it. Remove CO2 and the atmosphere holds less water vapour.

So no, the atmosphere can’t “tell the difference” between full-time and part-time CO2 - but the grid operator can, and so can policymakers deciding how to replace coal with low-carbon firming. That’s why the detail matters, even if it ruins the simplicity of a denialist talking point.
___

Nice try, Lytton.

Explaining what China’s doing isn’t the same as saying we should do it here. Their grid mix, existing coal fleet, and demand profile are completely different to ours.

In the NEM, the cheapest and cleanest firming options are batteries, pumped hydro, and demand management. Building brand-new coal - even “flexible” - would still be slower, more expensive, and more polluting than those alternatives, and would lock in decades of unnecessary emissions.

China’s backup coal plants are a transitional patch for a system that’s already coal-heavy. Australia’s challenge is replacing coal, not adding to it.

Again, if you’re quoting me, make sure it’s in the context I gave it: describing another country’s energy strategy, not recommending it for ours.

For too long we've had experts mishandle everything & now they call themselves flexible thinkers ? Just start to think, that's all that's needed !

Well John D's latest shows his claims on anything can't be taken seriously. He obviously knows very little about volcanoes - Some real facts:
"Volcanoes can impact climate change. During major explosive eruptions huge amounts of volcanic gas, aerosol droplets, and ash are injected into the stratosphere. ... volcanic gases like sulfur dioxide can cause global cooling, while volcanic carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, has the potential to promote global warming..."

Check out just one - Hunga Tonga - NASA :

"When the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano erupted on Jan. 15, 2022, it sent a tsunami racing around the world and set off a sonic boom that circled the globe twice. The underwater eruption in the South Pacific Ocean also blasted an enormous plume of water vapor into Earth’s stratosphere – enough to fill more than 58,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. The sheer amount of water vapor could be enough to temporarily affect Earth’s global average temperature.

The [eruption] not only injected ash into the stratosphere but also large amounts of water vapor, breaking all records for direct injection of water vapor, by a volcano or otherwise, in the satellite era. …The excess water vapor injected by the Tonga volcano … could remain in the stratosphere for several years. This extra water vapor could influence atmospheric chemistry, boosting certain chemical reactions that could temporarily worsen depletion of the ozone layer. It could also influence surface temperatures … since water vapor traps heat.

“We’ve never seen anything like it,” said Luis Millán, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. It was so powerful it even affected space. From a March 2022 preprint (14 authors):

But even those record-shattering calculations were only early estimates. Over the next year, data showed NASA badly underestimated the full amount of water Hunga Tonga had vaporized into the atmosphere. Current estimates are three times higher than initially thought: scientists now believe it was closer to 150,000 metric tons, or approximately 40 trillion gallons of superheated water instantly injected into the atmosphere....

(And John D's worried about modern coal fired power stations)

Mikko2,

Yes, volcanic eruptions can cause short-term climate effects - mostly cooling from sulfur aerosols. Hunga Tonga’s water vapour injection was indeed unprecedented in the satellite era, but it’s still a temporary anomaly. It will dissipate in a few years, just as past volcanic perturbations have.

That’s exactly the difference between a transient natural event and human CO2 emissions: volcanoes are episodic; we’re adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere every day. USGS data shows annual human CO2 emissions are over 60 times greater than the total from all volcanic activity - and that’s in a quiet year without a Hunga Tonga.

So yes, “we’ve never seen anything like it,” but it doesn’t erase the physics of long-term warming, any more than one freak cold snap disproves global temperature records. Comparing an occasional eruption to continuous fossil fuel burning is apples to anvils.

Try again.