According to Climate Energy Finance (CEF): "In the first half of 2025, new wind and solar power capacity additions in China were 10 times more than thermal capacity and made up 90% of new adds. Renewables are playing a key role in decarbonising power generation."

"While thermal power—predominantly coal—still accounted for over 60% of electricity output, its share continues to decline as clean energy capacity scales up, even as China’s economy continues to grow very strongly, lifting overall energy demand growth."

So often we have commentators using China's massive use of thermal energy for electricity generation as a rebuttal to reasons to move towards renewables.
But: "Even as China continues to build new thermal capacity, the average utilisation rate fell to a record low of 46% with thermal generation."

The whole world is moving to renewables and CEF comments that to "realise our renewable energy potential, we need urgent reform. If we don’t, Australia risks becoming the Kodak economy of the future."

Deniers love to point to China’s coal use as if it means renewables aren’t worth pursuing, but this data blows that out of the water.

Yes, coal is still a big slice of China’s generation, but it’s shrinking.

And the really telling stat is the utilisation rate of thermal power plants dropping to a record low. That’s a sign they’re being sidelined more often as wind and solar take over the hours when they’re cheapest.

Meanwhile, China is adding more renewable capacity in six months than Australia has installed in its entire history.

If we’re still debating whether renewables are “worth it” while other nations are scaling at breakneck speed, we’re not just behind - we’re setting ourselves up to be irrelevant.

The name Blockbuster comes to mind. In which case, a “Kodak economy” would be something we’d be aspiring to.

This "data" has either been cherrypicked, or is not correct. This graph from Our World in Data puts the lie to it https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-source-and-country?stackMode=absolute&country=~CHN. The contribution of wind and solar is miniscule, and oil, coal and gas are all ramping up at an extraordinary rate.

From this graph China is obviously not going to be contributing to NetZero anytime in the next 100 years or more.

Dear Oh Dear Graham, this does not even warrant a WTF?

Maybe you would prefer some data from the US Energy Information Administration. Their data lags so their most recent information is for 2023.


Let's give it a shot: China's generation of electricity from fossil fuels from 2019 - 2023 went from 1,191 million KW to 1,390 an increase of 16.7%.

Not really the "ramping up" of thermal fuels that Graham suggests.

In the same time renewables went from 759 million KW to 1,454 an increase of 92%.

There is nothing miniscule about this. China is on target to install half of expected global solar installations this year.

So this US source agrees with the CEF source - Even as China continues to build new thermal capacity, the average utilisation rate fell - to a record low of 46% according to CEF.

The CEF report did not make any assertions about Net Zero. However, on 9 July, Chief Executive of the Smart Energy Council, John Grimes stated that Zero emissions capacity delivered over 40% of China’s electricity.

Somehow I think the rapid and relentless march towards renewables has caught many off guard.

Graham,

That chart shows all energy use, not just electricity, so of course coal looks huge. It includes industrial uses like steel and cement production, chemicals, and district heating.

Sectors where renewables aren’t yet dominant.

Regardless, the rate of change is visible - which makes it even more telling that you’ve chosen to focus on totals instead. It doesn’t contradict the current trend - it hides it behind unrelated legacy energy uses and a misleading y-axis scale.

It’s like measuring the rise of streaming by pointing at how many VHS tapes still exist.

Now THAT is cherry-picking.

Nice graph GY. Kudos. It might be interesting to compare the similar graphs for Western and European nations. I think what GY is implying is that the point of the targets is to increase the renewables in proportion to total use. It appears that China's total energy use is on an exponential curve over time. That's not to say that other nations aren't also on an exponential curve but it's something to look at. And it's not to say that good equals renewables.