China started construction on an estimated 95 GW of new coal power capacity in 2024 it accounted for 93% of new global coal-power construction BUT, importantly, Coal power's share in the electricity mix has steadily declined, dropping from around 73% in 2016 to 51% in June 2025 heavily driven by renewables push in China

China's average utilisation rate of coal power plants in 2024 was around 50% meaning there's already spare capacity. The continued building is driven largely by energy security concerns, financial incentives for coal-mining conglomerates, and institutional momentum. The most immediate trigger was power shortages of 2021, when factories had to cut production due to blackouts. That was politically embarrassing, so provincial governments and energy companies rushed to approve new coal capacity as an insurance policy. More than 100 billion yuan in capacity payments were made to coal plants in 2024 essentially the government paying plants just to exist after all half the capacity isn't being used.

Chinese policy makers have plans to "strictly control" coal use during the current period and start phasing down coal use during the 15th Five-Year Plan period covering 2026–2030. China also has a long-stated goal of peaking carbon emissions before 2030 and reaching carbon neutrality by 2060. which probably explains the apparent paradox of being world leaders in renewables but investing more in Coal than anyone else. usual caveats notwithstanding

It's interesting running the numbers though. e.g. if it only take 10 minutes to get cheaper fuel, how much cheaper does it need to be for your time to be worth more than the UK minimum wage (£12.21 for adults over 21)

based on my maths (from above calculations) it needs to be about 7p per litre cheaper to justify the extra 10 minutes and for your time to be worth more, per hour, than the minimum wage.

Ultimately how much is your time worth? in the example given drcongo's time is worth £1.28 an hour.

"An inch of time is worth an inch of gold, but it is hard to buy one inch of time with one inch of gold"

Which always says to me that its not worth it just use the quickest option

Take the example drcongo posted:

"Yesterday I had to drive to a nearby town, just 20 minutes away, and noticed that every single petrol station there was a good 5p per litre cheaper than my town. I might plug this into a map."

Assume he uses 30 litres a week (high end of average UK usage) that's £1.50 per week saving but assume the extra miles use half a litre, that takes about 65 p off the saving (ill not go into wear and tear) over 30 years of work 50 weeks a year this means a saving of £1,275 over 30 years ... sounds a lot but

20 mins away - this assumes 40 minutes per week over 50 weeks is 2000 minutes, and over 30 years 60000 minutes. Now assume you are awake for 16 hours a day this equates to 62.5 days of free time - more than two months of awake time

so as the saying goes... which would you prefer £1,275 saving or 62.5 days of time

Also (I appreciate the authors message here but..)

"Excel on the finance side is remarkably limiting when you start getting used to the power of a full programming ecosystem like Python"

With the addition of lambdas Excel formulae are Turing complete. no more need for VBA in a (mostly) functional environment.

Also on this, Claude for Excel needs a lot of work (as does any tool working with financial models) if you have ever used them in anger I dont think you'll be relying on them with your non-technical finance manager for a while...

what was it Steve Jobs said?

"If you were a product person at IBM or Xerox, so you make a better copier or a better computer — so what? When you have a monopoly market share, the company is not any more successful. So the people that can make the company more successful are sales and marketing people. And they end up running the companies. And the product people get driven out of the decision-making forums. And the companies forget what it means to make great products. Sort of the product sensibility and the product genius that brought them to that monopolistic position gets rotted out by people running these companies who have no conception of a good product versus a bad product."

https://martinfowler.com/bliki/ParallelChange.html

https://hn.algolia.com/?q=Structured+Procrastination

Strategy is about choosing how to achieve a goal, all the tactics, fitness measures/metrics, compromises, challenges to overcome but it's also the goal itself. Strategy should guide you, your tactics at play to deliver your ultimate goal. Execution is just doing that stuff hopefully focussing on the stuff that matters most.

by far the best content on strategy I have read is Peter Compo, a point he repeatedly makes is that the whole execution argument is meaningless without a strategy (and its many tactics, plans, compromises) to execute. So, what are you executing?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

the 90's is asking for its platform wars back