Last year, China generated 834 terawatt-hours of solar power.

Which is more than the G7 countries generated, and more than the US and EU combined. In fact the only country group that generates more solar power than China is the OECD, all 38 countries of it.

Data: @ember-energy.org

Source: https://bsky.app/profile/nathanielbullard.com/post/3lsbbsg6ohk2j

top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 62 points 1 year ago (36 children)

Good on them. The earlier they can shut down those coal plants, the better.

  • source
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    They are going to keep those coal plants as back up but the amount they use then is decreasing.

    At the same time they are rapidly moving transport into electricity and they are growing their electrical demand.

    This year should be the tipping point where coal and oil usage drops. Capacity and number of coal is meaningless.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -31 points 1 year ago (32 children)

    Yep, solar is awesome when you have coal and gas power plants, not so much when you have nuclear ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Solar and nuclear work just fine together. Nuclear is expensive (and most cost effective if kept running all the time, rather than switched on and off) but it reduces the cost of solar (lower proportion of solar means you don't need as much storage) and hedges against bad weather.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    You can't just switch it off and on. It runs at more or less full power all the time. So tell me, at what power is that taking into consideration that sun doesn't shine during night + mornings and evenings when days are short or cloudy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I don't understand what you're asking, sorry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    The question is simple. If you have installed solar power of 40% your country peak use, how much nuclear power you need - assuming simplified you have only these two power sources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Not really enough information. I will assume that by "installed solar power" you mean peak generation when the sun is shining, and that instead of peak use, you mean 40% of average use, i.e. let's suppose that at an average moment the country consumes 100GW and, if the sun is shining, generates 40GW from solar.

    Assume further the sun is up for half the year and the sky is clear for half the year, meaning the total amount of your yearly electricity you can generate with solar is 10% assuming typical weather. Then you would be able to reliably power the country with a combination of nuclear totalling 90% of average use (90GW) and enough storage that you can ride out cloudy periods.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes, something like that. Now, while you can theoretically install that many solar panels, the kicker is that you don't have nowhere enough storage. And even if you had that 10%, you could increase solar all you want, but the nuclear would be still running at 90MW because of the storage, or better, the lack of it. And because you would have a surplus of cheap solar power energy during the day - assuming more solar panels than 10%, it would erode more expensive nuclear one to become even more expensive. Basically if we solve storage, we can get rid of nuclear, but not before.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I mean the UK has 6% of its energy over the year come from solar, and 30% from wind, and installations are only accelerating, so this amount of installed solar is far from unrealistic.

    Installing storage approximately doubles the LCOE of solar energy, so this is also feasible from a cost point of view as we get rid of dispatchable gas turbines.

    Basically if we solve storage, we can get rid of nuclear, but not before.

    I am not saying we should get rid of nuclear. I am saying we should keep some nuclear, also once we have got less gas and more storage. Does this resolve some things in this discussion for you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I mean the UK has 6% of its energy over the year come from solar, and 30% from wind, and installations are only accelerating, so this amount of installed solar is far from unrealistic.

    Yep. No issues there. The core problem is storage here. And until we have a solid plan how to deliver with proven technology present today, we have to build new and run existing nuclear power plants. The other option is gambling.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    In a market or effincient economy, where peak occurs mid hot summer day, 100% solar dominated renewables makes sense. In Spring and fall, EVs can absorb daily oversupply and profit from trading back at night. Winter is when solar can fail to meet heating and electricity needs, and so either backup energy sources or having much more than 100% peak demand in order to make green H2 that can be exported to where it gets cold is needed.

    0 new nuclear is best amount of nuclear for any economy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    If you trade too much EV energy during night, then you can't drive during the day. And again, EVs capacity is not reliable at all. As per green H2, please show me a production and a storage capable of providing energy to a city. Or at least a real project that's building it. Storing H2 is a big problem, like a huge one. If nothing else, Hindenburg tells a story. The fact that energy loss is at more than 50% when producing green H2 is a minor problem compared to storage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    You need H2 only after solar + EVs provides more than 24 hours of needed energy in an area. Although H2 does save on transmission costs for medium to long distance. One of the remarkable aspects of BYD Dolphin, now under $9000 for 32kwh battery is that the battery value alone is $260/kwh capacity, and if you never drove it, but sold electricity 2.6c/kwh higher at night than you pay at day, then you pay for the car in its entirety. Just batteries can be sold under $100/kwh in China, and you could make 200% ROI from 3c/kwh price differential. EVs and batteries can be paid by private sector instead of utility investment markup model.

    H2 technologies are advancing, including storage and pipes. Electrical transmission is more than 10x more expensive than transmitting gas/H2, and saves money on that end relative to efficiency loss. Surplus solar with input cost at 2c/kwh or less achieves under $2/kg H2 target which is equivalent driving distance to $1/gallon gasoline, and 10c/kwh electric only value delivered energy, and 6c/kwh combined heat and electricity value.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    EVs provides more than 24 hours of needed energy in an area

    Only if it was fully charged, you don't drive with it and you live in a house. And thus are not a reliable energy source at all, even less for general energy problems.

    H2 technologies are advancing, including storage and pipes.

    All technology is All technologies are advancing, but do you have a solution today? And even with advancements, you'll hardly solve H2 flammability. Even keeping it contained is problematic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (17 children)
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (16 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (14 children)

    I think they don't get that your comment is fighting the same fight by being pro solar & anti coal/gas.

    Unless you meant keeping the coal and gas plants, which really should be turned off and ended at this point. They're just sources of lung cancer & emissions

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    No. We get exactly what his comment is about.

    If he was in the renewables camp, there would be no point, in this discussion over solar, to bring up nuclear. It's absolutely unrelated.

    What he's doing is pushing the thought into people's heads that nuclear is a good solution, and that's why I'm calling him out for. For being a shill.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm with you on solar. We literally have a fusion reactor at the core of our solar system, so there's no point in having ones on earth. And the more we use solar, the more it'll be improved through research.

    There's no argument for any carbon based fuels

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Yes, of course I've meant it in a positive way - a way to replace coal and gas. But solar is not just positive, they are problematic when you couple them with nuclear for the simple reasons that solar is not reliable and you can't throttle nuclear - they are like big ships, they require a lot of time to steer. Furthermore solar energy low price causes problems for nuclear higher prices. Which wouldn't be a problem if solar was reliable and continuous (long winter nights much?). But it's not, but you still need a reliable energy source. And so on. The pro solar panel crowd don't understand many of these implications and go with simple "idiotic" and downvotes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Why wouldn't solar and other renewables combined with batteries be better?

    It's very early days, yet California recently had 98 days on renewables. That started in winter.

    What is it about renewables with batteries that you believe will fail, despite the mass adoption that is under way?

    Why will the projected, continued decline in battery prices and advances in battery tech not occur?

    Why would adjacent solutions, like the massive storage ability of vehicle-to-grid, be worse compared to nuclear?

    Why are so many "in the know" getting it so wrong?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    What batteries are you referring to? Do you realize the amount of energy those batteries would have to store? Perhaps somewhen in the not so near future, but today? Go ahead and show me a western city able to store a couple of days worth of energy. More realistically a week.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    Las Vegas has already achieved 97% storage supply for its needs - a city that barely sleeps at night.

    Again, where is your evidence that it is not going to improve across the board, and will all fail?

    "It's not all happening right now," is not even close to a convincing answer. If that was the reason to exclude any technology, there'd be none.

    And it's an especially ironic answer given that it takes up to 20 years to commission a nuclear power plant. And they are down for scheduled maintenance for up to a month a year, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Las Vegas has already achieved 97% storage supply for its needs - a city that barely sleeps at night.

    Hard data is where? And I bet LV heavily relies on hydro and gas powerplants. Solar is a tiny fraction, even though, where is its energy stored?

    Again, where is your evidence that it is not going to improve across the board, and will all fail?

    Instead of trying to pick a fight, please read what I write: "Perhaps somewhen in the not so near future, but today?"

    And it’s an especially ironic answer given that it takes up to 20 years to commission a nuclear power plant. And they are down for scheduled maintenance for up to a month a year, etc.

    The difference with nuclear power plants is that we have the technology today. Can you say the same for batteries? Also you'd build a surplus of nuclear energy power plants (or have another backup plan) just for cases like you mention. The maintenance frequency varies, i.e. for a Slovene one is once per 18 months. But that's something you know in advance and one plans for.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    OP sepcifically mentioned EVs. This sector is deflationary even in US, where better value/performance cars cost less every year. More dramatic deflation in less corrupt countries. Australia home solar costs under 1/3rd of US due to different politico-social corruption levels.

    EVs and home solar are a great match that permits going offgrid at substantially lower cost if an EV is parked at home during day. That same dynamic allows a society/community to power itself through solar+batteries, and EVs parked at work. It's not a question of look at our corrupt obstructionist oligarchical monopoly state of societies for examples of lack of economic success as proof that it will forever be impossible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    EVs are rare (in the context of total energy consumption, even more so because not so many models offer this feature), limited to houses (what do you do when you live in a flat?) and not a reliable source - "honey, I need to drive fetch some groceries, you won't have energy in meantime". How many houses with only EVs as energy storage are disconnected from grid? I bet the number is next to 0. OTOH EVs as energy storage can provide buffering to energy grid when properly connected. This feature has its place, but they can't be used for reliable storage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    V2L and V2H are desirable features worth paying for. Grid sharing is not rocket appliances. In other thread, I showed how a 2nd EV that is barely used can pay for itself, but some static batteries are cheaper. 10kwh can power 2-5 homes overnight. Apartment units don't individually pay for exterior flood lighting. Mid to higher end cars have 50-100kwh battery packs. As an overall society, 80%+ of cars are parked somewhere at any time. The point of powering one house, applies to sharing for 1m houses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    That's why we have all that power available, right? You guys keeping listing various technologies but it isn't they aren't available nowhere at scale. Even this feature is not that common among the cars of today. And 10kWh is nowhere enough during winter (and perhaps summer with A/C), perhaps for single not big house with heat pump. Good luck with big cities.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Good for China on that!

    To add some perspective, China is about 2 and a quarter times as large as the EU nations, and according to currentresults.com seems to get a bit more sunshine than the EU does. So the difference isn't quite as stark as this post makes it seem.

    But still, it's good that China is taking solar power seriously. I didn't realize they were doing that well.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (16 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (15 children)

    How much coal has China cumulatively used in its history compared to the US or Europe? Spoiler alert: much less. Almost as if countries in the process of developing used coal for a reason...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    To be clear: Are you saying China is in the process of developing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Compare GDP PPP per capita. China is very much on a lower place than the US or Germany. China is very developed compared to, say, Philippines, but still developing when compared to Japan or UK.

    By which other metric would you compare development? I'm open to debate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'd rather not debate that particular topic. I'm not up on all the nuances. But I will say that while coal was maybe the right choice for generating abundant energy once upon a time, we know a lot more now about why it's a bad choice for other reasons, and, besides, we have more options now than we used to. So it's good to see the world's second largest economy at least trying to build solar capacity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    It's not just trying to build solar capacity, it's building all solar capacity in the planet. Solar photovoltaics is essentially exclusively manufactured in China, as are e.g. EV batteries. China is definitely the leading country when it comes to solar and batteries, while maybe the peak of wind technology is in Europe. They're also innovating on nuclear and they approved to build the largest hydroelectric generation plant in the planet, producing twice as much as the current largest (three gorges dam, also in China?.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    Not so sure about that. China overtook the EU in 1987 in coal consumption, but today it is at 25,000TWh or so. In 1965 the current EU countries were at 4,500TWh. It certainly is not much less, if China has not overtaken the EU by cumulative coal consumption.

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/coal-consumption-by-country-terawatt-hours-twh?tab=chart&country=CHN%7EOWID_EU27

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    If you "aren't sure" about that, then why the hell are you trying to discuss it making guesses instead of informing yourself?

    China, a country with 4-5 times the US population, has half the cumulative historic emissions. And yet you have the fucking nerve to blame china for coal. The US and the EU get to pollute the fucking Earth for 2 centuries, and China does a renewable revolution in its 40 years since industrializing and you cry about how they still have plans for coal.

    Just, seriously, stop arguing from ignorance. If you do not know about cumulative emissions, don't make "Oh I'm not so sure about that because look at the trends for the past 60 years", as if the US and EU hadn't been emitting fossil CO2 since the fucking late 18th century.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    Maybe that is because I have the elementary school education necessary to understand that burning coal and gas also causes emissions. So when I am looking at cummulative coal consumption, I have the very basic common sense to not look at CO2.

    EDIT: Btw 2/3 of EU emissions happened in the last 60 years. So this very likely shows most of the EU coal consumption. Also if you happen to have actual coal numbers and want to share them, I am happy to have a look at them. But please no CO2 = coal bs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    What's the point of comparing coal if not for CO2? Most other forms of pollution from coal are local, not global, the international debate here is on climate change, a western-world inhabitant has no right to say what China should be doing with the local pollution. The discussion on coal is started because of its horrendous climate change potential, which comes exclusively from its cumulative CO2 emissions.

    But if you want to compare coal numbers, I ran the calculations using this source for US production and this source for China production. Downloading the CSVs from both sources, I get that the US has produced 85643270043 short tons of coal, which at 21GJ of energy per short ton amount to 496731 TWh, whereas China has extracted 617787 TWh, i.e. a bit below 25% more than the USA. Since China has 1411 mn inhabitants and the US has 340 mn inhabitants, i.e. China has 415% the population of the USA, China has along its existence as a country extracted about 1/3 as much coal per inhabitant than the USA.

    So yeah, China would have to literally consume twice as much coal as it's already consumed to reach US values of per-capita historical cumulative coal consumption.

    Now what will you come up with? Suddenly coal numbers don't matter anymore?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Now what will you come up with? Suddenly coal numbers don’t matter anymore?

    Do you think I am here to hate on China or something? Your inital claim was:

    How much coal has China cumulatively used in its history compared to the US or Europe? Spoiler alert: much less.

    And when you looked at the numbers and you were clearly wrong, you moved the goal poast again:

    So yeah, China would have to literally consume twice as much coal as it’s already consumed to reach US values of per-capita historical cumulative coal consumption.

    Or 50% more to be at the level of the EU, using the Our World in Data numbers from 1900(thanks btw). Given current production, China would overtake the EU around 2040 in that metric.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    The important metric for the moral debate is cumulative CO2 per capita, because that's the whole reason why we're measuring coal production history, not because we hate coal per se.

    I showed you that, even moving to cumulative coal production, China still has 1/3 that of the US per capita, which is the important metric because why the fuck would we compare a country with 1.4bn inhabitants to one with 340mn without taking population size into account.

    So yeah, China still has a lot of margin for coal burning until they reach the evil levels of the US/EU, but thankfully they won't because they're the strongest country in renewables, producing essentially 100% of all solar panels in the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    First of all greenhouse gases not just CO2.

    It is also a metric China will not want to use. Per capita annual emissions are already higher in China then in many Western countries. More so UN population forecast shows Chinas population falling much more quickly then that of the West.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    First of all greenhouse gases not just CO2

    For cumulative that's debatable. CH4 is the second most important gas, and its half-life in the atmosphere is short enough that over spans of 100s of years it can decompose into CO2 which has a much lesser greenhouse potential.

    Per capita annual emissions

    See? Moving the goalposts. Moving from cumulative, the real important metric, to per capita current emissions during a renewable transition, because otherwise the data doesn't fit your preconceived, chauvinistic anti-china views.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    See? Moving the goalposts. Moving from cumulative, the real important metric, to per capita current emissions during a renewable transition, because otherwise the data doesn’t fit your preconceived, chauvinistic anti-china views.

    I initially just wanted to point out that China does in fact consume a lot more coal, then you claimed. If you want to have the moral discussion, we can have that. The fundamental problem with your logic, is that you presume future emissions do not matter. The fact of the matter is that we will emit much more in the coming decades. Higher current per capita emissions make it much more likely that future emissions will be higher as well. At the 2023 rate of emissions, China emits as much as the EU cumulative did until 2023 in 25 years. Last year China increased its emissions by 0.8%. Current UN forecast put the population of China 633million and the EU at 347million. I hate to say it, but it is very realistic to presume that China ends up just as guilty by your metric as say the EU.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 17 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    to be fair, they have about 3x the population too. but nonetheless good to see that they are moving fast. dictatorship works faster when it comes to regulation ¯_(ツ)_/¯ :)

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It's not about regulation. China has almost the complete photovoltaic production of the world. Essentially all panels installed in the rest of the world are also Chinese. It's about a smart government knowing which technologies to pursue, instead of things like the Spanish "sun tax" of the 2010s that killed whatever solar industry there might have been in the sunniest country in Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    It's about energy independence. The CCP doesn't give a fuck about the environment, but not having to bring in energy from out of country is high on any governments priority list.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's why China is working hard on the greatest desert reforestation projects in the world, and why it exports an insane amount of solar panels instead of keeping them for themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    it exports an insane amount of solar panels instead of keeping them for themselves

    How altruistic of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    The dictatorship is fast is a lure, it's actually not useful, as they run in the direction of the dictator but usually doesn't adjust or stop in time. Sometimes you see something good coming out if it, but you shouldn't forget all the bad things they do too.

    That said, I hope we'll have enough solar for everyone in a decade or so!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    People talk about China's energy use like it's not* their* energy use. They used that power to produce the stupid shit that you bought, dumbass. You're responsible for that energy use, despite it being generated in China.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This is legit true IDK why you're getting downvoted. Just because it doesn't show on US energy usage, every time you buy stupid shit you don't need like an automatic corn dog maker or a taco holder shaped like a sombrero that holds a shot glass in the middle, that has a real cost in terms of CO2 and that is done in China.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    It's a bit hard to believe, but the vast majority of China's manufacturing is consumed in China. They're actually not that export oriented compared to other countries like Germany or Japan, it's just the scale that makes them such an export juggernaut. The flip side of this is that most of the energy use is also actually China's own energy use.

    And China's energy use is increasing simply because its people are getting richer and consuming more. Based on this, I don't think China is the main concern. There are lots more developing countries that will likewise use more energy as they develop. China's green transition seems to be going full tilt, but I'm not sure those other countries can transition as quickly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    3 times as much solar as the EU.

    Has 3 times the population.

    🤷

    They are using 50% of the world's coal though, so maybe let's not start tugging each other off just yet.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Last year China installed more solar than the rest of the world combined, but they have less than 1/5th of the worldpopulation 🤷

    There are lot's of things you can criticize China about, their commitment to renewable energy isn't one of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They were also responsible for 95% of the world's new coal construction (2023). With just 1/5th of the world population.

    I'll give them props for solar. They build a lot of it, and thanks to us outsourcing practically everything to China over the last few decades, they build most of our solar as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    95% of the world’s new coal construction (2023)

    China had the largest new coal construction in 2023 but it was far below 95%. I didn’t do all the math but it drops below 50% when you compare it to just the growth of the next three biggest coal producers.

    They build most of our solar but we’ve effectively banned it now. They’re not only growing capacity to produce renewables, they’re taking the outputs that were planned for sale here and installing them locally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The US may have effectively banned it, but everybody else is buying loads of it.

    As far as I can tell it's operating at capacity. China's installing it for the same reason everyone else is. It's cheap as chips. Power stations take a lot of planning and management, while you can take a few acres of fields and effectively turn it into a money generator with no moving parts.

    I'd have got some myself, but my house faced the wrong way to get in on the free solar panels boom, and the up front costs mean it won't pay itself back for like 20 years. I was tempted once the prices went through the roof when Russia invaded Ukraine, but I moved to a tariff priced every 30 minutes or so and the benefits vanished. I might as well let a local farmer build it all instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    China effectively seems to be playing Factorio. They have a solar/wind production rate of X/day and X keeps going up faster and faster.

    They'll sell those panels and turbines to whoever will take them. They're cheap but the sheer volume means that you need a huge economy to take any significant share of that inventory. With the US effectively out of the picture the biggest remaining economy is China. On top of that the EU does have some tariffs on Chinese renewables and that skews the deployments even more towards China.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    You sound like all the right-wing politicians the world over who don't want to implement zero carbon solutions because "China still burn coal".

    We're on a sinking ship and you're complaining that you don't like the colour of the life raft.

    If China was the only country in the world that burned coal, but they exclusively burned coal, and everybody else was on solar panels the world would still be an infinitely better place and it is right now. Not doing something just because other people also aren't doing it just ensures that nobody does anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I think that you misunderstood his comment. He's not criticizing solar energy, he's calling out China's green washing as they have the same solar production per Capita than Europe but they have way more coal production per Capita than Europe.

    A right wing politician would throw a fit about how solar energy is dangerous and make kids trans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    But in Europe they also burn coal, no? Or burning gasoline, natural gas, trash, anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-stacked?time=2000..latest&country=CHN%7EOECD+%28Ember%29

    (chosen OECD because it makes the numbers easier to compare, and doesn't cherry pick EU countries which are actually better than places like the US)

    A lot less coal, which is about twice as bad as gas for CO2 emissions per kWh.

    Places like the UK have got rid of coal completely. The last remaining coal power station shut down last year. When you look at the graphs for the UK, we've actually reduced electricity consumption as a whole, despite a growing population and the growth of electric vehicles.

    Still plenty to be done about gas. I can see why China still uses enormous amounts of coal. They don't really have any oil, so it's the cheapest fossil fuel they have access to. In fact, cost is mostly why solar is getting popular, because it's become extremely cheap. You can't rely on it completely though, unless we all agree to turn off our power at night. Power storage is not a solved issue by any means.

    China also never embraced nuclear power. They really got big on the world stage right around the time Chernobyl happened, and it was already getting too expensive even then.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yes, their energy requirements have also skyrocketed in the last 20 years. However if you look at their energy mix, in 2010 their energy mix was around 70% from coal, and today it's around 50% of their totally energy mix.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Yeah I tracked it back to that, but couldn't find the graph shown and had no knowledge of the ember.

    Having said that, I'm all for the green revolution and would love to see it go harder. As a petrol head the idea of guilt free fuel is like a holy grail

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    This has been going on for years and will continue.

    China really really really needs a robust and diverse energy infrastructure. Industry needs huge amounts of energy. AI needs huge amounts of energy. The military needs huge amounts of energy.

    Coal is unreliable and dirty. Oil can be blocked at the Straight of Malacca and a few pipelines.

    China is also the world’s factory. They own the entire logistics chain for producing renewable generators; from raw materials to final assembly. They have all the infrastructure to not only build solar panels and wind turbines at scale, they’ve scaled up building the machines that build them.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Coal is unreliable

    How? I would've said coal is very reliable, it worked for over a hundred years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Unreliable may have been a poor choice of words.
    You can’t move coal around with pipes or wires. Someone needs to drive trucks full of coal to a power plant.

    The pollution from coal tends to have a lot of externalities that drag on the economy. Lost work days, faster equipment degradation, etc.

    They use coal but they have practical reasons to want to reduce reliance on coal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Trucks? If you move coal for a power plant using trucks you're going to need a lot of trucks, you use trains or ships instead, or just build the power plant next to the mine and use conveyor belts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Trains and ships are part of the logistics chain but trucks are definitely part of it. They have a big advantage of not needing train stations or ports, as long as you have a decent road. Some of the larger strip mining operations fill a truck per minute.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 18 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Cool if true, but the source seemed to be bluesky soooo it's a big gain of salt

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Yeah I think by "source" they just mean they're just giving credit to the bsky post they got the graph from, the data seems to be from a green energy transition thinktank. No idea if you'd put more stock in ember-energy.org/, so make of that what you will 🤷‍♂️

    From the website:

    Data into action

    Open data and intelligent policy analysis to unlock a clean, electrified energy future

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    It's great that they are creating that much. They have the largest incentive too, the U.S. second. The G7 they refer to (U.S. U.K. Japan Germany France Italy Canada) used a total of ~7 PWh of electricity in 2023. China used ~9 PWh.

    Hopefully the G7 starts catching up. Chinas form of government puts their long term expendetures into play when figuring out where to invest as they have a monetary stake in how much it costs to produce the electricity.

    In countries like the U.S. we see companies who have large investments in oil, coal, and such trying to manipulate the transition because they didn't have the investments already in place with alternative energy sources. The U.S. government has no money "invested" per say, so long term they don't care that it costs more during the transition as those profits are made by the companies. The old oil tycoons will milk every penny under the attitude "I got mine.". Then they'll die, and we will hope some companies have transitions in place that bring low cost efficient renewable systems long term

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›