Good on them. The earlier they can shut down those coal plants, the better.
post
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.
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...
To be clear: Are you saying China is in the process of developing?
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
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.
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?.
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.

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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So let's start hating on the world capital of photovoltaics and nuclear because of a lemmitor's predictions of energy production over the coming 20 years in China?
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)_/¯ :)
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.
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.
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.
it exports an insane amount of solar panels instead of keeping them for themselves
How altruistic of them.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm guessing a lot of that coal is being used to feed westerners urge to buy more crap we don't need.
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.
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.
But in Europe they also burn coal, no? Or burning gasoline, natural gas, trash, anything.
(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.
They burn more coal than Europe because there's more energy demand in Europe and solar alone can't fulfil it. Which is also the same in Europe.
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.
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
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.
Coal is unreliable
How? I would've said coal is very reliable, it worked for over a hundred years.
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.
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.
Cool if true, but the source seemed to be bluesky soooo it's a big gain of salt
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
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
🤔 it was made into fancy graphs by the guy on Bluesky but the data was from ember-energy.org who are well known for supplying renewable stats
top 97 comments