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
but at what cost!
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.
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.
how is that greenwashing?
Then buying woodpellets from canada, shipping them to EU to fuel an ‘eco’ biomass installation is definitely greenwashing.
But you’re right, Sinophobia is also a pseudo-democrat, lib trait.
That’s what you’re doing.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.
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.
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)_/¯ :)
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!
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.
deleted by creator
oh yeah, that too.
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.
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.
Coal is unreliable and dirty.
China use absurd amounts of coal and they’re not slowing down. They’re the worlds largest producer and consumer of coal. They’re increasing use of all power generation types - coal, solar, nuclear.
Yes. And go check the percentage of coal use over time. Coal is going up. Renewables are going up much faster.
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.
China are the worlds biggest coal producer and consumer, started building like 100GW of coal power plants last year alone, and are increasing their use of coal every single year.
People getting excited about china’s massive solar power generation are hilarious. Basically unless china stop using coal, the rest of the world being completely net-zero is irrelevant.
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
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.
Amazing how fast you can build stuff when there’s safety standards, no environmental regulations, no labour rights and the government can expropriate property without a time consuming legal process!
Though I think a prefer living in a country where I have rights even if it takes a bit longer to build stuff.
Gotta love how you jump to the whataboutism when it comes to good China news. “Yeah sure, they may be saving the environment by going solar, but what about… Uh… Environmental regulation?”
Like, mate, manufacturing 90% of the world’s photovoltaics is the best thing you can environmentally do.
Like america but more competent
We tried getting rid of environmental regulations, safety standards, labour rights, etc. in America and I’m still waiting for when stuff gets built faster… At least the government can’t expropriate property! oh wait… Well at least we still have our rights? oh wait…
I think you call it eminent domain in the US. But I think it can still be challenged in court, but wait a couple months.
Yes, the US is becoming China. You put a guy into power that admires Xi Jinping for the same reason China made Xi President for life: wanted a strongman to run the economy and protect you from evil foreigners. And now you’re getting corporate socialism, just like China has.
Yes, the US is becoming China
Where’s the High Speed Rail?
To give China credit the solar push was very capitalistic and very well executed. There are so many solar salesmen that will bother you to no end with one offering better deals than another. They come install everything and set up for you and guarantee returns in like 5 years plus mountains of other bonuses (obviously based on location etc.). The environment kinda make you feel stupid for not taking the deal too so you’re really pressured which imo is a win. It’s basically a free market under a dictatorship for a product in high natural demand.
Though I can’t comment on industrial solar panel fields but the consumer part is very well executed and the rest of Asia is like 10 years behind.
Fully propagandized idiot who will follow you around commenting on all your posts if you say a single nice thing about China btw ^
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.
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.
Chinas exports might not be huge for China, but they’re huge for the rest of the world
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.
i think I need an automatic corn dog maker and a taco holder shaped like a sombrero that holds a shot glass in the middle
I immediately went looking on temu :)
I don’t the poster meant to happen!
So you’re saying we should stop trading with China?
Ain’t that neat! Do they just happen to be the biggest coalie bois too?
This is also such BS the west has outsourced our pollution to China. They manufacture almost everything and we go look at them.
And despite building all our shit, they still actually pollute less CO2 per capita: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
True, but the positive dynamics is there.
The country needs a lot of energy, and it does good job making a lot of it renewable/hydro. The coal industry growth is slowing down, while solar roars up
5 years ago, they had one-third of the current solar capacity.
the coal industry growth is slowing down
Wow I hope that really really recently changed. Last I checked China was one of the world’s worst polluters, and they reached a 10 year high last year.
Please explain how being the #1 coal guy is a “positive dynamic”.
Huh, I was under the impression the total coal capacity is still growing, not the speed at which new coal plants are built. Thanks for that piece!
Explain how a 10 year high in Coal is a “positive dynamic” to anyone who isn’t wearing rose-tinted goggles that were made in China.
Your full comment is Rose-Tinted 'See how marginally less shitty China is in X area now compared to Y years ago. ’
Fuckin sad.
Nice I love seeing China Greenwashing get reposted. Remember that China is 3x the size of the EU so them having 3x the solar power is a stupid comparison. China also continues to increase coal generation by more than renewables. China is only %27 renewables while the EU is 47%. China is 17% of the world and almost 40% of the emissions.
OECD countries are actually working on emission reduction instead of china which continue to increase emissions with absolute no signs of stopping. They have missed every single renewable target and goal they’re set. But dont worry im sure they will stop building more coal plants in 2030, im sure it wont be to late by then.
China is 17% of the world and almost 40% of the emissions.
Deceiving metrics. What percentage of world PPP GDP is China? China doesn’t pollute due to its population, it pollutes because it’s the industrial hub of the world. How comfortable of you to sit in your office and import Chinese products disregarding the effect of that in the pollution metrics of your country and China.
China is only %27 renewables while the EU is 47%
And how long did China take to develop? What are the cumulative CO2 emissions of China vs those of the US or Europe? Furthermore: where are the solar panels that Europe uses manufactured? Europe may have a blossoming wind industry, but photovoltaics are almost entirely Chinese.
What a chauvinistic and anti-Chinese point of view. BTW, you got completely proven wrong on China building more coal than renewables, you’re just spitting disinformation.
China also continues to increase coal generation by more than renewables.
I don’t believe this:
https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/china/
In 2024, China approved 66.7GW of new coal-fired capacity, started construction on 94.5GW of coal power projects
Even if you add these 2 together and pretend they were finished the same year it’s not even close to:
China’s renewable energy sector made remarkable progress in 2024, adding 356 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar capacity
They have missed every single renewable target and goal they’re set.
I don’t believe this is true either unless you are referring to some other targets?
In 2020, China set a goal to install at least 1,200 gigawatts (GW) of solar and wind power by 2030. By the end of 2024, China had already surpassed this target, reaching this milestone 6 years ahead of schedule. This was made possible by aggressive investments, government policies, and a surge in solar and wind installations.
China’s solar capacity grew by an incredible 45.2% in 2024, adding 277 GW. Wind capacity also saw a strong increase of 18%, with an additional 80 GW installed. Overall, total power generation capacity rose by 14.6% in 2024, driven mainly by renewables.
China is only %27 renewables while the EU is 47%.
Don’t worry, just like everything else I’m sure that will flip in the future
Europe has plenty of money apparently to suddenly:
NATO leaders on Wednesday confirmed their commitment to more than double defence spending by 2035 banding words like “crucial”, “momentous” and “quantum leap”
Just why does it take an emergency to make some proper progress:
Global energy storage owner-operator BW ESS and Spanish energy storage developer Ibersun say a new joint venture is intended to build eight four-hour battery projects across the country, with a combined capacity of 2.2 GW, 8.8 GWh.
Where will the batteries be made I wonder?
On top of this energy prices in the EU are ridiculous and for some reason they still can’t get off the gas, which leads to an unreal point of France giving more money to Russia for gas than in aid to Ukraine, so they have high energy prices and they’re funding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and their companies and manufacturing are leaving them… to go to China…
https://aussie.zone/comment/17361559
But I appreciate your scepticism (I gave your post an upvote because China does sometimes get a little bit too much credit), they are the worlds top producer of CO2 by FAR but I do want to address
Greenwashing
This is something I’ve wanted for a while:
It requires EU importers to pay a levy corresponding to the embedded carbon emissions in 303 emission-intensive products
I’ve long disliked that places like the EU and the rest of the west can export their dirty manufacturing over to China where companies take advantage of lax or no environmental regulations, it’s a false economy and makes the west look a whole lot greener and cleaner than it would if we were manufacturing what we used back at home
‘China has Apple by the balls’: How the rising superpower captured the tech giant
edit: boy I sure do love to procrastinate and talk about energy and co2 instead of studying :|
China approved 66.7GW of new coal-fired capacity, started construction on 94.5GW of coal power projects
New power plants don’t mean using those power plants. Resilience/backup power. Use of coal for electricity has declined despite new coal plants.
While everyone else is paying the costs that come with environmental regulation china is exploiting it and getting celebrated for it. Its insane what a few dollars can do to change peoples minds on a topic.
tbh I’m surprised that you even got upvotes, didn’t went that well for me with a similar answer on another post…
Yeah the .ml must have missed this thread.
They also expanded coal power, roads, and removed their population limiting policies, though. They produce about 3 times as much CO2 per person as India, Indonesia, and many South American nations, likely many nations in Africa as well but theres a lot of missing data.
Pollution per GDP is a better measure. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co2-intensity Pollution per GNP would be even better but I can’t find it.
Individuals don’t pollution much, it’s mostly industry. Really poor countries often don’t pollution much because they can’t afford to. Sometimes they pollute prodigiously because the only thing they can afford to do is destructive resource extraction. Rich countries can often outsource their pollution to poorer countries.
China has been making mind boggling investments in renewables. They have been expanding all their energy sources but their renewables have the lions share of the growth.
They’ve been building roads and all kinds of infrastructure. That’s what the BRI is all about, even if they’re being a bit quieter about saying the phrase. They like to build their long haul roads on elevated columns; not only because it’s less disruptive to wildlife but because it lets them use giant road laying robots to place prefab highway segments.
They dropped the one-child policy a while back but they’re having some trouble getting people to have more babies. That said, there’s some research that suggests that rural populations around the world are severely undercounted, so they may have a bunch more subsistence farmers than they, or anyone else, realizes.
Pollution per GDP is a bad measure. Mali has a high CO2 intensity, but the GDP per capita is low, so pollution is low. The best measures are emissions per capita in consumption and production terms. China is not a saint in either of those metrics, being rather close to the EU in both of them today.
GDP is total production net of total consumption. It would be cool to compare it to those factors independently but don’t know of anyone who reports that data.
I’m not looking to bestow sainthood upon any country. Just looking for the most accurate metric.
Why is Polution per GDP a better measure? I don’t care how much they export when they’re killing the planet at a faster rate every year with no intentions to stop it. I will praise China and the rest of the world when they reimplement and follow through with plans to ethically lower the world population, such as investment in education especially for women and incentives or fines based on numbers of children.
You should be pretty happy with China then. They have a replacement rate just over one. That’s lower than the US or Europe.
They’re attempting to raise the replacement rate to maintain their still massive population. It is problematic.
So you’re saying there are just too many Chinese people? How many should there be?
From 2021 to 2022 they added another 38 Million Tons of CO2 per year to their 10,575 Mt
If they want to reverse that in one year then they need to have 4,166,667 less people plus extra to account for increasing CO2 per person. Obviously thats a nonsense plan, they need to set a target year and slowly change their replacement rate with overcorrection over the duration, but thats precisely what they are not doing.
That’s not really how it works. Some random Chinese peasant (that’s the vast majority of China’s population) doesn’t produce much CO2. You can add or remove millions of them without significantly impacting coal consumption or CO2 production.
Industry pollutes. Some types pollute more than others.
China has been increasing energy usage across the board at a much higher rate than the population has been growing. It’s a nonsense plan because there’s no reason to think that reducing the population would affect that trend.
While there’s a clear trend of China using more coal there’s just as clear a trend of coal making up a smaller and smaller share of China’s power usage over time. Just about every analysis says they’re solidly on track to completely phase out coal by 2025 and nobody predicts they’ll need to shrink their population to do it.
It’s a better measure because western countries outsource manufacturing and associated pollutions to other countries and then pretend to be green.
And China is continuing to increase market share on goods like electronics and vehicles, by choice.
The USA has the highest GDP in the world and has a CO2 per GDP of 0.26 to Chinas 0.44. Are you saying China is just pretending to be green and the USA is a beacon of hope for the environment? Rhetorical Question, Farley.
It’s a better measure but not a perfect one. The big problem with the US-China GDP comparison is that the US has much more of a service economy while China has a much more manufacturing based economy.
Manufacturing pollutes much more than services do but services don’t exist without the manufacturing.
That’s why I was saying a better measure would be pollution per GNP. That would cut out services and basically just count manufacturing output. That would make sense because it’s the biggest source of pollution and it’s the source you can do the most about (ie there’s a lot of room to make many parts of the manufacturing chain cleaner).
Nobody is as green as their marketing suggests and China is no exception. China is making huge investments in green tech and there’s still a long way to go.
deleted by creator
I am not comparing them with USD, the user who brought up GDP did because their source specifies it.
You’re right, you’re referring to the original source, which is supposedly already in PPP dollars, so I deleted my previous comment. Thanks for the correction. Regardless, that data is 2011, so it’s kinda useless to me because that’s before the energy transition of China.
Why is Polution per GDP a better measure?
They wanted a measure that makes China look better.
Because humans just existing produces far less pollution than humans producing a lot of stuff.
It’s trivial to say that a bunch of hunter-gatherers don’t pollute much but we’re not generally willing to relegate people to living in the stone age.
Our economic choices have a much larger impact on pollution than our personal choices do. Ideally we’d have a measure of pollution per consumption. Everyone would have a score that calculates the total pollution created by the entire supply chain that supports their choices. So if a mine in Africa is polluting so a Chinese guy can have a nice air condition, that should be counted for China; and if a factory in China pollutes so that a guy in the US can have a new Iphone, that should be counted for the US.
I’m not aware of any such data set. The closest proxy would be GDP or GNP. That essentially provides a measure of how much pollution the total lifestyle of that population produces.
Good on them. The earlier they can shut down those coal plants, the better.
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.
They‘ll keep building more coal power plants in the global south and export coal. There‘s a lot of money to be made.
They’re also actually still building more coal power in mainland China.
Yep, solar is awesome when you have coal and gas power plants, not so much when you have nuclear ones.
???
How idiotic.
Do explain, I’m all ears.
No. I type less.
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
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.
And that’s your reach apparently - insulting people without anything to contribute whatsoever.
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
Actually energy from fusion reactors on Earth does make a lot of sense. Sadly we are advancing slowly there.
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.
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?
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.
The idiot digs deeper, and shows his true colours. Asinine.
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.
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?
I don’t understand what you’re asking, sorry.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Huh? No
It is strategic necessity for China for energy security and for their own environment. Their predominant source of electricity has been coal which they have abundant of but is polluting the air they breathe. Does anyone recall the issues they had at Beijing Olympics? They have insufficient sources of oil and gas domestically. Alternative energy sources are their best domestic source of energy.
Cool if true, but the source seemed to be bluesky soooo it’s a big gain of salt
Solar panels don’t work as well with greysky.
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
Yeah, that’s where I ended up and didn’t know what to do with them. I guess I trust them as much as any unknown internet source
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
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
I’m curious how much of it they consumed though. I read recently the UK keeps on paying Wind farms (for example) to NOT supply the grid as they don’t need it at certain times, and it wasn’t going into batteries for later either. Just generated and…gone?
They pay the windfarms when too much power is generated for the grid to handle. The wind turbines are then throttled accordingly and the windfarm owners are reimbursed for the lost potential. At least that’s how it goes in Germany. It’s kind of an incentive to upgrade the power grid.
Can be sold as well. I looked at this chart to get numbers, not sure about accuracy. Shows China made around 9.27 PWh and used 8.93 PWh. The G7 used about 7 PWh total.
https://countryeconomy.com/energy-and-environment/electricity-consumption
Edit: realized my typo and now I’m questioning. in Watt hours, does it use Petawatt hours like computers do… I assume? Changed TWh to PWh
