Skip to content

Last year China generated almost 3 times as much solar power as the EU did, and it's close to overtaking all OECD countries put together (whose combined population is 1.38 billion people)

Technology
149 54 23
  • it exports an insane amount of solar panels instead of keeping them for themselves

    How altruistic of them.

    Not about altruism, just contradicts your prior claim of "energy security". Maybe they're switching to renewables because they do care about the environment and because they're affordable?

  • 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?

  • 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?

    Why do you need me to come up with reasons justify your hate booner for China?

  • 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.

    Death comes for both the rich and the poor, mate.

  • I know nothing about Chinese economics and society but at least Im not pretending I do because this is what I imagine it sounds like lol

    Last I checked, the "Communist" Party of China has more than 80 billionaires with a combined wealth of over $600 Billion.

    This doesn't fit the Tankie narrative of China being a socialist paradise so just go on pretending China isn't run by fascist billionaires just because they have a red flag with some yellow symbols on it. Fascists have never called themselves "socialists" to sucker the left into supporting them before, right?

  • 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.

    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.

  • 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?.

  • China also continues to increase coal generation by more than renewables.

    I don't believe this:

    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...

    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 😐

    edit: boy I sure do love to procrastinate and talk about energy and co2 instead of studying 😐

    I feel the same way, but I had to actually focus on real life over the weekend instead of combing through the energy reports. I will start by saying that its very likely that 2024 stats are significantly more in favor of strong renewable growth but I also couldnt find a csv of data on ember-energy so i couldnt look at the actual numbers. The major energy reports I normally go by dont seem to have included 2024 data yet. Its likely that even in 2024 non renewables still increased more than renewables even though china claims that renewables were 80% of the growth I will explain below why this has previously been the case.

    China also continues to increase coal generation by more than renewables.

    China loves this stat and its a good stat but its a bit misleading, these show renewable energy as a % of total power which is relative instead of absolute. Why this is important is because it allows china to brag about increasing renewables while still massively increasing non renewables.

    Year 2022: Renewable = 8114 TWh | Non-renewable = 36401 TWh | % renewables = 18.2% From Energy Institute's world review

    Year 2023: Renewable = 8719 TWh | Non-renewable = 38708 TWh | % renewables = 18.3%

    Renewable energy increase was 605 TWh and Non-renewable was 2307 TWh

    There is another stat that these reports normally parade around. Its % increase of a specific energy type. (these stats are made up cause i could be fucked finding an example article of a claim) They will say something like solar went from 600gw to 1000 thats a 66% increase this year and coal only increased 40% except coal is 3600gw to 6400.

    Maybe I'm wrong and if so i'd love for someone smarter than me to correct me.

    They have missed every single renewable target and goal they’re set.

    China does this thing where they go to climate meetings and agree on world goals like 13% energy intensity reduction and carbon intensity reduction. They then go back home and broadcast random goals like adding x amount of solar or carbon peak by x year. These are no climate targets, these are personal targets from the CCP that even if achieved (the carbon peak 1000% wont be) are no where close to what is required to meet their climate goals.

    Europe has plenty of money apparently to suddenly double defense spending OVER 10 YEARS

    I'm not sure how european defense spending is relevant considering china's defense spending has also more than doubled in the last few years and is nearing the US

    Where will the batteries be made I wonder?

    Prehaps they would be made in a country with environmental and labour laws if governments legislated properly to prevent companies outsourcing manufacturing. However this doesnt absolve china. China isnt being forced at Gunpoint to produce these goods with low labour regulation and low environmental regulation.

    energy prices in the EU are ridiculous

    Can someone actually point out to me where this comes from? Even when I look up the peak spike of germany Energy prices it doesnt seem that bad. At the end of the day energy is a small % of EU household spending and ill think that until i see otherwise.

    It requires EU importers to pay a levy corresponding to the embedded carbon emissions in 303 emission-intensive products

    This would be great, it would have been greater 10 years ago. But the best time to act was yesterday and the 2nd best time is today so i'd be happy to see something like this implemented although I dont know how effective it would be since manufacturing competitiveness is no where close anymore.

  • 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.

    you're retarded

  • edit: boy I sure do love to procrastinate and talk about energy and co2 instead of studying 😐

    I feel the same way, but I had to actually focus on real life over the weekend instead of combing through the energy reports. I will start by saying that its very likely that 2024 stats are significantly more in favor of strong renewable growth but I also couldnt find a csv of data on ember-energy so i couldnt look at the actual numbers. The major energy reports I normally go by dont seem to have included 2024 data yet. Its likely that even in 2024 non renewables still increased more than renewables even though china claims that renewables were 80% of the growth I will explain below why this has previously been the case.

    China also continues to increase coal generation by more than renewables.

    China loves this stat and its a good stat but its a bit misleading, these show renewable energy as a % of total power which is relative instead of absolute. Why this is important is because it allows china to brag about increasing renewables while still massively increasing non renewables.

    Year 2022: Renewable = 8114 TWh | Non-renewable = 36401 TWh | % renewables = 18.2% From Energy Institute's world review

    Year 2023: Renewable = 8719 TWh | Non-renewable = 38708 TWh | % renewables = 18.3%

    Renewable energy increase was 605 TWh and Non-renewable was 2307 TWh

    There is another stat that these reports normally parade around. Its % increase of a specific energy type. (these stats are made up cause i could be fucked finding an example article of a claim) They will say something like solar went from 600gw to 1000 thats a 66% increase this year and coal only increased 40% except coal is 3600gw to 6400.

    Maybe I'm wrong and if so i'd love for someone smarter than me to correct me.

    They have missed every single renewable target and goal they’re set.

    China does this thing where they go to climate meetings and agree on world goals like 13% energy intensity reduction and carbon intensity reduction. They then go back home and broadcast random goals like adding x amount of solar or carbon peak by x year. These are no climate targets, these are personal targets from the CCP that even if achieved (the carbon peak 1000% wont be) are no where close to what is required to meet their climate goals.

    Europe has plenty of money apparently to suddenly double defense spending OVER 10 YEARS

    I'm not sure how european defense spending is relevant considering china's defense spending has also more than doubled in the last few years and is nearing the US

    Where will the batteries be made I wonder?

    Prehaps they would be made in a country with environmental and labour laws if governments legislated properly to prevent companies outsourcing manufacturing. However this doesnt absolve china. China isnt being forced at Gunpoint to produce these goods with low labour regulation and low environmental regulation.

    energy prices in the EU are ridiculous

    Can someone actually point out to me where this comes from? Even when I look up the peak spike of germany Energy prices it doesnt seem that bad. At the end of the day energy is a small % of EU household spending and ill think that until i see otherwise.

    It requires EU importers to pay a levy corresponding to the embedded carbon emissions in 303 emission-intensive products

    This would be great, it would have been greater 10 years ago. But the best time to act was yesterday and the 2nd best time is today so i'd be happy to see something like this implemented although I dont know how effective it would be since manufacturing competitiveness is no where close anymore.

    They will say something like solar went from 600gw to 1000 thats a 66% increase this year and coal only increased 40% except coal is 3600gw to 6400.

    Hrmmmm, maybe these numbers are outdated? Based on this coal and gas are down:

    In Q1 2025, solar generation rose 48% compared to the same period in 2024. Solar power reached 254 TWh, making up 10% of total electricity. This was the largest increase among all clean energy sources.

    Coal-fired electricity dropped by 4%, falling to 1,421 TWh.

    Gas-fired power also went down by 4%, reaching 67 TWh

    are no where close to what is required to meet their climate goals

    Which ones in particular are you talking about?

    Trump signs executive order directing US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement — again

    China vowed on Tuesday to continue participating in two cornerstone multinational arrangements -- the World Health Organization and Paris climate accord -- after newly sworn-in US President Donald Trump ordered withdrawals from them.

    What's that saying? You hate it when the person you hate is doing good? I can't remember what it is

    I can't fault them for what they're doing at the moment, even if they are run by an evil dictatorship and do pollute the most

    I’m not sure how european defense spending is relevant

    It suggests there is money available in the bank to fund solar/wind/battery, but instead they are preparing for? something? what? who knows. France can make a fighter jet at home but not solar panels apparently.

    Prehaps they would be made in a country with environmental and labour laws if governments legislated properly to prevent companies outsourcing manufacturing. However this doesnt absolve china. China isnt being forced at Gunpoint to produce these goods with low labour regulation and low environmental regulation.

    You're right, it doesn't absolve china, and I avoid purchasing things from them wherever possible, my solar panels and EV were made in South Korea, my home battery was made in Germany, there are only a few things in my house made in China, most of them I got second hand but unfortunately there is no escaping the giant of manufacturing.

    With that said it's one thing for me to sit here and tut tut at China, but I realise I am not most people, the most clearest example is the extreme anti-ai, anti-billionaire bias on this platform, in real life most people don't give a fuck, they love Amazon/Microsoft/Google/Apple etc, they can't go a day without them.

    So I consider myself a realist, if you want people to buy your stuff then you will need to make the conditions possible for them to WANT to buy your stuff, not out of some moral lecture and Europe isn't doing that, if we look at energy prices:

    Can someone actually point out to me where this comes from? ... At the end of the day energy is a small % of EU household spending

    I was looking at corporate/business energy use:

    Major European companies are already moving to cut costs and retain their competitive edge.

    For example, Thyssenkrupp, Germany’s largest steelmaker, said on Monday it would slash 11,000 jobs in its steel division by 2030, in a major corporate reshuffle.

    Prices have since fallen but are still high compared to other countries.

    A poll by Germany's DIHK Chambers of Industry and Commerce of around 3,300 companies showed that 37% were considering cutting production or moving abroad, up from 31% last year and 16% in 2022.

    For energy-intensive industrial firms some 45% of companies were mulling slashing output or relocation, the survey showed.

    "The trust of the German economy in energy policy is severely damaged," Achim Dercks, DIHK deputy chief executive said, adding that the government had not succeeded in providing companies with a perspective for reliable and affordable energy supply.

    I've seen nothing to suggest energy prices in the EU are SO cheap that it's worth moving manufacturing TO Europe, and this is what annoys me the most.

    I've pointed this out before but they have an excellent report on the issues:

    https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/97e481fd-2dc3-412d-be4c-f152a8232961_en?filename=The+future+of+European+competitiveness+_+A+competitiveness+strategy+for+Europe.pdf

    Then they put out this Competitive Compass:

    But tbh every week in the EU it seems like they are chasing after some other goal.

    This would be great, it would have been greater 10 years ago.

    Agreed

  • www2025

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 144 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    B
    I know there decent alternatives to SalesForce, but I’m not sure what you’d replace Slack with. Teams is far worse in every conceivable way and I’m not sure if there’s anything else out there that isn’t already speeding down the enshittification highway.
  • Is AI Apocalypse Inevitable? - Tristan Harris

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    121 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    V
    Define AGI, because recently the definition is shifting down to match LLM. In fact we can say we achieved AGI now because we have machine that answers questions. The problem will be when the number of questions will start shrinking not because of number of problems but number of people that understand those problems. That is what is happening now. Don't believe me, read the statistics about age and workforce. Now put it into urgent need to something to replace those people. After that think what will happen when all those attempts fail.
  • I Counted All of the Yurts in Mongolia Using Machine Learning

    Technology technology
    9
    17 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    G
    I'd say, when there's a policy and its goals aren't reached, that's a policy failure. If people don't like the policy, that's an issue but it's a separate issue. It doesn't seem likely that people prefer living in tents, though. But to be fair, the government may be doing the best it can. It's ranked "Flawed Democracy" by The Economist Democracy Index. That's really good, I'd say, considering the circumstances. They are placed slightly ahead of Argentina and Hungary. OP has this to say: Due to the large number of people moving to urban locations, it has been difficult for the government to build the infrastructure needed for them. The informal settlements that grew from this difficulty are now known as ger districts. There have been many efforts to formalize and develop these areas. The Law on Allocation of Land to Mongolian Citizens for Ownership, passed in 2002, allowed for existing ger district residents to formalize the land they settled, and allowed for others to receive land from the government into the future. Along with the privatization of land, the Mongolian government has been pushing for the development of ger districts into areas with housing blocks connected to utilities. The plan for this was published in 2014 as Ulaanbaatar 2020 Master Plan and Development Approaches for 2030. Although progress has been slow (Choi and Enkhbat 7), they have been making progress in building housing blocks in ger distrcts. Residents of ger districts sell or exchange their plots to developers who then build housing blocks on them. Often this is in exchange for an apartment in the building, and often the value of the apartment is less than the land they originally had (Choi and Enkhbat 15). Based on what I’ve read about the ger districts, they have been around since at least the 1970s, and progress on developing them has been slow. When ineffective policy results in a large chunk of the populace generationally living in yurts on the outskirts of urban areas, it’s clear that there is failure. Choi, Mack Joong, and Urandulguun Enkhbat. “Distributional Effects of Ger Area Redevelopment in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.” International Journal of Urban Sciences, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 50–68. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2019.1571433.
  • No, Social Media is Not Porn

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    21 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    Z
    This feels dystopian and like overreach. But that said, there definitely is some porn on the 4 platforms they cited. It's an excuse sure, but let's also not deny reality.
  • xAI Data Center Emits Plumes of Pollution, New Video Shows

    Technology technology
    50
    1
    516 Stimmen
    50 Beiträge
    46 Aufrufe
    G
    You do. But you also plan in the case the surrounding infrastructure fails. But more to the point, in some cases it is better to produce (parto of) your own electricity (where better means cheaper) than buy it on the market. It is not really common but is doable.
  • 17 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Apple Eyes Move to AI Search, Ending Era Defined by Google

    Technology technology
    2
    10 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    ohshit604@sh.itjust.worksO
    It’s infuriating that Safari/Apple only allows me to choose from five different search engines. I self-host my own SearXNG instance and have to use a third-party extension to redirect my queries.