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

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 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

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

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?

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

How idiotic.

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.

Electricity consumption 2024

countryeconomy.com (countryeconomy.com)

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

Solar panels don't work as well with greysky.

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

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

Do explain, I'm all ears.

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.

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.

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

tbh I'm surprised that you even got upvotes, didn't went that well for me with a similar answer on another post...

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.

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.