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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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...

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.