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 27
  • 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.

  • 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.

    That's why we have all that power available, right? You guys keeping listing various technologies but it isn't they aren't available nowhere at scale. Even this feature is not that common among the cars of today.
    And 10kWh is nowhere enough during winter (and perhaps summer with A/C), perhaps for single not big house with heat pump. Good luck with big cities.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

    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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

    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.

    Yep. No issues there.
    The core problem is storage here. And until we have a solid plan how to deliver with proven technology present today, we have to build new and run existing nuclear power plants. The other option is gambling.

  • 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 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 10 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    T
    "Science" under capitalism has always been funded and developed by/for fascists. The originals in the USA were the founding enslavers. The nazis had their time. Now it's the zios. R&D for genocide as usual.
  • Understanding the Debate on AI in Electronic Health Records

    Technology technology
    5
    1
    23 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    T
    Well yeah exactly why I said "the same risk". ideally it's going to be in the same systems... and assuming no one is stupid enough (or the laws don't let them) attach it to the publicly accessible forms of existing AIs It's not a new additional risk, just the same one. (though those assumptions are largely there own risks.
  • China's Electric Vehicle Factories Have Become Tourist Hotspots

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    33 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    W
    I'd go to one. I went to Qatar and tried to find out if they did LPG tours. They don't. well at least not easily.
  • Uber, Lyft oppose some bills that aim to prevent assaults during rides

    Technology technology
    12
    94 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    F
    California is not Colorado nor is it federal No shit, did you even read my comment? Regulations already exist in every state that ride share companies operate in, including any state where taxis operate. People are already not supposed to sexually assault their passengers. Will adding another regulation saying they shouldn’t do that, even when one already exists, suddenly stop it from happening? No. Have you even looked at the regulations in Colorado for ride share drivers and companies? I’m guessing not. Here are the ones that were made in 2014: https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2021/title-40/article-10-1/part-6/section-40-10-1-605/#%3A~%3Atext=§+40-10.1-605.+Operational+Requirements+A+driver+shall+not%2Ca+ride%2C+otherwise+known+as+a+“street+hail”. Here’s just one little but relevant section: Before a person is permitted to act as a driver through use of a transportation network company's digital network, the person shall: Obtain a criminal history record check pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 40-10.1-110 as supplemented by the commission's rules promulgated under section 40-10.1-110 or through a privately administered national criminal history record check, including the national sex offender database; and If a privately administered national criminal history record check is used, provide a copy of the criminal history record check to the transportation network company. A driver shall obtain a criminal history record check in accordance with subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (3) every five years while serving as a driver. A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: (c) (I) A person who has been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the previous seven years before applying to become a driver shall not serve as a driver. If the criminal history record check reveals that the person has ever been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any of the following felony offenses, the person shall not serve as a driver: An offense involving fraud, as described in article 5 of title 18, C.R.S.; An offense involving unlawful sexual behavior, as defined in section 16-22-102 (9), C.R.S.; An offense against property, as described in article 4 of title 18, C.R.S.; or A crime of violence, as described in section 18-1.3-406, C.R.S. A person who has been convicted of a comparable offense to the offenses listed in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) in another state or in the United States shall not serve as a driver. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the criminal history record check for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least five years after the criminal history record check was conducted. A person who has, within the immediately preceding five years, been convicted of or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a felony shall not serve as a driver. Before permitting an individual to act as a driver on its digital network, a transportation network company shall obtain and review a driving history research report for the individual. An individual with the following moving violations shall not serve as a driver: More than three moving violations in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver; or A major moving violation in the three-year period preceding the individual's application to serve as a driver, whether committed in this state, another state, or the United States, including vehicular eluding, as described in section 18-9-116.5, C.R.S., reckless driving, as described in section 42-4-1401, C.R.S., and driving under restraint, as described in section 42-2-138, C.R.S. A transportation network company or a third party shall retain true and accurate results of the driving history research report for each driver that provides services for the transportation network company for at least three years. So all sorts of criminal history, driving record, etc checks have been required since 2014. Colorado were actually the first state in the USA to implement rules like this for ride share companies lol.
  • 80 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    38 Aufrufe
    P
    That clarifies it, thanks
  • 64 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    semperverus@lemmy.worldS
    You want abliterated models, not distilled.
  • 391 Stimmen
    65 Beiträge
    42 Aufrufe
    Z
    Yes and no. Yes people are this stupid. But also bot networks. But also alt accounts. And many of those stupid people let the algorithm to pick them their political views, which is manipulated by both the bot activity and the platform holders.
  • 54 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    30 Aufrufe
    halcyon@discuss.tchncs.deH
    Though babble fish is a funny term, Douglas Adams named the creature "Babel fish", after the biblical story of the tower of Babel.