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
148 54 18
  • 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.

    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

  • 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

  • 2 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Judge backs AI firm over use of copyrighted books

    Technology technology
    59
    1
    174 Stimmen
    59 Beiträge
    45 Aufrufe
    artisian@lemmy.worldA
    The students read Tolkien, then invent their own settings. The judge thinks this is similar to how claude works. I, nor I suspect the judge, meant that the students were reusing world building whole cloth.
  • Firefox 140 Brings Tab Unload, Custom Search & New ESR

    Technology technology
    41
    1
    234 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    33 Aufrufe
    S
    Read again. I quoted something along the lines of "just as much a development decision as a marketing one" and I said, it wasn't a development decision, so what's left? Firefox released just as frequently before, just that they didn’t increase the major version that often. This does not appear to be true. Why don't you take a look at the version history instead of some marketing blog post? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/ Version 2 had 20 releases within 730 days, averaging one release every 36.5 days. Version 3 had 19 releases within 622 days, averaging 32.7 days per release. But these releases were unscheduled, so they were released when they were done. Now they are on a fixed 90-day schedule, no matter if anything worthwhile was complete or not, plus hotfix releases whenever they are necessary. That's not faster, but instead scheduled, and also they are incrementing the major version even if no major change was included. That's what the blog post was alluding to. In the before times, a major version number increase indicated major changes. Now it doesn't anymore, which means sysadmins still need to consider each release a major release, even if it doesn't contain major changes because it might contain them and the version name doesn't say anything about whether it does or not. It's nothing but a marketing change, moving from "version numbering means something" to "big number go up".
  • 371 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    21 Aufrufe
    hollownaught@lemmy.worldH
    Bit misleading. Tumour-associated antigens can very easily be detected very early. Problem is, these are only associated with cancer, and provide a very high rate of false positives They're better used as a stepping stone for further testing, or just seeing how advanced a cancer is That is to say, I'm assuming that's what this is about, as i didnt rwad the article. It's the first thing I thought of when I heard "cancer in bloodstream", as the other options tend to be a bit more bleak Edit: they're talking about cancer "shedding genetic material", which I hate how general they're being. Probably talking about proto oncogenes from dead tumour debris, but seems different to what I was expecting
  • 479 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    35 Aufrufe
    professorchodimaccunt@sh.itjust.worksP
    GOOD lets chance of spAIyware on there
  • Why doesn't Nvidia have more competition?

    Technology technology
    22
    1
    33 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    19 Aufrufe
    B
    It’s funny how the article asks the question, but completely fails to answer it. About 15 years ago, Nvidia discovered there was a demand for compute in datacenters that could be met with powerful GPU’s, and they were quick to respond to it, and they had the resources to focus on it strongly, because of their huge success and high profitability in the GPU market. AMD also saw the market, and wanted to pursue it, but just over a decade ago where it began to clearly show the high potential for profitability, AMD was near bankrupt, and was very hard pressed to finance developments on GPU and compute in datacenters. AMD really tried the best they could, and was moderately successful from a technology perspective, but Nvidia already had a head start, and the proprietary development system CUDA was already an established standard that was very hard to penetrate. Intel simply fumbled the ball from start to finish. After a decade of trying to push ARM down from having the mobile crown by far, investing billions or actually the equivalent of ARM’s total revenue. They never managed to catch up to ARM despite they had the better production process at the time. This was the main focus of Intel, and Intel believed that GPU would never be more than a niche product. So when intel tried to compete on compute for datacenters, they tried to do it with X86 chips, One of their most bold efforts was to build a monstrosity of a cluster of Celeron chips, which of course performed laughably bad compared to Nvidia! Because as it turns out, the way forward at least for now, is indeed the massively parralel compute capability of a GPU, which Nvidia has refined for decades, only with (inferior) competition from AMD. But despite the lack of competition, Nvidia did not slow down, in fact with increased profits, they only grew bolder in their efforts. Making it even harder to catch up. Now AMD has had more money to compete for a while, and they do have some decent compute units, but Nvidia remains ahead and the CUDA problem is still there, so for AMD to really compete with Nvidia, they have to be better to attract customers. That’s a very tall order against Nvidia that simply seems to never stop progressing. So the only other option for AMD is to sell a bit cheaper. Which I suppose they have to. AMD and Intel were the obvious competitors, everybody else is coming from even further behind. But if I had to make a bet, it would be on Huawei. Huawei has some crazy good developers, and Trump is basically forcing them to figure it out themselves, because he is blocking Huawei and China in general from using both AMD and Nvidia AI chips. And the chips will probably be made by Chinese SMIC, because they are also prevented from using advanced production in the west, most notably TSMC. China will prevail, because it’s become a national project, of both prestige and necessity, and they have a massive talent mass and resources, so nothing can stop it now. IMO USA would clearly have been better off allowing China to use American chips. Now China will soon compete directly on both production and design too.
  • 17 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 121 Stimmen
    58 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    D
    I bet every company has at least one employee with right-wing political views. Choosing a product based on some random quotes by employees is stupid.