I’m all for solar & I’m planning on investing $10k in a small setup myself - but solar has some significant issues. solar panels generally dont get 100% of the advertised rate, are really only about 24% efficient with bleeding-edge tech, and degrade over time which requires constant upkeep in very large installations. they’re also somewhat susceptible to environmental hazards like hail or sandstorms. additionally, you have to store the power somewhere so it can be used during the times it isnt sunny (generally more than 50% of any given day). battery tech has come a long, long way in recent years but we need long-term energy storage solutions that can be built at scale.
Solar isn’t a solution for everything and that’s precisely why China is pursuing a multi pronged approach for its transition off fossil fuels. China is actively developing wind power, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear on a massive scale. Each of these technologies has its own pros and cons, and they all work together.
I think you’re misunderstanding to some degree. While silicon PV caps out at around 24% (I think up to 27% now), 100% conversion is basically impossible because of physics.
Plus, the sun basically has infinite energy, so it’s not like efficiency is that big of a concern compared to energy density.
Every time I hear projections about America it’s always “by 2030” or “by 2050” and shit like that - meanwhile, China is accomplishing more in less than half the time.
@yogthos All good and well to "forecast" things that make them look good. Currently they consume over half the worlds coal and only account for 1/3rd of the solar. They are the biggest climate change threat on the planet and they are doing nothing to change that. Infact the forecast increasing emissions until at least 2030.
Where do you think all your shit is produced exactly genius. The biggest climate change threat are mouth breathers living in the west who consume more energy per capita than anywhere else in the world.
@NoneOfUrBusiness@yogthos@bioemerl they don't have a point. They absolutely hang off per captia emissions stats because it's the only way they can dismiss the extreme damage China is doing to the environment. Having more population doesn't allow you to pollute more. That output still harms the earth all the same.
Majority of the west is trending towards less emissions where as China is increasing emissions exponentially year on year.
The main thing I think is important in regards to China and the environment is that China explicitly opted to open up areas that subverted all of our pollution controls and ability to regulate industry, undervalued our labor, and generally fucked up progress for a solid decade, and they're going to continue to do that for a decade yet.
I'm not super prone to blame China for the pollution because they have a lot of people and they have to feed and give those people stuff.
But I will happily blame them for everything in paragraph one.
I left my comments because it's important to know what a bunch of shills for Stalin and mao are running around regardless of the validity of what they have to say, because whatever's coming out of their mouth is almost certainly propaganda.
China is on par with the EU for consumption-based emissions per capita these days. Better per capita than the US still, but the direction of travel for both is narrowing that gap over time
That’s factually wrong, US, Canada, and lots of nordic countries have far higher per capita consumption. Meanwhile, the transition from fossils at China is happening at a far more rapid pace than in the west. The gap is actually growing over time.
Your link shows exactly what I said. EU and China close together, US way above. Go to the chart view and you can pick the EU as a single entity, plus you get the change over time.
Of course, what I actually said was not "energy usage". I said consumption-based emissions. You can get those here and you'll see that the slim gap between the EU and China vanishes altogether, plus the direction of travel changes. Energy consumption alone does not account for the way that that energy is being generated, something which seems pretty pertinent considering the article we're commenting under.
Okay? I'm sure it would vary significantly across different parts of China too, or across different parts of any individual country. I chose the EU as a whole because then we're dealing with an entity on a similar scale to China, and a much closer approximation of "the west" than any one country of five-ten million people.
You've completely failed to respond to the fact that energy consumption does not directly correlate with emissions. If you're using twice as much energy as me but you're getting it all from solar panels and I'm getting it all from burning coal, which one of us is doing more harm to the environment?
What the map clearly shows is that the highest consumption in China is on part with the lowest consumption in EU. I’m not sure why you’re having so much trouble with this to be honest.
Meanwhile, the reason to focus on energy consumption is because it’s far more meaningful than focusing on emissions. EU countries are largely deinudstrialized and they import much of the necessities from places like China. This creates a skewed picture of emissions because EU outsources much of the emissions needed for EU to operate to other countries.
And last I checked burning increasingly more coal is precisely what EU is doing. In fact, Germany is even dismantling wind farms to create more coal plants euobserver.com/green-economy/157364
What the map clearly shows is that the highest consumption in China is on part with the lowest consumption in EU
The map shows the average across all of China. There is no breakdown of any national subdivisions. Where are you getting figures for the highest consumption in China?
it’s far more meaningful than focusing on emissions.
Why? Energy consumption is not what's damaging the environment. Emissions are.
EU countries are largely deinudstrialized and they import much of the necessities from places like China.
I used consumption-based emissions specifically to account for the balance of imports. Please, at least actually read what I said.
And last I checked burning increasingly more coal is precisely what EU is doing. In fact, Germany is even dismantling wind farms to create more coal plants euobserver.com/green-economy/157364
Again, you're looking at one part of a much larger entity and ignoring the broader picture. While I do not want to see Germany, or anyone else, opening new coal mines, single-digit numbers of wind turbines are not going to save the day here.
In 2022, Germany burnt 28 petajoules of coal per million people, whereas China burnt 62 petajoules of coal per million. Values here for Germany and China, divided by populations taken from wikipedia. You'll also notice that Germany's consumption is trending down, while China's isn't.
The map shows the average across all of China. There is no breakdown of any national subdivisions. Where are you getting figures for the highest consumption in China?
Once again, averaged out usage per capita across China is on par with averaged out with poorest parts of Europe. Meanwhile, usage in wealth European countries, is far higher.
Why? Energy consumption is not what’s damaging the environment. Emissions are.
In case you weren’t aware, emissions are a byproduct of energy production.
I used consumption-based emissions specifically to account for the balance of imports. Please, at least actually read what I said.
You’re complaining that I didn’t reply to stuff you edited in after I replied to you?
In 2022, Germany burnt 28 petajoules of coal per million people, whereas China burnt 62 petajoules of coal per million. Values here for Germany and China, divided by populations taken from wikipedia. You’ll also notice that Germany’s consumption is trending down, while China’s isn’t.
You’re once again setting up a disingenuous argument here. Germany started with high consumption of coal, but then started getting cheap gas from Russia which is what allowed Germany to start phasing out coal. Now that US blew up the pipelines, Germany is starting to go back to coal.
Meanwhile, China has a clear plan for transitioning off fossils that’s being actively implemented as we speak. Coal usage in China has been found to be perfectly inline with the plan. It’s also worth noting that China has consistently manged to be ahead of the targets that it set. On the other hand, Europe is nowhere close to pursuing a meaningful transition.
Once again, averaged out usage per capita across China is on par with averaged out with poorest parts of Europe. Meanwhile, usage in wealth European countries, is far higher.
So not what you said in your previous comment then. Besides that, I've been using the average figures for the entire EU the whole time. Your own link has that figure. I told you where it is as well. Energy usage is close, and consumption-based emissions are identical.
In case you weren’t aware, emissions are a byproduct of energy production.
Again: solar panels vs coal. There is not a 1:1 correlation. Stop ignoring that. It's not helpful to anyone.
You’re complaining that I didn’t reply to stuff you edited in after I replied to you?
It's literally the first thing I said in my first comment. I edited in a source to my second comment, I didn't edit the first one. Either way, you've seen it now, so you can respond to it.
You’re once again setting up a disingenuous argument here.
Lmao, I post numbers for entire countries, you post an article about literally eight windmills, and I'm being disingenuous? Okay lol. Call me when Germany more than doubles its coal consumption per person to catch up to China.
On the other hand, Europe is nowhere close to pursuing a meaningful transition.
Considering that Europe no longer pollutes more per person than China (again, consumption-based and averaged across the EU and China so that rich and poor, industrialised or not, imports and exports, all is accounted for) while still trending downward while China trends up, this does not seem like a reasonable claim. Europe's transition is already happening, and the numbers bear it out. Should it have happened earlier? Yes. Should it be happening faster? Also yes. But neither of those things change the fact that Europe is polluting less over time, while China is doing the opposite, or the fact that there is no longer a gap in emissions per person.
I hope China's plans work well. I still have to live in the world, and if it's choked by CO2 then it does me no good being able to say "oh well it's China's/America's/Europe's/anyone else's fault". We need everyone to do their part. But the plans do not change the current reality, which is the thing I originally commented on.
So not what you said in your previous comment then. Besides that, I’ve been using the average figures for the entire EU the whole time. Your own link has that figure. I told you where it is as well. Energy usage is close, and consumption-based emissions are identical.
It is what I said in my previous comment. To get the average for EU, you’d have to add up all the countries together. What you’re doing is cherry picking pars of Europe and comparing them to China’s average. If you still can’t understand the fallacy you’re making then there’s likely no point continuing this.
Again: solar panels vs coal. There is not a 1:1 correlation. Stop ignoring that. It’s not helpful to anyone.
Nobody is ignoring anything here. The whole context of the discussion is that China is rapidly ramping up production of solar power.
The reality we live in is that the west carries the biggest historical burden for the climate crisis, and right now China is making a meaningful transition from fossil fuels while western countries are dragging their feet. What’s more Europe is now talking about banning electric cars from China and complaining and moaning about becoming dependent on China for its renewable infrastructure at a time everyone should be working together to make the transition as fast as possible.
No, it isn't. You said highest in China and then gave the average for China as your source.
To get the average for EU, you’d have to add up all the countries together. What you’re doing is cherry picking pars of Europe and comparing them to China’s average.
I'm literally taking the entire EU average from your source. I have been consistently and completely clear about that. Why are you lying so blatantly? Seriously, quote me cherry picking just part of the EU. I can sure as hell quote you cherry-picking specific parts of it.
I’m literally taking the entire EU average from your source. I have been consistently and completely clear about that. Why are you lying so blatantly? Seriously, quote me cherry picking just part of the EU. I can sure as hell quote you cherry-picking specific parts of it.
You’re literally not doing that because the source is breaking Europe into emissions by country. Seems like you’re the one blatantly lying here. What I said repeatedly here is that the lowest emissions in EU countries are on par with China, however many of the northern EU countries are much higher. So, when you add it all up that’s a higher number. I don’t know if you’re lying intentionally or just incapable of understanding basic math here.
Which does not address the fact that consumption-based emissions, the actual damage being done to the environment, do not even have that gap. So now that we've established that I was not actually lying, care to address any of that?
You’ve been continuously claiming that EU has per capita emissions on part with China. This is false.
Meanwhile, the elephant in the room is that Europe has had far higher consumption-based emissions historically with China catching up only recently as the standard of living in China started to increase. So, if we’re talking about actual cumulative damage done, Europe bears far greater responsibility.
Once again, China has a clear plan for phasing out fossils and it has been consistently ahead of schedule in doing so. Same cannot be said for Europe.
You’ve been continuously claiming that EU has per capita emissions on part with China. This is false.
Then source that. I gave you a source, the same website you used first, and it shows exactly what I said. Here it is again, just to be clear. Energy consumption is not the same as emissions.
Meanwhile, the elephant in the room is that Europe has had far higher consumption-based emissions historically
I've never argued Europe's higher historic emissions, but no matter who has done more historically we still all need to stop producing so much pollution now. China emitting less historically will not save us if it produces more in future.
China has a clear plan for phasing out fossils and it has been consistently ahead of schedule in doing so. Same cannot be said for Europe.
And like I said, I hope it works, but the actual numbers right now are that China now produces as much as Europe and if current trends continue it will be producing more. If Europe has no plan and China has such a great one, why are the outcomes today the same?
Then source that. I gave you a source, the same website you used first, and it shows exactly what I said. Here it is again, just to be clear. Energy consumption is not the same as emissions.
You just keep going in circles here, and I’ve addressed this multiple times. Go back and read what I said. Nobody is saying energy consumption is same as emissions. I don’t know why you keep bringing that up to be honest.
I’ve never argued Europe’s higher historic emissions, but no matter who has done more historically we still all need to stop producing so much pollution now. China emitting less historically will not save us if it produces more in future.
Sure, and as I keep pointing out. China has a clear plan that’s being implemented ahead of schedule. Europe does not have such plan, and it does not want to work with China on implementing one. That’s the real problem here.
My bad, you did talk about consumption based emissions. The point you keep avoiding is that China is currently implementing a tangible plan while Europe is not.
yes, the country that’s actively reducing their fossil fuel use and have historically reached their stated goals with time to spare is surely the problem, never mind the massive pollution from the long-industrialized Western countries that have had many decades to stop using fossil fuels
They account for like 80% of PV production. Basically all of that solar deployed in the rest of the world was built in China. For the fraction that isn’t, it was probably built in Southeast Asia by a Chinese company.
@zephyreks I don't under what is your point? They are allowed to make no progress because they are producing the solar?
I disagree that them producing the tech used for green energy is good. China has no environmental standards or ethical standards for how things should be produced. This allows them to outcompete the rest of the world.
If China wasn't making solar, other countries would produce solar. The result wouldn't be no solar production.
Add comment