Last year, China generated 834 terawatt-hours of solar power.

Which is more than the G7 countries generated, and more than the US and EU combined. In fact the only country group that generates more solar power than China is the OECD, all 38 countries of it.

Data: @ember-energy.org

Source: https://bsky.app/profile/nathanielbullard.com/post/3lsbbsg6ohk2j

  • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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…

      • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        37 minutes ago

        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.

        By which other metric would you compare development? I’m open to debate

      • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        If you “aren’t sure” about that, then why the hell are you trying to discuss it making guesses instead of informing yourself?

        China, a country with 4-5 times the US population, has half the cumulative historic emissions. And yet you have the fucking nerve to blame china for coal. The US and the EU get to pollute the fucking Earth for 2 centuries, and China does a renewable revolution in its 40 years since industrializing and you cry about how they still have plans for coal.

        Just, seriously, stop arguing from ignorance. If you do not know about cumulative emissions, don’t make “Oh I’m not so sure about that because look at the trends for the past 60 years”, as if the US and EU hadn’t been emitting fossil CO2 since the fucking late 18th century.

        • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Maybe that is because I have the elementary school education necessary to understand that burning coal and gas also causes emissions. So when I am looking at cummulative coal consumption, I have the very basic common sense to not look at CO2.

          EDIT: Btw 2/3 of EU emissions happened in the last 60 years. So this very likely shows most of the EU coal consumption. Also if you happen to have actual coal numbers and want to share them, I am happy to have a look at them. But please no CO2 = coal bs.

          • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 hours ago

            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?

            • MrMakabar@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              56 minutes ago

              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.

              • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                38 minutes ago

                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.