upvote

points

by standardUser2 days ago |
comments
upvoteby Herring2 days ago|
next
[-]
They installed so much wind and solar their CO2 emissions actually peaked in ~2024 (way ahead of the official 2030 target) and have been declining ever since.
reply
upvoteby WillPostForFood2 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
China is a mixed bad, they also lead the world in new coal power plants.

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...

reply
upvoteby tooltalk2 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
China is adding new coal capacity roughly equal to America's entire coal capacity by the end of next year, or 180GW. These new installations don't replace old coal plants -- in H1 2025, China decomissioned only about 1GW.

China is also increasing their coal footprint outside China despite their pledge not to[1].

1. China Helped Indonesia Build One of the World’s Biggest, Youngest Coal Fleets. It’s Still Growing, Nicholas Kusnetz, data analysis by Peter Aldhous, Inside Climate News, Oct 19, 2025

reply
upvoteby nextworddev2 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Not sure why you are downvoted. Theres bot rings everywhere on the internet that downvote anything that mentions Chinese emissions
reply
upvoteby rhubarbtree2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
And smashing everything in Nuclear, whilst America turns to fossil fuels.

Much as I am against autocracy and oppression, china is doing very well at improving their energy sector.

reply
upvoteby BurningFrog2 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The US system of decades of environmental review before any energy project can maybe proceed can also be considered a form of oppression.
reply
upvoteby 2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby landl0rd2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Much as I have problems with current administration, Chris Wright is doing an outstanding job working with industry to push forward next-gen nuclear. I have a lot of well-founded hope for huge progress assuming the next Secretary of Energy continues with this and the NRC backs off just a little.
reply
upvoteby 2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby _aavaa_2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Just because they built it doesn't mean it gets used: https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-china-is-still-bu...
reply
upvoteby fellowniusmonk2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Less mixed than the states, more manufacturing and install momentum for renewables and far lower kwh install costs.

So many people told me 10 years ago we shouldn't even bother trying to reduce global emissions because China would burn us all to the ground. So many brain dead takes.

reply
upvoteby Mistletoe2 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Now I just think about where those takes started and all roads always lead back to the same culprits. Your parents and the hillbillies don’t come up with these takes on their own, they always starts somewhere and benefit the person whispering it in their ear.

https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2025/10/the-piv...

> The EU also hit a landmark in 2025, with more than 50% of its electricity coming from renewables by late summer.

> This has not gone unnoticed by the fossil fuel industry, which is collectively shitting itself. After a couple of centuries of prospecting we know pretty much where all the oil, coal, and gas reserves are buried in the ground. (Another hint about Ukraine: Ukraine is sitting on top of over 670 billion cubic metres of natural gas: to the dictator of a neighbouring resource-extraction economy this must have been quite a draw.) The constant propaganda and astroturfed campaigns advocating against belief in climate change must be viewed in this light: by 2040 at the latest, those coal, gas, and oil land rights must be regarded as stranded assets that can't be monetized, and the land rights probably have a book value measured in trillions of dollars.

reply
upvoteby tootie2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
That's 2023. As of today they are expected to hit peak fossil fuel usage and start declining within the year.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2025/09/09/china-on-course...

reply
upvoteby Peanuts991 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
China is also the world leader in closing coal power plants too.
reply
upvoteby standardUser2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
The expectation being that they should instead endure energy shortages for the common good until their renewable installations catch up with demand? A high bar, especially for a nation with a greater share of its electricity from renewables than most US states.
reply
upvoteby FridayoLeary2 days ago|
prev|
[-]
Much as i dislike China i feel they are pragmatic. I don't know if it's justified but i always give them the benefit of the doubt that they don't do stupid things for no good reason. Unlike Western nations who have to please voters and look good, China has no such constraints and are far more transactional. They don't care about climate emissions. At all. If they think something will be good for them and their economy, they will do it. Another thing is that they take big risks, again they are beholden to nobody so they can. I think the way forward is to be realistic and honest. If renewables are cheaper we should go for them, why not? It's free. If not, not. Frankly having rolling blackouts in california is not a great argument for having more renewables, unless i'm missing something. It might be something for politicians to boast about next time they jet acrosss the world to attend self serving climate summits, but it doesn't help ordinary people. More fossil power plants would be more reliable then renewables. OT but Trump has a special dislike for green energy and i don't understand why, but it's obvious that if it can't compete, or come at least close to fossil fuels and nuclear then that should be fully acknowledged.

If i'm wrong about China and competely misreading the situation in california please let me know.

reply
upvoteby slashdave2 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
What does rolling blackouts in California have to do with renewables? Opposite, really.
reply
upvoteby FridayoLeary2 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Renewables are intermittent and therefore unreliable. Also unless california has gone for lots of redundancy the would also be displacing fossil fuel power plants. Again i'm not trashing renewables, because what's wrong with free energy. What i am doing automatically is wondering why batteries are a better option then traditional power stations.

California does have much more expensive electricity then anywhere else, so it is reasonable for me to scrutinise their energy plans more closely and question whether their current strategy is really the best one.

reply
upvoteby slashdave2 days ago|
parent|
[-]
You are being contradictory.

Solar is not intermittent (the sun shines every day). Making your grid reliable is expensive, thus drives costs.

reply
upvoteby sciencejerk2 days ago|
parent|
[-]
The sun does not shine 24 hours a day. Therefore, if you want to run a power grid 24 hours a day, you need expensive batteries to hold energy collected during peak production. Fossil fuels can be burned continuously, lessening the need for energy storage
reply
upvoteby LogicFailsMe1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
~$12,000 is expensive? I await your reasons why this is so with baited breath.

https://www.earthtechproducts.com/ecoflow-delta-pro-ultra-30...

reply
upvoteby Axsuul2 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
A lot depends on long term planning but the planning better be right. In my opinion, the markets are much better than planning.
reply
upvoteby standardUser1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Historically yes, but tell that to our newest superpower China.
reply