Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
China

China Hits Xi Jinping's Renewable Power Target Six Years Early (yahoo.com) 118

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
China's world-leading clean energy boom has passed another benchmark, with its wind and solar capacity surpassing a target set by President Xi Jinping almost six years earlier than planned. From a report: The nation added 25 gigawatts of turbines and panels in July, expanding total capacity to 1,206 gigawatts, according to a statement from the National Energy Administration on Friday. Xi set a goal in December 2020 for at least 1,200 gigawatts from the clean energy sources by 2030. China by far outspends the rest of the world when it comes to clean energy, and has repeatedly broken wind and solar installation records in recent years. The rapid growth has helped lead to declines in coal power generation this summer and may mean the world's biggest polluter has already reached peak emissions well before its 2030 target.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Hits Xi Jinping's Renewable Power Target Six Years Early More

China Hits Xi Jinping's Renewable Power Target Six Years Early

Comments Filter:
  • but does it include a free phone?

  • Bbbut... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    China Hits Xi Jinping's Renewable Power Target Six Years Early

    Bbbut... NUUUUCUUUULAAAARRR!!!

    • Yup, they're have that too, and are building lots of it. Better they not rush that, imo.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        They're building a thorium plant next year, wisely located in the middle of an uninhabited desert.

        Let's hope it lives up to the hype.

  • Itâ(TM)s happened. The Chinese have a flux capacitor.

  • Sure Jan. (Score:2, Troll)

    by Kisai ( 213879 )

    I sincerely doubt it. All that comes out of China is propaganda, a lot of "look we're better than the west" but underneath that propaganda, is a lot of spray painted dirt and styrofoam.

    If xi jinping really wants to put his money where his mouth is, let a third party audit this. Otherwise just call BS.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      It's likely mostly true, because China overproduces solar to such an extent, that it's what drove the prices on it down worldwide as they're desperately trying to dump the massive overproduction anywhere where they can get even a fraction of what they spent making it.

      Now for how clean and environmental that is, the answer is no. Chinese methods involve dumping a good chunk of CO in addition to CO2 during production, so their solar panels are somewhere in the ballpark of modern CCGT burning piped gas when it

      • However, going forward, their power generation is going to be much cleaner. The CO2 was a one time cost. Unlike in areas that continue to us coal and natural gas.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

          Solar panels aren't eternal. Doubly so without proper maintenance, which is common in PRC. So you're arguing with concept of entropy itself.

          Which is not uncommon for Green fanatics, who deny reality as a matter of norm.

          • Agreed, but even the cheapest ones output over 82% of their original production after 25 years. And the high quality ones are still over 90%.

            Solar panels last *a long time*. And can be repurposed to recharge cell phones, sold downstream, donated to projects for the poor and africa and may very well still be pumping water from wells after 50 years.

            I'm not arguing with Entropy. That's just you putting words in my mouth. Some countries are now reaching carbon free energy production. There will be no

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

              >cheapest ones output over 82% of their original production after 25 years.

              Reports from PRC indicate that most of them output about zero after 25 years. Because without maintenance, DC to AC converters die.

              PRC counts those as installed capacity, because they are. They just don't produce.

              • See:
                https://pv-magazine-usa.com/20... [pv-magazine-usa.com]
                How long do residential solar panels last?
                July 23, 2024 Ryan Kennedy

                And
                "The loss of output over time, called degradation, typically lands at about 0.5% each year, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

                Manufacturers typically consider 25 to 30 years a point at which enough degradation has occurred where it may be time to consider replacing a panel. The industry standard for manufacturing warranties is 25 years on a solar module, said NREL.

                Given the

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

                  Have you tried reading comprehension yet?

                  >Because without maintenance, DC to AC converters die.

                  For idiots spamming magazine pages with zero reading comprehension. DC to AC converters are separate from panels themselves.

                  • Oh, you mean *INVERTERS*.

                    Yes, inverters go bad. But they cost about $800 per set of $12,000 worth of panels.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

                      Absolutely. But this is PRC. You do not maintain things that reduce production of new things.

                      This isn't a solar panels thing. This is a PRC thing. This is why solar panels aren't four-ten times the cost.

                  • And inverters last about 8 years... or until a really close lightning strike as long as they are set up properly.

                    And... seriously... consider switching to decaffeinated. There are some perfectly tasty brands on the market these days.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

                      I don't know what drugs make your attention span so short you still can't finish a sentence, but your projection about drugs disrupting it for others is hilarious.

                      Consider asking someone near you to read the things above to you. Better yet, get into rehab to kick the drug habit and then re-read.

                    • I have no interest in reading the musings of some crazy troll.
                      So ... bye.

    • Has it occurred to you that the only reason they would care what you think is if it is propaganda? They hardly need an audit to prove it to themselves.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by m00sh ( 2538182 )

      I sincerely doubt it. All that comes out of China is propaganda, a lot of "look we're better than the west" but underneath that propaganda, is a lot of spray painted dirt and styrofoam.

      If xi jinping really wants to put his money where his mouth is, let a third party audit this. Otherwise just call BS.

      The secret to reaching your goals is to make your goals reachable.

      • Indeed, under promise and over deliver.

        However, strictly speaking, I expect them to learn lessons on how to better estimate, so they can be more accurate next time.
        In the meantime, yeah for China, and the world.

    • China produces about two-thirds of world's large scale solar and wind power.
      Solar and wind power under construction in China is 339 GW, and for number two, the USA, it is 40 GW.

      That said, if you look at percentage of electricity from wind power 2023 Denmark some out on top at 57.7% and US 10.0% and China soon after at 9.4%. And about half of the world’s coal power stations are in China.

    • Re:Sure Jan. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rinnon ( 1474161 ) on Friday August 23, 2024 @03:47PM (#64730184)

      I sincerely doubt it. All that comes out of China is propaganda,

      Do you ever consider that maybe believing that "All that comes out of China is propaganda" might be a result of... American propaganda?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        I really wonder what they think the benefit of this propaganda is. In times of war, it makes sense to downplay enemy strengths so you can maintain morale. Even then, you should always plan for the enemy being more cunning and powerful than you would normally expect.

        In peace time, we need to be on the lookout for what they're doing and catch up if we start falling behind. Pretending their advancements are not real or not a problem for us is just sticking our head in the sand.

        And if we are on the cusp of the

    • I sincerely doubt it. All that comes out of China is propaganda, a lot of "look we're better than the west" but underneath that propaganda, is a lot of spray painted dirt and styrofoam.

      If xi jinping really wants to put his money where his mouth is, let a third party audit this. Otherwise just call BS.

      I'm not sure skepticism on the Chinese claims are that warranted. After all, it's not easy to hide solar and wind power installations. They tend to be easily visible on satellite images.

      But more importantly, China tends to build these types of projects much faster than another other country in the world, including large dams and high-speed trains. Why? Because the key challenges in other countries disappear in China, including (1) government opposition and regulations, (2) concern for ancillary environm

      • China is a dictatorship, but the government or any leader isn't the dictator.

        Never heard of nail houses? Things aren't all that different to any other country. They're just better at it than most other places.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        China sees renewable energy as strategic. It reduces their dependence on imported fuel, and it gives them an economic advantage with extremely low cost energy. Being distributed, it is also difficult to attack physically.

        It's also a massive boom industry and provides a lot of well paid jobs for them. They are still at the stage where most of the well paid jobs are new ones, so the "we must preserve these 20th century jobs and can't expect people to retrain" argument isn't very strong.

    • They don't need to prove anything to you.
      If doubt it or not is irrelevant.

  • Pooh bear: Come on, just say it US.
    USA (bored and annoyed): Well done China!
    Pooh bear: That was not so hard was it. I know you want to be the best and brightest. You are really good! The best in a lot. But from time to time, other countries deserve some credit.
    USA: distant mumbling
    Pooh bear: Yes, also communist countries that you do not like and think a bit different.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Now if only they'd try this with civil rights or representative government!

      Let's face it, China earns a lot of the negativism it gets. Plus, as seen recently right here on Slashdot, they still cant stop themselves from building new coal power plants.

      • Come on. Just say it. Well done China! Then mention that they should stop violating basic human rights of minorities they don't like.
        I know I am being annoying, but I just don't like the whole China is pure evil and we are the good guys mantra. The US could get away with that before Trump, but not any longer.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          Now don't get me wrong, Trump is terrible. Is he China terrible though? Nothing that he's done so far is even close. They regularly "disappear" their own people for the love of god.

          • I hate Trump, so my comments will be a bit colored. I guess it is all amplified in my perception because he only does it to look good. That really gets on my nerves. But yes... you are right. While he was president, none of his opponents suddenly disappeared. He did not send people to reeducation Kamps. I guess he makes so much noise that you can't but notice. While in China they just try to keep the dirty stuff quiet. But if Trump gets reelected, we may have to redo the comparison.

    • China isn't communist.

      Maybe Hundred Acre Wood is, which would explain your confusion.

  • Under Promise Over Deliver (Score:3)

    by RossCWilliams ( 5513152 ) on Friday August 23, 2024 @02:56PM (#64729972)

    I suspect they set goals that they know than can achieve rather than the aspirational goals that stockholder focused companies do.

    China is fast moving forward and we need to start focusing on getting faster ourselves instead of slowing them down. Hopefully Harris-Walz, with their personal asian experience, will focus a little less on our Euro-centric legacy and start focusing on working with the growing dynamic areas of the world. Otherwise, over time, India and China will eat our lunch. Trump will likely be dead by then...

    • Re:Under Promise Over Deliver (Score:5, Interesting)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Friday August 23, 2024 @04:23PM (#64730294)
      Forget goals. Here's the accomplishment: "China added a record 301 GW of renewable power generation capacity including solar, wind and hydro in 2023, accounting for around 59% of the worldâ(TM)s total renewable capacity additions last year. "

      They built out more than the rest of the world combined.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      When the goal was set at the Paris Climate Conference, it was widely seen as ambitious and unlikely to be met.

      The fact that they hit it 6 years ahead of schedule is remarkable to say the least. Their other 2030 goal was to reach peak emissions and start declining, and it looks like they have hit that this year too.

      All the hand wringing about "it will wreck the economy" and "we will go back to the stone age" proved to be bollocks.

  • Peak polluters are actually Americans.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by kalieaire ( 586092 ) on Friday August 23, 2024 @02:58PM (#64729978)

    If you look at energy used per capita, the numbers change astronomically.

    Oil, Electricity, etc, Americans always lead in use.

    • We outsource a lot of our pollution. Why do metal plating domestical, where the regulations make it costly to do. Why process aluminum, which is electrically intensive, when out countries have cheap coal?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by m00sh ( 2538182 )

      If you look at energy used per capita, the numbers change astronomically.

      Oil, Electricity, etc, Americans always lead in use.

      That it sounds about right. We Americans drive 40 miles each way to work in a 5 ton vehicle, use LLMs for everything at work and then come home and use our 1000w gaming rigs to play COD at higher frame rates than our 77 inch tvs can even produce.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The biggest issues for energy consumption in the US are vehicles/distances people need to travel, and how poorly insulated US homes are. It seems that rather than build properly insulated homes, the assumption was people would just burn cheap coal/gas and use cheap AC all the time.

        The US government has details of some types of insulation that can be retrofitted: https://www.energy.gov/energys... [energy.gov]

        Some of it you can do yourself, especially loft insulation that is just rolls of the stuff you lay down like a thi

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Budenny ( 888916 )

      No, the peak polluter, the peak emitter of CO2, is China. The peak emitters are actually the Chinese. And no, the numbers do not change astronomically if you look at per capita.

      The numbers are the same: globally about 37 billion tons of CO2 emitted annually. Of which China is currently doing about 11 billion. Way ahead of the next largest emitter, the US, which is doing about 4.5 billion.

      There is always this crazed pretence on the part of some of the climate alarmed to claim that somehow Chinese emissi

      • Re:Peak polluters are actually Americans.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday August 23, 2024 @03:28PM (#64730094)

        No, the peak polluter, the peak emitter of CO2, is China.

        China isn't a person. Americans are far bigger polluters than the Chinese.

        There is always this crazed pretence on the part of some of the climate alarmed to claim that somehow Chinese emissions are not really that threatening since their per capita emissions are low.

        There's always this self-entitled fuckwit who thinks they have a god given right to pollute more than someone else. Do you do that to other white people as well - general superiority complex - or are you just racist towards Asians?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Budenny ( 888916 )

          "There's always this self-entitled fuckwit who thinks they have a god given right to pollute more than someone else. Do you do that to other white people as well - general superiority complex - or are you just racist towards Asians?"

          "Patriotism", said Dr Johnson, "is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

          He meant that Wilkes was unable to find any acceptable justification for his conduct, including incitement to riots, and so resorted to claiming patriotism.

          You too are unable to find any justification for your po

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jabuzz ( 182671 )

            The corollary to that is in a fair and equitable world the *ONLY* metric that counts is the emissions per person. Under these entirely reasonable conditions then Americans are just about the worst polluters out there and way worse than the Chinese. That you think an American person should be allowed to emit more pollution than a Chinese person because there are fewer American people would make you a racist bigot in the eyes of many people, myself included.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        USA 14 tCO2/year
        China 9 tCO2/year
        That seems like a fairly big difference. It's hard to make the moral argument to China to cut back if you're making significantly more per capita.

      • It depends on how you attribute emissions.

        The United States is a net importer of emissions. That is to say the products we import require more emissions to produce than the products we export. China is a net exporter of emissions. The emissions required to produce products they ship to other countries, including the US, are greater than the emissions from products they import.

        The United States is the worlds leading producer of crude oil and exports a fair amount of that. When that oil is burned are those o

      • More whataboutery [Re:Peak polluters are actua...] (Score:5, Informative)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 ) on Friday August 23, 2024 @04:57PM (#64730406) Homepage

        No, the peak polluter, the peak emitter of CO2, is China. The peak emitters are actually the Chinese. And no, the numbers do not change astronomically if you look at per capita.

        They vastly change if you look per capita. China has more total CO2 emissions, but, dividing that by 1.4 billion people, the emissions per person are well under the US emissions (8.9 tons per Chinese person, compared to 14.2 tons per American) (not even to mention Canada, which is a little worse than the US on a per person basis. Of course, Canada is likely to win with global warming so they have less incentive to reduce).

        ...There is always this crazed pretence on the part of some of the climate alarmed to claim that somehow Chinese emissions are not really that threatening since their per capita emissions are low.

        There is no such pretense. There are, however, a lot of people that get annoyed at the whattaboutism of people saying "we can ignore our own greenhouse gas emissions! Whattabout China??"

        ...If you really do believe human emissions are causing a climate emergency, there is only one place to look for a guilty party, and that is China.

        Wrong. There is no one place, because what matters is the sum of all of the places, not any one place.

        • Re: More whataboutery [Re:Peak polluters are actua (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Grokew ( 8384065 ) on Saturday August 24, 2024 @12:38AM (#64731118)
          How much would their CO2 emissions go down, if they stopped producing all the products we buy from them, and only produced stuff for their local market? How much worse would our emissions levels be if we had to increase our manufacturing capacity In order to satisfy 100% of our demand for manufactured goods?
        • The difference between 9 and 14 isn't even an order of magnitude. More importantly, the US CO2 emissions are trending downward, not upward. https://ourworldindata.org/co2... [ourworldindata.org]

        • No, the peak polluter, the peak emitter of CO2, is China. The peak emitters are actually the Chinese. And no, the numbers do not change astronomically if you look at per capita.

          They vastly change if you look per capita. China has more total CO2 emissions, but, dividing that by 1.4 billion people, the emissions per person are well under the US emissions (8.9 tons per Chinese person, compared to 14.2 tons per American) (not even to mention Canada, which is a little worse than the US on a per person basis. Of course, Canada is likely to win with global warming so they have less incentive to reduce).

          It's funny how these comparisons all depend on how you measure things. Yes, China has lower emissions per capita, but if you factor in economic output, the scales tip again. China has higher kg per PPP $ of GDP [worldbank.org]. On that measure, China's CO2 emissions are less efficient now than the US's in 1990. And the US's total emissions peaked around 2005 [worldbank.org]

          And even if you look at emissions per capita [worldbank.org] you can see a clear trend of the US getting vastly more efficient over the last few decades. while China's emissions per ca

      • People like you got the world into this mess, but you have the gall to blame China.

        You and your ilk should be thankful that China took all your polluting industries from your countries because China is significantly more able to do something about it, and these results show exactly that. Their political system is a huge enabler.

      • "Of which China is currently doing about 11 billion. Way ahead of the next largest emitter, the US, which is doing about 4.5 billion."

        So with 4x the population they only produce 2x the emissions. Pretty clear which country is worse 'per capita'. And yes that matters just as total does. Because they want to grow to be 'like us' and that would be very very bad CO2 wise.

        Fortunately they are actually building towards lower carbon future while we dither and complain about everything.

    • Meanwhile the US hit peak CO2 production almost two decades ago https://www.macrotrends.net/gl... [macrotrends.net]. while China still hasnt hit that mark.

      I suppose it's fashionable amongst some to heap scorn on the US though.

      • Yawn. They're not finished yet. This is ahead of their target. That's good.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          Yes, the target they set for themselves. Without reviewing what that target means all this accomplishment amounts to is their ability to meet self imposed goals which is not at all challenging for anyone or anything.

      • Yes, because they outsourced a lot of manufacture to China because locals wouldn't pay the price of a locally made product

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          If you're going to count such things for the US they have to be counted for everyone else too. China makes shit for everyone.

  • Is just down the street, it's easier and less costly to do this kind of thing.

  • For perspective that is the energy equivalent of more than 10 Hoover Dams running at full capacity (which hasn't happened in years).

    "If all of the generators are working at full capacity, the Hoover Power Plant is able to produce 2,080 megawatts of power. (This includes the two station-service units that produce power just to run the machinery and power the lights at the Dam.)"

    https://www.eia.gov/kids/for-teachers/field-trips/hoover-dam-hydroelectric-plant.php

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ajedgar ( 67399 )

      p.s.

      Here in the United States there is also a *ton* of Solar PV being installed over the next few years.

      More than 4 Hoover Dams worth in Nevada alone (from now to 2028).

      Great interactive map of planned and existing solar PC plants here:
      https://www.seia.org/research-resources/major-solar-projects-list

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      For perspective that is the energy equivalent of more than 10 Hoover Dams running at full capacity (which hasn't happened in years).
      "If all of the generators are working at full capacity, the Hoover Power Plant is able to produce 2,080 megawatts of power.

      How do you calculate that? The summary says that they have installed 1,206 gigawatts. That works out to 580 Hoover Dams, from your figures. And they're adding 25 GW (12 Hoover dams) per month.

  • Congrats to China, I guess? Solar and wind are brittle, unreliable sources of power, and now they have deployed a lot of turbines/panels that will need regular expensive maintenance. Is this really a win?

    • Yes, it is.
      It isn't their only plan. They're attacking the problem on many (every?) front, including new nuclear. They also have coal that is cleaner and more efficient than you probably think to back it all up.

      https://www.americanprogress.o... [americanprogress.org]

      • American Progress is a known China apologist, happy to regurgitate whatever their Chinese masters feed them. Do you have a more reliable source?

    • It's part of the solution. Energy storage will be the other bit.

      Doesn't really make sense to build out grid storage when you don't yet have the intermittent supply to charge it.

      In solar alone, more energy hits the earth in a single hour, then the entirety of humanity uses, in any form, in an entire year.

      That is 8000:1 ratio. That's a huge amount of inefficiency and transmission loss to absorb and still be an orders of magnitude more than we'll ever need.

      And that doesn't count wind, wave, hydro etc.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close