Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
China Earth Power

Much of the World's Solar Gear is Made Using Fossil Power in China (asiatimes.com) 112

Posted by EditorDavid from the old-king-coal dept.
China "accounts for more than half of global coal use," reports Asia Times, "even as it builds the world's largest solar-panel and EV industries." Much of the world's solar gear is made on fossil power. The International Energy Agency finds that "coal generates over 60% of the electricity used for global solar PV manufacturing," far above coal's ~36% share of typical grids. That is because over 80% of PV factories sit in Chinese provinces like Xinjiang and Jiangsu, where coal dominates the grid.

China has poured over $50 billion into solar factories since 2011, roughly ten times Europe's investment, cutting panel costs by about 80% and fueling a worldwide solar boom. But those panels were produced on coal. In one analysis, they repay their manufacturing CO2 in only months, meaning the emissions were dumped up-front in China's coal plants. Any major disruption to China's coal power or factories (from grid shocks to trade barriers) could thus send ripples through the global PV market.

China's coal and heavy industries also feed its clean-tech supply chain. Coal-fired steel mills supply the aluminum and metal parts for EVs and panels, and coal chemicals provide battery precursors and silicon for solar... At the same time, Chinese oil and gas giants (CNPC, Sinopec) have set up solar, wind and battery divisions, redirecting fossil profits into green ventures.
Another interesting statistic from the article: "In Thailand, Asia's long-time auto hub, Chinese EV brands now command more than 70% of EV sales."

Thanks to Slashdot reader RossCWilliams for sharing the news.

Much of the World's Solar Gear is Made Using Fossil Power in China More | Reply

Much of the World's Solar Gear is Made Using Fossil Power in China

Comments Filter:

  • Polysilicon production is not intermittent (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mspangler ( 770054 ) on Saturday July 12, 2025 @02:04PM (#65515492)

    Siemens reactors run for three days to a week continuously, any power glitch can cause the rods to cool enough to crack the bridges then that's it for that run.

    The fluidbeds are a little more tolerant, but when the hydrogen compressors stop the bed settles and if the injectors plug then it's time for turn around and that is several days.

    I don't know how the downstream processes would respond to a power bump. Does a CZ pull tolerate a short power outage? How about the wafer cutting, doping stages, and annealing?

    The point is intermittent power does not work well with heavy industry, so it's either fossil fuel or hydroelectric.

    • The point is intermittent power does not work well with heavy industry, so it's either fossil fuel or hydroelectric.

      Or Atomic/Nuclear, which China also has. Radioactive waste is a problem, but CO2 and air particulates is not an issue there.

      • Visited a huge steel mill once. They had an arc oven. They surfed on energy prices. Price low? Heat up the oven to max. Price high? Let the temperature drop. They had to call the utility company every time they wanted to ramp up or down the heating process.
        Prices are low here when there is a lot of sun and wind. So there you go. Steel mill adjusts it's power requirements to use as much green power as possible. Of course, it will still just be a percentage of the total.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by keltor ( 99721 ) *
      They use large energy storage to deal with this, typical very large oil and paper capacitors historically, but shifting to batteries.

      Also interestingly all that chemical energy is really just energy from the sun converted by moss to carbon chains which convert to mud which converts to peat which coverts to coal/oil/etc. Fucking crazy man, it's solar all the way down. Even those nuclear fuel rods came from stars.

  • Who gives a shit. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12, 2025 @02:10PM (#65515502)

    As the article says the panel pays off for its CO2 in mere months.

    • I couldn't find an answer other than AI saying it was 1-4 years (12-48 months). Anyone have an exact source? Would be interesting to see more analysis on everything that uses batteries. I don't recall anyone saying solar panels ruined the environment making. Its the batteries and things that use them like electric cars that some articles are saying have a high environmental toll to produce, thus offsetting their 'green.' Like a EV takes ~8 years to make up the production carbon costs. By then the battery is

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jsonn ( 792303 )
        "But manufacturing ${non-fossil-consuming-tech} produces CO2 too!!!" arguments generally come from the fossil fuel lobby and are almost always completely misleading. Let's take the BEV case, which is a poster child. The manufacturing cost in terms of CO2 emissions are about 1/6 of the life time emissions of a ICE car. The battery itself only adds about 50% to that factor, with some offset for the simpler construction. There is *no* contention that a well used BEV completely destroys the ICE when it comes to

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by thogard ( 43403 )

        Base load coal power in China is about $25/MWh. Solar panels by the container ship load cost less than $0.20 a watt at the factory. Most of that cost is the energy to make them. A good guess for daily average solar production is 4 hrs a day at 100% power for total power produced over the 20 year expected life of the panel.

      • Your battery knowledge is way out of date, more research needed on CO2 payback time (grid dependent and around 10k miles) and longevity (the warranty is about 8 years not useful life)
    • ...but that won't be the headline in the right wing echo chamber. Expect just the first part to pop up relentlessly across the internet/facebook/etc., pushed by the same people who claim that there is no way to have any idea about global temperatures from times before the invention of the mercury thermometer.

  • In other news (Score:5, Informative)

    by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Saturday July 12, 2025 @02:16PM (#65515508)

    Materials to build Henry Ford's first factory were delivered by horse-drawn carts.

    • China's energy policy is lowest cost first, which translates to coal first. Renewable are NOT displacing coal, they are supplementing coal. China is burning coal as fast as they can dig it up or import it. Renewables are displacing the more expense but cleaner burning oil and natural gas. Coal use is growing, emissions increasing, as permitted by the Paris accord until 2030 due to China's false claim of being a developing nation.

      "[Jul 26, 2023 } It was a bad week for anyone who thought China would cooper

      • While China's CO2 output is the highest globally, per capita its output is just over half of the US. That's even without considering that much of China's output is as in this article, manufacturing pollution imported from other countries. The bill for this pollution should fall on the country that consumed the manufacturing output.

        • While China's CO2 output is the highest globally, per capita its output is just over half of the US.

          Per capital is a false metric, its used for greenwashing. The behavior of the Chinese citizen has little to no effect on emissions. Emissions are largely a product of CCP industrial policy. So the better metric is per GDP. China's per GDP emissions are far worse than the US.

          That's even without considering that much of China's output is as in this article, manufacturing pollution imported from other countries.

          Absolutely true, that is more greenwashing, this time by the US, EU, and others. Yet the fact remains that the CCP willingly creates the ability to do so by externalizing the costs of pollution and thereby reducing manufacturing costs. I

      • Who cares? Nit-picking about "displacing" vs "supplementing" is moronic and none of your stats are per-capita. As if we could solve the problem by splitting china up into 50 smaller countries so that none of them end up in the top 100 emitters.

        • Who cares? Nit-picking about "displacing" vs "supplementing" is moronic ...

          Nitpicking? The choice of coal over natural gas is how we have decades of increasing emissions in China and decreasing emission in the US and EU.

          ... and none of your stats are per-capita. As if we could solve the problem by splitting china up into 50 smaller countries so that none of them end up in the top 100 emitters.

          Per capital is a false metric, its used for greenwashing. The behavior of the Chinese citizen has little to no effect on emissions. Emissions are largely a product of CCP industrial policy.

      • Wrong. China's energy policy is dynamic, so it cannot be described as you have done. It's changing and improving constantly.

        • Wrong. China's energy policy is dynamic, so it cannot be described as you have done. It's changing and improving constantly.

          It's dynamic, but that includes both the increased use of coal and the increased use of renewables. More responsible nations have favored alternatives such as natural gas despite coal being less expensive. CCP policy however says use the cheapest source, less pollution is not a priority. Matter of fact China is suggesting it may continue to increase pollution even after its 2030 Paris Accord deadline.

          "[Jul 26, 2023 } It was a bad week for anyone who thought China would cooperate on emissions reduction. P

  • The chain of technology (Score:3)

    by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Saturday July 12, 2025 @02:16PM (#65515510)

    Most of the world's oil technology was developed using coal power
    Most of the world's coal technology was developed using wood power
    Most of the world's wood technology was developed using driftwood and animal technology

    and so on and so on. These gotcha-memes never really stand up to examination of any kind, much less close examination.

    • The coal used for making solar PV cells is metallurgical coal, coal used as a feed stock for the chemical process that refines the silicon. This is not coal used for producing electricity. They are burning coal for electricity too, but there is a lot of coal consumed in the refining of silicon separate from producing electricity.

      The process for refining silicon is a lot like that used for iron, the silicon oxide is heated up, the coal added to the molten mess, the carbon in the coal grabs the oxygen from

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jsonn ( 792303 )
        Much of the silicon in a PV module can be recycled at a fraction of the cost of the original smelting. So yeah, a fully sustained cycle is not practical right now, this is gaslighting.

    • Most of the world's oil technology was developed using coal power

      Responsible nations are displacing fossil fuels in order of pollution. Natural gas displacing coal and oil for example. China is displacing fossil fuels in order of cost, the lower cost coal *not* being displaced. China is burning coal as fast as they can dig it up and import it. Renewables are not displacing coal. Renewables are supplementing coal.

      "[Jul 26, 2023 } It was a bad week for anyone who thought China would cooperate on emissions reduction. President Xi Jinping reiterated that his country would

      • Natural gas is cheaper to burn than coal. At least in the United States. Its pretty clear that China is not displacing any power. Their energy use is growing and they are using multiple sources including nuclear, coal and renewables. China is also the major source of solar panels for most of the world. When you start to attribute the emissions to the end-users of the products produced rather than the producer, China's emissions shrink considerably, while the US emissions increase.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by drnb ( 2434720 )

          Natural gas is cheaper to burn than coal. At least in the United States.

          In China coal is ofter cheaper. Especially in regions with heavy manufacturing or energy production. These are located there because of the local coal reserves.

          Its pretty clear that China is not displacing any power.

          The difference is, when there is a choice between coal and natural gas, they will choose coal. The west will choose natural gas. China chooses lower cost. The west chooses lower pollution over lower cost.

          China is also the major source of solar panels for most of the world. When you start to attribute the emissions to the end-users of the products produced rather than the producer, China's emissions shrink considerably, while the US emissions increase.

          That is greenwashing all around, some for China, some for the west. The west does outsource manufacturing to China but that is in part because the p

          • The west will choose natural gas.

            Where it is cheaper than coal. Most countries use the cheapest and most abundant fuel. But the whole west/east divide makes it apparent your arguments are based on propaganda not independent analysis.

            That is greenwashing all around, some for China, some for the west.

            No, its recognizing that attributing global emissions to specific countries is a form of greenwashing. The US sells LNG to Europe. Are the emissions associated with burning it attributed to the country producing the LNG or the countries burning it. The reality is it doesn't matter. Efforts to attribute those

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by drnb ( 2434720 )

              The west will choose natural gas.

              Where it is cheaper than coal.

              Nope. There is a shift away from coal in general. As documented below.

              Most countries use the cheapest and most abundant fuel. But the whole west/east divide makes it apparent your arguments are based on propaganda not independent analysis.

              Wrong. You are woefully ill-informed

              Note that the chart referred to here shows cool to be cheaper. "Fossil-Fuel Prices by Receipts at Electric Generating Plants"

              "Energy production by source over the past 70 years has seen a shift away from coal to natural gas and renewables ... natural gas prices have historically been much more unstable than coal prices for power plants. Over the past 70 years, the inflation-adjusted cost of coal h

          • Oh, please. China has lots of coal and minimal gas. The opposite is true for other places, including the USA. Well, it was...maybe the USA will be digging more coal from now on.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by drnb ( 2434720 )

              Oh, please. China has lots of coal and minimal gas. The opposite is true for other places, including the USA. Well, it was...maybe the USA will be digging more coal from now on.

              The US has plenty of coal too. Yet we have been moving away from it for over 70s years despite its lower cost. Note the chart "Fossil-Fuel Prices by Receipts at Electric Generating Plants".

              "Energy production by source over the past 70 years has seen a shift away from coal to natural gas and renewables ... natural gas prices have historically been much more unstable than coal prices for power plants. Over the past 70 years, the inflation-adjusted cost of coal has remained relatively constant. A much diffe

  • China isn't burning the "beautiful clean coal" Trump says the U.S. is / will be.... (sigh)

    Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry [whitehouse.gov]

  • The thing here is that you're burning coal for the purpose of not having to burn coal again. You'd have to have an attention span of a gnat to not see that far ahead.

    We can't go straight to zero emissions guys. There's gonna be a transition. This feels like clickbait, lacks long-term thinking, and is not a reasonable argument.

    • There's a few problems with your assessment.

      First, there is a distinction between "thermal coal" and "metallurgical coal". Thermal coal is coal consumed for the production of heat, clearly, with the implication that some of that heat will be for producing steam which then turns a turbine with that turbine producing electricity. Then is metallurgical coal, coal consumed in the process of refining or alloying metals. Silicon refining consumes a lot of metallurgical coal, something like as much mass of coal

      • > Second, it seems that

        Facts please, not conjecture. Stopped reading this nonsense at that point.

        The USA caused the problem so it should have the burden to fix it. China is doing a lot and it's policies are constantly changing to fix any problems and improve things, while balancing it's efforts with the benefits of the country as a whole. It's a grown up attitude that contrasts starkly with the policies of the USA government.

  • It as always been understood that producing green energy products takes energy and that has to come from the existing power grid, which in almost every country involves CO2 production. If you look at solar companies roofs in china they have panels up and companies like JA Solar are net zero. But their individual net zero status is irrelevant to the planet, the power demand is the same. We deploy all the solar we make, it's the fastest growing power source in the world and in China. They consume more than ha

  • With a wild twisting of words this author added "meaning the emissions were dumped up-front in China's coal plants" to try to make this sound bad.

    ALL "manufacturing emissions" are "dumped up-front". There is not something special about China or using coal. And even with the 2x or more CO2 emissions of coal, a solar power panel replaces all that CO2 emission in just a few months, which is an awful lot better than a lot of other things that people claim are green.

  • What kind of a dumb hit piece is this? (Score:3)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday July 12, 2025 @03:17PM (#65515610)

    The production of solar panels represents a tiny fraction of the CO2 emissions they offset compared to generating power with fossil fuels outright. Absolutely no one gives a shit what power is used to make a panel except for a few anti-green morons looking for a whataboutism pretending to be some kind of gotchya.

    • I'd be as unconcerned about the coal China consumes for producing wind and solar power if this was applied equally to the USA.

      While China consumes a lot of thermal coal for electricity there is a great deal of metallurgical coal consumed for silicon refining. As far as I know the coal used for either is the same coal from the same mines, only how the coal is consumed differs. Either way the coal becomes CO2 released into the air. If the USA is to continue producing steel, aluminum, and silicon for their

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        Welcome to living in a Democracy where everyone has a voice.

      • I'd be as unconcerned about the coal China consumes for producing wind and solar power if this was applied equally to the USA.

        The USA isn't producing many solar panels. China is. Its selling some to the US, but it is installing many, many more in China. So what do you mean "applied equally". The reality is it takes energy to produce solar panels. So the question is whether the solar industry in China is still using more power than the panels it has produced are providing. My guess is that it isn't.

    • The production of solar panels represents a tiny fraction of the CO2 emissions they offset compared to generating power with fossil fuels outright.

      Where is the evidence that solar panels offset fossil fuels? From the China example in the article it would appear that the alternative to solar panels would be using less electricity, not burning more fossil fuel. China is adding new capacity of coal at the same time they are adding solar. As I understand it, the reduction in emissions in the US is largely driven by shifting from coal to natural gas and more efficient use of fossil fuel in ICE cars.

      That isn't an argument against solar panels. That is recog

  • Old tech is used to make new tech

    • I was wondering how else are they going to be made? Secret alien power? Jesus snaps his fingers and solar panels appear?

      • I was wondering how else are they going to be made? Secret alien power? Jesus snaps his fingers and solar panels appear?

        I would guess that the first people to use solar power would be the factories making the solar panels. Apparently that is not the case, and it is because silicon refining is a process that requires a reliable source of electricity. Solar PV production also consumes metallurgical coal, coal used in the refining and alloying of metals as opposed to thermal coal which is used to produce heat and electricity.

        This is a matter of "eating your own dog food", if the people running the factories that make solar po

        • That's a whole lot of words for a what came first: the chicken or the egg debate?

        • Or am I missing something?

          Yes, for one thing if people are attached to the grid the power they use is whatever is available on their local grid at the time they need it. More specifically, the excess power available. That is almost never going to be solar since its cheap to produce when sunlight is available.

      • The environmental cost of producing these green products has not been talked about much. Maybe people assume the production costs are negligible. If we look at cars, the story is different. AI estimates:

        The carbon footprint of battery production is significant, with estimates ranging from 150 to 200 kg of CO2 per kWh of battery capacity. For example, a typical EV with a 60 kWh battery could have around 9,000 to 12,000 kg of CO2 emissions just from battery production.

        The production of ICE vehicles typically results in lower initial carbon emissions compared to EVs, with estimates around 6,000 to 8,000 kg of CO2 for a conventional vehicle.

        Granted AI has accuracy issues, but that is in line with articles such as:

        For illustration, the Tesla Model 3 holds an 80 kWh lithium-ion battery. CO2 emissions for manufacturing that battery would range between 2400 kg (almost two and a half metric tons) and 16,000 kg (16 metric tons)

        Currently, most lithium is extracted from hard rock mines or underground brine reservoirs, and much of the energy used to extract and process it comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels. Particularly in hard rock mining, for every tonne of mined lithium, 15 tonnes of CO2 are emitted into the air. Battery materials come with other costs, too. Mining raw materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel is labor-intensive, requires chemicals and enormous amounts of water—frequently from areas where water is scarce—and can leave contaminants and toxic waste behind. 60% of the world’s cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where questions about human rights violations such as child labor continue to arise.

        Manufacturing also adds to these batteries’ eco-footprint, Shao-Horn says. To synthesize the materials needed for production, heat between 800 to 1,000 degrees Celsius is needed—a temperature that can only cost-effectively be reached by burning fossil fuels, which again adds to CO2 emissions.

        https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mi... [mit.edu]

      • There is no other way to make them. What is your point?

  • (looks over comments pointing out shortsighted stupidity of article) ...never mind, I see my work is done.

  • So? (Score:3)

    by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Saturday July 12, 2025 @03:51PM (#65515686) Homepage
    At least that's coal put to good use, bootstrapping solar panel production. Better than bitcoin mining anyway.
  • ... if I use some shitty tech to bootstrap better tech then is that somehow bad? I realise there is more to this than that, but it seems like a terrible argument to complain coal power is being used to manufacture solar power.

  • if you don't spend the energy to crank it. I thought the whole goal of solar is to get off of fossil fuels, you can't do that if you don't burn some fossil fuels. Once you get the engine running, you can go off coal and run on solar. The solar cells will need to be produced first.

  • If you have two jobs, paying $50K each, and you spend money on a trip, which job paid for it? Either or both, it doesn't matter, money is money, it can move around to wherever it's needed. There's no specific money paying for your trip.

    Power works this way too. A given region has a combination of energy sources, ranging from solar to wind to gas to coal. All of the plants dump power into the same grid. Who's to say which source is used for what? It's not possible to disentangle power like that, unless the s

    • All of the plants dump power into the same grid.

      Not really. The grid is layered. It turns on power in layers. So when something is added to the grid the added power needed can be attributed to a specific source.

      Its more like you order one cheap pizza and one expensive pizza. You pay for both of them on one bill. That doesn't mean the expensive pizza and cheap pizza each account for half the bill.

      • No, everybody gets exactly the same mix of green and dirty energy as everybody else, regardless of whether they paid extra for "green" energy. https://galleryclimatecoalitio... [gallerycli...lition.org]

        • No, everybody gets exactly the same mix of green and dirty energy as everybody else, regardless of whether they paid extra for "green" energy

          Yes, the "pay more for green energy" has always been a marketing scam of sorts. The initial idea was that by paying more the electric company would buy more green energy. Its been a long time since that kind of encouragement was needed and the whole premise was doubtful from the start.

          But that is irrelevant to determining what energy source provides the extra power needed when you add something to the grid. There is only going to be one source and it will almost always be the cheapest source still availabl

          • There is only going to be one source and it will almost always be the cheapest source still available

            Huh? I don't know where you live, but there is always more than one source. Texas, where I live, has the smallest grid in the US, fully contained within the state of Texas. That grid has more than 300 power generation plants: 14 coal, 2 nuclear, 118 natural gas, 5 biomass, 13 hydropower, 84 wind farms, and 38 solar farms. All of these generators are working all of the time, each pouring its power into the grid. There's no such thing as getting power from "just one source."

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          • So there's one unit of clean power and one unit of dirty power.

            You and me both need 1 unit of power.

            It's just a race to flip the switch to see if I'm green and clean and you're dirty?

            Or the more sensible interpretation that we both share responsibility since we're both using the same amount of power from a shared source that's part clean and part dirty.

            It doesn't really matter who flipped the switch a microsecond first and who "added to the demand" later. We both still demand the power going forward.

    • Is it not done via accounting? So, it's not literal.

      How does Ecotricity do it? AI...

      Ecotricity claims its electricity is 100% renewable by directly generating power from its own wind and solar farms, purchasing clean energy through agreements with other renewable producers, and using REGO certificates in a transparent way. Unlike many suppliers that engage in greenwashingâ"labeling fossil-fuel electricity as âoegreenâ by simply buying certificatesâ"Ecotricity ensures the energy and its p

      • Yes, of course it's done via accounting. The electricity wholesaler contracts with, say, a wind farm, to provide a certain amount of "clean" energy. They then sell "clean" energy to customers who are willing to pay more. But all that means is that other customers, who don't pay more for clean energy, have a higher proportion of fossil-fuel energy. It doesn't mean that the electrons purchased by the clean energy customer, came from the wind farm. Everybody on the grid literally gets the same mix of green and

  • Quick, everyone stop talking about the USA firing-up old, toxic coal plants for bit-mining and AI training.

    If energy is spent building the next-gen technology, then the old technology can be de-commissioned: Resulting in a net positive. The USA is making a point of eliminating that option.

    • Do you have a reference to show they're using old power stations, which are presumably dirtier than the new ones China are using (while shutting down their older ones)?

      • ... a reference ...

        No, I assumed the power stations will be equally dirty. Which is why I talked about China having a plan and option to shut-down coal-based plants while the USA doesn't and can't. I can continue showing the failure of US Capitalism with China using 'low'-cost AI such as DeepSeek R1 while USA continues using OpenAI ChatGPT and Google Gemini.

  • That's news to me.

  • Maybe it'd help if the US wasn't such a war monger and, instead of bashing China, stopped manufacturing weapons and the wars that require them...not to mention the emissions from the military industrial complex and the military itself.

    You never know, if the US wasn't threatening China so much, maybe China would also manufacture fewer weapons/etc too. Win-win.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Laugh while you can, monkey-boy." -- Dr. Emilio Lizardo

Close