| ▲ | satvikpendem 2 hours ago |
| Meanwhile China is becoming entirely energy independent and electrifying their economy. I don't understand how the US doesn't see that they won't be top dog forever especially in this multipolar age. |
|
| ▲ | 0xfedcafe 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| They still mostly rely on coal. Slightly more than half of electricity is generated by burning coal, whereas in the US, it's only 15%. The renewable energy share in generation is roughly the same in the US and China, but not for capacity. |
| |
| ▲ | energy123 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You can look at current levels, or look at trends. China has stopped increasing coal. They're building a small number of new coal plants, but this is outstripped by the coal plants being underutilized or decommissioned China is really only building new renewables, almost 100x as much net renewable capacity per year compared to nuclear. | | |
| ▲ | cobbaut an hour ago | parent [-] | | Plus they are building coal plants as backups for when other sources fail. |
| |
| ▲ | myrmidon 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This is misleading, because China has no gas, and they use coal power as dispatchable source with lower capacity factor (similar to gas elsewhere). Coal+gas electricity is basically the same fraction in China than in the US. But countries like Germany or Spain are significantly ahead in this regard, with much higher fraction of electrical energy coming from solar/wind. See:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s... | | |
| ▲ | skybrian 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Burning natural gas instead of coal should result in about half as much carbon emissions theoretically, although methane leaks will narrow the advantage. | | |
| ▲ | myrmidon 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Absolutely. Gas is a lot less problematic than coal. But my point is that it fills (in China) a very similar role for the electric grid and countries don't get to choose what fossils are in their soil. The US using relatively more gas than coal is not any kind of laudable achievement, it's simply whats cheaply available. Norway does not get any credit in my book for being full renewable either (because they have "free" hydro power literally everywhere). |
|
| |
| ▲ | MSFT_Edging 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | China is also ~4x the population of the US and accounts for 30% of the worlds manufacturing and energy production. The scale is so crazy that these numbers rarely make sense on their own. | | |
| ▲ | contingencies 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | ie. China is the future, US is the past. | | |
| ▲ | arcbyte an hour ago | parent [-] | | Well, China is already "the past". They're past the Lewis turning point. We'll have to look somewhere else for "the future". | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | remus 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The direction of travel is clear though. China is making massive investments in renewable energy (and dominating sectors like solar in the process) while the US seems hell bent on going the other way. | |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Slightly less than half now as of the most recent figures. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-generates-less... > That [coal] share was well down from 65.5% in 2016, previous NEA figures showed. > Renewable energy's share grew to 41.2% — topping 40% for the first time — and of that wind and solar accounted for 24.6%, Xing added. Wind and solar's share was up from 9.7% in 2020. | |
| ▲ | kccqzy 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | GP was talking about energy independence. They use domestic coal not imported coal, so the goal of energy independence is still achieved. | |
| ▲ | arrrg 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Things are changing. Look at starting points and direction, not just things as they currently are. That said, renewable sources are so cheap and consequently economically appealing that not even the incredibly dumb Trump admin can stop them. | |
| ▲ | raverbashing 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Slightly more than half of electricity is generated by burning coal, So this means, slightly less than half is other sources (hydro, solar, etc) | |
| ▲ | cloudie78 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
| ▲ | titzer 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The people running the government literally do not care. They only care about evading responsibility for decades of crimes by smashing all accountability mechanisms, disabling all oversight so they can loot the government, increasing dysfunction, feeding the culture war to keep us fighting each other over wedge issues instead of rising up, and flattering some utterly insane religious freaks so they have an immutable core of cult members. They're financed by America's arch enemies, easily manipulated, vain, and stupid. To them, America is a golden opportunity for naked theft of power and money. |
|
| ▲ | Amezarak 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The US is the biggest oil producer in the world. Consumption does exceed production, but obviously this changes the calculus around energy independence. It is the third largest coal producer, behind India and China. |
|
| ▲ | OtomotO 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| China thinks long-term, the US administration, especially the current one doesn't. And who is to blame them (or to hold them accountable)? Some won't live long-term... I mean, being 80 and fat, what are the chances... |
| |
|
| ▲ | epolanski 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| US is rich in fossil energy so it doesn't have the same incentives as China does obviously. |
| |
| ▲ | estearum an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Someone who is "rich" in a consumable asset and therefore chooses to just consume that instead of investing in a renewable or compounding asset is colloquially known as "a dumbass." | | |
| ▲ | navane an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | And it's called "dutch disease". We did it with gas. Now look at Norway. We could've been like Norway. | |
| ▲ | epolanski 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | But US seems to be doing a bit of everything no? But of course it doesn't have the same incentives of China. | | |
| ▲ | estearum 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You are commenting on an article in which the US is deciding (and paying immense costs) in order not to do everything. The current administration is actively trying to squash several proven-valuable ways of converting non-renewable resources into renewable ones. |
|
| |
| ▲ | flohofwoe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > US is rich in fossil energy so it doesn't have the same incentives as China does obviously. China isn't rich in fossil energy? That's news to me. They are the world's largest coal producer and still create over half of their electricity from coal. The difference to the US is that China seems to realize that this strategy isn't a long term solution. | | |
|
