Who calculates what percentage of China's energy is solar?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Who calculates what percentage of China's energy is solar?

Dunno, but they're currently building another 50 coal fired power stations.

Just now, BritManToo said:

Dunno, but they're currently building another 50 coal fired power stations.

And they're selling the heck out of those solar panels and windmills. 

The US has enough hot, dry desert areas to really make a go of solar. Provided they don't fill it all with AI data centres.

Cheap energy, from solar, hydro-electric, wind and cheap Russian oil are the biggest advantage China has over the US as a manufacturer. That is why the US will never beat them. It provides a massive cost undercut.

 

IMHO. Seeing as the US can hardly produce enough power for its needs as it is, they might as well complete the wind farm if already started.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Who calculates what percentage of China's energy is solar?

Did you read any of my links? Is this your best comeback?

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

Did you read any of my links? Is this your best comeback?

Did you? Clearly you didn't, or you could have answered my question. 

19 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And no doubt you have a conspiracy theory quackery bluesky group that tells you how great leftism is. 

Er, righty ho, thanks for your contribution. When you have nothing just throw "leftism" out there.

I wrote a detailed post with information and backed up by links to credible sources.

You shout "lefty" as that's all you ever do.

If you fancy countering my arguments with something you've thought of yourself, with words formed in to sentences and links to support them then please go ahead. But if you only want to shout "lefty" then please run along.

5 minutes ago, phetphet said:

The US has enough hot, dry desert areas to really make a go of solar. Provided they don't fill it all with AI data centres.

Cheap energy, from solar, hydro-electric, wind and cheap Russian oil are the biggest advantage China has over the US as a manufacturer. That is why the US will never beat them. It provides a massive cost undercut.

 

IMHO. Seeing as the US can hardly produce enough power for its needs as it is, they might as well complete the wind farm if already started.

 

 

Except that it does not work at night.

 

California gets over 40% of it's electric from solar, Texas almost 10%. 

 

Not much desert in the north and east. 

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Er, righty ho, thanks for your contribution. When you have nothing just throw "leftism" out there.

I wrote a detailed post with information and backed up by links to credible sources.

You shout "lefty" as that's all you ever do.

If you fancy countering my arguments with something you've thought of yourself, with words formed in to sentences and links to support them then please go ahead. But if you only want to shout "lefty" then please run along.

In your links, who calculated what percentage of China's energy is and wind?

26 minutes ago, phetphet said:

The US has enough hot, dry desert areas to really make a go of solar. Provided they don't fill it all with AI data centres.

Cheap energy, from solar, hydro-electric, wind and cheap Russian oil are the biggest advantage China has over the US as a manufacturer. That is why the US will never beat them. It provides a massive cost undercut.

 

IMHO. Seeing as the US can hardly produce enough power for its needs as it is, they might as well complete the wind farm if already started.

 

 

Nothing sums up the green lunacy better than importing from the opposite side of the world solar panels and batteries made with coal powered elec tricity from toxic materials mined by children.

8 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Nothing sums up the green lunacy better

 

Really? How about Thailand importing bottled water from Iceland? 

7 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

 

Really? How about Thailand importing bottled water from Iceland? 

If the company importing bottled water from Iceland to Thailand is claiming their product is "saving the planet" then yes, the pure essence of green lunacy.

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, you can see how all the new solar has driven rates down in Texas:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+electric+rates+last+10+years&sca_esv=d33f661f42c9ee99&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZrjP_Cx0LI1Ytb_FGcOviEiTm5uW1q0uNfK7KsnoL8hWZUZ3ZEPhe0cPqXxrOlmBaXNrzSbxDmRd08BPr8JCE3nu3PcJjf83ExQ7rwGD5cZTZn5yhXjodzY7BAamO5WIWU2x-UGgA-ygO2O_3gSk_9ZqyOAsuFPn8vhrdwnDljVHxI1j_8HIrYsqn-_akCNf8FAHXDA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-5pv0g-ORAxVYavUHHaIYGC8Q0pQJegQIBRAF&biw=1528&bih=698&dpr=1.25

It looks to me like graphs like the one you have just produced, function for you in a way similar to a Rorschach test; you project your beliefs onto a graph rather than exploring why the numbers are the way they are.  Has it ever occurred to you to ask what's behind these numbers rather than simply projecting your beliefs onto them? It's entirely open to you to ask, for example, why have the rates in Texas.

Actually, when I clicked on the link you provided, I did get an answer to that from AI:

"Texas electricity rates have seen significant hikes in the last few years, rising from around 13 cents/kWh in the late 2010s to well over 15 cents/kWh (and even 19+ cents depending on the provider/plan) in late 2024/2025, driven by increased demand, weather, and infrastructure costs, with many residents coming off older, cheaper 3-5 year contracts and facing much higher prices on renewals. While there were periods in the 2010s with lower rates (around 4-5 cents), returning to those levels is unlikely, with current trends pointing to sustained higher costs. "

driven by increased demand, weather, and infrastructure costs,

 

What makes your comment odder is that previously you were claiming that the percentage of solar in the mix was too low to seriously affect rates in Texas and now, apparently, you're claiming that its percentage should have been enough to stop rates from rising. On top of that the cost of energy is not the only factor that rates reflect.

Infrastructure spending has increased dramatically due to the need to harden power sources due to and to to expand  the infrastructure due to a sharp increase in demand due to, among other reasons, rising heat levels that resulted in increased use of air conditioning.

 

7 hours ago, bannork said:

This talk exposes why America, despite having the technology, engineers, and money, still can’t build clean energy at scale.

 

The speaker describes how wealthy landowners and outdated environmental laws have blocked hundreds of projects, from offshore wind to next-generation nuclear. Permits that should take months now take years, leaving critical infrastructure stuck in “permitting purgatory.”

 

He outlines how both political sides celebrate clean energy publicly while fighting it locally. The message is clear: until the system changes, the U.S. will remain stagnant

 

Why America Can’t Build Clean Energy And Who’s Really Stopping It | Watch

Did he address the issue of Donald Trump putting a halt to 5 projects just now? And lots of other projects previously?

50 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Except that it does not work at night.

 

California gets over 40% of it's electric from solar, Texas almost 10%. 

 

Not much desert in the north and east. 

You know what does work at night? Batteries. Texas is quickly playing catchup on that:

https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/infrastructure/2024/battery-store/#:~:text=Texas -- the fastest growing battery storage,(GW) expected to come online in 2024.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

I think the whole of the EU runs on ideology ...... And is failing and falling apart.

 

Nope, they are innovating.

And reducing their need for Russia. 

 

Belgium building a 7B Euro windmill farm that will power most of EU. 

 

So maybe one of the positive outcomes of the Ukraine war and Trump tariffs is EU will become self-reliant. 

 

 

Oh Dear. Offshore wind power is one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity. 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

In your links, who calculated what percentage of China's energy is and wind?

It does not tell me the name of the person who travelled the country with a calculator. It is based on a report by the Economist and also backed by data from the World Economic Forum and IRENA.

 https://www.irena.org/Data/View-data-by-topic/Capacity-and-Generation/Country-Rankings

So go on then, tell me it is all fake as I am sure that's where your going. This is going to be good.

On 12/27/2025 at 5:14 PM, bannork said:

 

It is interesting to compare the advantages and disadvantages of wind power:

 

Advantages

1. Renewable and clean: turbines generate electricity without burning fuel, releasing zero greenhouse gases or air pollutants.

 

2. Cost-Effective: Utility-scale wind is one of the lowest-priced energy sources available.

Installation costs can be considerable however as wind is free there are very low long-term operating costs.

 

3. Space Efficient: While wind farms cover large areas, the actual footprint of each turbine is small. This allows the land between turbines to be used for other purposes like farming or ranching.

 

4. Job creation and revenue for local communities: The industry creates thousands of jobs in manufacturing, installation, and maintenance. It also provides steady income for local communities through tax payments and land-lease agreements.

 

5. Low Water Consumption: Unlike nuclear or fossil fuel plants, wind turbines do not require water for cooling, which is a critical benefit in water-scarce regions. 

 

Disadvantages

 

1.  Intermittency: Wind does not blow at a constant speed therefore turbines do not produce electricity all the time leading to necessary backup energy sources or expensive storage solutions to maintain a stable grid.

 

2. Impact on Wildlife: Rotating blades can be hazardous to birds and bats. Research suggests between 140,000 and 500,000 birds die from turbine collisions annually in the U.S. alone.

 

3. Aesthetics and Noise: Some residents consider wind turbines to be an eyesore. The mechanical hum and aerodynamic whooshing sound annoys some locals.

 

4. Remote Locations: The best wind resources are often in remote or offshore areas far from cities. This necessitates the construction of expensive, high-voltage transmission lines to bring the power to urban centres.

 

5. Technical Interference: Turbines can sometimes interfere with radar systems used for air traffic control or weather forecasting, as well as television and radio signals. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting to see this tread still going on, and no one really discuss the real problem about fixing the environment. You do not fix the environment when all you doing is creating solutions where we spend more, produce more to make cleaner energy to continue overusing resources to produce things and services we really do not need. 

 

Norwegian fish is sent to China to be processed and sent back to Europe for sale. Just one example

 

There is so many cheap <deleted> products we buy, never use, and then after awhile throw away, and in meantime bought more. 

 

So it if was all about saving the environment, are we doing the right thing really? All we do is to make the rich richer, and we pay the price to so they can make more money. Quite delicate 

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

 

Interesting to see this tread still going on, and no one really discuss the real problem about fixing the environment. You do not fix the environment when all you doing is creating solutions where we spend more, produce more to make cleaner energy to continue overusing resources to produce things and services we really do not need. 

 

Norwegian fish is sent to China to be processed and sent back to Europe for sale. Just one example

 

There is so many cheap <deleted> products we buy, never use, and then after awhile throw away, and in meantime bought more. 

 

So it if was all about saving the environment, are we doing the right thing really? All we do is to make the rich richer, and we pay the price to so they can make more money. Quite delicate 

The problem with that is our economic system. Without throwing things away and buying new ones, you don't need people to make those things. Needing those things gives people jobs. Jobs give people money to buy those things. There was a book that came out in the 60s that spoke about the problem, "Report from Iron Mountain". It brought up that the two most efficient examples of this were war, where you hire people to blow things up, and replace the things that get blown up, and the space race, where you take lots of workers and materials to build something to shoot out of this world.

Overconsumption is the catalyst for ecological collapse, and you maybe heard about The Great Filter and The Fermi paradox. 

 

Most people is aware, but very few do something about it

6 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Nothing sums up the green lunacy better than importing from the opposite side of the world solar panels and batteries made with coal powered elec tricity from toxic materials mined by children.

Not just green lunacy. The US gave up much of its industrial production to import everything cheaper from China.

It's what Trump is trying to reverse. Unfortunately, while a good idea, he seems to have gone about it in totally the wrong way.

 

9 minutes ago, phetphet said:

Not just green lunacy. The US gave up much of its industrial production to import everything cheaper from China.

It's what Trump is trying to reverse. Unfortunately, while a good idea, he seems to have gone about it in totally the wrong way.

 

 

And it comes down to how much we use on stupid things, like Halloween and Christmas decorations that is buy and throw away products. New year? Strawberry festivals, pumpkin festivals, producing American cars with 8L engines just for fun, and the stupidity is a long list of how we all have spent valuable resources to speed up the poor sustainable economy, which is quality clothes, food, houses, health care ,,,,,,,,,, but we choose stupidity instead. 

 

 

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

Nope, they are innovating.

And reducing their need for Russia. 

 

Belgium building a 7B Euro windmill farm that will power most of EU. 

 

So maybe one of the positive outcomes of the Ukraine war and Trump tariffs is EU will become self-reliant. 

 

 

Actually, this project has experience the kind of cost overruns that are usually associated nuclear power projects.

"The project's modular offshore grid, MOG2, was originally costed at €2.2 billion. Latest estimates put it between €7 and €8 billion. Energy regulators have issued warnings; politicians are muttering about fiscal recklessness.

https://www.brusselstimes.com/1658574/why-belgiums-energy-future-is-blowing-in-the-wind

 

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

Overconsumption is the catalyst for ecological collapse, and you maybe heard about The Great Filter and The Fermi paradox. 

 

Most people is aware, but very few do something about it

Yes, the insane commercialisation of Christmas with families often spending over £1000 on decorations, food and presents. All keeping up with the Jones.

Then there's the ubiquitous use of plastic in all its forms for packaging goods, the need to buy new to replace one faulty part of a product. 

Consumption gone crazy.

6 minutes ago, bannork said:

Yes, the insane commercialisation of Christmas with families often spending over £1000 on decorations, food and presents. All keeping up with the Jones.

Then there's the ubiquitous use of plastic in all its forms for packaging goods, the need to buy new to replace one faulty part of a product. 

Consumption gone crazy.

And in Thailand they replacing all decorations for holidays which in original form is banana leaves, flowers and straws, with stitches and plastic. Even the flowers for safe transport and good luck flowers they sell on red lights comes in plastic now. 

In the rolling hills of southeast Queensland, Australia, farmer and businessman Brent Finlay stands beneath turbines so tall they rival skyscrapers.

"There's a lift inside that takes about 12 minutes to go from the bottom to the top," he said, pointing skyward. Forty-five of the giant turbines that now dot his property are part of the massive MacIntyre Wind Farm which will soon generate enough electricity to power 700,000 homes.

Farmers with land to rent out aren't the only ones expected to reap financial benefits from a clean energy system. The reason a rapid transition would provide more savings is because the more renewable energy technology is being made, the cheaper it's getting.

Economists describe this phenomenon as a "learning curve" called Wright's Law, which shows the costs of certain technologies fall as cumulative production increases. The same pattern drove down the price of aircraft, cars, computers, and DNA sequencing over the past century.

In the last ten years, the cost of solar panels has dropped by around 90%, largely thanks to an explosion in Chinese manufacturing capacity.

"Solar power is the cheapest form of energy in history," economist Gernot Wagner from Columbia Business School told DW. "This stuff is so cheap that Germans are installing it as garden fencing. It keeps the dog in and the car charged."

Wind power has also dropped in price by about 70% since 2014. And battery storage — vital for storing wind and solar power — is also fast improving, with prices declining by 85% compared to the 2010s.

How clean energy could save us trillions

A federal judge on Monday rejected the Trump administration's latest rationale for blocking an offshore wind project under construction by a Danish company.

According to Bloomberg News, "The Revolution Wind project, intended to power hundreds of thousands of homes in Rhode Island and Connecticut, 'would be irreparably harmed' unless work was allowed to continue during the legal fight, US District Judge Royce C. Lamberth in Washington concluded Monday. The project is almost 90% complete."

Revolution Wind is being developed by Orsted A/S, an energy firm based in Denmark.

The Trump administration initially halted approval for the project last August. At the time, Lamberth granted a preliminary injunction against the order, allowing work to resume as Orsted argued the administration didn't have authority to cancel pre-existing approval for the project without explanation.

Trump's Department of the Interior subsequently issued a new order in December that paused the leases for Revolution Wind and four other offshore wind energy projects, "due to national security risks identified by the Department of War in recently completed classified reports

Judge shoots down Trump's 'national security' excuse to kill wind farm

Lamberth's new order blocks this decision for the time being, as the matter continues to be litigated on the merits. It comes a month after another federal court blocked the Trump administration's moratorium on new approvals for wind energy projects.

Oh no, another federal judge

1 hour ago, bannork said:

A federal judge on Monday rejected the Trump administration's latest rationale for blocking an offshore wind project under construction by a Danish company.

According to Bloomberg News, "The Revolution Wind project, intended to power hundreds of thousands of homes in Rhode Island and Connecticut, 'would be irreparably harmed' unless work was allowed to continue during the legal fight, US District Judge Royce C. Lamberth in Washington concluded Monday. The project is almost 90% complete."

Revolution Wind is being developed by Orsted A/S, an energy firm based in Denmark.

The Trump administration initially halted approval for the project last August. At the time, Lamberth granted a preliminary injunction against the order, allowing work to resume as Orsted argued the administration didn't have authority to cancel pre-existing approval for the project without explanation.

Trump's Department of the Interior subsequently issued a new order in December that paused the leases for Revolution Wind and four other offshore wind energy projects, "due to national security risks identified by the Department of War in recently completed classified reports

Judge shoots down Trump's 'national security' excuse to kill wind farm

Lamberth's new order blocks this decision for the time being, as the matter continues to be litigated on the merits. It comes a month after another federal court blocked the Trump administration's moratorium on new approvals for wind energy projects.

Sensible decision.