4 ms·

It's a bit ridiculous to claim Australia is somehow falling behind when our target seems? To be more ambitious than China's is. It's not actually mentioned anyw

It's a bit ridiculous to claim Australia is somehow falling behind when our target seems? To be more ambitious than China's is. It's not actually mentioned anywhere what China's 2030 renewables target is. It's apparently 1200GW, but the grid's capacity in 2019 was 3TW - so after accounting for capacity factor (0.25) china was only targeting ~10% renewables by 2030, compared to Australia's 80% grid share. The share will probably be higher than that in China, but it's still ridiculous to not provide a comparable number in the article. It's easy to beat a goal that's set low, surprise! Australia's goal of 80% seems like a solid number to me as well, and given the general trajectory of renewables it would not surprise me if the grid is defacto all renewables shortly after that time anyway. Comparing absolute numbers is obviously stupid too. 1.4B is ~50x the Australian population, so china installing 50x the capacity ("they install in a week what we install in a year") is not at all surprising (and hilarious to compare the numbers directly anywU) The whole article just seems to be a bit of a puff piece giving air to an unambitious target. The ABC has really gone downhill, and it's a bit sad how uncritical they can be nowadays :( (not to detract from china making progress - that's always good - but this seems like a pretty baseline result given their population)

syrgian 2y ago
Australia's target is more ambitious, but China has a larger share right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable... I am also not clear that it is that much more ambitious. You are not comparing the correct numbers. 1200 GW in 2030 is just solar and wind, they are targeting 3.9TW renewables by 2030 and 80% non-fossil by 2060.
- Panzer04 2y ago
  Where did you see the 3.9TW number? I don't see how they can target 1200GW wind and solar and 3.9TW renewable total - what other resources are there? I found the info from a quick look outside the article, so it could definitely be questionable. I will say, China has a bunch of hydro iirc, and right now a lot of countries with lots of renewables is is likely as not just down to huge hydro shares than anything else (though that is obviously changing quite fast nowadays). Even by the targets (which are, admittedly, just targets, AU is targetting 80% renewable share 2030 vs CN 2060. I do expect us to be better given relative wealth etc, though all that probably matters less and less as renewables become the most competitive. Anyway, mostly I'm frustrated by the article not providing a good analysis of the news, it's just repeating what the think tank said (this os sadly becoming par for the course for the ABC nowadays, I haven't found it to have high quality reporting :()
  - syrgian 2y ago
    This is the source to the 3.9TW number: https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF_2023-11-21_triplingrenewables_Final.pdf https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF_2023-11-2... I understand your frustration. I had to dig quite a bit to find numbers I could use, because there are multiple energy categories that are used inconsistently: solar&wind, all renewables, non-fossil. Then they are combined with two main ways of measuring them: capacity and average production. Then there are targets, predictions and in-production. It is a nightmare to get fair 1:1 comparisons.
csomar 2y ago
Australia GDP per capita is x5 times that of China. So I think it's fair to expect it to be much better; maybe not x5 times better but still significantly better than China.

syrgian 2y ago

Australia's target is more ambitious, but China has a larger share right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable... I am also not clear that it is that much more ambitious. You are not comparing the correct numbers. 1200 GW in 2030 is just solar and wind, they are targeting 3.9TW renewables by 2030 and 80% non-fossil by 2060.

Panzer04 2y ago
Where did you see the 3.9TW number? I don't see how they can target 1200GW wind and solar and 3.9TW renewable total - what other resources are there? I found the info from a quick look outside the article, so it could definitely be questionable. I will say, China has a bunch of hydro iirc, and right now a lot of countries with lots of renewables is is likely as not just down to huge hydro shares than anything else (though that is obviously changing quite fast nowadays). Even by the targets (which are, admittedly, just targets, AU is targetting 80% renewable share 2030 vs CN 2060. I do expect us to be better given relative wealth etc, though all that probably matters less and less as renewables become the most competitive. Anyway, mostly I'm frustrated by the article not providing a good analysis of the news, it's just repeating what the think tank said (this os sadly becoming par for the course for the ABC nowadays, I haven't found it to have high quality reporting :()
- syrgian 2y ago
  This is the source to the 3.9TW number: https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF_2023-11-21_triplingrenewables_Final.pdf https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF_2023-11-2... I understand your frustration. I had to dig quite a bit to find numbers I could use, because there are multiple energy categories that are used inconsistently: solar&wind, all renewables, non-fossil. Then they are combined with two main ways of measuring them: capacity and average production. Then there are targets, predictions and in-production. It is a nightmare to get fair 1:1 comparisons.

csomar 2y ago

Australia GDP per capita is x5 times that of China. So I think it's fair to expect it to be much better; maybe not x5 times better but still significantly better than China.