8 ms·
U.S. Emissions Rise 4.2%, China's Fall 2.7%
- toomuchtodo 1y agoRelated: China’s Decarbonization Is So Fast Even New Coal Plants Aren’t Stopping It - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44987548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44987548 - August 2025
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jryan49 1y agoIs there a future where China uses this as leverage with the rest of the world to put sanctions on the US if we don't transition?
- mempko 1y agoWe need to transition. It's a disgrace the way we are moving backwards
- Workaccount2 1y agoChina is doing this for energy independence. Their fossil fuel supply chain is critically vulnerable. They don't care about the climate, but will happily play the optics.
- zahlman 1y agoThe US also apparently seeks energy independence, but seems unwilling to give up "farmland" (or, you know, household roofs or awnings over parking lots) to do it.
- _aavaa_ 1y agoHappy to give up farmland if you can install a pump jack.
- anonfordays 1y agoPump jacks use an order of magnitude less space.
- outside1234 1y agoThan a wind turbine? Not sure that's true
- chrisco255 1y agoWind turbines have a bigger base than pumpjacks, but both are frequently scattered across west texas farm and cattle fields. Solar wouldn't be as economical as far as space goes. But you go a little further west and that's arid desert which prob should be fine for solar.
- _aavaa_ 1y agoA) that’s simply untrue. Solar panels and wind turbines don’t use up the land. You can grow crops and graze under the panels and the wind turbine is mostly in the sky. B) solar panels and wind turbines tend not to spill toxic waste into the ground around them. And tend not to be put up on your own land without your consent.
- anonfordays 1y ago>A) that’s simply untrue. Wrong, it's simply true. Solar panels use land poorly, the MW per unit area is poor. >You can grow crops and graze under the panels Agrovoltaics accounts for less than 0.5% of commercial solar installations in rural lands. Effectively no one is doing this, it's not cost effective. You can't fit tractors/combines between the panels. >And tend not to be put up on your own land without your consent. What do you mean? No one is putting pump jacks on property without the owners consent.
- _mlbt 1y agoHousehold solar installations are still too expensive to be a reasonable option for many consumers in the United States. The amount of solar generation is also very dependent on where you live. Not to mention, it is becoming increasingly difficult to become a homeowner with people achieving this milestone later than ever. If you rent, it’s not really an option at all. > On average, it takes between nine and 12 years for solar panels to pay for themselves. https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/spending/articles/the-cost-of-solar-panels-and-are-they-worth-it https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/spending/art...
- toomuchtodo 1y agoThis is all factually accurate. If you're a renter, see if your utility offers a community solar option. This enables you to get economic savings and exposure to solar without installing a system yourself. If you're a homeowner, in many cases, the return on investment (depending on installation cost) is under 10 years (after which your power is free for the life of the system, which will exceed 25 years). It should be compared to a bond return/investment (assuming cash purchase vs financing or a lease). https://seia.org/initiatives/community-solar/ https://seia.org/initiatives/community-solar/
- throwawaymaths 1y agous is very close to net energy independence, if anything the nondesire to retool petrochemical plants for ultrasweet fracked fuel is the blocker for true energy independence.
- toomuchtodo 1y agoThe US farms 60 million acres for corn and soybean biofuels currently. Lots of suboptimal ag land available for more efficient energy production (besides rooftops, irrigation canals, parking lots, etc; California has 4k miles of irrigation canals they can cover with solar PV, and is actively working towards this goal). As _aavaa_ mentions, agrivoltaics are very favorably for solar PV and ag production synergies. (average age of farmers is ~58 years old, and with the decline in labor for ag, now is an optimal time to lease and lock up this land for renewables for the next 25-30 years [at which point generators can be repowered or the land returned to its previous condition]) There Is One Clear Winner In The Corn Vs. Solar Battle - https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/26/there-is-one-clear-winner-in-the-corn-vs-solar-battle/ https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/26/there-is-one-clear-winn... - April 28th, 2025 Ecologically informed solar enables a sustainable energy transition in US croplands - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2501605122 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2501605122 | https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2501605122 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2501605122 New study compares growing corn for energy to solar production. It’s no contest. - https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2025/04/new-study-compares-growing-corn-for-energy-to-solar-production-its-no-contest/ https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2025/04/new-study-compa... - April 25th, 2025 Impacts of agrisolar co-location on the food–energy–water nexus and economic security - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-025-01546-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-025-01546-4 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01546-4 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01546-4 HN Search: agrivoltaics (sorted by date) - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=agrivoltaics&sort=byDate&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- bgnn 1y agoNeither the US cares about the climate amd doesn't care about the optics either. This is capitalism in action: solar is cheaper than anything else per kwh. The obsession with fossil in the West is due to the fossil fuel lobbies, not because of the rational market forces. China doesn't have that.
- bwestergard 1y agoHas there ever been a polity where your "rational market forces" prevailed over "lobbies" created by market forces?
- bgnn 1y agoNot in the history so far. I'm just trying to balance the extreme negative view on Chinese subsidies. They are of similar nature, and scale (as percentage of the total economy). In the EU we have this view of Chinese EVs because they get subsidies from the state, whereas we are doing the same for European car manufacturers (especially Germany amd France). We can at least be rational in our analysis.
- rsynnott 1y agoI mean, yes. The coal industry put huge amounts of effort into trying to halt oil and later gas, and it didn't really work in the end.
- bwestergard 1y agoDo you have a citation for this? So far as I know, oil production increased coal consumption, and indirectly production, in the early twentieth century. https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
- Workaccount2 1y agoI'm as big of a proponent on solar as anyone, but to avoid confusion, understand that those cheap solar figures come from using state subsidized Chinese panels on near worthless land in the cloudless remote southwest. If you are trying to use American made panels near population centers in the Northeast or the Midwest, the economics become much more challenging.
- carabiner 1y agoHow is this different from the US?
- bilbo0s 1y agoIt's not. The reply was just explaining the calculus that China, and other nations, are using with respect to renewable energy.
- stackskipton 1y agoUS Fossil Fuel chain right now is not very vulnerable. Vast majority of oil/gas production is internal or from nearby states that foreign powers would have hard time cutting off and our relations are ok with, recent administration aside. China gets its oil from Russia and Middle East. Russia is unstable partner and Middle East can get cut off by US Naval power for now.
- adgjlsfhk1 1y agoThe US is an energy exporter (and its energy imports are mostly hydro and oil from Canada which is a pretty safe trade route). China is a massive importer and they import from countries they aren't especially friendly with
- the_duke 1y ago> They don't care about the climate I don't think it's that simple. China is a signatory to Kyoto and Paris. They do care about reducing pollution, and have managed to do so quite significantly in many cities. China also has quite a bit to lose: many large cities on the coasts, and worsening water shortage problems. National security probably plays a large role, and I reckon they would prioritize economy over climate, but the evidence implies that they do also care.
- chrisco255 1y agoWater shortage has nothing to do with global warming, just overpopulation in specific regions. The world if anything is getting more precipitous than in the past.
- adgjlsfhk1 1y agoClimate change has local effects. More flooding in some areas can coexist with more drought in others.
- chrisco255 1y agoDrought prone areas have actually reduced in recent decades overall. Drought and flood cycles are also impacted by ancient oceanic factors including the El Nino/La Nina cycle as well as the multidecadal oscillations in Pacific and Atlantic.
- rsynnott 1y ago> Water shortage has nothing to do with global warming I mean, on a global basis, sure, not really. But if you currently get your water supply for your megacities from rivers A, B, C and D, then yeah, that's vulnerable, and that river E on the other side of the country with no infra has increased in flow will be little consolation.
- ericmay 1y agoRegarding Paris it’s probably a matter of convenience too. Why not sign on to all this stuff if you’re going to build solar anyway to reduce your commodity dependency exposure as you prep for Taiwan? You can think about this as if China had access to the same oil reserves or oil markets as the US does, would they behave differently? Absolutely. Separately I think eliminating pollution is more along the lines of their country just doing good things for their people. Climate change stances and whatnot I don’t think are the same, nor are the intentions.
- K0nserv 1y agoFossil fuels aren't just bad for global climate, air pollution (which is mostly local) kills 7-8 million people per year. There's an interesting study that arises from a natural experiment based on coal subsidies in China[0]. It found that life expectancy in otherwise similar locations is 3 years lower where the subsidy is paid, and thus more coal is burned. 0: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1300018110 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1300018110
- Sharlin 1y agoI'm pretty sure they care. They can afford to think long term.
- Waterluvian 1y agoI’m not sure it’s absolutely knowable. These are all just opinions. But I feel that China is far more likely to actually care about the climate than America is. One of the benefits of being a pseudodemocratic centralized government is that you can kind of decide something is important without worrying how to get reelected in a few years. All it takes is a leadership that decides this is their vanity project to be remembered by, or perhaps to actually care about China in 100 years (the Americans obviously can’t think or see this far anymore). This is possibly helped by having a population with a culture of collectivism. For better or worse you don’t have to actually solve the “what’s in it for me?” question that seems to completely screw climate plans when the plan is, “it’ll suck for you but your grandkids will appreciate it.”
- robocat 1y agoOversimplification to single causes is sign of poor thinking. Solar is also economically better for China. Secondly, I would strongly guess China ramped up production thinking that there would be more overseas demand. It isn't just low demand from the US; for example my "green" New Zealand is also not buying utility scale solar (oversimplified reason from horse's mouth: it is due to our major electricity generators colluding - the actual blocking reasons are more capitalistically complex). There are very few situations in the world where cause and effect are clear: facile explanations of cause and effect are usually wrong in important ways.
- Workaccount2 1y agoThe comment is succinct, the reasoning in long.
- triceratops 1y ago> They don't care about the climate Like all the crypto climate deniers and True Bird Lovers* are fond of saying, the climate doesn't care about per capita emissions, only total emissions. And now China's total emissions have reduced. * they oppose wind power
- nine_zeros 1y ago> They don't care about the climate, but will happily play the optics It is not just optics or energy independence. There is a genuine effort to reduce pollution. People forget in 00s media used to bash the smog in China. It was an unlivable air. They truly wanted to transform it - it just so happens that renewables solve a lot of problems simultaneously.
- presentation 1y agoChina actually has quite a bit of public debate and discontent around air quality at a minimum. They definitely care in that they don’t want to piss off the populace.
- beej71 1y agoI resent them saving the planet in this way.
- rsynnott 1y agoI'd say they care quite a bit about the climate; China goes in for long-term planning, and their water supply in particular is _already_ precarious. They're likely quite vulnerable to climate change.
- thegrim33 1y agoChina emits a full 1/3 of the entire planet's CO2 emissions, emits three times as much as the US does, and emits more than any other country on Earth.
- notTooFarGone 1y agoThe country with most people emit the most... Cmon HN...
- richwater 1y agoRising temperatures and sea levels don't care about per capita emissions. If you _actually_ think climate change is an existential threat, you cannot think in per capita measurements.
- scotty79 1y agoWhy would rising sea levels care about per-country emissions? Per-capita measurements are more sensible because then you know how many humans and which ones need to get wiped for Gaia to be happy.
- lucb1e 1y agoThe opposite... if you think climate change is an issue, it's everyone's issue, not just china's
- alex_smart 1y agoIf you think that that is going to stop the people in China and India from wanting to increase their standard of livings, that is beyond delusional. And did I read the article’s headline wrong or isn’t the article about China actually decreasing their absolute emissions.
- triceratops 1y agoIt's always easy to do nothing and blame others. Americans (and other Westerners and developed countries) emit carbon to drive SUVs and eat burgers and steak. They tell everyone else to stay poor lest they emit carbon. Then also shame them for needing aid. I'm glad China's at least making something useful with their emissions.
- ajross 1y agoWith that excuse specifically? Probably not. But we're 100% charging straight into a future where the US ends up being isolated and subject to punitive extortion of some form, yeah. Once we cross the threshold of being "more annoying to bend the knee toward than Beijing", our particular flavor of hegemony is over and the world enters its new era.
- nerpderp82 1y agoContinue on this path and we will look like Russia in 10 years. Sorry aboot the invasion Canada.
- tobias3 1y agoThe EU will introduce "sanctions" via a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) at the end of this year. Currently the US wouldn't be affected much by this -- it only affects cement, aluminium, fertilisers, iron and steel, hydrogen and electricity for now. It might be extended in the future, though.
- blitzar 1y agoUnlikely, China isnt an outwardly hostile nation like the US.
- chrisco255 1y agoQuit drinking the kool aid. You know nothing about the CCP and its ambitions or its future.
- blitzar 1y ago[flagged]
- Detrytus 1y agoWell, the CCP does not hide their ambitions at all: they aim to replace the US as the global superpower, and with Trump as POTUS they actually start looking like a more stable, more reliable alternative. I mean: Trump is a clown, and the US under his rule is becoming a circus.
- Hikikomori 1y agoAnd you do?
- chrisco255 1y agoWhat sanctions are China going to leverage on USA? The Yuan is pegged to the USD at an artificially low exchange rate and America owns little of strategic value in China. Tariff wars are already ongoing as the economies go through a gradual divorce. China's economy is export-based and U.S. is its largest buyer. If it refused to export to the U.S. its economy would go into a freefall and the Yuan would hyperinflate.
- notTooFarGone 1y agoWe see how much leverage the US has with current toothless tariffs on China. Remind me what is the tariff and how often was it postponed? China is taking over as the more stable and reliable partner for so many counties - I don't like it really but what can you do
- wakawaka28 1y agoIs there a future where you want an authoritarian government on the other side of the planet to bully you into shutting down all your industry to reach some nebulous "carbon" goals? Cutting ties with China could have lots of benefits though.
- tuatoru 1y agoI haven't done the math but I would expect that more than all of China's decline is due to two effects: population aging -- older people use less fossil fuel. reduced household formation, in part driven by increased youth unemployment. It's impossible to get figures for this.
- w4yai 1y agoWhich stage of denial is this ?
- tuatoru 1y agoKnowledge of demography.
- lucb1e 1y agolooking up your claim, https://www.mpg.de/4635546/co2-age-structure https://www.mpg.de/4635546/co2-age-structure doesn't quite seem that much of a decline as compared to the giant increase from adulthood until ~60yo (presumably, as you accumulate wealth and require more care). You have to be over 70yo before it goes from ~15 to ~13 tons per capita per year. That's a small minority of people (like 9% if I'm eyeballing it right) who are 70+ in China in 2024 according to https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2024/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2024/ so the remaining 91% will be either stable or increasing emissions edit: corrected the figure from 3% to 9% after noticing that I looked only at the left number and not the right one on that second graph. Forgot about all the women in the country, whoops
- tokioyoyo 1y ago1/3 of Chinese population still lives in the rural areas. They’re still in the process of urbanization and building up new cities. That process results in emissions.
- davis 1y agoThe decline in emissions is due to the massive build out of renewables of solar and wind. The amount they are building is insane. Your theory is ignorant and you are spreading misinformation and nonsense.
- mperham 1y ago> a boom in solar that saw the country [China] add 92 gigawatts of capacity—that’s 92 billion watts—in a single month in May, compared to all-time U.S. installations of 134 GW. That's an insane stat. China added 92GW of solar in May 2025 alone.
- neom 1y agoChinese solar farms are massive: https://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%96%B0%E7%96%86%E5%A4%AA%E9%98%B3%E8%83%BD%E7%94%B5%E6%9D%BF&udm=2&tbs= https://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%96%B0%E7%96%86%E5%A4%AA%... / https://www.ts.cn/xwzx/jjxw/202505/t20250522_28681100.shtml https://www.ts.cn/xwzx/jjxw/202505/t20250522_28681100.shtml
- RobinL 1y agoThat stat is bonkers. China's GDP is only 5x that of UK. Total UK solar is about 19GW. So even if you divide China's solar by 5, they added in a month what we have built in >10 years
- chippiewill 1y agoComparing to the UK probably isn't the best though since the UK latitude makes it not super favourable to Solar. It would be better to compare it to Southern Europe. Spain has 40GW and GDP that's about 1/10th of China. Still, dividing China's capacity of 90GW by 10 still means they built a quarter of Spain's capacity in a month. Crazy.
- lucb1e 1y agoI don't think it's going to look much better if you add in wind capacity :( Looking it up... 16 GW onshore and 15 GW offshore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingd... This graph looks like it started in earnest in like 2005, so 1.6GW/year on- and offshore combined, peaking in 2017 with 3.5GW in one year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Wind_power_installed_capacity_in_UK_MW.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingd...
- Romanulus 1y ago[dead]
- Alifatisk 1y agoGood news for China, bad news for US. But don't forget China still emit 16B compared to US who emit 6B tons of CO2 https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pollution-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pollution...
- yodsanklai 1y agoEmissions impact the whole world, not only the country that emit them. And the relevant metric is not per country, but per inhabitant in this country.
- ACCount37 1y agoNot really. Otherwise, US could slash its "relevant metrics" by annexing Nigeria.
- Leary 1y agoExcept that does make sense because the new country would be the weighted average of the average CO2 contribution for both Americans and Nigerians.
- ACCount37 1y agoClearly, that means annexing Nigeria is the best way for US to reduce its GHG emissions. Just add poor people to your country! Per capita emission metrics HATE this one weird trick!
- triceratops 1y agoJeez the extent some people will go to not install solar.
- yongjik 1y agoI'm fine with that. So go ahead, annex Nigeria, you coward.
- gorwell 1y agoMisleading due to missing context. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-...
- ceejayoz 1y agoPot, meet kettle. Now do it per-capita.
- lucb1e 1y agohttps://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita Sadly shows China going up, sharply until 2011, then more modestly. The latest 2023 data shows 8t/capita where the EU average is about 6 (not every EU country is rich, but sounds like that ought to be enough for a decent lifestyle) and US 14
- ceejayoz 1y ago> Sadly shows China going up, sharply until 2011, then more modestly. And how does their current value compare to the US?
- vondur 1y agoLooks like the US is decreasing from the chart.
- ceejayoz 1y agoThat's non-responsive to the question (and the article headline implies that's not even the case this year). Which country currently produces more emissions per capita?
- krrrh 1y agoCanada. But there aren't that many of us, and the absolute number and political units also matter if you care about warming as a practical problem. There are two interesting things about per capita CO2eq in this graph. 1. China is still trending up and the US is still trending down. It's dangerous to make straight-line projections but they are on trend to meet at some point. 2. The US per capita emissions appear to be on a steady downward trend since 1850. This is even more obvious if you discount the anomalous periods of the civil war and the Great Depression. You have to admit, that's something that demands unpacking. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/s4fy286y7gwpqgmeltark/Screenshot-2025-09-02-at-17.19.25.png?rlkey=1xcnid3pnte9fwlse239bpu41&e=1&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/s4fy286y7gwpqgmeltark/Screens... Edit: Looks like Mongolia, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE have the honour of being at the top actually. Might not be a comprehensive list.
- hollerith 1y agoI wonder if most of the 4.2% rise is AI training and inference. Maybe China is in an economic slowdown, so its economy cannot afford to buy as much coal from Australia and petroleum from the Gulf as it used to.
- _aavaa_ 1y agoOr, hear me out, they don’t need to buy as much since they are producing more electricity themselves with their renewables.
- hollerith 1y agoThat is possible, too.
- ceejayoz 1y agoThe article implies the Chinese reduction is due to widespread solar rollout: > International Energy Agency (IEA) figures show Chinese coal consumption falling 2.6% in the first half of the year, largely due to a boom in solar that saw the country add 92 gigawatts of capacity—that’s 92 billion watts—in a single month in May, compared to all-time U.S. installations of 134 GW.
- bryanlarsen 1y agoThere are 4 roughly equivalent components to America's increase in energy use: - population & GDP growth - increased A/C usage - AI/bitcoin/data centers
- Freedom2 1y agoDoes China use a lot of windmills? The US president has a big concern with windmills, perhaps rightly so, which perhaps explains the rise in emissions.
- oatsandsugar 1y ago> perhaps rightly so? citation? You don't even say why he has a concern, so how can you say they are correct?
- henry2023 1y agoThe comment reads as sarcasm to me
- oatsandsugar 1y agoYou have a more generous sarcasmometer then me :)
- jimt1234 1y agoUh, hello? Windmills cause cancer! LOLOLOLOL
- blooalien 1y agoAnd all those tiny little nearly invisible dots on the horizon make seaside golf courses ugly...
- aucisson_masque 1y agoBack when I worked in EDF, biggest nuclear energy producer, I was astonished to see how fast China was developing its nuclear power. it had to build nuclear reactor, solar panels and also diesel engines because they just need so much energy but the sheer amount of money spent on nuclear reactor is unthinkable. That was 10 years ago already, I’m glad to see it’s having an impact. Soon enough, the picture of polluted air in China will be gone and we’ll see that instead in the USA.
- bryanlarsen 1y agoChina has significantly slowed their nuclear build out. They're still building them faster than anyone else, but the primary cause of the headline is solar.
- pbkompasz 1y agoWhen clean coal?
- bryanlarsen 1y agoThey're doing clean coal by idling their coal plants. The capacity factor of their coal plants is dropping steadily, and is now below 50%, meaning they're not running more than they're running. A coal plant that's not running is clean. Still useful for occasional emergency power.
- K0nserv 1y agoThe US, like most democracies, is worse at long term planning. It needs robust incentives to counteract short term instincts. A $100/ton carbon tax would raise $490b(based on 4.9 billion tons of co2 emissions[0]) per year that could be distributed to lower income households (to offset the effect, making the tax progressive) and be used to fund green energy investment. 0: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ericmay 1y agoPeople say that but the underlying assumption seems to be planning for the long-term at the nation state level is a good idea. Given how chaotic the world is, I’m not sure that is true or if so just how true it is. Democracies are inherently more chaotic than Communist dictatorships because of their very nature - democracies don’t tend to aim for stability, because stability brings about some good things but some bad things like lack of innovation and reduced competing, though I am not saying those are aspects of China per se, just speaking generally. If we were to speak about China we could bring up a few long term planning failures. 3 stand out in my mind: the One Child Policy, the mass killing and starvation of Chinese people under Mao which set China back decades never mind the suffering, and more recently perhaps over-construction and the resulting ghost cities and unused infrastructure. We could point to American short term thinking problems too but we are broadly familiar with those. All that is to say, there’s a lot of either fear mongering or propaganda, not sure which. “China is long term oriented better watch out!” Is the current media phenomenon but nobody seems to really look at their long term planning failures or ask whether such long term planning is even good or successful. Though one area China has been great at for long term planning is making sure their kids aren’t addicted to TikTok like ours.
- K0nserv 1y agoI didn't mean to imply communist dictatorships always get this right, of course even with central planning and, supposed, long term thinking it has gone horribly wrong before, as you point out. It does make me think about the failure to react to changes or ideas that we ill-advised from the very start. I think, at least partially, this stems less from the long time horizon when planning and more from the lack of dissent in a dictatorship. The Chernobyl TV series's "The cost of lies" concept feels very poignant.
- chrisco255 1y agoU.S. already migrated massive amounts of its energy sector from coal to natural gas over the last couple of decades, which reduced emissions from that replaced capacity by 60% years ago. If and when solar truly makes economic sense to justify the switching costs, it will happen, period. A lot of it is. Solar is growing healthily in the U.S. Problems with solar remain, however. It's neither practical nor safe to build 100% solar grid. You must overbuild capacity on solar, because weather happens. No energy is generated at night. Therefore you have to factory battery install cost as well. Finally there are black swan weather events that DO happen in nature that NO ONE can prevent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer Whereupon solar would be rendered useless precisely when humanity would need power the most.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- craftkiller 1y ago> If and when solar truly makes economic sense to justify the switching costs Already does. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_%28LCOE%2C_Lazard%29_-_renewable_energy.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/20201019... > neither practical nor safe to build 100% solar grid No one is suggesting a 100% solar grid. You combine solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and nuclear. > battery Battery prices have been in free-fall for a while, and there are a bunch of interesting tech for grid-scale energy storage. The vanadium redox battery is appealing for grid-scale energy because the energy capacity is determined by the amount of liquid you store in its tanks, so scaling that is trivial. Sodium ion batteries are appealing since they're made with abundant materials and their lower energy density compared to lithium ion isn't a concern for grid-scale storage. > black swan weather events Which is why no one is suggesting 100% solar. You do a mix like I described earlier.
- WaitWaitWha 1y agoIt would have been nice if the article clearly identified the rise and fall from what to what. Scroll to the bottom, China fell from 30.98 in 2024 to 29.75 MtCO2. The US rose from 13.55 to 14.92 MtCO2.
- darthrupert 1y ago[flagged]
- dang 1y agoOk, but please don't fulminate on Hacker News. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. You may not owe utter fucking double idiots better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
- Yizahi 1y agoRegular reminder that it is an ESTIMATE of emissions across an enormous variety of industries, businesses and individuals over the whole year. A real factual and measurable metric is not some calculated rate of change of a value, but a measure of a value itself - in this case an amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Go to https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/ https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/, open "Full record" and see an objective and factual data (and not some politically motivated estimates) - amount of actually emitted gas is increasing, and the rate of increase is accelerating both for lowest points and highest points.