Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    U.S. Emissions Rise 4.2%, China's Fall 2.7%

    (www.theenergymix.com)
    196 points triceratops | 12 comments | 02 Sep 25 20:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
    Show context
    mperham ◴[02 Sep 25 20:40 UTC] No.45108735[source]▶
    > 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.

    replies(5): >>45108969 #>>45109012 #>>45109065 #>>45109289 #>>45109399 #
    1. RobinL ◴[02 Sep 25 21:02 UTC] No.45109012[source]▶
    That 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

    replies(6): >>45109089 #>>45109418 #>>45109571 #>>45110963 #>>45111881 #>>45118375 #
    2. chippiewill ◴[02 Sep 25 21:08 UTC] No.45109089[source]▶
    Comparing 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.

    replies(1): >>45109157 #
    3. lucb1e ◴[02 Sep 25 21:15 UTC] No.45109157[source]▶
    I 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_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_Kingd...

    4. buyucu ◴[02 Sep 25 21:38 UTC] No.45109418[source]▶
    It is more likely that UK policy is bad, and they are not installing much solar.
    5. marcusverus ◴[02 Sep 25 21:50 UTC] No.45109571[source]▶
    8X by nominal GDP, 9X by PPP

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

    6. kelipso ◴[03 Sep 25 00:40 UTC] No.45110963[source]▶
    We should have an actual GDP measure where bloat like finance and real estate are removed. Would really like to see a comparison using that measure.
    replies(2): >>45111842 #>>45118384 #
    7. deadfoxygrandpa ◴[03 Sep 25 02:59 UTC] No.45111842[source]▶
    we have one, it's called MPS and it was used by the soviets and most of the communist countries including china until the 1990s. china has still not fully transitioned away from MPS and into SNA which is one reason their service sector share of GDP seems so impossibly low
    replies(1): >>45112900 #
    8. deadfoxygrandpa ◴[03 Sep 25 03:07 UTC] No.45111881[source]▶
    you know what's really fun is that the value in US dollars of all that solar energy market in china was only about 2.5 times higher than the value of the solar market in the US in 2024 (despite total capacity and newly installed capacity in china both being about 7x)
    9. rhubarbtree ◴[03 Sep 25 06:44 UTC] No.45112900{3}[source]▶
    Sounds like that could give useful insights. I couldn’t find MPS - do you have a link please?
    replies(1): >>45113744 #
    10. maxglute ◴[03 Sep 25 09:16 UTC] No.45113744{4}[source]▶
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_Product_System
    11. rsynnott ◴[03 Sep 25 17:27 UTC] No.45118375[source]▶
    I mean, it's a difference of policy; spend on solar rollout isn't a significant part of either country's GDP.

    GDP PPP is probably the more appropriate comparison here, by the way (a big part of the cost of solar isn't buying the actual panels), and China's GDP PPP is 10x the UK's.

    12. rsynnott ◴[03 Sep 25 17:27 UTC] No.45118384[source]▶
    GDP PPP certainly doesn't get all the way, but it probably is more appropriate for this sort of comparison.