points
8 days ago
| 5 comments
| HN
I’m having a hard time contributing anything intellectually interesting. This is emotionally terrifying to me.

What can be said?

toomuchtodo
8 days ago
[-]
China is building, domestically deploying, and exporting solar, wind, batteries, and EVs so fast that the world will have no choice but to rapidly move towards net zero simply due to economics. Existing excess atmospheric carbon emissions remain to be sequestered. China deployed 277GW of solar in 2024 and is accelerating, having deployed 212GW in the first half of 2025. 1GW of solar is being deployed globally every 15 hours. Clean energy and global electrification flywheel go brrrr.

https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-e...

https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/china-energy-transi...

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/china-is-quietly-saving-the-wo...

https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/08/21/china-clean-renewable-e...

reply
graeme
8 days ago
[-]
I hope so, but to do that it isn't enough to make renewables economical.

You also have to make carbon uneconomical. China's CO2 emissions have continued to increase rapidly along with renewables.

Energy is really useful and we don't have enough to fulfil demand. Unless renewables + nuclear are cheaper than carbon and not supply constrained I'd expect both sources to increase in tandem.

reply
toomuchtodo
8 days ago
[-]
> Energy is really useful and we don't have enough to fulfil demand.

Enough sunlight falls on Earth in ~30 min to power humanity for a year. There is currently a capture constraint, not a supply constraint, which is currently being solved for.

> Unless renewables + nuclear are cheaper than carbon and not supply constrained I'd expect both sources to increase in tandem.

Renewables are cheaper than carbon, even when accounting for storage, unsubsidized. Some will say "what about seasonal!?" Not solved for yet; fossil gas for the gaps until solar, wind, transmission, batteries, and demand response/orchestration keep closing that gap. Nuclear will never be cheap unfortunately.

https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/24-hour-solar-now-ec...

https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/solar-energy-now-worlds-cheape...

https://www.authorea.com/users/960972/articles/1329770-solar... | https://doi.org/10.22541/au.175647950.09188768/v1

(think in systems)

reply
graeme
8 days ago
[-]
Proof is in the pudding. Has China halted all coal construction because coal is unambigously more expensive than solar?

We may at some point cross the cost curve and I hope we do but not obvious we are there yet.

reply
HK-NC
7 days ago
[-]
>enough sunlight to power earth for a year

Is that based on the entire surface of the earth, or just dry land?

reply
toomuchtodo
7 days ago
[-]
reply
triceratops
8 days ago
[-]
> China's CO2 emissions have continued to increase rapidly along with renewables

China's emissions fell 2.7% this year. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45108292 Not per-capita emissions, total emissions.

reply
graeme
8 days ago
[-]
I'd love for CO2 to be peaking, but the comments on that link suggest this is a single month's measurement and that month is not representative as there was a policy cutoff for end of the month that frontloaded solar investments.
reply
triceratops
8 days ago
[-]
It's for 2025 up to May, and not just for a single month. Fair point about front loaded investments that may have moved the numbers. Nevertheless it's a positive sign.
reply
defrost
7 days ago
[-]
CO2 emissions haven't yet peaked but global coal use has, all countries have significantly dropped their coal usage with the exception of India and China.

Per annum total global coal use has peaked and is projected to fall from this year forward.

China's use is becoming "better" (closing many small dirty old coal power stations, opening fewer but larger and more efficient less polluting new ones) while having a set long term plan to phase out coal while using it now to power a transition to renewables (wind turbines and solar panels don't make themselves yet, nor do they yet power their own production).

reply
maxglute
7 days ago
[-]
Ultimately cost is just one factor to prime driver like energy, energy security most overwhelming priority in energy trilemma (security, cost, sustainability)... Having dispatchahble power not tied to weather with abundance fuel source is always going to trump all other considerations for any serious grid. PRC got burn going ham on renewable a few years ago, few heat events that fucked over hydro production, increased AC demand and all of sudden you're dealing with opportunity cost of rationing factories that currently far exceeds $ differences in generation. Theoretically countries can size renewable rollout that minimum intermittent power + storage can reliabily power grid even with current tech, but that's like... multidecade megaproject.
reply
lm28469
8 days ago
[-]
> China is building, domestically deploying, and exporting solar, wind, batteries, and EVs so fast that the world will have no choice but to rapidly move towards net zero simply due to economics.

I can't help but read "we're going to produce and consume more than ever" and I really don't see how it ends in a good way...

Take transportation alone, 1.3 billion ICE vehicles to replace by EVs, there is nothing green about that. Not even talking about the absolutely massive mining operations we'll need to build solar and batteries. What about cement? Steel? Petrol derivate chemistry, medicine, fertilizers,...

And then what? We continue building and consuming more and more shit forever? Who believes this can be "net zero"?

reply
toomuchtodo
8 days ago
[-]
Well, not forever. Global population will peak end of century (sometime between 2055-2084) and then begin to rapidly decline based on fertility rate curves. Solar PV panels can be recycled 100% today, trivially, as can lithium and sodium batteries (these materials are abundant in the Earth's crust, but only so much will be needed to establish a circular supply lifecycle loop). I suppose we can argue about the scale of mining operations. Certainly, low carbon powered mass transit whenever possible vs light vehicles and aircraft. This is Africa and India's opportunity to "do better" based on what China has accomplished (having had the chance to ride their high speed rail and ride in their autonomous vehicles) with regards to urban planning, civil engineering, and infrastructure investment, being the last parts of the world that will develop.

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jesusfv/Slides_London.pdf

reply
lm28469
8 days ago
[-]
> Population will peak end of century and then begin to rapidly decline based on fertility rate curves.

If that's truly how it'll go we don't even need EVs and renewable to attain equilibrium. But something tells me we'll manage to fuck it up somehow

reply
tpm
7 days ago
[-]
we absolutely need to stop pushing CO2 into the atmosphere ASAP.
reply
triceratops
8 days ago
[-]
> Not even talking about the absolutely massive mining operations we'll need to build solar and batteries

Less than we need for fossil fuels though.

reply
Hikikomori
8 days ago
[-]
It's good that ICE cars are replaced by EV over time. Even better if we have less cars overall and more mass transit.
reply
maxglute
8 days ago
[-]
50%+ of the world population is low to low middle income, and they're all going to want to increase emission by 4x for parity high income life styles. Realistically 8x since developing = catching up on infra build out, i.e. extremely emissions intensive fuckton of steel and concrete. IIRC 50% more than current consumption by 2050, i.e. consuming much more is basically locked in and that's based on presumption that developing countries are fucking inept and slow rolling development because they don't have a system to do a PRC modernization push otherwise we'd be looking at 200/300/400% increases in steel and concrete. Net zero is pipe dream, it's not going to happen. We can try to make the transition greener, but it's not going to be green. Ultimately, enviroment pilled brains need to remember, development/poverty reduction is going to be a net good that benefits far more people than climate change will fuck over / displace.
reply
landl0rd
8 days ago
[-]
Incorrect; energy dependence on a nuclear power with a general desire to displace existing hegemons isn't a wise or tenable policy.

If you care about America using carbon-light power you should throw your weight behind nuclear, geothermal, and some wind/solar/battery manufactured domestically, by allies, or within our sphere of influence.

reply
toomuchtodo
8 days ago
[-]
The United States had a chance to lead, they tried to build domestically (Inflation Reduction Act), and it was sabotaged by governance choices. Someone else has demonstrated their ability to execute and deliver. Elections have consequences. Better luck next time.
reply
landl0rd
8 days ago
[-]
Cool, I do, and I care more about her than about carbon because I and my people live here. So I will oppose any policy that cedes leadership or hegemony. See you at the ballot box, I guess.
reply
DangitBobby
8 days ago
[-]
You should probably vote for someone who doesn't dismantle every attempt to preserve a future for your children and their children.
reply
netsharc
8 days ago
[-]
So how's that going? Your unreliable leader is dissolving alliances left and right and tries to bully countries into submission. Faced with that, they'd rather deal with other assholes who are, although assholes, at least keep their promises. Leadership, hegemony, hah, how deluded do you want to get...
reply
dontlaugh
8 days ago
[-]
If Americans cared about the world, they would abolish their military and voluntarily lower their emissions.
reply
onlypassingthru
8 days ago
[-]
If you have a bucket list, start working on the things that are most vulnerable. Things you want to see may disappear within your lifetime, so go see it while you can.
reply
simmerup
8 days ago
[-]
I guess we can hope America starts taking climate change seriously again instead of chasing short term stock market returns
reply
codyb
8 days ago
[-]
Stand up, fight back now... gotta save democracy first sadly. What a thorn in my side it has been to trade one existential crises for humanity for a government that seems actively opposed to doing a god damn thing about it
reply
jawilson2
8 days ago
[-]
Same. It pops into my head a few times per week that I haven't thought about global climate change recently, and it is because we are dealing with the more immediate thread of hypercapitalism-authoritarian-christofascism, and my neighbors in Chicago are being disappeared nightly.
reply
sys32768
8 days ago
[-]
And China too with its ~30-31% of world CO2.
reply
simmerup
8 days ago
[-]
Considering America is literally promoting fossil fuels over renewables and the US administration is publicly saying climate change is a scam, I think America deserves more flack than China here
reply
John23832
8 days ago
[-]
China is leading the world in renewable energy production. Nuclear buildout, wind farms, solar farms. There's even some minor thermal (even though they're not geographically suited for that).

Sure, they are starting from a high number as the worlds manufacturer, but they're are clearly making strides that the other major industrial nations (the US) are not.

reply
mikestew
8 days ago
[-]
Can't have a discussion on climate change without the obligatory "But what about Chiiiiina!?"

It's time to own up to the fact that China is going out of their way to use renewables, and the U. S. is actively sabotaging renewable energy programs. Whining about China is starting to look pretty silly.

reply
lm28469
8 days ago
[-]
Look at cumulative co2 emissions though, the US created 50% of the global cumulated co2 emissions alone
reply
xandrius
8 days ago
[-]
Let's forget how they make almost everything we and you own.

Until not long ago, they very likely even processed your own trash.

reply
naldb
8 days ago
[-]
Stop reading things that upset you.
reply
kieranmaine
8 days ago
[-]
You have to weigh up the negatives with the positives and look at trends. AI can gave you a more exhaustive list of positive developments, but some I've noticed:

* "FERC: Solar + wind made up 91% of new US power generating capacity in H1 2025" [1] - The rollback of the IRA will reduce the speed of the US transition.

* "Solar and wind growth exceeded global demand growth in the first half of 2025" [2]

* Perovskite solar panels could lead to even lower solar costs [3]

There's also increased investment in nuclear, exicting geothermal advances (eg. Fervo Energy), increasing EV sales, a massive expansion of battery storage, zero emissions concrete (https://sublime-systems.com/). There are lots of positive developments, so I'd recommend learning more about them to offset your current fears and introduce some hope.

1. https://electrek.co/2025/09/03/ferc-solar-wind-91-percent-ne...

2. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-...

3. https://www.ft.com/content/a5095373-1762-41cd-a078-af533e264...

reply
timeon
8 days ago
[-]
How does investing in new forms of energy help when old one is not decreasing? Demand for energy is still rising so those new forms are just covering (part of) new demand...

> AI can gave you a more exhaustive list

...so maybe it should not?

reply
kieranmaine
8 days ago
[-]
> How does investing in new forms of energy help when old one is not decreasing?

In relation to electricity this is not the case for H1 2025, as shown in the article "Solar and wind growth exceeded global demand growth in the first half of 2025" [1]

> ...so maybe it should not?

Fair point.

1. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-...

reply