38 pointsby taubek20 hours ago9 comments
  • kens18 hours ago
    The journal Science has an interesting article on China's remarkable shift to renewable energy:

    "China’s turn to green energy dwarfs any other country’s, as a parade of astonishing numbers attests. In 2024 alone it installed new solar and wind generation equivalent to roughly 100 nuclear power plants, and the pace quickened early this year. Dozens of new, ultrahigh-voltage power lines are marching thousands of kilometers from western deserts where much of the solar energy is generated to the eastern cities where it is used. Hungrily awaiting the bounty of clean energy are millions of electric cars and a sprawling network of high-speed electric trains that can zip between cities 1000 kilometers apart in a morning."

    The article also mentions that China produced more than 12 million electric cars in 2024, 70% of global production. "China now dominates global production of renewable energy technologies. It makes 80% of the world’s solar cells, 70% of its wind turbines, and 70% of its lithium batteries, at prices no competitor can match."

    https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.aee8001

    • ciconia18 hours ago
      Meanwhile the US is all about "drill baby drill", and the EU is still hedging its bets. Say what you will about the Chinese regime but they seem to be much more pragmatic and forward thinking than western democracies.
      • Arn_Thor18 hours ago
        I much prefer democracy (the lack of large scale human rights abuses is a big plus) but one can't argue that with the fact that a multi-generational one-party system CAN encourage a refreshing degree of long-term thinking. This is a good example. (Of course, examples abound of the opposite--also in China)
        • throwawayqqq1117 hours ago
          The best argument for democracies, are their possibility of peaceful revolutios and this problem might become very relevant for china too.

          You can compare the early US with present china. Both countries had/have great potential for economic growth, and everything went well for its citizens as long as the pie got bigger. The interests of the elites and the working class were aligned by that. Once the interests of these two groups diverge, democracies become relevant again. That's why the tech oligarchs are so afraid and politically engaged, to distract us with the have-nots below us.

          Today, china just has the better aligning plan, while the west is struggling to keep it's democracies. IMO any reasonable trajectory for sustainability and social stability is a contradiction to western elites, who cannot think outside their status quo, while china just builds it. I really wish china well and that they dont develop such an arrogant international stance like the west.

        • xg1517 hours ago
          > (the lack of large scale human rights abuses is a big plus)

          Inside the country at least...

        • Barrin9217 hours ago
          I'd honestly turn the argument on its head. It's China that is being democratic, in the most literal sense. Giving the people what they want, clean energy, cheap stuff, infrastructure simply by satisfying market demand.

          It's the largest western, ostensibly democratic nation that is run by some combination of occult neoreactionaries, techno-elites and pseudo-royalty all of which seem to have lost connection to immediate reality in pursuit of annexing territories, bringing about the singularity or what have you. It is ironically China who is more short termist and notably better off for it

          I would actually much prefer if the US was run by people who fix potholes in the streets than something that resembles Dune's House Harkonnen

          • Arn_Thor3 hours ago
            you can't just go redefining terms until they mean what you want them to mean. You can say "China meets the wants of most of its citizens" (in which case, citation needed...) but that is definitionally not democratic. Democracy is a system, and a process can or cannot be democratic (within or outside a democratic system).
          • Yizahi15 hours ago
            Neither is democratic. Democratic is direct rule of citizens, or at least some significant fraction of citizens. Only Switzerland is partially a democracy nowadays. Western countries are oligarchies, where elected elites are ruling however they deem necessary, but possibly with some caution because of elections. China is not even an oligarchy, it's a despotic regime, completely severed from the citizens.
          • gamblor95616 hours ago
            It's not market demand. The government is ordering the construction of solar and wind farms without regard to the market demand or to the citizens residing in the locations where the solar farms and wind farms are to be built.

            That's the exact opposite of democracy and capitalism.

            • phatfish15 hours ago
              It's a rational way to deal with their energy needs, reduce pollution and their impact on the climate.

              They have small gas and oil reserves if I remember. Unfortunately, if they were sitting on Venezuela or Russian style reserves or oil/gas the story might be different. But unlike Europe, the Chinese can see that being beholden to foreign states to keep the lights on is asking for trouble.

              They seem to have avoided the ideology the big fossil fuel companies push in the west to make fossil vs green a political/class discussion, not a rational one. Rationally it makes most sense for a nation to generate their energy needs in a way they control with wind/solar/nuclear.

              • bryanlarsen12 hours ago
                It's not small -- China is the world's 4th largest oil producer. They domestically produce about 75% of their demand.
        • boredpeter17 hours ago
          I take issue with "the lack of large scale human rights abuses."

          Are you ignorant or just deliberately ignoring the genocide of the Palestinian people with an estimated 680,000 dead (~30% of Gaza) that occurred with widespread support of almost every western democracy?

          China may be an authoritarian state but I would argue their large scale human rights abuses are far tamer than what these so called western democracies have been doing for the past 2 years and the direction we're headed.

          • Arn_Thoran hour ago
            Yes, I'm not including deaths in the colonial periphery. That's a rather different dynamic to the domestic question. Your criticism of this simplified view is a valid and welcome addition to the conversation, though.

            The West's post-colonial exploitation and suppression of the global south does strike me as a feature of unfettered capitalism more than the political systems "back home".

          • soldthat14 hours ago
            That’s just made up numbers. It’s like 10x the number claimed by the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war

      • aeternum17 hours ago
        China has invested heavily in all forms of energy including coal and oil, not just green energy.

        It's pretty biased to highlight only the increases in renewable energy.

        • bryanlarsen12 hours ago
          The others are a rounding error in comparison to renewable energy. Yes, they've added a considerable amount of coal electricity generation capacity but not very much coal electricity generation production. It's production that emits CO2, not capacity. Coal plants that sit around not burning coal are relatively harmless.
    • dmitrygr17 hours ago
      I really would not celebrate just yet: https://geovisualist.com/tag/greenhouse-gases/
      • tapoxi17 hours ago
        This post is 11 years old?
        • dmitrygr16 hours ago
          • kens16 hours ago
            That article is from 2018. According to Science, Nov 2025, China is very close to the point at which its carbon emissions will decline, which will probably correspond to a global plateau in emissions. “Everything we’re seeing is that China is peaking a decade ahead of where they said they would. That’s a big deal.” Researchers think that global emissions would have plateaued in 2025 except that US policies to boost oil and natural gas production and suppress renewable energy were enough to postpone the plateau.

            https://www.science.org/content/article/global-carbon-emissi...

            • dmitrygr15 hours ago
              "we're very close to when X might decline" -- a second-order hypothetical?
          • tzs10 hours ago
            China has more people than the US and EU combined.
        • 16 hours ago
          undefined
  • nubinetwork20 hours ago
    Such a weird numbering scheme... 8 million kilowatts is 8 gigawatts.
    • DiabloD319 hours ago
      kW happens to be the unit of sale for power (well, technically, the kWh), so it ironically makes sense to use it here.
      • beAbU17 hours ago
        Anyone well versed in the metric system can easily scale up and down the orders of magnitude, and units like "millions of kilowatts" is just tautology in the end of the day.

        Also, like others have pointed out, kilowatts and kilowatt-hours are most certainly not used on grid scale projects. Mega- and giga- are the standard throughout.

      • trvz19 hours ago
        Anyone sending and receiving power through this project doesn't deal in kW.
      • jacquesm19 hours ago
        At scale that isn't true, it is either MW or GW for instantaneous power and MWh or GWh for energy.
      • general14655 hours ago
        Do you have 8 million kilobytes, or 8 gigabytes of RAM?
      • tuetuopay19 hours ago
        At grid scales, kW is a rounding error. Even MW is somewhat the decimal place, especially for a country as large as China.
        • 9 hours ago
          undefined
      • dbeardsl19 hours ago
        "Technically"? It's just wrong and I'm not sure which they were intending. Similarly, "miles and miles per hour are different units, it's not just a technical distinction.

        A journalist is reporting on something they don't understand.

        • seydor19 hours ago
          are people charged for kW only? it's not like internet connections
      • immibis17 hours ago
        Should have been 8 billion kWh per 1000 hours...
  • jacquesm19 hours ago
    HV interconnects are a key component in reducing fossil fuel dependence and they to a very large degree offset the need for battery storage if used properly.
  • 1970-01-0119 hours ago
    This is good news as they're still burning inexcusable amounts of coal to keep up with demand.
  • rdtsc19 hours ago
    > Ultra-high voltage lines operate at voltages above 800 kV for direct current or 1,000 kV for alternating current,

    Interesting, I thought above a certain distance DC is more viable. Or are they just describing the UHV term in general, not really that particular 700km line.

  • MrGuts18 hours ago
    And this is why China is the future, and the US is Argentina.
  • scblock19 hours ago
    China has completed a number of these projects and has several in construction. I am not able to directly confirm but this appears to be a DC line.

    There's a decent high level summary on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity...

  • allears20 hours ago
    Now that the US has abdicated world leadership in so many areas, it's good to see China pushing the envelope.
    • toomuchtodo20 hours ago
      They’re the first electrostate, and their success is our global success as their innovation and exports destroy the demand for fossil fuels globally.

      Ember Energy: China Cleantech Exports Data Explorer - https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-e... (updated monthly)

      China’s Oil Hoarding Clouds Outlook for Slowing Demand Growth - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-11/china-oil... | https://archive.today/YLDHL - December 11th, 2025

      > China’s oil demand growth is forecast to be 150,000 barrels a day next year, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of analysts. Energy Aspects was the most bullish, expecting daily growth at 320,000 barrels, mainly on rising petrochemical demand. Still, the prediction is a year-on-year drop.

      > “It’s an irreversible path,” said Ye Lin, vice president of oil markets at consultancy Rystad Energy, which also forecasts demand growth falling in 2026. “The market is now feeling the impact of China’s fast-growing EV fleet.”

      Rhodium Group: Electric Trucks and the Future of Chinese Oil Demand - https://rhg.com/research/electric-trucks-and-the-future-of-c... - July 1st, 2025

      > Analysts have been discussing “peak oil” for decades. We’re hardly equipped to wade into that debate ourselves, even as Chinese demand will be a critical variable in future global oil demand. But the ongoing electrification of China’s vehicle fleet, especially in trucking, suggests long-term headwinds to diesel and gasoline demand. We estimate the total electric vehicle fleet is already displacing over 1 million barrels per day in implied oil demand—equivalent to roughly the daily oil production of Oman. That level is likely to rise by around 600,000 barrels per day over the next 12 months.

      (TLDR At current electrification rates, China is destroying ~1M barrels/day of oil demand every 24 months)

      HN Search: china electrostate - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

      HN Search: china renewables - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

      • SoftTalker19 hours ago
        Would be humorous in retrospect if all the dire forecasts about "peak oil" turned out to be the opposite problem: collapse in demand for oil.
        • jacquesm19 hours ago
          That would be one of the better outcomes because there are a number of things for which it is very hard to use other stuff as a substitute. Oil is way too precious to be burned up.
        • seanmcdirmid19 hours ago
          China doesn't have much oil. There dependency on oil is a huge weakness, and they are easily blockaded as well, making the problem of importing oil in wartime problematic as well. Their move away from oil is more national security even if it does help the environment.
          • palmotea16 hours ago
            > There dependency on oil is a huge weakness, and they are easily blockaded as well, making the problem of importing oil in wartime problematic as well.

            How are they "easily blockaded"? I thought their shipbuilding capacity exceeds that of the US, and their navy is now larger.

            • seanmcdirmid15 hours ago
              Look at a map, China doesn't have open access to the ocean. They have Japan, Taiwan in their way, the only help out they have is the South China Sea, but even that is crowded and relies on Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia not being again them. They can only really get oil from the middle east through the straight of Malacca (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malacca_dilemma), which is really easy to cut off. It doesn't matter if you can build lots of ships if the US navy can take them out as they leave port into the open ocean.

              So overland is their best option, but Russia is huge, lacks infrastructure (no oil pipelines in the far east), and anyways, isn't always China's friend. Western China abuts some Central asian countries with oil (and Iran in the middle), but again, not so friendly, lots of mountains to get trains through, and it is still far away from East China where the oil is actually needed.

              So...they have lots of coal and are really pushing into renewables and nuclear. Nuclear is the kind of thing where you can stockpile a few thousand years worth of fuel with a few ships from Australia in peacetime. And if your economy relies more on electric trains and cars, you are going to be ok if someone cuts off or restricts your oil supply.

              • palmotea12 hours ago
                > It doesn't matter if you can build lots of ships if the US navy can take them out as they leave port into the open ocean.

                If China can build lots of ships, it can build lots of warships. I'm skeptical the US Navy would have it that easy.

                Also, as the US Navy ships trying to enforce a blockade would be getting pelted by land-based anti-ship missiles.

                • seanmcdirmid12 hours ago
                  The USA can also hammer them from nearby island based airbases. It isn’t easy to just saturate them with ships. Maybe if they can make breakthru with drones. Right now their best strategy is just be exposed less by making people drive EVs instead of gasoline vehicles. It also has other benefits like getting the rest of the world off of oil, and being able to sell the cars and clean energy production needed to do that, and also cleaner air. China wins 3 way here, so it’s really a very smart choice for them, and it gives them even more money to draw on to continue building a modern military.
        • toomuchtodo19 hours ago
          Can you expound? A problem in demand for oil for whom (besides perhaps petro states that cannot meet their budgets at low global oil prices [1] [2])?

          [1] https://i.ibb.co/0jDyB6mX/Crude-Price-Forecasts-Are-Below-Le...

          [2] https://oilprice.com/oil-price-charts/

          • SoftTalker19 hours ago
            Yeah, any major economic change can be destabilizing. Particularly if there are powerful incumbents who want to maintain the status quo. We fought a civil war over that sort of thing. So a "problem" in that sense, not that it wasn't the right thing to do.
    • christkv19 hours ago
      China is pushing this because they have an oil problem. They are deeply dependent on oil that ships via sea and any conflict could quickly starve them of access to oil. Thus a focus on trying to get some energy independence.
  • juancn18 hours ago
    8M kW? Isn't that 8GW?

    That's more than 6 DeLorean Time Machines worth of power!

    (~6.6 at 1.21 gigawatts per flux capacitor)

    • cayleyh18 hours ago
      DTM is my new preferred power generation measurement unit :D thank you!