50
submitted 1 day ago by ice@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

This huge energy transition – with the technologies currently standing at 1,408GW – can make a “decisive contribution” to the country’s climate efforts and bring big economic rewards, the China Energy Transformation Outlook 2024 (CETO24) shows.

The report was produced by our research team at the Energy Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Macroeconomic Research – a “national high-end thinktank” of China’s top planner the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC).

The outlook looks at two pathways to meeting China’s “dual-carbon” climate goals and its wider aims for economic and social development.

In the first pathway, a challenging geopolitical environment constrains international cooperation.

The second assumes international climate cooperation continues despite broader geopolitical tensions.

We find that, under both scenarios, China’s energy system can achieve net-zero carbon emissions before 2060, paving the way to make Chinese society as a whole carbon neutral before 2060.

However, the outlook shows that meeting these policy goals will not be possible unless China improves its energy efficiency, sustains its electrification efforts and develops a power system built around “intelligent” grids that are predominantly supplied with electricity from solar and wind.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] glimse@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Aren't they also building like 16 nuclear plants?

[-] yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

They're also the world leaders in fusion research, as well as the world leaders in solar, wind, and hydro generation both by current power supplied and new power installed.

They just have way more people than the entirety of the West combined and are aiming for complete elimination of poverty. They need all that power to achieve the lower middle class euro quality of life they want as a standard for their poorest.

[-] federalreverse@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

So, that's 16 GW less. Maybe 32 GW less if we're generous.

If they need to build 10 TW, those 32 GW hardly carry any weight.

this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
50 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

6169 readers
658 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS