As of 2023, solar energy accounted for about 4.5% of China’s total energy consumption.
In 2024 solar energy could account for around 5-6% of China’s total energy consumption.
If they add another 170GW in 2025, the percentage could rise to approximately 6-7%.
They hope by 2026 solar will make up 8-9% of the total energy consumption.
If solar is the future then we are screwed because that isn’t fast enough growth… and that is without factoring in the rest of the world who will hit nowhere near those numbers.
Whilst it’s true solar is growing, it is not likely to be the silver bullet you make out.
Another way to look at the source you linked is that despite the ongoing climate catastrophe the US is still planning to add 4% more fossil fuel sources to their grid next year.
It also leaves out the fact that 84% of the current US power is generated by fossil fuels and that figure is not being reduced.
The source is also very US-centric. If we take the IEA’s projections, only 25% of the world’s new energy will be from renewable sources in 2024.
Then there’s the weird choice of counting battery storage as energy generation. At the end of 2022 half of the battery storage was being powered by fossil fuels so should probably be left out of any statistics.
We need people to understand the true scale of the problem rather than generating more hopium. The energy companies have teams of people for that.
Isn’t that the joke?
Me: Here’s the URL for the web service I’ve just deployed. I’ve set up users and permissions so just copy it into your browser and you should see a very similar system to what you’ve been trained on with all your data in there.
Customer: All I’m getting is a blank screen.
Much panicking and headscratching later…
Me: Waaaiiiiittt, did you press Return/Go after copying the URL?
Customer: That was not in the instructions.
The scientific method itself considers any as yet unsubstantiated theory as hypothesis. Applying this to the idea of God would leave one agnostic on the issue.
A couple of prominent examples of religious dogmas disproved by scientific discoveries are the Copernican Revolution and evolution by means of natural selection.
So apparently I have a similar contorted expression to my mother when eating sour food.
My father always referred to this as my mother’s-maiden-name-gene. Let’s say her maiden name was Chaplin, he would say “Ah there’s that Chaplin gene again!”
Being young I misunderstood this as a verb, ie. I was “chaplinging”.
Cut to first year of school where I proudly waltz around informing any classmates eating fizzy sweets that the correct and proper term for their reaction is “chaplinging”. It was a few years until the penny dropped.
Cavity protection ain’t gonna cut it where they’re going.