121
China Becomes the First Country in the World to Surpass 1,000 GW of Solar Power Capacity (www.renewable-energy-industry.com)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -7 points 1 week ago (10 children)

According to this wikipedia source, the entire species generated 18TW in 2019

A lightning strike is around a terawatt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    You're mixing up units, and I'm not sure what you're saying.

    Watts are a unit of power. Watt hours are a unit of energy.

    The link you gave, which is not Wikipedia, describes 180,000 TWh of energy used in 2025, 2,811 TWh of which came from solar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

    Did I say it was a wikpedia link, or did I say it was a wikipedia source?

    Does the OP link say GW or GWh?

    Fuck off. You're a failure of a pedant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Oh, I was gently warning you that you were unintentionally wrong. OP's link is about power, and your link is about energy, and you've somehow managed to completely misread it.

    But if you're gonna dig in your heels, then sure. Continue being wrong. Being a dick about it won't make others take you seriously.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    You literally wrote the wrong unit. What a loathsome fucking wretch you are. Stupid, antagonistic, smarmy. This place is more reddit every day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    You're thinking of OP (or the original article's title), the person you've been talking to here is someone else

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Either way, OP is correct. The linked article talks about power capacity, not energy produced. This jackass decided to come in and call another website a "Wikipedia source," misquote a completely different and irrelevant energy stat by 4 orders of magnitude, using a power unit, and bring some kind of attitude with it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    This jackass decided to come in and call another website a “Wikipedia source,”

    Think about this for literally five seconds you fucking moron.

    Does wikipedia link to itself as a source?

    What do you think the word 'source' means?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    did I say it was a wikipedia source?

    What a stupid thing to get upset about. Just cite the source, why did you bring Wikipedia into it if you're not gonna reference what it was cited for there...

    If you find an article on Google, do you call it a Google source?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    If you find an article on Google, do you call it a Google source?

    I found a claim on wikipedia and then linked the source it listed. So literally the exact thing you're telling me to do as if you weren't completely wrong about what was happening.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent