all 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

This news is a year old.
China very likely surpassed 1,250 GW at this moment.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    826.5x the power needed to time travel in a Delorean. That's a lot of GW.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    US Tech leadership in the World is already a running Gag in China since time.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    There's very little useful tech in the US; every time I see what other countries are doing and having traveled to some. We're living in the dark ages.

    I can't think of anything other than enshitification being the largest advancements in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    They have truckloads of minerals they can use, vast amounts of empty space to place solar panel parks, and very good reasons to go self-sufficient to the point the government is subsidizing the push, so it makes sense they could reach that goal so fast.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    They make >80% of the world's solar panels too, so they're also helping every other country meet their goals at the same time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 1 week ago

    It's not actually about mineral availability at all. The problem is with refining these minerals, and China invested decades into building out the infrastructure to do that. Geography has little to do with China's success here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    We have a system of units based on factors of 1000. Why on earth wouldn't one say "surpass 1 TW"? If they want important sounding numbers, they could say "a million megawatts".

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    sometimes things become standard I guess

    like driving 1000 kilometers for a trip or weighing 100 kilograms

    using 1000 kWh in your house

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago*

    Much as I'd like Mm and Mg to be more widely used, they're very rarely seen. TW and MWh are perfectly normal units, though.

    I do find it sad that people talk about 1000 kilotons, though. It's a Tg. A ton is a megagram, a kiloton is a gigagram, and a thousand of those is a teragram. It's a pity that we don't live in a world where that's normal.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 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?

  • 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 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.

  • source
  • parent