Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
China Earth Power

Much of the World's Solar Gear is Made Using Fossil Power in China (asiatimes.com) 156

Posted by EditorDavid from the old-king-coal dept.
China "accounts for more than half of global coal use," reports Asia Times, "even as it builds the world's largest solar-panel and EV industries." Much of the world's solar gear is made on fossil power. The International Energy Agency finds that "coal generates over 60% of the electricity used for global solar PV manufacturing," far above coal's ~36% share of typical grids. That is because over 80% of PV factories sit in Chinese provinces like Xinjiang and Jiangsu, where coal dominates the grid.

China has poured over $50 billion into solar factories since 2011, roughly ten times Europe's investment, cutting panel costs by about 80% and fueling a worldwide solar boom. But those panels were produced on coal. In one analysis, they repay their manufacturing CO2 in only months, meaning the emissions were dumped up-front in China's coal plants. Any major disruption to China's coal power or factories (from grid shocks to trade barriers) could thus send ripples through the global PV market.

China's coal and heavy industries also feed its clean-tech supply chain. Coal-fired steel mills supply the aluminum and metal parts for EVs and panels, and coal chemicals provide battery precursors and silicon for solar... At the same time, Chinese oil and gas giants (CNPC, Sinopec) have set up solar, wind and battery divisions, redirecting fossil profits into green ventures.
Another interesting statistic from the article: "In Thailand, Asia's long-time auto hub, Chinese EV brands now command more than 70% of EV sales."

Thanks to Slashdot reader RossCWilliams for sharing the news.

Much of the World's Solar Gear is Made Using Fossil Power in China More | Reply

Much of the World's Solar Gear is Made Using Fossil Power in China

Comments Filter:

  • Polysilicon production is not intermittent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mspangler ( 770054 ) on Saturday July 12, 2025 @02:04PM (#65515492)

    Siemens reactors run for three days to a week continuously, any power glitch can cause the rods to cool enough to crack the bridges then that's it for that run.

    The fluidbeds are a little more tolerant, but when the hydrogen compressors stop the bed settles and if the injectors plug then it's time for turn around and that is several days.

    I don't know how the downstream processes would respond to a power bump. Does a CZ pull tolerate a short power outage? How about the wafer cutting, doping stages, and annealing?

    The point is intermittent power does not work well with heavy industry, so it's either fossil fuel or hydroelectric.

    • The point is intermittent power does not work well with heavy industry, so it's either fossil fuel or hydroelectric.

      Or Atomic/Nuclear, which China also has. Radioactive waste is a problem, but CO2 and air particulates is not an issue there.

      • Visited a huge steel mill once. They had an arc oven. They surfed on energy prices. Price low? Heat up the oven to max. Price high? Let the temperature drop. They had to call the utility company every time they wanted to ramp up or down the heating process.
        Prices are low here when there is a lot of sun and wind. So there you go. Steel mill adjusts it's power requirements to use as much green power as possible. Of course, it will still just be a percentage of the total.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by keltor ( 99721 ) *
      They use large energy storage to deal with this, typical very large oil and paper capacitors historically, but shifting to batteries.

      Also interestingly all that chemical energy is really just energy from the sun converted by moss to carbon chains which convert to mud which converts to peat which coverts to coal/oil/etc. Fucking crazy man, it's solar all the way down. Even those nuclear fuel rods came from stars.

  • Who gives a shit. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12, 2025 @02:10PM (#65515502)

    As the article says the panel pays off for its CO2 in mere months.

    • ...but that won't be the headline in the right wing echo chamber. Expect just the first part to pop up relentlessly across the internet/facebook/etc., pushed by the same people who claim that there is no way to have any idea about global temperatures from times before the invention of the mercury thermometer.

  • In other news (Score:5, Informative)

    by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Saturday July 12, 2025 @02:16PM (#65515508)

    Materials to build Henry Ford's first factory were delivered by horse-drawn carts.

    • China's energy policy is lowest cost first, which translates to coal first. Renewable are NOT displacing coal, they are supplementing coal. China is burning coal as fast as they can dig it up or import it. Renewables are displacing the more expense but cleaner burning oil and natural gas. Coal use is growing, emissions increasing, as permitted by the Paris accord until 2030 due to China's false claim of being a developing nation.

      "[Jul 26, 2023 } It was a bad week for anyone who thought China would cooper

      • While China's CO2 output is the highest globally, per capita its output is just over half of the US. That's even without considering that much of China's output is as in this article, manufacturing pollution imported from other countries. The bill for this pollution should fall on the country that consumed the manufacturing output.

        • While China's CO2 output is the highest globally, per capita its output is just over half of the US.

          Per capital is a false metric, its used for greenwashing. The behavior of the Chinese citizen has little to no effect on emissions. Emissions are largely a product of CCP industrial policy. So the better metric is per GDP. China's per GDP emissions are far worse than the US.

          That's even without considering that much of China's output is as in this article, manufacturing pollution imported from other countries.

          Absolutely true, that is more greenwashing, this time by the US, EU, and others. Yet the fact remains that the CCP willingly creates the ability to do so by externalizing the costs of pollution and thereby reducing manufacturing costs. I

          • Per capita is exactly the right metric. Otherwise you could just split a country up, the amount per nation would fall and total CO2 emissions would fall, right? Oh, no, they'd be the same, my mistake.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by drnb ( 2434720 )

              Per capita is exactly the right metric. Otherwise you could just split a country up, the amount per nation would fall and total CO2 emissions would fall, right? Oh, no, they'd be the same, my mistake.

              When you split up a nation you also split up the population used for per capital.

              And the fact remains, it is not about people, it is not about borders, it is about being in a jurisdiction under the control of the CCP. It's CCP industrial policy that is largely behind the pollution. Not individual citizen's behavior. GDP matches industrial policy.

              • We're talking about measurement, not policy. But bear in mind that whilst China has an authoritarian government, it's not totalitarian, so a level of individual choice exists. You then seem to be suggesting then that emissions can only be divided up per capita (and your argument is still weak) if individuals have a high freedom of choice, which would imply those in the USA, UK, etc., would be particularly responsible for their emissions. That is probably contrary to what you want to say, but it is the logic

      • Who cares? Nit-picking about "displacing" vs "supplementing" is moronic and none of your stats are per-capita. As if we could solve the problem by splitting china up into 50 smaller countries so that none of them end up in the top 100 emitters.

        • Who cares? Nit-picking about "displacing" vs "supplementing" is moronic ...

          Nitpicking? The choice of coal over natural gas is how we have decades of increasing emissions in China and decreasing emission in the US and EU.

          ... and none of your stats are per-capita. As if we could solve the problem by splitting china up into 50 smaller countries so that none of them end up in the top 100 emitters.

          Per capital is a false metric, its used for greenwashing. The behavior of the Chinese citizen has little to no effect on emissions. Emissions are largely a product of CCP industrial policy.

          • The behavior of the Chinese citizen has little to no effect on emissions.

            This might surprise you, but China is composed entirely of the people living there.

      • Wrong. China's energy policy is dynamic, so it cannot be described as you have done. It's changing and improving constantly.

        • Wrong. China's energy policy is dynamic, so it cannot be described as you have done. It's changing and improving constantly.

          It's dynamic, but that includes both the increased use of coal and the increased use of renewables. More responsible nations have favored alternatives such as natural gas despite coal being less expensive. CCP policy however says use the cheapest source, less pollution is not a priority. Matter of fact China is suggesting it may continue to increase pollution even after its 2030 Paris Accord deadline.

          "[Jul 26, 2023 } It was a bad week for anyone who thought China would cooperate on emissions reduction. P

  • The chain of technology (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Saturday July 12, 2025 @02:16PM (#65515510)

    Most of the world's oil technology was developed using coal power
    Most of the world's coal technology was developed using wood power
    Most of the world's wood technology was developed using driftwood and animal technology

    and so on and so on. These gotcha-memes never really stand up to examination of any kind, much less close examination.

    • Metallurgical coal (Re:The chain of technology) (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Saturday July 12, 2025 @04:16PM (#65515746)

      The coal used for making solar PV cells is metallurgical coal, coal used as a feed stock for the chemical process that refines the silicon. This is not coal used for producing electricity. They are burning coal for electricity too, but there is a lot of coal consumed in the refining of silicon separate from producing electricity.

      The process for refining silicon is a lot like that used for iron, the silicon oxide is heated up, the coal added to the molten mess, the carbon in the coal grabs the oxygen from the silicon, the resulting CO2 bubbles away into the air and leaves silicon metal behind.

      I've heard of experiments in using hydrogen than carbon for refining iron, the hydrogen is added to the molten iron oxide, the hydrogen steals the oxygen from the iron oxide, the resulting water vapor bubbles away and leaves molten iron behind. Maybe this can be adapted for silicon, but for now the process consumes at least as much mass in coal as there is mass of silicon produced.

      I wish the fine article would have made this distinction clearer. While they clearly burn a lot of coal for producing the required electricity they also consume a lot of coal in the refining process. Shifting the electricity supply to some other source would reduce CO2 emissions, and may be a trivial process that is already in progress on replacing coal power with low CO2 alternatives, but that still leaves a lot of coal that would be mined and turned to CO2 in the refineries.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jsonn ( 792303 )
        Much of the silicon in a PV module can be recycled at a fraction of the cost of the original smelting. So yeah, a fully sustained cycle is not practical right now, this is gaslighting.

    • Most of the world's oil technology was developed using coal power

      Responsible nations are displacing fossil fuels in order of pollution. Natural gas displacing coal and oil for example. China is displacing fossil fuels in order of cost, the lower cost coal *not* being displaced. China is burning coal as fast as they can dig it up and import it. Renewables are not displacing coal. Renewables are supplementing coal.

      "[Jul 26, 2023 } It was a bad week for anyone who thought China would cooperate on emissions reduction. President Xi Jinping reiterated that his country would

      • Natural gas is cheaper to burn than coal. At least in the United States. Its pretty clear that China is not displacing any power. Their energy use is growing and they are using multiple sources including nuclear, coal and renewables. China is also the major source of solar panels for most of the world. When you start to attribute the emissions to the end-users of the products produced rather than the producer, China's emissions shrink considerably, while the US emissions increase.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by drnb ( 2434720 )

          Natural gas is cheaper to burn than coal. At least in the United States.

          In China coal is ofter cheaper. Especially in regions with heavy manufacturing or energy production. These are located there because of the local coal reserves.

          Its pretty clear that China is not displacing any power.

          The difference is, when there is a choice between coal and natural gas, they will choose coal. The west will choose natural gas. China chooses lower cost. The west chooses lower pollution over lower cost.

          China is also the major source of solar panels for most of the world. When you start to attribute the emissions to the end-users of the products produced rather than the producer, China's emissions shrink considerably, while the US emissions increase.

          That is greenwashing all around, some for China, some for the west. The west does outsource manufacturing to China but that is in part because the p

          • The west will choose natural gas.

            Where it is cheaper than coal. Most countries use the cheapest and most abundant fuel. But the whole west/east divide makes it apparent your arguments are based on propaganda not independent analysis.

            That is greenwashing all around, some for China, some for the west.

            No, its recognizing that attributing global emissions to specific countries is a form of greenwashing. The US sells LNG to Europe. Are the emissions associated with burning it attributed to the country producing the LNG or the countries burning it. The reality is it doesn't matter. Efforts to attribute those

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by drnb ( 2434720 )

              The west will choose natural gas.

              Where it is cheaper than coal.

              Nope. There is a shift away from coal in general. As documented below.

              Most countries use the cheapest and most abundant fuel. But the whole west/east divide makes it apparent your arguments are based on propaganda not independent analysis.

              Wrong. You are woefully ill-informed

              Note that the chart referred to here shows cool to be cheaper. "Fossil-Fuel Prices by Receipts at Electric Generating Plants"

              "Energy production by source over the past 70 years has seen a shift away from coal to natural gas and renewables ... natural gas prices have historically been much more unstable than coal prices for power plants. Over the past 70 years, the inflation-adjusted cost of coal h

              • There is a shift away from coal in general.

                Where other sources are cheaper.

                Note that the chart

                Please note the chart is using averages from whatever data they have.

                The US sells LNG to Europe. To displace coal.

                Where is the evidence for that? It may be being used instead of solar and batteries or nuclear power or in addition to all those other sources.

                We have seen declines in the west.

                That depends on how you measure who is responsible for emissions and whether you look at per capita emissions. Which is why its obvious you are just spouting propaganda. You aren't even attempting to fairly compare responsibility for emissions.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by drnb ( 2434720 )

                  There is a shift away from coal in general.

                  Where other sources are cheaper. Please note the chart is using averages from whatever data they have.

                  And it shows average coal cheaper than average anything else. Consistently for 70 years.

                  The US sells LNG to Europe. To displace coal.

                  Where is the evidence for that?

                  LNG is not for domestic US consumption, it is for export. Prior to the invasion of Ukraine the EU was consistently moving away from coal.

                  It may be being used instead of solar and batteries or nuclear power or in addition to all those other sources.

                  Nope. The EU is moving towards renewables aggressively. Germany has moved away from nuclear, and that got them into trouble when the invasion of Ukraine occurred and had to increase coal usage when Russian gas suddenly became unavailable. The US could not produce enough LNG to make up t

                  • And it shows average coal cheaper than average anything else. Consistently for 70 years.

                    So what? We know coal is cheap in China. Probably in Newcastle as well.

                    Prior to the invasion of Ukraine the EU was consistently moving away from coal.

                    Because natural gas from Russian pipelines was cheaper. Where is the evidence that their purchased of LNG is replacing coal?

                    The EU is moving towards renewables aggressively.

                    Not nearly as aggressively as China.

                    [heritage.org]

                    Like I said, you are a propagandist.

                    • You want a non-propaganda narrative for who is responsible for climate change. Try a comparison of total emissions from US and China since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Or, since you are interested in "the west", try a comparison of the total emissions from "the west" and China since the start of the industrial revolution.

                    • And if you look at just current emissions, "the west" and China are almost equal when you add just the EU to US emissions. When you add places like the UK and Canada the west pulls ahead in that particular comparison.

                      But that is using production. So emissions from all the stuff China produces to sell in the US are Chinese emissions.

                      But I am just playing your propaganda game by cherry picking facts and criteria to support a particular narrative.

          • Oh, please. China has lots of coal and minimal gas. The opposite is true for other places, including the USA. Well, it was...maybe the USA will be digging more coal from now on.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by drnb ( 2434720 )

              Oh, please. China has lots of coal and minimal gas. The opposite is true for other places, including the USA. Well, it was...maybe the USA will be digging more coal from now on.

              The US has plenty of coal too. Yet we have been moving away from it for over 70s years despite its lower cost. Note the chart "Fossil-Fuel Prices by Receipts at Electric Generating Plants".

              "Energy production by source over the past 70 years has seen a shift away from coal to natural gas and renewables ... natural gas prices have historically been much more unstable than coal prices for power plants. Over the past 70 years, the inflation-adjusted cost of coal has remained relatively constant. A much diffe

  • The thing here is that you're burning coal for the purpose of not having to burn coal again. You'd have to have an attention span of a gnat to not see that far ahead.

    We can't go straight to zero emissions guys. There's gonna be a transition. This feels like clickbait, lacks long-term thinking, and is not a reasonable argument.

  • It as always been understood that producing green energy products takes energy and that has to come from the existing power grid, which in almost every country involves CO2 production. If you look at solar companies roofs in china they have panels up and companies like JA Solar are net zero. But their individual net zero status is irrelevant to the planet, the power demand is the same. We deploy all the solar we make, it's the fastest growing power source in the world and in China. They consume more than ha

  • With a wild twisting of words this author added "meaning the emissions were dumped up-front in China's coal plants" to try to make this sound bad.

    ALL "manufacturing emissions" are "dumped up-front". There is not something special about China or using coal. And even with the 2x or more CO2 emissions of coal, a solar power panel replaces all that CO2 emission in just a few months, which is an awful lot better than a lot of other things that people claim are green.

  • What kind of a dumb hit piece is this? (Score:3)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday July 12, 2025 @03:17PM (#65515610)

    The production of solar panels represents a tiny fraction of the CO2 emissions they offset compared to generating power with fossil fuels outright. Absolutely no one gives a shit what power is used to make a panel except for a few anti-green morons looking for a whataboutism pretending to be some kind of gotchya.

    • The production of solar panels represents a tiny fraction of the CO2 emissions they offset compared to generating power with fossil fuels outright.

      Where is the evidence that solar panels offset fossil fuels? From the China example in the article it would appear that the alternative to solar panels would be using less electricity, not burning more fossil fuel. China is adding new capacity of coal at the same time they are adding solar. As I understand it, the reduction in emissions in the US is largely driven by shifting from coal to natural gas and more efficient use of fossil fuel in ICE cars.

      That isn't an argument against solar panels. That is recog

      • Where is the evidence that solar panels offset fossil fuels?

        Thanks for your question. On account of you having asked it we have determined you don't actually care for an answer as this question is way too dumb to be asked legitimately in good faith. If you had a point to make you failed, anyone with a brain stopped reading at this first sentence.

        Stay moronic my friend.

        • Why? Instead of attacking the person making an argument, why not attack the argument directly? They only made 1 point so it should be easy for you to narcissistically drone on like you're an expert on solar power. Let's here it. (sic)

  • Old tech is used to make new tech

  • (looks over comments pointing out shortsighted stupidity of article) ...never mind, I see my work is done.

  • So? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Saturday July 12, 2025 @03:51PM (#65515686) Homepage
    At least that's coal put to good use, bootstrapping solar panel production. Better than bitcoin mining anyway.
  • ... if I use some shitty tech to bootstrap better tech then is that somehow bad? I realise there is more to this than that, but it seems like a terrible argument to complain coal power is being used to manufacture solar power.

  • if you don't spend the energy to crank it. I thought the whole goal of solar is to get off of fossil fuels, you can't do that if you don't burn some fossil fuels. Once you get the engine running, you can go off coal and run on solar. The solar cells will need to be produced first.

  • If you have two jobs, paying $50K each, and you spend money on a trip, which job paid for it? Either or both, it doesn't matter, money is money, it can move around to wherever it's needed. There's no specific money paying for your trip.

    Power works this way too. A given region has a combination of energy sources, ranging from solar to wind to gas to coal. All of the plants dump power into the same grid. Who's to say which source is used for what? It's not possible to disentangle power like that, unless the s

    • All of the plants dump power into the same grid.

      Not really. The grid is layered. It turns on power in layers. So when something is added to the grid the added power needed can be attributed to a specific source.

      Its more like you order one cheap pizza and one expensive pizza. You pay for both of them on one bill. That doesn't mean the expensive pizza and cheap pizza each account for half the bill.

      • No, everybody gets exactly the same mix of green and dirty energy as everybody else, regardless of whether they paid extra for "green" energy. https://galleryclimatecoalitio... [gallerycli...lition.org]

        • No, everybody gets exactly the same mix of green and dirty energy as everybody else, regardless of whether they paid extra for "green" energy

          Yes, the "pay more for green energy" has always been a marketing scam of sorts. The initial idea was that by paying more the electric company would buy more green energy. Its been a long time since that kind of encouragement was needed and the whole premise was doubtful from the start.

          But that is irrelevant to determining what energy source provides the extra power needed when you add something to the grid. There is only going to be one source and it will almost always be the cheapest source still availabl

          • There is only going to be one source and it will almost always be the cheapest source still available

            Huh? I don't know where you live, but there is always more than one source. Texas, where I live, has the smallest grid in the US, fully contained within the state of Texas. That grid has more than 300 power generation plants: 14 coal, 2 nuclear, 118 natural gas, 5 biomass, 13 hydropower, 84 wind farms, and 38 solar farms. All of these generators are working all of the time, each pouring its power into the grid. There's no such thing as getting power from "just one source."

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          • So there's one unit of clean power and one unit of dirty power.

            You and me both need 1 unit of power.

            It's just a race to flip the switch to see if I'm green and clean and you're dirty?

            Or the more sensible interpretation that we both share responsibility since we're both using the same amount of power from a shared source that's part clean and part dirty.

            It doesn't really matter who flipped the switch a microsecond first and who "added to the demand" later. We both still demand the power going forward.

            • Or the more sensible interpretation that we both share responsibility

              Who cares whose "responsible"? The fact is if someone is already using the clean power, your adding demand is going to add dirty power and only dirty power. And the emissions from that power would not be in the atmosphere if you hadn't added that demand.

              • Lucky I flipped my switch first and I'm all good and clean and you're a dirty polluter forever now because you were a split second late...

                (even though we're both doing the same identical things with the same identical power.)

                • (even though we're both doing the same identical things with the same identical power.)

                  Sure you are and you should both stop instead of trying to greenwash the added emissions you are creating. If either one of you didn't flip the on switch it would save all the dirty power emissions, not just half.

                  • According to your initial premise why would we be both stop? We're not equally polluting. I'm clean and you're dirty. You should stop.

                    Going even further into the absurdity of your position. Since I was first, I'm going to just keep mine on even when I don't need the power. Just wasting it if I have to. If I turn it off even for a second, then it's you who are clean and me who would be the dirty user if I ever turned it back on.

                    Do you see yet how silly your initial position was?
                    Everyone using the power is

                    • According to your initial premise why would we be both stop?

                      Because you are both creating emissions no matter what power you are using.

                      Since I was first,

                      No one cares who was first. The fact is if you add your demand more emissions are created and the amount of emissions depends on the additional source of power required to meet that demand. It doesn't make any difference whether you are first or last. If your using power results in more dirty power being used then you should stop.

                      Everyone using the power is equally responsible for their share of the total.

                      Let me explain it to you from the other direction. When you shut off your demand do you expect the grid o

    • Is it not done via accounting? So, it's not literal.

      How does Ecotricity do it? AI...

      Ecotricity claims its electricity is 100% renewable by directly generating power from its own wind and solar farms, purchasing clean energy through agreements with other renewable producers, and using REGO certificates in a transparent way. Unlike many suppliers that engage in greenwashingâ"labeling fossil-fuel electricity as âoegreenâ by simply buying certificatesâ"Ecotricity ensures the energy and its p

      • Yes, of course it's done via accounting. The electricity wholesaler contracts with, say, a wind farm, to provide a certain amount of "clean" energy. They then sell "clean" energy to customers who are willing to pay more. But all that means is that other customers, who don't pay more for clean energy, have a higher proportion of fossil-fuel energy. It doesn't mean that the electrons purchased by the clean energy customer, came from the wind farm. Everybody on the grid literally gets the same mix of green and

  • Quick, everyone stop talking about the USA firing-up old, toxic coal plants for bit-mining and AI training.

    If energy is spent building the next-gen technology, then the old technology can be de-commissioned: Resulting in a net positive. The USA is making a point of eliminating that option.

    • Do you have a reference to show they're using old power stations, which are presumably dirtier than the new ones China are using (while shutting down their older ones)?

      • ... a reference ...

        No, I assumed the power stations will be equally dirty. Which is why I talked about China having a plan and option to shut-down coal-based plants while the USA doesn't and can't. I can continue showing the failure of US Capitalism with China using 'low'-cost AI such as DeepSeek R1 while USA continues using OpenAI ChatGPT and Google Gemini.

  • That's news to me.

  • Maybe it'd help if the US wasn't such a war monger and, instead of bashing China, stopped manufacturing weapons and the wars that require them...not to mention the emissions from the military industrial complex and the military itself.

    You never know, if the US wasn't threatening China so much, maybe China would also manufacture fewer weapons/etc too. Win-win.

  • Buisiness as usual is killing us.

    Attempting to maintain capitalistic growth on a finite planet will do this.

    We have to change of life , not maintain our wasteful and ecocidal practices.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Close