World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Yes the claim of the article is obviously false regarding wind turbines, I'm not denying they make their own developments, maybe some are necessary to avoid older patents IDK. But there is no way they are the driver of this development, just like Japan or Toyota was never the driver of development of better cars. Even if arguably they made the best and the most cars.
On batteries Tesla was actually first with their MEGA factory, and although China is now the biggest producer of solar panels and batteries, they were never the driver behind this development.
The drivers were technologies first developed in the west, and China just became the main production hub of batteries and panels. if it hadn't been China, it would still have been developed and produced at a growing pace for an ever growing market anyway.
By your argument would you say that Japan and Korea are the engines of the lithium ion batteries?
No, lithium batteries were developed over several decades before they reached a level where they became stable and affordable enough for mass consumption.
There is not a single point that is the driver of such trends, but I'd say that the research resulting in batteries becoming good enough for ever more use cases, is a major part of what drives adoption.
And on that point I'd agree that China is ahead. With BYD and CATL leading the development of better car batteries.
But they are not engines drivings nations away from fossil fuels. Because for instance Europe has been working on that shit since the 70's.
Sure China is a part of it now, I'll even admit they are a significant part, but they were not at any point in time the driver for it, and Japan and Korea weren't either.
It would be more fair to say Denmark was a driver for the adoption of wind turbines, because Denmark was the country that invested money in developing the technology basically from scratch, to enable the big MegaWatt turbines we have today. Something that was developed in Denmark when most didn't care to, and the few that did failed to make commercially viable turbines. And the Danish company Vestas now also has the world biggest wind turbine production.
But although Denmark were a driver, they aren't anymore, because wind turbines can now and are developed and built all over the world.
The same with batteries, batteries are developed and built all over the world, with Samsung, Panasonic, LG also being reputable producers of batteries, China is just the biggest production hub, and on some types of batteries they are ahead. But China is not the engine driving this industry, it could be said to be mostly increased demand for electric cars, and electric cars is not a country.
I'm concurring on wind and smart grids but dissenting on solar and batteries.
I'm not saying China isn't a major factor, and in the lead in some ways, especially on batteries.
I'm just saying that being in the lead doesn't necessarily make you thee driving factor.
Which I thought I gave a good example on with Toyota. Where it's easy to see how ridiculous the statement is.
The article didn't say China is driving its development (like you say Europe would have researched regardless); it says China is driving its adoption including in foreign nations. The article does leave out European research's contribution to the cheap production of wind turbines, but the article's claim is that China's production and foreign policy is driving new adoption.
That's exactly what I responded to. And as I've already written, China being the #1 manufacturer on volume doesn't drive adoption any more than Toyota making the most cars are driving adoption of cars.
Adoption is very much driven by the technologies that have made the technology feasible to begin with. And that was for decades mostly driven by Europe.
It's a nonsense way to understand the adoption of green energy sources which have many other factors than slightly cheaper production in China driving adoption.
As I mentioned, there are other countries making panels that are competitive, obviously if China stopped making panels, those makers would scale up their production to replace it.
For instance Hyundai are very competitive, and offer 25 year warranty against typically 10 years for Chinese panels. They have very low degradation and cost less than 10% more than a typical Chinese panel.
There are perfectly good options without China.
What's driving adoption is the fact that the technologies have matured and become affordable, which would have happened anyway.
There is no doubt that adoption is NOT driven by China, and very very obviously not by China alone. Anymore than adoption of oil was driven by Saudi Arabia.
Toyota isn't driving adoption of cars because 1. cars have already saturated the market, so there's no need for ambassadorship and commercials assume people need cars 2. Toyota has 14% market share, not 70%. Same for Saudi crude. None of these are true for wind or solar or batteries.
You don't show that this would have happened anyway. The article's point is that China's production played a large role in making it affordable and their research a somewhat smaller one.