Much of the World's Solar Gear is Made Using Fossil Power in China (asiatimes.com)
- Reference: 0178359056
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/07/12/044242/much-of-the-worlds-solar-gear-is-made-using-fossil-power-in-china
- Source link: https://asiatimes.com/2025/07/chinas-climate-gambit-bet-on-coal-while-winning-the-green-race/
> Much of the world's solar gear is made on fossil power. The International Energy Agency finds that " [2]coal generates over 60% of the electricity used for global solar PV manufacturing ," far above coal's [3]~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 [4]over $50 billion into solar factories since 2011, roughly ten times Europe's investment, [5]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 [6]more than 70% of EV sales."
Thanks to Slashdot reader [7]RossCWilliams for sharing the news.
[1] https://asiatimes.com/2025/07/chinas-climate-gambit-bet-on-coal-while-winning-the-green-race/
[2] https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/d2ee601d-6b1a-4cd2-a0e8-db02dc64332c/SpecialReportonSolarPVGlobalSupplyChains.pdf
[3] https://www.iea.org/reports/solar-pv-global-supply-chains/executive-summary
[4] https://www.solarpowereurope.org/advocacy/make-solar-eu
[5] https://www.iea.org/reports/solar-pv-global-supply-chains/executive-summary
[6] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/china-electric-vehicle-competition-thailand-local-production-goals-byd-neta-5220416
[7] https://www.slashdot.org/~RossCWilliams
Who gives a shit. (Score:3, Informative)
As the article says the panel pays off for its CO2 in mere months.
Re: (Score:1)
I couldn't find an answer other than AI saying it was 1-4 years (12-48 months). Anyone have an exact source? Would be interesting to see more analysis on everything that uses batteries. I don't recall anyone saying solar panels ruined the environment making. Its the batteries and things that use them like electric cars that some articles are saying have a high environmental toll to produce, thus offsetting their 'green.' Like a EV takes ~8 years to make up the production carbon costs. By then the battery is
In other news (Score:4, Informative)
Materials to build Henry Ford's first factory were delivered by horse-drawn carts.
The chain of technology (Score:3)
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:3, Interesting)
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
Ya, but their coal is dirty and homely. (Score:1)
China isn't burning the "beautiful clean coal" Trump says the U.S. is / will be.... (sigh)
[1]Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry [whitehouse.gov]
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reinvigorating-americas-beautiful-clean-coal-industry-and-amending-executive-order-14241/
Re: (Score:2)
Lol
Natgas is cheap and plentiful. Coal has no future.
Burn coal to get off of coal? Yes please. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
There's a few problems with your assessment.
First, there is a distinction between "thermal coal" and "metallurgical coal". Thermal coal is coal consumed for the production of heat, clearly, with the implication that some of that heat will be for producing steam which then turns a turbine with that turbine producing electricity. Then is metallurgical coal, coal consumed in the process of refining or alloying metals. Silicon refining consumes a lot of metallurgical coal, something like as much mass of coal
Production takes energ (Score:2)
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
They replay the manufacturing emissions in months (Score:2)
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:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd be as unconcerned about the coal China consumes for producing wind and solar power if this was applied equally to the USA.
While China consumes a lot of thermal coal for electricity there is a great deal of metallurgical coal consumed for silicon refining. As far as I know the coal used for either is the same coal from the same mines, only how the coal is consumed differs. Either way the coal becomes CO2 released into the air. If the USA is to continue producing steel, aluminum, and silicon for their
As expected (Score:2)
Old tech is used to make new tech
Re: As expected (Score:2)
I was wondering how else are they going to be made? Secret alien power? Jesus snaps his fingers and solar panels appear?
Eat your own dog food (Re: As expected) (Score:1)
> I was wondering how else are they going to be made? Secret alien power? Jesus snaps his fingers and solar panels appear?
I would guess that the first people to use solar power would be the factories making the solar panels. Apparently that is not the case, and it is because silicon refining is a process that requires a reliable source of electricity. Solar PV production also consumes metallurgical coal, coal used in the refining and alloying of metals as opposed to thermal coal which is used to produce heat and electricity.
This is a matter of "eating your own dog food", if the people running the factories that make solar po
Re: (Score:1)
The environmental cost of producing these green products has not been talked about much. Maybe people assume the production costs are negligible. If we look at cars, the story is different. AI estimates:
> The carbon footprint of battery production is significant, with estimates ranging from 150 to 200 kg of CO2 per kWh of battery capacity. For example, a typical EV with a 60 kWh battery could have around 9,000 to 12,000 kg of CO2 emissions just from battery production.
> The production of ICE vehicles typically results in lower initial carbon emissions compared to EVs, with estimates around 6,000 to 8,000 kg of CO2 for a conventional vehicle.
Granted AI has accuracy issues, but that is in line with articles such as:
> For illustration, the Tesla Model 3 holds an 80 kWh lithium-ion battery. CO2 emissions for manufacturing that battery would range between 2400 kg (almost two and a half metric tons) and 16,000 kg (16 metric tons)
> Currently, most lithium is extracted from hard rock mines or underground brine reservoirs, and much of the energy used to extract and process it comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels. Particularly in hard rock mining, for every tonne of mined lithium, 15 tonnes of CO2 are emitted into the air. Battery materials come with other costs, too. Mining raw materials like lithium, cobalt, and nickel is labor-intensive, requires chemicals and enormous amounts of water—frequently from areas where water is scarce—and can leave contaminants and toxic waste behind. 60% of the world’s cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where questions about human rights violations such as child labor continue to arise.
> Manufacturing also adds to these batteries’ eco-footprint, Shao-Horn says. To synthesize the materials needed for production, heat between 800 to 1,000 degrees Celsius is needed—a temperature that can only cost-effectively be reached by burning fossil fuels, which again adds to CO2 emissions.
[1]https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mi... [mit.edu]
[1] https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufacturing-batteries
Came here to say... (Score:2)
(looks over comments pointing out shortsighted stupidity of article) ...never mind, I see my work is done.
So? (Score:3)
At least that's coal put to good use, bootstrapping solar panel production. Better than bitcoin mining anyway.
Okay but... (Score:2)
... 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.
Polysilicon production is not intermittent (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Replying to my own reply, but energy plants are shutdown and turned up on a fairly regular basis because energy demand is mostly daytime.
Re: (Score:2)
> Even those nuclear fuel rods came from stars.
which makes them stellar, not solar.