The scale of Chinese production since 2010 has driven the price of these technologies down by 60 to 90 percent, the researchers found. And last year, more than 90 percent of wind and solar projects commissioned worldwide produced power more cheaply than the cheapest available fossil-fuel alternative, they said. That cost advantage might have seemed laughable before China began pumping billions of dollars of subsidies into the sector.
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.