[syrgian]

Australia's target is more ambitious, but China has a larger share right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable...

I am also not clear that it is that much more ambitious. You are not comparing the correct numbers. 1200 GW in 2030 is just solar and wind, they are targeting 3.9TW renewables by 2030 and 80% non-fossil by 2060.

[Panzer04]

Where did you see the 3.9TW number? I don't see how they can target 1200GW wind and solar and 3.9TW renewable total - what other resources are there?

I found the info from a quick look outside the article, so it could definitely be questionable. I will say, China has a bunch of hydro iirc, and right now a lot of countries with lots of renewables is is likely as not just down to huge hydro shares than anything else (though that is obviously changing quite fast nowadays).

Even by the targets (which are, admittedly, just targets, AU is targetting 80% renewable share 2030 vs CN 2060. I do expect us to be better given relative wealth etc, though all that probably matters less and less as renewables become the most competitive.

Anyway, mostly I'm frustrated by the article not providing a good analysis of the news, it's just repeating what the think tank said (this os sadly becoming par for the course for the ABC nowadays, I haven't found it to have high quality reporting :()

[syrgian]

This is the source to the 3.9TW number: https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF_2023-11-2...

I understand your frustration. I had to dig quite a bit to find numbers I could use, because there are multiple energy categories that are used inconsistently: solar&wind, all renewables, non-fossil. Then they are combined with two main ways of measuring them: capacity and average production. Then there are targets, predictions and in-production. It is a nightmare to get fair 1:1 comparisons.