Talk:Energy policy of China

message: Would it be possible to get a map of total emissions per country, as well as/instead of per capita emissions? The story that's making the headlines now is China overtaking the US in total emissions, but that isn't reflected in the existing map. -- Hongooi 12:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to the per capita image, found the link to List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita. From this, I then tried and had success with List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions and found :Image:Countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_world_map_deobfuscated.png there and copied the source and pasted it in this page. In future, it might be easier for you to find such an addition which already exists and add it yourself. Cheers Nil Einne 20:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emissions map 

message: * Housing, Fuel Costs Ease in China October 10, 2011 in the Wall Street Journal by Aaron Back  99.190.87.127 (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WSJ]] resource 

message: Duplicating comment made elsewhere. As far as I am aware, there was a consensus reached to rename the page on China to be about the PRC, rather than China as a historical or cultural entity or whatever. I am not aware of a "consensus" that says that every instance were "People's Republic of China" appears in a title it should be changed to China. Consensus is reached, as far as I know, on the pages in which things are discussed. I have not heard of a process by which consensus by a group of editors discussing one matter on one page is then automatically extended to a number of other related pages in terms of what they are to be titled. I strongly suspect this would call for individual consensus on the various pages which moves were desired for. If I am mistaken, please correct me. In any case, I suggest first beginning with a proposal, explanation, and an attempt to form consensus about the move. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move consensus issue 

message: Electricity is a form of energy, but not all energy is electricity. Writers about energy policy need to be careful not to conflate the two, especially in quantitative statements and comparisons.
In the section "Electricity generation," the subsection "Coal" begins with the statement "China currently generates around two thirds of its electricity from coal-fired power station." Oddly enough, the same subsection has a table of statistics from the IEA stating that 78% to 81% of electricity production came from coal in 2004 to 2010. Why the discrepancy? If we look at the ref for the two-thirds number, we find this statement: "China currently depends on coal to meet two-thirds of its energy needs." That's right: two-thirds of its energy needs, not two-thirds of its electricity needs. It's not the same thing.
The article has been corrected to reflect the IEA data. Piperh (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy vs. electricity 

message: The line 'energy includes energy losses that are 2/3 for nuclear power' was sourced to a PDF (which does not exist) about Swedish, rather than Chinese, nuclear power plants. I'm uncertain if I need to just find a better source on that particular line, or if somebody was invoking WPCalc the entire table is affected. RequiaAngelite (talk)
:The original edit didn't make any changes to the numbers. A false source was used for almost 5 years on this line, removing it. RequiaAngelite (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty source 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Debate over China's economic responsibilities for climate change mitigation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress