> China would actually have to build stuff to do that.

and they do. Unlike Denmark, China is the world's factory and can use the windfall from exports to fund projects and have them on its balance sheet.

a big part of why china likes renewables so much is because they have to import fossil fuels

they already are a major importer of energy

This is the biggest issue I have with headlines "[country] got all of its electricity from [some renewable] today!" when the reality is they rely on some other supply when [some renewable] has zero output.

Like you say, a lot of countries get a pass because a neighbour invested billions and decades building nuclear. Or else they fall back to coal/gas.

It's not clear what your issue is or whether you would prefer that country X used absolutely no renewables whatsoever and derived all their energy needs including transport and electricity from damaging and limited fossil fuels.

No, they are arguing that's incredibly misleading to say "Denmark phased out coal and replaced it with wind".

Indeed it would be had such a headline been actually published by any of the major media outlets.

Perhaps I missed that, is there a source link?

It’s the context of this thread if you work your way back up the chain.

You'll find find me near the top, and I've double checked and still not seeing the misleading headline. This thread itself is captioned Solar surpasses nuclear power globally for first time

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to link to which part of this thread gives that context, as you see it.

Except that it's not.

Denmark is dependent on hydro power and nuclear power from its neighbours.

Without it, the Danish people would experience regular black outs.

What does that have to do with replacing coal with wind?

That argument doesn't make any sense. Why would the same arguments about investments not apply to a single country? Moreover, considering the size of the China (both geographically and economically) it should be much easier to do this, because they don't have to rely on the decisions of others but can make decisions themselves.

I think it's analogous (though obviously a very different scale) to the difference between me, as a single individual, being able to build and install a grid-connected PV* system for my home where I get to claim "net zero" energy use without having to care who uses what I export or what generates for me at night, vs. a genuinely off-grid system where I need to own the storage and have to deal with it when whatever solution I invest in is insufficient for my needs.

Of course, both China and Denmark can do much better than me at every level, but like I said, analogy.

* I think theoretically I am allowed to install a wind turbine, but same applies.