Assuming they never move away from fossil fuels, it's still a win. Electricity is far more efficient at converting energy into movement than fossil fuels (roughly 75% vs 15%)
>Electricity is far more efficient at converting energy into movement than fossil fuels (roughly 75% vs 15%)
This metric could also be described as: "what percentage of the total energy content of your car's fuel tank will be converted into kinetic energy?"
What is the point of this metric?
Solar panels are less efficent at converting incident sunlight into electricity, than fossil-fueled power stations are at converting hydrocarbons into electricity. The same applies for wind turbines converting kinetic energy into electricity.
Blindly taking the "efficiency" of one tiny step in the process of converting an energy source into automotive propulsion will lead to some absurd conclusions.
Also, solar is absolutely growing in China, growing by roughly 30% in 2023: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-solar-power-capaci...