The most significant US regulations in the area aren't even mentioned in this article: the prohibitively high tariffs on Chinese solar modules and electric vehicles, which at least double the cost of solar panels and EVs in the US compared to much of the rest of the world.
Current US elites grew up in the energy crisis that started with the Arab oil embargo of 01973 cutting off US energy imports, and they seem determined to perpetuate that crisis, if necessary by cutting off US imports of energy production infrastructure themselves now that the foreigners won't do it for them anymore.
The article vastly understates the rapidity of the change. It projects 3 TW of new renewable generation capacity in China over the next decade (02026-02036, I suppose), attributing that to an unpublished report from a consultancy that seems to protect its projections from criticism with an NDA. Given that the PRC installed 373 GW in renewable generation capacity last year (https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/statistics/202501/28/cont...) this seems like an implausibly low figure; linear extrapolation of installing that same amount every year would give us 3.7 TW installed over that period. But in fact it has been growing exponentially, so 20 TW of added capacity over the next decade seems like a more likely ballpark.
That's nameplate capacity, so it's closer to 4 TW of actual energy generation.
Because we cannot afford, geopolitically, to have a hostile rival nation with whom we may in the next decade be at war control our energy. There is no if, and, or but about that.
Of course, most of said solar and battery tech was originally developed by Americans; chinese bought old patents, bought companies out of bankruptcy, and threw obscene amounts of state capital at developing it further. and now we're stuck with crap like CATL owning a huge amount of the advanced battery market. The implication that this is "just what the market decided" and that we must concede to the artificial scenario beijing has constructed, likely with the express intent of gaining leverage over more nations, is ridiculous.
Instead, we should mass-invalidate every single chinese-owned patent. She built her economy on stealing ours anyhow. Do it ourselves, or rely on allied/subordinate nations for manufacturing.
You can't afford to go to war with an industrialized nation whose energy is immensely cheaper than your own, nor with a nuclear-armed nation. Solar panels are different from oil in that their producers cannot turn them off, so importing them now would increase your energy security, not decrease it. For EVs the situation is more complex because of potential backdoors in firmware, but PV modules do not have any firmware; they are just large diodes.
I strongly disagree with both your master-race theory of technical innovation and your imperialist rhetoric. Americans, and in particular people from the US, did contribute greatly to solar and battery technological innovation. But a great deal of it was carried out outside the US, or inside the US by non-Americans, and in particular by Chinese grad students at US universities. Technological and scientific progress is inherently an international effort on behalf of all of humanity.
In terms of bringing utility-scale battery storage and PV energy production to mass production, US elites have basically opted not to participate. Unfortunately I expect that situation to continue.
Withdrawing international intellectual-property monopolies en masse is an interesting suggestion; I think it would probably promote progress, in particular because it would free other countries around the world to do the same with US patents and copyrights, which have been among the most significant obstacles to progress and even simple preservation of knowledge.
I think you are misguided because of a true belief in "the system". The problem is systems often fail to handle bad-faith actors who intentionally abuse them. Absent a higher system, we lack good means to address this. But the system is not a moral good and we don't owe it to anyone or anything to maintain arbitrary rules when our enemies are using them to hamstring us and threaten our citizens, liberties, and way of life.
beijing has a consistent policy of subsidizing and dumping to gain dominance of key industries. metals, energy, etc. they are surely aware of the security implications of this. it seems to be their response to the mutually assured destruction of nuclear weapons: since those are no longer usable, create a new asymmetric situation where china can install herself as international dictator without or in addition to military force.
We can't afford not to respond. If we are unwilling to go to war, we'd have to concede to being china's bitch, which is a worse option than war.
Importing solar panels with no means to repair, replace, and resupply would absolutely make things worse; it'd increase dependence on a technology over which we lack control.
This isn't "imperialist" rhetoric, I'm quite plainly speaking in terms of maintaining our own autonomy and independence, not in terms of coercing others.
I don't think you can credit technology from foreign grad students at American universities or companies to those foreign countries. Doubly so since said chinese grad students have a long track record of facilitating the IP theft we're discussing.
Withdrawing would not free other countries to do so; the core difference here is china is a bad actor who exploits and steals IP. not to mention we could get away with this because we have a military of a certain size; smaller countries probably could not.
Regardless of whether we produce domestically, there's no particular reason why we can't work with other cheap nations within our sphere of influence (probably latam) to handle production.
I live in Argentina, so my belief in "the system" is that it's comprehensively rigged. Also, a friend of mine was raped by the police under the US-backed last Argentine dictatorship, so I'm not super enthusiastic about dictatorships like the PRC, nor about LatAm being inside the US's sphere of influence.
This dumping stuff is nonsense. If you investigate more deeply than reading PR, you'll come to the same conclusion. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43463872 for more details on that.
If "being china's bitch", as you put it, were the alternative to war, it would not be "a worse option than war", because the PRC has ICBMs and 600 nuclear warheads. War with China would mean every major US city and every Chinese city becoming a radioactive wasteland. There are people who would prefer that to some kind of unfavorable economic situation, but I do not think those people merit a place in public discourse.
What I'm advocating, however, is not that the US accept an unfavorable economic situation and give up autonomy and independence; it's that the US cease to force an unfavorable economic situation on itself by sabotaging its own energy supply, which is fundamental to both transportation and to all forms of heavy industry. The foreseeable energy future is solar, and US policy is built on wilful blindness to that fact, a blindness which will cripple its industry's capacity to compete with China over at least the next three decades.
China's trade abuses are insane. Firstly, china has better than 80% marketshare. Most people agree that a monopoly of this size is net corrosive to innovation and competition. What's more, china massively subsidizes industries she prefers. Both in terms of direct subsidies, but also in that the PBOC can direct any and all banks through the country to offer privileged terms on loans or capital. This often doesn't factor into western analyses because it's simply not a tool we use. It's also not the sort of thing WTO/GATT rules are written to consider, see prior comment about the system not being set up to deal with chinese. You're right that there's less evidence of explicit dumping under international law, though since the domestic chinese solar market is so much smaller that's not an entirely meaningful number, but I was using it more as a colloquialism people would recognize to indicate state-backed overcapacity to knock out competition than as a legal term of art.
And you're assuming being stuck under the thumb of an illiberal regime hostile to our beliefs and way of life, a regime with a long history of violating basic liberties, of mass murder, and of ethnic (han) supremacy, would stop at trade concessions. I don't believe we could reach a point where we could make tolerable policy changes to appease the PRC.
I don't think it's an issue of us being blind. There are plenty of contributing factors. For one, we are terrible at industrial policy and it's ridden with recapture. E.g. Ford shutting down a battery plant because the UAW demanded (and gov't generally supported) the fact that they'd have to re-hire and re-train tons of UAW employees at the new factory. This is objectively not the way to handle what we believe to be a critical energy supply issue. The fact that it's become incredibly difficult to produce solar panels or batteries competitively, both due to higher wages and more stringent regulations than one would find in china. This is exacerbated by decades of conspiracy to wink-and-nod at illegal immigration suppressing investment in automation, meaning catch-up would be painful and take time. Etc.
There's also the fact that, as it stands now, we cannot replace our grid with renewables. It's also much easier to make a large chunk of it nuclear, but the environmental/clean energy groups have mostly been captured by nuke-hating tree-huggers for half a century now. Objectively you do not want to make all your generation wind/solar because your storage requirements are much higher, because the LCOE numbers people use in their calculations (Lazard's are popular) are notoriously bad, and because storage tech either isn't there yet or is cost-prohibitive.
I am very frustrated by people who 1. try to reduce this to "one simple thing" that they happen to support, and likely supported long before and apart from current issues, 2. people who see it as an opportunity for recapture, and 3. the head-in-the-sand denialists who just don't know or care that America's position and people are threatened by the way things are headed.
Your last two paragraphs are almost perfect satire.
Renewables don't work. Nuclear is much easier. It's the environmentalists at fault. LCOE is notoriously bad. Storage doesn't work.
Also, you're angry at people who are head in the sand denialists who don't realise or care that America is under threat.
The person you're discussing this with is totally correct. America is throwing away it's future with this approach to energy. And you are a perfect avatar of the people enthusiasticly commiting this self-destruction.
A better solution is recognition that like all other math, patterns, and formulations of matter at micro and macro scales; those are natural patterns and the most optimal configuration for a precise enough criteria is going to be in the range of zero to one single natural solutions.
Should there be some process for rewarding those who discover those most optimal solutions to problems? Maybe.
Patents as they are currently implemented seem to be even less beneficial to the progress of science and useful arts (trades skills) than copyright. Unlike the consumer protection of brand reputation (trade mark); both create artificial scarcity and impede the development, distribution, and diversity of manufacturers of works which would benefit society and citizens.
> We can't afford not to respond. If we are unwilling to go to war, we'd have to concede to being [C]hina's bitch, which is a worse option than war.
Current US foreign policy is a bit all over the place, but it's difficult to determine if the US is actually willing to go to war or not to defend its allies or even its own interests. There were the attacks on the Houthis, ok, but in order to facilitate that the US requires military bases outside the US territories proper. At the same time, the US is threatening to stop supporting allied nations, which means it's also threatening to close its bases outside the US and its territories (why would those nations host the bases if not in exchange for some degree of protection?). This will put the US in a position where it is unable to prosecute a war effectively.
This sends a signal that the present US government may not be willing to go to war. Of course, as with all things Trump this could all be bluster and provocation to see some desired action or response, we'll know more in a few months or so.
I tend to agree with you. There's a valid point that we shouldn't be consigning young Americans to die in foreign wars, but I do believe we should still maintain foreign bases and a global military. I think the past several administrations have made critical mistakes w.r.t. our diplomatic and military posture.
I'm making more of a positive statement than a normative one. I'm aware the political winds are rather against me in this and wouldn't expect to be able to sell this particular set of ideas to either party, but I still believe them to be our best option.
Calling out a rather destructive take with just harsh NO is pretty high on the the hierarchy of disagreement. If you refer to the "bitch" statement that is quoting the person I replied to .... Their own comment seems heavily concerned with "being a bitch" which implies deep insecurity or trauma on their part .... Pretty typical maladaptive coping mechanism...
Are all these extra words to say the same thing I already did better for curiosity?
It’s a crude term, sure, but sums up a potential future where total dependence for critical materials leads to one nation being able to do relatively whatever she wants while the other is stuck taking terms as given. If you’d prefer “highly disadvantaged diplomatic, economic, and security situation” I can say that, but this is an internet comment not a freaking Brookings Institute report.
Calling me an insane jingoist with no particular rationale isn’t really helpful. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe you are, but neither of us will ever learn which at that rate.
Please try to make HN comments more like a freaking Brookings Institute report instead of more like /b/ on 4chan. Doing the opposite fosters the kind of environment you claim to want to avoid, where people call you names instead of rebutting your claims with evidence.
Insane because almost none of this is based on reality and as another commenter said is just US imperialist propaganda. Literally hyper concerned with dominance and zero sum winner take all logic aka fascist. Using sexual terms to illicit an emotional response as if China is RAPING us by not giving us everything for nothing(a bitch)? again a fascist style of logic that the ONLY outcome is SOMEONE being the bitch ...
You talk about going back to era of enforced IP as if it isn't the USA that has led to the modern draconian farce of IP .... The golden age of the US growth was when we had a similar disregard for such silly concepts... Or ignoring the fact the vast majority of the US industry base was built on "stolen" British IP?
Jingoist because you are obsessed with war and violence and making things/people"bitches" thru petty dominance rather than leading by excellence as the US has some in the past.
So to summarize
Insane because lack of connection to reality and history and actual geopolitics beyond usa supremacism.
Jingoist because immediate reaction to war/violence/domination/humiliation of enemies etc .
You're making more unsubstantiated accusations and saying I'm a propagandist, a fascist, blah blah. What is your support for this?
I am concerned with dominance because I don't trust china to hold a military advantage and not abuse it against my people. I expect multiple other countries feel this way, which is fine. All of us will probably jockey for position and I'm arguing we should focus all our resources behind maintaining ours.
Kind of insane that you think because of this I'm a fascist. I'd struggle to think of a credible definition of fascism, even one with which I disagree, that encompasses this. Can you clarify as to whether you're referring fascism as in the definition and political system or in the sense of "orange man is a fascist"?
I specifically talked about disregarding china's IP in response to her disregarding ours. I think we may be in violent disagreement on this point. I didn't say we should go bomb beijing to protect American patents, I said we should cheerfully rip hers off in return. From what you're saying, you believe this would be a good thing and help American growth; I agree.
Obsession with war isn't precisely a good definition of jingoism; regardless, I'm not. I'd very much like to avoid war. As Clausewitz put it, war is an extension of policy by other means. My concern is that we lose most of our non-military means - trade, diplomacy, etc. - due to economic and industrial weakness and insecurity, thus leaving only one open for important issues. I wish to avoid war and pursue peace through strength.
I said nothing about humiliation etc. of enemies. You're reading that into something I said, not sure why.
I'm not really going to engage anymore. The support is self evident in your own statements and it's obvious you just want to play bad faith games.
If you don't see how becoming or making "bitches" is not related to humiliation I'm not going to bother.
If you dont think "the orange man" is a fascist, then any further peaceable discussion is a waste of time. See you in the field
Fascism: characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
Security is not provided by having stuff, it's provided by having the capacity to make stuff.
Importing now does not increase security.
Edit: one thing the Trump-Vance administration has done is tear through the tissue-paper screen of "rules based international order" rhetoric, exposing to plain view that we live in a world of great powers and international anarchy. As we have always done, but somehow allowed ourselves to believe naive falsehoods.
You know what you need to make stuff? Energy. You need energy. And that's what the US government's fossil-fuel-subsidizing bullshit is denying you.
Importing oil and gas now does not increase security, but importing PV modules does, because it gives you the capacity to produce energy from them for 20 years (module warranty period) or more likely 100 years (how long they'll actually work, though below the 80% of original capacity the warranty guarantees). Moreover, distributed generation with PV panels is enormously more resilient to being blown up by Chinese nukes or Russian, Ukrainian, or Chinese drone swarms than a few big coal power stations and oil refineries. (To say nothing of global warming.)
If you're under the impression we are highly dependent on foreign producers for petroleum energy, you are mistaken. The import numbers are skewed by the fact that we directly import a lot of heavy sour stuff from canada, mexico, venezuela, etc. because we're one of the few nations that can refine it. In turn, we export a big chunk of light sweet, as it's much easier to refine elsewhere. In a pinch, refineries can switch to processing light sweet pretty easily. It's much easier than going the other way. We'd have a short-term moderate capacity shortfall but more than enough to run most of society, especially manufacturing and defense.
> Importing oil and gas now does not increase security, but importing PV modules does
We aren't importing much oil and gas. Importing PVs is nice. Increasing domestic PV production is better. And in any case, we're installing record amounts of PV already [1]--the limiting factor is installation, not production.
They are conventionally warranted for 20 years, but that's just a guarantee they won't lose more than 20% from their nominal capacity over that time period. Silicon PV (the kind that dominates the market currently) continues to produce after that, continuing to degrade, but more slowly than in the first decade after installation. Many of the PV panels produced in the 01970s still work today.
So embargoing or blockading PV exports to the US would be a threat that the US might start to produce less energy 20 or 30 years in the future. This is very different from the situation with oil, where the Strategic Petroleum Reserve contains 19 days of petroleum consumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(U....
20 years versus 19 days is a significant difference, I feel. 20 years would be long enough for a functioning country to develop a solar-module industry from scratch, though the US probably couldn't. Think about the state of the Chinese PV industry 20 years ago, for example.
kragen's point is that worrying about solar panel embargos is unreasonable given the duration that panels last. An oil embargo is much more impactful to the US. A 6 month oil embargo would significantly harm the US despite our diversified energy infrastructure. A 6 month solar panel embargo wouldn't be a blip even if we were getting 100% of our energy from solar (+ battery storage, presumably). The panels we have will still be working. For it to be impactful:
1. The embargo would have to last decades.
2. The US would have to sit on its hands for those decades and deliberately choose not to develop its own manufacturing capability.
> worrying about solar panel embargos is unreasonable given the duration that panels last. An oil embargo is much more impactful to the US
An oil embarge is absolutely more impactful than a PV embargo. That doesn't mean the latter isn't a problem.
> embargo would have to last decades.
My point is it wouldn't. An embargo would immediately limit America's ability to grow its energy base and replace e.g. panels destroyed closer to China (or hell, on the homeland through presumably sabotage). If you're at war and your energy is capped while your enemy's isn't, that's a strategic problem. Waiting for that predictable problem to manifest versus cauterising it today is madness.
> Uhh they don’t last forever. So yeah. They can be controlled like oil if you are unable to make or source replacements.
They last for decades, and the resources (unlike with oil) to produce, repair, and rebuild them are readily available in the US (if through no other resources than recycling failed panels).
The biggest risk is that the US stops training engineers, scientists, and technicians who would be capable of doing that work.
Just pointing out that they are not forever. And the use of it in reasoning if flawed. We can but 20 years of oil too. It being a long period only lessons the affect not removes it.
The US annual oil demand costs around $500 billion (over 7 billion barrels used per year, but it's not all for energy). Since that does include other uses besides energy and energy demands are only increasing, it's still a useful baseline figure for estimating (because it's conservative, we'll likely need more in the future).
To acquire 20 years worth of our current demand would cost over $10 trillion (+ storage costs + future processing costs). Do you really think we can acquire 20 years worth of oil as easily as we can acquire solar panels? Panels which cost a fraction of that and don't require you to literally burn them to get energy, and instead can produce energy for decades with a little bit of maintenance (clean them, keep trees from growing over them).
You will notice that utility PV and CCGT are relatively similar in cost. Of course, replacing most of our energy infrastructure would have massive capex that one would add to the solar option. Note that the solar numbers do not include the cost of storage. And the storage requirements as you replace each GW of generation get higher, not lower.
Unfortunately this PDF doesn't explain Lazard's calculations, so it won't convince anyone who employs any critical thinking. Key factors like types of PV panels, whether tariffs are included or excluded, to what extent the panels' peak capacity exceeds the inverters' capacity (if at all), interest rates, etc., are not provided at all. Capacity factor is only mentioned as a broad range, with no mention of factors like what country it's in, fixed vs. sun-tracking, transmission costs for especially sunny sites, etc. Maybe it's fine if you want a rough guide, if it's correct, but it presents no evidence to show that it is correct.
Some evidence that it's not correct is that Saudi Arabia signed a PPA for wind last year at US$15.65 per MWh https://renewablesnow.com/news/saudi-arabia-signs-1-100-mw-o..., which is barely over half of Lazard's minimum LCOE for wind of US$27. So I don't think they're being too generous regarding renewables, though their solar numbers do look more reasonable.
Here's a quick LCoE exercise. Unlike Lazard, I show my work, so that, if it's wrong, anyone can see that and correct it. Suppose you're a utility that can freely import Chinese solar panels at the current €0.110/Wp (https://www.solarserver.de/photovoltaik-preis-pv-modul-preis...) in a region where single-axis trackers give you a 25% capacity factor, you are borrowing money at 5% to build a 100-megawatt-peak plant, the panel cost is 30% of the total plant cost, and the plant life is 20 years. (These are fairly typical numbers.)
The panels will degrade over the 20-year period, so you'll only get about 90% of your rated peak power on average over that time, and the capacity factor of 25% brings that down to 23 megawatts on average. (This is front-loaded, so the panels produce more toward the beginning of the plant's life when it matters more, but let's ignore that.) This works out to about 200'000 MWh per year.
To amortize a €36.78 million loan over 20 years at 5% you need to pay €2.9 million per year.
Dividing €2.9 million by 200'000 MWh gives you €15 per MWh (1.5¢/kWh, 55¢ per gallon of gasoline, US$4.30/GJ).
This is pretty far below where current European and US solar PPAs are coming in, and about half of what Lazard gives as the low end. So, either I'm missing something fundamental, or one or more of my assumptions above is inapplicable to most of Europe and the US. Here are my best guesses about what it is:
- A lot of European plants are being built in very polar and cloudy countries like the Netherlands and Germany, so the capacity factor is much worse than 25%. Like 10%.
- The US has massive import tariffs which more than double the price of solar panels.
- Maybe balance-of-plant costs have fallen far behind the precipitous drop in solar module prices, so maybe currently the cost of modules is only 15% of the plant cost instead of the usual 30% or so.
- Maybe lenders consider solar energy projects risky and so demand higher interest rates than the 5% or so that is usual for utility bond flotation.
The graph on page 17 tracks the historical costs and shows a massive blip for the top of the price range over the last two years, even as the low end continues the trend of dropping lower.
It's really only that last couple of years top end that lets the comparison to gas prices stand. Without it, the document clearly shows that building new solar is as cheap as buying the gas to burn in an existing gas plant.
I think Lazard cost estimated have always been US specific, though I didn't see that spelled out explicitly at a glance.
>Uhh they don’t last forever. So yeah.
They can be controlled like oil if you are unable to make or source replacements.
I do not want to resort to Reddit-level insults but you are so misguided to imply you are trolling.
1) The Australian government is spending millions of dollars to ensure we can turn off excessive solar production to protect grid stability.
Every grid operator will do similar things when solar and wind reach 80% of the generation
2) Solar PV has an effective life of about 25 years and still produces about 75% of its nameplate capacity in 25 years.
If you are genuinely concerned about what the energy supply chain will look like in 25 years, you are either a fool or a liar or both.
Solar PV was invented at Bell Labs in 1954. Since then it has reduced in cost by more than 99.9%. And continues to fall in price.
To demonstrate how quickly solar can be deployed; Pakistan added 1/3 of its total generation capacity in 2024. That is over 17GW of solar in a poor and disorganised country.
If China is manufacturing solar panels for us, that doesn't give them control of our energy supply.
It's not like being dependent on Saudi Arabia to supply oil. If China cuts us off from new solar panels, the solar panels we already have continue to provide electricity. It would only slow the rate of deployment, which we're already doing to ourselves by imposing a tariff on solar panel imports.
Usually it signals that the person is opposed to US foreign policy because they consider it imperialist, but in this case it seems to signal that the person favors an explicitly imperialist foreign policy for the US. Horseshoe theory, I suppose.
no, the commentator is simply proposing actually responding to the imperialism of China by protecting US assets and national security instead of rolling over and taking it because of misguided principles about free trade and intellectual property that the CCP has undermined for forty years to arrive in a position where they can undercut us on price through human rights abuses.
It is China that is imperialist and that has ruined the post cold war free trade world order. The US must respond or China will be the world hegemon. Would you prefer that?
> It is China that is imperialist and that has ruined the post cold war free trade world order. The US must respond or China will be the world hegemon.
The USA is the current imperial power, go ask us born in South America how it felt to listen to stories on dictatorships brought on by the imperialism of the USA; or societies having to bend for the spread of Reagan's economics cancer dismantling any semblance of social democracy to give into "The Third Way" which had to embrace the economic policies the USA wanted others to abide to.
At this exact moment, with the current American situation with a sick society electing a sick individual into power: yeah, I think I'd like to give a chance to China if Xi is out of power and someone like Deng Xiaoping or Hu Jintao is in control.
> intellectual property that the CCP has undermined for forty years to arrive in a position where they can undercut us on price through human rights abuses.
You should check out the stuff the USA outright stole to become the hegemony it is: jet propulsion, radar, atomic bomb developments, the Brits had to see it all get blatantly taken by the USA after needing help in WW2.
Edit: or even more relevant to contemporary times we live now, ask Canadians how they feel about the USA forcing their hand on Arrow Aviation, subsequently stealing their brains to build NASA Jet Propulsion Labs. Now they don't have a well developed Arrow to build jets when the USA turns over talking about annexation.
Every nation tries to influence her neighbors to be more accommodating of her wants and needs. We just happen to be bigger and better at doing it. Speaking historically, and relative to other past and present world powers, y'all are far better off living near America.
It is completely reasonable that we wouldn't put up with leaders objectively hostile to our interests popping up in our backyard, not after the last one who did got within a hair's breadth of planting nuclear missiles a hundred miles off our coast.
I actually wouldn't care nearly as much about China were Deng in power. I'd worry a bit given that we don't want to be economically eclipsed, sure, but my present concerns are directly tied to the current leadership and posture of china.
Are you suggesting we were wrong to transfer technology out of Germany post-WWII? To me it seems like a hell of a lot better as some form of repayment than the onerous reparations regime we tried post-WWI. Vae victis; if all millions of American dead cost Germany were some scientists and patents, they should count themselves lucky.
Saying America "stole" JPL from Avro is also a crazy interpretation. The Arrow was an incredibly expensive project: canada had about 20 million people at the time and was in terrible economic shape. Diefenbaker's decision remains controversial, and most people agree that destroying the project so thoroughly was just stupid, but you can't support the idea that we "stole" something from Canada or somehow compelled her to kill the project.
> Every nation tries to influence her neighbors to be more accommodating of her wants and needs. We just happen to be bigger and better at doing it. Speaking historically, and relative to other past and present world powers, y'all are far better off living near America.
So... Imperialism is your God given right? No questions about what millions of people would have preferred to live under, in their sovereignty, in their freedom? Got it. Every action has a reaction.
> It is completely reasonable that we wouldn't put up with leaders objectively hostile to our interests popping up in our backyard, not after the last one who did got within a hair's breadth of planting nuclear missiles a hundred miles off our coast.
It's not reasonable you'd prop up dictatorships who went to kill thousands, destroy the democratic process for generations of millions of people which in turn created an environment where aftershocks of these dictatorships left whole nations with a fragile democracy, and populations with very little tradition in civics. Because you were scared of another ideology.
It might be reasonable for you, from your point of view as a citizen of an imperial power; for the ones subjugated by this it only created resentment.
> Are you suggesting we were wrong to transfer technology out of Germany post-WWII? To me it seems like a hell of a lot better as some form of repayment than the onerous reparations regime we tried post-WWI. Vae victis; if all millions of American dead cost Germany were some scientists and patents, they should count themselves lucky.
No, I'm saying you were wrong in fucking over the Brits, the Tizard Mission went to the USA to forge an alliance where advanced technology developed by the UK could be worked together between UK-USA, instead of being a partner the USA simply stole the technology for itself while the UK was being beaten down by Nazis, an opportunistic parasite move. Not only that but the USA also cut off British scientists and engineers from the Manhattan Project, after all the contributions done to bring your atomic weapons into play, the one thing that catapulted the USA's hegemony into power.
> Saying America "stole" JPL from Avro is also a crazy interpretation. The Arrow was an incredibly expensive project: canada had about 20 million people at the time and was in terrible economic shape. Diefenbaker's decision remains controversial, and most people agree that destroying the project so thoroughly was just stupid, but you can't support the idea that we "stole" something from Canada or somehow compelled her to kill the project.
America forced the dismantling of Avro, even if the Arrow project was expensive it was the USA forcing Canada to give up on Avro, in its downfall came the USA to steal brains to work on JPL, and take you to the moon.
Your country is great at stealing others' tech through economical pressure: stealing brains by promising money, stealing technology when it's convenient, and I'm tired of reading Americans complaining about China's IP theft because it's absurdly hypocritical. You gotta learn your own country's history.
As an imperial power I believe your time is coming to past, your ideology is not holding anymore as a force to propel humanity forward, it did make the world better for a while but for the past 40 years it's been only a slow downfall... If you travel around the USA you can feel it, how dated everything looks, how badly society actually doesn't work, the decay of it is quite palpable.
Small nitpick: It would be more accurate to count these victims in figures of hundreds of thousands, or perhaps even millions. The Indonesian mass killings of 1965-1966 alone, conducted under the imprimatur of the CIA, resulted in the deaths of 500,000-1,000,000 people, and perhaps even more. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_19...
Yes, but here in America, where piva00 and I are, only tens of thousands of people were killed by US-backed dictatorships, not hundreds of thousands or millions.
Nixon helped bring China into the global community and the economic ties help bring (hundreds of?) millions out of extreme poverty and built up a major trade partner. Now with China's success the very free trade policy between our countries needs to be adjusted and slowly dialed back towards fairness.
The problem being there are plenty of actors whose motivation isn't "balancing what's best for my country and the world" in a fair way but just "whatever is best for me right now", and the shortsighted selfishness (which in different actors both supports and opposed similar policies for different reasons) really gets in the way of arriving at an optimal outcome for everyone.
Imperialism is when you take all the resources capitalists poured into your country because you had horrendously low labor costs and use them to develop yourself into an economic superpower rather than meekly continuing to be the factory for cheap crap for western nations. Got it.
I didn't read "allied/subordinate" to mean "allied = subordinate," but rather to mean differentiate between "willing alliances" and "unwilling or begrudgingly accepted alliances."
Alternatively, one could interpret "subordinate" to be one of the COFA[1] nations, for example (not saying I read it that way, but if this were a debate class and I was assigned to make the argument that these states are subordinates of the US, I probably could).
Japan's entry into WW2 was the result of not controlling their oil needs.
A large part of the German's military initiatives in WW2 were about obtaining access to oil, and the most successful Allied initiatives were about cutting off that oil.
Right! Which makes it, at best, pants-on-head crazy that current US trade policy is aimed at cutting off US access to, and domestic production of, energy, and promoting continued dependence on oil.
Regardless of tariffs, solar is still the cheapest energy source in the US and the fastest growing even in absolute terms.
We shoudln't let China overproduce and dump excess solar productions in its own attempts to control the market. We're trying to not repeat the energy dependence on unfriendly foreign powers. We don't want the Chinese Solar Embargo of 2026.
We shouldn't let China overproduce and dump excess solar productions in its own attempts to control the market.
I think that this misreads how the Chinese solar industry works. It's one of the less government-controlled industries in China. It's fiercely competitive, which leads to low prices, rapid change, and periodic bankruptcies. Chinese-made solar panels became popular for the same reason their T-shirts and microwave ovens became popular: acceptable quality offered at unbeatable prices.
I also think that there's low risk of lock-in from buying Chinese solar products now. Solar panels have a typical operating lifetime about equivalent to 5 years at 100% of rated power. In practice this means something more like 20 years in a solar farm in a very sunny climate or 35 years in a cloudy climate. The steady state replacement rate to maintain a nation's solar capacity is therefore about 3%-5% of the initial installation rate. If China prohibited solar panel exports, Western countries could maintain existing solar farm capacity with only tiny outside-of-China solar manufacturing capacity. There would be plenty of time for not-China countries to determine if the embargo were temporary or persistent before investing in more expensive but more dependable domestic factories.
>I also think that there's low risk of lock-in from buying Chinese solar products now.
It's not lock-in, it's price competitiveness of locally produced solar. If Chinese solar is half price, domestic industry won't exist. If relations with China further deteriorate, they may restrict access. If there was a war we'd be out a major source of energy production/growth.
Currently the US is expected to manufacture solar modules at least equal to solar installs last year.
Being able to maintain production if there was an embargo, we're seeing something like a 20% year over year growth of total installed solar.
20% year over year growth would mean falling further and further behind China, which is closer to 50% lately. Bookmark this comment and check back in a year to see if China's installed PV capacity grew by more or less than 20% in 02024.
Current US industrial policy is vastly inadequate for bootstrapping a domestic solar industry to international competitiveness, and the US trade barriers against cheap Chinese EVs are ensmallening the future domestic electricity market. This is a problem, because that's where domestic manufacturers have to sell their product before hypothetically achieving low enough production costs to gain a foothold in export markets.
Also, I want to point out that your idea that what companies in China should or shouldn't be allowed to produce or invest in is within the jurisdiction of the US government is a breathtaking level of central-economic-planning advocacy that even Stalin and Mao would never have admitted to. It's precisely the rejection of such central planning by Deng that permitted Mainland China to develop economically.
Why does the US need to have an internationally competitive solar export industry? We can't beat China and a lot of other countries on labor costs so unless we go crazy with automation or have some research breakthroughs for significant solar efficiency vs cost, it would never be a huge win regardless of policy. What we do need is a domestic production base for domestic usage so that solar can't become a negotiating tactic used against us, or a hindrance if international relations collapse.
Arguments about current exponential growth not being fast enough don't land with me.
Promoting domestic PV panel production would be reasonable, but that's not what current US industrial policy is aimed at. Instead it's trying to resuscitate fossil fuels, like Tinkerbell, through sheer force of belief.
China's solar panels are cheap because the Chinese government is subsidizing solar panel production with the express purpose of destroying solar panel industries in other nations. Hence, many countries impose tariffs on Chinese solar panels.
This is basically nonsense. Chinese solar panels are cheap because they are produced efficiently, with orders of magnitude less materials and energy than were required in 02012, when the US started imposing "anti-dumping" tariffs on them.
I've read many of the US Department of Commerce filings on the topic attempting to argue that the current prices are unfairly subsidized. The arguments are embarrassingly bad, arguing over things like what the fair price of solar glass should be, or whether the fair price of the labor of Chinese solar panel assembly workers should be determined by comparing to Malaysian electronics assembly labor or Romanian electronics assembly labor. (They settled on Turkish labor.)
Even when resorting to such absurd arguments, the countervailing tariffs the DoC decided it could justify were only in the range of 10-15%:
Finding the original filings in these cases, spanning 13 years at this point, took a fair bit of digging, but it was very eye-opening. See for example https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2014-12-23/pdf/2014-3... and Barcode:4426784-02 C-570-011 (not linkable by any URL).
But, basically, you have to ask, if subsidies are the reason Chinese solar module prices today are lower than module prices were in 02012, when they cost €0.64 per peak watt instead of today's €0.110, does that mean that Chinese taxpayers are paying 82% of the cost of installing solar panels around the world? China is just exporting €100 billion a year of its tax revenues in the form of solar panels, with the intent of at some point raising the prices to above where they were in 02012, say €0.75 per peak watt? When should we expect that other shoe to drop?
Because the solar panel industries in other nations are pretty thoroughly destroyed, except for those created by Chinese companies seeking ways around US tariffs.
It just isn't a plausible story, even if it is being promoted by the same newspaper that promoted the story of Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" to justify invading Iraq.
Yes, although the rest of the world is catching up, and manufacturers in many countries now sell solar modules at prices much lower than the prices that launched the "dumping" allegations in 02012.
As for coal power specifically, being polluting doesn't make it cheap; it's economically uncompetitive with both solar and wind, and in China specifically, the coal has to be imported from abroad, making it not just more expensive but also a national security risk.
As a sidenote, I love that you reference 1973 as 01973. I suggest considering labeling even as 11973, based on some reasonable humanist-based information.[0]
Well Texas seems to be planing to put in regulation on the electricity market. Seems like the current administration is out to completely gut any kind of cost savings for american businesses.
That's not the sort of "regulation" in "deregulated energy market". Which was always a bad term. "De-integrated" would be better. It's a situation where energy generation and retail are separated from the transmission/distribution monopoly. The resulting energy markets (both wholesale and retail) can be and are heavily regulated (in the usual sense of the word.)
> current administration is out to completely gut any kind of cost savings for american businesses
I am sure businesses that follow the administration's wishes will get government contracts, tax rebates, tariff exceptions, and other favorable treatment. I am not worried, the vast majority of businesses will learn within a few months that it is financially profitable to bend the knee.
Just wondering, why does that not worry you? Requiring people to play the favoritism game seems like a terrible way to govern. Unless I just misunderstood, in which case I apologize.
It wouldn't be surprising that de-regulation is good for innovation in the US, because "regulation" in the US almost always means corporate capture of a market through political bribery.
Regulation in territories where it is harder for corporations to buy politicians seems to be far more successful at driving improvements.
This is very true, and I think an underappreciated point specifically for utilities, so I hope you don't mind if I expand quite a bit on your excellent point. What "deregulation" means in Texas is that there's a competitive market for electricity generation, and that those who invest in the cheapest methods of production can make profits, and those who made poor investments can lose money. This "deregulation" is merely what we think of as "normal" in market economies, where normal competition allows for greater economic efficiency.
We are in an era where clean energy is the cheapest energy, and the biggest impediment to the transition is merely being allowed to put the energy on the grid. Go around the country, and the queue to get interconnected to the grid is one of the biggest stumbling blocks. Another huge stumbling block is the procedure for acquiring new electricity generation assets, typically done through IRPs for five years out, based on out-dated data. This is the "standard" regulatory regime in the US, though its highly fractured and there are many many variations.
In this highly "regulated" environment, the corporations have already completely captured the market, and have often bribed the Public Utility Commissions to achieve their own goals.
Deregulation in Texas means less corporate capture, more of a chance for smaller startups to deploy, and a faster energy transition now that the cheapest technology is clean technology.
I can't believe people are using Texas as a positive example of deregulation after they demonstrated quite enthusiastically how broken their system is. A competent electrical system can handle sustained freezing temperatures without massive blackouts. Texas can't. (No, I can't believe they'll do any better next time. There were no market consequences for incompetence.)
IMHO it's not useful to look at a huge and complex system and say "it's all good" or "it's all bad." Texas has a great system for choosing which energy to deploy, but not such a great system for ensuring capacity. The aspects of their system that speed the energy interchange are not the same aspects that cause deadly blackouts.
Texas is an energy-only market right now (payments only for kWh delivered), but adding a capacity market could help (payments for ensuring the ability to deliver electricity), and capacity markets are common in other energy markets around the US. And another thing that would have helped even more clearly is cleaning house at the ISO that didn't follow any of the guidelines from the massive outage from nuclear and gas that happened more than a decade ago. But the ISO failing to do what it's supposed to do is the regulators not doing their job. Regulators regulating what they have the power to do is clearly important in any system.
if one blackout from a freak storm in thirty years is your litmus test, I'd like to know where you live because I'm willing to bet the track record isn't substantially different -- except maybe in how it was covered.
Deregulation is such a funny word. The California deregulation you are referring to, involved the powers that be pushing utility companies to sell their power plants.
The current energy deregulation in the EU involves forcing utilities to trade electricity in a spot market, that treats the on-demand production of conventional power plants and the random and unpredictable production of solar and wind, as if it's completely equivalent. Of course, that's a fairly effective way to promote solar, as it's far more intrusive than conventional renewable mandates.
As far as I can see, "deregulation" means, "we regulate far more aggressively than before, but there's now a market in there where Wall Street types can make money".
> The current energy deregulation in the EU involves forcing utilities to trade electricity in a spot market, that treats the on-demand production of conventional power plants and the random and unpredictable production of solar and wind, as if it's completely equivalent.
The California case also forced utilities to trade electricity in a spot market. These markets always seem oriented towards purchasing power rather than capacity, which strikes me as odd. Power companies need committed capacity, because they need to have reserves of power. Sure, buying electricity that no one else is using makes sense, but because demand is comparatively inelastic, it's just crazy to have that be how companies ensure they have sufficient capacity.
the big issue with enron was semi-fraudulent accounting, not market manipulation. the stuff they puleld in cali was pretty slimy but i don't think something nearly thirty years old needs mention. any more than it does if a company wants to use mark-to-market accounting.
Deregulating a basic human need and leaving it to the 'market' to solve this. This sounds a lot like other privatization efforts of the past decades.
In my country healthcare, child support, energy, national railway, postal services, public housing, banking and more have all been privatized.
I worry about this. Not for now, but for 20 years in the future, where all energy is managed by companies and the government can no longer control the market due to being 'too big too fail' and because it gave all control away.
> Deregulated markets, which might be better described as “differently regulated” markets, separate these concerns. Independent power producers (generators) build and sell electricity wholesale to Retail Electric Providers (REPs), who sell to households, while utilities manage the transmission and infrastructure.
On the face of it this makes sense to me. Deregulation doesn't mean there are no regulations at all. It means we split up a monolithic entity into different parts that can each be subject to competitive forces and be regulated differently.
No, only one part is subject to competitive forces (generation). The other two, transmission and distribution, are agreed by any rational party to be a textbook case of a natural monopoly and are subject to strict regulation for that reason.
And companies have to compete for customers on cost, which yields an equilibrium that works out well for customers on most goods and services. This is well established at this point.
It is not well established at this point. I get the impression you're reading a textbook on economics, and not how it works in the real world.
Take covid inflation for example. Covid caused supply chain issues which then caused a temporary bout of inflation, however, companies took this as an opportunity to increase their profit margins more than they need to. They specifically bragged about this in quarterly earnings calls.
If companies truly compete on cost then how does stuff like that happen? Shouldn't it have been corrected by now? But that's not what we see, we see companies continue to increase prices with little consequence.
> It is not well established at this point. I get the impression you're reading a textbook on economics, and not how it works in the real world.
You're writing this from the comfort of your home where you're enjoying the fruits of the most significant quality of life improvements over 200 years. Hedonistic adaptation has blinded you to all of the evidence that's staring in the face, like the screen you're reading on right now.
> however, companies took this as an opportunity to increase their profit margins more than they need to. They specifically bragged about this in quarterly earnings calls.
Temporary aberrations from extreme disruptions do not refute the general rule.
Regulations, of course! Of which there are many for Texas' electricity markets.
IMHO, you can't have markets without regulations, and the markets that work best are those in high-trust societies, and that high-trust usually comes form a solid regulatory structure (i.e. laws).
This is why saying "deregulation is bad" is just as incoherent as saying "regulations are bad." We need to move beyond that sort of fallacious dichotomy.
How do we keep "the incentives [...] properly aligned" when "the government can no longer control the market due to being 'too big too fail' and because it gave all control away"? And why can't I find anything about this in your generic pro-market answer?
Yes it does, because it leaves the fulfillment of those necessities to the whims of the market. If suddenly an endeavour is not profitable any more, or is simply less profitable than an alternative, what happens? You have to subsidise it, at great cost, leaving you at the mercy of those privatised concerns.
Neither public services nor private enterprise is a silver bullet to everything.
And in what world is the incentive of cutting costs and price gouging - of necessities no less - aligned with the incentives of the vast majority of mankind who would just like energy, healthcare, housing, public infrastructure, etc. to be as affordable and high quality as possible.
Companies cut costs to increase their profits, not to pass the cost savings on to customers. If there is price pressure, they may pass on the savings. But at the latest when the market is sufficiently consolidated, they will prefer to keep these savings themselves. And even if this were not the case, there would still be no direct implication of affordability.
No quite obviously cutting costs increases profit which goes into reinvestment to then generate more profit and so on. It has no relation to prices unless the business happens to be losing customers to competition which is unrelated. Prices are lowered only as much as it can increase the rate of profit. Increasing affordability past that point for the good of the consumer is strictly against the incentives of the business since it prevents the growth of capital and thereby hampers them in competition.
Also quantitatively cutting costs qualitatively looks like enshittification of goods and services in practice, and unlike in undergrad economics textbooks consumers rarely have recourse in the form of switching brands since basically all "markets" for necessities are oligopolies (thanks often to government contracts for public works in an increasingly privatized world, if not simply the natural global minimum of any market).
On a basic level the point of putting a commodity on the market is to sell it to the highest bidder. Why is this the preferred way to distribute necessities? It certainly "aligns" with one particular incentive - that of the seller - not that of most people. Doesn't everyone need access to healthcare, housing, energy, etc.? Are poor people to compete with people who can outspend them several times over for food and housing? As the cost of living continues to increase does it make sense to hand over an increasing portion of our wages for the same - or worse - standard of living?
If you want freedom of choice in what you consume and have the means to do so then go ahead and turn to a market to buy a penthouse or gourmet food or whatever. But why is it such an offense to the current hegemonic ideology to ensure that there is basic universal access to essential resources?
Deregulation does work to address healthcare, child support, etc.
It just takes way longer to reach market equilibrium than free-market advocates claim. And by way longer, I mean years or even decades rather than months or weeks, which means a lot of suffering or externalities during the transitional period.
Healthcare was once deregulated in the U.S. And it was fine. And it would be again if we deregulated healthcare, but it would take more than a decade and nobody has the stomach for that. (And nobody has yet made a compelling case to demonstrate that a deregulated healthcare system would be a sufficient improvement over what we have now to justify the suffering that the changeover would cause.)
The article lays out 3 different business models in the energy industry and calls them "regulated", "partially deregulated", and "deregulated". While the distinction between them isn't made very clear (at least to me), it argues that the "deregulated" models are better at responding to market conditions, and thus better at pivoting to solar power, than regulated ones.
It doesn't clearly tie the choice of business model to the way the businesses are regulated, so it fails to support the claim that regulation is the cause of the lack of solar adoption. The examples it uses to make its case, the TVA and the state of Texas, are also not great.
The TVA is owned by the government. So the question of their pivot to solar power is more of a political question than an economic one. Is there any political will to spend tax dollars pivoting the TVA away from nuclear and hydro sources to solar? Which politicians support/reject the policy and why?
In-line with other comments, Enron is a classic case-study of the consequences of allowing free markets unfettered control over essential infrastructure.
I thought the article did a good job answering your questions.
> TVA benefits from existing capex in large nuclear and hydro plants, enjoys low rates, and has little incentive to change.
So apparently TVA has already invested in large nuclear and hydro and doesn't need more power. It's not about to build more solar so that it can shut down its nuclear or hydro plants. No business will cannibalize itself like this. It will have to a different economic entity.
> Regulated utilities can also sign PPAs, but the lengthy and complex regulatory approvals make the process so cumbersome that few investors or developers actually pursue this option.
Regulated entities can theoretically do this, but they are cumbersome so they don't.
The article also mentions the tragedy of the 2021 crisis, along with the 2020 blackouts in California; the article says it's a matter of extreme weather, not the failure of a specific type of energy market.
> large capex in existing infrastructure with little incentive to change is common to most large companies, so picking the TVA as the "regulated" energy example seems a little like cherry-picking to me.
> I'm not read into the details of PPA regulations. There may be a good point there about how some/all of them are too onerous which de-incentivizes change. idk.
> ensuring that companies we entrust with providing critical infrastructure are resilient to extreme weather is a matter of regulation. I think that the Texas and California examples were both specific instances of regulatory failures regardless of their ambient culture of regulation.
A free energy market is great and all until citizens start to expect that the government is responsible for a stable and economical reasonable grid, and who will elect politicians to that fact. At that point the cost of the grid is carried by the government, not through market forces, and companies are not slow to adapt their investments into the parts that are highly profitable while leaving the cost centers to the government.
The energy crisis that happened in EU demonstrated to me that citizens are not willing to have a free market for the energy grid. When a single month cost as much as a whole year, and companies are unable to fulfill contracts or have to shut down, then their anger is not directed at the commercial companies in charge of solar, wind or other type of energy plants. It is directed towards the government for failing to provide basic function of society, which apparently include a reasonable priced electricity.
IN https://blog.gridstatus.io/caiso-beats-the-heat/ , there is a very interesting quote.
"The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) has also been lauded for its growth in storage, but when put into perspective of load, the gap remains quite large. Comparing all-time peak load and peak storage discharge (non-coincident), ERCOT's battery fleet would have met less than 5% of demand, while CAISO's battery fleet would have met about 16%, more than triple the value in Texas."
Absolute numbers are not the right metric when one of the states doesn't care about efficiency and decides to generate more and more electricity. Then absolute number are huge but percentages of renewal are very low.
It looks into the numbers for the Texas renewable buildout, and there's a very important caveat: the amount of renewables you build is not the relevant metric. Emission reduction is. And Texas does not succeed there.
Maybe they are saying that if they'd followed California's policies they'd have a higher percentage of their power from renewables and they wouldn't be so wasteful with the energy they do generate.
Because that's the point of this article isn't it? To follow Texas policies, not California's, by pointing to absolute numbers of renewables.
If they looked at absolute numbers on coal and gas they'd look worse.
California is not plummeting in total emissions either, which is the point of the plots in there.
The only thing that could move this along faster is to shut down fully running and functional fossil fuel facilities, which means that the huge capital assets are stranded and a big loss to the people who paid for them.
There, Texas's approach of private investors bearing the cost of that poor investment will fare much better than California's approach of letting the utility bill customers for their poor decisions. (I say this as a Californian absolutely INFURIATED at our toothless public utility commission allowing six whole rate increases in the past year, making electricity for a heat pumpfar more expensive than burning gas for heating, and making charging an EV about the same cost as fueling gas car, instead of much cheaper.)
At first I was like, isn't that great EVs are the more expensive car but then I realized you meant that the electricity costs as much as the equivalent gas. Oof. Yikes. That's really bad.
Thanks for pointing out that ambiguity, I hopefully edited for better clarity!
The other problem in California is that most heating is done via natural gas, and though heating needs are fairly low if houses had any sort of insulation, there's basically zero insulation in all homes. Which means that every winter, people experience massive natural gas bills that should be close to zero, making it very problematic to switch some of the utility cost burdens from the electricity side to natural gas side. Meanwhile, PG&E profits are at the very top of the utility stock list for its profit margins...
Insulation in California homes depends a lot on where they were built and when. My parents' home in southern california was built in the 1960s, and was pretty much uninsulated, but none of these homes had a/c and the gas heater would be run a few days in the winter. You've got to have a heater to be an inhabitable home by California law, but if it only runs a few days a year, insulation almost doesn't matter. If there's little climate control, not being air sealed is generally a benefit rather than a negative, as it provides passive ventilation, and much of the old housing stock is in areas where the climate is generally pleasant enough all year that outside air is nice enough.
If you've got an attic, it's not too expensive to from zero insulation to basic insulation, and the ROI is pretty quick. Of course, some areas of California had neighborhoods built in the Eichler-style with no attic space; those are hard to add insulation to. A nice large tree over the home can help with summer heat, but large trees over the home have risks and costs too.
In SoCal, but when I moved here from Chicago, I was aghast at the so called insulation. Single pane glass windows, visible gaps in window frames and doors. Probably not legal to sell in the Midwest.
Here, it’s like whatever. I never run the heater, and there are maybe 7 days a year where I want the AC.
Well sure drywall is technically an insulator, since it's not a thermal or electrical conductor. So is the single pane of glass found on most windows.
Maybe there's some stuff between the drywall and stucco? I never checked because the lead paint on the walls (any of the walls I've lived among; the Bay Area has a lot of old, shit housing) made me wary of drilling holes.
I have lived in multiple homes in the bay area of differing vintages, and they all had at least some attic insulation. I'm not sure what was in the walls. Newer homes have better insulation, of course.
Well all I can talk about is the 1970s-era boxes that dominate in the Bay Area, which is the major population center that PG&E serves.
If your experience with these homes is different somehow, let me know. But go to SF, go to the peninsula, and you'll find that most homes barely stop air coming in and out of the house, much less have proper insulation. A blower test for SF homes would shock most people in the modern world.
In LA sure, you can get away with minimal insulation. SF is a different story. That city is shockingly cold. An uninsulated house in SF is wasting loads of energy.
A nice thing about EVs is that they already have enough battery to shift their energy consumption from the powerline to whatever hour is most economical. So you can install solar panels on your house and charge your EV during peak daylight hours if you're home then, or get the company to install them over the office parking lot if you're at the office then. This eliminates the cost of storage from the cost of upgrading to solar. Even at the US's grossly inflated costs, that makes it an easy economic win.
I don't really know, the details of measuring energy consumption, emissions, and price is a fairly convoluted concept as far as I know.
Asking google AI:
"California emmisions rate" gave:
"California has seen a decline in greenhouse gas emissions, with a 20% reduction since 2000, while its economy has grown significantly. The state aims to reduce emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2045 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045"
Then asking "Texas emissions rate" gave:
"Texas is a major emitter of carbon dioxide in the United States, producing 13.4% of the nation's total in 2022, with transportation being a significant source of emissions"
followed by:
"Emissions Leader:
In 2022, Texas produced 663 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, more than double that of California, the second-largest producer"
The graphs seem to contradict those in the article, as the article has a huge annual variability not shown in the government data, and also the article does not show the decline in the "Electric Power" sector that's shown so clearly in the CA government data.
I also would not agree with the article's assessment that Texas is a "disaster" based on the same sort of plot. Serving the needs of ever more people, with an ever growing GDP, but keeping emissions constant is a win environmentally.
Well, the status is a disaster but it's an ever decreasing disaster, and when evaluating "do lots of renewables help?" I think it makes more sense to look at the direction of where the puck is going rather than where it started from before the renewables were added. (And one note, Texas' power sector emissions also include lots of "extra" emissions from fossil fuel consumption that should be attributed to the downstream consumers of those fossil fuels).
> (And one note, Texas' power sector emissions also include lots of "extra" emissions from fossil fuel consumption that should be attributed to the downstream consumers of those fossil fuels).
Are you saying it includes the USE of fossil fuels produced in the State outside of the State OR the emissions related to the production of fossil fuels in the State?
The former does not in my opinion sound accurate while the latter I fail to see changes anything because surely emissions from other industries (steel/construction/etc) are included for the State that they are made in.
> Emission reduction is. And Texas does not succeed there.
If we're talking about the impact of a particular tech, choosing the proper baseline is important, otherwise it's easy to reach fallacious results in counterfactual reasoning.
Emission reduction versus what? Per-capita emissions reductions? Per-kWh emissions reductions? Compared to whose usage?
Plotting total emission and saying "we've failed!" actually hides a lot of what's going on, it's only one aspect, and increased population can hide that overall emissions are trending in the right way.
During "snowmageddon" and similar winter outages fossil fuel shoulder load also broke down, since the dynamic pricing market doesn't pay to keep spinning capacity, and the plants couldn't start up, which is why the cost curves went berserk: the price pressure escalated to try and incentivize production, but the production wasn't to be had. (The JIT nature of Texas LNG logistics also played its part; some gas turbines would have been able to start up, but couldn't get LNG to do so.)
Absent turning the Texas energy market into a more rational design (I was part of the energy market during dereg, these failures were predicted by our energy economists at the time), the state should mandate weatherization for wind generation at a minimum, and look into grid-scale battery requirements as prices fall and technologies mature.
Solar and wind are fantastic opportunistic power generators that work well together and should be a significant part of any grid's energy mix going forward, but the state needs to act like every other power market and pay for spinning fossil fuel capacity for shoulder and peak demand. Picking energy mix winners and losers is just political meddling in what was supposed to be a free market environment.
BREEAM / Passive house.... In passive house in norway (alaska of europe) you can be 3 days without electricity(or gas or any other heating medium) and in coldest of cold days you do not need to put sweater on, because it is still comfortable, heat is not escaping as fast.
so there is deregulation of market and there is not educated customer + educated regulation which bankrupts your company if you build trash like they mostly build in USA. so it is not only energy, there are other regulation not in sync with reality/human nature.
and by lowering your household energy needs(by increasing comfort), higher ratio of renewables can be used cheaply or even onsite/roof.
and your energy requirement can be manipulated more in time i.e. you can heat house few degrees more few days in advance. after you see on tv that next few days will be cloudy/stormy/ hurricane/frost... or just make app do that for you
or you can heat your hot water at noon where electricity prices are almost 0$
so less effort providing energy for household is, more effort can be put into providing energy for business
> If solar/wind producers had to guarantee power 24x7 at fixed rates the cost would vastly exceed natural gas costs.
I think Texas' market right now is completely disproving that point. The amount of batteries being deployed everywhere are showing that storing solar/wind for a fraction of the day is going to be a lot cheaper than having tons of gas.
More pricing transparency is needed, not some onerous mandatory contracts. If users can deal with intermittent power, they should be allowed to accept the discount that comes with that.
No attempt to control for any other factors before producing an article with a causal claim right there in the title? Geographically, do deregulated states happen to be located in areas of the country with significantly more solar potential? Who knows! I read the whole article and don't even know which states are "deregulated" and which are "partly deregulated".
Gimme a break. Compare China's centralized economy's solar/wind/nuclear production to the entirety of the west's decentralized, privatized economy. not even close.
Well it really depends on who is control of the centralized decision making. In most states in the US it's fossil fuel interests that control utilities, and much of the government. Which means a very slow transition for nearly every state, when compared to Texas' decision to allow the cheapest energy to win.
In China, the government has the goal of deploying as much energy as possible as cheaply and fast as possible, and promoting their own industries too. Which means tons and tons and tons of renewables.
China's solar and wind production is extremely decentralized, and its nuclear production is not significant, except as usual from a proliferation perspective.
While (centralized, government) industrial policy has played a key role in making its renewable energy sector so utterly dominant, the sector thus created is more decentralized and privatized than in even the US.
China's share of of electricity production from coal is at 60% as of 2023[1] compared to 16% for the US[2]. That's down from 80% in 2005.
It currently generates 35% of its electricity from renewable sources as of 2023 compared to 41% in the US.
The US has been replacing coal with gas - gas was 19% in 2005 and 42% in 2023.
China first exceeded the US's annual carbon emissions in 2006 with both outputting about 6 billion tons. Since then the US has declined to a bit under 5 billion tons in 2023 while China has doubled to a bit under 12 billion tons[3] making it by far the largest emitter in notional terms per year.
While the Western world's carbon emissions have been in decline for years (with the US still the highest ex-China), China and India's emissions continue to climb at significant rates. It's true that China is building enormous amounts of renewable energy, but that can be further generalized to China is building enormous amounts of energy production across all sources, dirty and clean.
The reason I'm skeptical of that framing is it implies coal production is being replaced by clean energy, rather than total energy production being increased.
Coal production continues to climb[1] and construction of new coal plants hit a 10 year high in 2024[2]. China accounted for 95% of the world’s new coal power construction activity in 2023[3].
Lots of countries announce decarbonization goals, but I will remain skeptical until the data show progress.
> The reason I'm skeptical of that framing is it implies coal production is being replaced by clean energy, rather than total energy production being increased.
I wasn't intending to imply that. It's entirely possible China might get to 90% renewable energy production without shutting down a single coal plant.
> Lots of countries announce decarbonization goals, but I will remain skeptical until the data show progress.
Sure, but that doesn't conflict with having more and more of your energy production being renewable.
And they don't have access to cheap natural gas so the financial incentive to switch to renewables is even stronger. Even more so given the inability of coal to flexibly produce power throughout the day, so cheaper renewables just completely kill the economic feasibility of coal.
I think you have that flexibility backwards. Coal can be ramped up relatively quickly and operates in nearly all weather conditions, but wind and solar are at the whim nature. Unless you're only talking hydropower and nuclear power which China is also building, but those like coal have significant upfront capital investments and minimum scale.
Either way, the idea that coal is economically infeasible is contradicted by the fact that China is building huge amounts of it[1]. For China energy production is an "and" question, not an "or" question.
That's exactly what coal is bad at. Anything less than a day is bad news for coal. Which means that all this coal capacity is building is going to be for rarer seasonal events, and going to be mostly sitting unused.
To manufacture products exported to the west. It's always this argument... You need to look at emissions by country of final destination of the products, not by country of manufacture. In an age where a simple t-shirt is made in Bangladesh with cotton from Afghanistan it's ridiculous to use the latter measure.
You don't think domestic manufacturers will abuse labor and pollute?
The same party that wants to move manufacturing back to the US also wants to deregulate as much as possible, roll back labor rights and repeal environmental laws. The cost of moving manufacturing out of China and to the US is that the few Americans who can get work in a mostly AI driven and automated industry will eventually get treated and paid like Chinese labor.
I think that some domestic manufacturers will abuse labor and pollute, you will never have 100% compliance. However it is far easier to police things here then somewhere without our regulatory framework. If Nike could get away with child sweatshops in the US, why did they bother moving abroad?
Sure, they want to roll back all those protections but we don't have to. And more to the point, why doesn't the US party that champions labor rights and environmental regulations want to move manufacturing back to the US? It's very easy to say you support factory worker rights when you don't have any factory workers.
>Sure, they want to roll back all those protections but we don't have to.
But we're going to. You know that's the deal.
>And more to the point, why doesn't the US party that champions labor rights and environmental regulations want to move manufacturing back to the US?
Both parties are strongly pro-business and pro-manufacturing[0], and the Democrats did campaign on reshoring just because it's a no-brainer, but they seem more focused on preserving labor rights and a living wage than do Republicans.
Democrats just recently changed their stance based on Trump's win, which is great if it helps the avg. worker.
We need to figure out how to structure our economy to benefit everyone:
>And manufacturing in particular embodies something that seems to be disappearing in today’s economy: jobs with decent pay and benefits available to workers without a college degree. The average factory worker earns more than $25 an hour before overtime; the typical retail worker makes less than $18 an hour.
It's fun to look back at these articles talking about how retail is taking off....now all the big boxes are dying, we replaced storefronts with a few warehouses.
Sure, the amount of labor going into making something has shrunk but so has the amount of labor required to sell something. Honestly, it's not just going to be just an AI driven and automated manufacturing industry. Healthcare, education and everything else seems to be falling into the same dark spiral.
> If we stopped buying shit we don't need, they could easily turn off a good portion of their coal powered electricity plants if they wanted.
If they wanted. China has a policy of overproduction, especially in raw materials like steel. While the US subsidizes consumption, China subsidizes production. It is not clear they would elect to scale back (and take the economic hit) even if Western consumers decided to voluntarily cut back (which also seems unlikely).
No, but the US needs to actually compete with China. Instead the reaction from leadership has been to utter fail to compete and lambast China as an enemy instead of a competitor.
None of this serves anyone but the ruling class and deep state. War with China is going to be one that the US loses.
In EU renewable are not competitive without strong regulations and subsidies. Distributors are forced to buy renewable at 5x the cost, and keep gas power plants at hot standby in case wind stops, or cloud comes.
At the same time, long term investments into fossil fuels and atomic energy are forbidden!
Saying "deregulated" energy markets drive solar, is another level of evil. It is logic that drove dependency on Russian natural gas!
well i understand what you want to say and yes you are correct.
but people seem to fall in trap of not thinking about user/customer.
if pv is so cheap that it can pay itself in 6-7 years, by customer lowering his draw from grid drastically most of the time, whole energy transition will not be so painful for other participants of market. wast majority of thinking is going to energy providers, not a lot of thinking is going to changing customers habits ( of which most energy intense can be automated and either spread out or concentrated towards time when energy is cheap - you know sun will be shining tomorrow or day after, renewables are not as unpredictable)
customers and provider can cooperate.
and so " In EU renewable are not competitive.." for whom? for energy providers ?
Or for customer which can easily and cheaply lower his energy draw from grid by 70% most of year by installing solar pv hot water heater + heatpumpin for 7 months of cooling his house from pv? even before installing batteries? (just electric hot water heater)
Current US elites grew up in the energy crisis that started with the Arab oil embargo of 01973 cutting off US energy imports, and they seem determined to perpetuate that crisis, if necessary by cutting off US imports of energy production infrastructure themselves now that the foreigners won't do it for them anymore.
The article vastly understates the rapidity of the change. It projects 3 TW of new renewable generation capacity in China over the next decade (02026-02036, I suppose), attributing that to an unpublished report from a consultancy that seems to protect its projections from criticism with an NDA. Given that the PRC installed 373 GW in renewable generation capacity last year (https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/statistics/202501/28/cont...) this seems like an implausibly low figure; linear extrapolation of installing that same amount every year would give us 3.7 TW installed over that period. But in fact it has been growing exponentially, so 20 TW of added capacity over the next decade seems like a more likely ballpark.
That's nameplate capacity, so it's closer to 4 TW of actual energy generation.