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TW of new renewable generation capacity in China over the next decade (02026-02036, I suppose), attributing that to an unpublished report from a consultancy that seems to protect its projections from criticism with an NDA.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]
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.