←back to thread

71 points seanobannon | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.348s | source
Show context
kragen ◴[] No.43463237[source]
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TW of new renewable generation capacity in China over the next decade (02026-02036, I suppose), attributing that to an unpublished report from a consultancy that seems to protect its projections from criticism with an NDA.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.

replies(5): >>43463446 #>>43463568 #>>43463661 #>>43463920 #>>43464445 #
_bin_ ◴[] No.43463446[source]
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.

replies(6): >>43463594 #>>43463640 #>>43463729 #>>43463890 #>>43463902 #>>43478629 #
m_fayer ◴[] No.43463594[source]
Is casually conflating allied nations with “subordinates” some sort of signal of political orientation now?
replies(2): >>43463658 #>>43463730 #
1. cornstalks ◴[] No.43463730[source]
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).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association