←back to thread

353 points dmazin | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
arh5451 ◴[] No.44509839[source]
Nice article explaining solar energy policy. I think the article still doesn't address the mismatch between solar energy production and consumption, which needs to be filled by storage mechanisms. Also would have been nice to have a critical look at how the Chinese were able to corner the Solar market via state sponsored means.
replies(11): >>44509893 #>>44509931 #>>44509934 #>>44509952 #>>44510015 #>>44510221 #>>44510461 #>>44512036 #>>44517244 #>>44518128 #>>44518506 #
LetsGetTechnicl ◴[] No.44509934[source]
What "critical look" is there to take? How about the way that the US gov't subsidizes the oil and gas industry, and is about to restart the coal industry? For some reason gov't investment in industry is only bad when China does it.
replies(5): >>44509992 #>>44510154 #>>44510501 #>>44513014 #>>44518453 #
1. margalabargala ◴[] No.44513014[source]
That's a really uncharitable way to read that.

A "critical look" from a US magazine would explore how, with solar power clearly being the future, the US has abdicated its energy dominance to another country. It would discuss the potential ramifications of us not owning our energy infrastructure supply chain the way we do with oil/gas, and what might be done about that.

The New Yorker is a US magazine. From the US perspective, yes, it is "good" when we do it and "bad" when China does it in a way that could negatively impact us.