←back to thread

Falling panel prices lead to global solar boom, except for the US

(arstechnica.com)
249 points Jtsummers | 2 comments | 30 Oct 25 16:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.504s | source
Show context
mmooss ◴[30 Oct 25 17:14 UTC] No.45762412[source]▶
As I wrote elsewhere, the US government and economy are now essentially a private equity takeover for a large segment of wealthy business: Squeeze out as much money as possible short term - including by issuing debt againts its assets, slashing and burning any costs regardless of ROI and with no regard for the future, and leave the bankrupt husk for someone else to deal with.

The treatment of fossil fuels and renewables fits: Block the obviously more economical and better long-term solution in order to shovel money toward the entrenched wealthy. That it sabotages the future due to climate change and economic inefficiency doesn't seem to be a significant factor to them.

I forgot, one of the entrenched corporate wealthy told us that climate change isn't a big deal, and we should send money to his and his friends for solutions.

I'm not anti-business; in fact, quite the opposite: These policies block a free market and the brilliant new businesses that can thrive and deliver solutions to everyone.

replies(10): >>45762459 #>>45762461 #>>45763295 #>>45763397 #>>45763865 #>>45764348 #>>45765362 #>>45766090 #>>45767067 #>>45769381 #
giantg2 ◴[31 Oct 25 00:29 UTC] No.45767067[source]▶
"The treatment of fossil fuels and renewables fits: Block the obviously more economical and better long-term solution in order to shovel money toward the entrenched wealthy."

This is also voter/public appeasement. There are many rural communities that depend on fossil fuel related jobs and will vote to protect them.

"These policies block a free market and the brilliant new businesses that can thrive and deliver solutions to everyone."

I'd be more inclined to share this view if the manufacturing were done in the US. But we can't really compete on manufacturing costs. Remove the policies and the money still goes to the rich and we lose jobs too.

replies(1): >>45778197 #
1. mmooss ◴[01 Nov 25 00:30 UTC] No.45778197[source]▶
> There are many rural communities that depend on fossil fuel related jobs and will vote to protect them.

It's true to an extent, but technological transitions happen regularly. Everything we have now is a product of a prior transition.

> Remove the policies and the money still goes to the rich and we lose jobs too.

Prices drop, and also the money goes to those who can innovate in the real economy. Manufacturing isn't the only sector of the economy, and we want to build the new sectors and industries, not the ones that were successful 75 years ago.

replies(1): >>45778236 #
2. giantg2 ◴[01 Nov 25 00:36 UTC] No.45778236[source]▶
"but technological transitions happen regularly"

Yes, and that doesn't refute that people will vote to protect their jobs. If they were offered alternatives, then maybe it would gain more traction in those areas. Eg you can't mine coal anymore but we'll start up a solar panel plant here.

"and we want to build the new sectors and industries"

And what are those? Most of the economy is shit for job seekers right now. We continue to automate and outsource. Right now it looks like nursing and the trades are some of the few things actually growing.