3 ms·

Energy costs are much lower in the US than in China which must import most of its energy from the Persian Gulf (and most of the energy it gets from Russia leave

Energy costs are much lower in the US than in China which must import most of its energy from the Persian Gulf (and most of the energy it gets from Russia leaves Russia from Russia's European ports). The US has environmental policies that increase the cost of energy, but in a sufficiently serious war, those would get suspended. Personnel costs though are vastly higher in the US especially if "costs" included the political costs of instituting a draft.

maxglute 3y ago
Most of PRC energy mix is cheap domestic coal, which they have in essentially endless amount. PRC also generates ~2x more power, that's not something US relaxing enviromental policies can overcome. PRC has many cost advantages stacked in energy/inputs/capex/labour/production/process and just sheer scale. That's where you get into personell costs, moving bodies to build new capex, assuming there's even enough qualified expertise. That said, in a sufficiently serious war, IMO there'd be homeland attacks on critical infra, be it cyber or long range strikes, so it's really about who can survive/operate/recover from capex attrition fastest.
- hollerith 3y ago
  Interesting. Can they run their navy and air force during a war on fuel synthesized from coal?
  - maxglute 3y ago
    PRC is not Japan, they're a continental sized land power with associated resources. They don't need to synthesize fuel from coal - they extract ~4 million barrels per day, IIRC US military consumes 90 million barrels per year / 240k barrels per day. PRC domestic consumption is 14m barrels per day.~6m goes to transportation, 2m goes to heating, both in process of being electrified. 2m goes to other. Industry, uses ~4m barrels, of which PRC MIC uses relatively little as % of output. They can sustain military multiple their current size on wartime economy. There's also estimated 300m barrels and growing in strategic reserves,. Coal is useful in that coal gassification useful to make fertilizer. Which PRC did - they were NET fertlizer exporter ~10 years ago before they clamped down on coal and curtailed sector. Utimately it's not just a US+co navy+airforce vs PRC navy+airforce fight, it's a whatever US military logistics can bring in theatre vs entire Chinese industrial homefront pivotting into MIC fight with their various PPP advantages using domestic inputs, which is looking more and more to be more substantial relative to what US+co is projected/planned to muster.

maxglute 3y ago

Most of PRC energy mix is cheap domestic coal, which they have in essentially endless amount. PRC also generates ~2x more power, that's not something US relaxing enviromental policies can overcome. PRC has many cost advantages stacked in energy/inputs/capex/labour/production/process and just sheer scale. That's where you get into personell costs, moving bodies to build new capex, assuming there's even enough qualified expertise. That said, in a sufficiently serious war, IMO there'd be homeland attacks on critical infra, be it cyber or long range strikes, so it's really about who can survive/operate/recover from capex attrition fastest.

hollerith 3y ago
Interesting. Can they run their navy and air force during a war on fuel synthesized from coal?
- maxglute 3y ago
  PRC is not Japan, they're a continental sized land power with associated resources. They don't need to synthesize fuel from coal - they extract ~4 million barrels per day, IIRC US military consumes 90 million barrels per year / 240k barrels per day. PRC domestic consumption is 14m barrels per day.~6m goes to transportation, 2m goes to heating, both in process of being electrified. 2m goes to other. Industry, uses ~4m barrels, of which PRC MIC uses relatively little as % of output. They can sustain military multiple their current size on wartime economy. There's also estimated 300m barrels and growing in strategic reserves,. Coal is useful in that coal gassification useful to make fertilizer. Which PRC did - they were NET fertlizer exporter ~10 years ago before they clamped down on coal and curtailed sector. Utimately it's not just a US+co navy+airforce vs PRC navy+airforce fight, it's a whatever US military logistics can bring in theatre vs entire Chinese industrial homefront pivotting into MIC fight with their various PPP advantages using domestic inputs, which is looking more and more to be more substantial relative to what US+co is projected/planned to muster.