5 ms·

what do you mean by near term solution? aren't solar and wind the cheapest form of electricity? It doesn't make sense to focus on gas anymore, unless they are

• m101 2y ago
  Gas is a good peaker plant. Solar/wind/batteries are more carbon intensive relative to nuclear. Near term because nuclear can take a long time to build out. Cheapness does not equal low carbon.
• sixstringtheory 2y ago
  Not everything runs on electricity today. You can’t just snap your fingers and replace millions of cars, stoves, boilers, etc
  • NewJazz 2y ago
    You can stop selling new ones and invest in alternatives...
  • ben_w 2y ago
    It would be a lot easier to replace the cars with electric ones if not for those tariffs on the biggest manufacturers of electric cars.
  • eru 2y ago
    > You can’t just snap your fingers and replace millions of cars, [...] The Chinese are trying to help, but Americans like tariffs more than they hate climate change. (At least that's the preference that their political system expresses.)
    • methodical 2y ago
      Help is an interesting word choice for what is essentially undercutting our entire domestic automotive manufacturers and ensuring, on a pure cost front, that the majority of Americans purchase and rely on maintenance for a product produced in China. Doing so would have major negative consequences for our own strategic interests, hence why there has been such a massive tariff on it for several years now. China isn't being altruistic when they're attempting to sell us their much more affordable EVs. It's not a uniquely US perspective on the threat of Chinese EVs either, as the EU also has lesser but still non-trivial tariffs on Chinese EV brands.
      • FooBarWidget 2y ago
        Well, isn't it a good thing that they can help fight climate change without being altruistic? The entire western capitalist model is based on the premise that capitalism is good because people can help improve society through selfish means. Altruism doesn't scale. It's best when incentives are aligned. The problem isn't with keeping Chinese cars out through tariffs. It's keeping them out, and at the same time not stimulating domestic green energy development enough. Why should the energy transition be bottlenecked by incumbent interests' profit margins?
        • eru 2y ago
          > Well, isn't it a good thing that they can help fight climate change without being altruistic? The entire western capitalist model is based on the premise that capitalism is good because people can help improve society through selfish means. Altruism doesn't scale. It's best when incentives are aligned. Yes, that's why you should let people buy cheap Chinese goods. > The problem isn't with keeping Chinese cars out through tariffs. It's keeping them out, and at the same time not stimulating domestic green energy development enough. Didn't you just say capitalism was good, and now you argue the opposite?
          • FooBarWidget 2y ago
            > Didn't you just say capitalism was good No. I was criticizing the notion that not being "altruistic" is always bad. That is not the same as saying selfishness/capitalism is always good.
            • eru 2y ago
              Well, the Chinese tax payers altruistically subsidise western consumers.
              • FooBarWidget 2y ago
                Really no idea what you're getting at. It's really simple and not some nefarious scheme. The Chinese government wants to be energy-independent so they don't have to import foreign oil and gas. Developing domestic green energy happens to align with fighting climate change, as well as transitioning the economy to a high-tech based one in order to escape the middle income trap. The incentives with the private sector are also aligned because this development is profitable. So they do it, by whatever means possible. They sell some cars to Europe and North America, but the amount is negligible compared to what they sell domestically, and still much smaller than what they sell to ASEAN and the Middle East. It's that simple. This isn't some grand plan to destroy foreign car manufacturers. If foreign car manufacturers get destroyed then that's by accident, as a result of them not staying competitive enough, not because that was the end goal from the start. Of course it's in western governments' and manufacturers' rights to not accept this fate. But the most productive way to avoid that fate is by increasing their own competitiveness and by moving faster themselves, not closing themselves off while at the same time staying lazy about the energy transition. That's just rent collection.
    • actionfromafar 2y ago
      Probably the US should mandate (by edict or incentive) its own industry to build EVs rather than importing a strategic asset from a strategic competitor.
      • ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        They did. But the local political dysfunction meant they ended up making Elon Musk the richest man in the world and he's now trying to take over the government in cahoots with someone who is fighting a culture war against EVs, while only getting to 10% EV sales. China spent similar amounts and has a vibrant, world leading EV marketplace, supplied by their vibrant, world leading battery industry, and 50% EV penetration domestically and export plans that terrify the countries that chose not to follow this path.
      • eru 2y ago
        Almost anything can be painted as a strategic assets..
        • actionfromafar 2y ago
          Yes, but in car-centric US it's not too far-fetched to paint cars as a strategic asset. But maybe my thinking is too simplistic?
          • NewJazz 2y ago
            What is strategic about a fleet of passenger vehicles? If anything our car dependent cities are more of a liability than an asset.
            • actionfromafar 2y ago
              If there is a trade war and you can neither import cars, nor produce them anymore, you are in a pickle.
              • 2y ago
    • briandear 2y ago
      Ever been to China? An environmental disaster.
      • eru 2y ago
        The tariffs don't help with that.
  • spiderfarmer 2y ago
    Nuclear plants take at least 10 years to be build. During that time millions of cars, stoves and boilers can be replaced. Look at Europe, their natural gas usage peaked in 2010.
    • AlchemistCamp 2y ago
      > Nuclear plants take at least 10 years to be build. False. Some are built in under 5 years and many are currently being built on those timelines: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-20/china-approves-record-11-new-nuclear-power-reactors https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-20/china-app...
      • spiderfarmer 2y ago
        Well, your 28th reactor will probably be built faster than your first in many years. And how long did it take to get the permits? How long will that take in the US? I highly doubt any new reactor (that's not already in the planning phase) will come online in the US within the next 10 years.
        • AlchemistCamp 2y ago
          > "I highly doubt any new reactor (that's not already in the planning phase) will come online in the US within the next 10 years." That's a reasonable prediction. The US has essentially regulated new nuclear power plants out of existence over the past generation. That doesn't mean that there's anything about the technology that means it takes a decade to build, though. It's just a policy failure.
  • herbst 2y ago
    Gas boilers and stoves aren't common anywhere else in the modern world.
  • woile 2y ago
    Who said snap your fingers? we are talking about investment. The US already has enough oil to last until all cars are replaced if that's your worry. The real problem is allowing oil companies to grow even further, putting the public's health and climate at even more risk. The logical (even liberal if you think on $$ terms) choice is to invest in renewable.
• kortilla 2y ago
  No, solar and wind are unstable and don’t match demand. Fossil fuels fill that niche right now.
  • ben_w 2y ago
    Musk is making batteries, they make it match demand. I've been through Nevada and into Utah, you've got loads of desert, enough to make PV stable. Wind is much more stable in certain places than others, and certain altitudes than others. What really makes things unstable is when you don't keep your grid in good shape and it sets fire to a forest. Or acting like Texas and thinking grid connections with other states is somehow bad.
    • nithril 2y ago
      Batteries cannot sustain the electricity consumption of a whole nation. Maybe in many years, but right now, no sign that it can, whereas plant can
      • ben_w 2y ago
        Nuclear plants can't be built instantly; the growth patterns for batteries suggest that by the time new nuclear comes online, there will be enough batteries. (And I'm saying this as someone who actually likes nuclear, thinks the public perception of the danger is over-stated, and who thinks everyone should have build a lot more reactors decades ago).
        • nithril 2y ago
          Genuine question: would these batteries be always connected to the grid with enough power and capacity to feed the demand?
          • ben_w 2y ago
            Where the batteries end up and how they're used heavily depends on policy decisions between now and then. I'm expecting most batteries (worldwide) to be used for cars, with bi-directional power so they can function that way (for grid storage) when plugged in. That doesn't say much about what any specific country will do, and as Texas demonstrates, US states can have their own independent energy policies.