6 ms·

You can't afford to go to war with an industrialized nation whose energy is immensely cheaper than your own, nor with a nuclear-armed nation. Solar panels are

by kragen 2y ago

You can't afford to go to war with an industrialized nation whose energy is immensely cheaper than your own, nor with a nuclear-armed nation. Solar panels are different from oil in that their producers cannot turn them off, so importing them now would increase your energy security, not decrease it. For EVs the situation is more complex because of potential backdoors in firmware, but PV modules do not have any firmware; they are just large diodes. I strongly disagree with both your master-race theory of technical innovation and your imperialist rhetoric. Americans, and in particular people from the US, did contribute greatly to solar and battery technological innovation. But a great deal of it was carried out outside the US, or inside the US by non-Americans, and in particular by Chinese grad students at US universities. Technological and scientific progress is inherently an international effort on behalf of all of humanity. In terms of bringing utility-scale battery storage and PV energy production to mass production, US elites have basically opted not to participate. Unfortunately I expect that situation to continue. Withdrawing international intellectual-property monopolies en masse is an interesting suggestion; I think it would probably promote progress, in particular because it would free other countries around the world to do the same with US patents and copyrights, which have been among the most significant obstacles to progress and even simple preservation of knowledge.

_bin_ 2y ago
I think you are misguided because of a true belief in "the system". The problem is systems often fail to handle bad-faith actors who intentionally abuse them. Absent a higher system, we lack good means to address this. But the system is not a moral good and we don't owe it to anyone or anything to maintain arbitrary rules when our enemies are using them to hamstring us and threaten our citizens, liberties, and way of life. beijing has a consistent policy of subsidizing and dumping to gain dominance of key industries. metals, energy, etc. they are surely aware of the security implications of this. it seems to be their response to the mutually assured destruction of nuclear weapons: since those are no longer usable, create a new asymmetric situation where china can install herself as international dictator without or in addition to military force. We can't afford not to respond. If we are unwilling to go to war, we'd have to concede to being china's bitch, which is a worse option than war. Importing solar panels with no means to repair, replace, and resupply would absolutely make things worse; it'd increase dependence on a technology over which we lack control. This isn't "imperialist" rhetoric, I'm quite plainly speaking in terms of maintaining our own autonomy and independence, not in terms of coercing others. I don't think you can credit technology from foreign grad students at American universities or companies to those foreign countries. Doubly so since said chinese grad students have a long track record of facilitating the IP theft we're discussing. Withdrawing would not free other countries to do so; the core difference here is china is a bad actor who exploits and steals IP. not to mention we could get away with this because we have a military of a certain size; smaller countries probably could not. Regardless of whether we produce domestically, there's no particular reason why we can't work with other cheap nations within our sphere of influence (probably latam) to handle production.
- mjevans 2y ago
  A better solution is recognition that like all other math, patterns, and formulations of matter at micro and macro scales; those are natural patterns and the most optimal configuration for a precise enough criteria is going to be in the range of zero to one single natural solutions. Should there be some process for rewarding those who discover those most optimal solutions to problems? Maybe. Patents as they are currently implemented seem to be even less beneficial to the progress of science and useful arts (trades skills) than copyright. Unlike the consumer protection of brand reputation (trade mark); both create artificial scarcity and impede the development, distribution, and diversity of manufacturers of works which would benefit society and citizens.
- asacrowflies 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - kragen 2y ago
    I am not confident that this comment promotes an atmosphere of curious inquiry based on a presumption of good faith.
    - asacrowflies 2y ago
      Calling out a rather destructive take with just harsh NO is pretty high on the the hierarchy of disagreement. If you refer to the "bitch" statement that is quoting the person I replied to .... Their own comment seems heavily concerned with "being a bitch" which implies deep insecurity or trauma on their part .... Pretty typical maladaptive coping mechanism... Are all these extra words to say the same thing I already did better for curiosity?
      - _bin_ 2y ago
        It’s a crude term, sure, but sums up a potential future where total dependence for critical materials leads to one nation being able to do relatively whatever she wants while the other is stuck taking terms as given. If you’d prefer “highly disadvantaged diplomatic, economic, and security situation” I can say that, but this is an internet comment not a freaking Brookings Institute report. Calling me an insane jingoist with no particular rationale isn’t really helpful. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe you are, but neither of us will ever learn which at that rate.
tuatoru 2y ago
Security is not provided by having stuff, it's provided by having the capacity to make stuff. Importing now does not increase security. Edit: one thing the Trump-Vance administration has done is tear through the tissue-paper screen of "rules based international order" rhetoric, exposing to plain view that we live in a world of great powers and international anarchy. As we have always done, but somehow allowed ourselves to believe naive falsehoods.
- kragen 2y ago
  You know what you need to make stuff? Energy. You need energy. And that's what the US government's fossil-fuel-subsidizing bullshit is denying you. Importing oil and gas now does not increase security, but importing PV modules does, because it gives you the capacity to produce energy from them for 20 years (module warranty period) or more likely 100 years (how long they'll actually work, though below the 80% of original capacity the warranty guarantees). Moreover, distributed generation with PV panels is enormously more resilient to being blown up by Chinese nukes or Russian, Ukrainian, or Chinese drone swarms than a few big coal power stations and oil refineries. (To say nothing of global warming.)
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Importing oil and gas now does not increase security, but importing PV modules does We aren't importing much oil and gas. Importing PVs is nice. Increasing domestic PV production is better. And in any case, we're installing record amounts of PV already [1]--the limiting factor is installation, not production. [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/quarterly-solar-industry-update https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/quarterly-solar-industry-u...
  - _bin_ 2y ago
    If you're under the impression we are highly dependent on foreign producers for petroleum energy, you are mistaken. The import numbers are skewed by the fact that we directly import a lot of heavy sour stuff from canada, mexico, venezuela, etc. because we're one of the few nations that can refine it. In turn, we export a big chunk of light sweet, as it's much easier to refine elsewhere. In a pinch, refineries can switch to processing light sweet pretty easily. It's much easier than going the other way. We'd have a short-term moderate capacity shortfall but more than enough to run most of society, especially manufacturing and defense.
mbrumlow 2y ago
> Solar panels are different from oil in that their producers cannot turn them off Uhh they don’t last forever. So yeah. They can be controlled like oil if you are unable to make or source replacements.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > Uhh they don’t last forever. So yeah. They can be controlled like oil if you are unable to make or source replacements. They last for decades, and the resources (unlike with oil) to produce, repair, and rebuild them are readily available in the US (if through no other resources than recycling failed panels). The biggest risk is that the US stops training engineers, scientists, and technicians who would be capable of doing that work.
  - mbrumlow 2y ago
    Just pointing out that they are not forever. And the use of it in reasoning if flawed. We can but 20 years of oil too. It being a long period only lessons the affect not removes it.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      > We can but [sic] 20 years of oil too. The US annual oil demand costs around $500 billion (over 7 billion barrels used per year, but it's not all for energy). Since that does include other uses besides energy and energy demands are only increasing, it's still a useful baseline figure for estimating (because it's conservative, we'll likely need more in the future). To acquire 20 years worth of our current demand would cost over $10 trillion (+ storage costs + future processing costs). Do you really think we can acquire 20 years worth of oil as easily as we can acquire solar panels? Panels which cost a fraction of that and don't require you to literally burn them to get energy, and instead can produce energy for decades with a little bit of maintenance (clean them, keep trees from growing over them).

by kragen 2y ago

_bin_ 2y ago

I think you are misguided because of a true belief in "the system". The problem is systems often fail to handle bad-faith actors who intentionally abuse them. Absent a higher system, we lack good means to address this. But the system is not a moral good and we don't owe it to anyone or anything to maintain arbitrary rules when our enemies are using them to hamstring us and threaten our citizens, liberties, and way of life. beijing has a consistent policy of subsidizing and dumping to gain dominance of key industries. metals, energy, etc. they are surely aware of the security implications of this. it seems to be their response to the mutually assured destruction of nuclear weapons: since those are no longer usable, create a new asymmetric situation where china can install herself as international dictator without or in addition to military force. We can't afford not to respond. If we are unwilling to go to war, we'd have to concede to being china's bitch, which is a worse option than war. Importing solar panels with no means to repair, replace, and resupply would absolutely make things worse; it'd increase dependence on a technology over which we lack control. This isn't "imperialist" rhetoric, I'm quite plainly speaking in terms of maintaining our own autonomy and independence, not in terms of coercing others. I don't think you can credit technology from foreign grad students at American universities or companies to those foreign countries. Doubly so since said chinese grad students have a long track record of facilitating the IP theft we're discussing. Withdrawing would not free other countries to do so; the core difference here is china is a bad actor who exploits and steals IP. not to mention we could get away with this because we have a military of a certain size; smaller countries probably could not. Regardless of whether we produce domestically, there's no particular reason why we can't work with other cheap nations within our sphere of influence (probably latam) to handle production.

mjevans 2y ago
A better solution is recognition that like all other math, patterns, and formulations of matter at micro and macro scales; those are natural patterns and the most optimal configuration for a precise enough criteria is going to be in the range of zero to one single natural solutions. Should there be some process for rewarding those who discover those most optimal solutions to problems? Maybe. Patents as they are currently implemented seem to be even less beneficial to the progress of science and useful arts (trades skills) than copyright. Unlike the consumer protection of brand reputation (trade mark); both create artificial scarcity and impede the development, distribution, and diversity of manufacturers of works which would benefit society and citizens.
asacrowflies 2y ago
[flagged]
- kragen 2y ago
  I am not confident that this comment promotes an atmosphere of curious inquiry based on a presumption of good faith.
  - asacrowflies 2y ago
    Calling out a rather destructive take with just harsh NO is pretty high on the the hierarchy of disagreement. If you refer to the "bitch" statement that is quoting the person I replied to .... Their own comment seems heavily concerned with "being a bitch" which implies deep insecurity or trauma on their part .... Pretty typical maladaptive coping mechanism... Are all these extra words to say the same thing I already did better for curiosity?
    - _bin_ 2y ago
      It’s a crude term, sure, but sums up a potential future where total dependence for critical materials leads to one nation being able to do relatively whatever she wants while the other is stuck taking terms as given. If you’d prefer “highly disadvantaged diplomatic, economic, and security situation” I can say that, but this is an internet comment not a freaking Brookings Institute report. Calling me an insane jingoist with no particular rationale isn’t really helpful. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe you are, but neither of us will ever learn which at that rate.

tuatoru 2y ago

Security is not provided by having stuff, it's provided by having the capacity to make stuff. Importing now does not increase security. Edit: one thing the Trump-Vance administration has done is tear through the tissue-paper screen of "rules based international order" rhetoric, exposing to plain view that we live in a world of great powers and international anarchy. As we have always done, but somehow allowed ourselves to believe naive falsehoods.

kragen 2y ago
You know what you need to make stuff? Energy. You need energy. And that's what the US government's fossil-fuel-subsidizing bullshit is denying you. Importing oil and gas now does not increase security, but importing PV modules does, because it gives you the capacity to produce energy from them for 20 years (module warranty period) or more likely 100 years (how long they'll actually work, though below the 80% of original capacity the warranty guarantees). Moreover, distributed generation with PV panels is enormously more resilient to being blown up by Chinese nukes or Russian, Ukrainian, or Chinese drone swarms than a few big coal power stations and oil refineries. (To say nothing of global warming.)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Importing oil and gas now does not increase security, but importing PV modules does We aren't importing much oil and gas. Importing PVs is nice. Increasing domestic PV production is better. And in any case, we're installing record amounts of PV already [1]--the limiting factor is installation, not production. [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/quarterly-solar-industry-update https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/quarterly-solar-industry-u...
- _bin_ 2y ago
  If you're under the impression we are highly dependent on foreign producers for petroleum energy, you are mistaken. The import numbers are skewed by the fact that we directly import a lot of heavy sour stuff from canada, mexico, venezuela, etc. because we're one of the few nations that can refine it. In turn, we export a big chunk of light sweet, as it's much easier to refine elsewhere. In a pinch, refineries can switch to processing light sweet pretty easily. It's much easier than going the other way. We'd have a short-term moderate capacity shortfall but more than enough to run most of society, especially manufacturing and defense.

mbrumlow 2y ago

> Solar panels are different from oil in that their producers cannot turn them off Uhh they don’t last forever. So yeah. They can be controlled like oil if you are unable to make or source replacements.

Jtsummers 2y ago
> Uhh they don’t last forever. So yeah. They can be controlled like oil if you are unable to make or source replacements. They last for decades, and the resources (unlike with oil) to produce, repair, and rebuild them are readily available in the US (if through no other resources than recycling failed panels). The biggest risk is that the US stops training engineers, scientists, and technicians who would be capable of doing that work.
- mbrumlow 2y ago
  Just pointing out that they are not forever. And the use of it in reasoning if flawed. We can but 20 years of oil too. It being a long period only lessons the affect not removes it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    > We can but [sic] 20 years of oil too. The US annual oil demand costs around $500 billion (over 7 billion barrels used per year, but it's not all for energy). Since that does include other uses besides energy and energy demands are only increasing, it's still a useful baseline figure for estimating (because it's conservative, we'll likely need more in the future). To acquire 20 years worth of our current demand would cost over $10 trillion (+ storage costs + future processing costs). Do you really think we can acquire 20 years worth of oil as easily as we can acquire solar panels? Panels which cost a fraction of that and don't require you to literally burn them to get energy, and instead can produce energy for decades with a little bit of maintenance (clean them, keep trees from growing over them).