15 ms·

It genuinely makes me so sad to see the US not doing the same. Having grown up to the constant beat of “energy independence” as the core goal of a party it seem

It genuinely makes me so sad to see the US not doing the same. Having grown up to the constant beat of “energy independence” as the core goal of a party it seemed obvious that the nearly limitless energy that rains down from the sky would be the answer. But instead we’ve kept choosing the option which requires devastating our, and other’s around the world, community. That’s not to exclude the harsh reality of mining for the minerals required to build these, nor the land use concerns. But it’s difficult to compare localized damage to war and globalized damage.

mgaunard 9mo ago
[flagged]
- Kallikrates 9mo ago
  The mountaintop panels add shade to those regions and actually reverse desertification, increases water retention and create useful agricultural land.
  - mgaunard 9mo ago
    Mountaintops are already cold and shaded places by definition. And regardless of whether it's beneficial for humans, it's still changing the local ecosystem.
raincole 9mo ago
In 2025, > 90% of new energy capacity built in the US is from renewable [0]. So the US isn't building that much solar not because they're not building solar, but that the US has been generating and consuming so much energy per capita that there isn't that much incentive to increase energy capacity dramatically. [0]: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/us-new-wind-solar-batteries-2025-trump https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/us-new-win...
- rozab 9mo ago
  These are new electric power plants. The US is still ramping up oil and gas production, and is now producing more than ever before. No signs of transitioning away from fossil fuels for transport, industry, export. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/chart-the-us-hits-new-highs-for-oil-and-gas-production https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/chart-the-...
  - timeon 9mo ago
    > The US is still ramping up oil and gas production This also happens in China. With better ratio for renewables but still. Globally there was more energy from coal than before. Much more was from renewables but in context of climate change absolute numbers of CO2 are what matters. EU is also reverting it's green targets because of this new situation. So near future does not look good.
  - appointment 9mo ago
    That's production, not consumption. The US exports huge amounts of oil and gas now. The EU/Russia sanctions and the Red Sea blockade are a huge gravy train for American oil and gas companies.
- ZeroGravitas 9mo ago
  The US has done well historically, roughly on par with China on per capita renewable rollout, slightly ahead of China between 2019-2023 but probably falling behind now. China being so big and populous makes it hard to make simple comparisons. edit: looked it up, US is still ahead of China as of 2024: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/renewable-electricity-per-capita?tab=line https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/renewable-electricity-per... Bear in mind that pre 2000 is likely hydro, in the early years of solar and wind that confused matters if lumped in together but I think it's now obvious when the new tech kicks in.
  - raincole 9mo ago
    [flagged]
appointment 9mo ago
> That’s not to exclude the harsh reality of mining for the minerals required to build these, nor the land use concerns. This is Big Oil propaganda. The impact from this is massively less than the horrific damage caused by every part of the fossil fuel industry.
- mrpopo 9mo ago
  Yep. It's not just oil rigs in the desert. Chevron in Ecuador destroyed the Amazonian rainforest. Oil pipelines and open pit mines destroying Canadian primordial forests. Probably tons of untold stories.
  - ChoGGi 9mo ago
    > open pit mines destroying Canadian primordial forest And our lovely tailings: Syncrude Tailings Dam
- newyankee 9mo ago
  especially when the most important total cost of ownership over life is considered
- Rover222 9mo ago
  Similar to the idea that electric cars are net worse for the environment because some of the materials used to make them. Worse than 20 years of burning gasoline in an ICE car? It's so ridiculous.
  - gregbot 9mo ago
    it depends where your electricity comes from actually. In west Virginia it comes from coal so is worse than a hybrid but still better than non-hybrid gas cars (in terms of CO2)
    - pcchristie 9mo ago
      No it's not. The efficiency of an EV Motor > efficiency of ICEV motor. Even with 100% black coal. The carbon is reduced by about 30% IIRC (that number can and does improve as the grid greens).
yeureka 9mo ago
I recently read, and recommend a book titled "Here Comes the Sun" by Bill McKibben. There's a passage where a calculation is made of the amount of minerals that have to be mined in order to build renewable energy to cover all current energy needs. This quantity is huge. However it is equivalent in mass to the amount of fossil fuels that are extracted every year. The major difference is that the equipment for renewable energy will last decades whereas the fossil fuels are burned and need to be dug up constantly, for ever.
- thatsit 9mo ago
  Solar panels etc. will last decades and can and will be recycled afterwards. Further, most materials needed for renewable energy infrastructure (iron, lithium) are highly abundant on earth. Most of the suppliers work to use cheaper (=more abundant) materials in their products, replacing lithium with sodium in batteries and silver with copper in solar panels. Wind turbine blades are produced now using re-solvable resins.
  - pfdietz 9mo ago
    And iron (steel) is the most recyclable material we have.
  - aaronmoodie 9mo ago
    Not only are older solar panels recyclable, but efficiency gains in panel construction mean that multiple newer panels can be created with the resources from older panels.
  - Saline9515 9mo ago
    Wind turbines are not recyclable[1]. Besides, the foundations use a massive amount of concrete (nowadays often extracted from the seabed, with all the problematic ecological consequences involved), that stays forever in the ground. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352710225027263 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S23527...
    - 9mo ago
madeofpalk 9mo ago
Its crazy that in 1999 "home solar" was a fancy, new millennium idea, and now we're still barely any closer. Honestly, I think building regulations should mandate solar energy for homes.
- danw1979 9mo ago
  Sorry to disagree, but we are not just closer, we’ve been there for a while. You can go out and buy solar panels to cover your roof for a few thousand dollars/pounds/euros. You could definitely not do that in 1999.
  - mrguyorama 9mo ago
    You can achieve near total energy independence for 20 years minimum for the price of a new Camry (or less in specific context). That's insane. I cannot fathom how anyone with a home isn't doing it ASAP. Even here in Maine, a smaller system will pay for itself rapidly and offset the high energy costs.
- geraltofrivia 9mo ago
  My 65yo parents installed Solar panels on the roof of their house in a Tier 2 city in the poor parts of India. So did pretty much most of their neighbours. So i would have to disagree. We are significantly far ahead from the initial “idea”.
  - realo 9mo ago
    Maybe his "we" is more USA-centric than your "we". It happens all the time...
    - madeofpalk 9mo ago
      My "We" is Australia and UK-centric. People have home solar, but it's hardly widespread. It's still a "fancy" thing to have.
dzonga 9mo ago
it seems us is fighting yesterday's war wars / empires etc are built on mastering an energy source the Brits on Coal the US rose on Oil China is rising on renewables my worry is can renewables be quickly brought online to power industry / power hungry Data Centers etc at a reasonable cost
- margalabargala 9mo ago
  > my worry is can renewables be quickly brought online to power industry / power hungry Data Centers etc at a reasonable cost I mean, clearly the answer is yes. The problem is political, not economic.
  - zingar 9mo ago
    Could you spell out the “clearly yes” part of this? I’d love it to be true but even more than that I’d like to have an answer to the climate sceptics.
    - margalabargala 9mo ago
      We're commenting on an article that discusses how quickly and cheaply large scale renewables can be brought online.
- kiba 9mo ago
  Everyone's rising on renewables. Renewable energy is just a victim of a heavily polarizing political atmosphere.
- tim333 9mo ago
  China did most of its rising on fossil fuels. I think they are fairly pragmatic as to what to use.
  - detritus 9mo ago
    But now their ascendance will be largely built on renewables which, due to our ineptitude here in the west, we've handed them the ball. Good luck to them, because someone has to.
MarceliusK 9mo ago
The rhetoric around "energy independence" always sounded like it was pointing exactly toward renewables, and it's hard not to see the missed opportunity in hindsight
- specialist 9mo ago
  I vividly recall an episode of Dallas where Bobby was rationalizing to his brother JR about investing in renewables. For a brief window of time our consensus for decarbonization extended all the way to (the most) popular media.
- x0b4dc0d3 9mo ago
  Can’t power the military with renewables. Need nuclear and fossil fuels for that. One doesn’t want to be dependent on foreign nations to power their military.
  - _aavaa_ 9mo ago
    What are you talking about? Renewables don't require fuels, unlike the fossil fuels that the US has invaded several countries for (most recently taking actions against another country just this month).
expedition32 9mo ago
The US invented fracking. Arguably the US is energy independent. It has Texas, Canada and Venezuela. They never did discover any large oilfields in China despite decades of frantically searching for it.
- RobertoG 9mo ago
  "It has Texas, Canada and Venezuela", eh.. excuse me?
  - Nevermark 9mo ago
    I thought the same thing, ... where is the "and Greenland!"? The amount of hard, soft and economic power that are being burned for the bedtime stories of one person is unreal. As are all the cooperators and lobby harnessing conspirators whose actual dreams are getting implemented. It isn't the fall of the USSR, but it is still a dramatic ceiling bounce.
  - tick_tock_tick 9mo ago
    I mean Venezuela is a touch iffy on how strongly we commit but saying the USA basically owns Canada isn't exactly controversial maybe controls is a more acceptable way of phrasing it? They are a "sovereign" with a lowercase S at best.
- jacquesm 9mo ago
  The US does not have Venezuela.
  - lateforwork 9mo ago
    It does. It may be illegal, immoral etc., but it does as of now.
    - tehjoker 9mo ago
      The Bolivarian revolution kicked us out before, they can do it again.
chaostheory 9mo ago
It’s about incentives. We are “energy independent” compared to China and the EU. With China, if its relations with Russia sour and if they get cut off in Djiboutis by any number of powers, they will be a world of hurt.
- zingar 9mo ago
  Interesting, could you elaborate?
MaxHoppersGhost 9mo ago
Have you driven around anywhere rural lately? The US is doing a ton of renewables development. China is also building unfathomable amount of coal plants as well.
tehjoker 9mo ago
We chose this path because the U.S. dollar is underpinned by fossil fuel markets. Also, batteries do not have the energy density to mobilize a mechanized military. Our elites refuse to concede dominance of the affairs of the world, so they will never allow the fossil fuel infrastructure to decline unless forced. By contrast, China has every incentive to do the right thing.
epolanski 9mo ago
Meanwhile in Italy, the whole renewables discussion is gaslighted by "we should actually consider nuclear" and "wind turbines ruin the panorama". I'm not against nuclear per se, but it's like this part of italians don't realize that: 1. if you decide to make a power plant today, it won't be online before the 2050s, in the best case scenario. It's very difficult to bring nuclear plants online, especially in the west. Even the countries with the capital and know-how (US and France) see more projects cancelled than brought online. I think US has put online a single nuclear plant in 20 years, France not a single one. 2. Nuclear needs tons of water, we have less and less of it as it rains less and global warming doesn't accumulate enough snow in the alps (which generally melts in the summer), our rivers are literally dry stone most of the year. 3. Renewables can be attached to the grid (or close to where they are needed) in the span of few months and with very little know-how required. 4. Money isn't limitless, building a 20B+ nuclear plant (realistically 50 knowing these projects + Italy) means this budget won't be available for the next decade on projects that could bring benefits immediately. I'm sure that Italy and Germany, which are manufacturing heavy countries that need lots of energy cannot rely renewables alone, of course nuclear should be considered, but hell, in my region (around Rome), 95% of our energy comes from imported natural gas, I'm sure we could invest some more in that.
- Retric 9mo ago
  I’m anti nuclear on cost reasons but that’s excessively pessimistic. Nuclear can use seawater for cooling, and being colder offsets the cost premium of using salt water. Your 2050’s comment assumes a level of dysfunction that’s presumably exaggerated. Averaging 10 years puts you at 2036 and is itself somewhat pessimistic. The cost of canceled nuclear projects is generally quite low compared to lifetime subsidies of nuclear. Nuclear may be an inefficient use of government resources, but it’s also offset a staggering amount of emissions and the subsidies tend to end back up in the local economy recuperating some of the expense. IMO, there’s probably dumber things your government is doing that are worth fighting instead.
  - epolanski 9mo ago
    > Averaging 10 years puts you at 2036 and is itself somewhat pessimistic. The average time globally is 14 years. The latest point of reference in the west, Vogtle was announced in 2006 and came online in 2025, 19 years later. It took 7 years alone just to start building it. There's no chance this would take less time in Italy, where you need to also find a suitable place, you don't have the know-how and there's an anti-nuclear referendum that's been voted 3 decades ago. So there is a lot that needs to be changed, starting from having a public voting. Hinkley Point C, in UK, has ballooned it's cost from the planned 18B pounds to a 43B pounds in the span of a decade. These projects always go overbudget, badly.
softwaredoug 9mo ago
It's particularly sad, we've known about the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 since 19th century, and now its branded as radical pseudoscience
- x0b4dc0d3 9mo ago
  Fake news!
socalgal2 9mo ago
Those are nice pictures but I can take the same pictures in the USA. Note: I'm not suggesting China is not doing better here. Rather, I'm going off the title "Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout" and I'm not seeing anything in those photos I haven't seen in the USA. Driving down the 580 from SF to Tracy you pass several hundred windmills. Driving through Mojave the same. Also solar. Driving toward Vegas as well. And those are just the ones I've seen with my own eyes. There's many others. https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=altamont+pass+windmills&sa=X&aic=0 https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=altamont+pass+windmill... https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=mojave+windmills&sa=X&aic=0 https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=mojave+windmills&sa=X&... https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=palmdale+solar+farm&sa=X&aic=0 https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=palmdale+solar+farm&sa... https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=desert+stateline+solar+facility&sa=X&aic=0 https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=desert+stateline+solar... https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=barstow+solar+plant&sa=X&aic=0 https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=barstow+solar+plant&sa...
- mlmonkey 9mo ago
  Those windmills in the East Bay are decades old. And the Mojave solar concentrator is being shut down, from what I've heard. The article here starts with: Last year China installed more than half of all wind and solar added globally. In May alone, it added enough renewable energy to power Poland, installing solar panels at a rate of roughly 100 every second. Is the US anywhere in this ballpark?
  - OkayPhysicist 9mo ago
    The concentrated solar plant is getting shut down because it's failing to compete with the massive rollout of photovoltaic panels. We've made solar so cheap that the old ways of gathering it are becoming redundant, which, no matter how incredibly cool it was to see a second sun rise over the horizon on the way to Vegas, is a good sign.
  - socalgal2 9mo ago
    My point was the photos. They aren't convincing to someone who's seen US installations. If that was the goal then the article failed. A graph comparing China to the US would have been better.
carabiner 9mo ago
If it is not in the interest of people over the age of 60, it will not happen in the US.
tzs 9mo ago
Up to the 2008 election the Republican party platform called for reducing fossil fuel use, establishing a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change, a long term tax credit for renewable energy (with specific mentions of solar and wind), more recycling, and making consumer products more energy efficient. They wanted to aggressively support technological advances to reduce the dependence of transportation on petroleum, giving examples of making cars more efficient (they mention doubling gas mileage) and developing more flex-fuel and electric vehicles. They talked about honoraria of many millions of dollars for technological developments that could eliminate the need for gas powered cars. They also mentioned promoting wireless communication to increase telecommuting options and reduce business travel. All that was gone by 2012. I'm not sure what caused the change.
- g-b-r 9mo ago
  Oh come on, Bush was the first disaster in the fight against climate warming. His "win" might be one of the most impactful sliding doors in the human history.
- bertjk 9mo ago
  Fracking. Before fracking people were worried about "peak oil", and being dependent on unfriendly governments for our basic energy needs. Then with fracking we realized we are actually sitting on huge available oil reserves, and peak oil quickly became a quaint outdated concept.
  - rob74 9mo ago
    That may be part of it, but as your parent comment mentioned, the Republicans weren't only worried about peak oil and being dependent on unfriendly governments, but also about climate change. Of course, none of these three problems went away, the point where fossil fuels will be exhausted just got pushed further into the future, and the fact that it will take more and more effort and environmental damage to get to the remaining resources is also undeniable. But yeah, I guess your answer still applies indirectly: Fracking -> stronger interests by US oil companies -> money to the Republican party -> fossil fuel friendly regulations.
AmbroseBierce 9mo ago
And it would have been possible if not for the support on this platform and similar ones for people like Elon, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Sam Altman, like the youth says these days: FAFO
blondie9x 9mo ago
But what surprises me most in this entire debate is how little we talk about the biological cost of CO₂ itself. We focus so much on the globalized damage to the climate that we’ve overlooked the direct, physiological tax that combustion is levying on our bodies. For some reason conservative governments want us to continue to trade our atmospheric oxygen for carbon dioxide through the burning fossil fuels. I wrote more about this topic on substack: https://minimallysustained.substack.com/p/beyond-the-greenhouse-the-direct https://minimallysustained.substack.com/p/beyond-the-greenho...
tim-tday 9mo ago
The us president held a fundraiser for petroleum execs late in 2024. He promised to kill as many renewable energy projects as possible. They donated a billion dollars to his campaign. And he followed through.
mjevans 9mo ago
It shouldn't be one thing, or 'only eco thing'. It should be _every_ thing that isn't a bad idea. Solar Wind Geothermal Tidal power? Got a way of using that tasty oil cleanly? Maybe we want to reserve those complex hydrocarbons for some other use like growing crops, making solid rocket fuel, or some other national priority. Nuclear - Yes, craft regulations that make sense and squeeze all the damned energy possible out of that 'waste'. No, I don't mean burn the fuel the easy way only - I mean send it back to military run reprocessing centers to concentrate the power and make the (effective) half life of the waste decades rather than civilizations of time (yes, concentrating it, there will also be some super mild things that decay slowly enough to be useful in other applications rather than waste). We want to maximize energy in the long, medium and short term. Try Everything.
mattmaroon 9mo ago
Well I have good news for you, we are. Over 90% of new power generation being built (both domestically and globally) is renewables. We do it for the same reason China and everyone else is: it’s just cheaper now. That’s the best reason because it’s the one that gets the job done. Renewable energy prices will keep falling while fossil fuel prices rise, widening the gap. In 25 years there will be little fossil fuel generation left.
everdev 9mo ago
The USA keeps pushing for corporatism, so that's what we get: corporatism. Not a good environment or safe energy, but corporatism.
- dragonwriter 9mo ago
  The USA doesn't (over any long historical time) push for anything much like corporatism, but instead for capitalism ("corporate capitalism” or “crony capitalism” to those who view “capitalism” as a utopian free market system and not the concrete real-world system for which the name was coined by its critics, I suppose.) The US has been pushing toward something blending corporatism and kleptocracy under Trump II, but I suspect that people using "corporatism” to refer to a longer-term effort of the US are misusing "corporatism” (where the body—“corpus”—actually refers to the aggregate of government, business, and social institutions, all of which are interlocking and working together, with interlocking formal control structures for that end) to mean “capitalism oriented specifically around the interests of corporations”, i.e., "corporate capitalism”.
youngtaff 9mo ago
Texas… look at Texas where the amount of electricity generated from the solar farms has outgrown the amount generated by coal Gas still dominates but wind and solar are both increasing https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/chart-solar-is-finally-bigger-than-coal-in-texas https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/chart-solar-is-fi...

mgaunard 9mo ago

[flagged]

Kallikrates 9mo ago
The mountaintop panels add shade to those regions and actually reverse desertification, increases water retention and create useful agricultural land.
- mgaunard 9mo ago
  Mountaintops are already cold and shaded places by definition. And regardless of whether it's beneficial for humans, it's still changing the local ecosystem.

raincole 9mo ago

In 2025, > 90% of new energy capacity built in the US is from renewable [0]. So the US isn't building that much solar not because they're not building solar, but that the US has been generating and consuming so much energy per capita that there isn't that much incentive to increase energy capacity dramatically. [0]: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/us-new-wind-solar-batteries-2025-trump https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/us-new-win...

rozab 9mo ago
These are new electric power plants. The US is still ramping up oil and gas production, and is now producing more than ever before. No signs of transitioning away from fossil fuels for transport, industry, export. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/chart-the-us-hits-new-highs-for-oil-and-gas-production https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/fossil-fuels/chart-the-...
- timeon 9mo ago
  > The US is still ramping up oil and gas production This also happens in China. With better ratio for renewables but still. Globally there was more energy from coal than before. Much more was from renewables but in context of climate change absolute numbers of CO2 are what matters. EU is also reverting it's green targets because of this new situation. So near future does not look good.
- appointment 9mo ago
  That's production, not consumption. The US exports huge amounts of oil and gas now. The EU/Russia sanctions and the Red Sea blockade are a huge gravy train for American oil and gas companies.
ZeroGravitas 9mo ago
The US has done well historically, roughly on par with China on per capita renewable rollout, slightly ahead of China between 2019-2023 but probably falling behind now. China being so big and populous makes it hard to make simple comparisons. edit: looked it up, US is still ahead of China as of 2024: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/renewable-electricity-per-capita?tab=line https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/renewable-electricity-per... Bear in mind that pre 2000 is likely hydro, in the early years of solar and wind that confused matters if lumped in together but I think it's now obvious when the new tech kicks in.
- raincole 9mo ago
  [flagged]

appointment 9mo ago

> That’s not to exclude the harsh reality of mining for the minerals required to build these, nor the land use concerns. This is Big Oil propaganda. The impact from this is massively less than the horrific damage caused by every part of the fossil fuel industry.

mrpopo 9mo ago
Yep. It's not just oil rigs in the desert. Chevron in Ecuador destroyed the Amazonian rainforest. Oil pipelines and open pit mines destroying Canadian primordial forests. Probably tons of untold stories.
- ChoGGi 9mo ago
  > open pit mines destroying Canadian primordial forest And our lovely tailings: Syncrude Tailings Dam
newyankee 9mo ago
especially when the most important total cost of ownership over life is considered
Rover222 9mo ago
Similar to the idea that electric cars are net worse for the environment because some of the materials used to make them. Worse than 20 years of burning gasoline in an ICE car? It's so ridiculous.
- gregbot 9mo ago
  it depends where your electricity comes from actually. In west Virginia it comes from coal so is worse than a hybrid but still better than non-hybrid gas cars (in terms of CO2)
  - pcchristie 9mo ago
    No it's not. The efficiency of an EV Motor > efficiency of ICEV motor. Even with 100% black coal. The carbon is reduced by about 30% IIRC (that number can and does improve as the grid greens).

yeureka 9mo ago

I recently read, and recommend a book titled "Here Comes the Sun" by Bill McKibben. There's a passage where a calculation is made of the amount of minerals that have to be mined in order to build renewable energy to cover all current energy needs. This quantity is huge. However it is equivalent in mass to the amount of fossil fuels that are extracted every year. The major difference is that the equipment for renewable energy will last decades whereas the fossil fuels are burned and need to be dug up constantly, for ever.

thatsit 9mo ago
Solar panels etc. will last decades and can and will be recycled afterwards. Further, most materials needed for renewable energy infrastructure (iron, lithium) are highly abundant on earth. Most of the suppliers work to use cheaper (=more abundant) materials in their products, replacing lithium with sodium in batteries and silver with copper in solar panels. Wind turbine blades are produced now using re-solvable resins.
- pfdietz 9mo ago
  And iron (steel) is the most recyclable material we have.
- aaronmoodie 9mo ago
  Not only are older solar panels recyclable, but efficiency gains in panel construction mean that multiple newer panels can be created with the resources from older panels.
- Saline9515 9mo ago
  Wind turbines are not recyclable[1]. Besides, the foundations use a massive amount of concrete (nowadays often extracted from the seabed, with all the problematic ecological consequences involved), that stays forever in the ground. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352710225027263 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S23527...
  - 9mo ago

madeofpalk 9mo ago

Its crazy that in 1999 "home solar" was a fancy, new millennium idea, and now we're still barely any closer. Honestly, I think building regulations should mandate solar energy for homes.

danw1979 9mo ago
Sorry to disagree, but we are not just closer, we’ve been there for a while. You can go out and buy solar panels to cover your roof for a few thousand dollars/pounds/euros. You could definitely not do that in 1999.
- mrguyorama 9mo ago
  You can achieve near total energy independence for 20 years minimum for the price of a new Camry (or less in specific context). That's insane. I cannot fathom how anyone with a home isn't doing it ASAP. Even here in Maine, a smaller system will pay for itself rapidly and offset the high energy costs.
geraltofrivia 9mo ago
My 65yo parents installed Solar panels on the roof of their house in a Tier 2 city in the poor parts of India. So did pretty much most of their neighbours. So i would have to disagree. We are significantly far ahead from the initial “idea”.
- realo 9mo ago
  Maybe his "we" is more USA-centric than your "we". It happens all the time...
  - madeofpalk 9mo ago
    My "We" is Australia and UK-centric. People have home solar, but it's hardly widespread. It's still a "fancy" thing to have.

dzonga 9mo ago

it seems us is fighting yesterday's war wars / empires etc are built on mastering an energy source the Brits on Coal the US rose on Oil China is rising on renewables my worry is can renewables be quickly brought online to power industry / power hungry Data Centers etc at a reasonable cost

margalabargala 9mo ago
> my worry is can renewables be quickly brought online to power industry / power hungry Data Centers etc at a reasonable cost I mean, clearly the answer is yes. The problem is political, not economic.
- zingar 9mo ago
  Could you spell out the “clearly yes” part of this? I’d love it to be true but even more than that I’d like to have an answer to the climate sceptics.
  - margalabargala 9mo ago
    We're commenting on an article that discusses how quickly and cheaply large scale renewables can be brought online.
kiba 9mo ago
Everyone's rising on renewables. Renewable energy is just a victim of a heavily polarizing political atmosphere.
tim333 9mo ago
China did most of its rising on fossil fuels. I think they are fairly pragmatic as to what to use.
- detritus 9mo ago
  But now their ascendance will be largely built on renewables which, due to our ineptitude here in the west, we've handed them the ball. Good luck to them, because someone has to.

MarceliusK 9mo ago

The rhetoric around "energy independence" always sounded like it was pointing exactly toward renewables, and it's hard not to see the missed opportunity in hindsight

specialist 9mo ago
I vividly recall an episode of Dallas where Bobby was rationalizing to his brother JR about investing in renewables. For a brief window of time our consensus for decarbonization extended all the way to (the most) popular media.
x0b4dc0d3 9mo ago
Can’t power the military with renewables. Need nuclear and fossil fuels for that. One doesn’t want to be dependent on foreign nations to power their military.
- _aavaa_ 9mo ago
  What are you talking about? Renewables don't require fuels, unlike the fossil fuels that the US has invaded several countries for (most recently taking actions against another country just this month).

expedition32 9mo ago

The US invented fracking. Arguably the US is energy independent. It has Texas, Canada and Venezuela. They never did discover any large oilfields in China despite decades of frantically searching for it.

RobertoG 9mo ago
"It has Texas, Canada and Venezuela", eh.. excuse me?
- Nevermark 9mo ago
  I thought the same thing, ... where is the "and Greenland!"? The amount of hard, soft and economic power that are being burned for the bedtime stories of one person is unreal. As are all the cooperators and lobby harnessing conspirators whose actual dreams are getting implemented. It isn't the fall of the USSR, but it is still a dramatic ceiling bounce.
- tick_tock_tick 9mo ago
  I mean Venezuela is a touch iffy on how strongly we commit but saying the USA basically owns Canada isn't exactly controversial maybe controls is a more acceptable way of phrasing it? They are a "sovereign" with a lowercase S at best.
jacquesm 9mo ago
The US does not have Venezuela.
- lateforwork 9mo ago
  It does. It may be illegal, immoral etc., but it does as of now.
  - tehjoker 9mo ago
    The Bolivarian revolution kicked us out before, they can do it again.

chaostheory 9mo ago

It’s about incentives. We are “energy independent” compared to China and the EU. With China, if its relations with Russia sour and if they get cut off in Djiboutis by any number of powers, they will be a world of hurt.

zingar 9mo ago
Interesting, could you elaborate?

MaxHoppersGhost 9mo ago

Have you driven around anywhere rural lately? The US is doing a ton of renewables development. China is also building unfathomable amount of coal plants as well.

tehjoker 9mo ago

We chose this path because the U.S. dollar is underpinned by fossil fuel markets. Also, batteries do not have the energy density to mobilize a mechanized military. Our elites refuse to concede dominance of the affairs of the world, so they will never allow the fossil fuel infrastructure to decline unless forced. By contrast, China has every incentive to do the right thing.

epolanski 9mo ago

Meanwhile in Italy, the whole renewables discussion is gaslighted by "we should actually consider nuclear" and "wind turbines ruin the panorama". I'm not against nuclear per se, but it's like this part of italians don't realize that: 1. if you decide to make a power plant today, it won't be online before the 2050s, in the best case scenario. It's very difficult to bring nuclear plants online, especially in the west. Even the countries with the capital and know-how (US and France) see more projects cancelled than brought online. I think US has put online a single nuclear plant in 20 years, France not a single one. 2. Nuclear needs tons of water, we have less and less of it as it rains less and global warming doesn't accumulate enough snow in the alps (which generally melts in the summer), our rivers are literally dry stone most of the year. 3. Renewables can be attached to the grid (or close to where they are needed) in the span of few months and with very little know-how required. 4. Money isn't limitless, building a 20B+ nuclear plant (realistically 50 knowing these projects + Italy) means this budget won't be available for the next decade on projects that could bring benefits immediately. I'm sure that Italy and Germany, which are manufacturing heavy countries that need lots of energy cannot rely renewables alone, of course nuclear should be considered, but hell, in my region (around Rome), 95% of our energy comes from imported natural gas, I'm sure we could invest some more in that.

Retric 9mo ago
I’m anti nuclear on cost reasons but that’s excessively pessimistic. Nuclear can use seawater for cooling, and being colder offsets the cost premium of using salt water. Your 2050’s comment assumes a level of dysfunction that’s presumably exaggerated. Averaging 10 years puts you at 2036 and is itself somewhat pessimistic. The cost of canceled nuclear projects is generally quite low compared to lifetime subsidies of nuclear. Nuclear may be an inefficient use of government resources, but it’s also offset a staggering amount of emissions and the subsidies tend to end back up in the local economy recuperating some of the expense. IMO, there’s probably dumber things your government is doing that are worth fighting instead.
- epolanski 9mo ago
  > Averaging 10 years puts you at 2036 and is itself somewhat pessimistic. The average time globally is 14 years. The latest point of reference in the west, Vogtle was announced in 2006 and came online in 2025, 19 years later. It took 7 years alone just to start building it. There's no chance this would take less time in Italy, where you need to also find a suitable place, you don't have the know-how and there's an anti-nuclear referendum that's been voted 3 decades ago. So there is a lot that needs to be changed, starting from having a public voting. Hinkley Point C, in UK, has ballooned it's cost from the planned 18B pounds to a 43B pounds in the span of a decade. These projects always go overbudget, badly.

softwaredoug 9mo ago

It's particularly sad, we've known about the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 since 19th century, and now its branded as radical pseudoscience

x0b4dc0d3 9mo ago
Fake news!

socalgal2 9mo ago

Those are nice pictures but I can take the same pictures in the USA. Note: I'm not suggesting China is not doing better here. Rather, I'm going off the title "Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout" and I'm not seeing anything in those photos I haven't seen in the USA. Driving down the 580 from SF to Tracy you pass several hundred windmills. Driving through Mojave the same. Also solar. Driving toward Vegas as well. And those are just the ones I've seen with my own eyes. There's many others. https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=altamont+pass+windmills&sa=X&aic=0 https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=altamont+pass+windmill... https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=mojave+windmills&sa=X&aic=0 https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=mojave+windmills&sa=X&... https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=palmdale+solar+farm&sa=X&aic=0 https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=palmdale+solar+farm&sa... https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=desert+stateline+solar+facility&sa=X&aic=0 https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=desert+stateline+solar... https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=barstow+solar+plant&sa=X&aic=0 https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=barstow+solar+plant&sa...

mlmonkey 9mo ago
Those windmills in the East Bay are decades old. And the Mojave solar concentrator is being shut down, from what I've heard. The article here starts with: Last year China installed more than half of all wind and solar added globally. In May alone, it added enough renewable energy to power Poland, installing solar panels at a rate of roughly 100 every second. Is the US anywhere in this ballpark?
- OkayPhysicist 9mo ago
  The concentrated solar plant is getting shut down because it's failing to compete with the massive rollout of photovoltaic panels. We've made solar so cheap that the old ways of gathering it are becoming redundant, which, no matter how incredibly cool it was to see a second sun rise over the horizon on the way to Vegas, is a good sign.
- socalgal2 9mo ago
  My point was the photos. They aren't convincing to someone who's seen US installations. If that was the goal then the article failed. A graph comparing China to the US would have been better.

carabiner 9mo ago

If it is not in the interest of people over the age of 60, it will not happen in the US.

tzs 9mo ago

Up to the 2008 election the Republican party platform called for reducing fossil fuel use, establishing a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change, a long term tax credit for renewable energy (with specific mentions of solar and wind), more recycling, and making consumer products more energy efficient. They wanted to aggressively support technological advances to reduce the dependence of transportation on petroleum, giving examples of making cars more efficient (they mention doubling gas mileage) and developing more flex-fuel and electric vehicles. They talked about honoraria of many millions of dollars for technological developments that could eliminate the need for gas powered cars. They also mentioned promoting wireless communication to increase telecommuting options and reduce business travel. All that was gone by 2012. I'm not sure what caused the change.

g-b-r 9mo ago
Oh come on, Bush was the first disaster in the fight against climate warming. His "win" might be one of the most impactful sliding doors in the human history.
bertjk 9mo ago
Fracking. Before fracking people were worried about "peak oil", and being dependent on unfriendly governments for our basic energy needs. Then with fracking we realized we are actually sitting on huge available oil reserves, and peak oil quickly became a quaint outdated concept.
- rob74 9mo ago
  That may be part of it, but as your parent comment mentioned, the Republicans weren't only worried about peak oil and being dependent on unfriendly governments, but also about climate change. Of course, none of these three problems went away, the point where fossil fuels will be exhausted just got pushed further into the future, and the fact that it will take more and more effort and environmental damage to get to the remaining resources is also undeniable. But yeah, I guess your answer still applies indirectly: Fracking -> stronger interests by US oil companies -> money to the Republican party -> fossil fuel friendly regulations.

AmbroseBierce 9mo ago

And it would have been possible if not for the support on this platform and similar ones for people like Elon, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg and Sam Altman, like the youth says these days: FAFO

blondie9x 9mo ago

But what surprises me most in this entire debate is how little we talk about the biological cost of CO₂ itself. We focus so much on the globalized damage to the climate that we’ve overlooked the direct, physiological tax that combustion is levying on our bodies. For some reason conservative governments want us to continue to trade our atmospheric oxygen for carbon dioxide through the burning fossil fuels. I wrote more about this topic on substack: https://minimallysustained.substack.com/p/beyond-the-greenhouse-the-direct https://minimallysustained.substack.com/p/beyond-the-greenho...

tim-tday 9mo ago

The us president held a fundraiser for petroleum execs late in 2024. He promised to kill as many renewable energy projects as possible. They donated a billion dollars to his campaign. And he followed through.

mjevans 9mo ago

It shouldn't be one thing, or 'only eco thing'. It should be _every_ thing that isn't a bad idea. Solar Wind Geothermal Tidal power? Got a way of using that tasty oil cleanly? Maybe we want to reserve those complex hydrocarbons for some other use like growing crops, making solid rocket fuel, or some other national priority. Nuclear - Yes, craft regulations that make sense and squeeze all the damned energy possible out of that 'waste'. No, I don't mean burn the fuel the easy way only - I mean send it back to military run reprocessing centers to concentrate the power and make the (effective) half life of the waste decades rather than civilizations of time (yes, concentrating it, there will also be some super mild things that decay slowly enough to be useful in other applications rather than waste). We want to maximize energy in the long, medium and short term. Try Everything.

mattmaroon 9mo ago

Well I have good news for you, we are. Over 90% of new power generation being built (both domestically and globally) is renewables. We do it for the same reason China and everyone else is: it’s just cheaper now. That’s the best reason because it’s the one that gets the job done. Renewable energy prices will keep falling while fossil fuel prices rise, widening the gap. In 25 years there will be little fossil fuel generation left.

everdev 9mo ago

The USA keeps pushing for corporatism, so that's what we get: corporatism. Not a good environment or safe energy, but corporatism.

dragonwriter 9mo ago
The USA doesn't (over any long historical time) push for anything much like corporatism, but instead for capitalism ("corporate capitalism” or “crony capitalism” to those who view “capitalism” as a utopian free market system and not the concrete real-world system for which the name was coined by its critics, I suppose.) The US has been pushing toward something blending corporatism and kleptocracy under Trump II, but I suspect that people using "corporatism” to refer to a longer-term effort of the US are misusing "corporatism” (where the body—“corpus”—actually refers to the aggregate of government, business, and social institutions, all of which are interlocking and working together, with interlocking formal control structures for that end) to mean “capitalism oriented specifically around the interests of corporations”, i.e., "corporate capitalism”.

youngtaff 9mo ago

Texas… look at Texas where the amount of electricity generated from the solar farms has outgrown the amount generated by coal Gas still dominates but wind and solar are both increasing https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/chart-solar-is-finally-bigger-than-coal-in-texas https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/chart-solar-is-fi...