3 ms·

China understands this, parts of the EU understands this. The US is currently dead set on betting on the wrong technology, and it's going to put them so far beh

China understands this, parts of the EU understands this. The US is currently dead set on betting on the wrong technology, and it's going to put them so far behind. Imagine a world where people didn't care about labeling new things "woke", and instead could all sit down and say, "we're going to make major investments in next generation infrastructure to ensure our capacity and independence."

rafterydj 7mo ago
Unsure why you're getting downvoted. I know politics is generally frowned upon here but this is absolutely relevant to the conversation.
hnthrow0287345 7mo ago
Apart from the current administration's absolutely hilariously bad governing, the US economy really only cares about profit. The same is going to happen to any country with outsized income inequality.
- Octoth0rpe 7mo ago
  > the US economy really only cares about profit Which would be ok if we more effectively were able to include externalities into company's overhead, instead of constantly subsidizing them.
- aidenn0 7mo ago
  This argument would make more sense if Chinese companies were all going out of business due to their governments heavy investments in solar and batteries.
- alexk307 7mo ago
  Which is a good thing because solar + batteries is literally the easiest way to make profit currently, and will get more profitable year over year.
declan_roberts 7mo ago
China burns significantly more coal than the USA and Europe combined and has no environmental laws standing in the way of their nuclear power plants. Imagine a world where people don't care about labeling new things as "regressive" or "anti-environmental"
- j16sdiz 7mo ago
  China is doing that because they are profitable, not because they care about the environment. Why would they care the coal use?
  - dmix 7mo ago
    Having lots of cheap energy is always boosts industry and reduces cost of living for everyone. The way China accomplished that was by investing heavily in every sort of energy and building large scale infrastructure, instead of adding roadblocks at every stage.
- budududuroiu 7mo ago
  > China burns significantly more coal than the USA and Europe combined Which is expected when both Europe and the US outsourced most manufacturing to China. It's actually surprising China is so low given they're literally the factory of the world
- ahhhhnoooo 7mo ago
  China's coal use is shrinking recently, and their solar investment is in the hundreds of GW annually. Don't look at where the ball is, look at where the ball is going.
- timbit42 7mo ago
  China doesn't have much oil or natural gas but they have lots of coal so that's their backup until they can get enough renewables built.
- tzs 7mo ago
  > China burns significantly more coal than the USA and Europe combined [...] And the USA burns more natural gas than China, and the USA burns more oil than China. All this simply reflects both using the fossil fuels they have the most abundant, reliable, and cheap supply of when they need to burn fossil fuels.
waveforms 7mo ago
I agree and lets not label something as dangerous or expensive if it can be made to be affordable and safe. "As of 2026, 59 nuclear power plants are operational in mainland China, second globally to the United States, which has 94." "There are over 28 further plants under construction with a total power of 32.3 GW, ranked first for the 18th consecutive year" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
shipman05 7mo ago
The American shale gas/fracking boom really distorted a lot of things. The strategic energy situations of the United States, the EU, and China were all pretty similar in the late 20th Century: major dependence on OPEC-controlled oil and gas. Post-fracking, the US strategic energy situation has diverged from the others. This difference leads indirectly to things like the current "not war" in Iran. (Iran's geography already gives it strong bargaining power via pressure on energy markets. It would have an even stronger hand if the US was not capable of energy independence). The long term impacts on climate changes are even more negative. It's hard to supplant a cheap, ubiquitous energy source with strong negative externalities when those externalities are subtle, gradual, and strongly denied via propaganda by entrenched interests.
DangitBobby 7mo ago
There are influential people who make lots of money when the US Govt forces the country to rely on fossil fuels.
0xbadcafebee 7mo ago
They're not anti-renewables as a bet, they're anti-renewables strategically. If you like going to war, you can power your warfighting apparatus much easier with a gas tank than a battery. If you want better defense, you don't depend on hostile nations for your energy needs. The US wants to double down on oil because it likes to fight wars and it's paranoid about defense.
alexk307 7mo ago
This is just incorrect. The politics in the US say one thing but the market is going in the other direction. 2026 additions to the US grid will be almost entirely renewables - 6.3 GW of natural gas / 86 GW total means ~93% of new additions to grid capacity are renewable [1]. A quarter of the electricity in the US is now generated by renewables [2] and growing rapidly. The states with the largest amount of renewable electricity generation are wildly different politically, but all agree that renewables make the most financial sense [3]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67205 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67205 [2] https://www.semafor.com/article/03/03/2026/us-renewables-hit-record-despite-trump-pushback https://www.semafor.com/article/03/03/2026/us-renewables-hit... [3] https://www.integrityenergy.com/blog/the-top-10-states-paving-the-way-to-a-sustainable-energy-future/ https://www.integrityenergy.com/blog/the-top-10-states-pavin...

rafterydj 7mo ago

Unsure why you're getting downvoted. I know politics is generally frowned upon here but this is absolutely relevant to the conversation.

hnthrow0287345 7mo ago

Apart from the current administration's absolutely hilariously bad governing, the US economy really only cares about profit. The same is going to happen to any country with outsized income inequality.

Octoth0rpe 7mo ago
> the US economy really only cares about profit Which would be ok if we more effectively were able to include externalities into company's overhead, instead of constantly subsidizing them.
aidenn0 7mo ago
This argument would make more sense if Chinese companies were all going out of business due to their governments heavy investments in solar and batteries.
alexk307 7mo ago
Which is a good thing because solar + batteries is literally the easiest way to make profit currently, and will get more profitable year over year.

declan_roberts 7mo ago

China burns significantly more coal than the USA and Europe combined and has no environmental laws standing in the way of their nuclear power plants. Imagine a world where people don't care about labeling new things as "regressive" or "anti-environmental"

j16sdiz 7mo ago
China is doing that because they are profitable, not because they care about the environment. Why would they care the coal use?
- dmix 7mo ago
  Having lots of cheap energy is always boosts industry and reduces cost of living for everyone. The way China accomplished that was by investing heavily in every sort of energy and building large scale infrastructure, instead of adding roadblocks at every stage.
budududuroiu 7mo ago
> China burns significantly more coal than the USA and Europe combined Which is expected when both Europe and the US outsourced most manufacturing to China. It's actually surprising China is so low given they're literally the factory of the world
ahhhhnoooo 7mo ago
China's coal use is shrinking recently, and their solar investment is in the hundreds of GW annually. Don't look at where the ball is, look at where the ball is going.
timbit42 7mo ago
China doesn't have much oil or natural gas but they have lots of coal so that's their backup until they can get enough renewables built.
tzs 7mo ago
> China burns significantly more coal than the USA and Europe combined [...] And the USA burns more natural gas than China, and the USA burns more oil than China. All this simply reflects both using the fossil fuels they have the most abundant, reliable, and cheap supply of when they need to burn fossil fuels.

waveforms 7mo ago

I agree and lets not label something as dangerous or expensive if it can be made to be affordable and safe. "As of 2026, 59 nuclear power plants are operational in mainland China, second globally to the United States, which has 94." "There are over 28 further plants under construction with a total power of 32.3 GW, ranked first for the 18th consecutive year" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

shipman05 7mo ago

The American shale gas/fracking boom really distorted a lot of things. The strategic energy situations of the United States, the EU, and China were all pretty similar in the late 20th Century: major dependence on OPEC-controlled oil and gas. Post-fracking, the US strategic energy situation has diverged from the others. This difference leads indirectly to things like the current "not war" in Iran. (Iran's geography already gives it strong bargaining power via pressure on energy markets. It would have an even stronger hand if the US was not capable of energy independence). The long term impacts on climate changes are even more negative. It's hard to supplant a cheap, ubiquitous energy source with strong negative externalities when those externalities are subtle, gradual, and strongly denied via propaganda by entrenched interests.

DangitBobby 7mo ago

There are influential people who make lots of money when the US Govt forces the country to rely on fossil fuels.

0xbadcafebee 7mo ago

They're not anti-renewables as a bet, they're anti-renewables strategically. If you like going to war, you can power your warfighting apparatus much easier with a gas tank than a battery. If you want better defense, you don't depend on hostile nations for your energy needs. The US wants to double down on oil because it likes to fight wars and it's paranoid about defense.

alexk307 7mo ago

This is just incorrect. The politics in the US say one thing but the market is going in the other direction. 2026 additions to the US grid will be almost entirely renewables - 6.3 GW of natural gas / 86 GW total means ~93% of new additions to grid capacity are renewable [1]. A quarter of the electricity in the US is now generated by renewables [2] and growing rapidly. The states with the largest amount of renewable electricity generation are wildly different politically, but all agree that renewables make the most financial sense [3]. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67205 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67205 [2] https://www.semafor.com/article/03/03/2026/us-renewables-hit-record-despite-trump-pushback https://www.semafor.com/article/03/03/2026/us-renewables-hit... [3] https://www.integrityenergy.com/blog/the-top-10-states-paving-the-way-to-a-sustainable-energy-future/ https://www.integrityenergy.com/blog/the-top-10-states-pavin...