3 ms·

To put this in perspective, China installs around 3x that every single day https://reneweconomy.com.au/just-staggering-china-installs-100-solar-panels-a-second-

by yogthos 6mo ago

To put this in perspective, China installs around 3x that every single day https://reneweconomy.com.au/just-staggering-china-installs-100-solar-panels-a-second-as-total-pv-capacity-tops-1-terawatt/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/just-staggering-china-installs-1...

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
notTooFarGone 6mo ago
With how backwards US policy is - this will be the major factor in the future. Energy heavy use cases with little to no energy costs will lap western industries.
- yogthos 6mo ago
  Indeed, data centres for AI is a prime example of this where American grid is already starting to hit capacity.
  - mekdoonggi 6mo ago
    True, though I think it's a little more nuanced. There's still capacity, but the AI boom is unearthing all the "cheap" power places in the grid and buying them up. In order to keep growing, the US power grid is going to need big, coordinated projects. Solar, wind, transmission lines, and batteries. I think with political interest from Dems who like renewables, and big business who need energy, there's will in the US to do it, but of course it's the US, so we'll do the right thing after every possible alternative has been exhausted.
    - yogthos 6mo ago
      Even as it stands things are kinda grim. There's around 30% spare capacity, but you also need that for spikes like increased usage during events like heatwaves. You never want to saturate energy capacity completely. I agree that eventually there's going to be no choice but to start investing in renewables. That's going to be the only way to meet the demand, and renewables are already becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. But it is going to take time. Building stuff in the physical world takes years, and that requires sustained commitment at the political level.
  - jeffbee 6mo ago
    America basically did not add any net generating capacity in the first two decades of this century, instead treading water with repowering and efficiency. This was a mistake and now that we could use the energy everyone is acting like it's impossible to expand the grid at the same rate we expanded it in the 1980s. In many ways this mirrors the way America walked into the housing crisis with its eyes closed.
    - dalyons 6mo ago
      I don’t understand how it could have realistically been different. In say 2001 how can you possibly make the case for very expensive grid expansion for future loads that haven’t been invented yet?
      - jeffbee 6mo ago
        Thats fine. If we did not need it, then we didn't need to build it out using what was at the time more expensive technology. But in 2026 we should not be pretending that the rate at which the grid expanded in the 1980s was caused by alien technology transfers. We can easily repeat or exceed that expansion. Even the most outrageous predictions for IT loads do not exceed what we did in the 1980s.
        dalyons 6mo ago
        absolutely agree with that. However, its not so much the capability, its the cost. In 2026 big projects cost a lot more, whos gunna pay for it? In the 80s we all paid for it, but we roughly all benefited as we got more and more electric capacity and day-to-day use cases. Today, it looks like we are all gunna pay for it, but only the datacenter owners are going to benefit. That model is broken.
        jeffbee 6mo ago
        Well, I don't think the evidence supports that. According to two recent LBNL reports consumer prices are lowest in states with huge demand increases (Texas), and highest in states with shrinking demand (California). The existence of large consumers tends to amortize the cost of grid updates.
pbmonster 6mo ago
It's not a comprehensive dataset. The US installed 43 GW_peak in 2025, which should be around 80M new panels. Still, an order of magnitude less new capacity than China - but not two orders.
- GorbachevyChase 6mo ago
  There are also 4X as many people in China, little domestically available oil, and their government supports domestic manufacturing. This is an expected result. It’s OK to celebrate small wins. The US doesn’t have to be #1 in everything. We also seem to have a curious diseconomy of scale on mega infrastructure projects for complex reasons, so maybe slow growth is the right approach.
  - kristofferR 6mo ago
    People aren't sad about the US not winning the race, they are despairing about the US actively trying to lose.
    - TheGRS 6mo ago
      Yep, actively suppressing renewable efforts all the way down to shaming on a cultural level. It should be a net positive for Americans to adopt renewables - cheaper energy, more independence, good for the environment - but instead its viewed as silly or too unreliable when it isn't.

by yogthos 6mo ago

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

notTooFarGone 6mo ago

With how backwards US policy is - this will be the major factor in the future. Energy heavy use cases with little to no energy costs will lap western industries.

yogthos 6mo ago
Indeed, data centres for AI is a prime example of this where American grid is already starting to hit capacity.
- mekdoonggi 6mo ago
  True, though I think it's a little more nuanced. There's still capacity, but the AI boom is unearthing all the "cheap" power places in the grid and buying them up. In order to keep growing, the US power grid is going to need big, coordinated projects. Solar, wind, transmission lines, and batteries. I think with political interest from Dems who like renewables, and big business who need energy, there's will in the US to do it, but of course it's the US, so we'll do the right thing after every possible alternative has been exhausted.
  - yogthos 6mo ago
    Even as it stands things are kinda grim. There's around 30% spare capacity, but you also need that for spikes like increased usage during events like heatwaves. You never want to saturate energy capacity completely. I agree that eventually there's going to be no choice but to start investing in renewables. That's going to be the only way to meet the demand, and renewables are already becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. But it is going to take time. Building stuff in the physical world takes years, and that requires sustained commitment at the political level.
- jeffbee 6mo ago
  America basically did not add any net generating capacity in the first two decades of this century, instead treading water with repowering and efficiency. This was a mistake and now that we could use the energy everyone is acting like it's impossible to expand the grid at the same rate we expanded it in the 1980s. In many ways this mirrors the way America walked into the housing crisis with its eyes closed.
  - dalyons 6mo ago
    I don’t understand how it could have realistically been different. In say 2001 how can you possibly make the case for very expensive grid expansion for future loads that haven’t been invented yet?
    - jeffbee 6mo ago
      Thats fine. If we did not need it, then we didn't need to build it out using what was at the time more expensive technology. But in 2026 we should not be pretending that the rate at which the grid expanded in the 1980s was caused by alien technology transfers. We can easily repeat or exceed that expansion. Even the most outrageous predictions for IT loads do not exceed what we did in the 1980s.
      - dalyons 6mo ago
        absolutely agree with that. However, its not so much the capability, its the cost. In 2026 big projects cost a lot more, whos gunna pay for it? In the 80s we all paid for it, but we roughly all benefited as we got more and more electric capacity and day-to-day use cases. Today, it looks like we are all gunna pay for it, but only the datacenter owners are going to benefit. That model is broken.
        jeffbee 6mo ago
        Well, I don't think the evidence supports that. According to two recent LBNL reports consumer prices are lowest in states with huge demand increases (Texas), and highest in states with shrinking demand (California). The existence of large consumers tends to amortize the cost of grid updates.

pbmonster 6mo ago

It's not a comprehensive dataset. The US installed 43 GW_peak in 2025, which should be around 80M new panels. Still, an order of magnitude less new capacity than China - but not two orders.

GorbachevyChase 6mo ago
There are also 4X as many people in China, little domestically available oil, and their government supports domestic manufacturing. This is an expected result. It’s OK to celebrate small wins. The US doesn’t have to be #1 in everything. We also seem to have a curious diseconomy of scale on mega infrastructure projects for complex reasons, so maybe slow growth is the right approach.
- kristofferR 6mo ago
  People aren't sad about the US not winning the race, they are despairing about the US actively trying to lose.
  - TheGRS 6mo ago
    Yep, actively suppressing renewable efforts all the way down to shaming on a cultural level. It should be a net positive for Americans to adopt renewables - cheaper energy, more independence, good for the environment - but instead its viewed as silly or too unreliable when it isn't.