We have basically limitless carbon free energy with the tech we have now: solar, wind, batteries, fission breeders, large power grids that can move power around cheaply, etc. Put all those together and we have incredible energy abundance.

We also have the ability to electrify most transport except maybe long haul trucking and long haul aviation. Aviation (ALL aviation) accounts for less than 5% of global CO2 emissions, which means we could leave that alone and cut elsewhere until we have batteries and other infrastructure good enough for that.

Build all this out and it'll be cheaper and more scalable than what we currently have.

We in the USA choose to stick with ancient technology because we have a sunk cost and an existing political power structure built around it. Meanwhile China is eating our lunch. Make America Great Again! By... pretending it's 1945 and trying to LARP the previous century.

Classic innovators' dilemma at the national level.

▲

nickserv an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> We in the USA choose to stick with ancient technology because we have a sunk cost and an existing political power structure built around it.

Yes, and also vast oil and gas reserves China doesn't have.

Also there is strong public fear and dislike of nuclear power.

In countries where there are no or little fossil fuels it is mainly this public opinion which has crippled the nuclear industry. Germany is a prime example.

Public opinion is obviously much less important in China.

▲

seanmcdirmid an hour ago | parent [-]

> Public opinion is obviously much less important in China.

That really isn’t true. The reason Shanghai didn’t expand their maglev to Hangzhou is because residents were worried about electrical magnetic radiation, which I don’t think is really a thing. Nuclear took a long time to get started in China because people thought the government to be inept and corrupt, an image that has only recently faded away in the last decade. Without free elections, public opinion is actually much more important if you want to avoid economically destructive riots.

But this all happens in back rooms, the legal system isn’t very relevant, so if you have an issue but it isn’t a very popular one, you don’t really have any recourse. For example, niche environmental issues, or ones that aren’t widely recognized yet as dangerous…

	▲	34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

HPsquared an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If grid energy was cheap enough, synthetic fuel for aircraft and trucks would be competitive.

▲

fragmede 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> We in the USA choose to stick with ancient technology because we have a sunk cost and an existing political power structure built around it.

You don't want to discount the cultural attachment people have to what their parents did and their childhood.