Portugal needs battery storage.

It’s the best bang for buck. Australia, one of the world leaders in grid connected battery storage and it’s a reason prices keep falling there. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/mar/19/power...

Can you imagine prices falling during an energy crisis, high inflation and datacenter build outs? Well it’s happening and pretty drastically in Australia.

Does that comparison make sense? You're comparing investments into the national grid with energy prices set by international trade. Power is imported and exported all the time, and the lack of affordable fossil fuels abroad will put pressure on cheaper local prices.

I don't think going nuclear would've made a difference here. Someone is making a lot of money selling power locally for prices that only make sense in an international context. Whether that's done by wind farm operators or nuclear plants, the result will still be the same.

> I'd much rather we go nuclear.

I think/hope you mean "I'd rather we adopt/use nuclear energy."

>but also frees us from dependency on other countries

It does not. It moves the dependency to the manufacturing source of the panels. That is China. No thanks.

Can we please just build more reactors? The insistence on solar is becoming a cargo cult (thanks, Elon Musk).

And how will renewables like solar and wind wirk with Class 8 trucks, shipping, aviation or process heat or as feedstock? How have they worked in Germany, which has shut down her nuclear plants and Russian hydrocarbons?

Please - tell us.

We're not really adding much more fossil fuel capacity. 88% of new capacity under construction in the US is renewable. Of the fossil fuel capacity that is being added, it's overwhelmingly coal-to-gas conversions and peaker plants that help to deal with the variability in renewable generation.

It will take a long time before the fossil fuel capacity we've already built gets phased out, and of course certain developing nations are still adding dirtier fuel sources, but renewables getting cheap is working.

Ultimately, the answer is fuel density. So, for long distance untethered travel, like planes. Beyond that, it's plastics production and chemical manufacturing.

We can switch to hydrogen for lots of stuff that requires carrying your fuel on your back, but some things get tougher because the density is just not the same as a hydrocarbon.

These are all surmountable (biodiesel, carbon capture->fuel cycles, bioreactors, etc), but they take time and money.

In the end, what will push us to get there are economic shocks. We're getting there, it's just painful.

Time, production capacity, and materials. I’ve seen 1yr lead times on electric equipment to install charging stations. Copper supply issues with a huge rollout.

$150/barrel, much higher prices everywhere, less fertilizer, and less oil available could spur a faster turnover.

> I don't understand how we're still using fossil fuels.

These fit an energy niche that can't be replaced with any one thing. China is just now investing in an electric military, for instance. Shipping will remain difficult to electrify entirely (which is surmountable, but certainly not in production). Coal and natural gas plants provide on-demand power that is not straightforward to guarantee with renewable sources. And there are many (likely almost all) grids that are simply not up to the task of transmitting energy that used to be transmitted by physically moving fossil fuels. Air flight has no renewable alternative as of today—though, I suppose we technically do have renewable forms of jet fuel, it's extremely expensive.

& of course we will need byproducts for the forseeable future for fertilizer, materials, chip production, etc etc.

It'll take a couple generations. Of course we should be paying poor countries to not use fossil fuels, but instead we're trying to force switching back to fossil fuels ourselves for no explicable reason (as an american obv).

Renewables require power storage. Batteries are large, heavy, expensive, and the power dense ones have absolutely horrendous failure modes.

There are other storage options, but they require even more space than batteries.

Oil and gasoline require very little space, have easy to handle failure modes, and aren’t that expensive to operate. Not expensive enough to justify changing nationwide logistics and support.

It’s also far cheaper to keep using fossil fuels for a year than build out entirely new infrastructure.

Because the upside (with barely single digit margins if it exists) is mostly China and no one else being able to compete at that scale.

Something like skin in the game. US (low), EU(moderate), China (high), Global South (high with caveats to leapfrog but financing crunch always there)

Renewables need front loaded funding compared to Oil & Gas which are the incumbents that make them sticky.

Otherwise is a lot of US consumers were rational and only price minded they would've run TCO calculators on EV vs ICE for day to day use even without subsidies

In the UK, wind is super volatile and isn't viable without LNG. You can have two weeks without wind several times a year. So more wind means more LNG.

My hope is that it’s bureaucratic inertia. There really is little excuse. Especially with super high voltage power lines becoming more affordable.

> am I missing some economic factor?

That's the big mystery. We're told wind+solar are super cheap. Cheaper than everything. Cheap, cheap, cheap. You'd think, renewables being so cheap, it would rapidly displace all the expensive stuff.

But it does not. All sources of energy grow simultaneously, despite the plentiful anecdotes about limited regional shifts in specific markets.

So that creates doubt about the "cheap" claims. Such doubts, however, aren't generally welcome, and it's best to keep these thoughts to yourself, should they emerge. Carefully asking questions, as you've done, is the least damaging approach to coping with this apparent contradiction. I don't recommend ascribing it to nefarious conspiracies: that creates poor mental habits that don't end well.

In the meantime, there are concepts such as LCOE+ that deal with the real economics of energy supply and demand that can inform you on the matter. You'll want to be careful here, however. You'll encounter ideas that don't align well with preferred narratives and, if you're not careful with such knowledge, you might inadvertently peg yourself as being aligned with counter-narrative forces. And that's never good for kudos.

They are growing all over the world at a phenomenal rate, but I think it just takes some amount of time. They have only been the cheapest option for a few years now.

And in the U.S., Republicans have done everything they can to hamstring the transition and destroy the billions of dollars invested by automakers into EVs prior to 2025. But even that can only postpone the transition.

Renewables are heavily subsidized. Fossil fuels are heavily lobbied for. The result is inertia.

Demand from data centers isn’t helping anything.

> I don't understand how we're still using fossil fuels.

Global politics.

Switching to renewables is seen as capitulation to China because of their lead in tech in this area, especially when you consider that renewables generally introduce battery dependence.

They don't even try to hide this anymore. Watch US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick at the WEF:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY0t0h1gXzk

Explicitly stated: Don't be subservient to China.

Not vocalized, but the obvious alternative: Instead be subservient to the USA and various allied Persian Gulf (and hijacked Latin American) countries who will keep pushing the petrol alternative until it literally runs dry, even if they have to do it at gunpoint.

The real issue was calling them fossil fuels.

So the problem is that we have a bunch of people making pronouncements about things they don't understand.

I would encourage anyone to look into what fossil fuels are actually used for because energy is only part of it. Some energy is for fuel (eg ships, planes) for which we currently have no substitute. A big chunk is electricity generation but there are so many other non-energy uses of fossil fuels eg fertilizers, construction, roads, plastics and other industrial uses.

China has undergone a decades long project to get to the point where they are the world leader (and almost sole supplier) of renewable energy tech. The plunging cost of solar happened because of China. This is a national project for them and no other country that I can think of has the willpower, organization and commitment for the deacdes-long quest to wean oneself off of fossil fuels.

Just between the rollout of EVs and power generation, you need a massive amount of infrastructure associated with it. Upgraded power lines, chargers, etc. Plus all the vehicles. Plus all the materials for solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, etc. Those supply chains are completely dominated by China.

Just look at the LA to SF HSR project. This will likely take 20+ years and cost $100-200B, if it ever even happens. 20 years ago, China had a single HSR line in Shanghai to the airport. Now it has a 30,000+ mile network that carries 4M+ passengers a day and I've seen estimates that the entire network cost less than $1T. California HSR is 10-20% of that budget. For one line.

They reformed every level of government for this project. There is no expensive and corrupt procurement process for every city, every region, every line. They use the same rolling stock everywhere. Permitting for building the tracks and stations is streamlined. They make their own trains.

My point with this example is twofold:

1. EVs and electricity are only a fraction of the fossil fuel picture; and

2. Weaning ourselves off of that is a decades-long project in countries that have no track record or political will to pull that off.

It's 100% economic corruption and populist/fascists forcing it down everyone's throat through extreme manipulation. yes...

We might always need some for various materials and industrial process, but wasting it on ground transportation is beyond absurd at this point.

The Chinese already have a 125e Small Modular PWR that would be excellent for small islands like those of the Caribbean. It is the Linglong-1 [0]. I believe the first one cost 800 million dollars. It will be interesting to see the price reductions as it goes into serial ptoduction.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-start-commerci...

Nuclear is near dead if the new geothermal tech from fracking works out.

20 years from now and billions of dollars over budget? Or by variety do you mean wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro?

The energy crisis in the 70s you reference coincided with a pathological and suicidal environmental movement that killed any chance for the United States to transition to nuclear power, like France did. If we had done that, or if Nixon hadn't resigned and his energy project had passed, the geopolitical situation would be remarkably different. The USSR would've probably collapsed sooner, and the center of gravity for global energy production would not be in the most volatile region on the planet today.

The technologies we’re adopting now were significantly developed by post 70s research funding. The cars people drive are massively more efficient, the houses we live in, and the appliances we buy for the same reason.

Honestly the tech wasn’t there yet then. It sure is now.

What up call for whom? The USA is a net fossil fuel exporter. China is still heavily dependent on fossil fuel imports (as well as fertilizer produced from natural gas) and those imports would be interdicted in any major conflict. Of course the Chinese leadership is well aware of that vulnerability and taking steps to mitigate it.

It’s really not niche anymore. It’s the dominant form of new electrical power generation and has been for a few years.

https://www.publicpower.org/system/files/documents/Americas-...

Fossil hydrocarbons are not really needed.

Even during WWII Germany had to synthesize much of its hydrocarbon fuel.

Also after the war there has been large-scale production of synthetic hydrocarbons, but eventually this was abandoned due to the low price of fossil oil.

It is possible to synthesize hydrocarbons from syngas, which can be made from carbon dioxide and water, with solar energy. If the carbon dioxide is extracted from air, that requires much more energy than when a concentrated source of CO2 is available, but with essentially free solar energy it would still be feasible.

Obviously, this will not be done as long as cheaper fossil hydrocarbons are offered. However the use of fossil hydrocarbons for plastic, asphalt or other applications that do not release CO2 is not harmful.

Everyone should look at what's happening in Australia. Australia has 50% more solar per capita than China and utterly dwarfs the USA and Europe on a per capita basis. Because of this Australians have consistently falling power prices.

Think about that. Falling power prices during high inflation with an energy crisis at a time when datacenters are being built out everywhere. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-19/power-prices-fall-but...

You'll note on that link in 1 year prices have gone from $87 to $50. Pretty much all attributable to the massive grid connected battery installations and renewable rollouts which had minimal subsidies. They were merely encouraged by policy which created a shorter time for grid price changes and arbitration allowing high response batteries to drive grid efficiencies. https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/top-20-countries-by-ba...

It's straightforward economics at this point. Want cheaper prices? Demand what Australia has.

Also solar and wind are much more often on time and on budget.

> I don't see why rich nations[1] don't simply subsidize mass nuclear energy production as state policy

> Honestly probably only really viable in China and the U.S. plus maybe South Korea

Because it costs a lot of money.

For example, India quietly (by HN and Reddit standards) passed a nuclear energy megabill in December which has a TAM of $214 Billion [0]. French (EDF), American (Westinghouse, Holtec, GE Vernova Hitachi), Russian (Rosatom), and Korean (Hyundai) JVs with Indian Public (NPTC, BHEL) and Private (Tata, L&T, Jindal Group) players are now able to build and distribute nuclear energy without dealing with an older SOE and can subsidize the buildout [1] using Green Bonds, which gives them access to around $56 Billion in capital [2] with an added .

These players will also be eligible for India's $2.5 Billion SMR subsidy [3]. This also helps India's $160 Billion data center buildout [4] which is being subsidized by the Indian government [5], and piggybacks on India's $205 Billion infrastructure buildout [6].

Other countries can do that as well, but if they are fine spending tens to hundreds of billions of dollars - that's where the blocker arises, but most of the players with this technology are now backlogged with orders from this buildout in India and other existing and in-progress buildouts.

> outside of petrostates, which have the whole petro thing going on

The UAE [7] is participating in financing India's nuclear buildout as part of their defense pact.

[0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-08/india-see...

[1] - https://powermin.gov.in/sites/default/files/Seeking_comments...

[2] - https://www.climatebonds.net/news-events/press-room/press-re...

[3] - https://www.trade.gov/market-intelligence/india-energy-small...

[4] - https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2227953&re...

[5] - https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/01/india-offers-zero-taxes-th...

[6] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-06-12/india-...

[7] - https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/india-uae-annou...

On the up side, perhaps this disaster will make it clear that WWIII won’t be a cakewalk and we can avoid an even more disastrous war with China.

At some point we're going to have to have a conversation about the destructive toxicity of conservatism. There's been no bigger brake on progress of all kinds, and the ends have always been corrupt, self-serving, and small-minded.

The Iran war hasn't even been the dumbest geopolitical move in the past year.

The US torpedoed its system of alliances which it has spent decades building and maintaining. It through the global economy and its own into turmoil repeatedly in an attempt to extort its friends as much as its adversaries. It betrayed Ukraine for the sake of Russia. It threatened military action against its allies to conquer territory. It rejected the concept of international law which underpinned its position as global hegemon.

Honestly the Iran war isn't even that bad. While it displays the absolute absence of forethought that this administration applied to the situation, that's at least something America can get back with new leadership. The previous blunders which laid bare the unreliability of the US as a partner on the other hand have done irreparable harm.

I like to give Australia as the better example. Way ahead of everyone else on a per capita basis (50% more GW of solar installed per capita than China).

If the big powers of the world had any competence a country with 0.5% of the worlds population would not be 3rd in total of grid connected battery storage and 8th in solar (note in total, not per capita). https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/top-20-countries-by-ba... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country for links.

Because of what Australia has done consumer power prices keep falling, even with the Iran war and datacenter build outs https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-19/power-prices-fall-but...

It's all based on governance led by research (in particular the CSIRO, the Australian government's politically isolated research department) where the CSIRO wrote a peer reviewed report mathematically demonstrating the cheapest way to improve grid reliability and lower prices. This indicated various ways to encourage solar and battery build outs. The Australian senate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate) which is made up of many many parties due to preferential voting passed laws enabling this and here we are.

I think that it's true that China's beating the USA in government competence but they are far far from the ideal. In fact China looks really bad compared to any competant government of the world. It just looks good compared to the USA.

Perhaps so. And yet a couple decades ago when the war against Iraq turned into a quagmire, many political pundits also marked that as the end of the American Empire. And yet today the USA remains the sole globally dominant superpower. Our time will end eventually but we should be skeptical of any predictions on timing.

The nitrogen comes from the air - we're perfectly capable of capturing it using renewables.

It's probably one of the last things to be created that way because it's one of the places where methane is used more efficiently than burning it... But fundamentally there's no issue here except energy availability and a short term supply shock.

Also, you can't make plastics out of wind power or out of solar, you still need the "petro-" that's part of the petrochemical industry.