Seems fairly measured to say that it’s not in the interest of the U.S. to build its economic foundation (energy production) on top of a technology it’s incapable of producing without the assistance of a country that’s been fairly open about its plans to take kinetic action against the US sometime in the next 48 months.

Help me understand.

▲

rainsford 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Really a couple of key points. The first is that the US isn't "incapable" of producing renewable energy infrastructure, we've just largely chosen not to for various reasons and are certainly capable of doing so if there was a good reason to.

But the second and more important point is that relying on another country to produce renewable energy technology is not analogous to relying on another country to supply your actual energy. If I bought solar panels from China and tomorrow a US-China war started, my solar panels keep producing energy just fine. I might have imported the panels from China, but that's not where the actual energy is coming from. Sure, eventually I'll need to replace them, but that's not for decades. Assuming a conflict with China lasts long enough to prevent me from ever buying Chinese solar panels again, that's plenty of time to develop US capacity to produce them. And in the meantime, my solar panels keep importing energy from the Sun, which I'm told is very hard to blockade, embargo, or tariff.

Renewable energy tech actually has another major advantage over fossil fuels in a conflict situation. As the current Middle Eastern unpleasantness has demonstrated, fossil fuels are a global commodity and their price everywhere is impacted by restriction on their trade anywhere. Sufficient domestic production of fossil fuels may prevent a country from literally running out in a war, but that's unlikely to actually keep the country's economy healthy. China obviously isn't sitting on top of a fossil fuel producing region the way Iran is, but it seems pretty obvious a US-China war will dramatically impact fossil fuel energy prices given that blockading fossil fuel trade will be an obvious weapon in such a conflict.

When it comes to the impact conflicts have on the price of your energy, you might be better off relying on your Chinese solar panels than American oil. Especially if you can replace them with American solar panels when the time comes. China clearly understands the strategic value of renewable energy, which is why they've invested so much in becoming the major source of that technology.

▲

r3trohack3r 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just wanted to say thanks for this. You connected two trains of thought I had never put together.

Don’t have a rebuttal.

I’m long on last mile energy production. Solar/battery for domestic, nuclear for industrial, etc. It creates resilience through decentralization. It also is likely to happen organically (no central planning necessary, markets will likely naturally converge here as they drive down prices).

Haven’t spent much time reconciling that with my stance _against_ centralized wind/solar/battery in critical infrastructure in the U.S.

Will think about this for a while, thanks!

▲

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

> their price everywhere is impacted by restriction on their trade anywhere.

That’s entirely a human fabrication.

Any country can decide at any time to simple give their fossil fuel reserves away.

Australia does, so I don’t see why any other country can’t do the same.

Also, your plan relies on the power electronics and industrial control systems used in solar / wind deployments not being backdoored, which isn’t a bet I’d be willing to make.

▲

3eb7988a1663 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I saw an amusing analysis which said that Trump will go down in history as the clean energy president. No administration will ever do so much to prove the necessity of having renewable energy.

When one leader can cause a global energy crisis, seems obvious the world will go running towards any solution which can mitigate this in the future.

	▲	breakyerself 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's a lesson the US won't be able to learn until it has administration capable of learning.

▲

triceratops 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did Saudi Arabia wait until it could manufacture oil drills before it started exploiting its oil?

Solar panels are oil drills. The oil is in the sky. If your supplier stops selling you oil drills you have several years to find another supplier or start building your own.

▲

amanaplanacanal 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So if something goes wrong between the US and China, the US has 10 years to develop it's own supply. It's not like existing panels and batteries are going to suddenly stop working.

▲

r3trohack3r 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Fair point. But, simultaneously:

* I’m skeptical of the U.S. being able to develop domestic supply chains for this under current conditions

* “Kinetic action” does imply large swaths of U.S. infrastructure will in fact “suddenly stop working” and need to be rebuilt to maintain capacity

	▲	refulgentis 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's fair: as a 3rd party it seems like there's miscommunication leading to impasse, help me understand: > skeptical of the U.S. being able to develop domestic supply chains for this under current conditions Right, but, the presupposition there is war, and we have to build it ourselves, presupposes differing conditions. Then there are ameliorations that bridge to your desired conditions mentioned by your interlocutors (stuff still works, 10 year head start) > “Kinetic action” does imply large swaths of U.S. infrastructure will in fact “suddenly stop working” and need to be rebuilt to maintain capacity This relies on a maximal reading of the already-maximal "[They have open] plans to take kinetic action against the US [in next 4 years].". I assume they is China, and you are referring to a Taiwan scenario. I haven't seen anyone claim China is going to attack the US in the next 4 years. It is extremely unlikely China ends up knocking out tons of stateside power infrastructure over Taiwan.