Hacker News Reader

> A better option would just be to put $1 billion into a company dedicated to catching up to China on mass-scale monocrystalline PV wafer production for durable, high-efficiency PV panels for both rooftop solar and large-scale installations.

I'm with you on increasing domestic PV production at scale, but residential rooftop solar is not where you are going to get the most impact in terms of increased renewable generation. Residential rooftop LCOE is always 2-4x the cost of utility scale solar because of the sheer variety of roof types, more inverters per panel, and much higher per-watt soft costs (marketing, site analysis, permitting, etc).

Rooftop solar is good for reducing individual customer bills in many places though. In CA my PV array, which cost about $12k, reduces my annual electric bill by $1700/year, thanks to the rooftop solar-friendly net-metering system. If net metering incentives were reduced, the value proposition in pure $ would go down. These days, the main incentive to get solar PV in CA appears to be:

- Adding it to lower bills before net-metering is phased out (as has been proposed)

- Generating power for an EV

- Pairing with battery backup for power outage preparation

Doesn't petro-state imply heavy economic dependence on energy sources for government tax revenue? I don't think that's the case in America and if it were we'd see far more federal involvement in the sector even with state run companies and far fewer tax breaks for the industry.

It's an interesting question. Saudi Arabia alone owns at least USD100bn of US Treasury debt (before custodial holdings via tax havens) [0]. Other Petro states own more

The petrodollar system is based on international trade in oil being denominated in USD. This finances the US deficit (in lieu of taxes) when oil exporters use dollar revenues to buy Treasuries

Not a traditional Petro state... Concepts like fiscal breakeven prices aren't in play. But some shades of gray perhaps

[0] https://ticdata.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-cent...

> The United States is more of a petro-state than most people realize

or energy independent, depending on how you want to look at it.

This is one people get a bit confused about:

1) In 2021, the United States imported about 8.47 million barrels per day (b/d) of petroleum from 73 countries. (EIA)

2) In 2021, the United States exported about 8.63 million b/d of petroleum to 176 countries and 4 U.S. territories.

The reasons you can't just say, halt exports and halt imports and be 'energy independent' are varied: there's regional demand (oil produced in the Dakotas can't easily get to Los Angeles, etc.) and there's the fact that refineries are built to distill specific grades of crude, you can't just mix-and-match.

Nevertheless, the fact that Obama & Biden, with Republican support, lifted the 1970s era ban on crude oil exports from the USA in 2015 is certainly a major factor in the gas price inflation, a fact neither party nor industry likes to see discussed in the corporate media.

Real 'energy independence' would come from using sunlight and wind, which cannot be embargoed or manipulated by OPEC etc, as the primary energy source.

“Energy independence” just means that energy does not give other nations significant leverage over us.

Isolated self-sufficiency is one way to achieve that, but so is a balanced book of imports and production.

The U.S. today is more energy independent than in the past. To be specific, OPEC cannot do to the U.S. today what it did in the 1970s because they have far less pricing power. As they cut supply to raise prices, domestic fracking projects go back into the black and we increase supply.

I fully support transitioning to renewable energy sources, but it’s not necessary for energy independence. That is one of the least compelling reasons to change.

> A better option would just be to put $1 billion into a company dedicated to catching up to China on mass-scale monocrystalline PV wafer production

I don't know the parent commenter (though their name stands out), but on HN, isn't this essentially saying, 'give money to me/us'?

I call this the lazy philanthropy. Dump a bunch of money on well known names and it ends up sloshing around the system going into unrelated stuff.

On the other end is the active philanthropy (like what Bill Gates does) which is a lot more effective and shows results faster.

What Gate has done also seems largely a tax avoidance scheme that supports his BioTech and other investments. If you have a foundation which does investments and invest yourself I am sure there are really well worked out ways of avoiding capital gains tax indefinitely, while not giving up control on where any of your money really goes.

All new construction in California has to have solar panels. So the long term end game is set.