what do you mean by near term solution? aren't solar and wind the cheapest form of electricity?
It doesn't make sense to focus on gas anymore, unless they are trying to extract as much money as possible before it's over.
The Chinese are trying to help, but Americans like tariffs more than they hate climate change. (At least that's the preference that their political system expresses.)
The problem isn't with keeping Chinese cars out through tariffs. It's keeping them out, and at the same time not stimulating domestic green energy development enough. Why should the energy transition be bottlenecked by incumbent interests' profit margins?
Yes, that's why you should let people buy cheap Chinese goods.
> The problem isn't with keeping Chinese cars out through tariffs. It's keeping them out, and at the same time not stimulating domestic green energy development enough.
Didn't you just say capitalism was good, and now you argue the opposite?
No. I was criticizing the notion that not being "altruistic" is always bad. That is not the same as saying selfishness/capitalism is always good.
They sell some cars to Europe and North America, but the amount is negligible compared to what they sell domestically, and still much smaller than what they sell to ASEAN and the Middle East.
It's that simple. This isn't some grand plan to destroy foreign car manufacturers. If foreign car manufacturers get destroyed then that's by accident, as a result of them not staying competitive enough, not because that was the end goal from the start.
Of course it's in western governments' and manufacturers' rights to not accept this fate. But the most productive way to avoid that fate is by increasing their own competitiveness and by moving faster themselves, not closing themselves off while at the same time staying lazy about the energy transition. That's just rent collection.
They do that partially as you say to develop their own energy independence. But there would be more efficient ways to do that, and specifically they wouldn't need to give gifts to foreign consumers.
I'm not sure why you think that I think it's nefarious? Western consumers (and other foreigners, like in ASEAN and the Middle East etc) get stuff for cheaper, that's nice for them.
The Chinese government subsidises these companies with tax payer money that they take from other parts of the economy; it's a net loss for the Chinese economy overall; but perhaps a net plus, if you focus on just the politically connected companies.
If you want to find anything nefarious: it's that rest of the Chinese economy that's being shafted.
Most conversations on the Internet I've seen about this topic paint Chinese subsidies and Chinese car exports as a grand, deliberate, evil plan to cripple western companies and industries.
> But there would be more efficient ways to do that
I really doubt it. We have not seen any other examples of green energy rollout that is better. The improvement in Chinese air quality in just 15 years is staggering: Shanghai now often has better air quality than Berlin. Health outcomes do not easily show up in GDP figures.
Also if the governments want people to move away from ICE cars, then maybe they should stop putting tariffs on cars coming from China.
At some point, you need to make a decision and stick with it.
The way I see it as a consumer in the EU is that the EU is simultaneously saying we need to transition to a lower carbon economy as quickly as possible but then increases the price of goods that could be used in this transition. Make it make sense.
Is it my fault that the carmakers in the EU failed to invest EV tech?
So why am I being asked as a consumer to subsidize the legacy carmakers who were very happy to rake in billions of euros in the last 10 years while selling Diesel engines all the while knowing the the Chinese EVs were just around the corner?
If consumers have to pay less, that's a Good Thing.
That's not how economics works.
It's good for the economy. And it's good for other companies, that you haven't mentioned. There's more than two companies in the market.
China spent similar amounts and has a vibrant, world leading EV marketplace, supplied by their vibrant, world leading battery industry, and 50% EV penetration domestically and export plans that terrify the countries that chose not to follow this path.
Also, you suggest that a trade war is bad, because you might no longer be able to buy stuff from other people. But then you suggest that the right way to prepare for a trade war is to pretend that you are already in one, ie do to yourself what the enemy would want to do to you in a trade war? (That being limiting your ability to buy from the rest of the world?)
False.
Some are built in under 5 years and many are currently being built on those timelines: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-20/china-app...
And how long did it take to get the permits? How long will that take in the US?
I highly doubt any new reactor (that's not already in the planning phase) will come online in the US within the next 10 years.
That's a reasonable prediction. The US has essentially regulated new nuclear power plants out of existence over the past generation. That doesn't mean that there's anything about the technology that means it takes a decade to build, though. It's just a policy failure.
Near term because nuclear can take a long time to build out.
Cheapness does not equal low carbon.
I've been through Nevada and into Utah, you've got loads of desert, enough to make PV stable.
Wind is much more stable in certain places than others, and certain altitudes than others.
What really makes things unstable is when you don't keep your grid in good shape and it sets fire to a forest. Or acting like Texas and thinking grid connections with other states is somehow bad.
(And I'm saying this as someone who actually likes nuclear, thinks the public perception of the danger is over-stated, and who thinks everyone should have build a lot more reactors decades ago).
I'm expecting most batteries (worldwide) to be used for cars, with bi-directional power so they can function that way (for grid storage) when plugged in. That doesn't say much about what any specific country will do, and as Texas demonstrates, US states can have their own independent energy policies.
No they don’t. They can provide a stable curve during the day at scale. But that doesn’t help with night time or the fact that demand does not peak when the sun does.
Even then, the US covers how many hours of longitude?
Because that's how much extra pre-dawn the west can get from the east, and how much post-sunset the east can get from the west — even just diversifying geographically from San Fran to Cisco Utah* gets you nearly two hours.
* why is a ghost town the most notable place in the area, according to Google Maps?