If there's fewer money to invest in solar, that means traditional (read: fossil) fuels get used more.

> I wouldn't bribe you to not give me money

But you would definitely bribe so your competitors don't get money and your services are required for longer. Existing coal and various other fossil fuel power generating and supply chain companies would be very happy to have less competition from solar.

See Boeing managing to get the KC-45 tanker contract awarded to Airbus cancelled (for a plane that mostly existed and needed some US specific updates), to get a new one they won, that not only have they still not managed to deliver on, but they're also losing money.

I can bribe you to cancel a contract so you can enter a contract with me

Oil companies desperately trying to burning fuels relevant

I don’t know if I buy that this is a conspiracy with bribes but killing the grants reduces the rate of growth of energy generation which reduces its future supply.

Adding energy capacity reduces the prices at which firms can sell energy since there would be more supply. Removing the grants means that existing energy generation firms need to worry less about how increased supply would harm their prices.

Bribes here are likely donation based to PACs and they would be by fossil fuel interests who want to see the share of energy production from renewables slow or decline to maintain their own business. This is frankly akin to subsidizing cigarette smoking, a habit that fouls the air and kills people, but on a global scale. Sigh.

This is a simplistic understanding. Competing industries: solar, oil & natural gas, wind, nuclear, hydro etc.

Cancel tax rebates, subsidies, grants, etc. for one of your competing industries and your own benefits because your costs and supply is relative to the others. Your own price is never evaluated in a vacuum where those other energy options are not relevant.

This particular bribe was reported on over a year ago, when Trump was raising money from oil execs for his campaign. It seems likely that the overall push against clean energy (pushing for dispatchable generation, canceling tax credits for green energy projects) is related. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/09/trump-asks-oil-exec...

Bribes by those who would benefit from the contract being cancelled (oil, gas). Probably not actual bribes but “favors”, PAC support and the like.

Do you seriously think "drill, baby, drill" is a policy based on careful study of the data on the impact on people's lives now and in the future?

Always downvoting YouTube links unless they come with extremely clear context ("This is a talk I gave at conference X", etc.)

Boy, people don't seem to like the idea of fusion...