- Solar scaling this fast looks to be less about the green against fossile but to be more about changing the cost structure of energy => fossil fuels are strongly marginal-cost, solar is capex heavy with almost zero marginal cost so that change alone has big impacts for how energy comes into the inflation
- Double whammy, we could say? This is a lesson for any positive change: ethics only brings you so far, but find the economical way to do it and the change will work by itself.
- Only in an environment where we continue to let a handful greedy people at the top control everything for the other 8B of us...
- I've always found it amusing that the primary driver for solar innovation stems from China's goal ending its civil war with Taiwan. Any conflict with Taiwan would involve the US, which would blockade the Straits of Malacca and halt Chinese oil imports, putting on enough economic pressure to drive the war to a halt after several months. Any attempt to reclaim Taiwan would end in failure.
This was a P0 national security issue, So China hyper-invested into alternative energy technologies, subsidizing and overproducing solar technologies at a loss, while investing in electric transportation and moving away from fossil fuels. It's paying off. Over the past 25 years, this strategy is proving to be very successful and by the end of this decade, the Malacca weakness will be overcome.
As a result, the rest of the world gets to enjoy cheap solar energy and cheap EVs.
- The fact China had a huge smog problem, with hundreds of millions of people choking on coal emissions like it was 19th century London, also had something to do with it.
- And Shenzen as an example would be an absolute hellhole if they hadn't mandated all electric vehicles, from tuktuks, motorbikes (must be electric) and taxis. This would have impacted ability to engage in the rapid economic growth seen there.
- It also sets up a Chinese-European green energy based alignment of interests to counter the toxic fossil Russo-American axis.
- Any alignment between China and Europe will be short lived. China is more technologically advanced than Europe, it doesn't need anything from Europe. Europe has little to offer China other than being a market to export Chinese goods, and political sway to hamper the Americans. The relationship has no mutual self-interest, it's one sided, and is bound to fall apart. China's undemocratic political system and mercantilist behavior are not reconcilable issues. These issues will compound over time to a breaking point. To counter the persistent trade deficit with China, Europe will need to impose a tariff on Chinese imports, otherwise its industry will be overrun by Chinese manufacturing and millions of jobs will be lost. This is already happening. Or Europe can accept China as the senior partner in the relationship, which it won't, due to pride and the European ideal that all countries are equal on the world stage.
These are not solvable issues, the EU and China are not aligned at a fundamental level.
In contrast, EU/Russia and EU/US relationships actually make more sense, because both partners have mutual self-interest to maintain a relationship.
- Big pie chart is labelled "The share of each source that was used to meet changes in energy demand vs. 2024". What does that mean?
- My guess. Total energy consumption in 2024 was x. Total energy consumption in 2025 was x + y. For example, solar PV was installed and led to increased electricity consumption. Or more oil was extracted and used to drive cars around more.
They broke down y into all these different energy sources and made a pie chart. So roughly 25% of y was solar PV.
- Correct.
- It's all thanks to President Trump's efforts, unfortunately.
- No, this is a result of a concerted effort by the Chinese decades in the making.
- Trump doesn't get credit for the rest of the world doing the obvious thing and moving towards basically free energy that is good for the environment and frees us from dependence on despots.
89 points by tambourine_man 11 hours ago | 15 comments