The US climate law is fueling a factory frenzy(canarymedia.com)
canarymedia.com
The US climate law is fueling a factory frenzy
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy-manufacturing/the-us-climate-law-is-fueling-a-factory-frenzy-heres-the-latest-tally
92 comments
It's insane to me that the Democrats got this bill passed, along with the infrastructure law, CHIPS and others. Were any significant laws passed during the previous presidential administration besides Tax Cut and Jobs Act? I feel like nothing happened in those years.
It’s at the point for me, where I assume that any years where the Republicans control government will be years where nothing happens.
The Republican party runs on several broadly unpopular or unwise policy platforms (anti-abortion, anti-weed, anti-welfare, anti-healthcare, anti-immigration, anti-science) and is hesitant to actually implement any of them for fear of igniting opposition.
Recently they’ve taken the side-channel of stuffing the courts and then legislating from the bench, since judicial appointees are immune to voter pressure.
Time will tell how this all plays out for the Republican party. In the short-term, it causes tremendous damage to our institutions.
In the long-term, my best guess is that the current Republican platform will collapse within 10-20 years as the current leadership ages out, and there will be a phase change where the Republican platform recrystallizes around a more modern set of conservative values that appeals more to younger voters. The party itself will likely survive because the two-party system is too stable.
The Republican party runs on several broadly unpopular or unwise policy platforms (anti-abortion, anti-weed, anti-welfare, anti-healthcare, anti-immigration, anti-science) and is hesitant to actually implement any of them for fear of igniting opposition.
Recently they’ve taken the side-channel of stuffing the courts and then legislating from the bench, since judicial appointees are immune to voter pressure.
Time will tell how this all plays out for the Republican party. In the short-term, it causes tremendous damage to our institutions.
In the long-term, my best guess is that the current Republican platform will collapse within 10-20 years as the current leadership ages out, and there will be a phase change where the Republican platform recrystallizes around a more modern set of conservative values that appeals more to younger voters. The party itself will likely survive because the two-party system is too stable.
> I assume that any years where the Republicans control government will be years where nothing happens.
Now now, I think you are being too generous. In fact, it takes a lot of effort to actively set the country back socially, culturally, and environmentally. Give credit where credit’s due. They work (in reverse) hard.
Now now, I think you are being too generous. In fact, it takes a lot of effort to actively set the country back socially, culturally, and environmentally. Give credit where credit’s due. They work (in reverse) hard.
aapl88889(2)
So soon have we forgotten about 2006-2008 and 2018-2020? The most difficult part about all this is that no one on Capitol Hill was talking about bringing manufacturing back to the US before Trump and he was laughed at by every Democrat in Congress for wanting to do so. Then, suddenly, once they gain power, the Democrats want to bring back manufacturing.
> he was laughed at by every Democrat in Congress for wanting to do so
No, he was laughed at because he's sort of a buffoon, and steel tariffs just raised the cost of everything for people using steel; it didn't have any big impact on 'steel jobs'. It didn't create big demand for more US-made steel. That said, IIRC, they're still in place, and current admin should remove them (perhaps gradual removal over 2 years?)
He did nothing meaningful to spur US-based manufacturing, despite talking a big game. But that was basically Trump all over. (attempting to not get too political here)
No, he was laughed at because he's sort of a buffoon, and steel tariffs just raised the cost of everything for people using steel; it didn't have any big impact on 'steel jobs'. It didn't create big demand for more US-made steel. That said, IIRC, they're still in place, and current admin should remove them (perhaps gradual removal over 2 years?)
He did nothing meaningful to spur US-based manufacturing, despite talking a big game. But that was basically Trump all over. (attempting to not get too political here)
I don't think that's fully fair - George W Bush really ramped up the weapons manufacturing sector in the US by invading two sovereign countries on false pretenses and killing many civilians through sanctions, regular bombings, and drone strikes.
> During President Obama's 2012 reelection campaign, he told voters that manufacturing jobs would be a crucial part of the American economy's resurgence. His administration set a goal to “create 1 million new manufacturing jobs by the end of 2016.”
Why pretend that Trump was the first person to talk about creating manufacturing jobs when it has been a hot political topic since the first time jobs started disappearing in the US?
Why pretend that Trump was the first person to talk about creating manufacturing jobs when it has been a hot political topic since the first time jobs started disappearing in the US?
I don't remember Trump pushing any kind of new manufacturing. He was pandering to existing domestic manufacturers with the dumb tariffs.
Oh, he talked about it, a lot, but the only effort I ever noticed was, as you say, tariffs. Tariffs seems punitive, and when there's no other option to purchase, you import and pay the tariff anyway.
The Biden push for requiring federal purchases to have more 'made in USA' components seems a combination of stupidly simple, long overdue, and easy to understand. Govt requiring more stuff made in the US - and giving some tax cuts to help spur it - seems like it's a basic way to ignite manufacturing stateside.
The Biden push for requiring federal purchases to have more 'made in USA' components seems a combination of stupidly simple, long overdue, and easy to understand. Govt requiring more stuff made in the US - and giving some tax cuts to help spur it - seems like it's a basic way to ignite manufacturing stateside.
> you import and pay the tariff anyway
Yes, I recently wrote about my own frustration with this: https://enki.org/2023/08/01/steel-prices/
Yes, I recently wrote about my own frustration with this: https://enki.org/2023/08/01/steel-prices/
> In the long-term, my best guess is that the current Republican platform will collapse within 10-20 years as the current leadership ages out, and there will be a phase change where the Republican platform recrystallizes around a more modern set of conservative values that appeals more to younger voters.
Trumpism is the modern set of conservative values that appeals more to younger voters. Trump was the one that killed GOP efforts to privatize social security and cut Medicare, and he’s been critical of the party’s more extreme positions on abortion.
We just had an election where the GOP won 3 million more votes than Democrats. Trump and Biden are tied in national polling: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4155482-biden-trump-vi...
Meanwhile, Democrats have managed to fend off Trump only through a coalition that includes AOC, most of Silicon Valley and Wall Street, and Liz Cheney. How long do you think that’s sustainable? Democrats have been forced into a neoliberal corner where they can’t actually do anything liberal (raising taxes, criminal justice reform, welfare expansion).
Trumpism is the modern set of conservative values that appeals more to younger voters. Trump was the one that killed GOP efforts to privatize social security and cut Medicare, and he’s been critical of the party’s more extreme positions on abortion.
We just had an election where the GOP won 3 million more votes than Democrats. Trump and Biden are tied in national polling: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4155482-biden-trump-vi...
Meanwhile, Democrats have managed to fend off Trump only through a coalition that includes AOC, most of Silicon Valley and Wall Street, and Liz Cheney. How long do you think that’s sustainable? Democrats have been forced into a neoliberal corner where they can’t actually do anything liberal (raising taxes, criminal justice reform, welfare expansion).
> Democrats have been forced into a neoliberal corner
Democrats jumped there headfirst led by Clinton in 1992, and have not, since then, been any farther out of a “neoliberal corner” than they are today (which is not that far, to be sure, but its absolutely not the case that its something they recently backed into in response to Trump.)
Democrats jumped there headfirst led by Clinton in 1992, and have not, since then, been any farther out of a “neoliberal corner” than they are today (which is not that far, to be sure, but its absolutely not the case that its something they recently backed into in response to Trump.)
Democrats are in a weird position where they're relatively moderate in terms of economics, but arguably the furthest left major party in the world in terms of social issues. The latter is turning off non-college educated of all ethnicities.
Even more so when you look past the platform to what they can actually accomplish with the traffic light coalition they’ve put together. They got a temporary child tax credit through the Trump administration, but couldn’t even make it permanent when they got a trifecta.
Social issues are really the only thing where the party is unified and can push through changes, especially through the administrative state. We didn’t get a permanent child tax credit, or paid family leave, but we did get abortions and DEI in the military.
Social issues are really the only thing where the party is unified and can push through changes, especially through the administrative state. We didn’t get a permanent child tax credit, or paid family leave, but we did get abortions and DEI in the military.
Bill Clinton started it, but Obama’s bank bailouts and Hilary Clinton’s stirring defense of globalization deepened the shift.
Just look at the electoral map. Obama beat Romney by about the same margin as Biden beat Trump. But Obama’s margin in Michigan was 10 points, while Biden’s was 3. Obama’s 7 point margin in Wisconsin evaporates to 1 point.
Where did those other votes come from? To a significant degree, it was from affluent suburbs were the management class lives. Democrats now are utterly reliant on the very people they need to heavily tax to deliver any of their progressive promises. You can’t have a meaningful liberal party which counts among its base Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Fortune 500 and Big Pharma executives.
The GOP has won a near complete victory. It can pick its fights on cultural issues. But win or lose, the worst thing that can happen is that the Democratic Party governs like Rockefeller Republicans. It must govern in a way that keeps Wall Street and Silicon Valley happy. It can’t roll back Reagan’s tax cuts on the upper middle class. In fact Biden preemptively ruled out any tax increases on people in the top 2%. Biden couldn’t even roll back Trump’s corporate tax cuts. It couldn’t extend the child tax credits. Y’all are excited about infrastructure investment, but that’s always been something liberal Republicans have entertained.
Just look at the electoral map. Obama beat Romney by about the same margin as Biden beat Trump. But Obama’s margin in Michigan was 10 points, while Biden’s was 3. Obama’s 7 point margin in Wisconsin evaporates to 1 point.
Where did those other votes come from? To a significant degree, it was from affluent suburbs were the management class lives. Democrats now are utterly reliant on the very people they need to heavily tax to deliver any of their progressive promises. You can’t have a meaningful liberal party which counts among its base Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Fortune 500 and Big Pharma executives.
The GOP has won a near complete victory. It can pick its fights on cultural issues. But win or lose, the worst thing that can happen is that the Democratic Party governs like Rockefeller Republicans. It must govern in a way that keeps Wall Street and Silicon Valley happy. It can’t roll back Reagan’s tax cuts on the upper middle class. In fact Biden preemptively ruled out any tax increases on people in the top 2%. Biden couldn’t even roll back Trump’s corporate tax cuts. It couldn’t extend the child tax credits. Y’all are excited about infrastructure investment, but that’s always been something liberal Republicans have entertained.
Not sure what you're talking about re: "criminal justice reform" - we've had an experiment on that in the last decade that has led to absolute disaster. Low level crime has increased, and now violent crime is increasing.
If Trump gets convicted we might never get another infrastructure week.
rhuru(2)
It's insane to me that neither side can come up with a viable candidate that is not an (or nearly an) octogenarian. Do talented individuals just not want the job?
> Do talented individuals just not want the job?
Correct. It's a job where you get very little done, you're constantly cutting ribbons and going to boring galas to fundraise, your life is put under a microscope, and the other side will investigate you and your family and maybe even try to throw you in jail.
Hard pass. No sane person wants the job.
Correct. It's a job where you get very little done, you're constantly cutting ribbons and going to boring galas to fundraise, your life is put under a microscope, and the other side will investigate you and your family and maybe even try to throw you in jail.
Hard pass. No sane person wants the job.
Honestly, would you? The pure background someone needs to have to not fall subject to media outings is hard to achieve. Any folks with something to hide become instant blackmail targets of both the public and private sector.
One almost needs to destroy their life to get the job, and even then the chances seem to be so low that you'd more likely end up with a destroyed life and not a political office.
One almost needs to destroy their life to get the job, and even then the chances seem to be so low that you'd more likely end up with a destroyed life and not a political office.
The US military has the right idea with the "up or out" policy. Without it, high ranking positions would get clogged up with a bunch of officers who sit cozy far too long, become old and stagnate. Similarly, there aren't good, young candidates because most of the candidate pool is all old politicians who've been at it forever.
Discoverability is a difficult problem. I know my local representatives names. But, I don't know the representatives of adjoining counties. I'm aware of loud national figures. But, to become a national figure generally involves working through the pipeline of local to regional to national authority. Some people might have concern about just voting for someone without experience. Or, how is person without political experience 431 different from person without experience 563 ?
> It's insane to me that neither side can come up with a viable candidate that is not an (or nearly an) octogenarian.
Obama was 47 when first elected in 2008.
Obama was 47 when first elected in 2008.
It's entirely because of the winner take all voting system. It innevitably leads to a two party system in which very few people are able to vote for their candidate of choice. Implementing any kind of ranked choice system would essentially fix this, but it wont happen.
A viable candidate in the general election who can also win primaries is a bit of a unicorn.
Old people vote. They vote for old people. Young people don't vote. Fully half of Bidens primary votes were from 65+, that was enough for him to win.
Democrats had quite a few viable candidates last election cycle.
Trump gets over a third of the GOP vote by just lying and so opposition to him as hard as you can't call him out on his lies which makes defeating him impossible, you can't beat the make believe land where everything is possible.
Biden will likely be the nominee as typically the incumbent gets first dibs per tradition.
Technically he needs to win the primary but at minimum the average person needs to be worse off in 2024 than they were in 2020.
Tha might be the case due to inflation and GOP court decisions. But then that leaves the bigger hurdle, who is best to beat Trump the candidate who already did or someone else.
It doesn't matter what the real answer is it matters what people feel.
Trump gets over a third of the GOP vote by just lying and so opposition to him as hard as you can't call him out on his lies which makes defeating him impossible, you can't beat the make believe land where everything is possible.
Biden will likely be the nominee as typically the incumbent gets first dibs per tradition.
Technically he needs to win the primary but at minimum the average person needs to be worse off in 2024 than they were in 2020.
Tha might be the case due to inflation and GOP court decisions. But then that leaves the bigger hurdle, who is best to beat Trump the candidate who already did or someone else.
It doesn't matter what the real answer is it matters what people feel.
rhuru(2)
Same.
I avoided reading up on it too deeply, because it seemed to be much bigger than I was expecting, and I didn't believe they'd get something that big through congressional gridlock.
I basically assumed there were some poison pills baked in, and nothing much would come of it.
I avoided reading up on it too deeply, because it seemed to be much bigger than I was expecting, and I didn't believe they'd get something that big through congressional gridlock.
I basically assumed there were some poison pills baked in, and nothing much would come of it.
The Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") seems to have been a pretty significant development.
bruh that was fourteen years ago.
I really thought Biden was the wrong guy for the job, with his old-school style of sitting down at the table and negotiating it out being rather poorly suited for the hyper-partisan world of today. He made me look pretty dumb there, and I couldn't be happier about it. Amazing to see that for all the Republican talk of bringing manufacturing back to the US, a Democrat's the one who actually got that done.
I think he's been the most effective Democratic President of my life time. Possibly any President, not just the Republican ones. And he did it by being everything the loudmouth was not. Quiet, serious and disciplined.
It's a strong case, but there's also a strong case to be made for his predecessor -- for which he had Biden's help. Biden aptly described the Affordable Care Act as a "big fucking deal".
The ACA is severely limited, but getting anything at all passed was a superhuman effort. It was a ton of ground-level politicking, taking advantage of a brief moment of Obama's extraordinary popularity. It might be his only real legislative accomplishment, but it's the most influential piece of legislation in decades.
Obama and Biden had somewhat similar styles in that regard. Obama led the country out of the 2007 recession. For the most part it wasn't flashy, just slow and steady growth without drama. (He was known as No Drama Obama among the DC bureaucrats.)
He himself was much prettier than Biden and inherently more interesting as a human being, so he got more celebrity. But his actual governance was also similarly "quiet, serious, and disciplined".
The ACA is severely limited, but getting anything at all passed was a superhuman effort. It was a ton of ground-level politicking, taking advantage of a brief moment of Obama's extraordinary popularity. It might be his only real legislative accomplishment, but it's the most influential piece of legislation in decades.
Obama and Biden had somewhat similar styles in that regard. Obama led the country out of the 2007 recession. For the most part it wasn't flashy, just slow and steady growth without drama. (He was known as No Drama Obama among the DC bureaucrats.)
He himself was much prettier than Biden and inherently more interesting as a human being, so he got more celebrity. But his actual governance was also similarly "quiet, serious, and disciplined".
The ACA is a BFD, for sure. And I do think that the recovery was hamstrung by not going big enough, unlike the most recent one. Though, different kinds of recessions, so who knows. The real issue I see with Obama is that he was not very good at out-reach to Congress. Some of this was not his fault, but it really wasn't his strong point, or something he even seemed to put much effort in to doing. In that way--partly by personality and partly by his long experience in Congress--Biden is simply better.
It is possible that Obama would have been a better post-Trump President than Biden--I'm certain he'd win against Trump in a landslide--but we'll never know. Certainly it is the case that sometimes it is the opportunities you have--or what the country is ready for--that makes for the success of a presidency, along with a giant gob of good luck.
No Drama Obama, No Cryin' Biden.
It is possible that Obama would have been a better post-Trump President than Biden--I'm certain he'd win against Trump in a landslide--but we'll never know. Certainly it is the case that sometimes it is the opportunities you have--or what the country is ready for--that makes for the success of a presidency, along with a giant gob of good luck.
No Drama Obama, No Cryin' Biden.
Manufacturing never left:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/manu...
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/manu...
The issue is there really is no other choice than negotiating, even if it is poorly suited for the hyper-partisan world of today. The alternative is everything is filibustered and Manchin refuses to override that, meaning nothing passes and the republican strategy of just shutting everything down works.
idk how much "sitting down at the table and negotiating" mattered when every Republican in both houses of Congress voted "nay"
not to take away from the bill itself, but it seems like the most important thing was that Democrats just controlled house/senate/white house at the same time and couldn't be easily blocked
not to take away from the bill itself, but it seems like the most important thing was that Democrats just controlled house/senate/white house at the same time and couldn't be easily blocked
At the very least, passage required Senate Republicans not to fillibuster. Democrats have 51 seats there, and need 60 to get most things through.
It feels like an easy law to get through 'Would your state like more factories and jobs?' Not many are going to argue.
Yet all Republicans in the Senate and House voted against it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act
You'd think so but every Democrat voted for it and every Republican didn't.
Nope, between LBJ and COVID, the federal government was pretty lame and didn't do anything interesting. End of a shitty era.
Family leave act, probably the last worker right we got
Trump’s Treasury Secretary was the architect of the CARES Act. Also, Operation Warp Speed. Ending TPP, which was something HN really wanted until Trump was behind it. Raising tariffs. Several border control initiatives that Biden maintained. Signing the deal to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
TPP was not loved from the beginning. When it was first listed here it was articles saying expanding US's Copyright laws to other countries was a bad idea...
No, aside from massive deregulation and constant scandal. The Democrats managed to pull off some of the most cunning maneuvers in political history to get their agenda passed. I think Biden's admin learned from the failures of the Obama years, when they had near-supermajorities and tried too hard to get bipartisan support. Plus, they managed to do all of their 2020-22 bidding with 50 seats in the Senate. absolutely mind boggling.
Well they did put tariffs on imported solar panels, which was intended to (and to some degree did in fact) encourage local production, but there was a lot of opposition.
There's a saying: "Only Nixon could go to China", from the fact that only a president renowned for vehement anti-communism could open relations with communist China. The Democrats, at least since Bill Clinton's administration, have been very pro-free trade, after 2016 the Republicans were ready to do this sort of thing, but the Democrats were still pro-globalization. It's because the Democrats were the second party to swing against the idea that all trade is good no matter what the country or industry, that they were able to get stuff passed better.
It should also be said that covid closing of borders, post-covid supply chain problems, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine all swayed opinions as well.
There's a saying: "Only Nixon could go to China", from the fact that only a president renowned for vehement anti-communism could open relations with communist China. The Democrats, at least since Bill Clinton's administration, have been very pro-free trade, after 2016 the Republicans were ready to do this sort of thing, but the Democrats were still pro-globalization. It's because the Democrats were the second party to swing against the idea that all trade is good no matter what the country or industry, that they were able to get stuff passed better.
It should also be said that covid closing of borders, post-covid supply chain problems, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine all swayed opinions as well.
Did the solar industry ask for such trade protectionism instead of free trade?
Are industries with tariff subsidies competitive at international price points? Given domestic subsidy, will they be efficient enough to compete in international markets?
How do non- free-trade, non- fair-trade agreements affect other trade agreements?
Trade Protectionism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism
Are industries with tariff subsidies competitive at international price points? Given domestic subsidy, will they be efficient enough to compete in international markets?
How do non- free-trade, non- fair-trade agreements affect other trade agreements?
Trade Protectionism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism
Yeah, I am a protectionist, for sure. Especially for industries like power generation or semiconductors that impact many other industries, and especially if the nation is in danger of losing that industry entirely, such that the skills necessary to compete in it in the future can be lost.
Is it ever shown that the net effect of subsidy is preferable to competing at international prices?
"Can’t build a decent car, can’t make a TV set or a VCR worth a f, got no steel industry left, can’t educate our young people, can’t get health care to our old people, but we can [... war euphemism]" -- George Carlin (1992)
Have subsidies saved comparably inefficient [domestic manufacturing] markets, or have trade protectionist subsidies resulted in net unintended consequences when the externalities of "all you peoples' special deals" are accounted for?
Are information services and financial services a viable strategy for long-term growth in GDP?
"Can’t build a decent car, can’t make a TV set or a VCR worth a f, got no steel industry left, can’t educate our young people, can’t get health care to our old people, but we can [... war euphemism]" -- George Carlin (1992)
Have subsidies saved comparably inefficient [domestic manufacturing] markets, or have trade protectionist subsidies resulted in net unintended consequences when the externalities of "all you peoples' special deals" are accounted for?
Are information services and financial services a viable strategy for long-term growth in GDP?
as an American its tempting to see this as legislation passed in the service of a progressive advancement of scientific need. This is more of a last-ditch effort to keep up with the joneses for the sake of natinal security, and so it was a pretty easy bill to pass.
Of the top 3 battery or solar producing countries, the US isnt one of them. Longi, Chinas flagship battery company, has been doing this for 23 years while the US is just now getting around to starting a domestic plant to compete. Frankly i dont imagine it will be competitive at all, as it would also be competing with other decades old players in Japan and Korea.
15 years ago it would have made sense to buy up one of these competitive players but that time has passed, and the cannibalistic nature of outsourcing in neoliberal capitalism means a domestic industry is seen as a liability, not a strength. heck, owning any means of production instead of a brand is as well so its no surprise Ford's just kicking this one over to China to solve.
tl;dr the climate bill is about national security, not climate.
edit: not sure why im getting downvoted but honestly this is the 2023 equivalent of the space race. the US is #2 in renewable energy generation behind a communist nation set to overtake it in the next decade on practically all fronts. Batteries and solar are the capital of the renewable economy and the US has basically ignored or avoided it for two decades at their peril.
Of the top 3 battery or solar producing countries, the US isnt one of them. Longi, Chinas flagship battery company, has been doing this for 23 years while the US is just now getting around to starting a domestic plant to compete. Frankly i dont imagine it will be competitive at all, as it would also be competing with other decades old players in Japan and Korea.
15 years ago it would have made sense to buy up one of these competitive players but that time has passed, and the cannibalistic nature of outsourcing in neoliberal capitalism means a domestic industry is seen as a liability, not a strength. heck, owning any means of production instead of a brand is as well so its no surprise Ford's just kicking this one over to China to solve.
tl;dr the climate bill is about national security, not climate.
edit: not sure why im getting downvoted but honestly this is the 2023 equivalent of the space race. the US is #2 in renewable energy generation behind a communist nation set to overtake it in the next decade on practically all fronts. Batteries and solar are the capital of the renewable economy and the US has basically ignored or avoided it for two decades at their peril.
It wasn't an easy bill to pass.
It is a climate bill. It is also about re-industrializing America, decoupling from China, securing supply chains, and national security. All of those things.
It is a climate bill. It is also about re-industrializing America, decoupling from China, securing supply chains, and national security. All of those things.
National Security tends to get GOP votes yet those bills got zero.
My opinion is the Democrats have abandoned neoliberalism. Combine that with the realization that the 50 year long attempt to bring China into the club has failed. And then the 45th president and Jan 6th. Those have sharpened the Democrats mind.
I hope the good news keeps coming, and very looking forward to whatever new tech is going to come of this.
I'm most excited by people such as Terraform Industries and others who I've heard talk about direct synthesis from atmospheric carbon. Though I just looked them up here and there seems to have been surprisingly little traction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30202155
I'm most excited by people such as Terraform Industries and others who I've heard talk about direct synthesis from atmospheric carbon. Though I just looked them up here and there seems to have been surprisingly little traction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30202155
Remarkable how many of these are on the East Coast, particularly the southern states.
It's basically all in Red states. The irony...
Yes, part of that is by design: its not a "blue state" bill--that's Trumpian thinking. It's an American bill.
But the other part, is well, because southern states have fewer regulations getting in the way of building things.
For my part, I'm happy enough with it. Get those states invested in green tech, and they'll defend their industries.
But the other part, is well, because southern states have fewer regulations getting in the way of building things.
For my part, I'm happy enough with it. Get those states invested in green tech, and they'll defend their industries.
Yes me too. Not an accidental irony, but a very shrewd one about attacking the root cause of resentment that stems from regional variations in development.
Also cheaper labor is a big draw.
yeah there is a good in-depth piece on it via the same site: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy-manufactur...
Seeing the US economy _just_doing_things_ is a thing of wonder. Even European companies prefer to setup shop there instead of having to deal with all the nonsense and bullshit in the old continent.
Making me really jealous, not gonna lie.
The IRA is really just accelerating a trend rather than inducing it. The South had already became our hub for EV manufacturing investment due to business friendly laws. Even if Europe attempts the same subsidies, there won’t be the same enabling environment the South has which will likely lead to any initiatives falling flat.
Well .. we still have a regulations problem. Its damn hard to build. The number of solar and wind projects just sitting in the pipeline waiting for approval is mindblowing.
As opposed to, like, iPhones, Google, the Marvel Cinematic Universe & Covid vaccines?
I was reflecting at lunch today on how grateful I am that we are at least trying to decarbonize.
All of this activity still seems fragile to me--Trump (or a similar Republican) could win and implement Project 2025, the geopolitical situation with China could deteriorate and we find that we can't produce things domestically and economically after all, etc. And it seems there is more momentum on
decarbonizing power and transportation than industry, chemicals, building and ag. Maybe a carbon tax and dividend could move things along on that front (it is interesting to contemplate the possibility of an old-style Republican winning the presidency, reading the room.
and going for a cabon tax--probably a fantasy, though). And maybe this is all too little, too late. But I'm glad we are trying.
Does it also concern nuclear energy? Because if it doesn't, I doubt it will really matter in the long term.
Renewables are great to remove coal/gaz electricity, but at some point, energy must be stored, and apparently there is not enough lithium on earth to store renewable electricity.
So I would say it really allows US to offset coal/gaz, but nuclear is still the best solution to entirely remove coal.
Renewables are great to remove coal/gaz electricity, but at some point, energy must be stored, and apparently there is not enough lithium on earth to store renewable electricity.
So I would say it really allows US to offset coal/gaz, but nuclear is still the best solution to entirely remove coal.
> apparently there is not enough lithium on earth to store renewable electricity
Any source for that? Also what quantity of power are we talking?
I am all for nuclear though.
Any source for that? Also what quantity of power are we talking?
I am all for nuclear though.
I'm not the OP, but Simon Michaux (working with the Geological Survey of Finland) is one person I follow who is doing good research in this field. I would recommend his paper "Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels" as an introduction to some of the estimates of rare earth materials available/required for a zero-carbon transition.
Lithium is not the only technology for storing energy at large scale.
We have multiple options. I believe one strong point of lithium is the ability to respond almost instantaneously to changing demands which other technologies are still not that good at.
Except those options are inefficient or too expensive, and so far germany is not implementing them.
Renewables are quite pointless without a energy storage solution.
Electricity is difficult to store, especially when you need to store between seasons.
Renewables are quite pointless without a energy storage solution.
Electricity is difficult to store, especially when you need to store between seasons.
[deleted]