[burkaman]

There aren't, and there certainly won't be if we keep blocking the industry at every turn. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point but I don't see how this is relevant. Blocking a developer that wants to buy wind turbines from another country and install them in the US does not make domestic energy cheaper or make domestic supply chains more resilient. It's a one-time import, once it's installed the wind is domestic and free, the most reliable possible supply chain, much more than domestic oil or gas.

[nandomrumber]

> Blocking a developer that wants to buy wind turbines from another country and install them in the US does not make domestic energy cheaper or make domestic supply chains more resilient.

On the other hand, there are, what, approximately zero examples of where wind / solar market penetration is worth writing about and electricity has gotten cheaper.

[the_why_of_y]

Australian households will be able to access free electricity for three hours every day, in an effort to encourage energy use when excess solar power is being fed into the grid.

The federal government scheme will require retailers to offer free electricity to households for at least three hours in the middle of the day, when there is often more electricity generated than is being used, leading to very cheap or even negative wholesale prices.

Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen said the scheme would share around the benefits of solar panels, including to those without panels or who rented their homes.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-03/energy-retailers-offe...

[nandomrumber]

Free electricity in the middle of the day.

That’ll come in handy for the, actually way too many people, who are home during the middle of the day.

And how does that help people who already have solar? Free electricity in the middle of the day doesn’t really help them.

And, actually, has this been implemented yet? It’s been 6 months since it was announced.

[burkaman]

It starts on July 1st of this year: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/about/news/solar-sharer-offer-help...

[the_why_of_y]

Moving the goalposts.

[nandomrumber]

Well, has it been implemented?

I found this https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/three-hours-free-power-every-...

Which claims: This could save families up to $300 per year off their energy bills, and up to $1,070 if they have solar panels and batteries. Victoria’s Midday Power Saver offer will be available from 1 October 2026.

Oh look, you may save more if you already have solar and batteries. Yet another wealth transfer from the have-nots to the haves. Typical.

If you’re poor you could save up to less than a dollar a day.

[the_why_of_y]

Because it saves the have-nots 300 dollars a year, it's a transfer from the poor? Thank you for explaining, that was not obvious to me.

[convolvatron]

I'm also confused, I thought the US was the leader in basically everything, so much so that they were constantly accusing other countries of stealing technology. now, basic manufacturing is a mysterious unknowable box for which we'd need to depend on foreign suppliers.

[r3trohack3r]

Seems fairly measured to say that it’s not in the interest of the U.S. to build its economic foundation (energy production) on top of a technology it’s incapable of producing without the assistance of a country that’s been fairly open about its plans to take kinetic action against the US sometime in the next 48 months.

Help me understand.

[rainsford]

Really a couple of key points. The first is that the US isn't "incapable" of producing renewable energy infrastructure, we've just largely chosen not to for various reasons and are certainly capable of doing so if there was a good reason to.

But the second and more important point is that relying on another country to produce renewable energy technology is not analogous to relying on another country to supply your actual energy. If I bought solar panels from China and tomorrow a US-China war started, my solar panels keep producing energy just fine. I might have imported the panels from China, but that's not where the actual energy is coming from. Sure, eventually I'll need to replace them, but that's not for decades. Assuming a conflict with China lasts long enough to prevent me from ever buying Chinese solar panels again, that's plenty of time to develop US capacity to produce them. And in the meantime, my solar panels keep importing energy from the Sun, which I'm told is very hard to blockade, embargo, or tariff.

Renewable energy tech actually has another major advantage over fossil fuels in a conflict situation. As the current Middle Eastern unpleasantness has demonstrated, fossil fuels are a global commodity and their price everywhere is impacted by restriction on their trade anywhere. Sufficient domestic production of fossil fuels may prevent a country from literally running out in a war, but that's unlikely to actually keep the country's economy healthy. China obviously isn't sitting on top of a fossil fuel producing region the way Iran is, but it seems pretty obvious a US-China war will dramatically impact fossil fuel energy prices given that blockading fossil fuel trade will be an obvious weapon in such a conflict.

When it comes to the impact conflicts have on the price of your energy, you might be better off relying on your Chinese solar panels than American oil. Especially if you can replace them with American solar panels when the time comes. China clearly understands the strategic value of renewable energy, which is why they've invested so much in becoming the major source of that technology.

[r3trohack3r]

Just wanted to say thanks for this. You connected two trains of thought I had never put together.

Don’t have a rebuttal.

I’m long on last mile energy production. Solar/battery for domestic, nuclear for industrial, etc. It creates resilience through decentralization. It also is likely to happen organically (no central planning necessary, markets will likely naturally converge here as they drive down prices).

Haven’t spent much time reconciling that with my stance _against_ centralized wind/solar/battery in critical infrastructure in the U.S.

Will think about this for a while, thanks!

[nandomrumber]

> their price everywhere is impacted by restriction on their trade anywhere.

That’s entirely a human fabrication.

Any country can decide at any time to simple give their fossil fuel reserves away.

Australia does, so I don’t see why any other country can’t do the same.

Also, your plan relies on the power electronics and industrial control systems used in solar / wind deployments not being backdoored, which isn’t a bet I’d be willing to make.

[scandals]

Giving their fossil fuel reserves away isn't exactly solving anything is it though? They happen to be giving the reserves away to foreign investors and thus driving domestic prices significantly higher then they aught to be.

[nandomrumber]

It’s definitely solving for making someone else richer.

I’m lead believe it makes LNG less expensive for Japanese industry, which probably effects the price of goods manufactured in Japan.

[3eb7988a1663]

I saw an amusing analysis which said that Trump will go down in history as the clean energy president. No administration will ever do so much to prove the necessity of having renewable energy.

When one leader can cause a global energy crisis, seems obvious the world will go running towards any solution which can mitigate this in the future.

[breakyerself]

It's a lesson the US won't be able to learn until it has administration capable of learning.

[triceratops]

Did Saudi Arabia wait until it could manufacture oil drills before it started exploiting its oil?

Solar panels are oil drills. The oil is in the sky. If your supplier stops selling you oil drills you have several years to find another supplier or start building your own.

[amanaplanacanal]

So if something goes wrong between the US and China, the US has 10 years to develop it's own supply. It's not like existing panels and batteries are going to suddenly stop working.

[r3trohack3r]

Fair point. But, simultaneously:

* I’m skeptical of the U.S. being able to develop domestic supply chains for this under current conditions

* “Kinetic action” does imply large swaths of U.S. infrastructure will in fact “suddenly stop working” and need to be rebuilt to maintain capacity

[refulgentis]

That's fair: as a 3rd party it seems like there's miscommunication leading to impasse, help me understand:

> skeptical of the U.S. being able to develop domestic supply chains for this under current conditions

Right, but, the presupposition there is war, and we have to build it ourselves, presupposes differing conditions. Then there are ameliorations that bridge to your desired conditions mentioned by your interlocutors (stuff still works, 10 year head start)

> “Kinetic action” does imply large swaths of U.S. infrastructure will in fact “suddenly stop working” and need to be rebuilt to maintain capacity

This relies on a maximal reading of the already-maximal "[They have open] plans to take kinetic action against the US [in next 4 years].". I assume they is China, and you are referring to a Taiwan scenario. I haven't seen anyone claim China is going to attack the US in the next 4 years. It is extremely unlikely China ends up knocking out tons of stateside power infrastructure over Taiwan.