[Karrot_Kream]

> Another example: massive growth in Chinese renewables while the US opens up national parks for drilling and cancels solar/wind projects. You occasionally see a heartwarming post: “California adds solar panels over a canal” and it just looks cute and kind of sad compared to the massive, ambitious, and technologically superior build out of Chinese renewables.

Coal is still the majority of generation capacity [1] in China and China continues to build a lot more coal [2]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China

[2]: https://apnews.com/article/china-coal-solar-climate-carbon-e...

> BYD has to me become an icon of US decline vs Chinese expansion

Is this supposed to help virality or something? "US decline"?

[blackjack_]

Who cares? China is revving up energy production in renewables to out eat the fossil production, but all of these processes are energy hungry, and you have to pay the non renewable cost to create the renewables. But then you don’t need the fossil fuels anymore. My solar panels will produce for the next 30+ years and power my EV with very little effort or maintaining, whereas the fuel I used to drive my ICE car to the store yesterday is gone forever and will need millions of years of dead things to recreate.

This is literally using fossil fuels to create renewable energy, which is the ultimate sane and responsible way to use the energy from fossil fuels.

[Karrot_Kream]

The US with its high natgas generation is much cleaner than a majority coal driven generation scheme. I'm puzzled why we talk about "US decline" when we're pretty much creating paeans to marginal energy construction. Sure China's trajectory is good.

But it's still not at the point where it's cleaner per capita than the US and it's still quite far from that. Let's talk about reality here. The US shouldn't rest on its laurels, but we need to be real about where we are not how we feel

A lot can change. This administration has 2.5 years left. I'm tired of Reddit and Twitter doom-based virality hacks subsuming every net forum.

[buildfocus]

> But it's still not at the point where it's cleaner per capita than the US and it's still quite far from that.

China has significantly lower co2 emitted per capita than the US already. Per kWh no, but that's a different thing. AFAICT China's renewable growth is now outpacing demand growth significantly though, so that per-capita gap will widen, and the per kWh is steadily improving as well, and faster than the US.

For some concrete numbers: China added 400GW of renewables in 2025 vs 78 GW of coal generation. Reduced CO2 intensity of power grid by 5% vs US 3% drop. In 2025 US total power emissions went up 5% (for many reasons, but arguably high gas prices and lots of data centres) while China total power emissions dropped 1.5%

All the details make China's path look much cleaner than the US's.

[Karrot_Kream]

> China has significantly lower co2 emitted per capita than the US already. Per kWh no, but that's a different thing.

Sorry I meant per kWh not per capita.

I don't disagree that China's path looks cleaner than the US right now, but also think "US decline" is viral hyperbole. It's the kind of thing people use on Twitter to get everyone to start discussing something. It's the kind of thing people say on Reddit all the time to add a doomer emotional valence on their comment. I want HN to be better than that but it's obviously not.

The US has been losing in the automotive market for decades now, with Japanese brands hitting 25% penetration in the '80s, the Korean brands starting in the '90s, and by 2020 Asian brands making up roughly 45% of the market. US automakers are staying afloat in the CAFE-exempt space of light trucks.

It's true that this administration has been hostile to renewables, notably shutting down offshore wind. But I'm not sure what this has to do with "decline". In 2.5 years we'll have a different admin. There's already pressure to electrify cars with high gas prices thanks to the Hormuz crisis.

Where's the "decline" bit? What does it mean to "decline"? I maintain that it's largely bait to fish for upvotes and engagement.

[overfeed]

> In 2.5 years we'll have a different admin

This administration is attempting - and mostly succeeding - in "Dismantling the administrative state". They even provided a handy checklist (project 2025). That shit won't bw undone in 2.5 years.

[triceratops]

> The US with its high natgas generation is much cleaner than a majority coal driven generation scheme.

The difference is the US's hostility to renewable energy versus China's embrace of it. China's path takes them to zero coal eventually - the US's does not.

[Karrot_Kream]

That's assuming the governments, policies, and economic conditions of China, US, and the world in May 2026 stay static.

[triceratops]

I can't see China changing course. They're all in on renewables for energy independence. It's already the cheapest source of energy. They're exporting panels and batteries everywhere too.

I hope the US does change policies.

[Karrot_Kream]

China can continue to rely on coal for energy independence also. We're seeing this as countries that depended on LNG started firing coal plants again with the Hormuz crisis in effect. As a strong believer in climate change, it's admirable that China is innovating in renewables, but it's not a prerequisite for energy independence. They're already facing anemic job growth and overbuilt infrastructure capacity. If the government wants to redirect investment and spending elsewhere, they can switch back to coal plants rather than necessarily turning on renewables.

Manufacturing and shipping EVs I agree is going nowhere because they continue to be the leader and an increasing number of developing and underdeveloped countries are finding it easier to light up electrical sources than import oil.

[ericmay]

> I'm puzzled why we talk about "US decline" when we're pretty much creating paeans to marginal energy construction.

It's literally just a mind virus and folks hear it on the news and like the Chinese hypersonic missiles they just hear some capability or reporting and then don't know what to do with it except to parrot it.

They don't think about China's lying down culture [1], for example, ghost cities and over-building doesn't seem to phase them [2] (communism tends to waste a lot of money and drive economic inefficiency), China's over-capacity for manufacturing and now struggling to find markets for goods [3], local corruption, disappearing of folks who disagree with their government, and more. Even with respect to infrastructure. Yea they built a lot. Good luck maintaining it at an affordable cost. China has more manpower to do literally throw bodies at the problem, but economic physics will still win out and China's declining population and demographic crises and xenophobic culture don't help.

Now, with that being said, China has done some absolutely amazing and wonderful things. But we shouldn't confuse China's progress with a corresponding American decline. Instead, the more sophisticated model is looking at both American and Chinese progress while other nations, and the EU are struggling.

  [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/03/world/asia/china-slackers-tangping.html
  [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/09/sp-i-china-property-slump-worse-than-expected.html
  [3] https://www.ft.com/content/6822f01a-147a-4b04-a9d6-edeefc25d0d8?syn-25a6b1a6=1

[Karrot_Kream]

Yeah I see that we're entering a multipolar world, where China and the US form 2 dominant poles but other countries/alliances like India and the Gulf States create stiff competition. A world with more prosperity for more people seems good to me.

[ericmay]

> A world with more prosperity for more people seems good to me.

Agree with that sentiment absolutely. I’m not totally sure that is a given, however. The primary reason being that as America declines economically from the post-war boom, it no longer has the resources to simultaneously fight or contain many belligerent actors (Russia, Iran, China, &c.) and without the other dominant power (China) stepping up to assist in what I would loosely describe as a bipartisan way we are likely to see more conflict, not less, in my view.

[snapcaster]

As an american i feel it. have you ever visited China? it's sad man, in more and more industries america is only able to compete by banning china from even contesting the market

Not just on dumping or price, actual product quality, innovation and value. It's impossible to visit a Huawei store in Beijing and not feel it in your bones

[lenerdenator]

> As an american i feel it. have you ever visited China? it's sad man, in more and more industries america is only able to compete by banning china from even contesting the market

That's how China was able to compete: banning America from contesting the market.

[Karrot_Kream]

> As an american i feel it

How do we have a productive discussion about our feelings on a tech site?

[surgical_fire]

You start with a non-sequitur on China using coal to generate electricity.

Because that, too, is feelings. In this case, insecurity.

[kakacik]

This site is fascinating place for me, especially comment section. Sometimes, visibly smart folks end up shooting their own feet with things like oversized egos, unwillingness to entertain any idea contrary to their already-held beliefs and many others. Makes me more humble and lowers my expectations of humanity, while in the same time giving me more hope for the future.

Bizzare mix, but pretty fun with controversial topics

[Karrot_Kream]

This feels like subtweeting (vaguely referencing bad behaviors in this thread without naming anything or anyone) so I'm curious what you're going for with this comment.

[Karrot_Kream]

> Another example: massive growth in Chinese renewables while the US opens up national parks for drilling and cancels solar/wind projects. You occasionally see a heartwarming post: “California adds solar panels over a canal” and it just looks cute and kind of sad compared to the massive, ambitious, and technologically superior build out of Chinese renewables.

EDIT: thanks I didn't realize I forgot to add the context of my original reply to the post. Edited it to add context.

[snapcaster]

maybe engage with it because we're all humans with feelings and they're incredibly powerful computational shortcuts? thinking it's virtuous to be an emotionless automaton is ideology (kinda like feelings!)

[RobotToaster]

As much as coal is bad for the environment, eliminating it completely isn't a great idea. It's one of the few sources of energy capable of a black start https://www.theblackoutreport.co.uk/2023/06/13/black-start/

Renewables generally aren't capable of a black start, wind turbines in particular use induction generators that require external power.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Batteries & solar (with sunlight) can black start if they have grid-forming inverters. Grid-following inverters are cheaper, but there's nothing physical or engineering-based that prevents using grid-forming inverters on enough renewable sources to black start when needed, just the economics of cheaper installations.

[rootusrootus]

> It's one of the few sources of energy capable of a black start

Doesn't hydropower count for like half of our black start capability?

> Renewables generally aren't capable of a black start, wind turbines in particular use induction generators that require external power.

Wind farms and PV both can use batteries to support black start capability.