If the new ruling regime is intent that the federal government is meant to be feckless and we are to be beholden to oligarchs, then I guess I am glad this oligarchs is doing this.
"Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, prohibits employment discrimination by federal contractors based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and requires them to take affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunities. It aims to promote non-discriminatory practices in hiring and employment for organizations that do business with the U.S. government."
After witnessing year after year of both old school Republicans and Democrats being tone deaf and incompetent, I’ve come to the view that MAGA is just filling the vacuum created by the collapse of an entire generation of the American political power structure. MAGA and/or the alt-right just happened to be a movement that was in the right time and had enough momentum to step in. Had things gone differently it could have been a hard left movement.
This happens in countries from time to time. In China there’s a whole history of dynastic collapse and renewal going back thousands of years.
It tends to be a shitshow for a while until a new political reality takes hold. It will not be unipolar. MAGA only got at best half the vote, and half the country didn’t even vote, so really they’re at best a quarter to a third of the population. Huge open niches are out there for a competently run non-tone-deaf centrist (aka actually conservative) party and stuff on the left. Maybe actual libertarianism too, but not using that name since that’s been taken by wackos for a long time.
I worry in the short to medium term for marginalized groups in America, important work happening in America like Starship (especially as Elon spirals), and anyone living in a state like Taiwan, Ukraine, South Korea, etc. that depends in part on US support to maintain its integrity. Other large states will probably be doing some land grabbing. The US might too depending on how things play out. It will be a period of instability.
It’d be nice to blame politicians or Trump or Elon, but there is a lot of evidence that this is just who we are. The people voting Trump, really do believe in him and his policies. Places around the nation are not being run by centrist policies, but the policies that people in those places want. Which are not what most would consider centrist. In fact, the political class already knows that, which is why you see them conform to those policies.
It is true that neither Trump and Vance nor Harris and Walz were able to muster even 50% of the vote. But that’s because of the existence of more extremist options on the ballot, not because of the presence of less extremist options. Certainly not because of any supposed centrism. (Not that centrism would work in any case when the policies being moderated by the centrism are so ill conceived from the outset.)
We’re in a bad spot, but it’s not because of politicians, it’s because of us.
> MAGA and/or the alt-right just happened to be a movement that was in the right time and had enough momentum to step in. Had things gone differently it could have been a hard left movement.
This is a both sides argument when in fact there’s very real, very well funded movement to oppose and suppress any left wing groups from getting any real traction. Remember the Occupy movement or the defund the police movements or Bernie’s run for president? Very real political movements that got torn apart in the media very quickly as well as institutional crackdowns on the people involved. The Jan 6 riots by comparison got significantly more lenient treatment and has now been completely absolved. The US for better or worse has never had a successful left wing movement but not for lack of trying.
The amazing thing is that this should be a slam dunk. Wind, solar and batteries are getting radically cheaper. In the first half of 2024, something like 75% of Europe's electricity was low-carbon (50% renewables, 25% nuclear.) China's at something like 44% low-carbon for the first part of 2024. The tech is getting so much cheaper and it isn't even really about "low carbon" anymore so much as it is about "cheap abundant electricity."
The nations that win this race will dominate the future. From a geopolitical perspective you either run this race to a future with abundant energy, or you become a second-tier power.
Remember the days America demonstrated leadership, where we got to the moon rather than waiting for someone else to figure out how to get costs down or how we lead the effort to solve the hole in the ozone layer? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
I think you misunderstood what I said. There is value in being first to establish a dominant position as a market leader. Just focusing on costs misses the bigger issue of market domination. It's a missed opportunity UNLESS you believe that oil is the more cost effective solution in the long run. The subsidies are an investment in your country's dominance. That all the competitors believe otherwise might indicate your math may be off. Or the historically close ties between US leaders and Saudia Arabia on both sides of the aisle distorts the decision making.
Industry is funding it, like crazy. You can look up the number of installed solar and wind plants this year, and the number of battery plants. Lots of them in red states like Texas, as well
The biggest problem right now is that the new administration is trying to actively block those goals. They're talking about government tariffs and they've already halted new leases on offshore wind. So this isn't about government subsidizing things, it's government blocking the market from doing what it wants to.
Utilities get to pass their costs along to ratepayers, so even when the thermal fossil generation is not economical, people who cannot go offgrid or install distributed generation and storage are hung out to dry.
Every coal generator in the US besides the one in Dry Forks, WY is more expensive than new renewables to run, but those costs get pushed to ratepayers so there is no incentive to retire them faster. You can see this up close with IMEA [1] and the City of Naperville (in Illinois) about to extend their agreement to continue to procure coal fired generation with no competitive bids [2] [3]. This enables the prolonged operation of one of the most polluting coal generators in the country, Prairie State Generating Station, in southern IL [4] [5]. Compare this to the City of Chicago, that has switched to 100% renewables using a power purchase agreement for ~70% of their demand and credits for the remainder [6] [7].
So, while the economics of renewables and storage are favorable, you still have twist arms with the courts and policy because of entrenched interests that are not exposed to the costs of prolonged fossil generation. "Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome."
> This report finds 99 percent of the existing U.S. coal fleet is more expensive to run compared to replacement by new solar or wind. Replacing coal plants with local wind and solar would also save enough to finance nearly 150 gigawatts of four-hour battery storage, over 60 percent of the coal fleet’s capacity, and generate $589 billion in new investment across the U.S. Our report provides policy recommendations to facilitate a just transition through the Coal Cost Crossover.
So, if you want to argue these decisions are about politics and ideology, that is a choice. The economics are clear. The report I cite above is ~2 years old, the favorable economics of renewables and batteries has only increased since then due to rapid cost declines of both.
The first link is taking into account government incentives, and doesn’t actually cite any source about cost comparison:
> New Inflation Reduction Act clean energy incentives and financing and potential strengthened U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pollution standards mean the economic risks for existing coal — and the communities that depend upon them economically — will only get worse
The second link is also about the inflation reduction act.
The EIA link is also a market prediction of where investment will be made, which also takes into account subsidies.
Post your best link that makes your point. My conclusion right now is you litter in links to appear authoritative.
> But along with market forces, utilities could also take advantage of changes in environmental regulations to keep coal stations open, especially in coal-friendly states like Wyoming, where two-fifths of U.S. coal is still mined.
> “For an investor-owned monopoly utility, it’s not costing them to keep running the plant, necessarily, it’s costing the ratepayers who are paying for that,” Dr. Solomon said. “Politically, there’s a lot of support for coal in Wyoming and Utah where Rocky Mountain power is operating so I think they just don’t feel a ton of pressure to move to cleaner energy sources.”
> According to a latest report by research provider BloombergNEF (BNEF), new wind and solar farms are already undercutting new coal and gas plants on production cost in almost every market globally.
> “New solar plants, even without subsidies, are within touching distance of new US gas plants. This is remarkable because US gas prices are only a quarter of prevailing gas prices in Europe and Asia. It really raises the bar on what is possible even in the current market, said Amar Vasdev, lead author of the report. “This opens up the likelihood that solar will become even more compelling in the coming years, especially if the US starts exporting liquified natural gas and exposes its protected gas market to global price competition.”
> “China is exporting green energy tech so cheaply that the rest of the world is thinking about erecting barriers to protect their own industries, said Matthias Kimmel, head of Energy Economics at BNEF. “But the overall trend in cost reductions is so strong that nobody, not even President Trump, will be able to halt it.”
The Prairie State Generating Station was a masterfully-executed trap laid by Peabody Energy that ensnared hundreds of municipalities across 5 (6?) states.
They are on the hook for paying off the construction loans (which ended up being something like triple what they were promised) and are on the hook for any operating costs not covered by sales of the generated electricity.
The least bad option all these cities have is to force their residents to buy the electricity it generates. Naperville is lucky enough to be a pretty wealthy city with good bond ratings; relatively speaking its residents are less screwed than many others.
In relation to public health issues, which are my focus, the worst states are red states. For example, the infant mortality rates[1] in many red states are comparable to those in developing nations, which is almost funny given that the leaders of these states constantly market themselves as being "pro-life". The residents of red states should consider taking some of the money they allocate to football and redirecting it to keeping their babies alive.
I'm obviously approaching this from an extremely biased perspective, but in the wake of seeing so many people around me helplessly complaining about recent negative changes in government, it's very comforting to see some people getting organized and trying to do something to help. In general, I hope that more people are spurred into action than ever to actually make a change in the world rather than just reposting conspiracy theories and prophecies of doom on social media, crying that no one is doing anything.
39 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 90.8 ms ] threadHe could have easily become wealthy via industries like oil, insurance or hotels.
Instead he's dumping hia money into projects, which he thinks are visionary, even if they're likely to go belly up.
Like (self-driving) electric vehicles, vacuum trains, massive scale satellite internet, factory automation, grid-scale batteries, UBI, free speech, the X Æ A-12 project, ...
Not even thunderf00t believes he's malicious and it's hard to find anyone more obsessed
I'm not American but wow, the country is corroding itself from inside
>requiring affirmative action
Which is it? It can’t be both. (It’s the latter, duh.)
This happens in countries from time to time. In China there’s a whole history of dynastic collapse and renewal going back thousands of years.
It tends to be a shitshow for a while until a new political reality takes hold. It will not be unipolar. MAGA only got at best half the vote, and half the country didn’t even vote, so really they’re at best a quarter to a third of the population. Huge open niches are out there for a competently run non-tone-deaf centrist (aka actually conservative) party and stuff on the left. Maybe actual libertarianism too, but not using that name since that’s been taken by wackos for a long time.
I worry in the short to medium term for marginalized groups in America, important work happening in America like Starship (especially as Elon spirals), and anyone living in a state like Taiwan, Ukraine, South Korea, etc. that depends in part on US support to maintain its integrity. Other large states will probably be doing some land grabbing. The US might too depending on how things play out. It will be a period of instability.
It is true that neither Trump and Vance nor Harris and Walz were able to muster even 50% of the vote. But that’s because of the existence of more extremist options on the ballot, not because of the presence of less extremist options. Certainly not because of any supposed centrism. (Not that centrism would work in any case when the policies being moderated by the centrism are so ill conceived from the outset.)
We’re in a bad spot, but it’s not because of politicians, it’s because of us.
This is a both sides argument when in fact there’s very real, very well funded movement to oppose and suppress any left wing groups from getting any real traction. Remember the Occupy movement or the defund the police movements or Bernie’s run for president? Very real political movements that got torn apart in the media very quickly as well as institutional crackdowns on the people involved. The Jan 6 riots by comparison got significantly more lenient treatment and has now been completely absolved. The US for better or worse has never had a successful left wing movement but not for lack of trying.
Batteries are down to $66/kWh in China, for actual costed-out BESS projects. https://www.ess-news.com/2024/12/09/powerchina-receives-bids...
The nations that win this race will dominate the future. From a geopolitical perspective you either run this race to a future with abundant energy, or you become a second-tier power.
The biggest problem right now is that the new administration is trying to actively block those goals. They're talking about government tariffs and they've already halted new leases on offshore wind. So this isn't about government subsidizing things, it's government blocking the market from doing what it wants to.
> They're talking about government tariffs
So this has been previously unblocked, but in the past week that’s when the difficulty started?
Every coal generator in the US besides the one in Dry Forks, WY is more expensive than new renewables to run, but those costs get pushed to ratepayers so there is no incentive to retire them faster. You can see this up close with IMEA [1] and the City of Naperville (in Illinois) about to extend their agreement to continue to procure coal fired generation with no competitive bids [2] [3]. This enables the prolonged operation of one of the most polluting coal generators in the country, Prairie State Generating Station, in southern IL [4] [5]. Compare this to the City of Chicago, that has switched to 100% renewables using a power purchase agreement for ~70% of their demand and credits for the remainder [6] [7].
So, while the economics of renewables and storage are favorable, you still have twist arms with the courts and policy because of entrenched interests that are not exposed to the costs of prolonged fossil generation. "Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome."
[1] https://www.imea.org/
[2] https://saynotocoal.com/
[3] https://saynotocoal.com/naperville-gets-80-of-its-electricit...
[4] https://pirg.org/illinois/edfund/media-center/new-data-illin...
[5] https://www.gem.wiki/Prairie_State_Energy_Campus
[6] https://grist.org/cities/chicago-renewable-energy-black-diam...
[7] https://swiftcurrentenergy.com/project/double-black-diamond-...
For the Chicago government, it’s a political project. They are happy to take losses.
Let me just restate the original point made in this thread. Are solar and wind cheaper in these areas where coal is still operating or not?
https://energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Coal...
> This report finds 99 percent of the existing U.S. coal fleet is more expensive to run compared to replacement by new solar or wind. Replacing coal plants with local wind and solar would also save enough to finance nearly 150 gigawatts of four-hour battery storage, over 60 percent of the coal fleet’s capacity, and generate $589 billion in new investment across the U.S. Our report provides policy recommendations to facilitate a just transition through the Coal Cost Crossover.
Lazard LCOE+ 2024 report, PDF - https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
New solar plants expected to support most U.S. electric generation growth - https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64364 - January 24, 2025
So, if you want to argue these decisions are about politics and ideology, that is a choice. The economics are clear. The report I cite above is ~2 years old, the favorable economics of renewables and batteries has only increased since then due to rapid cost declines of both.
> New Inflation Reduction Act clean energy incentives and financing and potential strengthened U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pollution standards mean the economic risks for existing coal — and the communities that depend upon them economically — will only get worse
The second link is also about the inflation reduction act.
The EIA link is also a market prediction of where investment will be made, which also takes into account subsidies.
Post your best link that makes your point. My conclusion right now is you litter in links to appear authoritative.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/06/climate/coal-... | https://archive.today/Egwuc
> But along with market forces, utilities could also take advantage of changes in environmental regulations to keep coal stations open, especially in coal-friendly states like Wyoming, where two-fifths of U.S. coal is still mined.
> “For an investor-owned monopoly utility, it’s not costing them to keep running the plant, necessarily, it’s costing the ratepayers who are paying for that,” Dr. Solomon said. “Politically, there’s a lot of support for coal in Wyoming and Utah where Rocky Mountain power is operating so I think they just don’t feel a ton of pressure to move to cleaner energy sources.”
Global Cost of Renewables to Continue Falling in 2025 as China Extends Lead - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976388 - Feb 2025
https://about.bnef.com/blog/global-cost-of-renewables-to-con... | https://archive.today/pJ0lb
> According to a latest report by research provider BloombergNEF (BNEF), new wind and solar farms are already undercutting new coal and gas plants on production cost in almost every market globally.
> “New solar plants, even without subsidies, are within touching distance of new US gas plants. This is remarkable because US gas prices are only a quarter of prevailing gas prices in Europe and Asia. It really raises the bar on what is possible even in the current market, said Amar Vasdev, lead author of the report. “This opens up the likelihood that solar will become even more compelling in the coming years, especially if the US starts exporting liquified natural gas and exposes its protected gas market to global price competition.”
> “China is exporting green energy tech so cheaply that the rest of the world is thinking about erecting barriers to protect their own industries, said Matthias Kimmel, head of Energy Economics at BNEF. “But the overall trend in cost reductions is so strong that nobody, not even President Trump, will be able to halt it.”
They are on the hook for paying off the construction loans (which ended up being something like triple what they were promised) and are on the hook for any operating costs not covered by sales of the generated electricity.
The least bad option all these cities have is to force their residents to buy the electricity it generates. Naperville is lucky enough to be a pretty wealthy city with good bond ratings; relatively speaking its residents are less screwed than many others.
[1] https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/infant-death-rate/