China Believes in Climate Change

[Conan71]

So where are we then?  Neither straight taxes, nor market based incentives are acceptable.  What's left? 

Or do we plead gridlock and let China take the lead on this one? 

Why are we so obsessed with being first, second, or 100th on the list?  A good bit of our spending on green tech is going to wind up in China, like it or not.  It will be done as it becomes practical. 

One thing ignored in all this is that fossil fuel energy companies have stayed pretty stable throughout this whole collapse of the last two years and have helped keep our economy somewhat afloat.  A lot of people's jobs depend on fossil fuels.

[nathanm]

Why are we so obsessed with being first, second, or 100th on the list?  A good bit of our spending on green tech is going to wind up in China, like it or not.  It will be done as it becomes practical.  

Why? Because being on top in emerging technology means more exports, which means more jobs and more money.

Look at the differences in our standard of living, as a whole, back when we used to make a lot of stuff here and now that we don't. Most people haven't had an increase in real wages since the 1970s. That's what it's like not being on top.

Also, we can both build solar panels, wind turbines, and other "green" tech and still extract oil and other fossil fuels. We're going to be digging oil up from the ground until the day the last drop is gone regardless of whether or not we keep burning it for fuel. Oil is a feedstock for a vast number of industrial processes. We need it to make fertilizer, plastic, and all sorts of chemicals that make our modern life go.

[Conan71]

Why? Because being on top in emerging technology means more exports, which means more jobs and more money.

Look at the differences in our standard of living, as a whole, back when we used to make a lot of stuff here and now that we don't. Most people haven't had an increase in real wages since the 1970s. That's what it's like not being on top.

Also, we can both build solar panels, wind turbines, and other "green" tech and still extract oil and other fossil fuels. We're going to be digging oil up from the ground until the day the last drop is gone regardless of whether or not we keep burning it for fuel. Oil is a feedstock for a vast number of industrial processes. We need it to make fertilizer, plastic, and all sorts of chemicals that make our modern life go.

Being the top spender, which was the original premise, doesn't mean all the money is spent in our own economy nor does it necessarily impact exports.  We can build whatever we want here in the states.  Unfortunately, we keep delegating that role to China, India, Mexico, and anyone else who is willing to provide the products we want for less money than we can manufacture them for here.

The unfortunate reality is that China is becoming the leader in solar panel and wind technology. 

How do we reverse that trend of exporting the demand for those goods is a better question.  It's a matter of economics and how you go about modifiying buyer behavior.

[guido911]

Why? Because being on top in emerging technology means more exports, which means more jobs and more money.

Look at the differences in our standard of living, as a whole, back when we used to make a lot of stuff here and now that we don't. Most people haven't had an increase in real wages since the 1970s. That's what it's like not being on top.

Also, we can both build solar panels, wind turbines, and other "green" tech and still extract oil and other fossil fuels. We're going to be digging oil up from the ground until the day the last drop is gone regardless of whether or not we keep burning it for fuel. Oil is a feedstock for a vast number of industrial processes. We need it to make fertilizer, plastic, and all sorts of chemicals that make our modern life go.

Well have at it Nate. Create an idea, invest your own money, hire a bunch of people, and go for it. Otherwise, Conan's right. It's not practical.

[nathanm]

Interestingly, regarding China and its "leadership" in PV, it's not quite true. The situation is more complicated than that. China makes cheap solar panels that require lots of silicon and are less efficient than the thin film panels like First Solar builds. The problem is that, at the moment, silicon ingot prices are so low that the less efficient panels end up being cheaper. When silicon prices are high, First Solar's panels don't go up as much in price and still have the efficiency advantage. The economic downturn (and First Solar's capacity limits) basically brought old-style panels back from the dead. Figure out a way to drive up the price of silicon and we'll be looking good on that front again.

The other side of the coin is that due to our relatively half-hearted attempts at increasing solar generation capacity, we don't have a crap-ton of experienced installers to ship around the world like Germany (to use one example) does.

We also need to get on the stick regarding building more (and more advanced) nuclear plants, before what remains of our expertise in the field dies off without being replaced. Wind and solar don't make great base load without gigantic expenditures on electric infrastructure, thanks to their very high local variability. This is a significant untapped market. Rather than building evolutionary BWR and PWR designs, we need to be moving towards plants that we'd be comfortable with Iran or North Korea having, so as to have a wider market.

It's also unfortunate that most of our companies have significantly cut back on their R&D budgets in the last 20 or 30 years. Not only has that pushed fewer people into the sciences, but it's keeping us from bringing to bear one of our greatest strengths: our brain trust. Despite all the problems we have in schooling, we still manage to turn out a significant fraction of the best and the brightest.

[Red Arrow]

But absolutely proves my point.  Consensus is great at producing moderation.  Not so great at engineering system-wide change.

My point is that sometimes that is good.

[we vs us]

My point is that sometimes that is good.

I agree as well (and so would the Founding Fathers, IMO).  But personally I think we are entering (or have already entered) an era where taking sweeping action is necessary for our survival as a nation we recognize.  I am more and more skeptical that we are capable of generating enough consensus to make those sweeping changes.  I don't know whether or not it's just our current culture or that it's our system is just set up to make sweeping change impossible.

[Conan71]

Instead of the government proposing worthless emission trade scams, they could be permitting nuclear plants, clean tech refineries, and make credits for alt fuel production permanent (Corp and crop welfare) but they refuse to approach it from an intelligent viewpoint like that. Nuke plants could solve a lot of future energy demand and emission issues in short order.

That would also necessarily include American workers and American companies.

[nathanm]

Instead of the government proposing worthless emission trade scams, they could be permitting nuclear plants

That is happening, with big loan guarantees to match.