China, India, Russia, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia (off the top of my head, and a quick google to add a few I missed [2]) have all increased investments into coal since 2020.

The renewable industry in the US was wrought with companies seizing as many renewable credits and subsidies as they can, while providing as little as possible to show for them. If this moves the industry as a whole to focus on projects that are not just marginal at best, we should start to see better traction on projects that actually matter.

We have long been told that renewables are cheaper in every way that matters, so let's see the economics of that play out.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-roll-back-clea...

[2] https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/wind-and-solar-repla...

> Between January and May, China added 198 GW of solar and 46 GW of wind, enough to generate as much electricity as Indonesia or Turkey [1]

1 - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/26/china-breaks-m...

However, market share doesn't really translate into the economics of large scale generation. The projects that are marginal (or negative) in the US and rest of the world for that matter, are costed using whatever the cheapest panels or materials available are. Whether they are local or not does not matter. You are conflating two unrelated things here (local manufacturing capability and power generation e.g. actually deploying renewables).

China meeting arbitrary targets is also beside the point. They are building a tonne of solar and wind, but they are also building more coal too. (Refer to my previous comment in how they along with many other G7 and developed nations are investing more in coal than they were in 2020).

GP made some specific claims which were demonstratably false. The points you raise here aren't particularly related to those.

This was the assertion. It is demonstratably false.

Renewables are cheaper now than they used to be. Why? The same reason anything is cheaper the longer you make it: technological improvement, economies of scale, production efficiency, increased # customers, reduced capex, amortized r&d, etc.

"the economics of that" aren't black and white. Just because something is expensive today doesn't mean it will be expensive tomorrow. But if something cheaper exists today, and nobody invests in the expensive thing (because "the market" doesn't see immediate cash gains in it), then the expensive thing never has the opportunity to become cheap.

> The renewable industry in the US was wrought with companies seizing as many renewable credits and subsidies as they can, while providing as little as possible to show for them.

The "show" is long-term. That's the whole point of all green energy: it's expensive at the beginning, and then becomes increasingly cheaper over time, to the point you start saving money, and then you keep saving money. But to ever get to that point, you have to invest big at the start. That's what the subsidies are for!

China has a massive and cheap labor force and decades of manufacturing expertise. That makes their products/services cheap and advanced. Unless we literally take over Mexico, we don't have the labor. And unless we start investing now, we'll never have the expertise. Without subsidies, we will never get on renewables, and we will always pay more for energy. Since the whole future of the world is dependent on energy, it might be a good idea for us to invest in it!

I think you are talking past me. The green bodies have constantly touted how we already reached the inflection point where renewables are cheaper than coal, nuclear, etc. The quiet part that isn't spoken aloud is that these renewables were only economically positive with substantial subsidies and credits. You can't have an honest conversation when the water is mudied to such an extent.

Nuclear's cost/megawatt is significantly higher than most other options. If anybody is reaching for nuclear it is because they are using up all available capacity through other means. Nobody picks nuclear for cost reasons.

Meanwhile nuclear costs what it does in significant part because the number of new plants is low which requires the cost of designing new reactors etc. to be amortized over fewer plants. But if you build more of them that changes.

Nuclear is expensive and requires red tape and a long time to bring online, but the real benefit is that it can deliver power consistently all day, unlike wind and solar. I think the ideal future includes all of these plus better storage capabilities.

Governments should stay out of the winner-picking business, which they do with money from the public purse, and allow individuals and enterprise to use their own money to have a go at picking winners themselves.

If industry and banks find investment in any particular field unpalatable without Government incentive, then those investments were unpalatable to start with.

Industry and banks will find something better to do with their money.

I'm more in favour of tax incentivised encouragement, lowering the barriers to entry, and more so when there are proven benefits to the economy and society, and less in favour of government backed loans and direct cash injection.

That's another term subsidised.

I'd argue fossil fuel industry subsidies are a net benefit to society as they help enable cheap reliable energy.

Whereas renewable subsidies are a net negative because they don't. Everywhere more renewables have gone electricity has become more expensive and less reliable, completely antithetical to strong industrial development.

Also, renewables seem to be driven forward largely due to a psychological contagion that a climate apocalypse is nigh, which is turning out to be completely toxic, especially to the minds of the next generations.

Have you heard of Washington state? 75% renewable energy and 10th percentile for the cost per kWh.

Governments don’t.