Exactly. Decide what you are going to do and live with the consequences. If you want datacenters, build them. If you don't, then other countries can build them and they can control datacenters.
We have NIMBY “protectors” of all political persuasions who keep us from building - Reich’s protecting us from student noise pollution, ranchers and farmers protecting us from transmission lines and high speed rail, Native Americans and allies protecting us from pipelines, and the current administration protecting us (plus whales and birds) from windmills (though seemingly offshore oil drilling is no threat whatsoever).
The end of damming rivers started in the 1960s, the complete until very recently end of licencing new nuclear power plants began with breaking out the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from the Atomic Energy Commission in 1975.
can't easily be answered as big consumers of electricity adopted to the regime risk of US. E.g. 1980 to the last few years primary aluminum production went from 33% to 2% of the world's output, 4.65 million to 785,000 metric tonnes, per an AI aided search.
I agree with your overall sentinment/post, but renewables not being able to baseline or handle peak power ignores how far grid-scale battery technology has come along, especially LFP based batteries from China. True you can't easily go 100% renewable because of the weather, but peaker plants exist for the same reason - because you need some level of redundancy even when you're depleting finite resources to provide power.
Actually, peaker plants exist so you can build base-load generation to some calculated level, like the 95th percentile load, rather than the 100th percentile load. For generation agencies and companies, this reduces the cost of the base load plants, and saves fuel costs for fossil fuel plants because peaker plants can quickly started and shut off, while base load plants usually run at one speed (redline) and can't be easily or quickly shutdown and restarted.
Valid point, but base load plants generally run only at one level. What you describe is the theory behind pumped hydropower.
How are fossil fuels subsidized in the defense budget? (I know the answer, and I think you're making a political statement, not a factual argument.)
Agreed.
There’s an argument often made that the US has had an “oil for security policy” with most of the oil producers in the Middle East that extends as far back as the 1940s (Saudi Arabia was extended Lend/Lease support). Some of the most visible elements included the US-supported 1956 Iranian coup that reinstated the Shah (and lowered oil prices) and the 50 years of the US military policing the Persian Gulf to make sure the Straits of Hormuz stay open to tanker traffic. The Fifth Fleet, reformed in 1995, and operating out of Bahrain, is essentially a fossil fuel continuity/pricing insurance policy.
You’re right - utility scale batteries (and pumped hydropower) can actually do more than peakers because they can absorb excess production and deliver back on a time shifted basis - not just additional peak capacity. So they are a better match for non-dispatch-able renewables. Batteries also offer far faster response times within their discharge range, vs peakers, which give them strong economic advantages in many situations. And in California, the levelized cost of energy/capacity for 4‑hour lithium‑ion batteries beats new simple‑cycle gas turbines for peaking capacity.
How are fossil fuels subsidized in the defense budget? (I know the answer, and I think you're making a political statement, not a factual argument.)
Actually, the USG subsidizes all (most?) mineral extraction with what's called a "depletion allowance". Last I looked, lithium has a higher depletion allowance than oil and gas.
)Very funny. And what were the energy alternatives 70 years ago? Or even 30 years ago? Of course there weren't any, or only available at far higher cost and lower reliability.
If only this was the full story. The fundamental problem for the grid is that batteries take at least four hours to recharge to get another four hours of discharge. In the event of long lasting peak events with little wind or sun it's lights out.
More politics. And I dislike subsidies too. And after 70 years of trying we haven't solved the nuclear waste problem either. We are a mess, but it is a mess that works for the time being.Defense examples specifically (resource subsidies via military budget):
United States seizure of the oil tanker Skipper - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
(Chose CNN specifically for this topic because I know you love CNNUkraine–United States Mineral Resources Agreement - Wikipedia
+ The US Army Corp of Engineers does prospecting and executes solutions that help extract resources or support resource efforts later
My comment was "US Government" though, not specifically via DoD budget. I was really thinking of the usual -- massive tax subsidies (direct or indirect such as depreciation), tax credits, and other incentives. Take a look into " End Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies Act (H.R. 383). ", an AI summary of some things it's going after:
Key Provisions of H.R. 383 (2025)
...
- Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs): Repeals the deduction for intangible drilling and development costs of oil and gas wells.
- Percentage Depletion: Eliminates the percentage depletion allowance.
- Geological and Geophysical Expenditures: Extends the amortization period for these costs from 24 months to 7 years.
- Marginal Wells & Enhanced Oil Recovery: Removes tax credits for producing oil and gas from marginal wells and for tertiary injectant expenses used in enhanced oil recovery.
- Passive Loss Limitations: Repeals the exception to passive loss limitations for working interests in oil and gas property.
Also -- there are billions of government subsidies for closing old oil wells, costs that should have been burdened by the businesses building and selling the oil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphaned_wells_in_the_United_States
P.S. To tie this back to the purpose of this forum (Semiconductors), I think low cost energy is very important in enabling the Semi industry; but how we achieve that can inform the long term sustainability of energy supplies for this industry. I think no subsidies (i.e. level playing field across all technologies) could be a better solution than what we have today.
An obvious answer from the boosters of renewables would be to build even bigger battery systems.
I mean by definition anything the government does is politically motivated or "politics"?
).It doesn’t really matter when the subsidies occurred - subsidies are subsidies and strongly affect long term usage. The dual oil shocks of the 1970s show how much our trajectory of usage in the US would have been different had the US not wielded military power and influence to tamp down the cost of imported oil, prior to that point in time. But then again, the whole history of oil, coal and gas is full of government manipulation of the market for various policy purposes, often to keep prices low, but not always.
You’re right and you’re wrong - utility scale batteries aren’t the best fix for extended grid outages for the reasons you highlight. But neither are peakers, since the most significant cause of extended grid outages is damage to distribution and transmission equipment/lines. Mitigating those requires localized generation and/or batteries with renewables.
