Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | nxm's commentslogin

That doesn’t explain the decline of German automotive industry which is now taken over by Chinese cars thanks to massive subsidies by the Chinese government

Why? Germany is also run by lawyers.

See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Merz#Private_sector_... for the current chancellor. Many past chancellors were also lawyers, and many members of the Bundestag were and are lawyers.

I don't know whether having lawyers in power leads to industrial decline. My point is only that you can't use Germany as a counterexample.


Do we consider the US Chips Act to be a subsidy? What about when GM became Government Motors because it was Too Big To Fail?

In other words, when do economic and industrial policies transition to subsidies? Is it a matter of perspective? Is the devil in the details?


It's a matter of scale: https://www.wsj.com/world/china/the-u-s-has-been-spending-bi...

If you trust Google's AI summary, China spends 4-5% of GDP on industrial subsidies, vs US at 0.4%. 10-12x as much.


What about after accounting for PPP? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity)

Do the US numbers account for state level incentives like tax breaks?

I for one do not trust Google summaries, having seen too many hallucinations, it has pushed me away from their search and ai completely.


Here are some links I found (among many). I tend to trust CSIS, even though the have many hawks, they are generally thorough and nuanced.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/red-ink-estimating-chinese-ind...

Some historical analyses of US policies (know less, but both put it over 1% currently, nuances)

https://www.columbia.edu/~ev2124/research/ErtenStiglitzVerho...

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w34744/w347...

I'm honestly not sure why this is seen so negatively. It seems to be working pretty well for them, perhaps we should do similar instead of whining about others being more effective?


Catching rockets on landing for one, and making made electric cars actually popular & desirable. Man either the jealousy or hate on Elon is on another level on HackerNews

Those aren't recent. Electric cars were popular 15 years ago. There are now multiple groups with reusable rockets. Elon doesn't need to work 12 hours/day on things his employees have already built.

> Electric cars were popular 15 years ago

I can't believe the rewriting of history on this topic. They were definitely not popular. The Model S had just been released 14 years ago. They were not popular. Tesla transformed the world in terms of rolling out electric cars.

> There are now multiple groups with reusable rockets

Not really, and nowhere near the same operational experience. They are still figuring out Starship. They're deploying new types of Starlink satellites.

This is an utterly insane thesis.


My point was that the work to make them popular was done back then. The model s is what made Tesla cool to the public and made people want electric cars. Since then there have been some improvements to the car like better FSD, but no huge technical leaps.

The things you're talking about aren't things Elon is likely spending his days on. He has teams of people marketing Tesla and working on improving starship. Do you think Elon is actually handing design himself vs sitting in a bunch of meetings and giving feedback?

If he isn't doing the hands-on work, so you think he's in 18hrs of meetings each day?


I'm struggling to make out what your point is, other than to agree that electric cars definitely weren't popular back then until Elon Musk and Tesla made them so through solving a lot of difficult engineering, regulatory and financial challenges.

However I can answer your first question: I've no idea what Elon Musk does, but obviously he has a lot of very very bright people working for him. Just as how Bill Gates wouldn't write specs but he would critique them in detail[0] to make sure that the right things were being built. Whether or not that's "sitting in meetings" or "handling design himself" who knows, because I don't know what "handling design" means, and why it wouldn't involve meetings.

[0] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/06/16/my-first-billg-rev...


Tell China and India to stop building coal plants first, and also ban private jets, and then we can talk.

Taxing carbon will affect everything, including private jets, and China is doing more for solar power than any other place in the world and they're also investing heavily in renewables and nuclear.

In any case, the solution to other countries not doing their parts is figuring out ways to incentivise and coordinate better outcomes, not giving up completely, giving up only makes sense if someone is in denial regarding the consequences.


Like the greens in Germany who decided it's best to shut down nuclear power plants?

It's eerie how often this lie gets repeated here.

It wasn't the Greens that decided this for Germany. It was our conservatives, the CDU/CSU. The latter had high-ranking officials literally threaten to step down, unless Germany exits nuclear energy production.


The greens could have stopped it, especially after the invasion started, but they did it anyway.

Ideology > common sense.


How? Most of the power plants had already been decommissioned! The CDU had years and years to stop it. The Greens only had the option to prolong the lifetime of the last power plants, which they did.

Ideology > critical thinking


What does this have to do with being a fat, dumb, greedy asshole with no brains?

Nothing like trying to be the tough guy on an message board....

Feeling called out huh

Don't forget India as well

India emits 30% less total CO2 than the US and 84% less per capita than the US, and is massively expanding renewables.

For their population even without the renewables they are using far less than their share of any fair way to allocate whatever we decide we have to limit worldwide emissions to.


India increased renewables drastically in the last 10-12 years.

https://mnre.gov.in/en/year-wise-achievement/


AI will output only government approved results

This can't happen to government agencies? Well then let's not have governments either!

We came very, very close too many times

now imagine if we didn't even try, and instead had kids screaming for 'local nukes' because they wanted them, and the president didn't see what the problem was.

That includes nuclear power, correct?


Can they build it safely as fast as the data center it's meant to power? Full steam ahead then.


Some older nuclear power plants are been commissioned back into production:

Three Mile Island

"2027 – Nuclear Regulatory Commission to decide whether to issue operating license to Constellation Energy, with the decision expected in May. If granted, Constellation expects to bring the reactor back online later in the year."

https://www.witf.org/2026/07/28/three-mile-island-reactor-re...

Michigan’s Palisades nuclear power plant

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/americas-first-...

Duane Arnold Energy Center in Iowa

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nextera-energy-partn...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Arnold_Energy_Center#Res...


If electricity bills are steady or falling they should have no trouble convincing voters. Nothing to worry about.


It can be a little later. Your requirements is like demanding nobody can buy a house unless they have pay they entire amount upfront.


People do not believe big companies when they say "I'll deal with the externalities a little later."


So then does the data center compensate local residents for their higher power bills today? Until the new capacity comes online?

> Your requirements is like demanding nobody can buy a house unless they have pay they entire amount upfront.

No it's like demanding your new neighbors aren't forced to lend you money for your purchase - which is entirely reasonable. If you need money, get it from the bank.

The top-level comment explains it already:

"When you drop a data center into an area, energy prices will spike. Additionally, without that green energy capacity they will cause much more air pollution."


It typically takes 11-12 years for a nuclear plant to get built including planning and construction [1].

Is the idea that we'd build the data centers now, and finish the nuclear plants to power them 11-12 years from now?

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-timeline-of-a-nu...


For wind turbine project from design and planning to operational use-takes approximately 4-7 years. An offshore wind turbine project requires about 7-10 years.

https://jmhpower.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-wind-t...


> For wind turbine project from design and planning to operational use-takes approximately 4-7 years.

That's still better than 11-12 years. How long does a solar farm take?

If residents' opposition is rooted in higher power prices, data centers could just pay extra instead until the new capacity comes online. Seems like a cheap way to pay off opposition.

> An offshore wind turbine project requires about 7-10 years.

Given this article is about Pennsylvania, it'll probably take millions of years.


> How long does a solar farm take?

24–48 months, but for a data center that has to run 24/7 you need to also build a gas power plant.

https://www.pvfarm.io/blog/utility-scale-solar-project-devel...

https://globalenergymonitor.org/research/betting-big-data-ce...


Or use batteries.

Also residential and industrial use will be lower at night. So the existing grid supply may also be enough.


In many places the contraty is true, peak electricity prices are after sunset, during night.


> peak electricity prices are after sunset

The famous evening duck curve, when people go home and cook and turn on heating/cooling appliances. California is able to flatten that out with batteries alone.

https://eticaag.com/battery-storage-and-the-duck-curve-march...

> during night

When everyone's asleep? Serious doubt, please show your sources.


The 2024 NYT infographic also has a nice visualization of how batteries flattened the evening curve as of then: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/climate/batte...


> When everyone's asleep? Serious doubt, please show your sources.

Lot of industry, especialy heavy industry, chemical plants are running 24/7.

For expensive night prices see electricity prices in Europe, expensive natural gas, coal power production with carbom tax.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DE/live/fifteen_min...


> Lot of industry, especialy heavy industry, chemical plants are running 24/7.

Right...so they also run during the day (that's what 24/7 means), when everyone else is using electricity. At night they're the only users. Which means less demand at night compared to the day.

> see electricity prices in Europe

This article is about Pennsylvania. That isn't in Europe.


> This article is about Pennsylvania

You are right, PJM grid is coal, nuclear and gas dominated.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-MIDA-PJM/live/fi...


I don't see any nighttime prices there. Where do you see that nighttime rates are higher than daytime rates in Pennsylvania?


PA electricity pricing per hour:

* Highest is 14:00 until 18:00 or 21:00

* Lowest is 23:00 or 24:00 until 6:00

https://electricrates.org/pennsylvania/time-of-use/


So nighttime is cheaper than daytime. As logic would dictate.

Adding to the sibling comment, from your link:

* The longest piece for wind is "Approvals and permits" which takes up to 5 years of the 4-7y.

* The building part "takes approximately 3-6 months" for building wind.

So wind can be built far faster if we're willing to speed up approvals and permitting. And even if corners are cut for approvals/permitting, the worst case for a wind turbine failure is a lot better than a nuclear failure.


> It can be a little later. Your requirements is like demanding nobody can buy a house unless they have pay they entire amount upfront.

Have data center companies mortgaged their property to the public and paying interest on "power loans" monthly ? Please correct me if I am ignorant.


You don't need to build them. You can just not retire, or unretire one.

Though we really should get better at building nuclear power plants. I'm think more of small ones to power ships though, not land based ones. Ships are one of the few places where oil/coal are used that there are not realistic renewable alternatives.


I'm fine with any power source, but all sources should include all lifetime externality costs (including for fossil/nuclear/renewable):

* Externality costs for items like pollution

* Any required insurance cost during their lifetime (not subsidized)

* An up-front bond or similar to cover final decommissioning and any required long-term storage costs (again, for fossil/renewable/nuclear)


Nuclear power takes 10-20 years to build from scratch.


Median build time for 1 GW nuclear power plant in Japan was 1721 days (4.7 years), first concrete to grid connection.

https://x.com/GrantChalmers/status/1422472474487263233


1. The 2 reactors under construction [1 > CONSTRUCTION] are expected to take 20 years and >20 years respectively [2][3].

2. Nuclear Safety Commission Chairman Haruki Madarame told a parliamentary inquiry that "Japan's atomic safety rules are inferior to global standards and left the country unprepared for the Fukushima nuclear disaster". There were flaws in, and lax enforcement of, the safety rules governing Japanese nuclear power companies. [4 (Bloomberg: "Nuclear Safety Chief Says Lax Rules Led to Fukushima Crisis")]

3. Additionally, your source is from more than 5 years ago; in those additional >5 years, neither of the 2 under-construction Japan plants (started in 2006 and 2010) have finished, and 1 is not expected until 2030 (I couldn't find an expected date for the other).

4. The phase you mentioned is a relatively small amount (~1/3) of a nuclear reactor's total startup timeline. [6]

5. Japan was the fastest country from your 2021 source (before taking into account that current JP builds are taking 20+ years).

6. The last Japan reactor to go online was in the 2000s [1 > OPERATION].

[1] https://cnpp.iaea.org/public/countries/JP/profile/preview

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cma_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[3] https://pris-stats.iaea.org/reactor/862

[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-02-16/nuclear-s...

[5] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-timeline-of-a-nu...


Japan learned from Fukishima nuclear accident, and many outside Japan forget that earthquake and tsunami had bigger impact in terms of material damage and cost of life then the nuclear accident.

Currently, economy of Japan (world biggest LNG importer) is hit hard by the events in Middle East. Because of this goverment starts maximum use of nuclear power policy.

https://www.nucnet.org/news/japan-council-adopts-policy-pack...

https://www.powermag.com/reactor-restart-rekindling-japans-n...

https://ieefa.org/resources/japans-diversified-lng-procureme...


That may be true, but does not change that the only 2 JP reactors built since the 2000s are each taking 2+ decades each to complete (started in 2006 and 2010, and estimated to launch in ___ and 2030).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%8Cma_Nuclear_Power_Plant

https://pris-stats.iaea.org/reactor/862


They still have 10 already build but not running reactors, bringing those online is the less costly way to increase nuclear power production.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...


By the time nuclear power were to come online in the US, most of these datacenters would be idled and possibly even demolished.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: