Skip to main content

USA loses its way?

 The USA under Trump is losing ground to China on, amongst other things, renewable energy. China is investing heavily in it, Trump is trying to stop it, onshore and offshore wind especially. It all adds up to what some see as fatal energy policy error, with the US trapped into a dead-end commitment to fossil fuels, destined to lead to ever rising energy and climate costs, with the war on Iran possibly being seen by future historians as a key part in a process of US decline.

By contrast, China is now leading the way on low cost green energy deployment, and also on new energy tech R&D.  For example, it now leads on solar research – actually aided by Trump.  Collaboration on PV research with the US did significantly decreased after the 2018 ‘China Initiative’ launched by the Trump administration. But there has been a compensatory acceleration of collaborations between China & other countries, particularly with S. Korea and Germany. And now there are more impactful articles authored by China in prestigious journals, indicating growing autonomy in   PV solar R&D. 

China does still use a lot of coal, but it is trying to cut back on emissions. It is still building some new coal plants but they are sometimes portrayed as an interim flexibility option- helping to balance renewables, with some coal plants only being used occasionally when green power is less available. But that’s just for now. Key targets in a new plan include cutting overall carbon intensity by more than 65% by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, ‘reasonably’ controlling coal-fired power generation, achieving a ‘25% share of non-fossil energy consumption by 2030’ and ‘gradually’ covering all new power demand with clean energy. 

So, although it may take time, China may come out as a major ‘green energy’ winner, also successfully pushing its green tech in many locations around the world. While the US is looking increasing like the looser. It certainly has lost whatever credibility it had in terms of climate policy and also, arguably, its image as a defender of positive futures. However, all may not be totally lost. There is some resistance to Trumps green blocks to wind and solar, and Trump may not survive the economic and political mess created by the war on Iran. But, for the moment, it looks pretty grim, with fuel cost impacts spreading and the USA (and elsewhere) and the US and Iran being the only major emitters without zero emission targets. Indeed, Trump had backed out of all climate action related agreements, including a recent one backed by 141 countries. Instead, ‘drill baby drill’ is his motto..

That sounds like a dead end, historically. But it’s also worth asking, will China’s version of autocratic-communism-combined-with-markets survive?  And can it deliver a green future? It does seem to be trying. And a Chinese commentator has claimed that ‘its rise in renewable energy is not just a tale of emissions, geopolitical power & economic security; it is a shift towards sustainable development, clean transition and inclusion. As the global energy order expands, China’s role as an architect of green technology will only become more central.’ 

Well maybe.  But here is what Karl Marx had to say in 1859: ‘No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself’.  

Are we anywhere near ready for that? Probably not! It certainly did not prove to be the case for Russia. China may be doing better. Although Marx is hard going, with his relentlessly reductive determinism. Isn’t there room for some variation and flexibility?  And learning from mistakes?  The USA does have a huge high-tech military, but, apart from its occasional forays into space exploration and it’s push into AI, the US does seem to have abandoned much of its tech leadership role, in energy especially, and, under Trump, it is also tearing itself apart socially and politically.  Though it may yet pull back from disaster and change track. China may be doing a lot that’s right in energy terms (nuclear arguably apart), but it also has some (very) dirty washing in social terms. Europe may be a bit better on that, and, although China has much more installed renewable energy capacity than Europe (2.3TW versus 1TW) it is also still using a lot of coal, while Europe is getting almost 50% of its power from renewables, and its pushing ahead for more, with coal being phased out- totally in the UK. Though there are also plans for some more nuclear in some EU member countries and in the UK. 

However, who knows what will happen next politically? With the Iran war as yet unresolved,  energy policies around the world are still in flux, although it does seem clear that renewables will be one winner, come what may. But so may nuclear, and also coal, even if views differ on how much. Meanwhile, according to the IEA, global carbon dioxide emissions reached a record high last year, rising 0.4% from 2024 levels, due in part to the USA, where coal demand rose 10% last year. That doesn’t bode well for the future, although, as a GRIST article argued, developing economies in Asia, led by China, are going faster with their energy transitions in many ways than developed economies, so there is still hope…

What next?  Is a green future really possible? Based on growth? Few greens will object to growth in the use of renewables, but there can be local objections and it has to be done carefully. And, if you are a deep green, then reliance on continued, and indeed expanding, economic growth will be disastrous - there are eco-limits to earths carrying capacity and its material resources. Something Marx did actually note. But he felt it was not an immediate issue. Maybe now it is - we may be running out of time. And planet. 

Some major issues…Are we ready to face de-industrialisation? Though isn’t that what has happened in the USA?  And isn’t that what AI will lead to most places?  But with China winning on that too - aided by solar? Or, as some see it, is AI the horribly flawed work of the devil? Plenty of big issues to discuss…


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av...

Nuclear Reliability- an uncertain route

 Nuclear energy provides reliable, baseload, low-carbon electricity that complements the variability of wind and solar’. That, boiled down, is the UK governments view, as relayed in a response by the Department of Energy Security and New Zero to a critique by Prof Steve Thomas and Paul Dorfman. Well, none if it holds up to examination. Low carbon? Not if you include uranium mining, waste handling and plant decommissioning. Baseload? A dodgy idea!  A Department of Energy minister had previously admitted that ‘although some power plants are referred to as baseload generators, there is no formal definition of this term’ and the Department ‘does not place requirements on generation from particular technologies’.  A key point is that nuclear plants are not that reliable- if nothing else, they have to be shut down occasionally for maintenance and refuelling. Add to that unplanned outages, and nuclear plants are not very sensible as backup - especially given their high capital ...

A golden nuclear age

 Nuclear power will help take us into a ‘golden age of clean energy abundance’. So said UK Energy Secretary Ed Milliband, in the run up to the public spending review. He announced an extra £14.2 billion in state support for EdFs proposed 3.2GW Sizewell C European Pressurised-water Reactor (EPR) and also £2.5bn for small modular reactor support, with Rolls Royce having won the UK Small Modular Reactor (SMR) competition. There would also be £2.5bn to support fusion.  Whereas there has been a lot a concern about the cost of Sizewell, given the delays and over-runs with its sister EPR plant at Hinkley, it was argued that the second plant would benefit from the lessons learnt, and certainly Miliband was very single-minded about it: ‘all of the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. In any sensible reckoning, this is essential to get to our clean power and net zero ambitions.’  Not everyone agreed with that, and, in any case, as t...