Reddit mentions of Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation: How Silicon Valley Will Make Oil, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal, Electric Utilities and Conventional Cars Obsolete by 2030

> those panels can't serve the evening peak once the sun has gone down.

CSP plants that use thermal tech do that just fine. Clean Disruption does a good job of explaining the issues with Nuclear as a renewable source if you're interested.

I'm not against nuclear personally, but there are strong economic arguments against its use (which is a shame because chucking up a bunch of them would be great in an ideal world).

I worry that these investments will become stranded assets - I wouldn't blame the Chinese for wanting to put their money in hard assets in the US (outside of China), but that's a financial discussion rather than an energy one.

Check out Tony Seba's book Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation: How Silicon Valley Will Make Oil, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal, Electric Utilities and Conventional Cars Obsolete by 2030 or this
Presentation in Oslo a few months ago, which talks about the 30 year cost curves of various energy technologies, latest developments, and the future trends for costs, which is a critical factor for adoption. The prices of fossil fuels have been trending static or up, and the prices of solar and battery have been trending down for 30 years.

Renew Economy summarises a report from Deutsche Bank that by 2017, rooftop solar will reach grid parity with 80% of the electricity markets globally.

Either way, China is investing heavily, and their leadership knows that they can't industrialise the same way the US and Europe have done. In 2014 they invested $90B, more than anyone else in renewable. Bloomberg mirrors this in quarterly stats of 2015.

The Asia-Pacific Journal attributes it to China's desire for energy security.

Important as this motive of reduced carbon intensity might be, we believe it is the least likely of the explanations for China’s shift. We believe the more plausible explanation for China’s new trajectory – and for the determination with which it is being pursued – is energy security (Mathews & Tan, 2014b).

So the point from Bob Inglis, R of South carolina is that China sees renewable as more of an opportunity than the US. Whether you believe in climate change or not, these technologies are more and more likely to be the future of energy, and is the US prepared to yield leadership to China?

> economically viable for me without endless government assistance

I agree with that only to an extent. The current grid, the nuclear plants, and other energy infrastructure were largely built with government assistance. Nuclear plants usually depend on government-guaranteed loans, plus no private insurance companies will cover their liability for a nuclear incident so the taxpayers are the insurer of last resort if there is a problem. Plus the taxpayers are often stuck with decommissioning costs. Much of our grid and its energy infrastructure was built with government funds and assistance. We do need the energy, after all.

So while I agree that the case offered for wind and solar should be economic rather than green, at least for messaging purposes, we have to make sure we're acknowledging that public investment into our energy infrastructure has been ongoing for about a century. If we're expecting solar and wind to go it alone with zero public support, that is a departure from how we've developed our infrastructure for a very long time.

For the stuff I said about nuclear above, I got the info from chapter 6 of Tony Seba's book Clean Disruption. I really didn't realize how much the government had financed the nuclear industry over the years. But, like I said, we do need the energy. I also recommend the book The Grid for perspective of how long the government has been paying for this infrastructure.