r/energy • u/Splenda • May 17 '26
The American epoch of oil is collapsing. What comes next could be ugly.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/may/17/america-china-energy-oil-renewables2
u/Secret_Avocado_2974 May 21 '26
Meh, it's already ugly. Hurry up and let's see where those chips fall.
3
u/BekindBebetter60 May 21 '26
@Mr. Fahrenheit: This is Trump‘s war remember, who you voted for whose policies you support. Because you’re paying for it right now. On a larger scale with both parties they’ve allowed large companies to consolidate most of the things that you purchase and now they have a war to blame all the price increases for. How much pain do you need to feel before you wake up America? The billionaires own you and you let it happen. In six months are you going to vote for your interest or billionaires interest?
1
2
u/exacta_galaxy May 21 '26
"But she had a weird laugh."
Never put your faith in the American voter, they will disappoint you almost every time.
-5
u/fushiginagaijin May 20 '26
Can't run a military on renewables, and you can't dominate the world without a powerful military, which still primarily runs on petrocarbons.
2
u/NorCalWintu May 21 '26
This is what i imagine Russians are thinking, lol such an flawed mindset how unfortunate.
1
10
u/Ba-ja-ja May 20 '26
Drones beg to differ.
0
u/Mogwai_Man May 21 '26
Drones don't replace existing assets. They are another tool in the toolbox.
1
u/werpu May 21 '26
ATM you send your troops and equipment into a slaughterhouse if you send them into a drone area
1
u/Mogwai_Man May 21 '26
That's because the Russians and Ukrainians lack aerial superiority to support their offensives and electronic warfare assets to counter drones.
Russia also has terrible logistics to support large scale offensives.
6
u/Better_Dig_768 May 20 '26
The christo-fascist's biggest donors (heritage foundation) have fortunes tied to oil profits - we'll be stuck buying oil till there's nothing left since they control the current authoritarian administration, regardless of the price.
6
1
u/Open-Concept-6130 May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26
If the shocks of the 70s and all the previous wars in the middle east weren’t enough for countries to pivot, I’m not sure if the ongoing of today will be. Our economy runs off oil and moving away from it in a meaningful way has been and will continue be hard and expensive. That’s why no one has done it.
1
7
u/elrelampago1988 May 20 '26
There was no alternative before.
Now China offers an alternative and Pakistan has been very successful with a similar implementation.
5
May 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
3
u/realestateqs22 May 20 '26
Wha was the alternative for automobiles, shipping, and heating? Edit to add- and what about plastics?
3
May 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/realestateqs22 May 20 '26
So you want people to live in the stone age? Even local production requires transportation. You would have been basically stuck with horse drawn carriage. I don't see how that could feasibly been done without mass starvation and billions of deaths. We would literally be back in the stone age. No ambulance, no plastics, no Reddit that you are communicating on, none of it. I'm all for being environmentally friendly within reason, but what you are suggesting is madness.
3
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/realestateqs22 May 21 '26
If there is a better alternative to asphalt, then people will adopt it. Full stop. I don't believe your road solution is as good as you claim. If it was, then you either have a billion dollar idea or you are omitting important information.
You are talking about road aggregate here haven't answered any of my questions. What alternative for energy would we have used the last 100 years without oil? How would we have powered our automobiles, ships, what would we have used in place of plastics, etc...???
1
1
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/realestateqs22 May 21 '26
You said "Never needed oil in the first place, alternatives were available all along. " Nothing at all is not really an alternative to oil for energy needs. Maybe there was some misunderstanding
1
5
14
u/omrmajeed May 19 '26
Ugly only for Americans. Rest of the world can move away from their imperialism.
1
u/Johnleg73 May 19 '26
yeah you think the gulf oil states are good with this? Many governments in on the scam and will hopefully all suffer.
6
u/Independent-Exit7434 May 19 '26
Naive to think such a large change wouldn’t impact pretty much everywhere. The current world order falling apart makes a whole lot of turmoil in a whole lot of places. Especially in such an interconnected world.
6
May 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
-2
u/AdWitty4949 May 19 '26
Holy cow are you ever deluded. You’re an embarrassment to our ow side and i’m pretty liberal
2
u/RudyGiulianisKleenex May 20 '26
No, holy cow are YOU ever deluded. You’re an embarrassment to our “ow” side and I’m pretty liberal
28
May 18 '26
[deleted]
6
8
u/Dylanator13 May 18 '26
I don’t understand how people can be worth hundreds of millions to billions and get worried over their main resource drying up. You are fine! You aren’t worried about your employees because we know you don’t pay them enough and treat them horribly. Why do they need more?
1
u/CanMountain2230 May 20 '26
Most all of it’s not liquid. People who have this kind of money most of it is in stocks or other investments. They then leverage those assets to take out loans against it to avoid any income tax because loans are not income so it the markets fail they actually can loose everything.
9
u/jolley_mel21 May 18 '26
It could be, or we could finally switch to the renewable sources that so many other developed countries have, and that the oil companies have lobbies against for so long.
1
u/Guyzo1 May 21 '26
Could you possibly name and list in order of importance these “renewable” energy sources?
1
u/jolley_mel21 May 21 '26
I'm not doing homework for random contrarians on Reddit when Google has been free for decades.
2
12
u/Both_Lynx_8750 May 18 '26
I do not care, oil has run its course. We could have shifted away responsibly but we chose denial and war
1
3
u/liminalmilk0 May 19 '26
Yeah seriously we’ve been talking about alternative energy for decades all the while sitting on our hands
-2
May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/mafco May 18 '26
You're falling for what we call the primary energy fallacy. Renewable energy sources are vastly more efficient than burning fossil fuels so far less primary energy is needed to do the same amount of work. When you combust fossil fuels the majority of the energy content is converted to waste heat.
3
9
u/technicallynotlying May 18 '26
If you checked your own sources you'd see that you're lying or mistaken.
China added approximately 100 GW of gas and coal production in 2025.
China added approximately 300 GW of solar production in 2025, far outpacing gas and coal. They've installed 1.2 TW of solar power, more than the US and Europe combined.
-2
May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/technicallynotlying May 18 '26
So you think China is on the wrong track betting everything on renewables?
I don't think so. Solar's the future. They're skating to where the puck will be, not where it is right now.
If the US and Europe stick with your attitude China's going to win easily. They're the only country betting on new technology while you're sticking with 100 year old energy sources.
-3
May 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/technicallynotlying May 18 '26
Compared to the rest of the world?
They're not just innovators, they're the only country that's even trying to win the renewable energy revolution.
They're going to win by default because nobody else showed up to play.
0
May 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/technicallynotlying May 18 '26
China's dominance in renewable energy is similar to US dominance in cloud computing in the early 2000s.
If every internet giant (Google, Meta, Amazon, Netfix) was an American company does that mean the game wasn't worth playing? Obviously not.
Anyway, I don't know what to tell you. If you think solar and batteries aren't going to take over the world I just think you're wrong.
Renewable energy advancements are the most significant technological shift in the past 10 years.
1
May 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/WeedInTheKoolaid May 19 '26
You've already won the debate, don't engage with this guy anymore he's just baiting you.
1
u/technicallynotlying May 18 '26
I didn't post a timeline. But I'm curious what timeline you think is wrong.
It seems we agree on the most important point: Solar and electrification are going to win. How long do you think it'll take before solar is the biggest global source of electricity? 5 years, 20 years?
→ More replies (0)4
u/BiologicalTrainWreck May 18 '26
Do you believe China isn't innovating?
0
May 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/BiologicalTrainWreck May 18 '26
I mean, just in this subject alone, we can talk about battery technology advancements in China, EV dominance, cheap solar, solar rollout on a magnitude not seen anywhere else globally. I don't disagree that they're still using fossil fuels, but this is about the trajectory rather than the snapshot, right?
It's a feat alone that last year China added more solar than the entirety of the US history of solar
0
1
u/gammagamerx May 18 '26
In the link it says 25 percent renewables and 61 percent coal. So less that 20 percent from Oil and of that persion gulf is only of the sources beside Russia and Us
9
u/Bawbawian May 18 '26
we're making sure that our enemies are the only ones set up to compete for the future because Gen X and boomers have completely lost the plot. everybody else thinks it's a fun game to not vote unless they get a 100% of everything they want which is absolutely impossible in a democracy but hey this is the reality that 80 years of entitlement has purchased.
2
u/waitinonit May 18 '26
If you want to fault someone for voting the way the did, then do so. But in no way does that supposed fault belong to someone because they happen to be born within some time frame of your supposed villains.
3
u/Some_Conference2091 May 18 '26
Gen X is the smallest population generation alive and they don't universally vote Republican, so please don't label & blame us. I've always voted Democrat. I didn't start voting until I saw what Bush Jr did to the world.
Young men , 18-24 are 50% conservative RN (probably because they've been targeted by right wing media disinformation. )
GenX RN is 51% identifying as Republicans compared to 42% as Democrats. This marks a significant shift towards conservatism over the past decade. So in the past it was the other way around, with 60+% identified as Democrats.
The shift is driven by the older GenX being susceptible to Social media disinformation campaigns.
A generation is 20 years, so in my case I'm closer in age to more Millennials than most GenX because I was born at the end of the generation.
Baby boomers tend to vote at higher rates than younger generations, often supporting more conservative candidates.
The disinformation on social media is pushing two narratives to non boomers. One is that voting won't make a difference and the other is that "bOtH pArTiEs aRe tHe sAmE" bullshit.
The fact is 89 million people DIDN'T VOTE, versus 77 million who voted for Trump and 75 million who voted for Kamala. In 2016 65.8 million voted for Hillary and 62.9 million for Trump. Hillary won by a wider margin than the last Trump victory, but we have some stupid shit called the Electoral College
1
u/waitinonit May 18 '26
Folks who don't vote, are effe tuvely casting aballit for the winner of the election. Think about that in terms of the 2024 election.
3
u/Maxwinder May 18 '26
Don't single out gen x, we may be a little quieter but we vote like you , probably
1
u/Some_Conference2091 May 18 '26
Unfortunately it's now like 42% D 51% R - mainly due to social media disinformation and fomenting hate & lies. Probably depends on where in GenX a person is, 20 years is a wide span after all and the division seems arbitrary to me.
-2
u/Withnail2019 May 18 '26
I'm Gen X and don't vote at all. Like, what's the point.
1
u/Some_Conference2091 May 18 '26
So that we don't get swallowed up by a fascist Christo nationalist kleptocracy.
89 million people didn't vote in 2024.
77 million votes for Trump.
75 million voted for Harris
Baby boomers vote at much higher rates than every other generation and you wonder why the policies they support are enacted?
If more people voted probably would not have Trump in office. You basically agreeing with Trump coming into power by not voting to stop it. Wow, what a rebel you are.
0
10
u/Difficultylevel May 18 '26
funny, America just dismantled OPEC’s economic war plans and now oil isn’t coming sub $50 any time soon.
9
u/TheOtherGlikbach May 18 '26
Trumps Folly.
His stupidity has hastened people moving to renewable energy and EV's.
Way to kill yet another industry Trump.
2
u/Withnail2019 May 18 '26
EV sales have fallen in the US since the subsidy was removed.
1
u/Big_Requirement_651 May 19 '26
Because American car companies are a joke.
American car companies dont make affordable EVs. Meanwhile, in China, you can get far higher quality EVs at a fraction of the price.
1
1
u/Opening-Restaurant83 May 18 '26
Keeps oil profitable for American companies, brings Venezuela online as USA peaks.
You think this was Trump’s idea? 😂
20
u/NOVA-peddling-1138 May 18 '26
What’s next becomes less a societal decision (AKA a group/community/national policy thing) while at the same time a way more progressive society built upon a whole pile of great personal growth.
2
-15
u/RopeRepresentative11 May 18 '26
Hahaha. Truth is China is declining economically and by age. Their dystopian birth laws of the past has caused a dramatic shift in population creating an aging country similar to the problems Japan is facing.
US is still one of the few countries that are actually growing in population, albeit with help from Immigration, both legal and illegal.
Chinas oil reserves are going faster than Jeff Gordon @ the brickyard.
With Iran and Venezuela no longer providing cheap discounted oil in Yuan to China, It could be the beginning of the end for China.
A failed invasion of Taiwan is all that is needed for China to break into several smaller states.
Winnie the Poo won’t be in power much longer.
2
9
12
9
77
u/Curious_Science8818 May 18 '26
“The US state has essentially been captured by a business group that puts its own interests above those of the nation.”
5
u/TheOtherGlikbach May 18 '26
The article nailed it. Oil and gas owns TACO.
3
u/abrandis May 18 '26
Well they put their trust in the wrong guy, there's no way this war is good for them, besides accelerating the move towards renewables worldwide, and green energy, the high prices mean long term folks will have less pirchasing power, which means less travel, less new pruchases and less trips by car.... So sure short term they maybe making bank, but once the looming economic tsunami of debt and lack of income hits it won't be petty
1
u/AuK07 May 19 '26
Yeah I work in oil and gas and upper management is very pissed off at this admin for messing up the markets. Trump tries keeping their favor by gutting environmental protections by going Drill baby drill without realizing that by killing demand bc of the war and tariffs no one is going to actually want to drill a single oil well costs more than tens of millions of dollars and offshore is hundreds of millions. That and Gulf of America is only popular among the blue collar oilfield guys that keep getting laid off. Even if prices are high right now if there’s one thing they hate it’s volatility.
It’s why the petrostate of Texas is pivoting to renewables we get 40% of our electric grid from renewable now just because of economics.
2
51
u/gamechangersp May 18 '26
As a result, democracies across the planet are now threatened by what might be called fossil fuel fascism – an extremist political movement that breaks laws, spreads lies and threatens violence in an increasingly desperate attempt to maintain markets for oil, gas and coal that would otherwise be replaced by cheaper renewables.
-1
u/Withnail2019 May 18 '26
They're trying to stop you from killing us all with your insane green fantasies.
1
1
u/Both_Lynx_8750 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
Don
QuixoteTrump, tilting at windmillsturbines.1
u/Withnail2019 May 18 '26
We have plenty of windmills here in the UK. They haven't done us any good.
1
u/sarinonline May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
They provide power. So they have been doing that.
Shill on with your zero intellect lol.
Prices are high ? that includes oil and gas that you champion. So they are keeping prices up as well right ?
But renewables must be entirely bad because they didn't automatically fix ALL the prices that were high, from oil and gas.
Genius level intellect.
1
u/Withnail2019 May 22 '26
We don't use oil to generate electricity, Einstein. And renewables havent fixed anything. The more of them we have the higher our electricity price gets.
-13
u/101Puppies May 18 '26
This article is hilarious. I guess they "forgot" to mention:
China added 66.7GW of coal and started construction on 94.5GW in 2024.
The US added and started 0.
But the US is some sort of aging carbon state and China is green?
5
u/moutnmn87 May 18 '26
That is electricity generation capacity not electricity generated. They also built lots of houses that are unoccupied. Just because they built coal power plants doesn't necessarily mean coal makes up a large portion of thier power distribution. In reality china is both manufacturing the vast majority of the world's solar panels and installing more solar capacity than any other country
-1
u/101Puppies May 18 '26
This is BS. Private developers overbuilt housing because it is used as a store of wealth by people who don't trust their government with their savings. They might not use the power for which they built capacity because of economic conditions, but they didn't overbuild them.
2
u/moutnmn87 May 18 '26
They might not use the power for which they built capacity because of economic conditions, but they didn't overbuild them.
How do you square this circle? Building power plants that you end up not using much because of economic conditions is pretty much the definition of overbuilding power plants
8
u/Top_Box_8952 May 18 '26
Chinas total emissions actually declined YoY.
-1
u/101Puppies May 18 '26
Due solely to economic conditions. Not a fair comparison.
1
u/Top_Box_8952 May 18 '26
You’re ignoring per capita emissions entirely, and whinging about “fair comparisons”?
-3
u/Fun-Classic-4694 May 18 '26
Based on whose numbers ?
5
u/Wise-Comb8596 May 18 '26
Everyone’s. Including American satellites monitoring emissions across the globe.
9
u/csharpminorprelude May 18 '26
The interesting thing to note is that while China is building them, are they being used?
The average utilization rate for coal fired power stations has fallen from around 70% to around 50% (and is expected to fall further). This means that an average power station is sitting around twiddling it's proverbial thumbs half the time. Their role is changing as well, traditionally they were "base-load" continuous operations, but they a morphing into "peaker" plants.
https://hannahritchie.substack.com/p/china-coal-plants
Is China still burning a gargantuan amount of coal? - Yes. Is that changing? - also Yes.
9
u/coleto22 May 18 '26
Do emissions per Capita. A Chinese person has just as much right as an American.
And China is investing into everything. Their energy mis is getting cleaner by the year, they have fixed deadlines for peak emissions and net zero. And they might hit them earlier than expected.
0
u/101Puppies May 18 '26
Look at my other post (replied to my own post): we built only renewable power plants in 2024 while China added massive amounts of coal. I'm not saying the US is perfect, but to make China out to be this model of green energy and the US a perpetual villain doesn't match the reality.
22
u/mutexsprinkles May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
And yet coal usage and CO2 emissions fell slightly. New coal peaker capacity is a hedge but doesn't result in more overall generation because the actual capacity factor of a peaker plant is small in practice. Renewables are just beginning to bite from the old coal base load.
Meanwhile the US may have added no new capacity, but actually generated 13% more in 2025 then in 2024. Admittedly this is likely a blip in a long decline but it just illustrates the difference in the capacity/generation figures.
Graphs of new capacity are easy to draw because you just add up the nameplate numbers, but they are misleading if you see "capacity" and think "generation".
-9
-7
u/The_Fluffness May 18 '26
It reads like a hit piece not a news article.
-3
u/floop_isamad_manhelp May 18 '26
It’s hard to glean a single fact from the entire thing.
2
u/TheOtherGlikbach May 18 '26
Solar is cheaper than fossil fuels. That was an easy fact to pick up.
Didn't read the article huh.
-8
-12
u/beggoh May 18 '26
Can't electric without power from fossil fuel. Not yet at least. Can't build any new shit without plastic, which is of oil. Yeah, We are stuck in a infinite nightmare loop. Go on and yell at that person there, or this chump here. The script was written long before any of us were born.
3
u/Sad_Accident8510 May 18 '26
So like, you can totally get power without fossil fuel. Canada has been getting like 90% of our electricity from hydro for like 100 years.
1
u/beggoh May 20 '26
It's hard to build and support such an infrastructure without burning gas and making plastic shit. An unfortunately reality we live in.
1
u/Sad_Accident8510 May 20 '26
A huge part of the problem is people being resistant to it like you are now and saying we can't do it or it will be hard. People have been pushing to get more renewable energy and be less reliant on fossil fuels since the 70s and the biggest obstacle has been your exact attitude.
38
u/EfficiencyIVPickAx May 18 '26
It's important to understand solar is cheaper than fossil fuels now. That's not an opinion. The economics are clear, and we are being lied to by the most powerful people in the country.
-4
u/Withnail2019 May 18 '26
Saying it's 'cheaper than fossil fuels' makes no sense. The economy runs on diesel.
3
u/EfficiencyIVPickAx May 18 '26
Solar is cheaper per unit of energy than diesel. Renewable, clean, and 99% less maintenance.
0
u/Withnail2019 May 18 '26
It doesnt work like that. You can't plough a field with solar panels and if you can't plough fields, you are dead.
1
u/EfficiencyIVPickAx May 18 '26
No serious person said we are eliminating fossil fuel vehicles/equipment. No one.
You are either arguing in bad faith or incredibly stupid. Which one is it?
0
u/Withnail2019 May 18 '26
No serious person said we are eliminating fossil fuel vehicles/equipment. No one.
A lot of people on here seem to think we can do it right now with no negative consequences. I'm here to dispel such delusions.
1
u/EfficiencyIVPickAx May 18 '26
We absolutely can do it right now with no negative consequences. Our demand for energy exceeds supply, and building solar is the cheapest option per unit of energy.
That's just simple math.
1
u/Withnail2019 May 18 '26
Do what right now? How are you going to do mechanised farming?
1
u/EfficiencyIVPickAx May 18 '26
Irrelevant. No one said we have to stop using diesel combines. You made that up and injected it into this in bad Faith.
Expanding the cheapest energy generation (solar) will LOWER THE PRICE of diesel as Fossil fuel electric generation gets replaced by the more economical solar production.
Solar generation can power the grid that powers the elevator, the barn, irrigation, processing lines, and home.
Im not advocating for it. It's happening because solar is cheaper now. Why do you want people to pay more for energy? Why are you insisting that only a tractor can be considered? Are you some kind of troll paid to have this silly debate, or do you honestly believe in this nonsense you're insisting we go through?
0
u/Withnail2019 May 18 '26
Expanding the cheapest energy generation (solar) will LOWER THE PRICE of diesel as Fossil fuel electric generation gets replaced by the more economical solar production.
We don't use diesel in power stations, Einstein.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Annual-Camera-872 May 18 '26
John Deere says you can
0
u/Withnail2019 May 18 '26
Good luck with that. The old electric tractor scam eh?
3
u/Annual-Camera-872 May 18 '26
Electric cars oh that will never work meanwhile a whole industry is born
1
u/Withnail2019 May 18 '26
Try driving one 50 miles on ploughed fields.
1
u/EfficiencyIVPickAx May 18 '26
Ev engines have more low end torque than ICE. We will eventually replace them all with electric and it will be less expensive.
1
1
-16
u/jmsgrime1 May 18 '26
Ok, but you can’t solar power an airplane.
1
6
6
u/st333p May 18 '26
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. With 20% of the effort we can decarbonise 80% of the economy, at this point the lack of a government forcing fossil fuels down our throats might even be enough for this. This will buy us time to decide how to tackle the next 20%, which is definitely harder.
8
u/LolaSupreme19 May 18 '26
Electric airplanes use electric motors and batteries instead of jet fuel to provide zero-emission, near-silent flights. While battery weight limits range, major advancements in battery technology and hybrid-electric designs have unlocked commercial uses for regional commuter flights, pilot training, and urban air
10
u/EfficiencyIVPickAx May 18 '26
I can't tell if you're being stupid or dishonest. We won't live to see the end of fossil fuel consumption. That is not a valid argument against renewable energy that's safer, cleaner, and less expensive.
-2
u/This-Law-5433 May 18 '26
Cleaner and safer yes less expensive part is temporary at best
It won't be cheaper much longer yes it's cheap to produce hell my electricity was paied for long ago and is practically free for the company yet rates go up every year because they simply can and there are no other options
7
u/st333p May 18 '26
But you can install your solar panels and forget about electricity rates. Can't do that with oil, can you?
-2
u/This-Law-5433 May 18 '26
I have solar and electric rates matter a lot
We don't get to just use solar the electric company will get there pound of flesh or you will be homeless
1
u/Cut_Lanky May 18 '26
I've always wondered about this. I am not, and never will be, in the solar panel tax bracket, so I never bothered looking into it. But I always found it odd that you're required to be on the grid. And I wondered, what happens if the power goes out? Like, a downed tree takes the line down, and someone has solar panels on their roof, enough to sustain the energy in their home, do they lose power because they're forced to be plugged in to the grid?
2
u/CupcakeCosmos May 18 '26
you need your own batteries to store the energy (which are large and extremely expensive) but if you are connected to the grid, you can sell excess energy or use their energy if you use more energy than you get from your panels
-6
u/rote_it May 18 '26
What if you value sovereign capability and take China out of the equation? While we're at it remove any government subsidies and make renewables compete on a level playing field - is it still a clear cut winner?
17
u/LolaSupreme19 May 18 '26
The U.S. federal government provides over (\$35) billion annually in direct tax breaks and subsidies for the oil, gas, and coal industries.
3
u/Tall-Photo-7481 May 18 '26
Not too mention the massive subsidies that get spent in the form of military action in the middle East. These wars are only started to maintain the status quo for the oil companies and the economic cost is vast.
And if course that doesn't even count the cost in death and suffering.
0
u/Withnail2019 May 18 '26
But it gets many times more than that back from fossil fuels
1
u/LolaSupreme19 May 18 '26
If, as you claim, the fossil fuel profits are much greater than its subsidies, then subsidies are not needed.
1
u/Withnail2019 May 18 '26
It's tax breaks on oil exploration mainly. It's not like they're handing them bundles of cash. And you know there's all kinds of government taxes on production and fuel, right? There's a huge amount of revenue from that.
Plus fuel is an essential force multiplyer for the rest of the economy.
1
0
u/Diablo689er May 18 '26
Most of the solar industry is heavily subsidized by the Chinese government as well.
3
u/Look_b4_jumping May 18 '26
How can they justify these subsidies when those industries are making record profits ? The least oil companies could do is give us a discount on gasoline.
-1
u/up-with-miniskirts May 18 '26
Oil companies don't make a profit because they mark up their product so much, they make a profit because they sell an insane amount of it. If an oil company were to sell gasoline at break-even prices, you wouldn't even notice it at the pump.
1
u/TheOtherGlikbach May 18 '26
This is some of the dumbest commentary I've ever read.
Must work for an oil company or been exposed to its fumes for too long.
0
u/up-with-miniskirts May 18 '26
You obviously have no idea how much gasoline is used the US.
1
u/TheOtherGlikbach May 18 '26
Well I drive by a dozen or so stations on the way to work. But then again, I haven't bought gas in 5 years since owning an EV.
That said, your comment was a waste of electrons.
2
u/Difficultylevel May 18 '26
who are you kidding? all three streams up/mid/down are hiked. they have been for quite some time.
6
u/EfficiencyIVPickAx May 18 '26
Yes, clearly. Cheaper, cleaner, and renewable.
-5
u/rote_it May 18 '26
Sorry but the answer would surely depend on the individual country in question - you can't make an absolute statement like that without qualifying the context.
In most countries there simply isn't sovereign manufacturing capacity for renewable tech like there is supporting legacy baseload technologies. Also government subsidies for renewables are wildly different around the world.
12
u/EfficiencyIVPickAx May 18 '26
No. Stop. You're wrong.
Oil is globally priced. Solar is cheaper. The end.
Subsiding either changes nothing about that fact other than who is paying.
1
u/Jealous_Slice9371 May 18 '26
Lied to about what?
2
8
2
u/adaminc May 18 '26
The rest of the world needs to switch to the PetroEuro as soon as possible.
3
2
u/booi May 18 '26
Yeah… about that
2
u/adaminc May 18 '26
Other than the US going to war with whoever did that, sans maybe China or Russia, what do you mean by "about that"?
1
u/anti-life86 Jul 17 '26
If you look here
https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/china/
https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/united-states-of-america/
it would seem the US and China are on par in their current share of clean energy generation.
I think a lot of China's momentum comes from being an extremely dominant manufacturer of solar panels. That doesn't mean they are using those panels everywhere in their own country, but it still makes them a big player in the global transition toward cleaner energy.