One side point is that China's strategic focus on leading in EVs, batteries, and renewables has little to do with fighting climate change. They make some noises about climate for sure, and they do want to reduce smog and pollution that affects the quality of life for their citizens, but their real motivation for setting out to lead in these industries is 1) they know their dependence on fossil fuel imports is a security vulnerability and 2) they see leadership in these key 21st century technologies as a path to economic and military dominance.
Noah has talked about this before, but I don't think he mentioned it in this article.
"Historically, China has only accounted for 15% of total carbon emissions, but its share is rising quickly." To put this in perspective, China has 18% of the world population.
Solar is great, batteries are great ... and their cost reduction is fantastic. For China, a deep connection to carbon-based sources is a massive national security issue...so shifting to a supply chain they can control makes a lot of sense. However, it is hard to beat the energy density of gasoline (another form of "battery' storage) and it appears hybrid cars offer the best solution for transportation. For utility generation, cost typically wins, and in some cases natural gas and nuclear are the right solutions. For the US, a broader mix of energy sources, including traditional carbon-based, seem to make sense.
It is not clear to me anyone is really focused on climate change.
I agree about security concerns being a major motivation for China's investment in these areas, but what makes you think hybrid cars offer the best solution for transportation" Energy density is less relevant when 2/3 of that energy is waste heat and doesn't help propel the vehicle, as is the case with gasoline.
The latest generation of Chinese batteries support cars with ranges similar to gas cars and fast charging times almost on par with gas fill ups. IMO, the race is over and BEVs have clearly won on a technology standpoint.
Now it's just a long slog until adoption gets to 100% over the next couple of decades. There's disagreement about the timeline, but I don't know of anyone in the auto industry that doesn't think this is going to happen.
Can you point me to some auto industry experts that say something different?
On BEV vs Hybrid, the baseline is the infrastructure is gasoline based, and as I said, gasoline is order-of-magnitude superior to electric battery for energy density. To get the same range in a battery, you need a bigger battery...thus weight. This is also a shame since most trips are short. In terms of translating energy to motion, the "electric" powertrain is much more efficient, less wear/tear, and you get the advantage of regenerative breaking. All of this leads to a reasonable combination as an outstanding solution.
In terms of "experts," Toyota is standardizing on hybrid for their whole fleet. Most of the other OEMs are shifting a similar manner. BEV may well make sense in a lot of contexts... especially interesting are micromobility.
Respectfully, I think you're confusing short and medium term shuffling (eg Toyota) with longer term direction.
Toyota got caught flat footed with their hydrogen based electrification strategy and needed to pivot fast. They have superior hybrid technology and they're doing a great job leveraging that. The US political situation and slower EV adoption here vs other countries have helped them enormously.
So their short/medium term strategy makes a lot of sense and is working out great for them. Still, outside analysts warn that unless Toyota can execute better on EVs (vs the bZ4X flop), they will lose share everywhere but the US and Japan, and the loss of scale from that will eventually make them uncompetitive everywhere.
Perhaps..... let us respectfully disagree than..... hybrids are here to stay for certain form-factors. BEV have their place... The success of hybrids or toyota is not limited to the US. Hydrogen is a different issue... it is yet another supply chain...unlikely to scale in transportation. However, it has interesting properties at utility scale with some innovation in transportation/storage.
You'll see my other comment on hydrogen, but I agree that with innovation and some breakthroughs, it might eventually have something to offer.
OTOH, the tech has a long long way to go. It's much farther away from widespread adoption than say SMRs, which have a pretty tough road ahead themselves.
All that said, I'm glad to see research funding for stuff like this that may be a breakthrough or two away from viability.
Several companies such as Terraform Industries (U.S.) and Rivan (UK) are starting to make hydrocarbons from photovoltaics. These can be a drop-in net-zero replacement for fossil hydrocarbons. Expensive now but dropping as photovoltaics become less expensive…
Peter, this makes a lot of sense... after all, with few exceptions, all the energy we are talking about is coming from sunlight, and then various transformations for usage.
Note... a similar trend is the use of remote solar farms to produce hydrogen/ammonia and physical transport via train/trucks. I suspect we will see all variations based on the circumstances.
I think you may be overestimating how far solar-powered hydrogen has come. The tech is promising, but the math still works against it without huge tech breakthroughs. Electrolysers cost a lot, solar is intermittent, storage/transport losses are real, and that means the hydrogen still costs so much more than fossil alternatives there's little to no chance of widespread adoption.
It is a trend in announcements, pilot projects, and hype, but in actual deployment and cost-competitiveness, it's not even close. IMO, the most reasonable voice on this is Michael Liebreich with his hydrogen ladder.
Yes.. am aware of all of this.. never the less, combination of natural gas, hydrogen, solar are popping up in the southeast. The combination is effective in addressing the intermittent nature of solar, leverages hydrogen without the need for transport, uses existing natural gas pipelines. I don't claim this is the future, but commercial instillations are happening.
"None of the proponents of degrowth are asking China to stop growing its economy" - I find many on the progressive-left side rarely discuss China at all. It doesn't fit into most frameworks (racism, colonialism, etc.).
I wish the UK had cheaper electricity. We are looking at buying a car and between the higher insurance costs for EV and the negligible savings on charging, it still makes more sense to buy petrol. Governments need to make the economics of adopting green energy make sense for consumers.
Noah, you really need to spend some time listening to intelligent sceptics of the dominant climate change orthodoxy. There are various good arguments to electrify transportation and industry when the non-carbon route is cost-effective (poor Germany) and the environmental damage caused by the carbon alternatives is understood and not too severe.
Bjorn Lomborg’s exhaustive multidecadal analysis of the opportunity costs of our colossal obsession with carbon dioxide makes the most sense to me after looking at this stuff for 30 years.
A recent analysis of sea level rise detects mere millimetres a year. We don’t appear to be roasting. Plus the world is getting greener. Plants just work better at these higher CO2 concentrations. Marijuana greenhouses enrich CO2 to achieve 1200 or 1400 ppm and our atmosphere has reached 430.
I am sceptical that China’s ruthless oligarchy has been seized by environmental anxiety. Seems more likely that Xi wants acres of solar panels as part of the package which will deliver the most self-sufficiency in the face of eventual trade sanctions, just like the nuclear plants and coal fired plants will.
I doubt he cares about the dangerous amounts of mercury being released by all that coal. Things like mercury are the real pollutants, not carbon dioxide.
“Except that victory was far too modest and short-lived.” Once again, the Dems have failed us.
I think the more appropriate statement is: “If you give me a billion, I’ll do whatever’s needed for your industry.” Wokeness? Well that’s just cover for greed and corruption.
And maybe you should spend less time asking, “What your democracy should be doing for you,” and more will you have a democracy at the end of whatever this is? Because neither corrupt capital nor your corrupt tech express any such concern.
Meanwhile...our dominant political class tilts at windmills - literally.
Trump’s war in green and support for oil is not only bad for the world it is bad for the U.S. economy long term.
One side point is that China's strategic focus on leading in EVs, batteries, and renewables has little to do with fighting climate change. They make some noises about climate for sure, and they do want to reduce smog and pollution that affects the quality of life for their citizens, but their real motivation for setting out to lead in these industries is 1) they know their dependence on fossil fuel imports is a security vulnerability and 2) they see leadership in these key 21st century technologies as a path to economic and military dominance.
Noah has talked about this before, but I don't think he mentioned it in this article.
"Historically, China has only accounted for 15% of total carbon emissions, but its share is rising quickly." To put this in perspective, China has 18% of the world population.
Solar is great, batteries are great ... and their cost reduction is fantastic. For China, a deep connection to carbon-based sources is a massive national security issue...so shifting to a supply chain they can control makes a lot of sense. However, it is hard to beat the energy density of gasoline (another form of "battery' storage) and it appears hybrid cars offer the best solution for transportation. For utility generation, cost typically wins, and in some cases natural gas and nuclear are the right solutions. For the US, a broader mix of energy sources, including traditional carbon-based, seem to make sense.
It is not clear to me anyone is really focused on climate change.
I agree about security concerns being a major motivation for China's investment in these areas, but what makes you think hybrid cars offer the best solution for transportation" Energy density is less relevant when 2/3 of that energy is waste heat and doesn't help propel the vehicle, as is the case with gasoline.
The latest generation of Chinese batteries support cars with ranges similar to gas cars and fast charging times almost on par with gas fill ups. IMO, the race is over and BEVs have clearly won on a technology standpoint.
Now it's just a long slog until adoption gets to 100% over the next couple of decades. There's disagreement about the timeline, but I don't know of anyone in the auto industry that doesn't think this is going to happen.
Can you point me to some auto industry experts that say something different?
On BEV vs Hybrid, the baseline is the infrastructure is gasoline based, and as I said, gasoline is order-of-magnitude superior to electric battery for energy density. To get the same range in a battery, you need a bigger battery...thus weight. This is also a shame since most trips are short. In terms of translating energy to motion, the "electric" powertrain is much more efficient, less wear/tear, and you get the advantage of regenerative breaking. All of this leads to a reasonable combination as an outstanding solution.
In terms of "experts," Toyota is standardizing on hybrid for their whole fleet. Most of the other OEMs are shifting a similar manner. BEV may well make sense in a lot of contexts... especially interesting are micromobility.
Respectfully, I think you're confusing short and medium term shuffling (eg Toyota) with longer term direction.
Toyota got caught flat footed with their hydrogen based electrification strategy and needed to pivot fast. They have superior hybrid technology and they're doing a great job leveraging that. The US political situation and slower EV adoption here vs other countries have helped them enormously.
So their short/medium term strategy makes a lot of sense and is working out great for them. Still, outside analysts warn that unless Toyota can execute better on EVs (vs the bZ4X flop), they will lose share everywhere but the US and Japan, and the loss of scale from that will eventually make them uncompetitive everywhere.
Perhaps..... let us respectfully disagree than..... hybrids are here to stay for certain form-factors. BEV have their place... The success of hybrids or toyota is not limited to the US. Hydrogen is a different issue... it is yet another supply chain...unlikely to scale in transportation. However, it has interesting properties at utility scale with some innovation in transportation/storage.
You'll see my other comment on hydrogen, but I agree that with innovation and some breakthroughs, it might eventually have something to offer.
OTOH, the tech has a long long way to go. It's much farther away from widespread adoption than say SMRs, which have a pretty tough road ahead themselves.
All that said, I'm glad to see research funding for stuff like this that may be a breakthrough or two away from viability.
Several companies such as Terraform Industries (U.S.) and Rivan (UK) are starting to make hydrocarbons from photovoltaics. These can be a drop-in net-zero replacement for fossil hydrocarbons. Expensive now but dropping as photovoltaics become less expensive…
Peter, this makes a lot of sense... after all, with few exceptions, all the energy we are talking about is coming from sunlight, and then various transformations for usage.
Note... a similar trend is the use of remote solar farms to produce hydrogen/ammonia and physical transport via train/trucks. I suspect we will see all variations based on the circumstances.
I think you may be overestimating how far solar-powered hydrogen has come. The tech is promising, but the math still works against it without huge tech breakthroughs. Electrolysers cost a lot, solar is intermittent, storage/transport losses are real, and that means the hydrogen still costs so much more than fossil alternatives there's little to no chance of widespread adoption.
It is a trend in announcements, pilot projects, and hype, but in actual deployment and cost-competitiveness, it's not even close. IMO, the most reasonable voice on this is Michael Liebreich with his hydrogen ladder.
https://fuelcellsworks.com/2025/06/26/green-hydrogen/liebreich-calls-green-hydrogen-misguided-sparks-fierce-pushback-at-london-hydrogen-summit
Yes.. am aware of all of this.. never the less, combination of natural gas, hydrogen, solar are popping up in the southeast. The combination is effective in addressing the intermittent nature of solar, leverages hydrogen without the need for transport, uses existing natural gas pipelines. I don't claim this is the future, but commercial instillations are happening.
Most optimistic article I have read in a long time.
"None of the proponents of degrowth are asking China to stop growing its economy" - I find many on the progressive-left side rarely discuss China at all. It doesn't fit into most frameworks (racism, colonialism, etc.).
It's a long-running problem.
I wish the UK had cheaper electricity. We are looking at buying a car and between the higher insurance costs for EV and the negligible savings on charging, it still makes more sense to buy petrol. Governments need to make the economics of adopting green energy make sense for consumers.
Noah, you really need to spend some time listening to intelligent sceptics of the dominant climate change orthodoxy. There are various good arguments to electrify transportation and industry when the non-carbon route is cost-effective (poor Germany) and the environmental damage caused by the carbon alternatives is understood and not too severe.
Bjorn Lomborg’s exhaustive multidecadal analysis of the opportunity costs of our colossal obsession with carbon dioxide makes the most sense to me after looking at this stuff for 30 years.
A recent analysis of sea level rise detects mere millimetres a year. We don’t appear to be roasting. Plus the world is getting greener. Plants just work better at these higher CO2 concentrations. Marijuana greenhouses enrich CO2 to achieve 1200 or 1400 ppm and our atmosphere has reached 430.
I am sceptical that China’s ruthless oligarchy has been seized by environmental anxiety. Seems more likely that Xi wants acres of solar panels as part of the package which will deliver the most self-sufficiency in the face of eventual trade sanctions, just like the nuclear plants and coal fired plants will.
I doubt he cares about the dangerous amounts of mercury being released by all that coal. Things like mercury are the real pollutants, not carbon dioxide.
“Except that victory was far too modest and short-lived.” Once again, the Dems have failed us.
I think the more appropriate statement is: “If you give me a billion, I’ll do whatever’s needed for your industry.” Wokeness? Well that’s just cover for greed and corruption.
And maybe you should spend less time asking, “What your democracy should be doing for you,” and more will you have a democracy at the end of whatever this is? Because neither corrupt capital nor your corrupt tech express any such concern.
Technology is our ultimate savior