US attack on renewables will lead to power crunch that spikes electricity prices

Perceived Intent of the Anti‑Renewables Push

• Many see the move as intentional sabotage, not a policy mistake: a mix of “own the libs” culture war, rewarding incumbents, and vengeance rather than cost or reliability.
• Some argue it enriches existing fossil and utility interests by constraining new supply and enabling higher prices.
• A minority claim it’s about appealing symbolically to coal country or anti‑wind/solar voters, even where local coal economics are already collapsing.

Democracy, Voters, and System Design

• Long subthreads debate whether mass voting itself is the problem vs. US institutional design (presidentialism, Senate, gerrymandering, FPTP).
• Ideas range from limiting suffrage via tests to radically expanding it; others argue polarization is engineered by the system, not inherent in voters.

What’s Really Driving Higher Power Prices?

• One detailed comment lists drivers: AI/data‑center demand, LNG exports raising gas prices, utilities’ profit‑seeking, private equity ownership, and blocking renewables that would shave daytime peaks.
• Others push back: in regulated US markets prices need approval; in some regions, peak demand is evening rather than midday.
• A separate camp blames renewables themselves for price volatility and complexity; opponents respond that the marginal generator is still gas, and banning the cheapest new capacity worsens prices.

Intermittency, Storage, and Grid Reliability

• Big fight over whether solar/wind destabilize grids or are now essential (e.g., California).
• Pro‑renewables side: utility‑scale solar/wind are already the lowest‑cost new generation without subsidies; battery costs and deployments are “exploding,” increasingly handling short‑term gaps.
• Skeptics: storage is still too limited/expensive for multi‑day or seasonal shortages; rooftop solar is costly and often cross‑subsidized by non‑owners; peaker plants or nuclear “baseload” are still needed.

Nuclear vs. Renewables

• Broad agreement nuclear can’t solve near‑term demand surges due to 10–15‑year build times.
• Nuclear advocates argue costs are inflated by custom designs and regulation; critics counter that every modern Western project is massively subsidized and over budget, while renewables dominate new build‑out.
• Long subthread disputes whether nuclear fuel, waste, and Russian supply dependence are manageable vs. underpriced externalities.

International and Structural Context

• Europe: mixed readings—some say ideology‑driven nuclear phaseouts plus Russian gas reliance were disastrous; others say data show successful diversification and renewables growth.
• UK: cited as an example of high prices and near‑miss blackouts under heavy renewables and imported equipment.
• China: simultaneously lauded for enormous solar/wind build‑out and criticized for still‑rising coal use; some argue its renewable surge is now capping or reversing coal growth.

Permitting, Federal vs. State Limits

• Important nuance: only a minority of US solar depends on federal NEPA or federal land, so some argue the article overstates federal impact.
• Others note the administration is deliberately weaponizing permitting and “national security” to block even unsubsidized projects; local opposition and restrictive state/PUC rules also hamper rollout.

Coal Communities and Transition Politics

• Several comments stress coal employment is numerically small but geographically and politically leveraged (Senate structure, donor wealth).
• Example “rust belt” stories are used to argue that successful transition requires embracing education, healthcare, and in‑migration—something many coal regions politically resist.