RES
RPC, Inc.
stock NYSE

1. China is a beast of it's own and has a different geopolitical strategy (focus on cheap manufacturing; plans to take Taiwan etc.). However, their renewable mega-projects are still impressive.
2. Yes, relying on energy storage from China is not a great idea. However, some people make the point that pumped hydro is the right solution for Europe ( [https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/03/14/unlimited-energy-storage-in-europe/](https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/03/14/unlimited-energy-storage-in-europe/) ). What's undisputable is that you can't rely on wind and solar WITHOUT energy storage in one form or another.
3. I don't think that's correct though. Looking at the 2025 (latest) version of the report you linked ( [https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/33559c7c-1843-11f1-8870-01aa75ed71a1/language-en](https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/33559c7c-1843-11f1-8870-01aa75ed71a1/language-en) ) on page 33 it clearly states: "The collected data refers to fiscal amounts and do not include any climate impact assessment, thus differing from approaches like the IMF which categorise the non-internalisation of climate externalities as fossil fuel subsidies; or the “Effective Carbon Rates” approach used by the OECD which provides a complementary indicator for fossil fuel support. An inventory-based approach provides a more straight-forward analysis and a clearer representation of fiscal costs.".
4. You seem to think that "tax expenditures" in the report means not taxing FFS for the climate externalities. That's not correct. "Tax expenditures" are defined in the report clearly as "tax reductions, tax exemptions, tax refunds, tax credits and tax allowances". Let's be honest, I'm sure if an EV car is not taxed compared to an ICE car, you'll categorize that as a subsidy. Same applies here.
5. If we are "completely fair", FFS was still more subsidized than RES. Just compare the figures in the Executive Summary, and a clear picture is painted:
"In 2024, fossil fuel subsidies (FFS) remained at a high level, above EUR 97 billion"
"Subsidies for renewable energy sources (RES) rebounded to EUR 76 billion in 2024"
**Clearly FFS received more subsidies than RES in Europe**
6. I agree with you, I'm all for lots of nuclear energy, be it big reactors or SMRs, doesn't matter. It's a great source of clean energy.
7. I'm all for protectionist measures on strategically important industries, especially against countries that subsidize their strategically important industry for the purpose of making you dependent on their supply chain. Chine outmanoeuvred everyone with their solar panels strategy. They're trying to do the same with EVs.
8. I don't agree with your conclusion. Europe will be better off by building clean energy (solar, wind, hydro and nuclear), building storage (both pumped hydro and batteries).
9. Ayatollas and Putin make money as long as people buy their oil & gas. If Europe would be energy independent, the only clients remaining for Ayatollas and Putin would be Africa and Asia basically. Let China and India pollute their countries and poison their population in peace.
10. Both ETFs mentioned by OP (Invesco Solar Energy ETF and ishares Global Clean Energy Transition ETF) outperformed S&P500 over the past 1 year.
11. I'm not against investing in fossil fuel companies, I actually have money invested in energy in general. However, I do think clean (especially renewable) energy is the future. Each crisis makes it more and more clear.

1. China is a beast of it's own and has a different geopolitical strategy (focus on cheap manufacturing; plans to take Taiwan etc.). However, their renewable mega-projects are still impressive.
2. Yes, relying on energy storage from China is not a great idea. However, some people make the point that pumped hydro is the right solution for Europe ( [https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/03/14/unlimited-energy-storage-in-europe/](https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/03/14/unlimited-energy-storage-in-europe/) ). What's undisputable is that you can't rely on wind and solar WITHOUT energy storage in one form or another.
3. I don't think that's correct though. Looking at the 2025 (latest) version of the report you linked ( [https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/33559c7c-1843-11f1-8870-01aa75ed71a1/language-en](https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/33559c7c-1843-11f1-8870-01aa75ed71a1/language-en) ) on page 33 it clearly states: "The collected data refers to fiscal amounts and do not include any climate impact assessment, thus differing from approaches like the IMF which categorise the non-internalisation of climate externalities as fossil fuel subsidies; or the “Effective Carbon Rates” approach used by the OECD which provides a complementary indicator for fossil fuel support. An inventory-based approach provides a more straight-forward analysis and a clearer representation of fiscal costs.".
4. You seem to think that "tax expenditures" in the report means not taxing FFS for the climate externalities. That's not correct. "Tax expenditures" are defined in the report clearly as "tax reductions, tax exemptions, tax refunds, tax credits and tax allowances". Let's be honest, I'm sure if an EV car is not taxed compared to an ICE car, you'll categorize that as a subsidy. Same applies here.
5. If we are "completely fair", FFS was still more subsidized than RES. Just compare the figures in the Executive Summary, and a clear picture is painted:
"In 2024, fossil fuel subsidies (FFS) remained at a high level, above EUR 97 billion"
"Subsidies for renewable energy sources (RES) rebounded to EUR 76 billion in 2024"
**Clearly FFS received more subsidies than RES in Europe**
6. I agree with you, I'm all for lots of nuclear energy, be it big reactors or SMRs, doesn't matter. It's a great source of clean energy.
7. I'm all for protectionist measures on strategically important industries, especially against countries that subsidize their strategically important industry for the purpose of making you dependent on their supply chain. Chine outmanoeuvred everyone with their solar panels strategy. They're trying to do the same with EVs.
8. I don't agree with your conclusion. Europe will be better off by building clean energy (solar, wind, hydro and nuclear), building storage (both pumped hydro and batteries).
9. Ayatollas and Putin make money as long as people buy their oil & gas. If Europe would be energy independent, the only clients remaining for Ayatollas and Putin would be Africa and Asia basically. Let China and India pollute their countries and poison their population in peace.
10. Both ETFs mentioned by OP (Invesco Solar Energy ETF and ishares Global Clean Energy Transition ETF) outperformed S&P500 over the past 1 year.
11. I'm not against investing in fossil fuel companies, I actually have money invested in energy in general. However, I do think clean (especially renewable) energy is the future. Each crisis makes it more and more clear.