[HN Gopher] Fossil fuels fall below 50% of US electricity for th...
___________________________________________________________________
Fossil fuels fall below 50% of US electricity for the first month
on record
Author : xnx
Score : 257 points
Date : 2025-04-21 11:17 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ember-energy.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ember-energy.org)
| neallindsay wrote:
| Despite all the data about climate change, the thing that is
| actually shifting us away from fossil fuels is that solar panels
| are cheap.
| stavros wrote:
| That's all we've ever cared about, unfortunately.
| pyfon wrote:
| Yeah I'd be subsidising panels coming in from China personally.
| xbmcuser wrote:
| Lol this to me was the greatest stupidity from Europe. I get
| Petro states like US or maybe even Canada complaining about
| China subsiding energy and hurting their oil and gas but what
| the fuck did Europe protect. They even got fucked over by US
| into a Russian war and now they are stuck buying US gas.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The Russian war is entirely the fault of the Russians,
| along with massive complacency after Russia shot down a
| planeload of Dutch nationals and used chemical weapons in a
| UK city.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| What's interesting is the US has always been opposed to
| Europe being dependent on Russian natural gas. And
| historically the US is an importer of natural gas. so
| it's not like the US wants to sell it's natural gas to
| Europe instead.
| hylaride wrote:
| > They even got fucked over by US into a Russian war and
| now they are stuck buying US gas.
|
| Europe was stupid as they let "green" political groups
| (often historically clandestinely backed by Soviet/Russian
| government) get nuke plants shut down to shift to coal/gas.
|
| While Europe was incredibly naive to remain so udderly
| reliant on Russian gas, especially after the the annexation
| of Crimea and the shoot-down of MH17, the war is 150% the
| fault of the Russian government and nobody else (USA, NATO,
| Ukraine, etc).
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The irony that the Chernobyl meltdown was probably the
| most profitable thing to ever happen to Russia.
| rjsw wrote:
| s/Europe/Germany/
| gmuslera wrote:
| Maybe not shifting, but adding. Alternative energy sources are
| being adopted in increasing ways, but in absolute numbers
| traditional sources keep increasing too.
| xbmcuser wrote:
| The shift is about to come now as LCOE of Solar + Bess is
| cheaper than coal in China now and getting cheaper
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43749571
| wolfram74 wrote:
| No, it's definitely shifting, based on [0] the carbon
| emissions per kwh globally are down from 542 g/kwh to 481
| g/kwh in the last 10 years, that's over a 10% reduction.
| Countries that are staying flat are the exception, not the
| norm.
|
| [0]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-
| electric...
| tialaramex wrote:
| Because we're talking about _electricity_ the total power
| usage for the US is mostly stable.
|
| It's not declining like the UK (efficiencies mean total
| electricity production is down about 25% this century despite
| population growth) but it's growing only a tiny fraction,
| like maybe 2% in a decade - much less than the amount of new
| solar and wind.
|
| So it's definitely shifting, the biggest shift is away from
| coal. Coal is awful, it's too expensive and it's incredibly
| polluting, some of that shift is towards gas, which is also a
| fossil fuel but has the advantage that it burns cleaner and
| is often cheaper - but as we see in this data lots of the
| shift is to "green" sources.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| That may no longer be true. For example, China's coal usage
| is down 5% YoY despite increased electricity usage.
|
| https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/20/chinas-coal-
| generation-...
| testing22321 wrote:
| And getting cheaper everyday.
|
| A year ago I paid $8k for 7.8kw on my roof. My Dad just paid
| $5k for 10kw.
|
| Neither of us will ever pay for power again.
|
| Edit: Western, southern Canada for those asking.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| ... during daytime, in summer. Or did you install a load of
| batteries, too?
| testing22321 wrote:
| We use the grid like a battery, getting a one for one
| credit for everything we put in. So during summer/daytime
| we put in enough to then use up our credit in
| winter/nighttime.
|
| The power we put in even covers the monthly connection fee.
|
| I'm just about to hit 12 months with mine, 8 Mwh generated,
| never paid a bill.
|
| In our area the cost of electricity is already Confirmed to
| increase 5% a year forever, so this will only get better
| for us.
| belorn wrote:
| Subsidies like one for one credit are generally going
| away since those are prohibitively expensive and not
| sustainable when the ratio of renewables start to climb.
| It can be useful to jump start adoption, but having the
| government pay the true cost of the grid only moves the
| energy bill to the tax bill.
| testing22321 wrote:
| When that happens, I'll get batteries.
| tasuki wrote:
| You'll need a lot of batteries. It might or might not be
| economical, but definitely not ecological. So... depends
| on your values and goals.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Compared to what? Yes, batteries have ecological costs,
| but compared to fossil fuels it's minor. Home storage
| batteries will likely be LFP which are all abundant and
| recyclable.
| berdario wrote:
| A Tesla Powerwall3 (which apparently uses LFP) has a
| capacity of 13.5kWh
|
| A household uses up at least around 2MWh per year, most
| of which during the winter, if you don't use air
| conditioning in the summer and don't have an electric car
| to charge.
|
| That means you'd need around 150 (!) Powerwall 3 units.
| At a price of around 10k GBP each, you'd have to shell
| out more than 1 million pounds just for the batteries.
| Not to mention the space that they'd have to take, and
| the increased risk in having something failing.
|
| In the USA, homes are even less efficient (and depending
| on locale, people run AC all year round, and drive tens
| of thousands of kilometers on cars which also need to be
| powered). 2 years ago MKBHD published a video about his
| experience with the Tesla roof:
|
| https://youtu.be/UJeSWbR6W04
|
| In it, he revealed that his yearly power consumption is
| 55MWh. His battery was able to tide him over the next
| cloudy day, and during the winter the solar panel
| wouldn't ever fully recharge again.
|
| Expecting every household to be energy independent year-
| round via solar is patently absurd. Renewable energy
| tided over with massive batteries upstream? Maybe that
| could work, I haven't run the numbers... But you cannot
| hope to push that responsibility downstream to every
| household. Reliable baseline is still going to be
| necessary for the foreseeable future.
| tasuki wrote:
| This is unsustainable: you deliver power when its real
| market value is close to zero, and you want to take power
| out of the grid when its real market value is large.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| That's really neat. Can you share what part of the world you
| live in? I'd love to do that.
| fullstop wrote:
| Where are you, geographically? I'm interested in adding them
| but I have a large tree on the south side of my house that I
| really do not want to cut down.
| homebrewer wrote:
| At current rates, 5k USD is enough to cover my electricity
| costs for the next 87 years. Your quoted prices still make
| them a non-starter in (probably) most of the world.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| You are paying less than $5 a month for that level of
| energy generation?
|
| Thats ummm extremely cheap.
| byefruit wrote:
| Indeed, average in CA is $260/month so $5k pays off very
| fast in some places.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| I live in a locale that has cheap energy, in fact one
| that makes solar a pretty bad deal. Depending on the real
| generation numbers of the panels it would take about 20
| years for me to payback that level of generation.
|
| So saying most people have an 80 year payback period just
| feels wildly off (depending on the assumptions in the
| calculation I think that implies less than a penny per
| kWh generated).
| testing22321 wrote:
| Many parts of the US have staggeringly cheap power compared
| to the rest of the world.
|
| Before all this our power bills were smack on $100 per
| month, so I've got about a 6.5 year pay off. Electricity
| here is 13 cents per kWh, but is confirmed to increase 5%
| per year basically forever. So my pay off is less than
| that.
| enlyth wrote:
| That's if the price of electricity doesn't change in the
| next 87 years
|
| The panels are also a hedge against that uncertainty and
| provide self reliance
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| The more usage of intermittent renewables increases the
| more your electricity bill is dominated by fixed costs.
| You still need the grid, which is only growing more
| expensive.
| ben_w wrote:
| Or batteries, which are also getting cheaper.
|
| For places not already on the grid, using batteries
| instead of paying for a new grid connection is close
| enough to be a question worth asking, though from what
| I've seen not a definite "yes" or "no" in general.
| bawolff wrote:
| Well how much electricity are you using? If you use much
| less electricity, then you would need less solar panels
| which means the system would be cheaper.
|
| I highly doubt there is anywhere in the world where you can
| buy the amount of energy specified by the parent as cheaply
| as you said. Like i think it would work out to less then a
| penny per kwh
|
| If you are not accounting for amount of generation than
| this is an apples and oranges comparison.
| jfengel wrote:
| The parts of the world that use so little electricity are
| not major contributors to climate change.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| A 10kW system produces somewhere between 11,000kWh -
| 17,000kWh / year give or take. Qatar has one of lowest
| electricity prices in the world at $0.03/kW
|
| $0.03 * 11,000kWh/year * 87 years = $28,710.
|
| So either you're vastly underestimating the amount you pay
| in electricity, or you're using vastly less electricity in
| which case you obviously wouldn't get a 10kW system.
| hyperhello wrote:
| While the cost of power will be reduced, I think that's
| overly optimistic in the long run. Fixing the lines and power
| distribution systems when they wear out or get hit by weather
| is really the cost of your electricity bill. You can have a
| shared power grid, or not pay for it, but you can't have
| both. Even areas powered by hydro have to maintain cherry
| pickers for that.
| jmyeet wrote:
| I believe solar is the future. And hydro where approppriate.
| China is doing massive things with hydro. The largest hydro
| power station in the world is the Three Gorges Dam and
| they've just announced building one three times as large in
| Tibet for $137 billion [1].
|
| But there's an issue with solar most people don't talk about.
| Yes it can be variable due to weather and day/night cycles.
| That's obvious. But a real issue is power lines.
|
| Power lines are built to deliver power to businesses and
| homes. The cost of that is amortized over the electricity
| purchased by consumers. If people end up purchasing only half
| as much power due to more energy-efficient building
| standards, the use of solar, etc then the cost of the power
| lines is still the same except now it needs to be amortized
| over less electricity sold.
|
| This I think is why municipalities tend to limit how much
| solar power houses are allowed to have. How do you build and
| maintain a grid when houses are generally self-suficient?
| Should you? Is it acceptable to not have a grid?
|
| [1]: https://newatlas.com/energy/yarlung-tsangpo-
| hydroelectric-pr...
| lifeoflejf wrote:
| Do you think that will just be moved to the flat connection
| fee? I had an apt with a gas stove, and nothing else gas.
| The $8/m connection fee was pretty much my entire gas bill.
| If it's $50/m per building to be connected to the grid,
| plus demand charges, then charge that and pass along
| wholesale energy costs.
| jmyeet wrote:
| A connection fee helps but not as much as you think. You
| could turn that off but there are still pipes built into
| your house or apartment down to the street. There's still
| a pipe that runs down the street. There is distribution
| infrastructure. You might be paying for your connection
| separately on your bill but you're still amortizing all
| that downstream infrastructure. If overall usage drops,
| that connection fee still has to go up.
| vikramkr wrote:
| The real issue is politics - grids are absolutely going to
| be required for all the folks who can't generate enough
| solar on their own roofs, industry, cities, restauraunts,
| etc. Plus how else are you going to make use of wind, grid
| scale utility solar installations, etc. I have a feeling
| many countries in the world (especially china) will not
| have much trouble forcing the grid to do what's needed and
| subsidizing shared infrastructure with taxes as a shared
| societal good. If we insist on not doing that though, the
| grid system as is is not going to be able to financially
| and logistically figure out this transition, which is
| probably a competitive disadvantage for us long term if our
| own energy grid is stopping us from competing on energy
| because of the way it's structured.
| jmyeet wrote:
| China has specific needs that almost nobody else does.
| Most notably, all of China's power generation is in the
| west of the country (eg Three Gorges, the new Tibet dam)
| but all the people are in the east. You lose power with
| long-range transmission and on China's scale that's a
| real problem.
|
| So China has largely invested in, deployed and perfected
| Ultra-High Voltage Direct Current ("UHVDC") transmission
| infrastructure. China has really shown they think 10, 20
| and 50 years into the future with their planning.
|
| As for grids, there are a lot of places that could be
| self-sufficient with solar plus batteries. A lot of
| remote towns and houses work this way already.
| aweiland wrote:
| Those are great prices. In the US we are at least double that
| for an equivalent system. Many solar installers/sellers here
| are very predatory and have been for a long time. Prices have
| dropped, but not by enough for it to be worth it for me.
| usaar333 wrote:
| > Neither of us will ever pay for power again.
|
| Seems optimistic? With 2 EVs and almost all electric
| utilities, I'm well past the ~26 KWH a day electricity your
| system might generate.
|
| I'm also impressed how cheap your costs are. The install cost
| alone in the Bay Area is going to be past that. Panels
| getting cheaper just don't matter much.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| I spent $60k for panels to support 2 EVs and a heat pump. I
| live in the Northeastern US. I generate ~80% of my
| electricity.
|
| Assuming the parent doesn't have EVs and uses gas, oil, or
| wood for heat, the cost makes sense. "Domestic" electricity
| usage, when you aren't using it for heat and cars, is quite
| low.
| testing22321 wrote:
| My system has generated 50kwh on a few day. Many over 45.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Installed?!
|
| Just the electrician's part would be a good chunk of the $5k,
| where we live (East coast US) before you even get into
| placing the panels themselves.
|
| I keep seeing cheap panel costs with a "look, now you can
| afford it!" thing, but for those of us who may be handy but
| aren't quite willing to do high-power lines & boxes, or
| confident bolting steel to a roof without either killing
| ourselves or ruining the roof, the labor costs continue to be
| very high, and that part's not going down. From what I'm
| seeing for online "average costs for 10kw in your area" I'd
| hesitate to pull the trigger even if it were $5k _lower_ than
| it is, which would probably be an even bigger discount than
| if the panels and other hardware were simply _free_.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Back in the first Trump presidency, there was a 30% tariff
| on solar panels and equipment, which has significantly
| increased the price of going solar in the US.
|
| Couple that with the fact that Canada very likely has
| subsidies for people adopting solar power.
| klipt wrote:
| Probably helps the Canadian government isn't trying to
| tariff solar power in the hopes of promoting "beautiful
| clean coal" instead
| alabastervlog wrote:
| I mean, yes, separately that's going to put solar plans
| on hold for a lot of people in the US. I just meant that
| labor costs alone already tended to easily exceed $5k for
| rooftop solar projects in the US, so I was surprised at
| that price for that much solar.
| bawolff wrote:
| Canada does actually apply significant tarrifs to chinese
| solar panel companies
|
| https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima-lmsi/mif-mev/sml-
| eng.html
| _jules wrote:
| As one who went diy in your region - keep calling
| electricians, you'll eventually find one who'll do the job
| at a fair price. With micro-inverters, there's no power in
| the lines till you connect into the main panel & you can
| work that our with a licensed electrician.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Very good info, thanks.
| testing22321 wrote:
| Yes, installed with a bit of diy. Licensed solar installer
| and myself did most of the work. Electrician to actually
| wire into the house panel was $125 for 1 hour. Permits were
| $36.
| hinkley wrote:
| With solar the power per panel speaks a bit to the labor cost
| of installation. For one you are less likely to have to go to
| lengths to squeeze the system onto your roof and gang the
| correct number together.
| EnPissant wrote:
| Meanwhile, new construction in California is required by law
| to include solar panels, and builders can price them however
| they want. You will typically see prices of $27,000 for a 5.7
| kWh system. You can also choose a lease if you wish, but it's
| the same as buying the panels, except with a much higher
| interest rate than including it in your mortgage.
| baxtr wrote:
| China saving the Planet?
|
| How dare you...
| amima wrote:
| To my understanding, scaling production to bring prices down
| due to economy of scale is the part of the initial plan, which
| was based on the data about climate change. So these things are
| connected.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Not to mention how much's been invested in government
| subsidies to develop that scale. Cheap solar is not a
| spontaneous occurrence by any means.
| toddmorey wrote:
| That's the only environmental hope I've been able to hang onto.
| It's now cheaper in most places[1] for net new energy
| installations to NOT use fossil fuels. I knew environmentally
| conscious approaches could never survive being the morally
| correct yet more expensive option.
|
| [1] IRENA 2023 report shows that solar photovoltaic (PV)
| generation was 56% less expensive than the weighted average
| fossil fuel-fired alternatives, despite being 414% more
| expensive back in 2010. Bloomberg New Energy Finance found in
| March 2021 that "renewables are the cheapest power option for
| 71% of global GDP and 85% of global power generation."
| Paradigma11 wrote:
| But how much more expensive would it make the power for the
| last 15% of global power generation?
|
| What is the total cost for both scenarios?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Use it for the 85% first, and then when that's done,
| battery prices will have declined enough that the number
| will be a lot closer to 100%.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| And honestly 85% would be pretty damn good all by itself.
| That would significantly stem the bleeding and give time
| to address the long tail
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| I thought we were past the stem the bleeding point?
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| There are reasons to be optimistic!
|
| Lots of bad things will happen from climate change, but
| we can mitigate the impact of many of those issues.
| Teever wrote:
| How many people do you think are going to die painful
| deaths because of climate change?
| mrDmrTmrJ wrote:
| In the US Nuclear gives about 19% of total generation and
| hydro another 6%. So you don't have to go beyond 75%
| renewables to start with.
|
| Long term, we need a combination of the following
| technologies to get to 100% carbon free electricity with
| 80% renewables: 1. Long distance transmission lines. 2.
| Some type of "clean, firm, dispatchable" power. Examples
| include: Nuclear fission, fusion power, deep geothermal,
| and space based solar power.
|
| We can certainly use the cost savings from getting to 80%
| renewables to finance figuring out how to scaling
| production of one (or more) of the later technologies to
| lower cost. Simply reducing the regulatory burden on
| Nuclear Fusion can accomplish that if a society chooses
| this path.
|
| Lot of work to do. And many economic powers would loose out
| from this transition (e.g. Exxon or Russia) but totally
| feasible to accomplish.
|
| If you want to do a deep dive into cost scenarios look at
| the work of Christopher Clack or Jesse Jenkins.
|
| Example: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2921
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Too little, too late. We should've been switching to
| solar in the 80s. Even if we could switch to be carbon
| free tomorrow, the amount of CO2 already in the
| atmosphere is predicted to cause breadbasket collapses
| within the next 20 years.
|
| If it makes folks feel better, there's a good chance you
| probably had no control/influence over this outcome if
| you were born after 1980.
|
| https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-weve-
| underestimated...
| kstrauser wrote:
| We were trying to switch to solar in the 80s, but it was
| infeasible. The technology just wasn't there. Now it is
| and we're adopting it en masse.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| We will spray the atmosphere to buy more time.
|
| People will haggle over it because of the unknowns, but
| when imminent social chaos becomes obvious, we'll be
| forced to pull the trigger on it.
| rickydroll wrote:
| This is why I think we need to roll the dice on
| geoengineering. We can try to tilt the odds in our favor,
| but it's still a crapshoot. From what I've read, iron
| fertilization would be one of the better paths to go. A
| potentially better path would be the creation of
| synthetic whale poop.
|
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/scientists-are-
| cra...
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| It's not hopeless. The risk of crop failures may be
| higher than it would be if we were going to experience
| less warming, but having a bad harvest year isn't
| existential. We'll work to mitigate things.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| > 1. Long distance transmission lines.
|
| Those are _really_ expensive. They 're part of the
| toolbox, but they're not tool #1.
|
| > 2. Some type of "clean, firm, dispatchable" power.
| Examples include: Nuclear fission, fusion power, deep
| geothermal, and space based solar power.
|
| If you're relying on that to supply power during those
| winter weeks without sun & wind then it has to scale up
| to 100% of power needs. And if it can do that, why build
| anything else?
|
| To get to 100% carbon free with > 99.99% reliability for
| under $1T, your primary tool is modelling.
|
| Then you reach for:
|
| - source diversity. Wind is more expensive than solar,
| but it tends to be highest at dawn/dusk so is a great
| complement. - overprovisioning. Enough solar to supply
| needs on a cloudy winter day - storage. - long distance
| interconnect. There's never been an hour in recorded
| history where there's no sun or wind somewhere in the
| continental US.
|
| https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262545044/electrify/
| vikramkr wrote:
| the sun shines and the wind blows in the winter. Plus,
| batteries. Giant redox flow batteries are coming online
| now, sodium batteries, it's not like there aren't options
| for storage people are working on.
| zdragnar wrote:
| > There's never been an hour in recorded history where
| there's no sun or wind somewhere in the continental US.
|
| But is that sufficient to handle the full load across the
| entire continental US? And how do you do that without the
| really expensive long distance high voltage transmission
| lines?
|
| Where I live, bad winters can see us go for weeks of full
| cloud cover and little wind in January. If we really get
| away from fossil fuels and run heat pumps, that means
| electrical use in winter will rival that in summer.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| No it isn't. That's why I said that modelling is tool #1.
| The whole US might not go an hour without sun and wind,
| but your area might go 3 weeks. But the combination of
| your area and a neighboring area might max at 3 days. So
| thus instead of building a continent wide interconnect
| and no storage, you build a regional one and 3 days of
| storage.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Tariffs are changing this, however. Buy them ASAP if you're
| building.
| thinkingtoilet wrote:
| I'm confused by your statement. What else would it be if not
| cheaper renewable options?
| jeffbee wrote:
| You could instead make the fossil fuels cost more.
| delusional wrote:
| Why would you do one or the other? We've done both so far.
| Let's keep doing both.
| TuringNYC wrote:
| >> solar panels are cheap
|
| I want solar panels, but i'm also a skeptic on the cost, and
| not enough time has passed to prove how things will go. While I
| agree the metered cost may now favor solar -- what is the TCO
| for the average resident? Some things on my mind:
|
| 1. Everything seems inexpensive at first, before you have to
| pay for servicing. Just like with cars, HVAC systems, plumbing
| systems, or any complex system where you are at the mercy of
| repair companies that are highly local. With plumbers in our
| area, you cannot even effectively get multiple quotes because
| there is a "visit fee" of $125, which gets credited to repairs
| if you choose the provider.
|
| 2. Roofs in general are expensive to maintain and repair. Here
| on the costs, i've never seen even a minor repair be under 1k.
| Major roof replacements cost 5 to 15k for average homes. This
| might be a greater-metro-NY issue though. Part of it is the
| liability insurance of workers being on the roof, so I'm not
| saying the cost is unjustified -- just that it is really
| expensive.
|
| 3. What happens when these solar panels need to be serviced?
| Many of these solar shops are fly by night, looking to cash in
| on govt incentives. Will they be around to service
| malfunctioning or panels? What will repair costs be? Who
| guarantees the warranty? As an example, here in NJ even minor
| tweaks on a leaking showerhead will cost $500 to $1000. I can
| only imagine what a broken solar panel will cost.
|
| 4. I realize this is a very selfish opinion -- but just from a
| systems boundary perspective, traditional energy complexity is
| all upstream and I consume the end-product. Solar energy
| complexity is all local and I take the risk.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Nobody even mentioned rooftop solar.
| kadushka wrote:
| _Major roof replacements cost 5 to 15k for average homes_
|
| I just got some quotes to replace a tile roof on my very
| average 2400 sqft house in FL: 50-60k. Asked neighbors -
| seems reasonable to them.
| apercu wrote:
| I assume Florida is an outlier due to storms, in most of
| the country you'd probably pay half that unless your roof
| is complicated.
| kadushka wrote:
| I also got a quote from Tesla to get solar shingles roof
| - $110k.
| ChoGGi wrote:
| That's the asphalt shingle price, tile is pricey.
| apercu wrote:
| >2. Roofs in general are expensive to maintain and repair.
| Here on the costs, i've never seen even a minor repair be
| under 1k. Major roof replacements cost 5 to 15k for average
| homes. This might be a greater-metro-NY issue though. Part of
| it is the liability insurance of workers being on the roof,
| so I'm not saying the cost is unjustified -- just that it is
| really expensive.
|
| Where exactly is this? I have a modest, single story house
| (1600 sq ft) and most of my estimates are ~$20k. (SW
| Wisconsin).
| ChoGGi wrote:
| If that's just stripping the old shingles off and placing
| new ones, you should be looking at around $6-10k.
|
| Is there a lot of rebuilding or something going on around
| you?
|
| My roof (1200 sq roof deck not house) would've been about
| 18, but that's because it had cedar shingles under the
| asphalt. I did it myself for 3 in materials and about 3
| weeks of labour. These are all CAD prices.
| MisterTea wrote:
| 1. HVAC manufactures have moved to building proprietary
| computer controlled HVAC systems which must be serviced by a
| certified technician. This allows them to build a system of
| regional service companies who maintain complete monopoly
| over an entire region. Even if you wanted to open a shop to
| compete with the incumbent, you can't because the
| manufacturer wont allow you if another shop in your region
| exists. The result is gate-kept artificial scarcity of
| technicians and parts allowing for price gouging. The
| solution is right to repair and boycotting these clowns.
|
| 2. Roof work has always been a huge cost as it's very labor
| intensive (I learned some flat roof maintenance from a roofer
| friend.) The issue is we have not developed a roof system
| that works in conjunction with solar panels. Until that
| happens roofs and solar will be orthogonal problems no one
| wants.
|
| 3. My work got semi-screwed by this. They used concrete
| blocks, around 60,000 pounds worth, to hold down metal frames
| the panels were bolted to. Total bonkers fly-by night
| operation company disappeared after 2 years and we had to
| maintain it ourselves. Roof was destroyed after 7 years as it
| was leaking all over and several cracks formed in the blocks
| around beams. It was deemed unsafe and the entire 75kW system
| removed. Building owner spent $200k on a new roof and
| building repairs then banned solar from being installed
| again.
|
| 4. So is your fancy HVAC system. I believe that electrical
| generation should become part of a homes infrastructure just
| like HVAC. It enables authority and autonomy over energy
| which is something I have wanted. Though I also believe if
| someone wishes to surrender that autonomy then they should be
| allowed to do so.
| r00fus wrote:
| > The issue is we have not developed a roof system that
| works in conjunction with solar panels.
|
| Millions of data points suggest your POV is unfounded.
| MisterTea wrote:
| Please post them.
| r00fus wrote:
| Every single solar installation with no reported issues.
| MisterTea wrote:
| The issue here are current racking systems make service
| of the roof difficult or impossible without tedious and
| costly disassembly of traditional solar panel
| installation. Someone has to go around and unbolt
| everything. We need a system where you can rapidly attach
| and remove them without tools. Otherwise roof maintenance
| becomes roofer + PV maintenance.
| WillAdams wrote:
| For your point 2. isn't there a company making solar cell
| arrays in the form of a metal roof panel?
|
| A quick search shows: Forward Solar Roofing, a San
| Francisco, USA company (but they seem to have vanished?)
|
| Another company with a similar approach (which is not
| Tesla) is: https://www.suntegrasolar.com/
| MisterTea wrote:
| My concern with these systems is what happens if the
| company goes out of business and you need to replace a
| proprietary shaped panel?
| WillAdams wrote:
| The Forward Solar Roofing company had panels which were
| interchangeable w/ existing metal panels, so could have
| been replaced (albeit at a loss of capacity).
|
| Agree that's a concern for the other products in this
| space.
| xbmcuser wrote:
| Equipment cost is actually not that much now it mostly labor
| and marketing. That is the main reason solar makes countries
| with cheap labor have huge advantage with solar. A similar
| system will cost $60k in the US to $15-20k in India and China
| jandrese wrote:
| Or Australia. For some reason Aussie installers are able to
| install systems for incredibly affordable prices. I'm
| always jealous when I see a quote from down under that is
| like a third of what I paid per watt in the US.
| pjc50 wrote:
| As someone else points out, this is just a rooftop solar
| question and utility has better economics unless land is
| really expensive everywhere or your grid connection
| permitting regime is broken.
|
| My rooftop solar installation is about 10 years old, has long
| since broken even, and has required .. exactly one incidence
| of maintenance, to fit pigeon-proofing. Which could have been
| done at the initial install time, I just wasn't aware of how
| necessary it could be.
|
| It has huge advantages against HVAC (and, by extension, all
| the plumbing-based systems like nuclear) in that it doesn't
| have any plumbing. The panel is a big photodiode. There is
| basically nothing to go wrong unless you have serious storm
| damage - and my panels have survived winds that took down
| nearby trees and fences.
|
| > What happens when these solar panels need to be serviced?
|
| To a first approximation, they don't. Maybe at the 20-25
| "EOL" mark.
|
| (even cheaper option would be balcony solar, but that
| requires legalization)
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| how does pigeon-proofing work?
| pjc50 wrote:
| Since I have curved tiles, that creates a space
| underneath that's ideal for nesting in. Since they're a
| nuisance, the pigeon proofing consists of fitting some
| combination of wire mesh and plastic around the edges to
| stop them from getting underneath.
| r00fus wrote:
| You opinion is not selfish (I'm selfishly taking advantage of
| low solar cell costs and decent ROI). You are however, quite
| uninformed about the details. Go ask on /r/solar or some
| other forums or just ask friends who've installed - most are
| just silently soaking up ROI.
|
| Three things to keep in mind: * I would definitely install
| after replacing your roof unless it's like just < 5yr old. *
| Most solar loans, PPA or leases have significantly bad
| financial terms so I recommend people to avoid them. * Make
| sure your utility has some kind of net-metering or you will
| have to install batteries to make it cost effective.
| 01100011 wrote:
| So my experience with a leased solar system installed in
| SoCal in 2011 and owned until 2018(SunRun). The system ended
| up costing me a fair amount of money although it let me run
| my AC all day without thinking about it. Sure I could have
| turned off the AC but the amount I'd have made from selling
| electricity wouldn't have been much. I hear the situation is
| even worse now because of the new plans(and now people in the
| old plans will be forcibly removed). The system also slightly
| complicated the sale of the home.
|
| I'll say that one goal of the current administration,
| assuming they're competent enough to accomplish anything, is
| to dramatically increase US electricity production and I
| believe them. So with electric costs predicted to drop I
| suspect it is a bad time to invest in a solar system. China
| tariffs probably make this even worse as panels should rise
| in cost.
|
| I would also defer a solar install until I got a new roof
| since replacing your roof means paying to remove and replace
| the solar system.
|
| I'll admit that I am biased, generally, against residential
| rooftop solar for non-off-grid installs since my personal
| belief is those panels serve society better when they're
| filling commercial rooftops where economies of scale can make
| maintenance overhead per watt lower but I'm sure someone will
| contradict that belief with statistics. Just throwing it out
| there.
| moomin wrote:
| Yes, but solar panels are cheap as a consequence of investment,
| partly supported by many solar promotion policies around the
| world, that were inspired by climate change concerns.
|
| This is actually a victory lap for political activism, we just
| need a lot more of it.
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| What could real push a shift would be thermal longtime storage.
| Basically heatpump heating with a artificial heat stored
| underground in the summer.
| mulmen wrote:
| What geological impacts does heating the ground cause?
| jandrese wrote:
| If you could figure out a way to do this economically you
| could have a real winner. Ground source heat pumps already
| exist, but they're so expensive to install that they
| basically never make their cost back vs. air source heat
| pumps.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| And it doesn't make almost any difference, because other
| countries are building hume amounts of coal plants. China
| started 95GW of coal plant construction just last year.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| China's coal usage is down 5% in the last 12 months:
| https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/20/chinas-coal-
| generation-...
|
| They're adding coal capacity quickly, but they're lowering
| the capacity factor of that usage even faster. Those coal
| plants are peakers that only run when solar & batteries are
| empty.
| jahnu wrote:
| I think it was on Volts podcast where I heard that many of
| them are built as political insurance for regional
| governments who don't want an angry population if they have
| an unusually cold winter and a _lot_ of them are going to
| end up as stranded assets which the population gets way
| less mad about.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Ironically building coal plants probably helps wean China
| off coal. They use a lot of coal for heating. But nobody
| is going to want to switch to a heat pump unless they
| have reliable electricity.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Not in the last 12 months. This quarter compared to a year
| ago.
|
| It was up 1.5% for 2024 compared to 2023:
| https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-thermal-
| power...
| Analemma_ wrote:
| The top-line number doesn't accurately explain what's going
| on in China: they have a bunch of coal plans, but many of
| them operate at 10% or less of rated capacity, probably out
| of a combination of "these are peaker and/or worst-case (i.e.
| American oil embargo) scenario energy security plants" and
| old-fashioned deficiencies in central planning. In any case,
| you should measure coal burned instead of capacity installed,
| which is leveling off: [1]
|
| [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/265491/chinese-coal-
| cons...
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| China also installed way more solar than, for example, the
| US. Their energy needs are growing quickly as a developing
| nation.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| China didn't just install more solar than any other
| country, they installed more than all other countries
| combined.
| jandrese wrote:
| Economies of scale. That's how you win.
| LUmBULtERA wrote:
| China is deploying far more solar generation, at an
| increasing rate. [0]
|
| Increasingly cheap battery storage, also built in China, is
| also being deployed rapidly.
|
| It all makes a lot of difference.
|
| [0] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/02/02/chinas-new-pv-
| install...
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| It provably does matter.
|
| Western transition away from fossil fuel usage is still a
| reduction in net fossil fuel usage when compared to no shift
| at all. In other words fossil fuel usage might still be
| growing, but it is growing at a slower rate. If we accept
| that fossil fuel usage should be minmized then it very much
| matters.
|
| Aside from that; this argument reduces to an exceptionally
| bad moral stance which is: Someone else is doing bad things,
| therefore that justifies _me_ doing that bad thing. Or as you
| might phrase the counter-argument to a young child: just
| because someone else is littering doesn 't mean that it is ok
| for you to litter.
| Tireings wrote:
| Yes but climate change made them so cheap.
|
| Lucky enough for us and everyone else economy of scale kicked
| in. I'm taking it
| r00fus wrote:
| s/climate change/China/
|
| The US bungled its lead in photovoltaics and politics
| prevented us from catching up - so like most other things,
| China leads the way, and we benefit.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| China literally just subsidized soar panel manufacturing to
| the time of several billions of dollars with the express
| goal of killing manufacturing everywhere else and then
| raising prices once the competition was gone.
| cogman10 wrote:
| There's really no reason the US or other major economies
| couldn't have followed suit. The chinese plan only works
| because the other major economies are more than willing
| to give them that manufacturing capacity since it means a
| local (although somewhat temporary) boon.
|
| The whole plan could have been snookered by the US
| similarly subsidizing their solar production 10 or 20
| years into the chinese plan. Which would have put most of
| the cost onto China while we reaped the benefits of cheap
| power production.
| jandrese wrote:
| The Obama administration tried, but it was too little too
| late and they were raked over the coals by Republicans
| for "choosing winners".
|
| But fundamentally solar cell production was (is?) pretty
| dirty and US environmental regulations were always going
| to be a stumbling block. One used to be able to spot
| Chinese solar factories on satellite maps by looking
| upstream from deadzones, but apparently that has been
| enough of an embarrassment that even the CCP has started
| cracking down.
| anonymars wrote:
| And choosing "losers", specifically Solyndra was shrieked
| at along the lines of Benghazi
|
| Basically DOE funded research pretty successfully but it
| only takes one failure for the loud voices to win
|
| Same program funded Tesla as I recall
|
| Example source:
| https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/exclusive-
| controver...
| pfdietz wrote:
| > But fundamentally solar cell production was (is?)
| pretty dirty
|
| There's nothing "fundamentally" dirty about it. It's not
| like fossil fuel combustion that inevitably produces a
| large stream of waste (CO2).
| klipt wrote:
| Wow, only several billion dollars? That's like 0.1% of
| the US federal budget.
| vikramkr wrote:
| yeah, pretty smart move. We shoulda done that too -
| controlling the means of production for energy generation
| is a pretty useful thing imo.
| worewood wrote:
| environmental "awareness" doesn't mean dog poo;
| environment-friendly will only be prioritized when it's
| cheaper to do so. That's why government subsidies and
| taxing are REQUIRED.
|
| The western world should have subsidized it too, now you
| can't dismiss it because it wasn't organic--because it
| NEVER would be organic.
| Tireings wrote:
| Germany actually started the push.
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| I heard explanation that at some point silicone prices
| skyrocketed, so Germany shifted RnD from monocrystals to
| thin film panels
|
| High prices caused an influx of investment - and silicone
| prices plummeted, which allowed China to get the crown
| vel0city wrote:
| Silicone != Silicon. Two different materials. I use
| silicone caulk to seal things up. I use silicon crystals
| to make microchips.
| delusional wrote:
| So THATS what I've been doing wrong. I'm telling you
| guys, we're this close to getting competitive chip
| production to the west.
| gotoeleven wrote:
| I keep hearing that solar panels are cheap but then I get my
| PG&E bill every month.
| porphyra wrote:
| I personally think that it is amazing that we are likely going
| to shift away from fossil fuels out of pure capitalistic greed.
| Trying to convince people to give up fossil fuels out of some
| altruistic desire to save the planet was never gonna work.
| jandrese wrote:
| If you want to change the world you need to align the
| incentives.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| It has been the smart economic decision for a decade or more
| already. Capitalistic greed caused some to spread FUD around
| that issue, deny there was a problem and attack several
| useful tools for dealing with it.
|
| The fact that capitalistic greed has caught up with reality a
| decade later after most of the hard work was done and is now
| fighting on both sides of the issue is somewhat tragic.
|
| Doubly so if you consider what it means about every other
| global problem we face that might affect a powerful
| incumbent's short term profits.
| hinkley wrote:
| We have at least subsidized solar enough to build up enough
| manufacturing to contribute to that price.
| tw04 wrote:
| >Despite all the data about climate change, the thing that is
| actually shifting us away from fossil fuels is that solar
| panels are cheap.
|
| It also requires the political will. Texas is showing us that
| the market is in fact not rational, and will absolutely do
| something that's universally contrary to everyone's best
| interests for the sake of grandstanding.
|
| https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-markets/texas-bi...
| 9283409232 wrote:
| That is not showing us the market is not rational, it is
| showing us that Texas politics is corrupt. Texas is
| interfering in the market and picking the winners despite
| renewables being the favorable market option. Republicans are
| only in favor of no regulations and letting the market decide
| when it favors them.
| moate wrote:
| >>That is not showing us the market is not rational, it is
| showing us that Texas politics is corrupt.
|
| Dear capitalists, this is not a bar:
|
| The first thing proves the second. The market is a real
| thing that exists in the universe we live in, not just in
| academic research. The markets are never "rational",
| because they're just people. They may be "predictable" or
| even "stable" but humans are not rational. The fact that
| the market can be manipulated, means that it is
| manipulated.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Texas subsidized wind energy for 30 years now - it was
| actually George W Bush and Rick Perry's legacy making
| project when they were Governors of Texas [0][1][2] and
| made up 20-30% of total energy produced.
|
| Issue is, a significant proportion of Texas's budget comes
| out of NatGas and Oil revenue, so there's a perverse
| incentive when renewables end up pricing well below NatGas
| and Oil, and labor unions aligned to ONG like the UAW, ILU,
| and affiliates of the AFL-CIO like the United Steelworkers
| are VERY politically powerful.
|
| This will be a major hurdle in energy exporting countries
| like the US, Norway, Canada, Netherlands, the Gulf, etc and
| it can't be handwaved away.
|
| And no - rETraInInG doesn't work when much of the renewable
| industry is heavily automated, a major reason the ILU, UAW,
| and parts of the AFL-CIO ended up supporting the Trump
| admin's tariffs regime: either you drop the unions and
| cause tens of thousands to lose high paying jobs and
| radicalize a vast swath of Americans OR you do nothing and
| let the earth cook.
|
| [0] -
| https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/08/29/70295/george-
| w-b...
|
| [1] - https://www.texastribune.org/2013/09/16/book-excerpt-
| go-get-...
|
| [2] - https://www.masterresource.org/texas/george-w-bush-
| wind-ener...
| worewood wrote:
| That's why environmental "awareness" doesn't mean dog poo;
| environment-friendly will only be prioritized when it's cheaper
| to do so. That's why government subsidies and taxing are
| REQUIRED for the switch to more environmentally friendly
| alternatives--this applies to everything, from fossil fuels to
| packaging.
| newuser94303 wrote:
| Solar panels WERE cheap until 145% tariffs were applied
| DontchaKnowit wrote:
| Yeaaaahhh but the data on climate change informed government
| policy that subsidized renewable energy.
| jmyeet wrote:
| Energy is a frustrating topic because people have some very
| entrenched but uninformed opinions about it, like hte "energy
| independence" argument. We're clearly energy independent but
| people will look to see that we still import oil and natural gas
| and say we're not. That's a business. Refining is a business.
| Making LNG is a business. Canada has no real way of exporting oil
| and natural gas so we buy it, process it and either use it or
| export it.
|
| Another: peak total and per-capita greenhouse gas emissions in
| the US peaked in about 2007 and has decreased ~10% since then
| [1]. We still produce the most per-capita so there's a long way
| to go. China leads the world on renewable energy builds by a
| mile. It's not even close. Yet their usage of coal is still
| increasing as is their greenhouse gas emissions (total and per-
| capita) due to a still industrializing population.
|
| Electricity costs continue to increase [2]. Some blame this on
| renewables. It's not. This is a longstanding trend. It goes
| beyond inflation though. Utilities are generally regional
| monopolies. For some reason we've decided that privatizing these
| is somehow a good idea (it's not). The need for ever-increasing
| profits just means things will continue to get more expensive.
|
| [1]: https://www.wri.org/insights/charts-explain-per-capita-
| green...
|
| [2]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU000072610
| EduardoBautista wrote:
| > Canada has no real way of exporting oil and natural gas so we
| buy it, process it and either use it or export it.
|
| Just to be clear, you mean "we" as in the USA? So the USA
| basically manages the exports of Canadian fossil fuels?
| jmyeet wrote:
| Yes, I mean the USA. Here's a presentation on the Canadian
| oil and gas industry [1]. You can see that a very small
| portion is exported directly. Almost all of it is via
| pipelines to the USA.
|
| This is a huge strategic benefit to the US, which is yet
| another reason why alienating Canada through tariffs and
| other policies is such a laughably ignorant and terrible
| idea.
|
| It's also why anyone pointing to non-zero US imports of oil
| and gas as damning proof of the US not being energy
| independent is incredibly ill-informed.
|
| [1]: https://www.capp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Canadian-
| Expo...
| ChoGGi wrote:
| China is ramping up imports of Canadian crude.
|
| https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-
| gas/china-u...
| jmyeet wrote:
| I see the announcements of China importing more Canadian
| oil to be largely performative.
|
| Canada lacks the facilities to export oil so they'd have
| to build them when there are existing piplines that
| export it to the US. That's a hard to justify expense,
| particularly because Canada-US relations could change any
| moment. LNG is even worse because those facilities are
| expensive.
|
| China is going to get its oil from Russia, Iran and
| Venezuela, like it already does. Russian oil can be
| imported overland. Sanctions are laughably avoided by
| simply laundering oil exports through Malaysia and
| elsewhere [1].
|
| This also suits China's strategic interests of not having
| a unipolar world.
|
| But long-term China seeks to end its dependence on
| imported oil, just like the US did, except China is doing
| it with hydro and solar and by decreasing demand by
| electrifying transportation.
|
| [1]: https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-
| march-ira...
| alephnerd wrote:
| Westridge Marine Terminal back in Burnaby (right outside
| Vancouver) can handle APAC oil exports.
|
| That said, Canada is ambivalent about negotiations with
| China as much of Canada's automotive industry would be
| destroyed in a liberalized trade deal with China, just
| like what happened to Australia after their FTAs with
| ASEAN, China, India, SK, and Japan.
|
| China was also caught trying to influence Canadian
| elections by the CSIS [0], so trust is limited.
|
| [0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-
| spies-found-ch...
| hylaride wrote:
| Canada *can* export its oil and natural gas, but mostly
| doesn't because the economics haven't historically
| warranted it. Most Canadian Oil is relatively heavy, which
| the gulf refineries in the US are tailored to refine when
| mixed with Texan and Oklahoman oil (for historical reasons
| the heavy mix was Canadian and Venezuelan, but the latter
| is not a factor with the combination of mostly being
| sanctioned as well as lower output levels due to
| mismanagement).
|
| The gulf refineries are designed to have a decent chunk of
| heavy oil, so the historical price discount that Canada
| gets is less compared to if it shipped it elsewhere. It's
| similar for natural gas - we just didn't extract enough of
| it to justify dedicated LNG terminals, not to mention the
| extra pipelines to ship it to them. The price delta didn't
| have an ROI compared to just piping it south.
|
| However, with Trump the economics are all now shifting. It
| now may very well be worth it. There are recently completed
| pipelines from Alberta to the Pacific and there's now
| (very, very early) serious talk of more going east, along
| with terminals.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| > [China] usage of coal is still increasing
|
| China's coal usage is down 5% YoY.
| https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/20/chinas-coal-generation-...
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| According to wikipedia, as of 2023, the US ranks 17th in
| greenhouse emissions per capita.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| China's coal usage is estimated to peak in the next few years
| and projected to start dropping there as well. Possibly a lot
| faster than they announced a few years ago as it seems they too
| underestimated their own ability to do things better and
| cheaper.
|
| A lot of the story in the US is not about the amount of energy
| used but about the amount of energy wasted. Most of the energy
| used in the use is simply heating the universe without doing
| anything useful whatsoever. The US is very inefficient with
| it's energy usage. Heating/cooling barely insulated buildings,
| moving around in stupidly heavy vehicles, etc. Per capita, the
| Chinese are doing way better per kwh. They pay less for and do
| more with their kwh.
|
| Cost of energy in the US has more to do with it's bloated
| system than with technology. Outdated/broken infrastructure,
| restrictive/backwards policy, inefficient equipment, obsolete
| technology, etc.
| thegreatpeter wrote:
| Is it bc solar is subsidized or is it bc it's cheaper? Every time
| I walk into Lowes I'm sold on solar but they say it's bc the
| government is heavily subsidizing it
| Bluecobra wrote:
| If you look up your address here it will give you the cost
| breakdown. (https://sunroof.withgoogle.com/) I just checked my
| house again and it's $30K for 10kW, but there is a $10K tax
| credit, so the subsidy is a 1/3 of the cost.
| mulmen wrote:
| It's both. The subsidies help the solar power market develop.
| Supply lines of panels, installation, etc. as these grow and
| mature prices come down. We subsidize fossil fuel production as
| well with similar results.
| vikramkr wrote:
| It's cheaper and they're all subsidized. Solar is subsidized,
| oil and gas is subsidized, nuclear is subsidized. Fracking
| recieved significant subsidies to develop the market initially.
| Right now, solar/wind is cheaper than fossil fuels by a lot,
| which is why it's the largest percentage of newly added energy
| capacity worldwide. Cheaper, faster, and after installation,
| the power plant doesn't need to keep getting fed with a
| consumable (incredibly low variable costs are causing issues
| where markets are getting messed up and going into 0/negative
| prices since power plants are competing to dump energy it
| doesn't cost them anything to generate)
| jandrese wrote:
| It is still subsidized, to the tune of 30%. However, that
| subsidy is mostly because rooftop installs have very high labor
| costs in the US. Solar farms pay far less per watt.
|
| The actual hardware, especially the panels, have dropped so
| much in price that if you're capable and willing to do the work
| yourself you can have a solar install paid off in 2-5 years,
| depending on how much sun you get and how expensive your local
| power is. I've seen homebrew setups down south that were paid
| off in just over a year, but those were guys who live way out
| in the desert and were getting ripped off by their power
| company.
|
| One thing you don't see anymore is fancy sun-tracking mounts.
| Back when panels were expensive they sometimes made sense, but
| these days it's pretty much always better to just install more
| panels instead. You can even point them differently, with half
| facing SE for morning sun and the other half facing SW for
| evening sun, flattening your production curve and allowing you
| to use a cheaper and smaller inverter.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| One important point that's not obvious from this article: U.S.
| pollution from fossil fuels isn't actually decreasing.
|
| From what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong),
| overall energy demand in the U.S. continues to grow year over
| year. Most of the additional energy needed is now being supplied
| by renewables.
|
| So while we're adding less new pollution--because the new energy
| is cleaner--we're still producing the same amount of fossil fuel
| pollution as before.
|
| The baseline pollution hasn't gone down; we've just slowed the
| rate at which it increases.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Is that a fact or a supposition based on fossil fuel generation
| continuing to grow? Pollution produced by fossil fuels isn't
| necessarily equal. Modern power plants are significantly less
| polluting, and gas is much better than coal. If coal continued
| its decline and newer plants replaced some old ones, you could
| easily have less total pollution from increased fossil fuels
| generation.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| In the US greenhouse gasses are down across a variety of
| absolute metrics:
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states#what-ar...
|
| In the electricity grid specifically they peaked around 2006
| and are 15% below 1990 due to switching from coal to gas and
| introducing renewables
|
| What you say is broadly true globally but western nations are
| mostly on the downslope and the globe as a whole is slowing and
| hopefully going negative soon.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| That's one of the most interesting links I've seen in a long
| time (regardless of subject).
|
| Thanks for sharing because it puts things in perspective much
| easier due to the data it sourced.
| jmknoll wrote:
| If you're convinced by the materials shared, you may want
| to consider editing your original content. It's currently
| the most-upvoted comment, and is materially incorrect.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| I'm unable to edit.
|
| I did though indicate "please correct me if I'm wrong",
| in my original post.
|
| Which led to this discussion below that I'm sure people
| then read (like your comment on this sub-post)
| Sayrus wrote:
| According to EIA[1] and Wiki[2] fossil fuel electricity
| production has been rather stable or going slightly down on the
| last three years. However, US electricity is a small part of
| the US Energy Consumption. When you take those into account[3],
| renewables fall from 50% of the energy mix to less than 20%
| (10% if you don't include nuclear) but overall Fossil fuel
| usage is stable. The trend is going down if you take a longer
| time period.
|
| [1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/Annual/
|
| [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_Unit...
|
| [3] https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_3.pdf
| mrweasel wrote:
| > overall energy demand in the U.S. continues to grow year over
| year.
|
| That probably not unique to the US, but I wonder what that
| energy is used for. Our appliances use less and less
| electricity, our homes are better insulated, cars are more fuel
| efficient, so what is using that additional energy?
| inetknght wrote:
| Those new-fangled AI things use a lot of power.
| floxy wrote:
| Server farms in general? Up to 46% of Virginia's electric
| consumption projected to be data centers in 2030:
|
| https://www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002028905
|
| ...see Table A1 on PDF page 29.
| bornfreddy wrote:
| Bitcoin? "AI"? If this is just electric energy, EV?
| stevenwoo wrote:
| It does not attempt to explain it but this lists how much
| major sectors use: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-
| of-energy/ This data presentation shows it seems to have
| broadly plateaued in last few years with some fluctuations
| that do not indicate an upward trend as of 2023.
| mulmen wrote:
| I don't know but there has been a lot of manufacturing
| construction after the pandemic. Manufacturing construction
| has doubled since 2021 to the highest levels since 2005.
| Presumably these projects consume power for both construction
| and operation. There's probably also some amount of new
| industry becoming viable as energy prices fall.
|
| https://home.treasury.gov/news/featured-stories/unpacking-
| th...
| vikramkr wrote:
| Electrification (converting things that ran on fossil fuels
| to electricity) is a net decrease in energy demand but
| massive increase in electricity demand if you're looking at
| electricity specifically. Past few years have also had a ton
| of growth in data centers and manufacturing investments.
| According to the EIA, they're projecting a decrease in energy
| demand over the next few years:
| https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65004
| hylaride wrote:
| Commercial and industrial use, as well as increased AC usage.
| I'm not sure what percentage of the electric market is now
| for charging cars, but it's not zero.
|
| You see similar use patterns for water. Per capita water use
| has gone down in many urban areas, especially places like
| California over the past few decades. You see hard
| restrictions on watering lawns, showers, toilet sizes, etc.
| But agriculture just sucks up the rest.
| tmnvix wrote:
| > cars are more fuel efficient
|
| This is true when comparing the same class of car to previous
| models, but is it still true overall when we consider the
| shift to larger vehicles? The Toyota Camry from _1994_ is
| still more efficient than the current 2024 top selling Ford
| F150.
|
| Jevons paradox is worth considering when reading these
| stories of increased renewable energy generation and falling
| prices.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| _Texas Attempt to Kickstart New Gas-Fired Power Is Stumbling_ -
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-05/texas-att...
| | https://archive.today/9jRPq - April 5th, 2025
|
| _Solar adds more new capacity to the US grid in 2024 than any
| energy source in 20 years_ -
| https://electrek.co/2025/03/10/solar-new-capacity-us-grid-20...
| - March 10th, 2025
|
| _US is set to shatter grid battery records this year_ -
| https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-storage/chart-us...
| - March 7th, 2025
|
| _Solar, battery storage to lead new U.S. generating capacity
| additions in 2025_ -
| https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586 -
| February 24th, 2025
|
| https://www.interconnection.fyi/ (~1TW of solar in US grid
| interconnect queues)
|
| (it is expected within the next 12 months we arrive at a
| deployment rate of 1TW/year of global solar PV capacity)
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I strong suspect that Trump fully intends for tariffs to
| cripple renewables (they will) and boost oil and gas jobs.
| The dude is hell bent on returning America to the 1950s.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Indeed, politicians in the employ of the (traditional)
| energy sector have gone from mocking renewable projects and
| decrying them for "requiring subsidies" to demanding their
| curtailment because they do not.
|
| Alberta's government (whose premier is a former oil&gas
| industry lobbyist) enacted a "moritorium" on new renewables
| projects a couple years ago because it had the most active
| investment in that sector in the country (most sunny days,
| and very windy). After the moritorium was lifted draconian
| regulations were placed on potential new sites.
|
| This was done under the cover of "protecting farmland", but
| this is in a province with a massive abandoned oil well
| contamination issue, which the private sector got away with
| and continues to get away with.
|
| And then today/yesterday it came out that the government
| had hidden the results of public "consultations" on these
| matters because it was not favourable to them.
|
| The problem with oil&gas is it is prone to the development
| of parasitical/highway-man type relationships, and all
| sorts of people get rich quick by inserting themselves in
| the flow and they will not give up this position without a
| dirty, dirty fight.
| jandrese wrote:
| One of the ironies in the US is that some of the more
| conservative states with supposedly renewable energy
| hostile governments are actually deploying more solar
| than many liberal states. When people want to oppose a
| solar install for whatever reason they often turn to
| environmental laws, requiring impact studies or other
| such red tape, that are much weaker in conservative
| states. Texas is a champion of renewable installs despite
| a government that is openly pro-fossil fuel.
| floxy wrote:
| https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/blue-states-dont-build-red-
| sta...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The US had at least one year of solar PV deployment
| capacity in reserve before tariffs went into effect, ~50GW.
| It also has roughly the same amount of domestic
| manufacturing, but not fully vertically integrated. Gas
| plants are backordered well into the 2030s and coal plants
| (which only produced ~15% of electricity in the US in 2024)
| are teetering near retirement. To push either to failure
| would not be hard, you'd just have to target (legally,
| economically) specific parts of the supply chains needed
| for thermal generation construction (Siemens or GE Vernova)
| and operations/maintenance.
|
| Tariffs and economic uncertainty are pushing down oil
| prices. The US O&G industry experiences pain below
| $70/barrel. It is not having a great time under this admin,
| as of this comment.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43624269 (citations)
|
| _' Unstoppable force' of solar power propels world to 40%
| clean electricity_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43620007 - April 2025
|
| _Shift to Clean Energy Will Persist under Trump, New
| Analyses Say_ -
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/shift-from-
| fossil... - April 16th, 2025
|
| _'Drill Baby Drill' Is Drowning in Oil: Trump 's tariffs
| are helping to create some of the worst conditions for the
| industry so far this century._ - https://www.bloomberg.com/
| opinion/articles/2025-04-15/trump-... |
| https://archive.today/4Qyno - April 15, 2025
|
| _Texas Oil Executives Are Frustrated at Trump for Crushing
| Crude Prices_ -
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-09/texas-
| wil... | https://archive.today/oHr2w - April 9, 2025
| apercu wrote:
| I'd like to get solar, but I'm starting with a battery pack and a
| smaller solar install to cover those things that I would normal
| use a diesel generator for. It's amazing that the "cleaner"
| energy deniers won't be able to hold back cheaper energy.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Related: 40% of world's electricity is zero emissions:
|
| https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/19/zero-emissions-electric...
| neonate wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20250421133427/https://ember-ene...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/fossil-fuels-generat...
| gwbas1c wrote:
| I wonder what next month will be. April / May tends to be the
| months that I generate more electricity with my solar panels than
| I consume.
|
| Winter: Not a lot of sunlight, and I heat with a heat pump.
|
| Summer: A lot of sunlight, but my AC eats a lot of the power.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Oh man, didn't the president just re-activate coal mining? What
| are they going to do with all that coal? Asia might of wanted it
| before the trade war, but not anymore?
|
| Oh. I guess we can feed it into the AI data center generators.
| r00fus wrote:
| Trump can say what he wants, but the market has moved on from
| coal.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Except in India and China:
| https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-
| fuels/chin...
| porphyra wrote:
| At least the percentage of renewable energy generation in
| China is steadily increasing. It has gone from 17% back in
| 2008 to 32% in 2024. And solar and wind are growing at a
| rapid pace.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
| bamboozled wrote:
| Both countries are smart enough to know that being reliant
| on foreign oil and coal for _everything_ is stupid, they
| are moving away to solar and wind, not just for that reason
| but also because they produce most of the panels already so
| they supply their own demand then use the extra capacity to
| profit via exports.
|
| It's done.
| bamboozled wrote:
| If you go look at the price of some of the mid-high end Chinese
| panels, you could pay 200% in tariff costs and still be getting
| a bargain. Check out LONGi for example.
|
| I'll be ordering a bunch of these for a renovation I'm doing
| this year and I'll be installing quite lot of capacity, it's a
| no brainier to go solar, especially considering the price of
| energy now days.
|
| Maybe people doing this will be labeled radical, extremists or
| activists for installing panels on their roof soon but I don't
| care, it's my roof.
| ein0p wrote:
| Note also that tariff is paid on the _import price_, which is
| a fraction of retail. Many people do not understand this.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| This is why Chinese social media is communicating to
| consumers to buy direct and cutout the developed world
| middle man.
|
| https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-
| features/chines... | https://archive.today/rVvix
|
| https://x.com/abby4thepeople/status/1911238808018014587 |
| https://archive.today/dwyw7
| bamboozled wrote:
| That depends on what the retail markup is on any item?
|
| I don't think it really matters because if I buy $2000
| worth of panels directly, I'm still getting hit with ~ $450
| of tariffs.
|
| You point out an interesting point here though, this plan
| will backfire even harder for the USA in my opinion because
| it sounds like American middlemen are now absolutely
| screwed. We will all just be buying from China directly and
| boosting their online retail.
| chickenbig wrote:
| Last month 18.2% of the US's electricity was generated by nuclear
| (61.8TWh), according to the media pack "All electricity sources
| data.csv".
|
| Renewables (110.6 TWh) = Wind (51.6 TWh) + Solar (31.1 TWh) +
| Hydro (27.9 TWh)
|
| Clean = Nuclear (61.8 TWh) + Renewables (110.6 TWh)
| ein0p wrote:
| Amazing what can happen once you shift most of your industrial
| pollution to China and pretend it's not yours.
| tranchms wrote:
| And Energy prices are at an all time high-- go figure!
|
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SEHF01
| DoctorOW wrote:
| Correlation is not causation. Energy companies have increased
| their prices largely to increase profits.
| vikramkr wrote:
| not sure if you meant to link a different chart - that chart is
| the electricity component of CPI-U (an inflation measure)
| meaning it's by definition not inflation adjusted - you'd
| probably want to find a chart of nominal values for electricity
| spending and adjust for inflation to see whether or not it's at
| an all time high. Which, recently it's run ahead of inflation
| because of the overall surge in demand and investment in
| upgrading aging infrastructure/adding new capacity, but long
| term it's pretty flat/down
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| What happened in 2022? Does the graph not account for
| inflation?
| vikramkr wrote:
| that graph is of one of the components that is used to
| calculate inflation
| foobarbecue wrote:
| What does "clean" mean here? Wind and solar are 24.4% and
| "fossil" is 49.2% so what's the remainder? Are they counting
| natural gas as "clean"? It's not...
| vel0city wrote:
| They're not counting natural gas, and I imagine they also don't
| include "clean coal". The remaining 26.4 is probably a mix of
| nuclear and hydro. Which lines up with historical US generation
| percentages.
| jandrese wrote:
| Nobody includes "clean coal" because it is a myth the fossil
| fuel industry made up to try to keep their business alive and
| to give politicians cover.
|
| There are around three tiny "clean coal" plants in the world,
| all together producing only a tiny fraction of a percent of
| the energy on the grid.
| vel0city wrote:
| Fully agreed on all points!
| zahlman wrote:
| Natural gas is considered a fossil fuel, per Wikipedia. Unless
| you mean biofuels like methane, at least - but as far as I
| know, those are scarcely used anywhere on a large scale,
| certainly not the US.
|
| "Clean" sources are generally anything that isn't burning
| hydrocarbons. This includes nuclear, hydro and geothermal.
|
| Edit: See also a previous comment
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43755528
| hinkley wrote:
| Hydro is a big slice out west and they've likely included
| nuclear.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-21 23:01 UTC)