[HN Gopher] In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels
___________________________________________________________________
In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels
Author : speckx
Score : 443 points
Date : 2026-01-22 14:14 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (e360.yale.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (e360.yale.edu)
| mekdoonggi wrote:
| Curious if this will eventually change China's calculus with
| regards to Russia. If Europe is a big customer for Chinese
| exports, and Russia is antagonizing, it seems like China would
| have an incentive to put pressure on Russia.
|
| It already seems like Russia is positioned to be completely
| subservient to China in the future.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > If Europe is a big customer for Chinese exports, and Russia
| is antagonizing, it seems like China would have an incentive to
| put pressure on Russia.
|
| China wants Russia to _at least_ keep the Ukraine war going, if
| not eventually win the darn thing. Russia winning (or getting
| away with an armistice that lets them keep Crimea and Donbas)
| means a precedence China has for a land-grab of its own -
| obviously Taiwan, but other countries in its "sphere of
| influence" have seen hostilities for years, from land grabs [1]
| to overfishing [2], not to mention the border dispute with
| India.
|
| And as long as we are distracted with Israel/Palestine or
| Ukraine/Russia, China has free rein to do whatever they want.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...
|
| [2] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/energy-world/chinas-
| overfi...
| mekdoonggi wrote:
| That makes sense, but if that's the case, why aren't they
| invading Taiwan now? Wouldn't now be the perfect time?
| mano78 wrote:
| Yep, a time when anyone can say to an ally "Greenland must
| be mine" and more or less get away with it...
| energy123 wrote:
| The consensus among Western defense and foreign policy
| types is that China will most likely invade Taiwan in 2027,
| relative to any other single year, conditional on them
| doing it at all.
| saubeidl wrote:
| Because that would be way more destabilizing globally
| before the precedent is set and China doesn't want
| instability.
|
| Which is also, coincidentally why they seem like a better
| trade partner to me as European at this point.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| I don't think that mainland China needs any sort of precedent
| over Taiwan should they decide on military action. The
| situation is completely different from Ukraine. The South
| China Sea is also on long-running dispute that predates the
| PRC (and dates from a time where all the neighbouring
| countries were Western colonies...) and what has been
| happening is more a policy of "fait accompli" by occupying
| unoccupied disputed islands first rather than an "invasion".
|
| I don't know what is the thinking on Ukraine now in Beijing,
| but they were massively pissed off when Russia invaded
| because it has caused a lot of disruption to belt and road
| and to East-West relations in general.
| WarmWash wrote:
| Donbas is mostly wheat fields, Taiwan is mostly SOTA
| semiconductor fabs that currently are the sole pillar holding
| up the AI (and compute in general) zeitgeist.
|
| The global response _would not_ be the same, even remotely.
| And what would China get from it? A tiny island of rubble and
| an ego boost, while losing enormous global favor? The cost of
| that island may well be a few trillion for China, just so
| they can say they defeated the nationalists.
| throwaway_45 wrote:
| China is playing the long game. They can go spend a
| trillion bucks and hire/steal the tech and they could
| destroy Taiwan's competitive advantage, and they could just
| economically crush them.
| mekdoonggi wrote:
| The semiconductors are propping up the AI zietgeist in the
| US, but is that true globally? Why would
| Canada/Brazil/Europe care about Taiwan? China will still
| sell them the chips.
|
| The only one who would really care is the US. So by taking
| Taiwan, China blows up the US stock market and takes
| control of the chips.
| WarmWash wrote:
| Every country on Earth benefits from the chips that come
| from Taiwan, and not just the governments, the people
| using pretty much anything that does computation. That
| includes China.
| mekdoonggi wrote:
| Yes I am aware. Which means that if China takes over
| political control of Taiwan and says, "We will still sell
| chips just like normal to everyone except the US".
|
| Would the rest of the world decide to go to war with
| China for the political freedom of Taiwan?
| WarmWash wrote:
| Taiwan will burn (explosive demolition) the fabs before
| China gets them. This is baked into their defense plan
| and made known to China.
| jojomodding wrote:
| What makes you think the Taiwanese will hand over the
| chip producing facitilies to the invader?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Donbas is mostly wheat fields
|
| ... which nevertheless are _very_ important worldwide.
| Early in the war, there was a lot of effort to make sure
| grain exports could run smoothly because otherwise Africa
| would have been in serious trouble.
|
| > The global response would not be the same, even remotely.
|
| We're already at a stage where Trump doesn't give a single
| fuck about NATO and some of his advisors would rather have
| it disbanded yesterday in favor of isolationism, or even
| outright march into territory to annex it. I have
| absolutely zero faith that Trump would intervene on
| Taiwan's favor - an intervention does not fit into Trump's
| and especially Miller's world view wherein the world is to
| be divided into areas of influence for the super powers to
| act with impunity.
|
| > And what would China get from it? A tiny island of rubble
| and an ego boost, while losing enormous global favor?
|
| Never underestimate nationalist idiocy. Putin invaded
| Ukraine because of his dream to restore "Great Russia", it
| is entirely possible that the CCP wants the same for the
| ego of their leadership to be the ones "bringing the lost
| areas home". They already did so with Hongkong, and not
| reacting to China violating the treaty with the UK was the
| biggest mistake the Western nations have ever done.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Yes, who needs food. /s
| david_draco wrote:
| Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi visted Europe and openly
| said to Kaja Kallas, the European Union's foreign-policy
| chief and other EU ministers: the Chinese Communist Party
| (CCP) does not want to see Russia defeated in Ukraine,
| fearing that the U.S. would then shift its full attention
| toward Beijing.
|
| https://www.economist.com/international/2025/10/28/china-
| is-... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyxk4ywppzo
| munk-a wrote:
| China is happy as a clam that Russia is self-isolating and
| destroying their internal economy. The natural resources of
| Russia are vast and if China is the only one exploiting them
| and funneling them into the Chinese economy it'd be an
| excellent outcome. I don't think China is opposed to strong
| economies as trade partners but dependent economies are much
| easier to control and monopolize.
| pydry wrote:
| Russia is only isolated from the west (e.g. exports to India
| are booming) and its internal economy is growing faster than
| Europe's.
|
| Russia holds leverage over China because China is incredibly
| resource dependent and _very_ susceptible to the threat of
| blockade through the first island chain by the US. Only
| Russia can bypass such a blockade with fertilizer, grain, oil
| and gas.
|
| The US is driving these countries into each other's arms.
| qaq wrote:
| Russia holds leverage over China is probably the funniest
| statement I've read on HN in a long time ...
| raincole wrote:
| If Europe were a big customer for Russia energy, it seems like
| Russia would have an incentive to not antagonize it.
|
| Oh, see how well it went.
| jhrmnn wrote:
| Europe _was_ a bit customer for Russia energy, and Russia
| invaded an EU neighbor nonetheless. After which it stopped
| being the customer. So it seems like that incentive didn 't
| really work.
| mekdoonggi wrote:
| I think that was raincole's point. I guess we can't account
| for Russia or the US making decisions that are completely
| counter to the benefit of their people.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Had Russia indeed invaded Ukraine in three days, I don't
| think the EU today would have been any less dependent on
| Russians energy than in 2022.
| microtonal wrote:
| It also works the other way around and I am pretty sure that
| was what Russia was betting on - with Europe's dependence on
| Russian energy, Europe would not react strongly to Russia's
| invasion.
|
| That did not go as expected for Russia either.
| rsynnott wrote:
| China is usually seen (I think broadly correctly) as more of
| a rational actor than Russia. Russia is much more run for the
| benefit of a weird dictator than run as a country.
| arrrg wrote:
| It worked until it didn't. That's how it goes. Peace is
| always hard work and irrational actors (in terms of: well
| being of people, not necessarily aspirations of empire) can
| muck everything up.
|
| Economical co-dependency is a good tool for increasing the
| price of going to war and making it irrational. It's also not
| a zero sum game and tends to profit both sides. However, it
| can suck if you do it with non-democratic regimes and
| autocratic rulers who trample human rights.
|
| So between France, Germany, Poland and all the other EU
| members it's keeping the continent at peace and generally
| does not suck because it's between broadly democratic
| nations. It also benefits each one massively and makes things
| possible like a common electric grid that increases
| reliability in general. So nearly all upside.
|
| I do think economic cooperation with the Soviet Union and
| later Russia - much, much more limited than between EU
| members - was helpful in cooling tensions and making the
| world a bit safer, sure, but Russia has clearly behaved in a
| way that makes that no longer a good idea.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Russia did have a big incentive to not antagonize Europe.
|
| But sadly they have a political system that doesn't reflect
| what is best for the ordinary person. So those incentives can
| be ignored by those making the decisions.
|
| See also, Trump invading Greenland.
| filloooo wrote:
| Your geopolitical views are so naive it's hard to take
| seriously.
|
| EU is now an unwilling dumping ground for China, hostility and
| paranoia are growing by the day now that China is no longer a
| lucrative market itself and is pursuing its interests outside
| commerce, the cordial days are numbered.
|
| Russia would never be subservient to China, once the war ends
| Russia would be back being a geopolitical player because of its
| vast natural resources, and they are already import
| substituting even Chinese products.
|
| Russia can turn to the west to be a real western country
| whenever they see fit, the eternal fear for China.
|
| This is why China is going as far as it can to accommodate
| Putin, even souring it's relations with the EU which isolated
| itself.
|
| In this sense, it is China being "subservient" to Russia.
| mekdoonggi wrote:
| I am certainly not an expert. What resources or military
| capability does Russia have that China could not eclipse,
| replace, or source from a partner?
|
| What would it mean for Russia to become a "real" western
| country? Why would China fear that?
|
| Whatever happens, Russia needs to sell resources to stay
| afloat. I have a hard believing that if it came down to it,
| China couldn't just seize Vladivostok.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Russia recovering from this invasion they started is the
| naive take.
|
| It's currently selling its resources at a steep discount and
| that is unlikely to change because its customers are only in
| it for the bargain they're getting.
| testing22321 wrote:
| Solar prices in the US are criminal, protecting oil and gas who
| bought all the politicians.
|
| Canada here. 7.6kw on our roof for $0 out of pocket thanks to $5k
| grant and $8k interest free loan.
|
| It makes 7.72Mwh per year, worth $1000. Tight valley, tons of
| snow. We put that on the loan for 8 years, then get $1000 per
| year free money for 20 years or so. Biggest no brainer of all
| time.
|
| Dad in Victoria Australia just got 10.6kw fully installed and
| operational for $4000 AUD. ($2,700 USD)
|
| Australia has so much electricity during the day they're talking
| about making I free for everyone in the middle of the day.
|
| https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-03/energy-retailers-offe...
| jacquesm wrote:
| And that's $1000 per year at _today 's_ energy prices, which
| surely will go up over time.
| testing22321 wrote:
| They're already locked in approved to go up at least 6% a
| year here. It just went up 16% this year for people out of
| town.
| njarboe wrote:
| One could hope with improving tech and decreasing regulations
| we could have decreasing (nominal) energy prices in the
| future. That would be progress.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Demand is rising very fast compared to supply, I don't
| think that will happen.
|
| Energy is like RAM or clockspeed: you can't have enough of
| it.
| blitzar wrote:
| > decreasing (nominal) energy prices in the future
|
| Hasn't happened ever before, not sure why this time it
| would be different.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| We'll most likely see off-peak or dispatchable-demand
| energy prices become effectively negligible due to cheap
| intermittent sources, but the price for reliable 24/7
| supply will if anything trend higher. Storage is not enough
| to bridge the gap in all cases, so you need either very
| expensive peaker plants or less expensive nuclear to
| provide a reliable baseload supply for those critical uses.
| pranavj wrote:
| The baseload framing is increasingly outdated. What grids
| need isn't constant supply - it's flexible supply that
| matches variable demand. Solar + batteries handle daytime
| and evening peaks well. Wind fills different gaps. The
| remaining "firmness" problem (extended low-wind, low-sun
| periods) is real but smaller than baseload thinking
| suggests. Most studies show you can get to 80-90%
| renewables before you hit hard storage limits. The last
| 10-20% is the expensive part, but that's a different
| problem than needing baseload for everything.
| jacquesm wrote:
| And HVDC long haul offsets a lot of those problems as
| well and is more effective than storage.
| munk-a wrote:
| And that on-roof-solar helps (as it becomes widespread)
| mitigate the growing need for additional grid capacity. Canada
| is a big country and, outside the major cities, upgrading grid
| capacity is quite expensive per capita. It's a win-win in
| Canada, investing in self-sufficiency while reducing the
| maintenance burden of infrastructure.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| If there is no in-house storage to match, how does it help
| the grid? It is still needed for cold winter nights, where
| demand is high and solar panels produce nothing. Hydro can
| provide the power, but the grid will be running at full load.
| wussboy wrote:
| Most houses in Canada are heated with natural gas. I'm not
| negating your overall comment, but in general, cold nights
| don't strain the grid because of heating needs.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| _Latest Data Shows the Rapid Growth of Heat Pumps in
| Canada_ - https://www.theenergymix.com/latest-data-shows-
| the-rapid-gro... - November 5th, 2025
|
| (still good news, as most of Canada's electric generation
| is low carbon hydro, and the rest of fossil generation
| can be pushed out with storage and renewables, although I
| do not have a link handy by province how much fossil
| generation needs to be pushed out)
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| cold winters aren't as bad for the grid as you might expect
| because the cold keeps the power lines cold which lets you
| pump more power through them.
| ezfe wrote:
| in-house storage helps, but net-metering and grid-storage
| also works
| volkl48 wrote:
| Depends on your system constraints.
|
| As an example:
|
| I live in New England. We do not have enough natural gas
| pipeline capacity to meet demand in long periods of very
| cold weather, and have very limited natural gas storage
| that can't buffer that for as long as a cold spell can
| last.
|
| In these periods of time the grid traditionally keeps the
| lights on by switching over a significant portion of the
| grid to burning oil for power, and/or with the occasional
| LNG tanker load into Everett MA. These are both....pretty
| terrible and expensive solutions.
|
| Burning less natural gas during the day still helps at
| night/at peak, because it means there's been less draw-down
| of our limited storage/more refill of it during the day, so
| we don't have to turn to worse options as heavily at night.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| It may slightly help with capacity, but it causes bigger
| problems financially. Even if a home uses next to no power,
| it still _must be connected to the grid_. The total number of
| such homes ends up meaning a lot of power lines, transformer
| stations, monitoring equipment, and people to do all the
| work.
|
| If you have all of that expense, and suddenly people have
| solar panels so pay $0 for an energy bill - do you see the
| problem? The actual cost of fuel/generation is very small
| compared to the fixed costs.
|
| The more people use solar, the more in the red the utility
| becomes. You can 'fix' this by making it so every home has a
| fixed 'connection cost' and then a smaller 'usage cost' on
| top, but that destroys the incentive for solar panels -
| they'd never break even for the average buyer.
|
| Solar is great, fantastic even. But it should be done
| _centrally_ , or people will have to get used to the idea
| that they will _never_ pay themselves off and are just doing
| it for the environment.
| testing22321 wrote:
| That is an interesting theory, but it doesn't work like
| that in reality.
|
| Australia is giving free power to everyone during the day
| because they have so much.
|
| More solar is a great thing.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| The term you're circling is "grid defection".
|
| > must be connected to the grid.
|
| That's a legislative problem. If a home can prove it can
| produce enough electricity for itself, it should not be
| forced to be connected.
|
| > You can 'fix' this by making it so every home has a fixed
| 'connection cost' and then a smaller 'usage cost' on top
|
| A lot of places already do this.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| It's not a legal problem. The reality is that the vast
| majority of homes with solar must be connected to the
| grid because that's how they're wired and designed. You
| can do a completely off-grid approach, but it's more
| expensive and requires large batteries. Most people just
| do the simple panels and don't have any intention of
| going off-grid.
|
| Also: Even if half of a neighborhood doesn't need the
| connection, the work ends up being similar. It's more
| based on distance/area.
| ponector wrote:
| Where I from, every utility bill has two parts: fixed cost
| and metered cost. You pay for installed capacity and by the
| meter for actually consumed kWh, GJ, m3.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| Solar does basically nothing to help with grid capacity.
| NetMageSCW wrote:
| If solar is cheaper than the alternatives, then installing
| solar means more money for growing the grid capacity as
| well.
| phil21 wrote:
| I think the inverse has proven to be largely true. If a home
| that uses effectively net-zero power is still connected the
| grid, it becomes a liability to grid stablity and expense.
|
| There still needs to be enough power to supply to all those
| homes in the event of a protracted time where solar is
| unavailable. It gets less applicable as homes start to get
| multi-day battery banks installed, but those are incredibly
| rare since they are too expensive.
|
| The whole "wealthy homeowners get subsidized solar and then
| effectively free backup power paid for by everyone else"
| needs to end.
| slavik81 wrote:
| The Greener Homes Grant and Greener Homes Loan you describe
| have ended, but the 160% tarrif on imported solar panels
| remains. Solar prices in Canada are still quite expensive, and
| regulations are needlessly strict. Solar fencing is illegal in
| many jurisdictions, balcony solar is illegal everywhere, and
| utility-scale solar is effectively prohibited in the regions
| with the most sunlight.
|
| Solar production in Canada will continue to grow, but we're not
| doing nearly as much as Europe to encourage it.
| standeven wrote:
| Some provincial grants remain ($5k in BC last time I
| checked), but yes - Canada can and should do more. Balcony
| solar seems like such an easy win. Hopefully tariffs get
| dropped now that we're talking to China again. And federal
| Liberals could force municipalities and provinces to reduce
| some of the red tape surrounding solar installations. Come on
| Canada, unlocking clean energy shouldn't have to be a fight!
| evolve2k wrote:
| I'm wondering out loud if you might be able to purchase what
| would essentially be the component parts of a solar panel but
| deconstructed (eg frame, cells, glass, wires; maybe the cells
| need further deconstructing) and do final assembly in Canada
| such that the final panel meets criteria to be "built
| locally", potentially built of local and imported parts.
|
| Surely local manufacturers don't use 100% Canadian made
| parts.
| mrits wrote:
| It's not always a no-brainer. If you live in a good established
| neighborhood in a warmer climate you'd have to remove tree
| coverage. Even if you did that, it's the other guys not oil or
| gas that will make it a hassle.
| Tepix wrote:
| Houses where the roof is completely in the shade from trees?
| That's not a very common sight.
| treis wrote:
| Depends on the city. Here in Atlanta we are a "city in a
| forest" and for older neighborhoods with mature trees it's
| more common than not.
| testing22321 wrote:
| New panels are much less impacted by shade. Friends out of
| town just installed the same setup as ours, didn't want to
| cut down three monster Doug firs shading their roof in
| summer.
|
| Made 6.9Mwh in 2025, only just less than ours with no shade
| at all.
| boringg wrote:
| I mean physics would dictate that shade impacts performance
| but if you are able to break the laws of physics I am
| impressed!
| testing22321 wrote:
| And bifacial panels with higher efficiency were invented
| to work around that physics.
|
| Real numbers don't lie.
| boringg wrote:
| No one works around physics. You work with physics or you
| don't work.
|
| What you are describing is adding more solar capability
| to counter act the shade. Also the other part of it is
| that the panels work in parallel/not in series or
| alternatively don't dis activate as many conversion
| points as possible.
|
| Physics never lies - they are the only laws that you
| cannot break.
| slavik81 wrote:
| Shade on older solar systems would impact energy
| production disproportionally. You would typically see
| dramatic reductions like 50%-80% reduced output due to
| 10-20% shade. New shade-tolerant solar systems are closer
| to being proportional.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| This is because a string of panels in series are limited
| by the weakest link -- if one cell is fully shaded, it
| blocks electricity flow through it, and therefore through
| the whole string. Bypass diodes mitigate that to some
| extent. But with electronics costs still falling, it's
| now possible to use more smaller inverters to connect the
| solar array to the grid, each one with its own separate
| string, or even an individual panel (which is a series
| string of cells).
| DetectDefect wrote:
| Missing from your calculus is the cost of creating, cleaning,
| maintaining and eventually replacing the hardware. None of that
| is "free" - it is merely externalized to a vulnerable
| population or to your future self.
| microtonal wrote:
| Missing from your calculus are the healthcare costs of every
| person in a country breathing in fumes from electricity
| plants that burn coal and fumes from cars that burn gasoline.
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266675922.
| ..
|
| (And a gazillion other studies.)
| boringg wrote:
| Not supporting OP because I think hes backwards on the
| matter. However in Canada the electricity that is being
| burned isn't coal based - so you need to compare the actual
| grid not some hypothetical grid.
| microtonal wrote:
| That's a fair point, though I think OP's recommendation
| to switch to solar is also to people outside Canada and
| most of the world is still burning fossil fuels to
| generate electricity.
| boringg wrote:
| OP probably shouldn't have been replying to a Canada
| based question.
| munk-a wrote:
| Canada's alternative energy source is very rarely coal
| (no where near me at least) but a lot of the grid
| capacity is coming from LNG outside of ON/QC. BC has a
| bunch of rivers and other water features but has been
| highly reluctant to build out hydro supply, as an
| example.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Unlike the UK (which mothballed and eventually tore down
| its coal power stations) there _is_ still a whole bunch
| of coal power online in Canada.
|
| Lingan Generating Station would be a typical example. Big
| thermal power station, built to burn local coal,
| realistically the transition for them is to non-coal
| thermal power, burning LNG or Oil, or trees or whatever
| else can be set on fire. If they burned trash (which
| isn't really a practical conversion, but it's a
| hypothetical) we could argue that's renewable because
| it's not like there won't be trash, but otherwise this is
| just never going to be a renewable power source.
|
| Canada is a huge place, so I don't doubt that none those
| coal stations are near you (unless, I suppose, you
| literally live next to Lingan or a similar plant but just
| aren't very observant) but most of us aren't self-
| sufficient and so we do need to pay attention to the
| consequences far from us.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| >there is still a whole bunch of coal power online in
| Canada.
|
| Ontario, Quebec, BC and Alberta, the four largest
| provinces by population and a heady percentage of the
| land area, have zero coal power generation facilities.
|
| Ontario is mostly nuclear supported by hydro, with an
| absolute fallback of natural gas. Quebec is
| overwhelmingly hydro + wind. BC is mostly hydro. Alberta
| is mostly non-renewables like natural gas, but phased out
| its last coal plants.
|
| If someone is in Canada, odds are extremely high that
| there is no coal plant anywhere in their jurisdiction. I
| also wouldn't say that there is a whole bunch of coal
| power online -- they're an extreme exception now.
| tialaramex wrote:
| To me "a bunch" is when it'd be tedious to list them. For
| a few years the UK had few enough that you could list
| their names, then gradually four, three, two, one, none.
| Canada as a whole isn't in that place yet, though it
| doesn't have plans to build more of these plants and they
| will gradually reach end of life or transition to burning
| something else.
|
| Coal isn't one of the "convenient" fossil fuels where you
| might choose to run electrical generation off this fuel
| rather than figure out how to deliver electricity to a
| remote site, coal is bulky and annoying. Amundsen Scott
| (the permanent base at the South Pole, IMO definition of
| remote) runs on JP-8 (ie basically kerosene, jet fuel),
| some places use gasoline or LNG. I don't expect hold outs
| in terms of practicality for coal, it's just about
| political will.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| "For a few years the UK had few enough that you could
| list their names, then gradually four, three, two, one,
| none"
|
| Sure, it's embarrassing that we still have any coal
| plants. But really, there are only eight small units
| remaining, located in the provinces of Nova Scotia (4),
| New Brunswick (1), and Saskatchewan (3). Every other
| jurisdiction abolished them.
|
| Maybe small nuclear will be the solution for these
| holdouts. The fact that Alberta held onto coal for so
| long, and never built a nuclear plant, was outrageous.
| vixen99 wrote:
| Especially when they are offshored to China.
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-023-01308-x
| cmxch wrote:
| Those costs can be safely deemed as 0, especially when you
| use Reed Elsevier.
| adrianN wrote:
| Panels have warranties of over twenty years now. They pay for
| themselves much earlier. You probably have to replace the
| inverter earlier, but that's not a huge expense. I don't know
| anybody who lives in a place where it rains who cleans the
| panels on their roof.
| DetectDefect wrote:
| Oh, okay. Does a warranty cover sweeping snow off your
| panels and washing them many times throughout the years? I
| guess if one does not value time, then solar panels could
| be considered "free" - but this is a bizarre sacrifice.
| boringg wrote:
| You don't bother with the snow. Winter is low production
| energy due to the suns positioning - it melts in the
| spring and your back to producing. Most solar power is
| between march - september anyways.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Where are you getting this maintenance schedule from?
|
| I haven't touched ours, they are clean and have been
| going fine with zero maintenance, though admittedly it's
| only been a year.
| DetectDefect wrote:
| > I haven't touched ours, they are clean and have been
| going fine with zero maintenance, though admittedly it's
| only been a year.
|
| > Where are you getting this maintenance schedule from?
|
| The solar panel owner does not know the required
| maintenance they are now permanently responsible for.
| Ibid, your honor.
| rsynnott wrote:
| As above, cleaning solar panels is generally close to
| pointless.
| lostlogin wrote:
| They are clean, I can see that and could wipe them if I
| needed to. The power output is the same.
|
| Where are you getting this maintenance schedule of yours
| from?
| triceratops wrote:
| > Where are you getting this maintenance schedule of
| yours from?
|
| Their "Anti-Solar Talking Points" handbook from Big Oil.
| otterley wrote:
| You're being extremely argumentative all over the
| comments to this story. Do you yourself own any solar
| panels? Your ceaseless naysaying constantly contradicts
| people's lived experience (including mine) as owners.
|
| Focus on solutions, not trying to be right. It's
| aggravating.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > Your ceaseless naysaying constantly contradicts
| people's lived experience (including mine) as owners.
|
| Also, like, every study on this matter. The efficiency
| drop from being dirty for vaguely modern solar panels is
| _tiny_; below 5% and potentially below 1%.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Why do you think that level of maintenance is needed?
| csoups14 wrote:
| I got solar panels installed two years ago and I've
| washed them once. I'm still getting great production. Are
| you trying to convince yourself that maintaining solar
| panels is difficult? Because it isn't.
| DetectDefect wrote:
| > I got solar panels installed two years ago
|
| > I've washed them once.
|
| > I'm still getting great production.
|
| Thank you for reiterating my point.
| csoups14 wrote:
| So let me get this straight, I save hundreds of dollars a
| month, I drive my cars "for free", I get paid at the end
| of my net-metering year, and somehow this is a bad deal
| because I've wanted (not needed) to wash my panels once?
| It sounds like you optimize your life around not
| maintaining the things around you which is fine, but I'd
| much rather save thousands of dollars.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Washing solar panels _at all_ would be fairly unusual,
| and arguably pretty pointless, particularly given they're
| so cheap now; you're looking at, optimistically, a 5%
| efficiency improvement, but many studies say more like 1%
| in practice.
|
| If you're in a place that gets significant snowfall such
| that they're often covered then production during winter
| is likely to be fairly marginal anyway, so may not be
| worth your while.
| darkwater wrote:
| Lies. I'm using solar panels since 2022, still producing
| same peak energy and not cleaned them once. Some
| companies/electricians _will_ try to sell you a cleaning
| and maintenance service for ~80-100EUR /year here but
| it's basically throwing money.
| eitally wrote:
| I live in a fairly arid place (Bay Area) where it rains
| in winter but gets quite dry and dusty in the summer.
| I've had rooftop solar since 2016 and have noticed that
| generation decreases by as much as 8-10% when the panels
| are covered in summer dust.
| nehal3m wrote:
| I wonder if it's worth setting up a sort of sprinkler
| system so you can easily clean it by opening a valve.
| Maybe add a pipe with some holes in it to the top of the
| panel, and some flexible hose to hook it up to the next
| one.
| munk-a wrote:
| Roof maintenance is a need in Canada regardless of the
| presence of solar. Solar roofs do demand additional
| maintenance but the benefits over relying on natural gas for
| power (which is the alternative in Canada outside ON/QC) is
| worth it.
|
| I will stand by your statement from the philosophical point
| of view that nothing in life is free and everything has its
| trade offs - but this is a pretty clear positive. In
| addition, Canada has pretty decent workplace safety
| enforcement for the sort of workers that'd be doing the
| maintenance - it certainly isn't perfect but it is something
| that Canadians seem to find important.
| account42 wrote:
| Yeah of course solar is cheap if you get everyone else to pay
| for it.
| testing22321 wrote:
| I've had the system 18 months now. I've never once cleared
| snow or washed them. We get tons of snow.
|
| Zero maintenance.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Solar panels last practically forever. Despite the official
| lifetimes of 25-30 years, that was a conservative estimate
| for budgeting purposes, and they're still working after that
| time, with moderately reduced efficiency (around 70-80%).
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I've had my system for 10 years and maintenance has literally
| been 0. Rain and snow clean the panels. Panels themselves
| warrantied for 30 years but will likely last longer.
|
| Roof-based panels also take on some roof wear, increasing
| longevity of roofing as well.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| Canada is blessed with cheap energy, the abundance of hydro
| surely helps to bridge any intermittency other renewables have.
| I lived there 10 years back, your energy is less than half the
| cost of mine in Scotland. In Scotland's case we're part of the
| UK and the rest of the UK is less blessed with the geography
| for hydro. The incumbent Scottish government also has an anti
| stance to nuclear.
|
| I hope the incentives for cleaner energy continue to stack up.
| With the surge in demand from AI surely productivity will be
| more tightly coupled with energy usage and cost.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| There is enough wind potential in Europe to power the world
| [1]. Combined with interconnects to Europe and battery
| storage, there is no reason power costs can't be driven down.
| To not do so is a lack of will. Scotland currently generates
| a surplus of renewables [2], exported. kieranmaine's sibling
| comment citations dives into the lack of will part.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38722022 (citations)
|
| [2] _In Scotland, Renewable Power Has Outstripped Demand_ -
| https://e360.yale.edu/digest/scotland-renewable-
| energy-100-p... - January 30th, 2024
|
| (at the rate it takes to deploy transmission, might as well
| start dropping TBMs in the ground and let them grind towards
| each other from interconnect landings, potentially faster
| than the approval grind, complaints from locals about land
| use and right of ways, etc)
| kieranmaine wrote:
| Related to UK energy I read this interesting article on
| transmission congestion between Scotland and England and how
| this is increasing energy costs due to curtailment of
| renewables.
|
| https://ukerc.ac.uk/news/transmission-network-
| unavailability...
|
| TL;DR - Until new interconnectors between Scotland and
| England are finished in 2029, there will be significant
| curtailment of Scottish wind power which increases costs.
|
| This is also an interesting site for seeing curtailment per
| wind farm - https://windtable.co.uk/data?farm=Seagreen
| ricardo81 wrote:
| It has been a long standing problem.
|
| Ideas crop up like generating hydrogen with the curtailed
| energy or maybe at least in Winter, use it for heat
| generation. The problem would seem to be the capex and the
| inverse of intermittency being the problem for them in
| utilising that energy, i.e. waiting for curtailment.
|
| At least with available hydro you can pump water back up
| hill using a reliable and cheap tech.
| patapong wrote:
| I find it fascinating that we have not identified a use
| for almost free intermittent electricity. You'd think
| there would be plenty of things to do, but it seems like
| with the capex investment things like smelting etc need
| to always be running. Maybe electric car charging can
| come to the rescue? But even there people need their cars
| charged usually at certain fixed moments.
| ricardo81 wrote:
| Agree. It seems to be a fairly unique problem that
| intermittent energy sources introduce.
|
| Charging batteries definitely seems like part of the
| solution and electricity tariffs that adapt to wholesale
| costs on a shorter time basis help incentivise it. There
| are times over weekends/holidays where the wholesale
| price enters negative territory, essentially paying you
| to charge your battery.
|
| Electrolysing hydrogen to burn is inefficient vs that
| kind of thing but at least acts as a battery itself,
| though there's costs/problems in storing it.
|
| And the general problem of how long do you need to store
| energy vs what the weather forecast may be.
|
| It seems like it's not a solved problem and it'd be
| exciting to move towards a point where it is. Hard to
| believe in the 50's they thought nuclear would solve
| everything and would be "too cheap to meter"
| kieranmaine wrote:
| EV smart charging is a solved problem in the UK IMO, at
| least for those with a parking space.
|
| OVO[1] and Octopus[2] offer smart charging tariffs that
| give EV owners reduced electricity rates.
|
| The usual caveat is you can only benefit if you can
| install a charger and park near that charger. Still,
| based on this 2021 article [3] 65% of UK homes have at
| least one off street space, so the potential for a
| majority of homes to smart charge is there.
|
| To extend the benefit of cheap smart charging to more
| people, it would be good to see legislation that makes it
| easier for leaseholders and renters to require the
| installation of a smart charger where technically
| possible.
|
| 1. https://www.ovoenergy.com/electric-cars/charge-anytime
| 2. https://octopus.energy/ev-tariffs/ 3.
| https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/cars-
| parked-23-ho...
| hexbin010 wrote:
| The UK will perpetually have "issues" that lead to higher
| pricing. We just put up and pay. It is unspoken energy
| policy to be expensive
|
| Oh no we messed up nuclear oops sorry made it very
| expensive. Pay up
|
| Oops sorry we messed up transmission pay up
|
| Oops sorry we let people get into huge energy debt pls pay
| off their debt in your bill...
| fullstop wrote:
| Everything that I learned about energy in Scotland comes from
| _Still Game_ , so I must ask -- how many bars?
| amiga386 wrote:
| "One bar's plenty!"
|
| "Victor, it's gratis, get the three bloody bars on."
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUMCO8cFrPU
| ricardo81 wrote:
| 3 bars? gonnae no dae that.
| fullstop wrote:
| Put the bulb on. That suggests warmth.
| JetSetWilly wrote:
| In Scotland one issue is that the UK electricity market is
| national (unlike in eg norway). So even if local supply is
| very high and interconnects are not large enough to export to
| england - we must pay the higher national rate. As octopus
| ceo suggested if the UK energy market has regional pricing
| then electricity in scotland would often be a lot cheaper and
| in some cases industrial demand would move there. But that
| would disadvantage the SE of England so will never happen.
|
| Conversely, standing charges ARE regionalised - because that
| does advantage the SE of England. Oh well!
| Tepix wrote:
| 450W-500W solar panels are as low as 52EUR here in Germany if
| you buy a couple of them. Batteries are also very affordable
| and I look forward to them getting a lot cheaper soon, thanks
| to Sodium-Ion.
| testing22321 wrote:
| The price of panels is falling so fast I don't think anyone
| truly understands.
|
| I paid nearly double that for our 450w panels 18 months ago.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| They are cheaper than fencing material, and will continue
| to decline in price.
| cromka wrote:
| And, credit where credit is due, it's all thanks to
| China.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| The one country that still produces goods rather than
| switching to complete financialization!
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| "How are you so successful?" "Oh, well, we build you
| know. It's a dying art. Have you tried it?"
| epolanski wrote:
| Just to point out, but producing goods in exchange for
| pieced of paper is a weak system, especially if it's
| focus is export and not internal consumption, see
| Germany, Japan, Italy or China, all slowing down due to
| their reliance on exports.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| To stay strong, you have to keep exercising your muscles
| or they will atrophy. To stay smart, you have to keep
| exercising your brain. To be able to produce stuff, you
| have to keep producing stuff no matter which country it
| goes to.
| lurk2 wrote:
| 2022-11-28 - "About 2.6 million Uyghur and Kazakh people
| have been subjected to coercion, "re-education programs"
| and internment in the Xinjiang region of north-west
| China, which is the source of 40-45% of the world's
| solar-grade polysilicon. A report by the United Nations
| office of the high commissioner for human rights three
| months ago found Xinjiang was home to "serious human
| rights violations", and the US has listed polysilicon
| from China as a material likely to have been produced by
| child or forced labour."
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/29/evide
| nce...
|
| 2024-08-27 - Indian solar panels face US scrutiny for
| possible links to China forced labor
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/indian-solar-
| panels-...
|
| 2025-04-30 - Human Rights in the Life Cycle of Renewable
| Energy and Critical Minerals
|
| https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issue
| s/c...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The US has forced [1] and child [2] labor as well. It's
| certainly not welcome, but context is important when
| casting the first stone.
|
| [1] _Forced prison labor in the "Land of the Free"_ -
| https://www.epi.org/publication/rooted-racism-prison-
| labor/ - January 16th, 2025
|
| [2] _[US] Child labor law violations are at their highest
| in decades._ - https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-
| society/2024/05/01/... - May 1st, 2024
|
| (staunchly anti child and forced labor to be clear)
| Analemma_ wrote:
| I mean I don't exactly have great news for you about the
| human rights situations in major oil-producing countries
| either. Not to do whataboutism, but if your energy source
| is going to implicate you in human rights abuses either
| way, you might as well take the clean renewable one.
| coryrc wrote:
| It's convenient the Islamic countries don't seem to mind
| their coreligonists being persecuted here, especially as
| these people haven't launched military invasions of
| neighboring regions.
| epolanski wrote:
| Islamic countries, especially the Arab ones barely said
| anything in face of the genocide in Gaza.
|
| Hell, more _journalists_ have died reporting in Gaza than
| in WW2, Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan combined and nobody
| gives two damns.
| foobarian wrote:
| People keep saying that prices of panels keep falling, and
| yet any time I look at getting panels on my roof the price
| is the same $3/W it has been for 10 years already.
| testing22321 wrote:
| Buying the panels yourself, or an install company
| supplying them?
|
| What country?
|
| In 10 years the price has fallen dramatically, you're
| getting majorly ripped off.
| choeger wrote:
| The panel price doesn't matter. It's the installation and the
| surroundings (electrical setup, converter, battery) that
| determine the price nowadays.
| boringg wrote:
| What? No Canada isn't cheap solar power -- last I checked
| rooftop ballasted solar is a 12-14 year payback on avoided
| costs. Inverter will go beforehand and that excludes any op
| costs. 8k$ free loan doesn't really provide as much value as
| you would think.
|
| FWIW - I am all for solar but selling rooftop solar in canada
| as cheap and no-brainer is false.
|
| 3-4 year payback would be a no brainer. 8-13 year payback with
| an inverter upgrade and op-costs is definitely a decision that
| needs to be thought out.
|
| The grid you are offsetting is fairly green to begin with so
| the net benefit is marginal.
|
| If you are going to be isolated and put backup power into the
| equation. You ROI tanks further but at least you have about a
| day or two worth of energy in the storage asset.
| aclatuts wrote:
| Anything under $2.25/watt would put it within under a 4 year
| payback period, Alberta has good rates for solar. Rooftop
| solar doesn't have operating costs that I can think of unless
| you want to clean them and clear snow which is optional. And
| inverters usually have a 20-25 year warranty.
| boringg wrote:
| Inverters are 5-10 year warranty.
| rngfnby wrote:
| Largely agree, with one big nitpick.
|
| Canada is a massive exporter of electricity to the USA. The
| more clean energy CND produces the more there is to displace
| North East's coal.
|
| Of course, solar on Canadians' roof is a joke. A proper
| regulatory regime would encourage solar in Arizona and
| encourage lettuce Canada; not vice versa.
| boringg wrote:
| I don't disagree but the major energy being exported is
| from hydro or nuclear. It isn't coming off rooftop even at
| the margins. Rooftop solar is purely residential play.
|
| If you are trying to argue that in aggregate the demand for
| energy in canada drops because of high adoption of
| residential solar which then passes off clean energy to the
| US - its a reach. Also the amount of individual infra for
| each small residential asset is probably not particularly
| great return on investment - would be better to do as large
| deployments.
| testing22321 wrote:
| You know, when I was researching my system and if it would be
| worthwhile there were literally dozens and dozens of people
| who were adamant it couldn't work here. Too much snow, too
| tight a valley, electricity already kinda cheap.
|
| I went ahead anyway because I'm a "I'd rather have hard
| numbers than speculation" person, and it was literally $0 of
| my money.
|
| Here we are 18 months later. I have all the hard data,
| numbers and proof that this system will cost me $0 in the
| short term, make me over $20,000 in the long term, requires
| no maintenance and is great.
|
| And yet there are still people like you telling me it can't
| work.
|
| I'm proving it does, very well. Panel prices are falling so
| fast your "last time I looked into it" is woefully out of
| date.
|
| Why are you denying reality?
| boringg wrote:
| Talking about hard numbers without a real "hard number" in
| your comment. 0$ upfront - how much did you pay for the
| system / what is the size of the system / whats your
| azimuth and what are you paying for electricity currently.
| Its super easy to run the math on this stuff - not rocket
| science - theres even a free to use API that generates your
| monthly production estimates.
|
| I run energy modeling - I ran the numbers last month with
| the new programs and newest panel prices. 12-14 years
| without any op costs and a 3% per year escalator on
| electricity. You can get it down to 8 years if you have a
| great spot without having to put on ballasts but it isn't
| braindead yes for everyone (especially if they have to
| watch their money).
|
| Current price: 7.6 kW AC; Installed: 26,155.65 - 5,000
| Grant = 21,155.65$. << Hard numbers.
| testing22321 wrote:
| The numbers are in my original post.
|
| We got 7.6kw installed for $13,000 CAD. I ordered
| everything myself, had a local installer do it on his
| weekend, paid an electrician $180 to pull permits and
| actually wire it into the main house panel. All
| inspections complete and legal. $5000 grant $8000
| interest free loan.
|
| The system makes 7.76Mwh per calendar year. Electricity
| here is 0.13/kwh, and already pre-approved go up minimum
| 5% per year. It just went up 6% for 2026, 16% for those
| out of town.
|
| So the system makes right on $1000 of power every year
| that I don't have to buy. We'll put that onto the loan
| for 7-8 years , then get at least $1000 a year for the 20
| or so years remaining of the system life.
|
| I'm nothing out of pocket, and I'm just putting the same
| into the loan for 7-8 years that I would have paid in
| electricity anyway, so no difference.
|
| No brainer.
|
| My house now uses net zero energy ( disconnected natural
| gas entirely)
|
| I have no idea where you're getting a quote for so high.
| Even the highest I got was ~$20k, and that was over 18
| months ago.
| boringg wrote:
| Those numbers are pretty low for Canada (well done on
| getting a good deal) - though it sounds like you are
| doing all the work yourself so thats sweat equity and the
| difference is the margins / work that installers put into
| the equation.
|
| I don't think what you are providing as an example is
| what most people are doing. Most people are going through
| residential installers and not doing all the effort you
| did to bring down costs.
|
| I commend your effort but it isn't what most people would
| be doing or paying for and represent otherwise isn't
| quite honest for people looking to get numbers for their
| own install.
| testing22321 wrote:
| Friends got a near identical system just out of town
| after seeing the success of ours.
|
| Fully hands off solar company, $16.5k fully installed,
| permitted, inspected for 7.6kw on the roof.
|
| They also got the $5k rebate and $10k interest free loan.
| Their power price just went up 16% in 2026, so they're
| extremely happy to have the solar to insulate them from
| that.
|
| Of course the panels are now a good bit cheaper than when
| I bought them, and cheaper than when my friend did
| already.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| We have similar problem with prices being high despise
| renewable energy being cheap ;/
| dyauspitr wrote:
| What is the underlying reason in the US though? You would think
| if they are artificially inflated prices the market would fix
| that. What I've found is that a large part of the cost is the
| actual labor for the installation, how are other developed
| countries getting around this?
| account42 wrote:
| Mostly by giving people free money to install them so they go
| on the internet to say how cheap they are.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| That might be cheaper than grid upgrades though. Even
| though some people might get upset that somebody else is
| getting something for free.
| philipkglass wrote:
| It's mostly due to higher "soft costs" such as
| complicated/slow permitting and high customer acquisition
| costs. Australia has a higher minimum wage but much lower
| costs to get a rooftop system installed.
|
| "How to cut U.S. residential solar costs in half"
|
| https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/07/11/how-to-cut-u-s-
| reside...
|
| _Birch points to Australia, where he said the average 7 kW
| solar array with a 7 kW battery costs $14,000. That equates
| to $2.02 per W, with batteries included._
|
| _"You can sell it on Tuesday and install it on Wednesday,
| there's no red tape, no permitting delays," said Birch._
|
| ...
|
| _In the United States, that same solar and battery
| installation averages $36,000, said Birch. Permitting alone
| can take two to six months, and the cost per watt of a solar
| plus storage installation is up to 2.5 times the Australian
| price, landing at $5.18 per W._
| testing22321 wrote:
| Those numbers for Australia are very out of date.
|
| My Dad in Australia just got 10.6kw fully installed and
| running for $4,000 AUD
| dyauspitr wrote:
| Was this on his roof? Were there government subsidies?
| testing22321 wrote:
| Yes and yes
|
| Australia is spending tax dollars to get solar on every
| roof in the country instead of building coal or nuke
| plants. Now people are getting free power as a result.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| I wish we did that.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| >Australia has so much electricity during the day they're
| talking about making I free for everyone in the middle of the
| day.
|
| Not just talking about it, if you get a smart meter and sign up
| for a plan that matches the grid rates you can actually be paid
| to take electricity during the day right now.
|
| If you're wondering "couldn't you just make bank with a
| battery" yes you can. In fact Australia dominates the world in
| grid connected storage (per capita) and this chart itself is
| actually out of date (it's growing even faster than shown).
|
| https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/top-20-countries-by-ba...
|
| I'll also point out that gas and oil generation has declined
| rapidly.
|
| https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-rise-of-battery-storage-and-...
|
| For anyone that thinks renewables can't phase out peaker plants
| it happens very naturally and rapidly once there's enough solar
| to set rates negative in the day.
| bmelton wrote:
| How is it that people haven't turned to bitcoin mining (or
| similarly large energy dumps) during the daytime?
| dataviz1000 wrote:
| > Solar prices in the US are criminal, protecting oil and gas
| who bought all the politicians.
|
| It would be worth including control of the people who vote for
| the politicians by direct investment such as when the oil
| producing Saudis bought the second largest stake in NewCorps
| which controls FoxNews controlling the content that influences
| voters. And, less than ethical control using bots on social
| media by Russia.
|
| A lot of what influences "solar prices in the US" is controlled
| by foreign oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia
| controlling content and media consumed by American voters.
| apercu wrote:
| I agree wholeheartedly, and the technocrats are complicit
| with the GOP here.
|
| It's funny how "free markets" keep producing the most
| expensive solar prices in the developed world. Don't get me
| started on Healthcare (I just moved back to the U.S. a couple
| years ago after 18 years in Canada, what a cluster*ck).
|
| Oil and gas buy politicians, foreign oil money buys media
| influence, and social-media bots keep voters angry at the
| wrong targets.
|
| Saudi capital helps shape the messaging, Russia helps amplify
| the noise, and Americans get stuck paying more for clean
| energy while being told it's patriotic.
|
| But hey, Make America Great Again, right?
| sl_convertible wrote:
| If even a Democratically-led California is doing this, how
| can you point fingers at just the GOP? It's endemic to the
| system, and not restricted to just one party.
| daveguy wrote:
| Republicans are always trying to increase and protect oil
| subsidizes, cheer "drill baby drill", and have social
| media tools peddling their bs who are funded by foreign
| influence campaigns. The Democats may not be perfect, but
| they are much more likely to cut oil subsidies or at
| least subsidize solar and other renewables to balance.
| This is especially true as the next generation takes over
| by primarying the tepid fossils currently in office.
| Meanwhile, dear leader Dumpty likes to suggest windmills
| cause cancer because he doesn't like what they look like
| on the horizon of his golf dumps. Saying this is a "both
| sides" problem is laughable.
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| Fly over Texas and the California and compare the number
| of solar and wind installations you see.
| daveguy wrote:
| Yup. 46.8 GW photovoltaic in California and 22.8 GW
| photovoltaic in Texas. Over twice as much PV in
| California even though they have higher standards for new
| construction in general than Texas does.
| JuniperMesos wrote:
| The US doesn't have a free market in either health care or
| electricity generation. An actual free market in solar
| power would probably result in more or less what we are
| seeing with the actual highly regulated market in
| electricity, namely extremely cheap prices for additonal
| solar energy in the middle of the day when the sun is
| shining, higher prices for additonal solar energy in the
| evening when demand is high and the sun has gone down, and
| some fixed cost to pay for physical electric grid
| infrastructure that needs maintenance regardless of whether
| it is being used at any particular moment.
|
| Oil and gas don't buy polticians more than any other
| industry does, but voters do get particularly angry at
| politicians when the price they pay for energy suddenly
| spikes.
| philistine wrote:
| When you can influence the citizens of Rome for dimes on
| the dollar, why not steer the empire in the direction that
| benefits you?
| vondur wrote:
| Here in California, they drastically cut back on the price
| that you get for solar powered electricity from homeowners.
| It used to be around $0.30/kWh at any time of day and now
| it's can drop to $0.00-$0.05/kWh during the day when the
| state is sunny. If you can afford to have a battery
| installed, the rates are far better as you can either run off
| the battery when rates are the highest in the evening, or you
| can export it back to the grid when prices are much higher.
| barney54 wrote:
| That's because net metering is a transfer from people who
| can't afford solar to the rich people who can.
| https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2024/04/22/californias-
| ex...
| triceratops wrote:
| Which is true. But it's a rug pull for people who spent
| money on their panels expecting an RoI. Were existing
| installations grandfathered in?
| throwworhtthrow wrote:
| Yes, existing installations get 20 years of grandfathered
| rates [1].
|
| Which makes it more of a ladder pull than a rug pull...
|
| [1] https://www.sce.com/clean-energy-efficiency/solar-
| generating...
| direwolf20 wrote:
| That's fine. If we have enough X then stop paying people
| to build more X.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| The first round of people paid way more for their solar
| panels though, and those higher prices helped bootstrap
| the industry. Should people who paid much less for panels
| get the same reward? I'm having trouble getting outraged
| about this, it seems to be incentives working exactly as
| they should.
| throwworhtthrow wrote:
| I agree, and maybe my "ladder pull" comment comes off as
| too negative. Most early solar buyers were either in it
| for environmental reasons or for a modest return on
| investment. I don't think many were expecting a windfall.
| pkaye wrote:
| Solar has become all about ROI these days just like home
| ownership has become an investment.
| JuniperMesos wrote:
| The price is signaling that additional solar power
| production during the day isn't very useful; and additonal
| solar power production in the early evening when demand is
| high and the sun isn't shining and you need a battery
| system to have already been accumulating energy during the
| day is useful, albeit more expensive and complicated to
| build and run.
| pstuart wrote:
| With falling battery prices this should be an addressable
| problem. Soak up the locally generated excess energy and
| sell it later in the day when the need is there.
| Electrical arbitrage seems like a win/win solution for
| the utilities their customers.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Residential solar is completely counter-productive right
| now in california. Just take a look at the CAISO price maps
| during the day when the sun is shining. There's so much
| power they are paying people to consume it. It's a
| _negative_ force for grid stability. Getting paid for
| making the grid less stable is ridiculous. Until there is
| widespread battery storage or massively improved
| transmission and distribution systems grid-tied residential
| solar is a solution in search of a problem.
| yosefk wrote:
| The list of the oil producers listed and omitted on a given
| forum in these contexts is always interesting. On HN it is
| often SA or Russia, and almost never Qatar or Iran.
| epolanski wrote:
| I'm kinda tired of the argument where we only focus on some
| bad actors when it comes to online influencing.
|
| Our countries absolutely do the same if not more to influence
| voters both here and in these other countries, especially
| online.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| >Solar prices in the US are criminal, protecting oil and gas
| who bought all the politicians. >Canada here. 7.6kw on our roof
| for $0 out of pocket thanks to $5k grant and $8k interest free
| loan.
|
| This very well may be true, but taken at face value Canada
| seems to be paying you around $7k to install solar panels on
| your roof (that's 8k interest free loan is losing out to
| inflation + any interest it would have earned).
|
| Definitely a great deal if you own a home, if I was a
| renter/condo owner I'd be annoyed that everyone is subsidizing
| your free solar however.
| Zigurd wrote:
| Be less annoyed because utility demand declines.
| testing22321 wrote:
| > _if I was a renter /condo owner I'd be annoyed that
| everyone is subsidizing your free solar however._
|
| As a non car owner are you annoyed everyone gets subsidized
| roads?
|
| Are you annoyed corn farmers get subsidies for growing corn?
|
| Would you be annoyed if people got subsidized life saving
| health care?
|
| It feels like the US can't have nice things because people
| are hell bent on others not having nice things.
|
| What a shame.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| > As a non car owner are you annoyed everyone gets
| subsidized roads?
|
| Yes, and people should be annoyed by this given the
| underfunding, poor urban planning, and outright hostility
| by many local governments against anything that dares
| encroach on the sanctity of car culture.
| simion314 wrote:
| >Yes, and people should be annoyed by this
|
| So you do not use busses,taxi or road travel? do you fly
| all the time? Do you have stuff delivered by truck/cars
| or only by air? What about shopping? do you think the
| items you buy or the things needed to make those items
| use roads ? In a perfect extremist capitalist word there
| would be a road tax included in the products and services
| so you would still pay the text for the roads.
| swsieber wrote:
| No, in a perfect world, there would be a use tax, and
| those doing the delivery would pay the cost, and then
| pass that cost on to you. You might have meant it that
| way, but it sounded more like a gov. imposed tax based on
| the price of goods or something.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| > So you do not use busses,taxi or road travel? do you
| fly all the time? Do you have stuff delivered by
| truck/cars or only by air? What about shopping? do you
| think the items you buy or the things needed to make
| those items use roads ? In a perfect extremist capitalist
| word there would be a road tax included in the products
| and services so you would still pay the text for the
| roads.
|
| "Yet you participate in society, curious!"
|
| > In a perfect extremist capitalist word there would be a
| road tax included
|
| There's nothing capitalist about that. Driving around and
| polluting the environment is currently done for free.
| That should be taxed. Highways and streets are by and
| large (in NA) used as a publicly subsidized private good
| at the expense of everyone else. Subsidized to the
| detriment of all because it pulls funding away from
| public transit that would move more people, prioritizing
| convenience of drivers over the safety of everyone else
| (to say nothing of it creating dead spaces with nothing
| but parking as far as the eye can see).
| simion314 wrote:
| Public transport uses the roads too. In my country
| Romania there are road taxes included in the fuel prices
| and there are vehicle tax that is proportionalw itht eh
| engine size and vehicle age and how mych it pollutes. So
| people that drive more use more fuel and pay more tax. If
| you use your bike then you will not pay that taxes, now
| what should we tax for the bike lanes ? And how should we
| convert he fuel road tax for electric cars ?
| coryrc wrote:
| Trucks are responsible for 99% of road damage and only
| pay 38% of the costs.
|
| https://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-
| indu...
|
| Yes, the costs should be apportioned to those who are
| making them. If the bus causes the most road damage, then
| it should be charged. Then it'll make financial sense to
| invest in rail. Financial incentives are how capitalism
| works and the purpose of governments under capitalism is
| to apply externalities to the source causing them.
| rfrey wrote:
| Should cyclists be charged a special tax for bike lane
| construction and maintenance? What about sidewalks,
| should you need a pedestrian pass?
| coryrc wrote:
| 1. As soon as the roads are all paying best-possible-use
| property tax for the space they take up and it's
| completely paid by automobiles, in addition to all
| maintenance, we should try to proportionally assign
| dedicated bicycle infrastructure costs toward bicycle
| users, now and anticipated.
|
| 2. Everyone is a pedestrian.
| rfrey wrote:
| People accuse communists of being unrealistic idealists,
| but they have nothing on the libertarians.
| coryrc wrote:
| That's the first I've heard of a
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax (and, less
| directly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism ) being
| libertarian!
|
| fuck cars
| rfrey wrote:
| User pay formerly-public-infrastructure is what I
| identified as libertarian. Would you also advocate for
| residents of high crime areas to pay more taxes for
| police coverage?
| coryrc wrote:
| "User pay" is typically associated with regressive per-
| use taxes. It's perfectly compatible with socialism to
| ensure the cost of the road system is applied to only
| automobile users in a progressive manner. Relatedly,
| Finland moving violation fines are not a fixed fee and
| are proportional to income: https://nri.today/wealthy-
| speedsters-beware-finlands-million... Stop thinking
| "cars=default", they are not.
|
| Legally criminal actions are violations against the
| state, which is why a prosecutor decides whether to file
| charges and does not need the consent of the victim to do
| so. We already have what you suggest with civil law and
| private security.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| It'd be interesting to try charging vehicles relative to
| the road damage they do as it's proportional to around
| the fourth power of weight. It would likely change the
| nature of logistics as it could mean that large trucks
| would be more expensive that using two or three smaller
| trucks. Similarly, buses would benefit from being smaller
| and lighter.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Trucks already have lots of axles and wheels for this
| reason, because it's weight per wheel that matters.
| bjackman wrote:
| "Car culture" and "public roads" are not the same thing.
|
| I'm a militant cyclist and I'm extremely unhappy with the
| state of urban planning in the world. But... Roads are a
| really good thing and I'm glad my government builds them.
|
| I just wish they'd built them a bit differently, at least
| in the city.
| sneak wrote:
| Yes, yes, and yes. Is it an intentional mischaracterization
| to conflate not wanting wealth redistribution with "others
| not having nice things"?
|
| "others not having nice things" is a superset of "others
| not having unearned nice things".
| NetMageSCW wrote:
| I don't see where roads are unearned?
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| Why are you acting like subsidizing a homeowners free power
| is like any of these?
|
| If I instead phrase it as "I'd rather subsidize someone's
| health care than pay for your free electricity", would that
| help you understand that there tends to be a priority
| system when spending tax dollars?
|
| You don't have infinite tax dollars to spend after all.
| JuniperMesos wrote:
| > Are you annoyed corn farmers get subsidies for growing
| corn?
|
| Yes we should immediately end these subsidies.
|
| > It feels like the US can't have nice things because
| people are hell bent on others not having nice things.
|
| The US as a whole has lots of nice things. And sometimes
| the things the US has are not as nice as they could be
| because an unwise subsidy is paying for something inferior,
| and a small group of people who financially benefit from
| the subsidy advocate politically against changing it.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > Definitely a great deal if you own a home, if I was a
| renter/condo owner I'd be annoyed that everyone is
| subsidizing your free solar however.
|
| What kind of selfish point of view is this? Don't you want
| people to use energy sources that are better for our entire
| world, even if it costs you like $10 more in taxes per year?
| Seems like a no brainer deal if you like "the outside" and
| you want it to still be there.
|
| I'm a renter, been all my life, I'd be happy to pay more in
| taxes if it means more solar panels for everyone except me.
| But I also feel the same about elder care, health care and a
| bunch of other things, do you feel the same for those things
| too, or this is specifically about solar or owning vs
| renting?
| sneak wrote:
| There is nothing more unjust than forcing someone to buy
| something they do not want simply because you think it
| would be good for them.
|
| > _Seems like a no brainer deal_
|
| This is opinion, not fact. I happen to share your opinion,
| but enshrining opinions in law is almost always going to
| violate someone's consent.
| yen223 wrote:
| I feel like it's worse to force someone to buy something
| they do not want, knowing full well it's going to
| materially harm them
| sneak wrote:
| We are in agreement.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > There is nothing more unjust than forcing someone to
| buy something they do not want simply because you think
| it would be good for them.
|
| Who said that? Taxes are what you pay to be a member of
| the society you live, and also to help those less
| fortunate, like your neighbors. You can skip paying
| those, if you stop living in society, many done that
| before, and it is still possible.You can't possibly see
| taxes as "forcing someone to buy something they do not
| want" right? Two completely different things.
|
| And yes, this is all my opinion, like most comments on
| HN.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > You can skip paying those, if you stop living in
| society, many done that before, and it is still possible.
|
| Actually, generally speaking this is almost certainly not
| possible for more than short periods of time.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| It certainly is possible, people do it all the time, in
| various countries. Most of the time we call them
| "homeless", but also there are people who literally set
| up camp in the forest then stay there, it isn't unheard
| of.
|
| The book "The Stranger in the Woods" is one such case,
| about a man who lived in the woods for 27 years by
| himself.
|
| That said, it isn't easy, and it's harder in some
| countries than others, but I'd still say it's possible in
| many countries today, YMMV.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| And they still benefit from taxes.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Nothing like the exception for proving the rule ...
| vegadw wrote:
| > This is opinion, not fact
|
| Not OP, but it wasn't presented as a fact. Literally used
| the word Seams.
|
| > There is nothing more unjust than forcing someone to
| buy something they do not want simply because you think
| it would be good for them
|
| Seatbelts? Circuit breakers? Literally any safety
| equipment. You're required to have them because it's not
| just good for you, but expensive to society if hospital
| beds are low or there's not enough firetrucks to go
| around.
|
| Similarly, if you're polluting more than you have to be
| due to the source of your electricity, that's bad for
| everyone. I also rent, but I still understand that it's
| to the public's benefit that home owners (a class that is
| already above me in assets and wealth) be given
| motivation to consume cleaner energy if I don't want to
| have the climate get even worse. It's the same thing,
| just the effects feel less direct. That doesn't make them
| any less valid.
| amalcon wrote:
| This is a failure of imagination. There are plenty of
| things that are more unjust than that.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| >I'm a renter, been all my life, I'd be happy to pay more
| in taxes if it means more solar panels for everyone except
| me. But I also feel the same about elder care, health care
| and a bunch of other things, do you feel the same for those
| things too, or this is specifically about solar or owning
| vs renting?
|
| There's an alternative, and almost certainly cheaper per
| watt with cost of scale, where your tax dollars go to a new
| solar farm instead, something everyone could take advantage
| of.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Why not both? One works better for people not living in
| cities, and the other one better for high-density areas.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| >One works better for people not living in cities
|
| It's not as if homes outside of cities have their own
| diesel generators to power their house.
|
| (Since I'm guessing from this line of comments you'll
| point out the less than 1% of people who actually do do
| this, maybe it's better to focus only the 99% here).
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > It's not as if homes outside of cities have their own
| diesel generators to power their house.
|
| Yeah, no true, I don't understand the point/argument
| though?
|
| More people relying on renewables == long term better for
| everyone on the planet
|
| That includes moving people outside of cities to
| renewables energy sources, is your point that this isn't
| so important because they're a small piece of the
| population usually?
| coryrc wrote:
| Because you get far higher ROI for the large-scale
| installations. In case you weren't familiar, Canada has a
| lot of other things which need the money than paying 5x
| per watt to subsidize panels on your roof instead of on
| the ground.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > Because you get far higher ROI for the large-scale
| installations.
|
| Right, but as always, ROI is hardly the most important
| thing in life, there is more considerations than just
| "makes more money". For example, as someone affected by a
| day long country-wide electricity outage where
| essentially the entire country was without electricity
| and internet for ~14 hours or something, decentralizing
| energy across the country seems much more important, than
| optimizing for the highest ROI.
|
| But again, this is highly contextual and depends, I'm not
| as sure as you that there are absolute answers to these
| things.
| triceratops wrote:
| Grid-scale solar installations can be much more
| decentralized than nuclear or natural gas power plants.
|
| Decentralizing through subsidies at the homeowner level
| is maybe not the best use of money.
| coryrc wrote:
| Grid-tied solar is fragile. If the grid is not nearly-
| perfect, it won't generate. It will not help society as a
| whole.
|
| If you personally have battery backup, that helps you
| personally and you should pay for it, just like you might
| pay extra to turn up the heat while I keep it lower to
| save money.
| bluGill wrote:
| In Canada (or the US) the grid is reliable and so you can
| ignore when it isn't working. This doesn't apply
| everywhere in the world
| alex_young wrote:
| Everyone can take advantage of rooftop solar. The power
| goes into the grid. This isn't a zero sum game. We need
| both.
| JuniperMesos wrote:
| It's not zero sum but different physical layouts of
| energy generation do have different captial and operating
| costs. Rooftop solar power goes into the grid but maybe
| not at the most ideal time and scale for the grid
| operators, which justifiably affects what price they're
| willing to pay for that power, which justifiably affects
| the ROI for homeowners with rooftop solar panels.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| What's the difference between a new solar farm and new
| solar panels on roofs (or the ground) ?
| triceratops wrote:
| The solar farm produces more energy per dollar spent.
| Rooftop solar is expensive. It produces comparatively
| fewer kw to amortize the fixed costs over - permitting,
| getting up on the roof etc.
|
| If a country has abundant land and expensive labor, the
| money is probably best spent improving grid transmission
| capacity and otherwise getting the f- out of the way of
| utility-scale renewables. Places like Pakistan, which is
| going through a rooftop solar boom, are arguably the
| opposite - scarce land in the cities, but cheap labor to
| get up on roofs.
|
| Happy to hear any analyses to the contrary and update my
| knowledge accordingly.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| OK, so rooftop solar is a higher <currency-unit>/kW solar
| farm. That's one argument against it.
|
| On the other hand, it is also distributed which from some
| perspectives is a benefit, and is also do-able with very
| little planning and grid extension. So that's one
| argument for it.
|
| How things come out on balance depends a bit on what you
| value and how you imagine the future.
| triceratops wrote:
| The generation is distributed. That only benefits the
| people who have panels on their rooftops. If we want them
| to share the excess with others during a power outage it
| requires further grid investment.
|
| I think homeowners should install solar panels and
| batteries where it makes economic sense. If there's money
| left over after funding utility-scale solar then it
| should be used for EV incentives and/or funding
| electrified mass transit. The whole point is to electrify
| everything rapidly and reduce carbon emissions.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Solar farms don't work during power outages either. When
| the power isn't out, you get to use the power from your
| neighbor's solar panel.
| margalabargala wrote:
| You absolutely do not want them sharing the excess with
| neighbors during a power outage, this is how you get dead
| linemen.
|
| Solar panel grid tied inverters generally will refuse to
| function if there's no external power coming in.
|
| The benefit from the distributed generation means that if
| your local area has large loads added you don't
| necessarily need to upgrade the HVDC lines from the power
| plant to accommodate.
| triceratops wrote:
| Upvoted.
| bluGill wrote:
| This is not as big a problem as it sounds - you cannot
| provides enough power for you neighbors and so your
| breakers (fuses) will cut power long before the lineman
| gets there.
|
| though linemen are trained that they are working on a
| live line unless they have personally shorted it out.
| There are many other ways a seemingly dead line can be
| live so they don't take a chance.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > This is not as big a problem as it sounds - you cannot
| provides enough power for you neighbors and so your
| breakers (fuses) will cut power long before the lineman
| gets there.
|
| The load side (your neighbors) _cannot_ pull more power
| than is being generated. My 7kW array can generate 7kW
| and no more. No breakers will trip in a hypothetical
| scenario where my inverter fails to shut down during an
| outage, and my neighbors are trying to drawing 10kW.
| dangjc wrote:
| Rooftop solar has lower distribution costs. A solar farm
| needs new transmission and upgraded capacity distribution
| lines to get the power from far away to the users.
| Generating solar right next to your neighbors lets them
| access your surplus cheap power with existing slack
| capacity in the distribution lines. Our current monopoly
| utilities don't have a mechanism to recognize that value
| created, and they would prefer to keep building more
| infrastructure as that's what increases profits for them.
| woodruffw wrote:
| As a renter, I'm moderately more in favor of utility-scale
| solar subsidies rather than subsidizing private solar. It
| seems like another way to make the arrangement more "fair"
| is to subsidize private solar, but credit the grid up to
| the original grant's amount. In other words, in the GP's
| case, they would only get $1000/year in free money for 15
| years instead of 20.
|
| (This is very low on my list of things that I care about,
| to be clear.)
| SamPatt wrote:
| >I'm a renter, been all my life, I'd be happy to pay more
| in taxes if it means more solar panels for everyone except
| me.
|
| That's because you're rich like most people on HN.
|
| Environmental protection is a luxury good. This has been
| proven time and time again.
|
| A great reason to prioritize growth and wealth creation.
| Poor countries don't make those tradeoffs, they're worried
| about survival not what percentage of their energy usage is
| renewable.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > That's because you're rich like most people on HN.
|
| Probably, but I also haven't been rich all my life, I've
| also been broke and borderline homeless, and my point of
| view of paying taxes so others get helped, hasn't changed
| since then. In fact, probably the reason my perspective
| is what it is, is because money like that has helped me
| when I was poor, and I'd like to ensure we continue doing
| that for others.
|
| And I agree, poor countries can't afford to think about
| "luxury problems" like the pollution in the world, but
| since we're talking about people living in such countries
| where we can afford about these problems, lets do that,
| so the ones who can't, don't have to. Eventually they'll
| catch up, and maybe at that point we can make it really
| easy for them to transition to something else?
| youngtaff wrote:
| > A great reason to prioritize growth and wealth
| creation. Poor countries don't make those tradeoffs,
| they're worried about survival not what percentage of
| their energy usage is renewable.
|
| Tell that to places like Pakistan where solar is allowing
| people to have cheaper electricity without connecting to
| the grid
| SamPatt wrote:
| That's exactly my point. They're making decisions based
| on their economic reality not sacrificing for
| environmental principles like the above commenter.
|
| Solar is great. It can stand on its own without
| subsidies.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > They're making decisions based on their economic
| reality not sacrificing for environmental principles
|
| You don't know this, and to some degree likely cannot
| know this.
| SamPatt wrote:
| At an individual level? Agreed.
|
| But at a national level the data is compelling. I'm
| convinced by the Environmental Kuznets Curve.
| jgraham wrote:
| > But at a national level the data is compelling. I'm
| convinced by the Environmental Kuznets Curve.
|
| Which data do you find compelling?
|
| For people who don't know the Environmental Kuznets Curve
| is basically the hypothesis that as economies grow past a
| certain they naturally start to cause less environmental
| damage.
|
| As far as I can tell the main empirical evidence in
| favour of this is the fact that some western countries
| have managed to maintain economic growth whilst making
| reductions to their carbon emissions. This has, of
| course, partially been driven by offshoring especially
| polluting industries, but also as a result of
| technological developments like renewable energy, and
| BEVs.
|
| On the other hand, taking a global sample it's still
| rather clear that there's a strong correlation between
| wealth and carbon emissions, both at the individual scale
| and at the level of countries.
|
| It's also clear that a lot of the gains that have been
| made in, say, Europe have been low-hanging fruit that
| won't be easy to repeat. For example migrating off coal
| power has a huge impact, but going from there to a fully
| clean grid is a larger challenge.
|
| We also know that there are a bunch of behaviours that
| come with wealth which have a disproportionately negative
| effect on the environment. For example, rich people
| (globally) consume more meat, and take more flights.
| Those are both problems without clear solutions.
|
| (FWIW I agree that solar power is somewhat regressive,
| but just for the normal "Vimes Boots Theory" reasons that
| anyone who is able to install solar will save money in
| the medium term. That requires the capital for the
| equipment -- which is rapidly getting cheaper -- but also
| the ability to own land or a house to install the
| equipment on. The latter favours the already well off.
| There are similar problems with electric cars having
| higher upfront costs but lower running costs. The correct
| solution is not to discourage people from using things,
| but to take the cost of being poor into account in other
| areas of public policy).
| jvergeldedios wrote:
| There is line that connects gov't subsidies in wealthy
| countries for the last 50 years funding private R&D to
| poorer countries being able to afford it. Arguably the
| poorer countries don't get to make the "decisions based
| on economic reality" in favor of solar without the
| subsidies in wealthy countries happening first. There is
| also an argument to be made that the R&D isn't finished
| and it still makes sense to subsidize it to drive the
| cost down further.
| phil21 wrote:
| > There is also an argument to be made that the R&D isn't
| finished and it still makes sense to subsidize it to
| drive the cost down further.
|
| Maybe there is an argument to be made, but it sounds like
| a very poor one if poor countries are now putting up
| solar panels because it's the cheapest form of energy
| production. Sounds like subsidizing the same panels going
| up on houses is a bit silly now that the costs have
| shifted so much.
|
| The argument can probably be made for direct subsidies of
| R&D for bleeding edge solar tech, and perhaps even
| battery installations to get volume up. Or maybe even
| subsidizing local production vs. buying everything from
| China.
|
| The arguments for wealthy countries to subsidize their
| wealthiest citizens to install solar for personal gain
| seems rather weak at this point in the game. It certainly
| made sense 20 years ago, but in most areas where it makes
| economic sense to begin with solar penetration has hit a
| tipping point.
| tonyarkles wrote:
| Keep in mind the standard of living. If you're in a
| country that experiences routine long power outages,
| having a solar panel that you can use to charge your
| phone during the day is pretty great. Having to get ahold
| of and burn diesel fuel is not so great. Doesn't produce
| at night? Doesn't matter much, it's better than nothing.
| philipkglass wrote:
| Solar hardware is so affordable now that it's booming
| even in poorer countries. The most remarkable recent
| example is Pakistan, which has seen explosive growth of
| rooftop solar power, most of it receiving no government
| subsidies:
|
| _Pakistan has imported almost 45 gigawatts worth of
| solar panels over the last five or six years, which is
| equal to the total capacity of its electricity grid.
| Almost 34 gigawatts have come in only in the last couple
| of years._
|
| _It's a very bottom-up revolution. This is not
| government deciding this is the route to take. And it's
| not being driven by climate concerns, it's all about the
| economics. Renewables are out-competing the traditional
| sources of energy._
|
| https://e360.yale.edu/features/pakistan-solar-boom
| SamPatt wrote:
| Yes it's awesome to see solar adoption without subsidies.
| Wonderful technology. Decentralized energy production is
| powerful.
| nradov wrote:
| Right, so that implies there's no need for homeowner
| subsidies in wealthy, developed countries.
| zdp7 wrote:
| Not really, unless you are just guessing. A quick read
| shows that solar gained popularity because of an
| unreliable grid and a removal of subsidies on diesel.
| Solar ended up being the cheaper and more reliable
| option. Labor costs for installation are also lower. In
| remote areas you may not even have a grid option. Simple
| general assumptions don't hold across vastly different
| geopolitical circumstances.
| nradov wrote:
| Right, so there's still no need for subsidies.
| bojan wrote:
| > Solar hardware is so affordable now that it's booming
| even in poorer countries.
|
| Even in Gaza Strip you'll see sometimes solar panels next
| to the refugee camps, and broken ones on top of the
| ruins.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Great job of indirectly implying that there must be a
| tradeoff. Funny thing though: those poor countries?
| They're not building nuclear, or oil fired, or coal
| fired, or natural gas plants. They're installing solar.
| Not necessarily because they care about what percentage
| of their energy usage is renewable, but _because there is
| no tradeoff_.
|
| Further, environmental protection is not a luxury good,
| it's a long term investment. Ask me more in another 30-50
| years when the larger impacts of climate change are
| happening. Or ask someone else about how much we've spent
| on superfund cleanup sites.
| SamPatt wrote:
| Everything has a tradeoff. That's a foundational truth of
| economics.
|
| Environmental protection is a luxury good in economic
| terms. The Environmental Kuznets Curve is compelling to
| me. It's extremely difficult to assess the ROI on long
| term investments, particularly when your country has
| unstable rule of law or conflict.
|
| I'm pro-solar, it's amazing technology that empowers
| individuals and communities. I just don't agree that
| everything I love I must force other people to pay for.
| direwolf20 wrote:
| How do you compensate your neighbors for the loss of
| garden view caused by your house?
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Is that something you usually have to pay your neighbors
| where you live? If you put up some ugly thing in your
| garden you have to pay your neighbors?
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Sam said he doesn't force other people to pay for things
| he loves, so I'm wondering how he doesn't force his
| neighbors to pay for his house with their view.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Environmental protection may be a long-term investment,
| but reducing CO2 emission is probably not. The results
| are too diffuse and you're at the mercy of other
| countries' energy policy. If you're a small country, you
| can invest in CO2 reduction all you want, but what
| actually happens will be up to the US, China, and India.
| triceratops wrote:
| Canada isn't poor.
| SamPatt wrote:
| Agreed. But there are poor people in Canada, and forcing
| them to pay more money (and slightly lowering their own
| quality of life) so that wealthier Canadians can install
| solar panels is, at least, a debatable policy.
| triceratops wrote:
| Does Canada not have progressive taxation? How do poor
| people pay more than rich people?
|
| To be clear, I don't think rooftop solar subsidies are
| the best use of government money either. Governments
| should subsidize utility-scale solar, EVs, efficient
| buildings, and mass transit. They should focus on cheaper
| and more efficient permitting, and better grids.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Canada should invest in Nuclear. Solar is far less
| efficient in Canada than somewhere like California -
| whether rooftop or utility-scale. The short winter days,
| low angle of incidence, and snow means that panels are
| basically non-operative for 3-4 months a year. This is a
| huge problem if you also want people to switch to
| efficient electric-powered heating in the form of heat
| pumps.
| triceratops wrote:
| Canada already has lots of nuclear: https://ember-
| energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?ent...
|
| The efficiency of solar _does not matter_ in 2026. Panels
| are so cheap that just you don 't have to think about it
| if you have abundant land. If solar is 4x less productive
| in the winter you just build 4x as many panels. Panels
| have to be angled more vertical the further north you go
| so the snow will just slide off. They are not "non-
| operative 3-4 months a year" - this is just Big Oil FUD.
| SamPatt wrote:
| Everything has tradeoffs - those panels themselves take
| energy and rare earth minerals to create, and getting
| both of those requires pollution, primarily in China
| where they have lower standards than western nations.
|
| So filling Canada with panels because they're cheap isn't
| likely the best environmental choice, on net. Though I
| admit I haven't done the math here, it's just an
| intuition that "just build 4x panels" isn't the solution.
| testing22321 wrote:
| Great, if the break ground today the first nuke will be
| online in absolute minimum 10 years (likely 20) and cost
| absolute minimum of $15 billion (likely closer to $30
| billion)
|
| Do you want to guess how cheap solar will be in 10-20
| years, and how much power we could generate in the mean
| time.
|
| This is not a discussion worth having.
| tonyarkles wrote:
| > Does Canada not have progressive taxation? How do poor
| people pay more than rich people?
|
| It's not that they're paying more than rich people. It's
| that even with progressive taxation, tax(everything the
| government currently spends money on) < tax(current
| spending + solar subsidies). That is to say... giving
| solar subsidies to rich people causes the tax paid by
| everyone to increase. Those making more money pay a
| larger fraction of the increase because of progressive
| taxation but everyone who is paying taxes pays
| incrementally more when the government spends more money.
| wasabi991011 wrote:
| We have progressive tax rates in Canada which should
| offset this to some extent.
|
| Also, you keep ignoring that the environment is a public
| good. Poor people in Canada will also be
| disproportionately impacted by bigger temperature
| extremes (heat waves, extreme cold), worse air quality,
| etc.)
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| Rich people are usually early adopters of new technology.
| That's how technology gets cheaper. It's fortunate and
| unfortunate at the same time.
| hlk wrote:
| Turkey is a poorer country and has more wind and solar
| capacity by percentage than US.
| earlyriser wrote:
| Poor countries are switching to solar:
| https://climatedrift.substack.com/p/why-solarpunk-is-
| already...
| SamPatt wrote:
| Yes, and it's wonderful to see. As the article itself
| explains, this isn't due to government led redistribution
| of wealth anymore:
|
| > The 20th century infrastructure model was:
|
| > Centralized generation
|
| > Government-led
|
| > Megaproject financing
|
| > 30-year timelines
|
| >Monopolistic utilities
|
| > The 21st century infrastructure model is:
|
| > Distributed/modular
|
| > Private sector-led
|
| > PAYG financing
|
| > Deploy in days/weeks
|
| > Competitive markets
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| the _only_ reason environmental protection could
| conceivably be considered a luxury (and not a necessity)
| is because certain sectors of the capital class refuse to
| convert their means of production away from generating
| waste and pollution. that 's it. time and time again we
| see direct action by Chevron, BP, Shell, Exxon, ARAMCO et
| al to stifle change, refuse scientific evidence of the
| nature of their pollution, and attack anyone who comes
| anywhere near impacting their bottom line. look at Steven
| Donzinger if you need proof of this.
|
| this is not a matter of some fictional invisible hand.
| these are decisions made by real people who do not care
| about you, society, the health of the environment or the
| people who inhabit it. stop carrying their water.
| amarant wrote:
| Environmental protection IS about survival for poor
| countries. YOU can afford to not care and burn gas
| because you won't have your life completely and
| permanently destroyed by global warming. Poor people
| don't have that luxury.
|
| Rethink your position because it's completely upside down
| two_handfuls wrote:
| > Environmental protection is a luxury good. This has
| been proven time and time again.
|
| I see this lie repeated in many places. Environmental
| protection is much, much cheaper than the alternative.
| JuniperMesos wrote:
| Maybe I'd prefer to spend the same public money on building
| nuclear power plants, or gigantic solar panel arrays in the
| desert, rather than subsidizing individual roof-owners
| being able to save money on their electricity bill and not
| mine.
| epolanski wrote:
| Also, more people having solar have the indirect effect to
| bringing energy prices down for everyone.
| colechristensen wrote:
| >Don't you want people to use energy sources that are
| better for our entire world, even if it costs you like $10
| more in taxes per year?
|
| If everyone gets the benefit it's either A) exactly the
| same cost but with additional government program or B) some
| form of wealth distribution and not necessarily in a
| direction you favor
|
| Also large solar installations are significantly more cost
| efficient.
|
| Mind you I am IN FAVOR of subsidized residential solar, but
| let's not pretend government money is free.
| phil21 wrote:
| > What kind of selfish point of view is this? Don't you
| want people to use energy sources that are better for our
| entire world, even if it costs you like $10 more in taxes
| per year?
|
| Only if those who make the same or more than me are paying
| that same tax. After their subsidies of course.
|
| Rich folks getting even richer off the backs of poor folks
| is bad. Even if it's dressed up as good for the environment
| or whatever justification you want to come up with.
|
| As a homeowner, I would not take these subsidies as I find
| them to be immoral. Doesn't mean I won't be installing
| solar, but I'm doing it for far different reasons than
| saving money.
|
| By your logic, shouldn't homeowners stop being selfish and
| just pay for these things themselves in order to make the
| world a better place? Why do they need renters, other
| taxpayers, and other ratepayers to subsidize them?
| henry2023 wrote:
| > if I was a renter/condo owner I'd be annoyed that everyone
| is subsidizing your free solar however.
|
| You probably wouldn't. I hear more people complaining about
| hypothetical government spending than actual government
| spending.
| kwanbix wrote:
| Yeah, truly awful. Unlimited electricity that barely
| contaminates, and at the lowest possible cost for everyone.
| Just terrible.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| If you're a renter/condo then you're probably getting excess
| solar generation delivered to you from homeowners with nearby
| solar roofs. So presumably there is some benefit to you in
| terms of cheap generation.
| bjackman wrote:
| Also... Fewer houses using fossil-fueled power on Earth. If
| you live on Earth that's pretty good.
|
| The answer to this isn't "less subsidies" it's "find a way
| to make everyone benefit from the subsidies.
| pimeys wrote:
| In Germany you are allowed to install solar to your balcony
| as a renter.
| epolanski wrote:
| Your last argument could apply to anything really.
|
| Why should I subsidize farmers if they can't compete?
|
| Why do I have subsidize our own manufacturing companies if
| they can't compete so their workers have a job, at my
| expense?
|
| Why do I need to subsidize car owners to have yet another
| lane but can't get a decent train instead?
|
| Here in Poland suddenly all miners pretend to be subsidized
| by the state, even if they work for private companies.
|
| Why do I need to subsidize them if the companies they work
| for can't turn a profit, or when they did for decades chose
| to pay dividends and do buybacks instead of investing? And
| now I pay the bill?
|
| I mean, at some point you need to cope with the fact that
| money has to be spent and circulate in some fashion to
| promote economic activity and projects.
|
| You could argue that subsidizing solar brings energy prices
| down in any case.
| pear01 wrote:
| US also tariffs Chinese EV makers out of the US market so they
| can keep peddling the fiction that EV sucks or China can't
| build anything we can't.
|
| This has the same corrupt nexus with the anti-renewable mantra.
| Essentially subsidize oil and gas under the table and punish
| renewables then tell the electorate that the latter is worse
| than the former.
|
| Instead of giving Americans free choice American automakers pay
| American politicians to prop up their uncompetitive prices and
| subpar offerings. All while they take in huge private profits.
| American workers could work on foreign automobiles, just as
| they do with other automakers not from China. It's not about
| workers, it's not about national security. You don't even have
| to go into all the environmental concerns that of course
| disproportionately affect poorer individuals.
|
| It's corporate welfare. And yes, it should be criminal. At the
| very least, if the American people are going to inflate CEOs
| salaries they should have seats on the board.
|
| This is actually not a wild idea. You might be surprised to
| find who one of the largest shareholders of the Volkswagen
| group is. It's not like that is an obviously mismanaged
| socialist hellhole company, it's a perfectly competitive and
| well regarded car company.
|
| Americans need to start demanding more equity or oversight in
| operations their governments are already paying for. The fact
| most Americans think this amounts to communism just means more
| people have to call out the money is already flowing.
| testing22321 wrote:
| I'm really happy Canada just dropped the Chinese EV tariffs.
| apexalpha wrote:
| >Canada here. 7.6kw on our roof for $0 out of pocket thanks to
| $5k grant and $8k interest free loan.
|
| EUR13.000 for this still seems expensive.
|
| Are there tariffs on Chinese PV in Canada?
| canucktrash669 wrote:
| 13k CAD is EUR8.000
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Most rooftop install costs are labor. The PV is now a minimal
| slice of it. Which is why mandating solar on new construction
| is such an important policy: don't make two sets of laborers
| clamber around the same roof.
| jeorb wrote:
| The quotes for solar on my home in the US ranged between
| $40,000 (local company) and $120,000 (Tesla). How did you get
| solar installed for only $13,000?
| abhinavk wrote:
| They are in Canada.
| pbasista wrote:
| Those numbers are meaningless unless you specify what you get
| in return.
|
| It is like saying that you pay $30,000 for a car. But the
| most important question is: For which car?
|
| Also, if the installation services are so expensive, you can
| always install everything yourself.
|
| Study how to do it, get the tools and materials, and then do
| it. It would be time-consuming, challenging and perhaps it
| would carry extra risks. Absolutely.
|
| But it is not rocket science. It can be done. As long as
| there is a motivation to do it, i.e. a good value you will
| get out of it in return, it should be a valid approach to
| consider, in my opinion.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Almost identical array in the states (7.8kw) -- $25K out of
| pocket, down to about $12K after state and federal tax
| incentives.
|
| Still made sense financially, pays for itself after ~8 years
| and the panels are warrantied for 30... but we're seriously
| lagging.
|
| There's a similar phenomenon with heat pump systems.
| Installation costs are absolutely absurd.
| choeger wrote:
| > Dad in Victoria Australia just got 10.6kw fully installed and
| operational for $4000 AUD. ($2,700 USD)
|
| How the heck are the panels even installed and connected for
| that price? That's about 25 panels, IIRC. What about the
| installation material and the ac/dc converter?
| testing22321 wrote:
| All covered in that price.
|
| Government incentives. Spend tax dollars putting solar on
| literally every roof in the country instead of more coal or
| nuke plants.
| blell wrote:
| OTOH, oil and gas prices in Europe are criminal, so there's
| that.
| bojan wrote:
| Europe has to import both, and the sellers tend to abuse
| Europe's dependency on it. Europe has what is becoming a
| survival interest to replace oil and gas as soon as possible.
| buckle8017 wrote:
| > Canada here. 7.6kw on our roof for $0 out of pocket thanks to
| $5k grant and $8k interest free loan.
|
| So solar only makes sense when it's nearly completely
| subsidized?
|
| That's not the statement you think it is.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| It's criminal to not hand huge subsidies to people like you who
| are already likely well-off, so you can generate passive income
| for the rest of your life?
| rfrey wrote:
| Oil and gas subsidies in Canada dwarf whatever pittance is
| tossed out to renewable energy. People getting an interest
| free loan for rooftop solar may be well off (they own
| houses), but I guarantee the CEO of TC Energy is doing even
| better.
| testing22321 wrote:
| A few things
|
| If enough people adopt solar, it gets cheaper, and everyone
| get cheaper power, or even free like Australia.
|
| Tax dollars could be spent on new coal or nuke plants, or to
| incentivize solar installs. Which one is the right future? Do
| new coal and nuke plants result in free power like Australia?
| prometheus76 wrote:
| Another impact on solar adoption in the United States is that
| many home insurance companies are refusing to pay on claims
| against roof damage from poor installs. And there are a lot of
| poor installs, which has led to this problem. So now the
| homeowners are taking all of the risk on a solar install that
| already has an 8-10 year ROI.
| vjvjvjvjghv wrote:
| "Solar prices in the US are criminal, protecting oil and gas
| who bought all the politicians."
|
| I think a big part of why the US GDP is so high is that a lot
| of things are just f...ing expensive. Education, health care,
| solar, restaurants and so on. You have to actively resist the
| "usual" lifestyle or you end up in a sea of debt.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > Solar prices in the US are criminal, protecting oil and gas
| who bought all the politicians.
|
| Are you saying that because you assert cost is driven up
| "artificially" by taxes or other structural headwinds? Or are
| you saying that fossils enjoy an advantage due to lopsided
| subsidies? Or something else?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Figure out what you can do without a permit or inspections in
| your jurisdiction.
|
| For example, in my jurisdiction it's: < 5 square meters of
| panels on your roof, <60V DC, AC on homeowner side of panel (as
| long as electrical work done by homeowner).
|
| That's not a lot, but my primary purpose is as a generator
| replacement -- keep my fridge powered during a summer power
| outage or my furnace fan powered during a winter one. The other
| 364 days of the year it just slowly pays for itself.
|
| Panels, battery, wiring and paying a roofer to install the
| flashings for the mounts all cost under $3000. A single one of
| the required inspections would have cost about that much.
| flexie wrote:
| But Trump explained to us yesterday, how wind and solar is for
| losers. Surely, we should be looking in to how we can transition
| back to fossils.
| nxm wrote:
| At the end of the day, the retail cost of electricity in many
| EU member countries can be two to three times the cost of
| electricity in the US. Ultimately that's what matters to
| consumers and businesses.
|
| Also, Trump called out the idiotic decisions by greenies such
| as shutting down nuclear power plants and make long your
| industries less competitive as a result.
| coredev_ wrote:
| If this is true, it has nothing to do with solar or wind but
| rather strange decisions in the past in some countries that
| they (and their neighbors) pay for now (looking at you
| Germany).
| p0pularopinion wrote:
| Nuclear does not cause prices to be lower. Putting that
| aside, political discourse here in Germany was
| "interesting" to say the least.
|
| The shift to renewables started off pretty well in the
| early 2010s before it came to a grinding halt thanks to
| some wierd debates around the topic. For the past few
| years, buildout of solar has been remarkably fast,
| especially considering the slow pace of other projects. In
| 2025, 16.4 GW of solar power went live.
|
| The biggest issue that drives prices here is the grid. New
| high voltages transmission lines have faced intense local
| oppsition, so transmision between North and South is
| limited, which is problematic given the focus of the north
| on (offshore) wind and the south on solar PV. Since Germany
| is a single electricity price zone, the low to negative
| electricity prices from wind turbines do not reflect the
| reality of grid capabilities, resulting in significant
| redispatch costs.
|
| The solution would be obvious. Split Germany into n
| electicity price zones (with n>1). However, there is a lot
| of political opposition, specifically from the conservative
| CDU/CSU against this.
|
| So yeah, Germany is struggling with relatively expensive
| electrcity prices, complaining about it, but refusing to
| implement a borderline free solution for it.
| MadDemon wrote:
| The high voltage DC transmission lines from north to
| south are being built right now and for example SuedLink
| is expected to be operational in 2028. Their transmission
| capacity will be more than enough. Why would you split
| Germany into electricity zones now, if in a few years the
| transmission problem will largely be fixed?
| coredev_ wrote:
| Nuclear that was built a long time ago would probably
| have lowered the prices in DE right now, if they weren't
| shut down. I understand that building new ones right now
| makes little sense.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Only if it the nuclear didn't need refurbished to keep
| running.
|
| France and Canada are currently estimating costs to
| refurb old nuclear that are higher then new build
| renewables.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| Refurb costs are for the entire fleet which is 50+GW and
| are in fact dirt cheap. Refurbs are in 1-3bn/unit range.
| CF of say solar in this region is roughly 10-12%. To have
| same average output as a single 1GW npp you would need
| about 10GW solar and much more if you want to achieve
| firm generation. French refurbs will happen anyway. In
| fact, carenage is already undergoing.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| Nuclear was cheapest firm power in the german merit
| order. So yes, nuclear does have an impact, especially if
| it outplaces higher cost units
|
| There is a lot of opposition because zone split would
| mean erasing southern industry and I may be wrong, but
| southern regions are pumping most of the money into state
| budget. Cutting those means cutting own legs.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > in many EU member countries can be two to three times the
| cost of electricity in the US.
|
| Yup, I wonder why that might be, perhaps its due to our main
| supplier of gas and oil invading a country. Not sure though,
| if only the price graphs reflected that. oh wait.
|
| > shutting down nuclear power plants
|
| Germany fucked up there. but france and Finland haven't done
| that.
|
| Spain has cheap electricity _because_ of solar power its
| wholesale price is currently lower than the US, in winter.
| EdiX wrote:
| Declining industrially and demographically, no innovation,
| soaring energy prices, and our share of the world economy has
| shrunk for ten years straight and is projected to continue
| shrinking in the future. By all metrics us europeans are
| losers.
| jhrmnn wrote:
| Now, let's aim at total energy consumption, not just electricity
| generation.
| standardUser wrote:
| ~30% of total energy consumption in Europe is from ICE
| vehicles. So selling more EVs and winding down ICE sales can
| resolve 1/3rd of the issue.
| spants wrote:
| The UK has some of the highest energy costs in the world due to
| the stupid Net Zero taxes. Our economy and manufacturing is
| suffering.
| mekdoonggi wrote:
| Have you considered that what you're paying for isn't just
| energy now, but energy security in the future?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| I don't see any energy security for the future for the UK
| unfortunately. We sold ourselves short during the GW/Blair
| Neo-labour era. Scotland maybe, they have wind-farms but the
| UK likes to tax that. We've just started the era of paying
| for the cost of Brexit. It's hitting hard.
|
| My weekly supermarket shop for the basic essentials (cheese,
| eggs, flour, vegetables) now come to around $60/80 a trip.
|
| Parmesan Cheese is around ~PS22-PS45 ($30-$60) per kg
| compared to the US $7-$24+ per kg.
| mekdoonggi wrote:
| Why not? You've got abundant wind and solar. Once
| installed, even if for some reason you can't get new
| turbines or panels, you'll still have a decent amount of
| capacity.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Solar is hit & miss. The only capacity we really have is
| wind and those are only efficient to those near the sea
| or in the highlands. England, Scotland, Wales are
| governed by rain 80% of the year and with the sun we get,
| household solar rarely breaks even.
|
| Just because we've got, if the government isn't
| supporting it's pretty much wasted. The renewable farms
| we do have are mostly funded by private investments
| firms. Scotland and Wales wants more renewable but the UK
| government says no.
|
| > End 2024 installed electricity generating capacity was
| 105 GWe: 35.0 GWe natural gas; 32.8 GWe wind; 18.3 GWe
| solar; 7.4 GWe biofuels & waste; 5.9 GWe nuclear; 4.8 GWe
| hydro (including 2.9 GWe pumped storage) and 1.3 GWe oil.
|
| https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-
| profil...
| mekdoonggi wrote:
| A quick search says the UK produced 18,314 GWh of solar
| last year. And this was mostly funded by private
| investment? It seems like for some infrastructure
| investment, the government is getting long-term renewable
| power. If the solar isn't making money, why is it growing
| 30% annually?
|
| What is stupid about nuclear? It's a huge amount of
| clean, secure energy.
|
| Would your preference be dependence on Russian/US oil
| natural gas? Would you feel the same if Russia invaded
| Finland/Baltics and US took over Greenland?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| > What is stupid about nuclear? It's a huge amount of
| clean, secure energy.
|
| It's not the stupidly of the reactor producing. I don't
| agree with it personally, but hey whatever, it's a thing.
| The stupidly of it is that we are small island.
|
| Claim what you wish about how safe they are but like
| anything: errors and malfunctions. Cyber sabotage and all
| that.
|
| If an reactor were to implode we're eff'd. We don't have
| landmass to facilitate the output waste in the UK and the
| waste we do currently produce has to be shipped
| elsewhere; sold for dark money.
|
| > Would your preference be dependence on Russian/US oil
| natural gas? Would you feel the same if Russia invaded
| Finland/Baltics and US took over Greenland?
|
| My preference would be my hand with a gun pointed at my
| temple and myself pulling the trigger. To dark?
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| >We don't have landmass to facilitate the output waste in
| the UK
|
| Yes, we do. It really doesn't make that much space to
| store the waste. The biggest problem is people being
| _irrationally_ scared of it.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| even accounting for fukushima/chernoble nuclear is
| between solar and wind in terms of human deaths. And new
| units are safer than both. EPR went 'just add one more
| thing' to be more expensive, AP1000 went passive safety
| way but westinghose imploded and they needed to ask Korea
| for help
| mekdoonggi wrote:
| Forgive me, but I don't think you're looking at UK energy
| policy with a pragmatic and realistic lens. The UK could
| always make a reactor safer and more secure. If you're
| dependent on gas, Russia or the US could just shut off
| the tap.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > household solar rarely breaks even.
|
| mate, I dunno what your smoking, but it deffo does. I'm
| about 50% "paid off" and I had an expensive setup.
| Installed now the equivalent costs about 50% of what it
| did.
|
| > Scotland and Wales wants more renewable but the UK
| government says no.
|
| National grid say "holy shit I need to build more cables"
| then local people say "ewwww pylons" and shit gets more
| expensive. There is a bottleneck between england and
| scotland, which is partially being solved by
| https://www.nationalgrid.com/the-great-grid-upgrade
|
| The whole boo england, poor scotland/wales thing gets
| tired super quick. its being solved, is it being solved
| fast enough? no, but thats because we have a raised a
| shit generation of empty politicians from across UK and
| NI. (and the co-dependent pundit class)
|
| > The renewable farms we do have are mostly funded by
| private investments firms.
|
| Mostly pension funds. but yes, private. However given the
| high turnover of (useless) polticians, and a civil
| service that has had all is expertise hollowed out and
| replaced by consultancy firms, I don't think public
| funding, without structural reform is a good idea (look
| at railways for example)
| dalyons wrote:
| Why not? Few more of these (1) and you should be golden.
| One years auction will be 12% of all uk demand.
|
| 1 https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-what-uks-record-auction-
| for-o... )
| doublerabbit wrote:
| If either one of the two alternative government parties
| of the UK get in they will scrap all. Reform UK sets out
| plans to tax renewable energy, conservatives are all for
| the oil.
|
| 2030 is four years away & the next election is in 2029.
| The Labour party is unlikely to get in again, and if they
| do it'll be a miracle. Far-Right or Fascist Right.
|
| Reform UK won't get enough seats to sit in parliament
| this election but if in the future, it's a dystopian
| vision I don't want to think about. Trump-XL, tax the EU,
| climate change doesn't exist, kick out asylum seekers,
| higher taxation to further screw Scotland and Wales.
| Heavily back pocketed by the US oil and tobacco industry,
| Nigel is foul MAGA of the UK.
|
| Conservatives, sponsored by oil and pharmaceutical.
| Exxon, Esso, BP et cetera. They got their wish with
| Brexit, they made a bucket load of cash from that and
| they're the ones who scrapped the renewable industry in
| the first place. One of their aims is to scrap the NHS
| and make it privatised.
| FrostViper8 wrote:
| > A supermarket shop for the basic essentials (cheese,
| eggs, flour, vegetables) now come to around $60/80 a trip.
|
| No it doesn't. Maybe if you are shopping at Waitrose. It is
| more expensive. But it isn't PS45 for basics. I did an
| entire shop which will last me the week for PS30 (in Aldi).
| doublerabbit wrote:
| I shop at Sainsburys where I can. The main supermarkets
| for me are Morrison and kind of forced to use M&S.
|
| Everyone has their super market preference. ASDA would be
| cheaper still. You can't disagree that prices have sky
| rocketed, shrunk in quantity and now lower quality.
| klelatti wrote:
| > Pamantasan Cheese
|
| What cheese? A misspelling?
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > compared to the US $7-$24+ per kg.
|
| thats per pound (lb).
|
| Given that you can't make parmesan in the UK _AND_ its
| historically expensive (see samual peypes) it seems an odd
| choice to pin your argument on.
|
| > We sold ourselves short during the GW/Blair Neo-labour
| era.
|
| I mean we really didn't it was a period of great
| productivity and a massive boost in living standards almost
| universally.
| atwrk wrote:
| Looking at the data it seems that uk industrial electricity is
| the most expensive _before_ taxes, is that not correct?
| ricardo81 wrote:
| The social and environmental cost part is being removed in
| April and should save around 15-20% of the bill. I guess that
| is what you mean by net zero taxes?
| mrks_hy wrote:
| > due to the stupid Net Zero taxes.
|
| No. Citation neede. The issue is the moronic way energy
| auctions are done, first by setting the price to the highest
| source that can satisfy (always gas) but ignoring (!)
| geography. Then, phase 2, dropping the impossible providers
| (i.e. Scottish hydro in the North for South England), and doing
| another (much more expensive pass). The Octopus CEO had a
| succinct explainer recently, can't find the video...
|
| Found it: https://youtu.be/5WgS-Dsm31E?t=91 starts at 1:31
| Moldoteck wrote:
| this is not moronic. This is done everywhere in the world. In
| fact, merit order does justify more ren deployment even if
| economics aren't that great, because operators will be paid
| according to merit order, needing less cfd's. You can also
| check out how much of the gas electricity price is just
| carbon tax. And how transmission spending evolved. And how
| CFD's for different tech evolved in each AR round
| nindalf wrote:
| This is a glib statement that disregards a massive amount of
| complexity.
|
| Energy is not expensive because of Net Zero taxes. Here's a
| breakdown of the average UK electricity bill over time [1]. The
| Renewables Obligation, that subsidised wind and solar at a time
| when they were infeasible without subsidies, was a scheme that
| ran between 2002 and 2017. It was stopped once renewables
| became cheaper than the alternatives. We will continue to pay
| for the renewable plants set up back in the day, but this will
| gradually taper off. In this electricity bill estimate for 2030
| [2], you'll find that the Renewables Obligation is much lower
| (PS17 rather than PS102) for two reasons: plants losing
| subsidies as they age out and a chunk of the subsidy being
| borne by the treasury from general taxation.
|
| So why aren't electricity bills coming down? Because we're
| recognising the reality that we will need to be powered by a
| mix of nuclear, wind and solar. Check out this real time
| dashboard of electricity generation in the UK [3], which shows
| you how Wind has zoomed in the last 14 years. From 2GW to 14GW,
| wind is now the single largest source of energy generated in
| the UK.
|
| Wind is only going to grow, because it is cheap compared to the
| alternatives. In the Jan 2026 auction for wind power, an 8.4GW
| contract was awarded for a price 40% lower than the cost of a
| gas power plant. And unlike gas you aren't at the vagaries of
| global gas prices, like we were in 2022.
|
| And now you're thinking, if wind is so cheap and we're
| continuing to build more, why is the estimate for the 2030
| electricity bill higher than 2025? The 2030 page explains this
| - the wind is being built in the North Sea, far from where it
| is needed - in the South of England. This means investing in
| the transmission network, which will cost PS70B over the next 5
| years. That cost will be passed onto consumers.
|
| So no, bills aren't high because of renewables. The decision to
| double down on wind, solar, batteries and nuclear by the
| previous and current government are sound. We will be more
| energy independent than we were in 2022 and possibly paying a
| bit less in overall bills. The reduction in carbon emissions is
| a nice bonus.
|
| [1] - https://www.electricitybills.uk
|
| [2] - https://www.electricitybills.uk/2030
|
| [3] - https://grid.iamkate.com
| Moldoteck wrote:
| bills are higher because of co2 tax, cfd's paid through AR
| rounds, and transmission expansion
| pornel wrote:
| OTOH, 60%-80% of electricity production is already
| renewable/low-carbon.
| kokey wrote:
| Every time, over the years, that there has been some kind of
| headline saying renewables have overtaken fossil fuels, when you
| look at it a bit more closely there is always a big 'but'. For
| example, it was compared to coal (not taking into account
| electricity from gas), or it was for one day, or it was a
| percentage of new installations, or it excludes winter, includes
| nuclear etc.
|
| This time, however, it looks like it's actually true and that's
| just for wind and solar. This is incredible, and done through
| slowly compounding gains that didn't cause massive economic
| hardships along the way.
| fred_is_fred wrote:
| How much did Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine and nat gas
| price and supply changes accelerate things?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| _Ember Energy: European electricity prices and costs_ -
| https://ember-energy.org/data/european-electricity-prices-
| an... (updated daily)
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Sadly we got a warning in 2014 with Crimea being seized and
| fossil apologists like Bjorn Lomborg argued against rolling
| out wind and solar faster in response.
|
| Because he's so "reasonable" and "pragmatic", he didn't say
| we shouldn't phase out Russian gas, he just said solar and
| wind don't work and so we should invent some totally new type
| of energy for this purpose.
|
| It's only with a few years hindsight that he's obviously a
| shill. You had to be paying close attention at the time to
| notice.
|
| And sadly that kind of engineered delay is widespread.
| pranavj wrote:
| This is an important observation. For years these headlines
| came with asterisks - one sunny/windy day, excludes gas, new
| capacity only, etc. This being actual annual generation for
| wind+solar combined vs all fossil fuels is genuinely
| significant. The compounding nature of it is key too - solar
| capacity is now large enough that even modest percentage growth
| adds enormous absolute capacity each year.
| jl6 wrote:
| The "but" this time is that we are talking about electricity
| demand, not total energy demand. Electrification of heating is
| the next big milestone.
|
| It's still a great trend.
| RationPhantoms wrote:
| In my opinion, the "but" is still the "hellbrise"
| considerations brought up in the Decouple podcast. Renewable
| energy is fantastic but, at grid scale, has to be coupled with
| sufficient storage: https://www.decouple.media/p/hellbrise
| adrianN wrote:
| You can get pretty far with negligible storage. There is a
| cost tradeoff between storage, peaker plants (those could
| burn hydrogen, not just natgas) and grid size. 70% renewable
| with no storage is rather easy.
| RationPhantoms wrote:
| Not sure if you read the podcast but the whole point is
| that over-reliance on renewables without a sufficient means
| to handle oversupply can cause grid instability specific to
| the Spain/Portugal grid outage.
| Rygian wrote:
| The reports on the Iberian outage point out that, if
| solar/wind had been allowed to help, the outage could
| have been prevented.
|
| The outage was never about renewables, it was caused by
| bad dispatch of reactive power.
| owenversteeg wrote:
| The only asterisk this time is that this is electricity, not
| energy. Still impressive, but electricity is only 22% of total
| energy use, so they are at about 12% of the total for the EU
| and 7.8% for Europe.
|
| For that, you want this graph:
| https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
|
| Fun to play around with, you can also change the selection to
| view the world, US, China, individual EU countries etc.
|
| You can see that this the gain in renewables in the EU has been
| mainly at the expense of coal (down >50% as a share of total
| energy use in 10 years), gas (down 4%), and nuclear (down 20%.)
| Oil use as a share of the total is up by 5%.
| eigenspace wrote:
| It can be rather misleading to to talk about renewable energy
| generation versus total energy usage.
|
| Most uses of fossil fuels are very inefficient. For instance,
| when you step on the accelerator in your car, only around 30%
| of the energy in the fuel you use actually is being used to
| propel you forward. The majority of the energy is wasted as
| heat. In a power plant that's more like 70% being captured
| and going towards the goal (electricity generation).
|
| Another large quantity of energy-usage is heating, and
| electrical heat-pumps can be around 3-5x more energy
| efficient at heating an enclosed space than combustion or
| resistive heating.
|
| So while things like heating an transportation use a very
| large amount of energy, conquering them with renewables
| actually won't require that Europe installs 10x or whatever
| more wind and solar, since electrification also brings
| significant new efficiencies.
|
| ______
|
| If you want to compare renewables against the amount of
| fossil fuels being burnt, then it'd be a lot more
| representative if you calculate the amount of wind energy
| impacting a wind turbine blade, or the amount of energy in
| solar radiation incident on a solar panel. That's an easy way
| to inflate the renewable numbers by ~5x or whatever
| adrianN wrote:
| Most power plants are less than 50% efficient.
| eigenspace wrote:
| Yeah, 70% is more or less a best-case scenario (unless
| you count systems for recovering and distributing waste
| heat, then it goes higher)
| owenversteeg wrote:
| I mostly agree. Certainly transportation is an obvious one.
| But of course there are still some losses; when you include
| all the losses in the system and cold weather you can
| easily get ~80% for EVs vs. ~30% for ICE cars. Heat pumps
| can be very efficient, but 5x more efficient than
| combustion/resistive heating (which is near 100%...) is not
| common in practice. 3x, sure, plenty of installations that
| get that or better in mild climates.
|
| That said, those are two pretty large items. If we reached
| 90% electrification on both it would be a pretty big win:
| Road transport represents ~26% of global energy use and all
| heating/cooling (industry, building, agriculture)
| represents ~50%.
| youngtaff wrote:
| > Road transport represents ~26% of global energy use
|
| Does that 26% include the energy that's involved to ship
| the fuel in tankers?
|
| Something like 50% of marine fuel usage is shipping
| fossil fuels around the world
| grumbelbart wrote:
| Exactly. It is in general (much) more efficient to burn
| natural gas in a power plant and use the electricity for
| heatpumps compared to simply burning gas at home for
| heating.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Yeah, in combined cycle plants you burn the natural gas
| first in a gas turbine first, use the waste heat from
| that to boil water and run steam turbine. Then condense
| the steam using your district heating circuit.
|
| You can say this is 100% efficient as you make some
| electricity and the rest does house heating.
| youngtaff wrote:
| If you take a look at the All Time view on
| https://grid.iamkate.com you'll see wind overtook gas a few
| years ago in the UK
| altern8 wrote:
| Well, OK--but at what cost?
|
| Electricity/heating and gasoline in the EU is many times more
| expensive than in the U.S., and as a result EVERYTHING is more
| expensive.
|
| Mix that with lower buying power and taxes and we spend 2-3 times
| for stuff.
|
| I would think that most people would happily choose lower prices
| over clean energy and paper straws.
|
| Our companies are also less and less competitive because of these
| initiatives, and companies from China take over in part thanks to
| the complete lack if environmental and labor laws over there.
|
| Seems to me like this is happening more and more, and it's so
| widespread and obvious that it almost makes you think that
| politicians are being bought by Chinese companies/government.
| torlok wrote:
| Renewables lead to energy independence and a more distributed
| energy grid. It's fundamental to security, and can't be so
| easily measured in terms of money. The EU is increasing its
| independence from China via initiatives like the Net-Zero
| Industry Act. And this talk of "politicians being bought by
| Chinese companies" is laughable in the face of what oil
| companies are doing, to the benefit of exporters like USA,
| Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other regimes, and definitively not
| the EU.
| altern8 wrote:
| I'm not sure, I'm in Poland and all we had was coal. Now it
| will take a few decades to have our own source of power
| again. Maybe 20-30 years..?
|
| What are oil companies doing to drive European companies out
| of business (not saying they aren't, I just don't know)?
| pjc50 wrote:
| Poland still has majority coal power production! It's one
| of last places you can possibly blame renewables for
| pricing.
| altern8 wrote:
| Well, green initiatives made us stop using coal.
|
| Also, we've started exporting because of carbon credits--
| which caused prices to skyrocket.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| prices in poland are dictated by coal. Coal got insanely
| expensive due to co2 taxes
| altern8 wrote:
| Correct. Exactly my point.
| torlok wrote:
| I'm from Poland too and the only thing we have is land, the
| sun, and wind. Coal poisons the air we breathe, and hurts
| the climate our children will live in. It's not about
| money, it's about security. The worst thing for polish
| security is being dependent on foreign oil and gas, and to
| be reliant on a few power plants that are an easy target
| for russian drones, and rely on water from rivers that are
| running dry more and more often. The transition away from
| coal should've come much, much sooner. When you hear a push
| back against renewables, and people praising oil and gas,
| who's benefiting from this? Poland, or oil suppliers like
| Russia?
| altern8 wrote:
| I like nuclear.
|
| But I think it's a huge investment that would take
| decades.
| torlok wrote:
| I'm fine with supplementing with nuclear, but it's still
| a single point of failure, and needs water. France and
| Switzerland had to shut down nuclear plants last year
| because the rivers got too hot. This issue is not going
| away.
| p0pularopinion wrote:
| > Electricity/heating and gasoline in the EU is many times more
| expensive than in the U.S.
|
| Maybe because Europe as a whole has little to no signifcant oil
| reserves ready for extraction? Very much unlike the US.
|
| > I would think that most people would happily choose lower
| prices over clean energy and paper straws.
|
| The US does have plenty of cheap energy and yet its industrial
| output is dwarfed by Chinas, which is increasingly relying on
| domestically products green tech. Also, people seem to be not
| very concerned with energy prices. If they were, they would not
| act as irrational when it comes to topics like heatpumps or
| electric vehicles.
|
| > that it almost makes you think that politicians are being
| bought by Chinese companies/government.
|
| Looking at the energy policy of some countries (Germany
| specifically), it seems vastly more likely that politicans are
| bought by oil companies.
| altern8 wrote:
| True, there is no oil and we just relied on cheap gas from
| Russia--which I guess it didn't turn out to be a good
| strategy after all.
|
| That's interesting about oil companies. Is that who's lobbing
| to pass laws that just seem (to me) to be written on purpose
| to make our companies less competitive? How does that work,
| how do oil companies profit from that?
| direwolf20 wrote:
| If you can sell more oil and at a higher price, you get
| more money.
| altern8 wrote:
| OK, but how, they lobby to pass laws against coal and
| nuclear, so that you burn more oil..?
| direwolf20 wrote:
| Yes, and against bike lanes so more people have to drive,
| and against subsidies for public transport, and against
| public transport entirely, and so on.
| altern8 wrote:
| I see.
|
| That makes sense, every interesting thanks.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| big part is co2 tax. EU now has neptune deep and could
| explore north sea too. In Germany current transition pathway
| of ren+gas and no nuclear was defined when Energiewende got
| introduced with red greens under Schroeder, a gazprom lover
| and later extended by red blacks
| altern8 wrote:
| Yes, 100%.
|
| That's part of what I meant by "green initiatives".
| pranavj wrote:
| EU electricity prices are high, but attributing this to
| renewables is backwards. Wholesale electricity prices drop when
| wind and solar are producing - that's been documented
| extensively. The high prices are largely due to: (1) gas
| setting marginal prices during peak hours, (2) grid
| infrastructure that hasn't kept pace, and (3) taxes/levies that
| fund the transition. As battery storage grows and reduces gas
| dependency for peaks, prices should moderate. The countries
| with the highest renewable penetration (Spain, Portugal) often
| have lower prices than those still dependent on gas imports.
| altern8 wrote:
| I'm not attributing to renewables, but green initiatives.
|
| For instance, the rising prices of carbon permits under the
| EU emissions trading scheme.
|
| So, my point is that countries that don't ignore the economy
| just to be green--like the U.S. and specially China--seem to
| have vastly cheaper electricity and gasoline, which I would
| guess makes them more competitive/lowers prices.
|
| Over here we have no NG and no oil, and on top of that we tax
| our companies because of emission limits, while in China they
| burn coal like there is no tomorrow.
|
| We wanted to outlaw non-electric cars, while the car industry
| in Europe is huge and we don't have a way to build batteries,
| etc. etc.
|
| Seems to be a pattern that is hard to understand.
| dgb23 wrote:
| China is has started to trend their fossil fuel consumption
| downwards since last year and have a similar per capita
| consumption as Europe.
| mrweasel wrote:
| > Well, OK--but at what cost?
|
| It costs less? The Danish organisation for green energy
| interest (biased I known) has calculations that shows a 5
| billion DKK saving per year for the Danish consumers. So about
| EUR0.02 per kWh.
|
| I also think you're wrong about prices. I think most will pay
| more, if they get clean energy. Not a lot more, but if it's
| only a few cents, I think many/most will pay that, perhaps not
| happily, but still. People, in parts of Europe at least, are
| perhaps more baffled that the Americans won't pay the slightly
| higher cost and and protect the environment. As it happens
| that's not a choice we need to make, wind and solar is now
| cheaper than fossil fuel.
| altern8 wrote:
| I'm not sure, prices here in Poland have skyrocketed because
| of the EU green initiative and we started exporting and
| prices went up 3-4 times.
|
| I'm good with protecting the environment. Here, though, we're
| making European companies less competitive. They shut down,
| and Chinese companies fill the gap, flooding us with products
| that are worse for the environments because they have no
| laws, bad for workers because they have no laws, and bad for
| the environment again because instead of local they're
| shipped across continents on boats that burn as much fuel as
| a whole country for a year just to bring cheap plastic stuff
| that we used to make better ourselves.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Arguing that European business should be allowed to pollute
| the environment more, because that's what China does is a
| little backwards I think. In my mind we should enforce the
| rules on a per product basis, rather than per country.
| Where a product is made shouldn't matter, a product should
| be taxed based on the pollution it has generated, shipping
| included.
|
| Want to sell to the EU: Workers can only work e.g. 40 hours
| a week, must have five weeks of vacation per year and here
| are the tax rates for various types of pollution.
| altern8 wrote:
| Yes, this would be good but I have a feeling it will
| never happen.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| there's a meme with a few cents more in germany, can search
| on the google "eis kugel energiewende"
|
| DK has one of the highest household prices in EU per eurostat
| https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
| explained/index.php...
|
| Imo CO2 tax should be gone to alleviate this, especially when
| China and US dont have it. This just causes offshoring.
|
| If you want electrification, you need cheap electricity. If
| you want more ren, you put more incentives there instead of
| overtaxing fossils to make own industry uncompetitive
| mrweasel wrote:
| But the energy from windmills doesn't have a CO2 tax (it
| did at some point) and it frequently provides most, if not
| all, of the Danish energy (electricity) consumption.
| There's ONE coal fired power plant left in the country and
| it's scheduled to close in 2028. I get that we then have
| gas and garbage incinerators for heating, but we are
| getting electrification and lower prices.
|
| I frankly don't care what the US and China is doing,
| because they're doing the wrong thing. You're arguing that
| because you neighbour is throwing trash in the street you
| want to be able to do the same. I'd much rather make
| environmental demands of the products being sold to be from
| else where, and have them live by the same rules, allowing
| everyone to benefit.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| Co2 tax is just an indirect subsidy for renewables. When
| prices are low those are subsidized through cfds. When
| high- through merit order artificially pumped by co2 tax.
| This isn't bad per se but it affects negatively final
| consumer prices and industry which is bad.
|
| Problem is not about the neighbors throwing trash.
| Unilateral co2 tax means industry relocates to regions
| where it's not present. In your analogy it would look
| like you are sending trash to US to deal with it.
|
| DK is lucky to be able to get firming from nordics, but
| not everyone can do this. And from what I remember Norway
| already said one of the interconnectors will not have
| extended license at EOL
| usrnm wrote:
| The article uses the words "more power" and "overtaking fossil
| fuels", but the graph is actually about electricity generation.
| They are not the same thing, at least, in my head, because not
| all energy consumed in Europe comes in the form of electricity.
| If I heat my home with natural gas and drive an ICE car, this is
| me using fossil fuels in a way that has nothing to do with
| electricity and it won't be reflected in that graph. This is an
| important stepping stone, but it is not "solar and wind
| overtaking fossil fuels in Europe"
| pranavj wrote:
| Good catch. Electricity is maybe 20-25% of final energy
| consumption in most EU countries. The real test is whether
| cheap renewable electricity can pull heating (heat pumps) and
| transport (EVs) onto the grid fast enough. The encouraging sign
| is that both are happening - heat pump sales have surged in
| several EU countries, and EV adoption is well ahead of most
| forecasts from 5 years ago. But you're right that "overtaking
| fossil fuels" in total energy is still years away.
| wat10000 wrote:
| "Power" usually means electricity when used colloquially.
| p0pularopinion wrote:
| I'm curious as to how this will shift once the shift towards more
| electrification continues. This is only about electricity
| generation, not total power consumption.
|
| Nowadays, for very energy intenive things like heating or driving
| a car, fossil fuels still are more prevalent than electric
| alternatives. Once demand shifts in favor of the electrified
| alternatives, electricity demand is continuing to raise (although
| not as steep as the drop in demand for the fossil fuels will be).
| Particularly in heating, where peak demand is in times with very
| little solar generation, it seems like this will be challenging.
|
| While the prices of energy storage have come down significantly
| and are projected to continue to drop, there is still a noteable
| lack of cost effective long term storage solutions.
| kieranmaine wrote:
| Regarding the affect of EV adoption on electricity consumption
| the site https://robbieandrew.github.io/EV/ has some
| interesting data. I'd recommend looking at the following
| graphs:
|
| * Distance travelled by passenger cars in Norway
|
| * EV electricity consumption and total power generation in
| Norway
|
| EVs now make up approximately 1/3 of miles travelled, but the
| increase in total electrcity consumption is fairly small.
| dalyons wrote:
| now that 98% of cars sold are BEV, i wonder how long its
| gunna take for that 1/3rd to get to 95%
| eigenspace wrote:
| > Particularly in heating, where peak demand is in times with
| very little solar generation, it seems like this will be
| challenging.
|
| Heating is actually likely to be one of the easier questions
| here, because heat is just fundamentally an easier problem to
| tackle than most other intensive uses of energy in the modern
| world.
|
| 1. Solar isn't the only incredibly cheap form of intermittant
| renwewable energy production. Wind is also great, tends to
| support local manufacturing economies more than solar, and is
| anti-correlated with peak-sunshine. The wind tends to blow
| hardest in the winter and around sunset.
|
| 2. Heatpumps can pretty comfortably achieve 300+% coefficients
| of performance, meaning that for every joule of energy you put
| into a heatpump, you'll get 3+ joules of heat pumped into your
| home, office, or city-scale heat thermos
|
| 3. Heat energy storage is cheap compared to batteries. You just
| store large quantities of water or sand and heat it up with a
| resistor or a heat pump. The scaling of surface area versus
| volume ensures that the bigger you make the heat-battery, the
| less energy you'll lose from it over time (percentage wise).
|
| 4. Heat is a waste product from many other forms of energy
| usage, and can be harnessed. For instance, gas peaker plants
| aren't going away any time soon, and cities which aren't
| harnessing the waste heat from those peaker plants and using it
| in a district heating system are wasting both money and carbon.
|
| Just a couple kilometers from my home for instance is a gas
| power plant that stores waste heat in giant thermoses, and
| pumps hot water to my building to to be used for heating. They
| currently have the largest heat pump in europe under
| construction on the same site intended to supplement the gas
| plant, both to take up slack from the fact that it'll be
| running less often, and to expand the service to yet more
| households.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| the prerequisite for fast electrification is cheap electricity.
| Currently many EU countries have expensive electricity for
| households
| p0pularopinion wrote:
| This is just objectively untrue. Source: I live in Germany, a
| country with some of the highest electricity prices, I drive
| a BEV and I heat my home with a heatpump. My systems SCOP
| hovers around 3.5, which means that my kWh of heat made from
| my heatpump with electricity is cheaper than my current gas
| rate.
|
| My heatpump electricty bill is significantly lower as
| compared to my apartment (Gas furnace), despite both
| buildings being roughly comparable late 80s construction.
|
| I charge my car at my standard electrcity rate of 32ct/kWh,
| and I pay now about half for the same usage.
|
| Electricity is expensive, yeah. But electrified stuff is also
| significantly more efficient than fossil tech
| pranavj wrote:
| The most underreported part of this story is the battery piece at
| the end. Batteries are beginning to displace natural gas in
| evening peak hours - that's the exact window where solar critics
| have long argued renewables fall short. If this trend accelerates
| (and battery prices are dropping faster than most models
| predicted), the "intermittency problem" starts looking more like
| a solvable engineering challenge than a fundamental barrier.
|
| The next milestone to watch: when battery-backed solar becomes
| cheaper than gas peakers for evening demand across most of
| Europe. We might be closer than people think.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Those are two thresholds: cheaper than peakers using piped gas
| from Russia, and cheaper than peakers using LNG shipped via
| tanker ship. I imagine the latter threshold has already been
| met, only depending on the amortization period you choose for
| the battery purchase.
| mekdoonggi wrote:
| I looked into sodium-ion batteries for which factories are
| coming online in China. The theoretical manufacturing cost of
| those is very very low, which will make solar + batteries very
| cheap. I suspect China will reach those costs ahead of
| schedule.
| danny_codes wrote:
| IMO this is a classic case of underestimating how far
| manufacturing improvements can get you on the cost scale. You
| see a promising technology in the lab and it's hard to
| imagine a 1 million x reduction in price, yet we see that
| time and time again as tech gets scaled out.
|
| What's wild to me is how the US is leaving itself in the
| dust. How the GOP imagines we'll be competitive when the rest
| of the world can produce electricity 10x cheaper than we can
| is a wonder in itself
| toyg wrote:
| _> ow the GOP imagines we'll be competitive when the rest
| of the world can produce electricity 10x cheaper_
|
| By forcing oil prices to get 10x cheaper, at the barrel of
| a gun. See: Venezuela and Iran. Will it work? I would not
| bet on it.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Seems unlikely that we'll be selling oil for $5, unless
| fossil fuels are completely replaced and it becomes a
| side-of-the-road novelty.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| I mean where are all the factories making batteries in
| Europe? It's not like the US is purposefully preventing
| battery tech. It's why all of the government-funded solar
| companies imploded as well. The manufacturers do not
| compete
| bee_rider wrote:
| Intermittence really has always had the flavor of an
| engineering problem instead of a physics problem (it is about
| putting the energy when/where humans want it, rather than
| having enough of it). IMO load shifting seems like a cleverer
| and more engineer-y solution. Imagine a giant smart system
| where all of our appliances talk to each-other and can optimize
| the timings of their workloads. It's a magnificent society-wide
| scheduling problem! The papers we could write!
|
| Throwing batteries at it is a kind of blunt and uninteresting
| solution (I guess the market will prefer that one!).
| epolanski wrote:
| I ain't gonna use the dishwasher when the system wants me to,
| but when I can or want.
|
| I pay low energy prices during night than day, that's normal,
| but I'm still not gonna do laundry at 9 pm, I'd rather pay
| the 10/20 cents more during the day.
| bee_rider wrote:
| If I had a combined washer/dryer and could just load the
| clothes up and say "do it whenever" I'd go for that. But
| that's very dependent on only needing to do one load per
| day.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| A typical dishwasher load requires 1-3kWh, so you'll just
| use your home battery and do it whenever you want.
| lejalv wrote:
| I do time my dishwasher and washing machine to align with
| peak solar where I live.
|
| I'd like to appeal to you to evolve that frame of mind. To
| help avoid first world problems (I can't wash a dish by
| hand, I need it _now_ ) devolving into third-world ones
| (power cuts, crop failures, torrid tropical nights on mid
| latitudes, mountains disintegrated).
|
| Sometimes its important to remind we're on a generational
| mission, and it's not maximising Netflix time.
| ViewTrick1002 wrote:
| But you will charge your car when it's cheaper. And add a
| cheap home battery to remove expensive peak usage.
| evan_a_a wrote:
| In engineering the simple solution is often the best
| solution. Creating a demand-side network of devices is not
| that.
|
| Plus, such a system would provide even more ways for
| nefarious actors to sabotage the grid, by influencing the
| demand side. For example, setting every appliance to run its
| load at the same time. The grid would be fucked.
| terj74 wrote:
| This is already happening with market pricing of electricity
| energy demands that can be shifted. Our car charges, and our
| dishwasher/clothes washer run when pricing is low. The price
| differential is not big enough yet between high and low
| demand times for us to invest in a battery to soak up cheap
| power. If battery prices continue to go down, or if the price
| differential goes up that equation will change. The other
| main expensive energy user is HVAC and we don't have a way of
| moving that demand to a different time of day other than a
| batterv. :(
| IshKebab wrote:
| The problem with solar isn't the night. Getting enough
| batteries to cover that is totally doable. The issue is the
| winter. And not even because of fewer daylight hours - on sunny
| winter days there is usually still a good amount of solar.
|
| The problem is its often very cloudy in the winter. In the UK
| in winter we regularly have periods of 5 cloudy days in a row
| where solar output is virtually zero.
|
| I don't know what the answer to that is. In a calm cloudy
| winter week all renewables _and battery storage_ are totally
| screwed. Space based solar is a scam. Maybe we just have to
| live with it until fusion works (if it ever does).
|
| (But it's still academic at the moment because we're still far
| from the point where building more renewables is a bad idea.)
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > In the UK in winter we regularly have periods of 5 cloudy
| days
|
| True, but then for the UK solar power isn't the right thing
| for winter, hence why we need a massive mix of other stuff.
|
| Also we have the advantage that france isn't that far away.
|
| In the UK battery is about grid stabilisation, as in making
| sure that it hums at 50hz rather than 49.
| kieranmaine wrote:
| Battery revenues are shifting away from stabilisation now
| from https://cn-cob.com/info-detail/2026-uk-energy-storage-
| market...:
|
| > the focus of energy storage has shifted from frequency
| services to energy arbitrage. Due to market saturation, the
| share of frequency services in the revenue stack has
| significantly declined, from 80% in 2022 to just 20% in
| 2024. Looking ahead to 2030, we expect energy arbitrage to
| dominate the revenue stack, with most revenue coming from
| participation in the balancing mechanism.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Indeed, in the same way that solar has now peaked in
| spain/portugal in its current config. They are moving to
| solar+battery to absorb solar mid day and replay that in
| the morning/evening. (that doesn't really apply in the UK
| because of the rain)
|
| As more renewables come on stream and the grid gets more
| complex, batteries are going to plug holes.
|
| Energy Arbitrage is usually a good thing, so long as its
| regulated to for the customer, not the battery people.
| the point is that battery capacity is being deployed to
| even out the 5-9pm peak, which means that we are much
| much less dependent on gas turbine generators (which
| means less price pressure linked to LNG prices, if you're
| not into the co2 aspect)
| kieranmaine wrote:
| Regarding long term storage keep an eye on the UK's Cap and
| Floor scheme which offers guaranteed revenues to long term
| storage technologies [1].
|
| Page 7 of https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-0
| 9/LDES%20... lists the technology types of the project
| applications. The majority are Li-Ion BESS, but there are
| also other battery chemistries and Liquid/Compress Air
| Storage
|
| 1. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-release/super-battery-
| project...
| micwag wrote:
| > In a calm cloudy winter week all renewables and battery
| storage are totally screwed. Hydro doesn't really care about
| a calm cloudy winter week and is the reason my state was 100%
| renewable last year. So it's definitely not a problem for ALL
| renewables.
| MakersF wrote:
| It's unfair you're being down voted, you're right. I used to
| think that we could get by with just solar wind and
| batteries, but then after collaborating with people on an
| ideal energy mix the numbers were obvious: there is a (small)
| fraction that cannot be covered. Not with storage (the
| discharge cycles are so few that the cost is prohibitive. How
| can a battery pay for itself with 10-20 discharges a year?
| And this applies to any kind of battery that needs to be
| built, including hydro). Likely there will need to be some
| baseload nuclear (which then increases average prices, since
| to make it economical you need to buy all the electricity it
| produces, and so it partially displaces renewables). The
| alternative is overbuilding solar+wind+battery something like
| 5/8 times the average need. Maybe if the prices drop enough
| that could be feasible.. The big win would be if there is
| some way to get predictable power at a lower cost than
| nuclear (e.g. tidal), which could be used to smooth the
| troughts, or alternatively a low capex but potentially high
| opex solution which is turned on only when needed (gas is an
| option, but not co2 free. And sizing the power needed is not
| super cheap, although now it's not a problem since we have
| enough gas capacity which is going to be displaced, so it
| won't be needed to be built)
| kilroy123 wrote:
| Just over build the solar. Build out solar so demand in
| winter is met.
|
| Use the excess power in summer for some kind of industrial
| use.
| ViewTrick1002 wrote:
| Keep some of the existing natural gas plants around as an
| emergency reserve. Run them on hydrogen or hydrogen
| derivatives for zero carbon fuel, if the emissions are large
| enough to matter.
| epolanski wrote:
| A huge part of this calculus though is that the gas we buy
| since Russia disappeared as a provider is insanely high.
|
| Our economics may not match Canadian or US ones.
| andsoitis wrote:
| There's a certain poetic aspect to this.
|
| Fossils are dead, slow.
|
| Wind moves fast. Photons move even faster.
| dotdi wrote:
| At the same time subsidies are being phased out. I was about to
| get 8kW panels + batteries installed when my country decided to
| pull them, and I'm not going to spend 10k out of pocket.
| sp4cec0wb0y wrote:
| Imagine the powerhouse America would be (pun intended) if we
| subsidized nuclear energy to become the defacto producer of
| nuclear power plants world wide. Sometimes it is easier said than
| done but this really is as easy as said.
| mrks_hy wrote:
| You have it backwards. At the current cost curve for renewables
| and storage, Nuclear will never again be able to compete.
|
| See: the overly optimistic SMR plans being predictably scrapped
| in many places.
|
| What you do have is ample land to build out solar and export
| eg. Ammonia (made out of Hydrogen) for "free" energy.
| sp4cec0wb0y wrote:
| Correct me if I am wrong but the only reason nuclear is
| expensive is because of how costly the facilities are to
| build and maintain. If we were not setback during the anti-
| nuclear era, we would have gained economies of scale. The
| reason why solar is so cheap is for the exact same reason is
| it not? I am not an expert on this topic so take everything I
| say with a massive grain of salt as I am willing to be wrong
| on this.
|
| Edit: After further reading it appears that solar will be the
| defacto affordable option in energy production, even with
| SMRs and streamlined construction in the picture. Perhaps a
| mix of renewables, better battery infra, and SMRs for stable
| sources of power is the future.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| SMR will always have worse economics than LMR's if both are
| streamlined
| adrianN wrote:
| Power plants with high capex like nuclear have a hard time
| competing in a market where power is essentially free when
| it's sunny or windy. Running something like a nuclear power
| plant only for a few hundred hours a year when it's neither
| sunny nor windy is too expensive compared to (hydrogen) gas
| peakers (or other forms of storage)
| Moldoteck wrote:
| nuclear can compete if we re-learn to build on time and on
| budget. Japanese abwr did cost 3bn and done in <4y. China
| does the same now for cheaper. There's no such thing as free
| hydrogen, nor it will be
| thinkcontext wrote:
| Even in China the case for nuclear isn't overwhelming. They
| are building a lot of nuclear relative to the rest of the
| world but its not that much compared to how much wind and
| solar they are deploying.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| Yes. Mostly because of inland ban. Costwise their nuclear
| is extremely cheap, probably even cheaper than ren, but
| it's harder to scale (or unwillingness). But per capita
| they don't even match french deployments during messmer
| or swedish bwr units during peak
| thinkcontext wrote:
| The US gave the nuclear industry a chance for a nuclear
| renaissance with the subsidies they asked for towards the
| AP1000. The industry whiffed big time. Looks like nuclear will
| get another chance with the increased subsidies begun under
| Biden, the deregulatory approach of Trump and the huge demand
| spike in electricity. Its an open question on whether they'll
| be able to deliver.
| Havoc wrote:
| Now we just need to figure out scalable storage. Ideally
| something like the sand batteries that you can scale with
| construction equipment rather than just adding more rows of tiny
| lithium batteries
| eigenspace wrote:
| The answer is likely going to have to be hydrogen, but there's
| a pretty difficult catch with hydrogen: it makes zero sense to
| invest in _any_ hydrogen electricity storage infrastructure
| until the grid is already like 80+% renewable.
|
| There's simply no sense in turning electricity into hydrogen so
| that it could be used in 6 months (losing 50+% of the energy
| along the way as heat!) when you could just sell that
| electricity right now, or stick it in a battery so you can use
| it 6 hours from now.
|
| There will be an economic case for hydrogen energy storage in
| Europe in 10 years, but unfortunately the technology is
| basically sitting at a standstill right now with no attention
| and no investment because it's not needed yet.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| even in 10y h2 is economically unviable. Check out
| Norway/Sweden, they got tons of ren. Are they some _cheap_ H2
| generation meccas? There are some chances for other synth
| fuels but H2 is just a pipedream
| eigenspace wrote:
| Norway and Sweden have tones of renewable energy, but
| relatively little intermittent energy. If the economics of
| H2 ever work, it'll only ever work in a grid that's driven
| by intermittent energy sources (wind and solar).
|
| A hydro-driven grid does not need storage. Hell, if you
| have enough hydro, it can even be your storage. Not all of
| Europe has the geography to be able to cover their needs
| with just hydro.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| H2 economics work if you have constant oversupply. If
| your electrolyzer works only 50% of the time and storing
| is expensive, transporting is expensive and roundtrip
| efficiency is abysmal, it'll still cost a ton. Higher
| chances to use just cheaper gas generation because even
| LNG is cheaper than H2 saga.
| eigenspace wrote:
| Not a constant oversupply because then you'd never need
| the hydrogen in the first place. H2 economics (if they
| ever work) will work in a place where there's a seasonal
| gradient in energy production that's over too long a time
| horizon for batteries.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| Per lazard, currently, merely 25% green H2 peakers would
| provide power for as expensive as worst nuclear project
| in US- Vogtle. So a mere 1/4 mix is as bad as a terribly
| mismanaged construction project. H2 economics for
| electricity are non existent. It will be used fo other
| sectors maybe, like fertilizers
| eigenspace wrote:
| Look, I don't really want to be in the position of
| defending H2 here as I'm not particularly confident or
| optimistic about it, but I'm not really currently seeing
| a better alternative for seasonal energy shifting.
|
| If Germany was willing to build new nuclear power plants
| I'd be potentially in favour, but it's not going to to
| happen, so H2 will likely be the way, and it won't be
| cheap.
|
| That said, I also invite you to go look at cost estimates
| for batteries from just 5 years ago and compare them to
| today, or solar / wind cost estimates from 15 years ago.
| Those technologies have experienced significant
| reductions in cost due to scale and industrial learning.
|
| IMO the biggest problem with H2 is that similar sorts of
| learning / scaling processes simply won't even start
| until the grid evolves to a point where the seasonal
| demand shifting is actually required, but by then it's
| essentially too late. And there's not really any hope of
| governments kickstarting the learning process with
| artificial demand because people will make all sorts
| convincing arguments for why it's a stupid waste.
|
| So I guess we'll see what happens. Perhaps stuff like
| fertilizer and steel will help the technology matures
| before the grid needs it, or perhaps battery technology
| will surprise us again, or someone will figure out how to
| make flow batteries work or whatever. I'm not
| particularly confident in any of these technologies, but
| we'll just have to wait and see what happens I guess.
|
| Something *does* need to be done about storage though,
| even with all the complementary wind-solar and giant
| Lithium or Sodium battery installations, and all the HVDC
| you could want.
| baxtr wrote:
| If you're interested in this topic I highly recommend Tony Seba's
| analyses.
|
| He argues that because solar and wind are now the cheapest forms
| of new energy generation, they are on an unstoppable exponential
| "S-curve" that will make coal, gas, and nuclear power obsolete by
| 2030.
|
| Look up his videos on YT, for example this one:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj96nxtHdTU
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Solar with a modern LFP battery system is a no-brainer solution
| for 21st century energy infrastructure. The safety record beats
| pretty much everything else, and as long as the sun is out, it
| just works.
| pornel wrote:
| In the UK just having batteries already helps. There's a
| surplus of wind at night. Shifting it to 5pm peaks pays back
| the cost of the battery quicker than solar panels pay for
| themselves.
| eigenspace wrote:
| Focusing on Solar+Battery is only effective when the solar is
| not accounting for a majority of electricity generation (at
| least in geographies significantly north of the tropics). The
| problem is that while the sun shines, solar will drive everyone
| else out of business, but then leaves you stranded in the
| winter, and no practical amount of electricity storage will
| save you.
|
| Fortunately, wind energy generation also exists, and is a
| nearly ideal complement to solar power, because it's nearly as
| cheap as solar, and its energy peaks are mostly anti-correlated
| with solar energy peaks (typically the winter and sunset are
| the windiest parts of the year / day).
|
| Wind's main problem is that it's more reliant on large scale
| projects (rather than solar which scales all the way from a
| pocket calculator to an installation the size of city), and
| wind is also more susceptible to regulatory / NIMBY sabotage
| than solar.
|
| Especially with China currently flooding the market with cheap
| solar and batteries, I think it makes sense for governments to
| focus much more of their attention and efforts on promoting (or
| at least getting out of the way of) wind projects, and let the
| market drive solar adoption.
| weslleyskah wrote:
| > In 2025, both Ireland and Finland joined the ranks of European
| countries that have shuttered their last remaining coal plants.
|
| Interesting, they mentioned Finland. I wonder how Norway and
| Finland fair using solar since they have rigorous winters with
| polar nights.
| fulafel wrote:
| Hydro in Norway, nuclear+wind in Finland.
|
| https://www.iea.org/countries/norway/electricity
| https://www.iea.org/countries/finland/electricity
| weslleyskah wrote:
| Very interesting.
|
| I was also reading:
| https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2019/10/the-way-forward-
| for...
| canucktrash669 wrote:
| WW3 called and said solar is harder to disrupt through bombing
| than massive power plants. Seems like a great deal even if it was
| more expensive.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| disrupting the grid will still be easy. And cluster bombs can
| heavily impact land solar
| jojomodding wrote:
| It might be, but to disrupt the solar array on my rooftop you
| need to bomb it specifically. Times a hundred million, it
| becomes infeasible.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| that's true, but hardly relevant for the grid, especially
| considering many ppl dont even have a battery and have grid
| following solar panels which shut down the moment grid is
| down
| when_creaks wrote:
| Encouraging. However, it isn't clear from the article at first
| glance (or the deeper analysis being referenced) how electricity
| _consumption_ by power source is changing.
|
| In other words, as an example, a 10% increase in solar power
| generation does not necessarily mean that there was a 10%
| increase in electricity consumption where that electricity was
| generated via solar.
|
| i.e. It is entirely possible for a growing solar fleet to
| generate more power during the middle of the day than previously,
| and simultaneously for not all of that increased power to be used
| / usable.
| eigenspace wrote:
| What you're talking about is commonly called "curtailment",
| where power generators like wind and solar can be told to
| basically stop feeding into the grid, effectively wasting their
| energy.
|
| From what I recall, curtailment of wind and solar at least in
| Germany amounts to about 3% wasted energy from those sources,
| so no, it's not a very significant worry. These renewable
| sources really are displacing fossil fuels.
|
| A big part of this story is batteries. Especially during the
| summer, the wholesale electricity price in Germany can swing
| daily from -10 to +10 cents per kWh during the mid-day, up to
| 150+ cents per kWh at night, due to supply-and-demand.
|
| This gradient in prices creates a huge incentive for people to
| build batteries that buy up cheap electricity during the day
| (sometimes literally getting paid to do so), so that they can
| sell it back later on in the day when prices rise. This
| incentive helps make sure energy does not get wasted, it
| encourages more batteries to be installed, and it encourages
| businesses to shift the their energy usage to times of the day
| that align with high renewable output.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| It used to be the big worry among climate activists that you'd
| never get every country organize and move in one direction. Like
| you'd need some global body to clean everything up.
|
| That's very fragile.
|
| Luckily, we're moving to a world where a disjoint, self-
| interested response can be an advantage. Countries decide, for
| their own selfish reasons, to adopt green energy. For energy
| independence, affordability, clean air, etc.
|
| So when one country politically rotates out for dumb reasons,
| other countries pick up the slack and make a bit of progress.
| buckle8017 wrote:
| Oil the west doesn't use isn't magically staying in the ground.
|
| Middle and low income countries (most notably China) increased
| consumption is more than offsetting reductions from high income
| countries.
| throw7 wrote:
| And in U.S., Trump stopped the coastal wind farms here in the
| east... for "national security" reasons.
| buckle8017 wrote:
| I'm extremely skeptical of that graph because it has zero
| seasonal variation.
|
| Solar performs dramatically worse in the winter than in summer.
| azornathogron wrote:
| The graph I see in the article displays a single data point per
| year. You're not going to see seasonal variation in a graph
| with that resolution. Is there another graph that I missed?
| hbarka wrote:
| In Davos yesterday, our great leader was gaslighting the audience
| to believe that Europe buys wind power equipment from China
| whilst China themselves do not believe or use the very windmills
| they sell.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_China
| pranavj wrote:
| Related: The 80% Problem: Why the Energy Transition Isn't What
| You Think - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46724535
| baal80spam wrote:
| Thanks a lot, this is eye-opening.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-22 23:01 UTC)