14 ms·

US solar market is projected to triple in size by 2028

60 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

jillesvangurp 3y ago
The interesting thing with projections like this is that the further out they are, the less likely they are to factor in ongoing changes in the market. 2028 is close enough that this is probably ballpark right. But I would not be surprised if this is still off by a couple of tens of percents. A lot of this stuff is cost driven. The reason solar keeps out pacing projections historically is that this cost keeps going down. As it does, demand keeps going up and manufacturers step up to fill that demand. Current projections are based on current levels of cost and investment. Some of these projections maybe take a little bit of learning effects into account but it's hard to speculate on this and model it correctly. Right now it's worthwhile to put solar on your roof but it's a big investment, a lot of hassle, and only attractive with subsidies and tax incentives. True for home owners and companies. The vast majority don't yet have solar on their roofs. What happens if the price drops by 10x? That won't happen overnight obviously. But if you look a the research in this area, a 10x cost reduction is long term not unreasonable to expect. And it might happen a lot sooner than some people seem to expect. For example, there are already organic processes that don't involve things like expensive ovens, precisely machined silicon wafers, etc. Those are things that make production really expensive. A 10x price drop makes solar an absolute no-brainer. You'd have to incentivize people to not buy solar to prevent them from wanting that on their roofs and any other surface you can think of. And that's just solar. As people will no doubt bring this up, we need lots of storage as well. And the good news there is that there are a lot of battery chemistries and other storage technologies either already proven and in production (e.g. sodium ion) or otherwise extremely likely to result in 10x cost reductions. We're heading for a future where energy is going to be dirt cheap, clean, and plentiful. IMHO this is going to transition us slowly to post scarcity society. A lot of stuff is bottle necked on energy.
- apienx 3y ago
  > But I would not be surprised if this is still off by a couple of tens of percents. They're predicting a 200% increase in 5 years. Being only a couple of tens of percents off would be quite remarkable IMHO.
- pyrale 3y ago
  > We're heading for a future where energy is going to be dirt cheap, clean, and plentiful. You're confusing an s-curve with a hockey stick curve here. It's understandable as long as you're in the first half of the curve, but there is always an inflection at some point.
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    New built renewables cost the same as the operations and maintenance of existing fossil and nuclear power generation. The world will become an interesting place when renewables start being paid off since their marginal cost is pretty much zero.
  - jillesvangurp 3y ago
    I don't think I'm confused. I'm merely extrapolating current trends. Are you hoping it's an s-curve or asserting it is?
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      It's always an s-curve eventually. The question is, how far off is the point where it quits being exponential? If it's far enough off, "it's an s-curve eventually" doesn't matter - or at least doesn't matter now.
    - pyrale 3y ago
      It's an assertion. With power becoming cheaper and cheaper, incentive to invest in innovation gradually tapers off, and a technology becomes stable and mature. Another aspect within the power industry, as renewable production becomes less and less of a bottleneck and other problems such as grid management and storage become the key challenge to being able to enjoy stable power, investment will be redirected to these aspects of providing electricity. In Europe, we see countries reaching half their production in renewables, and already this creates challenges on the current electricity market structure. 10 years from now, at the current pace, pioneering countries will be past the point where production is the problem they need to solve. Countries coming after them will still drive some innovation, sure. We may also see faster-than-expected electrification. So in this horizon, hockeystick predictions might still hold. But the combination of these mechanism basically defeats the prospect of power becoming "too cheap to meter", or dirt-cheap.
- danmaz74 3y ago
  AFAIK the cost of a new solar installation is already dominated by installation, inverter, and other expenses that don't follow the reduction in cost of solar cells.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    The cost of a home solar installation is dominated by regulatory costs in the US -- you can put solar on your roof in Australia for about a third of the price in the US. Industrial solar plants will follow that cost curve a lot better than roof installations. As an example, panels are cheap enough that it's now cheaper to use more panels and less mounting hardware and just lay them flat on the ground: https://electrek.co/2022/12/12/texas-solar-farm-flat-on-the-ground/ https://electrek.co/2022/12/12/texas-solar-farm-flat-on-the-...
    - jillesvangurp 3y ago
      Panel cost is still pretty significant though. It's not cheap There are also solutions for people with balconies or small apartments that are very easy to install and use that don't require any specialized services because they don't mess with your existing infrastructure. Just hang some panels from your balcony, plug them into some standalone battery and plug whatever you want powered into that. There's room for quite a bit of innovation in this space.
- pjc50 3y ago
  10x drop in panels is concievable, although by that point the transportation cost starts to dominate. But the balance-of-system costs (permitting, working on roof, inverter) are harder to make big dents in.
- Someone 3y ago
  > What happens if the price drops by 10x? That won't happen overnight obviously. That won’t happen at all, at least not in the foreseeable future. https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/solar/cost-of-solar-panels/ https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/solar/cost-of-solar-...: “The average cost to install solar panels per watt is between $0.90 and $1.50 per watt for the materials and an additional 25% for the labor. This means you’ll spend anywhere between $1.10 and $1.90 per watt in total.“, so even if all hardware became free, we’re ‘only’ looking at a price drop of 80%. Because a lot of the hardware cost isn’t the solar cells proper, I think predicting a price drop of 50% already is fairly optimistic. > We're heading for a future where energy is going to be dirt cheap, clean, and plentiful. That, I think is true.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > Because a lot of the hardware cost isn’t the solar cells proper, I think predicting a price drop of 50% already is fairly optimistic. Perhaps optimistic, perhaps pessimistic. Things can change on a dime if the politicians can make a campaign pledge along the lines of: "I went to Europe the other day. Know what I saw in the budget supermarket? Solar. Complete system people can put on their apartment balconies for about a dollar per watt. Standard unit costs about the same as a family's weekly shop, and then they get free energy for the next 25 years." (The 150W balcony units Lidl sell for €219 are in the middle of your price range; this is just to demonstrate that it's possible to cut out the middle-man).
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Home roof installations are going to be a rounding error compared to industrial solar installations, and the price of those will follow the price drop of panels a lot more closely.
weevil 3y ago
Nice to see people making use of that enormous fusion reactor in the sky raining free energy down upon us.
Traubenfuchs 3y ago
Ok. The better question is: Where do I invest?
- cyann 3y ago
  If you are a homeowner, first start with your own house. 1. Insulation 2. Heat pump 3. Solar panels (more the better) Depending on your location, this will be amortized in ~7 years, which is like 14%/year return rate. Excellent investment! With some added benefits: - Better climate control (less cold in winter, less hot in summer) - Charge the car/bike for free - Some green washing points to brag about ;-)
  - jillesvangurp 3y ago
    There are a couple of good reasons to invest as a homeowner: - increase the value of your house - this is often overlooked and e.g. banks don't necessarily value this enough. But the effect is very real when you sell a house in a tight market. - Lowering your bills and benefit from tax incentives or even profit from selling energy back to the grid. This is pretty obvious. Not a lot not to like here. Of course you need financing and some rough idea of how long it takes to earn back your money. - Energy independence is nice to have; especially if you are in a place where local energy suppliers are not that reliable. And even if that isn't the case, the additional safety can be nice. - Reduce the impact you have on climate. For some people this is the primary motivation and some early adopters paid a steep price for this even. Depending on your goals, you'd start with different things.
stareatgoats 3y ago
It should be said that electrek.co is likely biased, and the report cited as well, by Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). It doesn't have to be "wrong", but the reliability of the prognosis would be improved by corroboration by other sources. That said, renowned institutions like the International Energy Agency (IEA) has notoriously been underestimating the trajectory of solar, always predicting it would level out, instead of recognizing the accelerated growth it has shown (with no sign of slowing down). [0] The SEIA report is likely closer to the truth than anything IEA has to say at least. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reality_versus_IEA_predictions_-_annual_photovoltaic_additions_2002-2016.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reality_versus_IEA_predic...
- jillesvangurp 3y ago
  Everyone is biased. Some of other popular sources that people like to cite are biased through their financing of which the fossil fuel industry and other special interest groups (e.g. the automotive industry) are providing a lot of. I think with electrek.co, their bias is pretty obvious and they are pretty open about where they stand. But I must say that I find them mostly very informative and factual. There's actually very little need for them to spin optimistic stories when the day to day news is basically very positive already. Just a constant stream of records being broken on investment, clean energy production, new breakthroughs, new products getting to market. There's no need for them to invent or spin any of that. You find the lies and deceit more on the other side where people try to spin myths, twist facts, etc. in order to convince people to keep on buying their oil, ice cars, dirty energy, and all the other stuff that they are peddling. Some of that stuff is blatantly obvious; desperate even. The IEA for example is indeed notable for having made a lot of projections over time that were more than a little wrong. And probably intentionally so.
monkeydust 3y ago
Also this story emerging next to solar growth (nothing is problem free!) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602519 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602519
- jamil7 3y ago
  It's been known essentially since the beginning that new infrastructure around these technologies will have to be built out. The article is completely pointless too since it basically says the same thing: > The reason there are so few facilities for recycling solar panels is because there has not been much waste to process and reuse until recently. OK great, so first gen solar panels are starting to be decommissioned and recycling centres are starting to be built.
  - pyrale 3y ago
    In their defense, we've had plastic for much longer, and efficient recycling has been an empty promise so far. It will take special attention for these panels not to end in a landfill or in the ocean like most of the waste we're currently creating.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      Post-consumer recycling is a lot harder than post-industrial recycling. And everybody brings out the plastic recycling boogeyman instead of the myriad recycling programs that are working well, like steel, aluminum, paper and lead acid batteries, among others.
      - pyrale 3y ago
        All the examples you cite are where they are because recycling is competitive with initial extraction. People bring up the plastic boogeyman to show that's not always true. And yes, asking that question early is valuable [1]. [1]: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/24/recycling-lead-acid-batteries-is-easy-why-is-recycling-lithium-ion-batteries-hard/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/24/recycling-lead-acid-bat...
osuairt 3y ago
I get very frustrated when I see posts on TikTok about nuclear being the magic bullet. They talk about Germany, and they refer to nuclear as the only alternative to fossil fuels. When you mention renewables, they talk to you like you are an idiot, that renewable technologies are just infeasible, are harmful to the environment or they are too expensive. The same people that would have said that electric cars are impossible, or that climate change is not real 7 years ago, are now environmentalists and are very concerned about lithium battery production. Just endless nonsense. You then have to go on to point out that 50% of Germany's energy mix is from renewables now. And as this article points out, the price of solar just keeps falling, because it can be mass produced and improved at a pace similar to semi-conductors. I tire of what seems to be very opinionated right wing men, not putting together how things work, and after they are proven wrong, say that they have always said that, or that is obvious.
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  There is definitely a use case for nuclear, but the discussion absolutely should not be renewables vs. nuclear, but renewables and nuclear vs. fossile fuels. Nuclear advocates should celebrate every advance in renewables and vice versa.
  - stavros 3y ago
    I find it very suspicious that the debate has been framed as "renewables vs nuclear" while we keep burning fossil fuels.
    - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
      I wouldn't be surprised if the FF industry was driving this narrative, but I can also see it happening organically. A lot of the "green" people, especially in Germany are fanatically anti-nuclear. At the same time, the right-wing populists seem to have adopted the position that climate change can only be countered with nuclear power. I'm not sure why that is, probably because it's an easy answer and positions them against the green parties - after all, they cannot agree with their perceived enemies.
dmos62 3y ago
Maybe someone knowledgeable can chime in. I heard that if energy inputs required to produce photovoltaics (in China, most likely) are taken into account, they are not efficient enough and long-lasting enough to be net-producers of energy in parts of the world that are not absolutely bathed in sunlight. Basically, many places in the world just don't get enough sunlight. Photovoltaics might make sense financially (at least in the short term), but not ecologically, in many places. Anyone has informed insight?
- pjc50 3y ago
  It's something to consider, but they appear to be net-positive even in Canada: https://www.entuitive.com/ensight-trend-home/whole-life-carbon-of-solar-photovoltaic-spv-modules-case-study/ https://www.entuitive.com/ensight-trend-home/whole-life-carb... (Some areas of Canada are well-supplied with hydroelectric power already, in which case the CO2-offsetting effect is much less worth it)
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  It takes 1.6 years for a solar panel in the UK to offset the CO2 used to manufacture it. https://www.renewableenergyhub.co.uk/main/solar-panels/solar-panels-carbon-analysis https://www.renewableenergyhub.co.uk/main/solar-panels/solar... And the UK is pretty much worst case scenario for solar panels. Other locations can do it in 3 months. And given that solar panels last >25 years...
- stareatgoats 3y ago
  The energy required to create solar panels is considerable. It does however not supersede the energy output over the panel lifetimes anymore [0]; depending on location, angle and type e.t.c. the energy needed for production and operation may be as low as 5% or as high as 50% of the lifetime output, with approximately 25% currently being the norm. This ratio is constantly improving with more efficient solar panels and more efficient manufacturing methods. [0] https://www.solarmelon.com/faqs/solar-panels-use-energy-manufacture-actually-produce/ https://www.solarmelon.com/faqs/solar-panels-use-energy-manu...
- dgacmu 3y ago
  The phrase you're looking for is "embodied energy", and the answer is first, that solar generates a net return on energy investment in under 10 years, and often in much much less than that, with a panel lifetime of over 30 years. But more importantly, it's even more favorable when you compare it to the embodied energy of non-renewable resources: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/8317/what-is-the-typical-embodied-energy-of-a-solar-photovoltaic-panel https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/8317/what...
daneel_w 3y ago
A rude and perhaps unflattering question; I'll understand eventual downvotes; but does anyone happen to know a few company names (or relevant capital funds) to invest in?
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  There are solar ETF's, green energy ETF's and battery ETF's.
testhest 3y ago
It's great for the Chinese to support their military buildup, it's terrible for the environment and the economy as a whole.

60 points by mfiguiere 3y ago

The interesting thing with projections like this is that the further out they are, the less likely they are to factor in ongoing changes in the market. 2028 is close enough that this is probably ballpark right. But I would not be surprised if this is still off by a couple of tens of percents. A lot of this stuff is cost driven. The reason solar keeps out pacing projections historically is that this cost keeps going down. As it does, demand keeps going up and manufacturers step up to fill that demand. Current projections are based on current levels of cost and investment. Some of these projections maybe take a little bit of learning effects into account but it's hard to speculate on this and model it correctly. Right now it's worthwhile to put solar on your roof but it's a big investment, a lot of hassle, and only attractive with subsidies and tax incentives. True for home owners and companies. The vast majority don't yet have solar on their roofs. What happens if the price drops by 10x? That won't happen overnight obviously. But if you look a the research in this area, a 10x cost reduction is long term not unreasonable to expect. And it might happen a lot sooner than some people seem to expect. For example, there are already organic processes that don't involve things like expensive ovens, precisely machined silicon wafers, etc. Those are things that make production really expensive. A 10x price drop makes solar an absolute no-brainer. You'd have to incentivize people to not buy solar to prevent them from wanting that on their roofs and any other surface you can think of. And that's just solar. As people will no doubt bring this up, we need lots of storage as well. And the good news there is that there are a lot of battery chemistries and other storage technologies either already proven and in production (e.g. sodium ion) or otherwise extremely likely to result in 10x cost reductions. We're heading for a future where energy is going to be dirt cheap, clean, and plentiful. IMHO this is going to transition us slowly to post scarcity society. A lot of stuff is bottle necked on energy.

apienx 3y ago
> But I would not be surprised if this is still off by a couple of tens of percents. They're predicting a 200% increase in 5 years. Being only a couple of tens of percents off would be quite remarkable IMHO.
pyrale 3y ago
> We're heading for a future where energy is going to be dirt cheap, clean, and plentiful. You're confusing an s-curve with a hockey stick curve here. It's understandable as long as you're in the first half of the curve, but there is always an inflection at some point.
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  New built renewables cost the same as the operations and maintenance of existing fossil and nuclear power generation. The world will become an interesting place when renewables start being paid off since their marginal cost is pretty much zero.
- jillesvangurp 3y ago
  I don't think I'm confused. I'm merely extrapolating current trends. Are you hoping it's an s-curve or asserting it is?
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    It's always an s-curve eventually. The question is, how far off is the point where it quits being exponential? If it's far enough off, "it's an s-curve eventually" doesn't matter - or at least doesn't matter now.
  - pyrale 3y ago
    It's an assertion. With power becoming cheaper and cheaper, incentive to invest in innovation gradually tapers off, and a technology becomes stable and mature. Another aspect within the power industry, as renewable production becomes less and less of a bottleneck and other problems such as grid management and storage become the key challenge to being able to enjoy stable power, investment will be redirected to these aspects of providing electricity. In Europe, we see countries reaching half their production in renewables, and already this creates challenges on the current electricity market structure. 10 years from now, at the current pace, pioneering countries will be past the point where production is the problem they need to solve. Countries coming after them will still drive some innovation, sure. We may also see faster-than-expected electrification. So in this horizon, hockeystick predictions might still hold. But the combination of these mechanism basically defeats the prospect of power becoming "too cheap to meter", or dirt-cheap.
danmaz74 3y ago
AFAIK the cost of a new solar installation is already dominated by installation, inverter, and other expenses that don't follow the reduction in cost of solar cells.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  The cost of a home solar installation is dominated by regulatory costs in the US -- you can put solar on your roof in Australia for about a third of the price in the US. Industrial solar plants will follow that cost curve a lot better than roof installations. As an example, panels are cheap enough that it's now cheaper to use more panels and less mounting hardware and just lay them flat on the ground: https://electrek.co/2022/12/12/texas-solar-farm-flat-on-the-ground/ https://electrek.co/2022/12/12/texas-solar-farm-flat-on-the-...
  - jillesvangurp 3y ago
    Panel cost is still pretty significant though. It's not cheap There are also solutions for people with balconies or small apartments that are very easy to install and use that don't require any specialized services because they don't mess with your existing infrastructure. Just hang some panels from your balcony, plug them into some standalone battery and plug whatever you want powered into that. There's room for quite a bit of innovation in this space.
pjc50 3y ago
10x drop in panels is concievable, although by that point the transportation cost starts to dominate. But the balance-of-system costs (permitting, working on roof, inverter) are harder to make big dents in.
Someone 3y ago
> What happens if the price drops by 10x? That won't happen overnight obviously. That won’t happen at all, at least not in the foreseeable future. https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/solar/cost-of-solar-panels/ https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/solar/cost-of-solar-...: “The average cost to install solar panels per watt is between $0.90 and $1.50 per watt for the materials and an additional 25% for the labor. This means you’ll spend anywhere between $1.10 and $1.90 per watt in total.“, so even if all hardware became free, we’re ‘only’ looking at a price drop of 80%. Because a lot of the hardware cost isn’t the solar cells proper, I think predicting a price drop of 50% already is fairly optimistic. > We're heading for a future where energy is going to be dirt cheap, clean, and plentiful. That, I think is true.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > Because a lot of the hardware cost isn’t the solar cells proper, I think predicting a price drop of 50% already is fairly optimistic. Perhaps optimistic, perhaps pessimistic. Things can change on a dime if the politicians can make a campaign pledge along the lines of: "I went to Europe the other day. Know what I saw in the budget supermarket? Solar. Complete system people can put on their apartment balconies for about a dollar per watt. Standard unit costs about the same as a family's weekly shop, and then they get free energy for the next 25 years." (The 150W balcony units Lidl sell for €219 are in the middle of your price range; this is just to demonstrate that it's possible to cut out the middle-man).
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Home roof installations are going to be a rounding error compared to industrial solar installations, and the price of those will follow the price drop of panels a lot more closely.

weevil 3y ago

Nice to see people making use of that enormous fusion reactor in the sky raining free energy down upon us.

Traubenfuchs 3y ago

Ok. The better question is: Where do I invest?

cyann 3y ago
If you are a homeowner, first start with your own house. 1. Insulation 2. Heat pump 3. Solar panels (more the better) Depending on your location, this will be amortized in ~7 years, which is like 14%/year return rate. Excellent investment! With some added benefits: - Better climate control (less cold in winter, less hot in summer) - Charge the car/bike for free - Some green washing points to brag about ;-)
- jillesvangurp 3y ago
  There are a couple of good reasons to invest as a homeowner: - increase the value of your house - this is often overlooked and e.g. banks don't necessarily value this enough. But the effect is very real when you sell a house in a tight market. - Lowering your bills and benefit from tax incentives or even profit from selling energy back to the grid. This is pretty obvious. Not a lot not to like here. Of course you need financing and some rough idea of how long it takes to earn back your money. - Energy independence is nice to have; especially if you are in a place where local energy suppliers are not that reliable. And even if that isn't the case, the additional safety can be nice. - Reduce the impact you have on climate. For some people this is the primary motivation and some early adopters paid a steep price for this even. Depending on your goals, you'd start with different things.

stareatgoats 3y ago

It should be said that electrek.co is likely biased, and the report cited as well, by Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA). It doesn't have to be "wrong", but the reliability of the prognosis would be improved by corroboration by other sources. That said, renowned institutions like the International Energy Agency (IEA) has notoriously been underestimating the trajectory of solar, always predicting it would level out, instead of recognizing the accelerated growth it has shown (with no sign of slowing down). [0] The SEIA report is likely closer to the truth than anything IEA has to say at least. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reality_versus_IEA_predictions_-_annual_photovoltaic_additions_2002-2016.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reality_versus_IEA_predic...

jillesvangurp 3y ago
Everyone is biased. Some of other popular sources that people like to cite are biased through their financing of which the fossil fuel industry and other special interest groups (e.g. the automotive industry) are providing a lot of. I think with electrek.co, their bias is pretty obvious and they are pretty open about where they stand. But I must say that I find them mostly very informative and factual. There's actually very little need for them to spin optimistic stories when the day to day news is basically very positive already. Just a constant stream of records being broken on investment, clean energy production, new breakthroughs, new products getting to market. There's no need for them to invent or spin any of that. You find the lies and deceit more on the other side where people try to spin myths, twist facts, etc. in order to convince people to keep on buying their oil, ice cars, dirty energy, and all the other stuff that they are peddling. Some of that stuff is blatantly obvious; desperate even. The IEA for example is indeed notable for having made a lot of projections over time that were more than a little wrong. And probably intentionally so.

monkeydust 3y ago

Also this story emerging next to solar growth (nothing is problem free!) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602519 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65602519

jamil7 3y ago
It's been known essentially since the beginning that new infrastructure around these technologies will have to be built out. The article is completely pointless too since it basically says the same thing: > The reason there are so few facilities for recycling solar panels is because there has not been much waste to process and reuse until recently. OK great, so first gen solar panels are starting to be decommissioned and recycling centres are starting to be built.
- pyrale 3y ago
  In their defense, we've had plastic for much longer, and efficient recycling has been an empty promise so far. It will take special attention for these panels not to end in a landfill or in the ocean like most of the waste we're currently creating.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Post-consumer recycling is a lot harder than post-industrial recycling. And everybody brings out the plastic recycling boogeyman instead of the myriad recycling programs that are working well, like steel, aluminum, paper and lead acid batteries, among others.
    - pyrale 3y ago
      All the examples you cite are where they are because recycling is competitive with initial extraction. People bring up the plastic boogeyman to show that's not always true. And yes, asking that question early is valuable [1]. [1]: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/24/recycling-lead-acid-batteries-is-easy-why-is-recycling-lithium-ion-batteries-hard/ https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/24/recycling-lead-acid-bat...

osuairt 3y ago

I get very frustrated when I see posts on TikTok about nuclear being the magic bullet. They talk about Germany, and they refer to nuclear as the only alternative to fossil fuels. When you mention renewables, they talk to you like you are an idiot, that renewable technologies are just infeasible, are harmful to the environment or they are too expensive. The same people that would have said that electric cars are impossible, or that climate change is not real 7 years ago, are now environmentalists and are very concerned about lithium battery production. Just endless nonsense. You then have to go on to point out that 50% of Germany's energy mix is from renewables now. And as this article points out, the price of solar just keeps falling, because it can be mass produced and improved at a pace similar to semi-conductors. I tire of what seems to be very opinionated right wing men, not putting together how things work, and after they are proven wrong, say that they have always said that, or that is obvious.

karmakurtisaani 3y ago
There is definitely a use case for nuclear, but the discussion absolutely should not be renewables vs. nuclear, but renewables and nuclear vs. fossile fuels. Nuclear advocates should celebrate every advance in renewables and vice versa.
- stavros 3y ago
  I find it very suspicious that the debate has been framed as "renewables vs nuclear" while we keep burning fossil fuels.
  - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if the FF industry was driving this narrative, but I can also see it happening organically. A lot of the "green" people, especially in Germany are fanatically anti-nuclear. At the same time, the right-wing populists seem to have adopted the position that climate change can only be countered with nuclear power. I'm not sure why that is, probably because it's an easy answer and positions them against the green parties - after all, they cannot agree with their perceived enemies.

dmos62 3y ago

Maybe someone knowledgeable can chime in. I heard that if energy inputs required to produce photovoltaics (in China, most likely) are taken into account, they are not efficient enough and long-lasting enough to be net-producers of energy in parts of the world that are not absolutely bathed in sunlight. Basically, many places in the world just don't get enough sunlight. Photovoltaics might make sense financially (at least in the short term), but not ecologically, in many places. Anyone has informed insight?

pjc50 3y ago
It's something to consider, but they appear to be net-positive even in Canada: https://www.entuitive.com/ensight-trend-home/whole-life-carbon-of-solar-photovoltaic-spv-modules-case-study/ https://www.entuitive.com/ensight-trend-home/whole-life-carb... (Some areas of Canada are well-supplied with hydroelectric power already, in which case the CO2-offsetting effect is much less worth it)
bryanlarsen 3y ago
It takes 1.6 years for a solar panel in the UK to offset the CO2 used to manufacture it. https://www.renewableenergyhub.co.uk/main/solar-panels/solar-panels-carbon-analysis https://www.renewableenergyhub.co.uk/main/solar-panels/solar... And the UK is pretty much worst case scenario for solar panels. Other locations can do it in 3 months. And given that solar panels last >25 years...
stareatgoats 3y ago
The energy required to create solar panels is considerable. It does however not supersede the energy output over the panel lifetimes anymore [0]; depending on location, angle and type e.t.c. the energy needed for production and operation may be as low as 5% or as high as 50% of the lifetime output, with approximately 25% currently being the norm. This ratio is constantly improving with more efficient solar panels and more efficient manufacturing methods. [0] https://www.solarmelon.com/faqs/solar-panels-use-energy-manufacture-actually-produce/ https://www.solarmelon.com/faqs/solar-panels-use-energy-manu...
dgacmu 3y ago
The phrase you're looking for is "embodied energy", and the answer is first, that solar generates a net return on energy investment in under 10 years, and often in much much less than that, with a panel lifetime of over 30 years. But more importantly, it's even more favorable when you compare it to the embodied energy of non-renewable resources: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/8317/what-is-the-typical-embodied-energy-of-a-solar-photovoltaic-panel https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/8317/what...

daneel_w 3y ago

A rude and perhaps unflattering question; I'll understand eventual downvotes; but does anyone happen to know a few company names (or relevant capital funds) to invest in?

bryanlarsen 3y ago
There are solar ETF's, green energy ETF's and battery ETF's.

testhest 3y ago

It's great for the Chinese to support their military buildup, it's terrible for the environment and the economy as a whole.