9 ms·

Poland's clean energy usage overtakes coal for first time

95 points by stared 1y ago

stared 1y ago
No paywall: https://archive.is/5A0kr https://archive.is/5A0kr The original analysis of renewables in Poland in June 2025: https://www.forum-energii.eu/en/monthly-magazine-1 https://www.forum-energii.eu/en/monthly-magazine-1
der_gopher 1y ago
[dead]
baranul 1y ago
Meanwhile in America, oil and coal is becoming king again. Climate change you say? Oh well, "thoughts and prayers".
- watwut 1y ago
  Why is this downvoted? It is an accurate observation of the politics.
  - viraptor 1y ago
    Because it's shallow and ragebaity. If anyone wants to discuss that topic, there's so many quality articles these days to submit and talk about.
  - atwrk 1y ago
    Edit: I snarkily replied to an imagined comment, not the one that was actually written...
    - dewey 1y ago
      The parent post says America, not Africa though.
      - atwrk 1y ago
        Oh wow, I stand corrected. No idea how I could have misread that.
- passwordoops 1y ago
  The typical answer to Climate Change isn't "thoughts and prayers" but "go fck yourself"
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Even America is building far more renewables than fossil fuel or nuclear, despite the deck being stacked against them.
- MarcelOlsz 1y ago
  How many days worth of coal burning does 90 days of billionaire jets travelling to Bezos wedding count as?
  - hwillis 1y ago
    A 747 burns ~9 tonnes of kerosene per hour, creating ~29.6 tonnes CO2. The Monroe Power Plant produces 3400 MWe at ~1 kg CO2 per kWh, so ~3400 tonnes CO2 per hour. It's a little complicated to weigh stratospheric emissions- the CO2 has a larger impact, and while the water droplets and contrails left by planes somewhat counteracts it (by reflecting incoming infrared) it's harder to compare intangibles like mercury emissions from coal. If you just say its all a wash, that plant is equivalent to 120 747s running full speed. Private jets consume more like .9-1.5 tonnes per hour, so that's equivalent to ~900 billionaires. That's a bit less than half of them which is probably a lot more than were at the wedding. They also probably parked them instead of leaving them circling in the air. If there were 90 billionaires who flew 12 hours each way in their private jets, then they probably released around 2.5 hours worth of Monroe Power Plant time over those 90 days- 8458 tonnes. Fun fact, the pilots and flight attendants probably used ~1000 tonnes of CO2 worth of energy etc and exhaled ~25 tonnes of CO2 in that time. 25 tonnes is small compared to the planes (>.3%), but in those 90 days the planes released just .11% as much as the coal plant. Coal really truly sucks and it's unfair that I can't eat tuna without getting mad hatter disease.
    - MarcelOlsz 1y ago
      Nice, I appreciate the analysis!
- infecto 1y ago
  As much as I don’t like the administration, I don’t think this is necessarily true. Subsidies are being removed but I think most renewable has the chance to hold on its own. I do wish more of the markets worked closer to a an actual market like Texas which incentivizes creativity and trying to maximize. Renewables are so cost effective these days that most areas implement them and then natural gas serves as a useful baseload.
  - krige 1y ago
    At the same time the admin has undercut and gutted many climate tracking projects [0] so it's really not hard to see the underlying intentions. [0] for instance https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-national-assessment-nasa-white-house-057cec699caef90832d8b10f21a6ffe8 https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-national-assessmen...
    - adrianN 1y ago
      I think the point is that it looks like economics beat ecologics and renewables are getting built.
      - infecto 1y ago
        That is what I was leaning towards. Subsidies can be helpful to accelerate things but you have to be making the right bet. Ultimately it’s up to economics to make it a reality. Renewables are economically viable at this point in a lot of markets. The human race cannot make rational decisions at scale unless there is an immediate threat. The market so far in history has done the best job at pushing change. It’s far from perfect but I believe to be the best we have.
        adrianN 1y ago
        To be fair, renewables are only competitive after untold billions of subsidies have financed R&D
adrianN 1y ago
Renewables are just really cheap. Unless the government is actively harming them for ideological reasons they get built. Baseload power plants have a harder time making a profit every year.
- Xelbair 1y ago
  Are they? Usually most analysis ignore costs of having a buffer in the system - either batteries or water reservoirs for pumped storage. That also inclides efficiency of storage, and the fact that cycles of power generation in most cases do not align with usage. Initial cost per unit is low and they're faster to build - that's the reason of their proliferation - and in case of personal use, subsidiaries. Compared to nuclear - which takes many political terms to build - politicians can reap benefits early. Because nuclear is superior by every metric except: - high initial costs - longer lead time Not to mention less land required, which is another of ignored costs.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    It's not just high initial costs, nuclear also has significant running costs, high disposal costs and massive time costs.
    - Y-bar 1y ago
      > significant running costs Exactly this. The running costs per produced MW is so high that governments has to promise to effectively pay billions in subsidies to NPP:s both in terms of cheap state-backed loans and contract-for-difference power price because because they would otherwise not be viable. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-proposes-state-loans-new-nuclear-reactors-2025-03-27/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-proposes-stat...
      - mpweiher 1y ago
        That's actually not true. Running costs of nuclear power plants are extremely low, some of the lowest of all energy sources. The reason that NPP operators now require guarantees from governments is to offset the incredibly lopsided benefits offered to intermittent renewables, including subsidies, cheap loans, guaranteed income regardless of demand and priority. Nobody can effectively compete with the government handing out those kinds of benefits.
Havoc 1y ago
Progress...but they're still consistently the dirtiest country in the region when it comes to energy mix https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/72h/hourly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/72h/hourly
- viraptor 1y ago
  The history of coal mining in Poland is strong and those families still have an impact on what's happening, even with many mines closing. https://www.politico.eu/article/polish-parties-scramble-for-coal-miners-vote-in-razor-thin-election/ https://www.politico.eu/article/polish-parties-scramble-for-...
- stared 1y ago
  So it is why these changes matter - d/dt has an opportunity to be very high.
columb 1y ago
[flagged]
- somedude895 1y ago
  > The left brigade here Where did all those people come from all of a sudden? Has Bluesky shut down or something? It's been insufferable recently
  - hhh 1y ago
    HN has always been a fairly left leaning site, no?
    - owebmaster 1y ago
      Only if your POV is from the far right
    - acdha 1y ago
      This is the fallacy of trying to reduce everything to a single left-right dimension. HN has always attracted pro-business people as you’d expect for a forum funded by a venture capital firm, but that intersects with other policies in different combinations. You have a lot of libertarians who might oppose government regulation in various ways but are often staunchly opposed to right-wing abuse of power to pursue political goals or reduce competition. Even business-friendly Europeans or Canadians often see the American healthcare system as bad since it costs more, distorts markets, and makes startups harder to launch. Climate change is another split since the idea that it’s exaggerated or that mitigations would cause more economic damage than ignoring it are both false so you get a denial position which are outright lies funded by the fossil fuel industry but also more sober positions trying market-friendly approaches to minimize the economic impact of moving away from fossil fuels, and positions on that intersect based on other national traits (e.g. even politically conservative people from countries which don’t produce much oil or have a massive traditional auto industry are far more likely to recognize the self-reliance aspects of renewable power as compatible with their own positions). The climate tech industry is full of startups from people who think decarbonization is a huge opportunity and many of them would be considered right-aligned on business issues but left to the extent that you view accepting the scientific consensus on climate change as a left-wing position.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ponector 1y ago
Good, but the main issue in Poland is the usage of cheap coal for individual heating. During winter there are multiple days when you see smog and it's unhealthy to breath outside.

95 points by stared 1y ago

No paywall: https://archive.is/5A0kr https://archive.is/5A0kr The original analysis of renewables in Poland in June 2025: https://www.forum-energii.eu/en/monthly-magazine-1 https://www.forum-energii.eu/en/monthly-magazine-1

der_gopher 1y ago

[dead]

baranul 1y ago

Meanwhile in America, oil and coal is becoming king again. Climate change you say? Oh well, "thoughts and prayers".

watwut 1y ago
Why is this downvoted? It is an accurate observation of the politics.
- viraptor 1y ago
  Because it's shallow and ragebaity. If anyone wants to discuss that topic, there's so many quality articles these days to submit and talk about.
- atwrk 1y ago
  Edit: I snarkily replied to an imagined comment, not the one that was actually written...
  - dewey 1y ago
    The parent post says America, not Africa though.
    - atwrk 1y ago
      Oh wow, I stand corrected. No idea how I could have misread that.
passwordoops 1y ago
The typical answer to Climate Change isn't "thoughts and prayers" but "go fck yourself"
bryanlarsen 1y ago
Even America is building far more renewables than fossil fuel or nuclear, despite the deck being stacked against them.
MarcelOlsz 1y ago
How many days worth of coal burning does 90 days of billionaire jets travelling to Bezos wedding count as?
- hwillis 1y ago
  A 747 burns ~9 tonnes of kerosene per hour, creating ~29.6 tonnes CO2. The Monroe Power Plant produces 3400 MWe at ~1 kg CO2 per kWh, so ~3400 tonnes CO2 per hour. It's a little complicated to weigh stratospheric emissions- the CO2 has a larger impact, and while the water droplets and contrails left by planes somewhat counteracts it (by reflecting incoming infrared) it's harder to compare intangibles like mercury emissions from coal. If you just say its all a wash, that plant is equivalent to 120 747s running full speed. Private jets consume more like .9-1.5 tonnes per hour, so that's equivalent to ~900 billionaires. That's a bit less than half of them which is probably a lot more than were at the wedding. They also probably parked them instead of leaving them circling in the air. If there were 90 billionaires who flew 12 hours each way in their private jets, then they probably released around 2.5 hours worth of Monroe Power Plant time over those 90 days- 8458 tonnes. Fun fact, the pilots and flight attendants probably used ~1000 tonnes of CO2 worth of energy etc and exhaled ~25 tonnes of CO2 in that time. 25 tonnes is small compared to the planes (>.3%), but in those 90 days the planes released just .11% as much as the coal plant. Coal really truly sucks and it's unfair that I can't eat tuna without getting mad hatter disease.
  - MarcelOlsz 1y ago
    Nice, I appreciate the analysis!
infecto 1y ago
As much as I don’t like the administration, I don’t think this is necessarily true. Subsidies are being removed but I think most renewable has the chance to hold on its own. I do wish more of the markets worked closer to a an actual market like Texas which incentivizes creativity and trying to maximize. Renewables are so cost effective these days that most areas implement them and then natural gas serves as a useful baseload.
- krige 1y ago
  At the same time the admin has undercut and gutted many climate tracking projects [0] so it's really not hard to see the underlying intentions. [0] for instance https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-national-assessment-nasa-white-house-057cec699caef90832d8b10f21a6ffe8 https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-national-assessmen...
  - adrianN 1y ago
    I think the point is that it looks like economics beat ecologics and renewables are getting built.
    - infecto 1y ago
      That is what I was leaning towards. Subsidies can be helpful to accelerate things but you have to be making the right bet. Ultimately it’s up to economics to make it a reality. Renewables are economically viable at this point in a lot of markets. The human race cannot make rational decisions at scale unless there is an immediate threat. The market so far in history has done the best job at pushing change. It’s far from perfect but I believe to be the best we have.
      - adrianN 1y ago
        To be fair, renewables are only competitive after untold billions of subsidies have financed R&D

adrianN 1y ago

Renewables are just really cheap. Unless the government is actively harming them for ideological reasons they get built. Baseload power plants have a harder time making a profit every year.

Xelbair 1y ago
Are they? Usually most analysis ignore costs of having a buffer in the system - either batteries or water reservoirs for pumped storage. That also inclides efficiency of storage, and the fact that cycles of power generation in most cases do not align with usage. Initial cost per unit is low and they're faster to build - that's the reason of their proliferation - and in case of personal use, subsidiaries. Compared to nuclear - which takes many political terms to build - politicians can reap benefits early. Because nuclear is superior by every metric except: - high initial costs - longer lead time Not to mention less land required, which is another of ignored costs.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  It's not just high initial costs, nuclear also has significant running costs, high disposal costs and massive time costs.
  - Y-bar 1y ago
    > significant running costs Exactly this. The running costs per produced MW is so high that governments has to promise to effectively pay billions in subsidies to NPP:s both in terms of cheap state-backed loans and contract-for-difference power price because because they would otherwise not be viable. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-proposes-state-loans-new-nuclear-reactors-2025-03-27/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-proposes-stat...
    - mpweiher 1y ago
      That's actually not true. Running costs of nuclear power plants are extremely low, some of the lowest of all energy sources. The reason that NPP operators now require guarantees from governments is to offset the incredibly lopsided benefits offered to intermittent renewables, including subsidies, cheap loans, guaranteed income regardless of demand and priority. Nobody can effectively compete with the government handing out those kinds of benefits.

Havoc 1y ago

Progress...but they're still consistently the dirtiest country in the region when it comes to energy mix https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/72h/hourly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/72h/hourly

viraptor 1y ago
The history of coal mining in Poland is strong and those families still have an impact on what's happening, even with many mines closing. https://www.politico.eu/article/polish-parties-scramble-for-coal-miners-vote-in-razor-thin-election/ https://www.politico.eu/article/polish-parties-scramble-for-...
stared 1y ago
So it is why these changes matter - d/dt has an opportunity to be very high.

columb 1y ago

[flagged]

somedude895 1y ago
> The left brigade here Where did all those people come from all of a sudden? Has Bluesky shut down or something? It's been insufferable recently
- hhh 1y ago
  HN has always been a fairly left leaning site, no?
  - owebmaster 1y ago
    Only if your POV is from the far right
  - acdha 1y ago
    This is the fallacy of trying to reduce everything to a single left-right dimension. HN has always attracted pro-business people as you’d expect for a forum funded by a venture capital firm, but that intersects with other policies in different combinations. You have a lot of libertarians who might oppose government regulation in various ways but are often staunchly opposed to right-wing abuse of power to pursue political goals or reduce competition. Even business-friendly Europeans or Canadians often see the American healthcare system as bad since it costs more, distorts markets, and makes startups harder to launch. Climate change is another split since the idea that it’s exaggerated or that mitigations would cause more economic damage than ignoring it are both false so you get a denial position which are outright lies funded by the fossil fuel industry but also more sober positions trying market-friendly approaches to minimize the economic impact of moving away from fossil fuels, and positions on that intersect based on other national traits (e.g. even politically conservative people from countries which don’t produce much oil or have a massive traditional auto industry are far more likely to recognize the self-reliance aspects of renewable power as compatible with their own positions). The climate tech industry is full of startups from people who think decarbonization is a huge opportunity and many of them would be considered right-aligned on business issues but left to the extent that you view accepting the scientific consensus on climate change as a left-wing position.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ponector 1y ago

Good, but the main issue in Poland is the usage of cheap coal for individual heating. During winter there are multiple days when you see smog and it's unhealthy to breath outside.