6 ms·

And no policy is gonna willingly reduce energy consumption which is directly co-related with QOL when other countries have much higher per-capita consumption. P

by tock 11mo ago

And no policy is gonna willingly reduce energy consumption which is directly co-related with QOL when other countries have much higher per-capita consumption. Politically humans need fairness.

mulmen 11mo ago
We don’t need to reduce energy consumption. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- tock 11mo ago
  We know. There are many reasons why countries choose more polluting sources of energy. Part of which is costs. The world runs on incentives. Maybe rich countries like the US can subsidize clean energy for poorer countries like India. Because consumption is definitely not going to come down.
  - immibis 11mo ago
    Solar energy is currently the cheapest form of energy, cheaper than coal, cheaper than natural gas. You know the conspiracy theories about how the oil companies are keeping perpetual motion machines hidden? Solar panels are literally that. With the caveat that they only work in sunlight. So they're not great when you need energy at night. But even if you triple your costs to account for only working 8 hours a day, they're cheaper than anything else.
    - reliabilityguy 11mo ago
      > Solar energy is currently the cheapest form of energy, cheaper than coal, cheaper than natural gas. Cheaper before the incentives?
      - mulmen 11mo ago
        Yes. Even if you count the fossil fuel subsidies.
        reliabilityguy 11mo ago
        Can you share the source? I’m very curious.
        mulmen 11mo ago
        First search result: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-energy-are-cheaper-than-electricity-from-fossil-fuel-plants/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-en...
    - nradov 11mo ago
      For a lot of industrial processes, being limited to running during sunny periods would cause costs to go up by a lot more than a factor of three. The grid scale storage necessary to make solar power work for heavy industry remains extremely expensive and capacity limited. Costs are starting to come down but it will take decades.
      - specialist 11mo ago
        Solar + battery is now the cheapest. Except in the USA, where natural gas is heavily subsidized. Happily, deploying new gas plants is constrained by supply of turbines. So solar + battery wins by default.
        nradov 11mo ago
        Batteries (plus all the other associated equipment and maintenance) are hardly cheap in the quantities needed to keep heavy industry running 24×7. Battery storage holds promise for the future but so far it's only been used on relatively small demonstration projects. And some of those have been plagued by fires and outages.
        testdelacc1 11mo ago
        > relatively small demonstration projects. California has got really good at building giant batteries - At peak times they provide 30% of the state’s electricity (https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/05/22/california-has-got-really-good-at-building-giant-batteries https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/05/22/californi...) - The Economist. California is the 4th largest economy in the world by the way. A bit larger than a “small demonstration”.
        specialist 11mo ago
        https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-every-hour-of-every-day-is-here-and-it-changes-everything/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e... https://www.volts.wtf/p/solarstorage-is-so-much-farther-along https://www.volts.wtf/p/solarstorage-is-so-much-farther-alon... What's your next objection?
    - tock 11mo ago
      Yeah main issue is elasticity. But otherwise promising. China is adding insane solar capacity yearly so I guess they see it as promising too.
    - s1artibartfast 11mo ago
      For some reason, these savings never cascade down to the consumer. Solar energy is typically a surcharge, not a cost savings. When I log into my utility account, I can opt into solar generated power for X $/kwh more, not less.
      - immibis 11mo ago
        Solar is also the most democratic, as long as you can tolerate it not working at night. I encourage you to experiment with a small portable system. I did - a 30W panel, 9Ax12V SLA battery, off-the-shelf car inverter, packet of crimp connectors, spool of wire, crimp tool, the cheapest over-voltage shutoff controller I could find (just search for solar charge controller - although lead-acid chemistries are moderately tolerant to charging out of bounds, unlike lithium, which is why I suggest lead-acid).
        mulmen 11mo ago
        I really think home battery power is going to be a standard feature in the near future. Like indoor plumbing and central HVAC. My utility just adopted time of use billing and by my napkin math a battery system with one day of capacity will pay for itself in 5 years. And that’s without solar at all. The additional solar panel cost would pay off in under 3 years. And I have cheap electricity.
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - nradov 11mo ago
    The notion of subsidizing a foreign country that literally has nuclear weapons is ludicrous. US voters would never stand for that.
    - tock 11mo ago
      No voter would. Humans would rather die from climate change than try and work together. Our innate tribalism is what makes solutions to this problem hard.
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
      - usr1106 11mo ago
        That seems to be a very American perspective. Several European countries have or had Green Parties being part of the government. A German Land (state in US terminology) has a had Green prime minister for 10 years. One could debate whether they have made sufficient impact, but it's certainly very far from "no voter".
        mulmen 11mo ago
        Why the dig at Americans? This is nothing more than tock’s misinformed personal opinion. The United States does work with India to develop green energy. California is famous for green initiatives and my state of Washington trades clean energy with Canada. I’d be shocked if we are unique in that. These agreements have been in place for generations. It’s obvious they have voter approval.
        tock 11mo ago
        > Why the dig at Americans? America deserves the dig. Pulling out of the Paris accords. 22% renewable usage compared to the 60% of Germany. And now climate change denial. > The United States does work with India to develop green energy. lmao. > It’s obvious they have voter approval. I mean they did just vote in the guy who calls climate change a hoax.
  - mulmen 11mo ago
    You say you know then directly contradict yourself by bringing up consumption again. The United States already supports clean energy in India. India is not “poor”. It has a larger economy than the United Kingdom. 46.3% of India’s installed capacity is renewable and that mix is growing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India
    - tock 11mo ago
      > You say you know then directly contradict yourself by bringing up consumption again. It's not a contradiction. Increasing consumption today will mean increase of greenhouse emissions. Any increase of consumption today still involves some increase in fossil fuels for many reasons like grid stability. > The United States already supports clean energy in India. They work together on projects. AFAIK the US doesn't subsidise anything for India or other countries. > India is not “poor”. It is. Its per capita GDP is $2,878. The US is $85,809. Thats a 30x difference. It is an incredibly poor country. > It has a larger economy than the United Kingdom. Philippines and Norway have the same total GDP too. It's silly to consider them equally rich. > 46.3% of India’s installed capacity is renewable and that mix is growing. Hell yeah! Hopefully it keeps growing. It's kinda hilarious that India is one of the few countries who will meet the Paris accord commitments. The US is still stuck at 23% and isn't even close to meeting its commitments.
      - mulmen 11mo ago
        People in India are poor but that doesn’t mean the country is poor. The Indian government has resources to build out renewables as evidenced by them doing exactly that. The United States does not provide much direct funding but you are the only one suggesting that is necessary.
        tock 11mo ago
        > People in India are poor but that doesn’t mean the country is poor. Please stop. By your logic any country with a lot of people is rich. I already pointed out Norway vs Philippines for you. It is dirt poor by all numbers. Their extreme poverty rate just dropped recently. Their annual budget is 1/10th of the US with 5x more people. Energy needs per person will grow by over 10x in the next few decades to match the US. There is a long way to go. > The Indian government has resources to build out renewables as evidenced by them doing exactly that. I'm actually very impressed to see India sticking to the Paris accords. What exactly is the excuse of the worlds greatest superpower? Maybe a century of polluting the world isn't enough. > The United States does not provide much direct funding but you are the only one suggesting that is necessary. You're right. It needs to first fix itself lol. Maybe ask India for help :p Then again if you don't understand why the rich countries need to try and incentivise the world to move faster to renewables then you don't understand the urgency of the matter.

by tock 11mo ago

And no policy is gonna willingly reduce energy consumption which is directly co-related with QOL when other countries have much higher per-capita consumption. Politically humans need fairness.

mulmen 11mo ago

We don’t need to reduce energy consumption. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

tock 11mo ago
We know. There are many reasons why countries choose more polluting sources of energy. Part of which is costs. The world runs on incentives. Maybe rich countries like the US can subsidize clean energy for poorer countries like India. Because consumption is definitely not going to come down.
- immibis 11mo ago
  Solar energy is currently the cheapest form of energy, cheaper than coal, cheaper than natural gas. You know the conspiracy theories about how the oil companies are keeping perpetual motion machines hidden? Solar panels are literally that. With the caveat that they only work in sunlight. So they're not great when you need energy at night. But even if you triple your costs to account for only working 8 hours a day, they're cheaper than anything else.
  - reliabilityguy 11mo ago
    > Solar energy is currently the cheapest form of energy, cheaper than coal, cheaper than natural gas. Cheaper before the incentives?
    - mulmen 11mo ago
      Yes. Even if you count the fossil fuel subsidies.
      - reliabilityguy 11mo ago
        Can you share the source? I’m very curious.
        mulmen 11mo ago
        First search result: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-energy-are-cheaper-than-electricity-from-fossil-fuel-plants/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-en...
  - nradov 11mo ago
    For a lot of industrial processes, being limited to running during sunny periods would cause costs to go up by a lot more than a factor of three. The grid scale storage necessary to make solar power work for heavy industry remains extremely expensive and capacity limited. Costs are starting to come down but it will take decades.
    - specialist 11mo ago
      Solar + battery is now the cheapest. Except in the USA, where natural gas is heavily subsidized. Happily, deploying new gas plants is constrained by supply of turbines. So solar + battery wins by default.
      - nradov 11mo ago
        Batteries (plus all the other associated equipment and maintenance) are hardly cheap in the quantities needed to keep heavy industry running 24×7. Battery storage holds promise for the future but so far it's only been used on relatively small demonstration projects. And some of those have been plagued by fires and outages.
        testdelacc1 11mo ago
        > relatively small demonstration projects. California has got really good at building giant batteries - At peak times they provide 30% of the state’s electricity (https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/05/22/california-has-got-really-good-at-building-giant-batteries https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/05/22/californi...) - The Economist. California is the 4th largest economy in the world by the way. A bit larger than a “small demonstration”.
        specialist 11mo ago
        https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-every-hour-of-every-day-is-here-and-it-changes-everything/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e... https://www.volts.wtf/p/solarstorage-is-so-much-farther-along https://www.volts.wtf/p/solarstorage-is-so-much-farther-alon... What's your next objection?
  - tock 11mo ago
    Yeah main issue is elasticity. But otherwise promising. China is adding insane solar capacity yearly so I guess they see it as promising too.
  - s1artibartfast 11mo ago
    For some reason, these savings never cascade down to the consumer. Solar energy is typically a surcharge, not a cost savings. When I log into my utility account, I can opt into solar generated power for X $/kwh more, not less.
    - immibis 11mo ago
      Solar is also the most democratic, as long as you can tolerate it not working at night. I encourage you to experiment with a small portable system. I did - a 30W panel, 9Ax12V SLA battery, off-the-shelf car inverter, packet of crimp connectors, spool of wire, crimp tool, the cheapest over-voltage shutoff controller I could find (just search for solar charge controller - although lead-acid chemistries are moderately tolerant to charging out of bounds, unlike lithium, which is why I suggest lead-acid).
      - mulmen 11mo ago
        I really think home battery power is going to be a standard feature in the near future. Like indoor plumbing and central HVAC. My utility just adopted time of use billing and by my napkin math a battery system with one day of capacity will pay for itself in 5 years. And that’s without solar at all. The additional solar panel cost would pay off in under 3 years. And I have cheap electricity.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- nradov 11mo ago
  The notion of subsidizing a foreign country that literally has nuclear weapons is ludicrous. US voters would never stand for that.
  - tock 11mo ago
    No voter would. Humans would rather die from climate change than try and work together. Our innate tribalism is what makes solutions to this problem hard.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - usr1106 11mo ago
      That seems to be a very American perspective. Several European countries have or had Green Parties being part of the government. A German Land (state in US terminology) has a had Green prime minister for 10 years. One could debate whether they have made sufficient impact, but it's certainly very far from "no voter".
      - mulmen 11mo ago
        Why the dig at Americans? This is nothing more than tock’s misinformed personal opinion. The United States does work with India to develop green energy. California is famous for green initiatives and my state of Washington trades clean energy with Canada. I’d be shocked if we are unique in that. These agreements have been in place for generations. It’s obvious they have voter approval.
        tock 11mo ago
        > Why the dig at Americans? America deserves the dig. Pulling out of the Paris accords. 22% renewable usage compared to the 60% of Germany. And now climate change denial. > The United States does work with India to develop green energy. lmao. > It’s obvious they have voter approval. I mean they did just vote in the guy who calls climate change a hoax.
- mulmen 11mo ago
  You say you know then directly contradict yourself by bringing up consumption again. The United States already supports clean energy in India. India is not “poor”. It has a larger economy than the United Kingdom. 46.3% of India’s installed capacity is renewable and that mix is growing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_India
  - tock 11mo ago
    > You say you know then directly contradict yourself by bringing up consumption again. It's not a contradiction. Increasing consumption today will mean increase of greenhouse emissions. Any increase of consumption today still involves some increase in fossil fuels for many reasons like grid stability. > The United States already supports clean energy in India. They work together on projects. AFAIK the US doesn't subsidise anything for India or other countries. > India is not “poor”. It is. Its per capita GDP is $2,878. The US is $85,809. Thats a 30x difference. It is an incredibly poor country. > It has a larger economy than the United Kingdom. Philippines and Norway have the same total GDP too. It's silly to consider them equally rich. > 46.3% of India’s installed capacity is renewable and that mix is growing. Hell yeah! Hopefully it keeps growing. It's kinda hilarious that India is one of the few countries who will meet the Paris accord commitments. The US is still stuck at 23% and isn't even close to meeting its commitments.
    - mulmen 11mo ago
      People in India are poor but that doesn’t mean the country is poor. The Indian government has resources to build out renewables as evidenced by them doing exactly that. The United States does not provide much direct funding but you are the only one suggesting that is necessary.
      - tock 11mo ago
        > People in India are poor but that doesn’t mean the country is poor. Please stop. By your logic any country with a lot of people is rich. I already pointed out Norway vs Philippines for you. It is dirt poor by all numbers. Their extreme poverty rate just dropped recently. Their annual budget is 1/10th of the US with 5x more people. Energy needs per person will grow by over 10x in the next few decades to match the US. There is a long way to go. > The Indian government has resources to build out renewables as evidenced by them doing exactly that. I'm actually very impressed to see India sticking to the Paris accords. What exactly is the excuse of the worlds greatest superpower? Maybe a century of polluting the world isn't enough. > The United States does not provide much direct funding but you are the only one suggesting that is necessary. You're right. It needs to first fix itself lol. Maybe ask India for help :p Then again if you don't understand why the rich countries need to try and incentivise the world to move faster to renewables then you don't understand the urgency of the matter.