14 ms·

In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

717 points by speckx 10mo ago

mekdoonggi 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  > 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_South_China_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So... [2] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/energy-world/chinas-overfishing-problem-is-everyones-problem https://nationalinterest.org/blog/energy-world/chinas-overfi...
  - mekdoonggi 10mo ago
    That makes sense, but if that's the case, why aren't they invading Taiwan now? Wouldn't now be the perfect time?
    - mano78 10mo ago
      Yep, a time when anyone can say to an ally "Greenland must be mine" and more or less get away with it...
    - energy123 10mo ago
      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.
      - Jackpillar 10mo ago
        This 2027 date is based off a misread from a speech from Xi that he himself has since distanced himself from. 2027 is just used by war mongers and natsec folks to bang the war drums to siphon more money into the US military industrial complex. Unlike Russia, China isn't stupid and they don't need a full scale invasion to take over Taiwan.
        energy123 10mo ago
        > 2027 is just used by war mongers and natsec folks to bang the war drums They correctly predicted Russia's invasion of Ukraine, while everyone using slurs like "war monger" did not. I will go with their opinion on this. Which, fortunately, is more balanced than what you're letting on. They're not saying that China will definitely invade Taiwan this decade, only that it is in the ~20% ballpark, and it's therefore prudent to prepare, because "assume the best" or "I can read the mind of their autocrat" is a terrible security doctrine.
    - saubeidl 10mo ago
      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.
    - csomar 10mo ago
      It seems like the timing gets more perfect every day. China is just watching the US self-destruct while Western Europe gets bogged down in its own issues. If the US continues to destabilize and Europe becomes vulnerable as a result, China could get Taiwan without firing a shot. No need to fight a war for it. TSMC would come out unharmed as a bonus.
  - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      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 10mo ago
      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 10mo ago
        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 10mo ago
        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 10mo ago
  - david_draco 10mo ago
    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-backing-russias-war-to-keep-america-distracted-says-kaja-kallas https://www.economist.com/international/2025/10/28/china-is-... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyxk4ywppzo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyxk4ywppzo
  - pmezard 10mo ago
    USA already set the precedent with Venezuela. The rest also follows from Donroe Doctrine.
- munk-a 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - qaq 10mo ago
      Russia holds leverage over China is probably the funniest statement I've read on HN in a long time ...
- raincole 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      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 10mo ago
      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.
    - marcus_holmes 10mo ago
      Wasn't it the sabotage of the pipeline that was the immediate cause of the switch? A practical demonstration of how reliant Europe was on Russian gas, by switching it off.
    - nandomrumber 10mo ago
      The EU hasn’t stopping being a customer of Russian gas.
  - microtonal 10mo ago
    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.
  - 10mo ago
- filloooo 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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.
    - filloooo 10mo ago
      [flagged]
      - mekdoonggi 10mo ago
        Could you enlighten me instead of belittling and name-calling?
  - Tade0 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
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-offer-free-power-three-hours-dmo/105965472#:~:text=The%20Solar%20Sharer%20scheme%20is%20a%20federal,power%20is%20being%20fed%20into%20the%20grid https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-03/energy-retailers-offe...
- jeorb 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    They are in Canada.
  - pbasista 10mo ago
    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.
- jacquesm 10mo ago
  And that's $1000 per year at today's energy prices, which surely will go up over time.
flexie 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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_ 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      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.
jhrmnn 10mo ago
Now, let's aim at total energy consumption, not just electricity generation.
- standardUser 10mo ago
  ~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 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  Have you considered that what you're paying for isn't just energy now, but energy security in the future?
  - doublerabbit 10mo ago
    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 ~£22-£45 ($30-$60) per kg compared to the US $7–$24+ per kg.
    - mekdoonggi 10mo ago
      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 10mo ago
        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-profiles/countries-t-z/united-kingdom https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...
CountGeek 10mo ago
[flagged]
- cinntaile 10mo ago
  What does this have to do with the topic?
- microtonal 10mo ago
  This seems very much like AI-generated karma farming. Sorry if it isn't, then you should work on actually contributing to the discussion. (As an aside, I'm from Groningen/NL :))
emptyfile 10mo ago
[dead]
kokey 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  How much did Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine and nat gas price and supply changes accelerate things?
  - toomuchtodo 10mo ago
    Ember Energy: European electricity prices and costs - https://ember-energy.org/data/european-electricity-prices-and-costs/ https://ember-energy.org/data/european-electricity-prices-an... (updated daily)
    - natmaka 10mo ago
      We must take into account the public money spent to build and maintain the electricity system. In France, for example, electricity is cheaper than in most similar countries, but nuclear power costs taxpayers a huge amount of money.
  - cies 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - direwolf20 10mo ago
      If the US did the attack wouldn't it be on the US?
altern8 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      Poland still has majority coal power production! It's one of last places you can possibly blame renewables for pricing.
      - altern8 10mo ago
        Well, green initiatives made us stop using coal. Also, we've started exporting because of carbon credits--which caused prices to skyrocket.
usrnm 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
  "Power" usually means electricity when used colloquially.
p0pularopinion 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  Regarding the affect of EV adoption on electricity consumption the site https://robbieandrew.github.io/EV/ 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 10mo ago
    now that 98% of cars sold are BEV, i wonder how long its gunna take for that 1/3rd to get to 95%
- eigenspace 10mo ago
  > 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.
pranavj 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      > 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.
andsoitis 10mo ago
There’s a certain poetic aspect to this. Fossils are dead, slow. Wind moves fast. Photons move even faster.
dotdi 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      SMR will always have worse economics than LMR's if both are streamlined
    - adrianN 10mo ago
      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)
Havoc 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      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 10mo ago
        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.
baxtr 10mo ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj96nxtHdTU
- fleroviumna 10mo ago
  [dead]
- frm88 10mo ago
  Thank you for that link. His vision of SWB as a global disruptor is spot on. Currently we're seeing massive delays worldwide on that S-curve with subsidies cancelled and political movements calling for a stop to green energy not only in the US, so his time line to transportation as a service might not come as soon as predicted. Off topic but I really can't see precision fermentation replace dairy by 2030. There would be a cheese lover revolt all over Europe :)
1970-01-01 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
  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.
- benjymo 10mo ago
  Don't forget wind. For example in germany, wind is 31.4% of production, solar is 16.8%. For the EU it's 18.1% for wind and 11% for solar. Wind is often producing more during the morning/night where solar falls short.
seawsurf 10mo ago
> 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 10mo ago
  Hydro in Norway, nuclear+wind in Finland. https://www.iea.org/countries/norway/electricity https://www.iea.org/countries/norway/electricity https://www.iea.org/countries/finland/electricity https://www.iea.org/countries/finland/electricity
  - seawsurf 10mo ago
    Very interesting. I was also reading: https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2019/10/the-way-forward-for-norwegian-windpower-development/ https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2019/10/the-way-forward-for...
  - Tor3 10mo ago
    It's actually hydro+wind in Norway, not just hydro. Hydro has been able to cover nearly 100% of household needs, and most of industry, up till now. The wind, controversial as it is in some places, has managed to offset some of the problems with hydro (nowadays the inter-European deals in practice forces Norway to sell off electricity from hydro in the summer, where in the past that would be saved for the upcoming winter)
canucktrash669 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  disrupting the grid will still be easy. And cluster bombs can heavily impact land solar
  - jojomodding 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      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 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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.
- benjymo 10mo ago
  Batteries are relatively cheap and ideal for shifting solar power generation from noon into the evening.
softwaredoug 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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.
  - thinkcontext 10mo ago
    More than 50% of cars sold in China now come with a plug, on top of the most of the buses and 2 wheelers. Most analysts say they have plateaued and will begin declining in the next few years. They also are beginning to ramp up EV exports to other developing economies.
  - triceratops 10mo ago
    Middle and low income countries can't print dollars to buy oil. They'll happily take free energy from the sky.
    - nandomrumber 10mo ago
      Free* * Conditions apply, nothing if free
  - lambdaone 10mo ago
    Although it looks like bad news in the short term, China is building even more renewables than they are coal stations, with the result that the fraction of fossil power consumption in China is actually decreasing: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-china-and-india-for-first-time-in-52-years-after-clean-energy-records/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-chi...
throw7 10mo ago
And in U.S., Trump stopped the coastal wind farms here in the east... for "national security" reasons.
buckle8017 10mo ago
I'm extremely skeptical of that graph because it has zero seasonal variation. Solar performs dramatically worse in the winter than in summer.
- azornathogron 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_China
pranavj 10mo ago
Related: The 80% Problem: Why the Energy Transition Isn't What You Think - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46724535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46724535
- baal80spam 10mo ago
  Thanks a lot, this is eye-opening.
- Zentrix 10mo ago
  Hey, thank you for your post. I noticed that you are missing an important part of the story, the argument for why the 80% might not be that hard. Here is a video from Simon Clark that explains it. [1] Also, you seem to have used old data in your analysis. You need to look at/use data for 2025 because renewables are on an S-curve so the predictions for their growth are constantly underestimated. Hope that helps. [1] https://youtu.be/6c94vRmbM6Y?si=pPmvfJAGjHa2zOF1 https://youtu.be/6c94vRmbM6Y?si=pPmvfJAGjHa2zOF1
gethly 10mo ago
[flagged]
tsoukase 10mo ago
All these milestones of renewables Vs fossils are low hanging fruits. Sometime soon they will hit a wall of diminishing returns: more solar improves nothing. Also, if a large share of heating and transportation converts to electricity then renewables will become a single digit share and we are back to burning. We desperately need a new breakthrough energy saving technology from summer to winter/vehicle, either electrical or chemical. I bet on hydrogen/eFuel. Or else nuclear.
KarenDaBass 10mo ago
[dead]
KarenDaBass 10mo ago
[dead]
jmward01 10mo ago
Is anyone accurately predicting solar and renewable adoption? Year after year I see terrible predictions that fall way short of the reality in the world. If so, when do those models predict the death of fossil fuel based power plants? There is generally some moment where keeping the infrastructure going becomes so expensive that things just shut down. Are we close? I wonder what the graphs of fossil fuel plan construction and upgrades looks like. Are they near 0 yet?
- FrancisMoodie 10mo ago
  I don't understand why it always has to be one or the other? Why can't we have both? More sources of energy means more reliable energy distribution, multiple fail-safes, in summer there is more solar, in fall there is more wind, in winter we probably need power plants to uphold the need for energy so everyone can stay warm. But this polarization of things, just like with politics, is so stupid. They all have pro's and con's. We should be investing in all of them, maintaining as much different sources of energy as possible and reassess the situation over time. Or am I missing something in your comment?
  - jmward01 10mo ago
    I am a huge fan of the diversity argument. I think though that the proven negatives of fossil fuels and the massive difference in cost compared to renewables + batteries will end up making fossil fuels a niche at best in the not so near future. The goal is diversity, not maintaining every possible system. Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear and batteries give us a pretty diverse system compared to oil+coal+natural gas that has dominated so far. My point was that fossil fuels are likely heading towards a tipping point where the already massive subsidies keeping them going won't be enough and they will likely collapse suddenly. I, for one, am not willing to continue to subsidize them just to maintain more diversity especially considering how much we subsidize them already.
    - otherme123 10mo ago
      > they will likely collapse suddenly In Europe it seems that instead of sudden collapse (1-2 years), they are phasing out (10-20 years). The mix in Spain was nuclear, gas, coal, hidro and fuel a couple of decades ago. Coal was phased out, plants closed by the producers. Fuel almost gone. Gas still important, but nuclear is static and thus has less % of the mix as total output is higher. A lot of new sources are now present in the grid: solar FV, thermal solar, eolic, batteries, reverse pumping and residue burning. 5 years ago (notice the brown band at 5%, coal): https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/peninsula/nacionalau/acumulada/2020-01-22 https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/peninsula/nacionalau/acumulad... Today (coal is gone): https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/peninsula/nacionalau/acumulada/2026-01-22 https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/peninsula/nacionalau/acumulad...
clarionbell 10mo ago
Meanwhile European chemical manufacturing is collapsing under weight of record energy costs.[1][2] Most of other manufacturing is somehow tied to chemicals, you can't build things without material after all. So this will feed ongoing industrial collapse, which now affects even Germany.[3] Meanwhile, low income households are running into financial issues if they want to turn up the heat.[4] The whole process has been mismanaged at best. [1] https://cen.acs.org/business/economy/Europes-specialty-chemical-makers-feel/103/web/2025/09 https://cen.acs.org/business/economy/Europes-specialty-chemi... [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/europes-chemical-industry-seeks-lifeboat-stay-business-2025-07-21/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/europes-chemical-ind... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_economic_crisis_(2022%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_economic_crisis_(2022%E... [4]https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/heating-eating-energy-bills-ofgem-price-cap-standing-charges-b2837129.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/heating-eating-energy-b...
- kolektiv 10mo ago
  There's absolutely mismanagement, and politicians could do an awful lot to change this. Ironically, in the UK at least, most of the reasons why they don't are due to historic regulations designed to protect either the fossil fuel industry or an initially weak green energy industry, which no longer serves any purpose except to push both households and businesses into decline.
- fundatus 10mo ago
  And the reason for that? Fossil fuels. Cited from one of your articles: > “Our industry continues to face difficult market dynamics and challenging energy costs, with European gas prices around three times higher than the US,” Arnaud Valenduc, business director for Ineos Inovyn, the Ineos business that makes chloromethane, says in the press release.
  - dr_dshiv 10mo ago
    Netherlands is sitting on a massive, massive natural gas reserve. Off limits due to earthquakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field
sajithdilshan 10mo ago
Another sensational headline. As someone living in Berlin, the capital of Europe’s largest economy, I see the effects firsthand. Germany’s aggressive green energy push has driven energy costs so high that heating has effectively become a luxury. This winter, air quality has been among the worst in recent years because many people are burning wood to stay warm instead of using central heating. At the same time, manufacturing companies are leaving the country, pushed out by some of the highest energy prices in Europe.
- benjymo 10mo ago
  Do you have any sources for this? I'm also living in Germany and heating is in no way considered a "luxury" nor have many people started burning wood. I don't even think many people would have the possibility to burn wood for heating in Berlin of all places.
  - cap11235 10mo ago
    Don't feed the bot.
PeterStuer 10mo ago
- Blow up our pipeline. - Force us into sactioning our cheap energy supplier - Make us buy your expensive LNG - Watch our industry collapse - Tell us it is because of our renewables obsession
snickerer 10mo ago
There is always so much grumbling and nitpicking about this topic, which I don't understand. The production of renewable electricity is skyrocketing everywhere, far better than predicted. And that's not because of clever politics, but because the technology is good and cheap. This has only advantages for everyone. Except for a few fossil fuel investors whose profits are marginally reduced. We may even be able to limit global warming to three degrees, giving us a better window of opportunity to come up with solutions for large-scale carbon capture in the 22nd century. What's more, photovoltaics is super interesting and great to tinker with—it's huge nerd fun. Can't we all just be happy when we see headlines like this?
hackomorespacko 10mo ago
[flagged]
constantcrying 10mo ago
Germany is rapidly deindustrializing, caused partly by high energy prices. Whenever I see a headline like this, I only see that I will soon be out of a job, together with millions, and prosperity in Europe will come to an end.
trakkstar 10mo ago
[dead]

717 points by speckx 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
> 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_South_China_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So... [2] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/energy-world/chinas-overfishing-problem-is-everyones-problem https://nationalinterest.org/blog/energy-world/chinas-overfi...
- mekdoonggi 10mo ago
  That makes sense, but if that's the case, why aren't they invading Taiwan now? Wouldn't now be the perfect time?
  - mano78 10mo ago
    Yep, a time when anyone can say to an ally "Greenland must be mine" and more or less get away with it...
  - energy123 10mo ago
    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.
    - Jackpillar 10mo ago
      This 2027 date is based off a misread from a speech from Xi that he himself has since distanced himself from. 2027 is just used by war mongers and natsec folks to bang the war drums to siphon more money into the US military industrial complex. Unlike Russia, China isn't stupid and they don't need a full scale invasion to take over Taiwan.
      - energy123 10mo ago
        > 2027 is just used by war mongers and natsec folks to bang the war drums They correctly predicted Russia's invasion of Ukraine, while everyone using slurs like "war monger" did not. I will go with their opinion on this. Which, fortunately, is more balanced than what you're letting on. They're not saying that China will definitely invade Taiwan this decade, only that it is in the ~20% ballpark, and it's therefore prudent to prepare, because "assume the best" or "I can read the mind of their autocrat" is a terrible security doctrine.
  - saubeidl 10mo ago
    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.
  - csomar 10mo ago
    It seems like the timing gets more perfect every day. China is just watching the US self-destruct while Western Europe gets bogged down in its own issues. If the US continues to destabilize and Europe becomes vulnerable as a result, China could get Taiwan without firing a shot. No need to fight a war for it. TSMC would come out unharmed as a bonus.
- mytailorisrich 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      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 10mo ago
        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 10mo ago
- david_draco 10mo ago
  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-backing-russias-war-to-keep-america-distracted-says-kaja-kallas https://www.economist.com/international/2025/10/28/china-is-... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyxk4ywppzo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyxk4ywppzo
- pmezard 10mo ago
  USA already set the precedent with Venezuela. The rest also follows from Donroe Doctrine.
munk-a 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - qaq 10mo ago
    Russia holds leverage over China is probably the funniest statement I've read on HN in a long time ...
raincole 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
    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.
  - marcus_holmes 10mo ago
    Wasn't it the sabotage of the pipeline that was the immediate cause of the switch? A practical demonstration of how reliant Europe was on Russian gas, by switching it off.
  - nandomrumber 10mo ago
    The EU hasn’t stopping being a customer of Russian gas.
- microtonal 10mo ago
  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.
- 10mo ago
filloooo 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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.
  - filloooo 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - mekdoonggi 10mo ago
      Could you enlighten me instead of belittling and name-calling?
- Tade0 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago

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-offer-free-power-three-hours-dmo/105965472#:~:text=The%20Solar%20Sharer%20scheme%20is%20a%20federal,power%20is%20being%20fed%20into%20the%20grid https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-03/energy-retailers-offe...

jeorb 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  They are in Canada.
- pbasista 10mo ago
  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.
jacquesm 10mo ago
And that's $1000 per year at today's energy prices, which surely will go up over time.

flexie 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
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_ 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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.

jhrmnn 10mo ago

Now, let's aim at total energy consumption, not just electricity generation.

standardUser 10mo ago
~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 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
Have you considered that what you're paying for isn't just energy now, but energy security in the future?
- doublerabbit 10mo ago
  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 ~£22-£45 ($30-$60) per kg compared to the US $7–$24+ per kg.
  - mekdoonggi 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      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-profiles/countries-t-z/united-kingdom https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...

CountGeek 10mo ago

[flagged]

cinntaile 10mo ago
What does this have to do with the topic?
microtonal 10mo ago
This seems very much like AI-generated karma farming. Sorry if it isn't, then you should work on actually contributing to the discussion. (As an aside, I'm from Groningen/NL :))

emptyfile 10mo ago

[dead]

kokey 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
How much did Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine and nat gas price and supply changes accelerate things?
- toomuchtodo 10mo ago
  Ember Energy: European electricity prices and costs - https://ember-energy.org/data/european-electricity-prices-and-costs/ https://ember-energy.org/data/european-electricity-prices-an... (updated daily)
  - natmaka 10mo ago
    We must take into account the public money spent to build and maintain the electricity system. In France, for example, electricity is cheaper than in most similar countries, but nuclear power costs taxpayers a huge amount of money.
- cies 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - direwolf20 10mo ago
    If the US did the attack wouldn't it be on the US?

altern8 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    Poland still has majority coal power production! It's one of last places you can possibly blame renewables for pricing.
    - altern8 10mo ago
      Well, green initiatives made us stop using coal. Also, we've started exporting because of carbon credits--which caused prices to skyrocket.

usrnm 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
"Power" usually means electricity when used colloquially.

p0pularopinion 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
Regarding the affect of EV adoption on electricity consumption the site https://robbieandrew.github.io/EV/ 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 10mo ago
  now that 98% of cars sold are BEV, i wonder how long its gunna take for that 1/3rd to get to 95%
eigenspace 10mo ago
> 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.

pranavj 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    > 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.

andsoitis 10mo ago

There’s a certain poetic aspect to this. Fossils are dead, slow. Wind moves fast. Photons move even faster.

dotdi 10mo ago

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 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    SMR will always have worse economics than LMR's if both are streamlined
  - adrianN 10mo ago
    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)

Havoc 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago
      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.

baxtr 10mo ago

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj96nxtHdTU

fleroviumna 10mo ago
[dead]
frm88 10mo ago
Thank you for that link. His vision of SWB as a global disruptor is spot on. Currently we're seeing massive delays worldwide on that S-curve with subsidies cancelled and political movements calling for a stop to green energy not only in the US, so his time line to transportation as a service might not come as soon as predicted. Off topic but I really can't see precision fermentation replace dairy by 2030. There would be a cheese lover revolt all over Europe :)

1970-01-01 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
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 10mo ago
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.
benjymo 10mo ago
Don't forget wind. For example in germany, wind is 31.4% of production, solar is 16.8%. For the EU it's 18.1% for wind and 11% for solar. Wind is often producing more during the morning/night where solar falls short.

seawsurf 10mo ago

> 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 10mo ago
Hydro in Norway, nuclear+wind in Finland. https://www.iea.org/countries/norway/electricity https://www.iea.org/countries/norway/electricity https://www.iea.org/countries/finland/electricity https://www.iea.org/countries/finland/electricity
- seawsurf 10mo ago
  Very interesting. I was also reading: https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2019/10/the-way-forward-for-norwegian-windpower-development/ https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2019/10/the-way-forward-for...
- Tor3 10mo ago
  It's actually hydro+wind in Norway, not just hydro. Hydro has been able to cover nearly 100% of household needs, and most of industry, up till now. The wind, controversial as it is in some places, has managed to offset some of the problems with hydro (nowadays the inter-European deals in practice forces Norway to sell off electricity from hydro in the summer, where in the past that would be saved for the upcoming winter)

canucktrash669 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
disrupting the grid will still be easy. And cluster bombs can heavily impact land solar
- jojomodding 10mo ago
  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 10mo ago
    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 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
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.
benjymo 10mo ago
Batteries are relatively cheap and ideal for shifting solar power generation from noon into the evening.

softwaredoug 10mo ago

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 10mo ago
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.
- thinkcontext 10mo ago
  More than 50% of cars sold in China now come with a plug, on top of the most of the buses and 2 wheelers. Most analysts say they have plateaued and will begin declining in the next few years. They also are beginning to ramp up EV exports to other developing economies.
- triceratops 10mo ago
  Middle and low income countries can't print dollars to buy oil. They'll happily take free energy from the sky.
  - nandomrumber 10mo ago
    Free* * Conditions apply, nothing if free
- lambdaone 10mo ago
  Although it looks like bad news in the short term, China is building even more renewables than they are coal stations, with the result that the fraction of fossil power consumption in China is actually decreasing: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-china-and-india-for-first-time-in-52-years-after-clean-energy-records/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coal-power-drops-in-chi...

throw7 10mo ago

And in U.S., Trump stopped the coastal wind farms here in the east... for "national security" reasons.

buckle8017 10mo ago

I'm extremely skeptical of that graph because it has zero seasonal variation. Solar performs dramatically worse in the winter than in summer.

azornathogron 10mo ago
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 10mo ago

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_China

pranavj 10mo ago

Related: The 80% Problem: Why the Energy Transition Isn't What You Think - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46724535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46724535

baal80spam 10mo ago
Thanks a lot, this is eye-opening.
Zentrix 10mo ago
Hey, thank you for your post. I noticed that you are missing an important part of the story, the argument for why the 80% might not be that hard. Here is a video from Simon Clark that explains it. [1] Also, you seem to have used old data in your analysis. You need to look at/use data for 2025 because renewables are on an S-curve so the predictions for their growth are constantly underestimated. Hope that helps. [1] https://youtu.be/6c94vRmbM6Y?si=pPmvfJAGjHa2zOF1 https://youtu.be/6c94vRmbM6Y?si=pPmvfJAGjHa2zOF1

gethly 10mo ago

[flagged]

tsoukase 10mo ago

All these milestones of renewables Vs fossils are low hanging fruits. Sometime soon they will hit a wall of diminishing returns: more solar improves nothing. Also, if a large share of heating and transportation converts to electricity then renewables will become a single digit share and we are back to burning. We desperately need a new breakthrough energy saving technology from summer to winter/vehicle, either electrical or chemical. I bet on hydrogen/eFuel. Or else nuclear.

KarenDaBass 10mo ago

[dead]

KarenDaBass 10mo ago

[dead]

jmward01 10mo ago

Is anyone accurately predicting solar and renewable adoption? Year after year I see terrible predictions that fall way short of the reality in the world. If so, when do those models predict the death of fossil fuel based power plants? There is generally some moment where keeping the infrastructure going becomes so expensive that things just shut down. Are we close? I wonder what the graphs of fossil fuel plan construction and upgrades looks like. Are they near 0 yet?

FrancisMoodie 10mo ago
I don't understand why it always has to be one or the other? Why can't we have both? More sources of energy means more reliable energy distribution, multiple fail-safes, in summer there is more solar, in fall there is more wind, in winter we probably need power plants to uphold the need for energy so everyone can stay warm. But this polarization of things, just like with politics, is so stupid. They all have pro's and con's. We should be investing in all of them, maintaining as much different sources of energy as possible and reassess the situation over time. Or am I missing something in your comment?
- jmward01 10mo ago
  I am a huge fan of the diversity argument. I think though that the proven negatives of fossil fuels and the massive difference in cost compared to renewables + batteries will end up making fossil fuels a niche at best in the not so near future. The goal is diversity, not maintaining every possible system. Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear and batteries give us a pretty diverse system compared to oil+coal+natural gas that has dominated so far. My point was that fossil fuels are likely heading towards a tipping point where the already massive subsidies keeping them going won't be enough and they will likely collapse suddenly. I, for one, am not willing to continue to subsidize them just to maintain more diversity especially considering how much we subsidize them already.
  - otherme123 10mo ago
    > they will likely collapse suddenly In Europe it seems that instead of sudden collapse (1-2 years), they are phasing out (10-20 years). The mix in Spain was nuclear, gas, coal, hidro and fuel a couple of decades ago. Coal was phased out, plants closed by the producers. Fuel almost gone. Gas still important, but nuclear is static and thus has less % of the mix as total output is higher. A lot of new sources are now present in the grid: solar FV, thermal solar, eolic, batteries, reverse pumping and residue burning. 5 years ago (notice the brown band at 5%, coal): https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/peninsula/nacionalau/acumulada/2020-01-22 https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/peninsula/nacionalau/acumulad... Today (coal is gone): https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/peninsula/nacionalau/acumulada/2026-01-22 https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/peninsula/nacionalau/acumulad...

clarionbell 10mo ago

Meanwhile European chemical manufacturing is collapsing under weight of record energy costs.[1][2] Most of other manufacturing is somehow tied to chemicals, you can't build things without material after all. So this will feed ongoing industrial collapse, which now affects even Germany.[3] Meanwhile, low income households are running into financial issues if they want to turn up the heat.[4] The whole process has been mismanaged at best. [1] https://cen.acs.org/business/economy/Europes-specialty-chemical-makers-feel/103/web/2025/09 https://cen.acs.org/business/economy/Europes-specialty-chemi... [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/europes-chemical-industry-seeks-lifeboat-stay-business-2025-07-21/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/europes-chemical-ind... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_economic_crisis_(2022%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_economic_crisis_(2022%E... [4]https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/heating-eating-energy-bills-ofgem-price-cap-standing-charges-b2837129.html https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/heating-eating-energy-b...

kolektiv 10mo ago
There's absolutely mismanagement, and politicians could do an awful lot to change this. Ironically, in the UK at least, most of the reasons why they don't are due to historic regulations designed to protect either the fossil fuel industry or an initially weak green energy industry, which no longer serves any purpose except to push both households and businesses into decline.
fundatus 10mo ago
And the reason for that? Fossil fuels. Cited from one of your articles: > “Our industry continues to face difficult market dynamics and challenging energy costs, with European gas prices around three times higher than the US,” Arnaud Valenduc, business director for Ineos Inovyn, the Ineos business that makes chloromethane, says in the press release.
- dr_dshiv 10mo ago
  Netherlands is sitting on a massive, massive natural gas reserve. Off limits due to earthquakes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field

sajithdilshan 10mo ago

Another sensational headline. As someone living in Berlin, the capital of Europe’s largest economy, I see the effects firsthand. Germany’s aggressive green energy push has driven energy costs so high that heating has effectively become a luxury. This winter, air quality has been among the worst in recent years because many people are burning wood to stay warm instead of using central heating. At the same time, manufacturing companies are leaving the country, pushed out by some of the highest energy prices in Europe.

benjymo 10mo ago
Do you have any sources for this? I'm also living in Germany and heating is in no way considered a "luxury" nor have many people started burning wood. I don't even think many people would have the possibility to burn wood for heating in Berlin of all places.
- cap11235 10mo ago
  Don't feed the bot.

PeterStuer 10mo ago

- Blow up our pipeline. - Force us into sactioning our cheap energy supplier - Make us buy your expensive LNG - Watch our industry collapse - Tell us it is because of our renewables obsession

snickerer 10mo ago

There is always so much grumbling and nitpicking about this topic, which I don't understand. The production of renewable electricity is skyrocketing everywhere, far better than predicted. And that's not because of clever politics, but because the technology is good and cheap. This has only advantages for everyone. Except for a few fossil fuel investors whose profits are marginally reduced. We may even be able to limit global warming to three degrees, giving us a better window of opportunity to come up with solutions for large-scale carbon capture in the 22nd century. What's more, photovoltaics is super interesting and great to tinker with—it's huge nerd fun. Can't we all just be happy when we see headlines like this?

hackomorespacko 10mo ago

[flagged]

constantcrying 10mo ago

Germany is rapidly deindustrializing, caused partly by high energy prices. Whenever I see a headline like this, I only see that I will soon be out of a job, together with millions, and prosperity in Europe will come to an end.

trakkstar 10mo ago

[dead]