5 ms·

> Wether it's wind, solar or hydro, a underappreciated property of renewable energy is the energy sovereignty they provide. If your sovereign territory happens

by lxgr 7mo ago

> Wether it's wind, solar or hydro, a underappreciated property of renewable energy is the energy sovereignty they provide. If your sovereign territory happens to support them geographically. This is true for many, but not all countries. Also, without large storage capacity, you might end up being self-sufficient during sunny, windy days, but find yourself very dependent on your neighbor countries for imports on overcast days or at night without wind. The combination of all of this is especially unfortunate for hydro, where you're pretty much fully dependent on the geography you've been handed. So I'd say the self-sufficiency story of renewables doesn't fully hold. They benefit from regional cooperation and trade just as much as fossil fuels, if not more. (In my view, that's not really a counterargument, but it does raise the importance of having a well-integrated, cross-border grid even more.)

dalyons 7mo ago
Why do you have to go to absolutes? If 90% of countries can be 80+% self sufficient, that’s still an amazing thing
- lxgr 7mo ago
  If you're 80% self-sufficient, you're not self-sufficient.
  - ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
    But the dependency turns from a stop the world calamity to an annoyance. If you’re 95% self sufficient it will stay at headlines in the local press.
    - lxgr 7mo ago
      Losing 20% of your electricity supply is a calamity, not an annoyance. So unless you want the calamity, you're still dependent on imports. Personally, I don't see an issue with that, as long as the neighboring countries you're importing from are reliable and will be able to supply at the times you need (i.e., they don't have the same possibly spiky import dependency as yourself). The other option is massive storage capacity. I just don't think it makes sense to just equate renewables with automatic sovereignty.
      - nostrademons 7mo ago
        Dunno about you, but losing 20% of my electricity supply is an annoyance. I just don't run the clothes dryer and hang my clothes on a rack instead. (And yes, I have solar + battery, and have lost 100% of my outside electricity supply on a half dozen occasions since having it installed, and my actual response has been to not run the clothes dryer.)
        lxgr 7mo ago
        That would be the situation in an integrated/"smart" grid. The grid could tell your washer/dryer to defer or worst case shed their load. In the grid we have, where most people don't have batteries, nor a way to react to (or even perceive) network-side load shedding commands, you get rolling blackouts at best, and brownouts, damaged devices etc. at worst.
        nostrademons 7mo ago
        That's the point I'm making with my second paragraph. I'm not dependent on the grid. If we get into the situation you're describing, I just throw the main breaker (actually don't need to do that, the inverters switch over automatically) and my home generates its own electricity. It doesn't quite cover all my usage, but it covers all my usage except the clothes dryer, so I just don't run the clothes dryer. It's true that there are tragedy-of-the-commons situations where not everybody has a battery, but it's also true that there are higher-level but subnational entities within the U.S. that have invested significantly in renewables + battery storage. This chart of where electricity comes from on a state-by-state level is illustrative: https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/state-electricity-generation-fuel-shares https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/state-electricity-g... California, Connecticut, DC, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington are > 95% renewables + natural gas, all of which is produced in North America. If it comes to the point where it's "keep the lights on or sever ties with fossil-fuel states", I'd bet that they choose the latter. (Note that the table kinda refutes your point anyway: the only states that are > 1% dependent upon oil for electricity are Alaska and Hawaii. Other than natural gas, which is largely produced domestically [1], the other big fossil fuel source is coal, which is also produced domestically.) [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-natural-gas-comes-from.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-na...
  - ms_menardi 7mo ago
    If a kid lives on their own but their mom buys them groceries once per month and their dad swings by on thursdays with pizza and beer, that kid's still pretty darn self sufficient. Similarly, if a country can use 80% less oil or imported fuel than they would have without renewable energy, I think they're pretty self-sufficient. They don't have to be isolated from trade, it's okay to import some things and export others. Energy sources can be one of those things. But if they rely on energy imports, then when something disrupts their supply then they are in trouble. However if they get 80% of their energy from renewable sources, then they have significantly less of a problem.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - lxgr 7mo ago
      They have significantly less of a problem with regards to their balance of trade, but any meaningful dependency on imports means that electricity prices will still be entirely dependent on the price of whatever is imported, at any point in time imports are happening. Still not great, and I wouldn't call that sovereignty! Also, highly depending on what metric we mean by "80% self-sufficient" (peak capacity? long-time average?), there might either be a lot of work left, or this might be "effective sovereignty".
- leonidasrup 7mo ago
  These 20% will still make you dependent on foreign country. For example Germany was dependent on Russian gas (before year 2022), which they later swapped for dependency on US LNG. In addition, Germany is dependent on China for PV panels.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > Germany was dependent on Russian gas (before year 2022), which they later swapped for dependency on US LNG. In addition, Germany is dependent on China for PV panels There is merit to putting one's energy policy on autopilot by doing the opposite of whatever Berlin is up to.
    - lxgr 7mo ago
      > doing the opposite of whatever Berlin is up to So you're suggesting to cut solar incentives and never discuss SMRs? I think you might be predicting future performance from past returns here.
  - triceratops 7mo ago
    > Germany is dependent on China for PV panels This is gas brain thinking. Panels aren't burned to make electricity. If literally everyone stops selling you panels (nearly impossible) you continue generating electricity the old way. Nothing bad happens. The panels you already have continue working. Other countries make panels too. India has a glut right now. https://solarmagazine.com/2025/08/india-solar-supply-chain-faces-oversupply-crisis https://solarmagazine.com/2025/08/india-solar-supply-chain-f...
    - leonidasrup 7mo ago
      You can't base energy of an modern industrial country on purely solar panels alone, they don't produce any electricity in the night and have electric output reduced by weather. You have always to combine them with other power sources for backup. For Germany it's domestic wind + domestic coal + imported gas. In case you ask for energy storage in Germany, the amounts are quite low. https://openenergytracker.org/en/docs/germany/storage/ https://openenergytracker.org/en/docs/germany/storage/
amarant 7mo ago
More countries are able to produce renewable energy than are able to produce fossil energy. As such, renewable energy providers more energy sovereignty than fossil fuels which is what matters. If it's 100% or not is mostly irrelevant for the decision making. If we're being rational. Going for the worst possible option, only because the better options are not 100% perfect, is to be considered irrational behaviour.
- lxgr 7mo ago
  > Going for the worst possible option, only because the better options are not 100% perfect, is to be considered irrational behaviour. I guess I'm collecting all the downvotes because I didn't make it sufficiently clear that I'm absolutely in favor of switching to renewables as quickly as feasible. My point was not to stick with fossil fuels in the interest of "sovereignty" or anything like that. Especially massive solar deployment just seems like a no-brainer at this point. But as we do that, I'd love to be realistic about new interdependencies and failure modes being introduced, so that they can be mitigated as we transform and build out our grids, not discovered in very painful incidents that "nobody could have seen coming". Kind of sad to see how ideologically driven discussions around energy policy still are, and maybe always will be.
MetaWhirledPeas 7mo ago
> without large storage capacity That's like saying without gas stations good luck getting gasoline to the people. It goes without saying that batteries are an essential part of most renewable solutions.
- lxgr 7mo ago
  I'm still reading a lot about theoretical storage ideas, but much less than I'd like about massive deployments, so I think it doesn't quite go without saying.

by lxgr 7mo ago

dalyons 7mo ago

Why do you have to go to absolutes? If 90% of countries can be 80+% self sufficient, that’s still an amazing thing

lxgr 7mo ago
If you're 80% self-sufficient, you're not self-sufficient.
- ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
  But the dependency turns from a stop the world calamity to an annoyance. If you’re 95% self sufficient it will stay at headlines in the local press.
  - lxgr 7mo ago
    Losing 20% of your electricity supply is a calamity, not an annoyance. So unless you want the calamity, you're still dependent on imports. Personally, I don't see an issue with that, as long as the neighboring countries you're importing from are reliable and will be able to supply at the times you need (i.e., they don't have the same possibly spiky import dependency as yourself). The other option is massive storage capacity. I just don't think it makes sense to just equate renewables with automatic sovereignty.
    - nostrademons 7mo ago
      Dunno about you, but losing 20% of my electricity supply is an annoyance. I just don't run the clothes dryer and hang my clothes on a rack instead. (And yes, I have solar + battery, and have lost 100% of my outside electricity supply on a half dozen occasions since having it installed, and my actual response has been to not run the clothes dryer.)
      - lxgr 7mo ago
        That would be the situation in an integrated/"smart" grid. The grid could tell your washer/dryer to defer or worst case shed their load. In the grid we have, where most people don't have batteries, nor a way to react to (or even perceive) network-side load shedding commands, you get rolling blackouts at best, and brownouts, damaged devices etc. at worst.
        nostrademons 7mo ago
        That's the point I'm making with my second paragraph. I'm not dependent on the grid. If we get into the situation you're describing, I just throw the main breaker (actually don't need to do that, the inverters switch over automatically) and my home generates its own electricity. It doesn't quite cover all my usage, but it covers all my usage except the clothes dryer, so I just don't run the clothes dryer. It's true that there are tragedy-of-the-commons situations where not everybody has a battery, but it's also true that there are higher-level but subnational entities within the U.S. that have invested significantly in renewables + battery storage. This chart of where electricity comes from on a state-by-state level is illustrative: https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/state-electricity-generation-fuel-shares https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/state-electricity-g... California, Connecticut, DC, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington are > 95% renewables + natural gas, all of which is produced in North America. If it comes to the point where it's "keep the lights on or sever ties with fossil-fuel states", I'd bet that they choose the latter. (Note that the table kinda refutes your point anyway: the only states that are > 1% dependent upon oil for electricity are Alaska and Hawaii. Other than natural gas, which is largely produced domestically [1], the other big fossil fuel source is coal, which is also produced domestically.) [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-natural-gas-comes-from.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/where-our-na...
- ms_menardi 7mo ago
  If a kid lives on their own but their mom buys them groceries once per month and their dad swings by on thursdays with pizza and beer, that kid's still pretty darn self sufficient. Similarly, if a country can use 80% less oil or imported fuel than they would have without renewable energy, I think they're pretty self-sufficient. They don't have to be isolated from trade, it's okay to import some things and export others. Energy sources can be one of those things. But if they rely on energy imports, then when something disrupts their supply then they are in trouble. However if they get 80% of their energy from renewable sources, then they have significantly less of a problem.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - lxgr 7mo ago
    They have significantly less of a problem with regards to their balance of trade, but any meaningful dependency on imports means that electricity prices will still be entirely dependent on the price of whatever is imported, at any point in time imports are happening. Still not great, and I wouldn't call that sovereignty! Also, highly depending on what metric we mean by "80% self-sufficient" (peak capacity? long-time average?), there might either be a lot of work left, or this might be "effective sovereignty".
leonidasrup 7mo ago
These 20% will still make you dependent on foreign country. For example Germany was dependent on Russian gas (before year 2022), which they later swapped for dependency on US LNG. In addition, Germany is dependent on China for PV panels.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > Germany was dependent on Russian gas (before year 2022), which they later swapped for dependency on US LNG. In addition, Germany is dependent on China for PV panels There is merit to putting one's energy policy on autopilot by doing the opposite of whatever Berlin is up to.
  - lxgr 7mo ago
    > doing the opposite of whatever Berlin is up to So you're suggesting to cut solar incentives and never discuss SMRs? I think you might be predicting future performance from past returns here.
- triceratops 7mo ago
  > Germany is dependent on China for PV panels This is gas brain thinking. Panels aren't burned to make electricity. If literally everyone stops selling you panels (nearly impossible) you continue generating electricity the old way. Nothing bad happens. The panels you already have continue working. Other countries make panels too. India has a glut right now. https://solarmagazine.com/2025/08/india-solar-supply-chain-faces-oversupply-crisis https://solarmagazine.com/2025/08/india-solar-supply-chain-f...
  - leonidasrup 7mo ago
    You can't base energy of an modern industrial country on purely solar panels alone, they don't produce any electricity in the night and have electric output reduced by weather. You have always to combine them with other power sources for backup. For Germany it's domestic wind + domestic coal + imported gas. In case you ask for energy storage in Germany, the amounts are quite low. https://openenergytracker.org/en/docs/germany/storage/ https://openenergytracker.org/en/docs/germany/storage/

amarant 7mo ago

More countries are able to produce renewable energy than are able to produce fossil energy. As such, renewable energy providers more energy sovereignty than fossil fuels which is what matters. If it's 100% or not is mostly irrelevant for the decision making. If we're being rational. Going for the worst possible option, only because the better options are not 100% perfect, is to be considered irrational behaviour.

lxgr 7mo ago
> Going for the worst possible option, only because the better options are not 100% perfect, is to be considered irrational behaviour. I guess I'm collecting all the downvotes because I didn't make it sufficiently clear that I'm absolutely in favor of switching to renewables as quickly as feasible. My point was not to stick with fossil fuels in the interest of "sovereignty" or anything like that. Especially massive solar deployment just seems like a no-brainer at this point. But as we do that, I'd love to be realistic about new interdependencies and failure modes being introduced, so that they can be mitigated as we transform and build out our grids, not discovered in very painful incidents that "nobody could have seen coming". Kind of sad to see how ideologically driven discussions around energy policy still are, and maybe always will be.

MetaWhirledPeas 7mo ago

> without large storage capacity That's like saying without gas stations good luck getting gasoline to the people. It goes without saying that batteries are an essential part of most renewable solutions.

lxgr 7mo ago
I'm still reading a lot about theoretical storage ideas, but much less than I'd like about massive deployments, so I think it doesn't quite go without saying.