7 ms·

Total electricity produced by coal + gas is down over the last 20 years. Total electricity production is up, the difference is from wind and solar. This admin

by Retric 4mo ago

Total electricity produced by coal + gas is down over the last 20 years. Total electricity production is up, the difference is from wind and solar. This administration swapped to actively suppressing Wind and Solar via tariffs etc, and yet the trends continued because the underlying economic reality heavily favors battery backed solar.

rtkwe 4mo ago
I think that's part of what's notable about this. The administration hasn't been able to reverse the trend despite putting a massive thumb on the scale against projects like offshore wind and tariffs on solar panel imports. There's probably a delay in the effects though since projects started before they took office are probably starting to thin out and finish up. We'd have to look into the permitting of new projects or wait for to see how big the decline in new capacity turns out to be in a couple years.
- tedggh 4mo ago
  A lot of comes from state initiatives too. Texas being conservative also happens to be very pro solar. I’m in the business and we have some great projects there. The US military is also pushing solar at their facilities. Then you have many private-state partnerships like tolls investing a lot in solar. The outlook in general is pretty positive in the US, a lot more than what people would think.
  - glenstein 4mo ago
    I also recall a New York times article from many moons ago suggesting that a lot of Texas oil wealth got repurposed into a large-scale wind energy infrastructure, but my info might be out of date.
  - rtkwe 4mo ago
    True though one of the major things they have been able to do because it's mostly in the federal purview is killing offshore wind.
    - gimmeThaBeet 4mo ago
      It's sort a "broken clock right twice a day" thing, but I agree with not doing offshore wind in the US. The divergence immediately follows in that I wish they would just push onshore wind. It's sort of a circular issue, it's madly expensive because we haven't built a lot and aren't super good at it, and we don't get much of it built because we aren't great at it and it always is ludicrously expensive. The US has a uniquely underdeveloped maritime sector, we don't build a lot of the massive turbines you use offshore. You drive through central and west texas, it feels like there might be more wind turbines than people. We've kind of already made the decision based on what works.
      - _carbyau_ 4mo ago
        I think the idea of offshore wind is nice. There is a lot of ocean out there and by putting the "ugly" (I don't mind them.) turbines out of sight we get the best of both worlds. But the realities of the idea - the engineering - is problematic. The ocean is a harsh environment and maintaining something deliberately put out of the way in a harsher environment is far more expensive.
        mcmoor 4mo ago
        There are a lot of ocean, but limited shores. I guess that's the only economical place to build it, but of course it blocks scenery. If people truly built it in open ocean, less people will complain.
        leonidasrup 4mo ago
        "It is very hard to build robust and secure wind farms in water deeper than around 200 feet (~60 m)" https://profession.americangeosciences.org/society/intersections/faq/what-are-advantages-and-disadvantages-offshore-wind-farms/ https://profession.americangeosciences.org/society/intersect...
        Retric 4mo ago
  - wavemode 4mo ago
    Anyone who still even views this as a conservative/liberal issue, is someone who is in the pocket of the fossil fuel lobby. Solar is simply a very cheap and realiable way to generate electricity. Much cheaper than gas and coal nowadays. Pure economic incentive is going to continue to drive its adoption.
    - pornel 4mo ago
      As someone from another continent, I giggle when I see doomsday-prepping anti-govmint fiercely-independent cowboys hating EVs and loving gas. Gas has a 6-month shelf-life, and is attached to a whole geopolitically volatile military-industrial complex. Meanwhile an EV + solar can be actually self-sufficient and last for a decade or two. A realistic Mad Max would have been EV battles over solar panels.
      - larodi 4mo ago
        this’ the other Max from China, where they be scavenging leftover panels. The Mad Max we know surely happens somewhere else, and perhaps near Texas given all the participating parties…
- KennyBlanken 4mo ago
  It's especially notable because there isn't just the thumb against offshore wind, solar panel tariffs, and even EVs. Chinese EVs can't be imported because of tariffs and many conservative states a pretending that EV drivers "don't pay their fair share because they don't buy gas" - except most gas taxes haven't been adjusted in multiple decades and don't even begin to pay for the cost of maintaining roads. Fuel taxes are a tiny portion of any state revenue. There has always been a massive thumb on the scale in the form of tax breaks, direct subsidies (billions a year alone on this), land leasing, etc for fossil fuels and their use. Favorable public policy. And what the IMF calls implicit subsidies - the cost of impact on the climate/environment and people's health. When a refinery is pumping out pollution and everyone in the area is getting sicker than people in similar areas - that costs us as insurance ratepayers and taxpayers. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-hidden-ways-the-government-rigs-the-market-in-favor-of-fossil-fuels/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-hidden-ways-the-g... https://www.imf.org/en/topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies https://www.imf.org/en/topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie... ...to name a few. A simple google search will turn up dozens more. And yet what is the first critique of solar and wind by right wingers? "It's only cheaper because of all my tax dollars going to subsidizing them." Federal, state, and local subsidies for green energy and EVs are a drop in the bucket.
  - dpkirchner 4mo ago
    Unfortunately this is one of the few cases where both sides are close to the same -- they both chose to heavily tariff foreign EVs. Something to remember when Democrats talk about climate change.
    - ZeroGravitas 4mo ago
      "closer to the same" except one side has consistently promoted the building and sale of EVs in America. If you were feeling generous you could credit then with the entire existence of modern EVs given their support of the nascent industry for decades in California. But sure, let's focus on the mote in Democrat eyes and ignore the insanity across the aisle. That's what got us into this situation, so why stop now.
  - 4mo ago
- SoftTalker 4mo ago
  Like you can't avoid gravity, you can't avoid economic reality. Not in the long term anyway.
- leonidasrup 4mo ago
  Tariffs on solar panel imports should stimulate domestic solar panel production, but only when they are high enough and applied long enough to justify investments into new solar panel manufacturing facilities.
  - tancop 4mo ago
    [dead]
  - rtkwe 4mo ago
    You can do it with targeted tariffs with assurances they'll last but these broad tariffs make it harder to get the base materials you need to build the panels out of in the first place plus they're so crazy they're almost guaranteed to be wiped out in a few years if not sooner so as a manufacturer they don't have the confidence that the cost equalization of the tariffs will be around long enough to not bankrupt them. Another way to do it would be guaranteed buys for electrifying military etc and grants for projects using US made cells instead of foreign ones that could also effectively subsidize local production. It's like a lot of things done by this administration they do it such hamfisted and obvious ways that they don't accomplish their nominal goals. See a lot of the court cases where they've been blocked in implementation because they said the quiet part out loud. eg: it's usually REALLY hard to prove malicious prosecution but they keep saying out loud "we're prosecuting this person in retaliation for their protected activities".
    - leonidasrup 4mo ago
      It's important to tariff the basic materials Polysilicon, wafers, if you want to spread solar production around the world, not only in a single country. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/solar-pv-manufacturing-capacity-and-production-by-country-and-region-2021-2027 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/solar-pv-manu...
  - triceratops 4mo ago
    Is oil production equipment similarly tariffed? No part of that supply chain comes from China? Otherwise, why solar panels specifically?
coryrc 4mo ago
The numbers for 2014-2024: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/table.php?t=epa_03_01_a.html https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/table.php?t=epa_03_01... I doubted what you wrote, but everything you said is correct (for the last 10 years, at least). Over the time period, natural gas increased 740 TWh/year (to 1870) and coal decreased 940 TWh/year (to 650). Electricity production is up ~7%, but that's quite low compared to the growth of everything else. > This administration swapped to actively suppressing Wind and Solar via tariffs etc Biden's administration put on solar tariffs, but of course I'll grant the current administration is fucking up everything else possible.
- Retric 4mo ago
  Plenty of blame to go around, my understanding of the timeline is: Trumps first administration put in solar Tariffs with China (25%), Biden administration increased them with China (50%), 2nd Trump administration increased those and applied solar Tariffs to other countries. Though honestly I’ve largely stopped paying attention at this point. Solar adoption increased through all of that.
  - cameldrv 4mo ago
    I think the issue is that the tarriffs just don’t really matter anymore because the panels are so cheap that they’re dwarfed by the “balance of system” costs — installation, racking, inverters, cabling, etc.
    - coryrc 4mo ago
      It matters because of opening up cheaper ways to install them. For example, in some Scandinavian country they're cheaper than fence panels, so they just use them for fences, and the power they generate is a nice bonus.
  - anakaine 4mo ago
    As a foreigner it just seems.so braindead that the administrations would tarrif solar panels. The US doesnt have a great manufacturing capacity for solar panels compared to established manufacturers. The high cost of new production ensures slow uptake. From a place that embraced solar rebates, and has subsequently benefited from having in place solar battery rebates, we have a thriving industry of solar installers, electricians, and an ever increasing amount of local grid energy security in the event that storms or accidents cause supply disruptions. About 5% of households will likely not see an energy bill for the next 20 years. Another 40% have solar that covers daytime energy requirements. The requirement for baseline coal.and gas has been decreasing - though will not completely abate. I live in a state that produces abundant coal for power and steel. We have decreased our carbon emissions to 35% below 2005 levels.
jasondigitized 4mo ago
The invisible hand of the market will always win

by Retric 4mo ago

rtkwe 4mo ago

I think that's part of what's notable about this. The administration hasn't been able to reverse the trend despite putting a massive thumb on the scale against projects like offshore wind and tariffs on solar panel imports. There's probably a delay in the effects though since projects started before they took office are probably starting to thin out and finish up. We'd have to look into the permitting of new projects or wait for to see how big the decline in new capacity turns out to be in a couple years.

tedggh 4mo ago
A lot of comes from state initiatives too. Texas being conservative also happens to be very pro solar. I’m in the business and we have some great projects there. The US military is also pushing solar at their facilities. Then you have many private-state partnerships like tolls investing a lot in solar. The outlook in general is pretty positive in the US, a lot more than what people would think.
- glenstein 4mo ago
  I also recall a New York times article from many moons ago suggesting that a lot of Texas oil wealth got repurposed into a large-scale wind energy infrastructure, but my info might be out of date.
- rtkwe 4mo ago
  True though one of the major things they have been able to do because it's mostly in the federal purview is killing offshore wind.
  - gimmeThaBeet 4mo ago
    It's sort a "broken clock right twice a day" thing, but I agree with not doing offshore wind in the US. The divergence immediately follows in that I wish they would just push onshore wind. It's sort of a circular issue, it's madly expensive because we haven't built a lot and aren't super good at it, and we don't get much of it built because we aren't great at it and it always is ludicrously expensive. The US has a uniquely underdeveloped maritime sector, we don't build a lot of the massive turbines you use offshore. You drive through central and west texas, it feels like there might be more wind turbines than people. We've kind of already made the decision based on what works.
    - _carbyau_ 4mo ago
      I think the idea of offshore wind is nice. There is a lot of ocean out there and by putting the "ugly" (I don't mind them.) turbines out of sight we get the best of both worlds. But the realities of the idea - the engineering - is problematic. The ocean is a harsh environment and maintaining something deliberately put out of the way in a harsher environment is far more expensive.
      - mcmoor 4mo ago
        There are a lot of ocean, but limited shores. I guess that's the only economical place to build it, but of course it blocks scenery. If people truly built it in open ocean, less people will complain.
        leonidasrup 4mo ago
        "It is very hard to build robust and secure wind farms in water deeper than around 200 feet (~60 m)" https://profession.americangeosciences.org/society/intersections/faq/what-are-advantages-and-disadvantages-offshore-wind-farms/ https://profession.americangeosciences.org/society/intersect...
        Retric 4mo ago
- wavemode 4mo ago
  Anyone who still even views this as a conservative/liberal issue, is someone who is in the pocket of the fossil fuel lobby. Solar is simply a very cheap and realiable way to generate electricity. Much cheaper than gas and coal nowadays. Pure economic incentive is going to continue to drive its adoption.
  - pornel 4mo ago
    As someone from another continent, I giggle when I see doomsday-prepping anti-govmint fiercely-independent cowboys hating EVs and loving gas. Gas has a 6-month shelf-life, and is attached to a whole geopolitically volatile military-industrial complex. Meanwhile an EV + solar can be actually self-sufficient and last for a decade or two. A realistic Mad Max would have been EV battles over solar panels.
    - larodi 4mo ago
      this’ the other Max from China, where they be scavenging leftover panels. The Mad Max we know surely happens somewhere else, and perhaps near Texas given all the participating parties…
KennyBlanken 4mo ago
It's especially notable because there isn't just the thumb against offshore wind, solar panel tariffs, and even EVs. Chinese EVs can't be imported because of tariffs and many conservative states a pretending that EV drivers "don't pay their fair share because they don't buy gas" - except most gas taxes haven't been adjusted in multiple decades and don't even begin to pay for the cost of maintaining roads. Fuel taxes are a tiny portion of any state revenue. There has always been a massive thumb on the scale in the form of tax breaks, direct subsidies (billions a year alone on this), land leasing, etc for fossil fuels and their use. Favorable public policy. And what the IMF calls implicit subsidies - the cost of impact on the climate/environment and people's health. When a refinery is pumping out pollution and everyone in the area is getting sicker than people in similar areas - that costs us as insurance ratepayers and taxpayers. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-hidden-ways-the-government-rigs-the-market-in-favor-of-fossil-fuels/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-hidden-ways-the-g... https://www.imf.org/en/topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies https://www.imf.org/en/topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie... ...to name a few. A simple google search will turn up dozens more. And yet what is the first critique of solar and wind by right wingers? "It's only cheaper because of all my tax dollars going to subsidizing them." Federal, state, and local subsidies for green energy and EVs are a drop in the bucket.
- dpkirchner 4mo ago
  Unfortunately this is one of the few cases where both sides are close to the same -- they both chose to heavily tariff foreign EVs. Something to remember when Democrats talk about climate change.
  - ZeroGravitas 4mo ago
    "closer to the same" except one side has consistently promoted the building and sale of EVs in America. If you were feeling generous you could credit then with the entire existence of modern EVs given their support of the nascent industry for decades in California. But sure, let's focus on the mote in Democrat eyes and ignore the insanity across the aisle. That's what got us into this situation, so why stop now.
- 4mo ago
SoftTalker 4mo ago
Like you can't avoid gravity, you can't avoid economic reality. Not in the long term anyway.
leonidasrup 4mo ago
Tariffs on solar panel imports should stimulate domestic solar panel production, but only when they are high enough and applied long enough to justify investments into new solar panel manufacturing facilities.
- tancop 4mo ago
  [dead]
- rtkwe 4mo ago
  You can do it with targeted tariffs with assurances they'll last but these broad tariffs make it harder to get the base materials you need to build the panels out of in the first place plus they're so crazy they're almost guaranteed to be wiped out in a few years if not sooner so as a manufacturer they don't have the confidence that the cost equalization of the tariffs will be around long enough to not bankrupt them. Another way to do it would be guaranteed buys for electrifying military etc and grants for projects using US made cells instead of foreign ones that could also effectively subsidize local production. It's like a lot of things done by this administration they do it such hamfisted and obvious ways that they don't accomplish their nominal goals. See a lot of the court cases where they've been blocked in implementation because they said the quiet part out loud. eg: it's usually REALLY hard to prove malicious prosecution but they keep saying out loud "we're prosecuting this person in retaliation for their protected activities".
  - leonidasrup 4mo ago
    It's important to tariff the basic materials Polysilicon, wafers, if you want to spread solar production around the world, not only in a single country. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/solar-pv-manufacturing-capacity-and-production-by-country-and-region-2021-2027 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/solar-pv-manu...
- triceratops 4mo ago
  Is oil production equipment similarly tariffed? No part of that supply chain comes from China? Otherwise, why solar panels specifically?

coryrc 4mo ago

The numbers for 2014-2024: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/table.php?t=epa_03_01_a.html https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/table.php?t=epa_03_01... I doubted what you wrote, but everything you said is correct (for the last 10 years, at least). Over the time period, natural gas increased 740 TWh/year (to 1870) and coal decreased 940 TWh/year (to 650). Electricity production is up ~7%, but that's quite low compared to the growth of everything else. > This administration swapped to actively suppressing Wind and Solar via tariffs etc Biden's administration put on solar tariffs, but of course I'll grant the current administration is fucking up everything else possible.

Retric 4mo ago
Plenty of blame to go around, my understanding of the timeline is: Trumps first administration put in solar Tariffs with China (25%), Biden administration increased them with China (50%), 2nd Trump administration increased those and applied solar Tariffs to other countries. Though honestly I’ve largely stopped paying attention at this point. Solar adoption increased through all of that.
- cameldrv 4mo ago
  I think the issue is that the tarriffs just don’t really matter anymore because the panels are so cheap that they’re dwarfed by the “balance of system” costs — installation, racking, inverters, cabling, etc.
  - coryrc 4mo ago
    It matters because of opening up cheaper ways to install them. For example, in some Scandinavian country they're cheaper than fence panels, so they just use them for fences, and the power they generate is a nice bonus.
- anakaine 4mo ago
  As a foreigner it just seems.so braindead that the administrations would tarrif solar panels. The US doesnt have a great manufacturing capacity for solar panels compared to established manufacturers. The high cost of new production ensures slow uptake. From a place that embraced solar rebates, and has subsequently benefited from having in place solar battery rebates, we have a thriving industry of solar installers, electricians, and an ever increasing amount of local grid energy security in the event that storms or accidents cause supply disruptions. About 5% of households will likely not see an energy bill for the next 20 years. Another 40% have solar that covers daytime energy requirements. The requirement for baseline coal.and gas has been decreasing - though will not completely abate. I live in a state that produces abundant coal for power and steel. We have decreased our carbon emissions to 35% below 2005 levels.

jasondigitized 4mo ago

The invisible hand of the market will always win