3 ms·

> - Investing in alternatives has led to massive new industry that is improving the economy of those countries that do it That's a baseless claim. For example,

> - Investing in alternatives has led to massive new industry that is improving the economy of those countries that do it That's a baseless claim. For example, Germany has invested massively in solar but its electricity prices went up, not down. > Gas is the only thing still competitive with solar/wind That's false. Coal power is cheaper than all of those. Solar and wind include costs for expensive battery backups since they are highly volatile. And to make it clear: Climate change is very bad so coal plants are very bad. But that doesn't mean you can go around and claim that coal isn't cheap compared to things like solar+batteries. The fact that something is good doesn't imply that it is cheap.

importantstuff 6d ago
This price of electricity is high because gas, which is still expensive, sets the price of electricity most of the time [1]. The levelized cost of electricity for solar (including batteries) and wind is cheaper than coal [2]. [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-why-does-gas-set-the-price-of-electricity-and-is-there-an-alternative https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-why-does-gas-set-the-price-of... [2] https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2024/photovoltaic-plants-with-battery-cheaper-than-conventional-power-plants.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/...
- consensus1 6d ago
  I will believe it when I see it. The only countries with both cheap and clean electricity are those that built out extensive nuclear or got lucky enough to have access to other forms of cheap base load like hydro / geothermal.
  - tapoxi 6d ago
    Australia would disagree: https://www.energy.gov.au/news/new-energy-plan-daily-window-free-electricity https://www.energy.gov.au/news/new-energy-plan-daily-window-...
    - mjmas 6d ago
      Becaude, as we all know, taxpayer-funded == free. And we banned nuclear, since it's scary.
      - tapoxi 6d ago
        It's not taxpayer funded, the grid has an overabundance of daytime solar that exceeds their capacity to store it.
        mjmas 6d ago
        Here in Queensland the state owns the regional electricity company, Ergon. ∴ most of what they do that doesn't generate money (such as doing free electricity rather than charging for it) is taxpayer-funded.
        anenefan 6d ago
        Even though the power here (North Central Queensland) isn't too expensive, Ergon is run with an aim to make a profit [1] [2] even if the last few years more infrastructure seems to be needing repairs due to changes in weather conditions and or replacing ancient old or relatively new poor quality wooden poles. Given the power here has periods where it barely goes a day without blinking out, or line repairs that can take almost 2 days now after a somewhat mild storm, there's been a large uptake of solar power panels, those that knew hooked up Island style where they can feed in their own small generator to take advantage of the panels during the day if there was no grid power, more recently batteries have become more affordable, making installation worthwhile. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergon_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergon_Energy [2] https://www.energyq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2065843/Ergon-Energy-Queensland-Pty-Ltd-Annual-Financial-Report-2023-24.pdf https://www.energyq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/20658... [pdf] >Operating and financial review The Company’s profit after income tax equivalent expense was $80.919 million for the year (2023: $225.754 million loss). Revenue from sales of electricity is higher when compared to 2023 due to an increase in notified prices as published by the Queensland Competition Authority in 2024. Residential and small business tariff rates increased significantly for 2024 with price rises of 29 percent and 27 percent respectively. Large business tariff rates rose between seven and 17 percent. Expenses are marginally lower compared to 2023 predominantly due to a reduction in fair value losses. More stable electricity trading conditions contributed to lower market movements on forward electricity derivative contracts.
- maxnevermind 6d ago
  > Investing in alternatives has led to massive new industry that is improving the economy of those countries that do it > That's a baseless claim. For example, Germany has invested massively in solar but its electricity prices went up, not down. > This price of electricity is high because gas, which is still expensive, sets the price of electricity most of the time [1]. 1) Am I missing something or the link you provided contradicts your claim? On a chart #2 in the article you can see Germany has only 24% of the times price of electricity set by gas, 24% is not "most of the time", right? 2) Even if that is true, and electricity prices in Germany are set by the price of gas most of the time, it seems like you didn't address the point in a previous message. If the goal is to have lower prices and the goal(outcome) is what really matters not just the process and renewables is the path to get there then why Germany electricity prices rose at the end? And were not all of those because of this ... because of that ... supposed to be a part of that path(plan)? They did the thing, invested in solar, what have they missed and why?
- cubefox 5d ago
  > This price of electricity is high because gas, Not true. Gas backups are only needed for solar and wind. Gas replaces only battery backups here, which would be even more expensive. > which is still expensive, sets the price of electricity most of the time [1]. That's why solar and wind are expensive. > The levelized cost of electricity for solar (including batteries) and wind is cheaper than coal [2]. Not true. You have to include the required gas backups during the night or calm winds.
tadfisher 6d ago
Germany's decommissioned nuclear, and subsequent concentration of base load in Russian gas-fired plants, is certainly a lede your post is doing its best to bury.
- 3eb7988a1663 6d ago
  Or that Germany shares electricity with the EU, so that everyone is getting subjected to those pains with fuel sources being cut.
- cubefox 5d ago
  > Germany's decommissioned nuclear, and subsequent concentration of base load in Russian gas-fired plants, is certainly a lede your post is doing its best to bury. Nuclear is good (no CO2 emissions and stable energy supply), but it's not cheaper than coal. Moreover, that the requirement for gas plants went up because of the volatility of solar and wind is certainly a lede your post is doing its best to bury.
XorNot 6d ago
Coal isn't cheap. Specifically coal powerplants are not and it's got nothing to do with emissions. One of the pinch points in the Australian power grid has actually been that a bunch of coal plants are aging out and no private enterprise wants to even bother financing their replacement because it's a money loser compared to renewables build out. Fortunately this is well on it's way to being solved by the massive battery build out which has happened which means evening peak electricity usage has declined enormously[1] - i.e the primary "sun not shining" point of the day is rapidly turning into an energy use low point for the grid (which makes sense: business powers down, people go home and their batteries which have been charging cover cooking - I have an induction cook top and a 10kw inverter covers everything). [1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/15/australias-dependence-on-gas-generation-during-evening-energy-peak-falls-by-almost-70 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/15/austr...
- cubefox 5d ago
  There could be other regulatory and tax hurdles to an Australian coal build-out. We know that coal is at least as cheap as nuclear, and that the electricity prices went up sharply when Germany replaced much of its nuclear energy with solar energy. Therefore coal is cheaper than solar. The mistake that most people make is that they don't include the highly expensive battery or gas backups during the night in the cost of solar.
  - XorNot 5d ago
    Yes there could be but there aren't, because conservative state governments have had to resort to trying to subsidize coal power plant investment because no one wants to touch it. Two things can be true: solar can be unable to provide reliable base load power, and it can be far more profitable investment return then building a coal fired power station. Which is what has happened: and now, with the falling price of batteries, batteries are a far more profitable return then building a coal fired power station. Coal is expensive: solar, other then some light cleaning costs, is one and done. There's few mechanical parts and no fuel costs and you can build it anywhere there's an electrical grid (which is everywhere). Batteries are similar: sure they might degrade, but that's over 15 years. At the right time of day, charging them can be between free, and profit generating due to all the solar. A coal power plant is gigantic. It can't be built anywhere - it needs to be physically proximal to either a port, or an actual coal mine (which the one's near Hunter Valley in NSW are - I've driven next to the train lines for them, for example), and usually a water source too for cooling. It's a large, maintenance intensive structure (the reason the ones we have are shutting down is the maintenance has gotten very expensive because the whole structure is aging out). And after all that, it also needs fuel - throughout it's lifetime it will need to constantly buy fuel. But it won't constantly be profitable: most renewables have a massive advantage in that they can switch off from the grid nearly instantly. So renewables are far, far better at reacting to negative power pricing conditions then thermal power plants which cannot spin down that quickly: so a coal power plant (really any thermal power plant) will usually have to pay fines when power prices go negative, whereas while solar might not like shutting down, it can do so immediately (and batteries can just hoover up all that power and claim the credits). Grid stability is a different department, quite literally, to power generating investment which is a commercial enterprise chasing return. And solar was better, and batteries are catching up quick (partly because negative prices mean your solar investment won't be able to bank a solid 6 hours of profitable sunlight without them). The new thing is also batteries for wind - DC couple grid batteries at wind plants, turning them into much more dispatchable generating assets.

importantstuff 6d ago

This price of electricity is high because gas, which is still expensive, sets the price of electricity most of the time [1]. The levelized cost of electricity for solar (including batteries) and wind is cheaper than coal [2]. [1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-why-does-gas-set-the-price-of-electricity-and-is-there-an-alternative https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-why-does-gas-set-the-price-of... [2] https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2024/photovoltaic-plants-with-battery-cheaper-than-conventional-power-plants.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/...

consensus1 6d ago
I will believe it when I see it. The only countries with both cheap and clean electricity are those that built out extensive nuclear or got lucky enough to have access to other forms of cheap base load like hydro / geothermal.
- tapoxi 6d ago
  Australia would disagree: https://www.energy.gov.au/news/new-energy-plan-daily-window-free-electricity https://www.energy.gov.au/news/new-energy-plan-daily-window-...
  - mjmas 6d ago
    Becaude, as we all know, taxpayer-funded == free. And we banned nuclear, since it's scary.
    - tapoxi 6d ago
      It's not taxpayer funded, the grid has an overabundance of daytime solar that exceeds their capacity to store it.
      - mjmas 6d ago
        Here in Queensland the state owns the regional electricity company, Ergon. ∴ most of what they do that doesn't generate money (such as doing free electricity rather than charging for it) is taxpayer-funded.
        anenefan 6d ago
        Even though the power here (North Central Queensland) isn't too expensive, Ergon is run with an aim to make a profit [1] [2] even if the last few years more infrastructure seems to be needing repairs due to changes in weather conditions and or replacing ancient old or relatively new poor quality wooden poles. Given the power here has periods where it barely goes a day without blinking out, or line repairs that can take almost 2 days now after a somewhat mild storm, there's been a large uptake of solar power panels, those that knew hooked up Island style where they can feed in their own small generator to take advantage of the panels during the day if there was no grid power, more recently batteries have become more affordable, making installation worthwhile. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergon_Energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergon_Energy [2] https://www.energyq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/2065843/Ergon-Energy-Queensland-Pty-Ltd-Annual-Financial-Report-2023-24.pdf https://www.energyq.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/20658... [pdf] >Operating and financial review The Company’s profit after income tax equivalent expense was $80.919 million for the year (2023: $225.754 million loss). Revenue from sales of electricity is higher when compared to 2023 due to an increase in notified prices as published by the Queensland Competition Authority in 2024. Residential and small business tariff rates increased significantly for 2024 with price rises of 29 percent and 27 percent respectively. Large business tariff rates rose between seven and 17 percent. Expenses are marginally lower compared to 2023 predominantly due to a reduction in fair value losses. More stable electricity trading conditions contributed to lower market movements on forward electricity derivative contracts.
maxnevermind 6d ago
> Investing in alternatives has led to massive new industry that is improving the economy of those countries that do it > That's a baseless claim. For example, Germany has invested massively in solar but its electricity prices went up, not down. > This price of electricity is high because gas, which is still expensive, sets the price of electricity most of the time [1]. 1) Am I missing something or the link you provided contradicts your claim? On a chart #2 in the article you can see Germany has only 24% of the times price of electricity set by gas, 24% is not "most of the time", right? 2) Even if that is true, and electricity prices in Germany are set by the price of gas most of the time, it seems like you didn't address the point in a previous message. If the goal is to have lower prices and the goal(outcome) is what really matters not just the process and renewables is the path to get there then why Germany electricity prices rose at the end? And were not all of those because of this ... because of that ... supposed to be a part of that path(plan)? They did the thing, invested in solar, what have they missed and why?
cubefox 5d ago
> This price of electricity is high because gas, Not true. Gas backups are only needed for solar and wind. Gas replaces only battery backups here, which would be even more expensive. > which is still expensive, sets the price of electricity most of the time [1]. That's why solar and wind are expensive. > The levelized cost of electricity for solar (including batteries) and wind is cheaper than coal [2]. Not true. You have to include the required gas backups during the night or calm winds.

tadfisher 6d ago

Germany's decommissioned nuclear, and subsequent concentration of base load in Russian gas-fired plants, is certainly a lede your post is doing its best to bury.

3eb7988a1663 6d ago
Or that Germany shares electricity with the EU, so that everyone is getting subjected to those pains with fuel sources being cut.
cubefox 5d ago
> Germany's decommissioned nuclear, and subsequent concentration of base load in Russian gas-fired plants, is certainly a lede your post is doing its best to bury. Nuclear is good (no CO2 emissions and stable energy supply), but it's not cheaper than coal. Moreover, that the requirement for gas plants went up because of the volatility of solar and wind is certainly a lede your post is doing its best to bury.

XorNot 6d ago

Coal isn't cheap. Specifically coal powerplants are not and it's got nothing to do with emissions. One of the pinch points in the Australian power grid has actually been that a bunch of coal plants are aging out and no private enterprise wants to even bother financing their replacement because it's a money loser compared to renewables build out. Fortunately this is well on it's way to being solved by the massive battery build out which has happened which means evening peak electricity usage has declined enormously[1] - i.e the primary "sun not shining" point of the day is rapidly turning into an energy use low point for the grid (which makes sense: business powers down, people go home and their batteries which have been charging cover cooking - I have an induction cook top and a 10kw inverter covers everything). [1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/15/australias-dependence-on-gas-generation-during-evening-energy-peak-falls-by-almost-70 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/15/austr...

cubefox 5d ago
There could be other regulatory and tax hurdles to an Australian coal build-out. We know that coal is at least as cheap as nuclear, and that the electricity prices went up sharply when Germany replaced much of its nuclear energy with solar energy. Therefore coal is cheaper than solar. The mistake that most people make is that they don't include the highly expensive battery or gas backups during the night in the cost of solar.
- XorNot 5d ago
  Yes there could be but there aren't, because conservative state governments have had to resort to trying to subsidize coal power plant investment because no one wants to touch it. Two things can be true: solar can be unable to provide reliable base load power, and it can be far more profitable investment return then building a coal fired power station. Which is what has happened: and now, with the falling price of batteries, batteries are a far more profitable return then building a coal fired power station. Coal is expensive: solar, other then some light cleaning costs, is one and done. There's few mechanical parts and no fuel costs and you can build it anywhere there's an electrical grid (which is everywhere). Batteries are similar: sure they might degrade, but that's over 15 years. At the right time of day, charging them can be between free, and profit generating due to all the solar. A coal power plant is gigantic. It can't be built anywhere - it needs to be physically proximal to either a port, or an actual coal mine (which the one's near Hunter Valley in NSW are - I've driven next to the train lines for them, for example), and usually a water source too for cooling. It's a large, maintenance intensive structure (the reason the ones we have are shutting down is the maintenance has gotten very expensive because the whole structure is aging out). And after all that, it also needs fuel - throughout it's lifetime it will need to constantly buy fuel. But it won't constantly be profitable: most renewables have a massive advantage in that they can switch off from the grid nearly instantly. So renewables are far, far better at reacting to negative power pricing conditions then thermal power plants which cannot spin down that quickly: so a coal power plant (really any thermal power plant) will usually have to pay fines when power prices go negative, whereas while solar might not like shutting down, it can do so immediately (and batteries can just hoover up all that power and claim the credits). Grid stability is a different department, quite literally, to power generating investment which is a commercial enterprise chasing return. And solar was better, and batteries are catching up quick (partly because negative prices mean your solar investment won't be able to bank a solid 6 hours of profitable sunlight without them). The new thing is also batteries for wind - DC couple grid batteries at wind plants, turning them into much more dispatchable generating assets.