this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
510 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

75817 readers
1752 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Based on current deployment rates, it is likely that solar will surpass wind as the third-largest source of electricity. And solar may soon topple coal in the number two spot.

Looking ahead, through July 2028, FERC expects no new coal capacity to come online based on its “high probability additions” forecast. Meanwhile 63 coal plants are expected to be retired, subtracting 25 GW from the 198 GW total, and landing at about 173 GW of coal capacity by 2028. Meanwhile, FERC forecasts 92.6 GW of “high probability additions” solar will come online through July 2028.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

It’s not actually cheap though, that’s the problem. Basically every country that is pushing “renewables” are having their power bills increase over and over and over with no sign of slowing down because it’s not cheap.

No one wants to build them without giant subsidies and guaranteed returns. Why do you think that is?

[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Solar panels crom China made it a lot cheaper than it used to be. There are also other major advatnages, such as increased independence. You just buy a bunch of solar panels and now you can indenepdently generate energy for the next 30 years.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Solar panels are not the expensive part of using solar to power the country - the storage and transmission is.

Although having said that, the cost of regularly cleaning panels, replacing them, throwing them in landfill, and mining materials to make new ones every 15 years or so is also huge - and destructive to the planet. It’s just more of a slow burn cost that snowballs.

[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

True, batteries are quite expensive and very much not environment-friendly when built on such a scale. Though it should be noted good solar panels last longer than 15 years. Even cheap panels can last 20 years.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 3 days ago

They need regular cleaning otherwise they can very quickly drop to close to zero output, and storms - especially hail - can destroy entire solar farms at once.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This is an important point to consider. However, to me it seems somewhat separate from your previous comment.

Of course, no sane government should push for a country to rely solely on wind and solar. Ideally you have a mix of various energy sources, even potentially including some fossil fuels. Hitting that 20-30% sweetspot, as mentioned in the paper, looks to be fairly cheap and beneficial for everyone.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 3 days ago

That’s what almost every “net zero” government has been pushing though. They claim it is doable with zero fossil fuel, just 100% “renewables”.

[–] sucius@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Some reading for you, which I hope you'll read:

https://www.cis.org.au/publication/the-renewable-energy-honeymoon-starting-is-easy-the-rest-is-hard/

https://x.com/jnampijinpa/status/1973660876793368808

Since I doubt you or anyone else will, I'll take some bits from it:

As you can see, as wind + solar generation share goes up, retail electricity prices go up. They never go down. They never even stay the same.

“As the proportion of weather-dependent energy in the grid grows, the costs and difficulties of integrating this energy also grow at an increasing rate.”

...

The paper found (as per the graph):

•⁠ ⁠Countries with less than 21% wind and solar generation have electricity prices of around US $0.15/kWh on average.

•⁠ ⁠Countries with between 21% and 33% wind and solar generation have electricity prices of around US $0.24/kWh on average.

•⁠ ⁠Countries that exceed 33% wind and solar generation, have electricity prices of around US $0.37/kWh on average.

...

The research notes, “No country has achieved penetrations higher than 60%, let alone 90%, without costs going up. A low-cost, wind-and-solar-dependent country simply does not exist.”

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Big surprise, running 50 year old plants lead to lower bills than new infrastructure. Now do new coal plants.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 3 days ago

Don’t need new coal plants.

Should be building nuclear anyway.

[–] sucius@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I'm not going to read propaganda from an Australian right wing think tank, you're right.

It’s not actually cheap though, that’s the problem. Basically every country that is pushing “renewables” are having their power bills increase over and over and over with no sign of slowing down because it’s not cheap.

I can't speak for every country, unlike you, but in Southern Europe the trend is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. https://www.bbvaresearch.com/en/publicaciones/spain-more-renewables-to-continue-lowering-costs/

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

“I’m not going to read your link cause it proves my ideology wrong. Here’s a link that proves mine right, and mine is much much much narrower in scope so as to not show the global trend”

lol

[–] Ixoid@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago

JFC mate, you're linking to content by the traitor Jacinta Nampijinpa-Price, and you have the gall to accuse others of ideological bias? Fuck man, you couldn't be more out-of-step with reality.

[–] sucius@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

No, it's just that the study you linked is wrong in may aspects. The one I linked comes from a bank not a think tank, but you can find thousands more.