Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 809 posts

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#251

Post by embedding-shape »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #230
embedding-shape wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not both? One works better for people not living in cities, and the other one better for high-density areas.

>One works better for people not living in cities It's not as if homes outside of cities have their own diesel generators to power their house. (Since I'm guessing from this line of comments you'll point out the less than 1% of people who actually do do this, maybe it's better to focus only the 99% here).

> It's not as if homes outside of cities have their own diesel generators to power their house.

Yeah, no true, I don't understand the point/argument though?

More people relying on renewables == long term better for everyone on the planet

That includes moving people outside of cities to renewables energy sources, is your point that this isn't so important because they're a small piece of the population usually?

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#252

Post by llm_nerd »

tialaramex wrote: post #219
llm_nerd wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there is still a whole bunch of coal power online in Canada. Ontario, Quebec, BC and Alberta, the four largest provinces by population and a heady percentage of the land area, have zero coal power generation facilities. Ontario is mostly nuclear supported by hydro, with an absolute fallback of natural gas. Quebec is overwhelmingly hydro + wind. BC is mostly hydro. Alberta is mostly non-renewables like natural gas, b…

To me "a bunch" is when it'd be tedious to list them. For a few years the UK had few enough that you could list their names, then gradually four, three, two, one, none. Canada as a whole isn't in that place yet, though it doesn't have plans to build more of these plants and they will gradually reach end of life or transition to burning something else. Coal isn't one of the "convenient" fossil fuels where you might ch…

"For a few years the UK had few enough that you could list their names, then gradually four, three, two, one, none"

Sure, it's embarrassing that we still have any coal plants. But really, there are only eight small units remaining, located in the provinces of Nova Scotia (4), New Brunswick (1), and Saskatchewan (3). Every other jurisdiction abolished them.

Maybe small nuclear will be the solution for these holdouts. The fact that Alberta held onto coal for so long, and never built a nuclear plant, was outrageous.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#253

Post by SamPatt »

youngtaff wrote: post #241
SamPatt wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm a renter, been all my life, I'd be happy to pay more in taxes if it means more solar panels for everyone except me. That's because you're rich like most people on HN. Environmental protection is a luxury good. This has been proven time and time again. A great reason to prioritize growth and wealth creation. Poor countries don't make those tradeoffs, they're worried about survival not what percentage of their ene…

> A great reason to prioritize growth and wealth creation. Poor countries don't make those tradeoffs, they're worried about survival not what percentage of their energy usage is renewable. Tell that to places like Pakistan where solar is allowing people to have cheaper electricity without connecting to the grid

That's exactly my point. They're making decisions based on their economic reality not sacrificing for environmental principles like the above commenter.

Solar is great. It can stand on its own without subsidies.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#254

Post by boringg »

standeven wrote: post #202
DetectDefect wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. People are angry because it is likely their first time hearing a contrarian narrative about solar energy, which likely challenges their own sunk-cost fallacy as solar panel owners.

I have roof top solar. I have never had to clean or maintain them in any way. Same with my friends who have roof top solar. The worst I’ve heard of is a microinverter failing, which was covered by warranty. My gut response to your post was also aggression, not because you’re preaching uncomfortable truths, but because you’re repeating fossil fuel lobbyist talking points that I’m getting really tired of seeing all ove…

How long have you had your system - biggest risk point is year 10-12 and then 20-24 on inverter failure replacement which is fixable but just stretches out your payback period.

Im with you I hate the people who preach fossil fuel talking points. I also don't like the shady solar sales people who say solar is a no brainer - they are just pushing product to install on your roof. It is a pretty good product but not 100%.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#255

Post by alex_young »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #209
embedding-shape wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Definitely a great deal if you own a home, if I was a renter/condo owner I'd be annoyed that everyone is subsidizing your free solar however. What kind of selfish point of view is this? Don't you want people to use energy sources that are better for our entire world, even if it costs you like $10 more in taxes per year? Seems like a no brainer deal if you like "the outside" and you want it to still be there. I'm a…

>I'm a renter, been all my life, I'd be happy to pay more in taxes if it means more solar panels for everyone except me. But I also feel the same about elder care, health care and a bunch of other things, do you feel the same for those things too, or this is specifically about solar or owning vs renting? There's an alternative, and almost certainly cheaper per watt with cost of scale, where your tax dollars go to a n…

Everyone can take advantage of rooftop solar. The power goes into the grid. This isn’t a zero sum game. We need both.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#256

Post by JetSetWilly »

ricardo81 wrote: post #29
testing22321 wrote: post #4

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 1…

Canada is blessed with cheap energy, the abundance of hydro surely helps to bridge any intermittency other renewables have. I lived there 10 years back, your energy is less than half the cost of mine in Scotland. In Scotland's case we're part of the UK and the rest of the UK is less blessed with the geography for hydro. The incumbent Scottish government also has an anti stance to nuclear. I hope the incentives for cl…

In Scotland one issue is that the UK electricity market is national (unlike in eg norway). So even if local supply is very high and interconnects are not large enough to export to england - we must pay the higher national rate. As octopus ceo suggested if the UK energy market has regional pricing then electricity in scotland would often be a lot cheaper and in some cases industrial demand would move there. But that would disadvantage the SE of England so will never happen.

Conversely, standing charges ARE regionalised - because that does advantage the SE of England. Oh well!

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#257

Post by torlok »

altern8 wrote: post #96
torlok wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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)?

I'm from Poland too and the only thing we have is land, the sun, and wind. Coal poisons the air we breathe, and hurts the climate our children will live in. It's not about money, it's about security. The worst thing for polish security is being dependent on foreign oil and gas, and to be reliant on a few power plants that are an easy target for russian drones, and rely on water from rivers that are running dry more and more often. The transition away from coal should've come much, much sooner. When you hear a push back against renewables, and people praising oil and gas, who's benefiting from this? Poland, or oil suppliers like Russia?

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#258

Post by kieranmaine »

patapong wrote: post #228
ricardo81 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been a long standing problem. Ideas crop up like generating hydrogen with the curtailed energy or maybe at least in Winter, use it for heat generation. The problem would seem to be the capex and the inverse of intermittency being the problem for them in utilising that energy, i.e. waiting for curtailment. At least with available hydro you can pump water back up hill using a reliable and cheap tech.

I find it fascinating that we have not identified a use for almost free intermittent electricity. You'd think there would be plenty of things to do, but it seems like with the capex investment things like smelting etc need to always be running. Maybe electric car charging can come to the rescue? But even there people need their cars charged usually at certain fixed moments.

EV smart charging is a solved problem in the UK IMO, at least for those with a parking space.

OVO[1] and Octopus[2] offer smart charging tariffs that give EV owners reduced electricity rates.

The usual caveat is you can only benefit if you can install a charger and park near that charger. Still, based on this 2021 article [3] 65% of UK homes have at least one off street space, so the potential for a majority of homes to smart charge is there.

To extend the benefit of cheap smart charging to more people, it would be good to see legislation that makes it easier for leaseholders and renters to require the installation of a smart charger where technically possible.

1. https://www.ovoenergy.com/electric-cars/charge-anytime 2. https://octopus.energy/ev-tariffs/ 3. https://www.racfoundation.org/media-centre/cars-parked-23-ho...

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#259

Post by SamPatt »

philipkglass wrote: post #243
SamPatt wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm a renter, been all my life, I'd be happy to pay more in taxes if it means more solar panels for everyone except me. That's because you're rich like most people on HN. Environmental protection is a luxury good. This has been proven time and time again. A great reason to prioritize growth and wealth creation. Poor countries don't make those tradeoffs, they're worried about survival not what percentage of their ene…

Solar hardware is so affordable now that it's booming even in poorer countries. The most remarkable recent example is Pakistan, which has seen explosive growth of rooftop solar power, most of it receiving no government subsidies: Pakistan has imported almost 45 gigawatts worth of solar panels over the last five or six years, which is equal to the total capacity of its electricity grid. Almost 34 gigawatts have come i…

Yes it's awesome to see solar adoption without subsidies. Wonderful technology. Decentralized energy production is powerful.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#260

Post by coredev_ »

p0pularopinion wrote: post #70
coredev_ wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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…

Nuclear that was built a long time ago would probably have lowered the prices in DE right now, if they weren't shut down. I understand that building new ones right now makes little sense.
Post reply on HN