Live data from Hacker News

In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

e360.yale.edu

341–350 of 809 posts

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#341
post #214
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

Poland still has majority coal power production! It's one of last places you can possibly blame renewables for pricing.

prices in poland are dictated by coal. Coal got insanely expensive due to co2 taxes

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada isn't poor.

Agreed. But there are poor people in Canada, and forcing them to pay more money (and slightly lowering their own quality of life) so that wealthier Canadians can install solar panels is, at least, a debatable policy.

We have progressive tax rates in Canada which should offset this to some extent.

Also, you keep ignoring that the environment is a public good. Poor people in Canada will also be disproportionately impacted by bigger temperature extremes (heat waves, extreme cold), worse air quality, etc.)

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There is line that connects gov't subsidies in wealthy countries for the last 50 years funding private R&D to poorer countries being able to afford it. Arguably the poorer countries don't get to make the "decisions based on economic reality" in favor of solar without the subsidies in wealthy countries happening first. There is also an argument to be made that the R&D isn't finished and it still makes sense to subsidize it to drive the cost down further.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. But there are poor people in Canada, and forcing them to pay more money (and slightly lowering their own quality of life) so that wealthier Canadians can install solar panels is, at least, a debatable policy.

Does Canada not have progressive taxation? How do poor people pay more than rich people? To be clear, I don't think rooftop solar subsidies are the best use of government money either. Governments should subsidize utility-scale solar, EVs, efficient buildings, and mass transit. They should focus on cheaper and more efficient permitting, and better grids.

Canada should invest in Nuclear. Solar is far less efficient in Canada than somewhere like California - whether rooftop or utility-scale. The short winter days, low angle of incidence, and snow means that panels are basically non-operative for 3-4 months a year. This is a huge problem if you also want people to switch to efficient electric-powered heating in the form of heat pumps.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

even in 10y h2 is economically unviable. Check out Norway/Sweden, they got tons of ren. Are they some _cheap_ H2 generation meccas? There are some chances for other synth fuels but H2 is just a pipedream

Norway and Sweden have tones of renewable energy, but relatively little intermittent energy. If the economics of H2 ever work, it'll only ever work in a grid that's driven by intermittent energy sources (wind and solar). A hydro-driven grid does not need storage. Hell, if you have enough hydro, it can even be your storage. Not all of Europe has the geography to be able to cover their needs with just hydro.

H2 economics work if you have constant oversupply. If your electrolyzer works only 50% of the time and storing is expensive, transporting is expensive and roundtrip efficiency is abysmal, it'll still cost a ton. Higher chances to use just cheaper gas generation because even LNG is cheaper than H2 saga.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#346
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you get far higher ROI for the large-scale installations. In case you weren't familiar, Canada has a lot of other things which need the money than paying 5x per watt to subsidize panels on your roof instead of on the ground.

> Because you get far higher ROI for the large-scale installations. Right, but as always, ROI is hardly the most important thing in life, there is more considerations than just "makes more money". For example, as someone affected by a day long country-wide electricity outage where essentially the entire country was without electricity and internet for ~14 hours or something, decentralizing energy across the country s…

Grid-tied solar is fragile. If the grid is not nearly-perfect, it won't generate. It will not help society as a whole.

If you personally have battery backup, that helps you personally and you should pay for it, just like you might pay extra to turn up the heat while I keep it lower to save money.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#347

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. 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…

the only reason environmental protection could conceivably be considered a luxury (and not a necessity) is because certain sectors of the capital class refuse to convert their means of production away from generating waste and pollution. that's it. time and time again we see direct action by Chevron, BP, Shell, Exxon, ARAMCO et al to stifle change, refuse scientific evidence of the nature of their pollution, and attack anyone who comes anywhere near impacting their bottom line. look at Steven Donzinger if you need proof of this.

this is not a matter of some fictional invisible hand. these are decisions made by real people who do not care about you, society, the health of the environment or the people who inhabit it. stop carrying their water.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#348
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, and people should be annoyed by this So you do not use busses,taxi or road travel? do you fly all the time? Do you have stuff delivered by truck/cars or only by air? What about shopping? do you think the items you buy or the things needed to make those items use roads ? In a perfect extremist capitalist word there would be a road tax included in the products and services so you would still pay the text for the…

Trucks are responsible for 99% of road damage and only pay 38% of the costs. https://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-indu... Yes, the costs should be apportioned to those who are making them. If the bus causes the most road damage, then it should be charged. Then it'll make financial sense to invest in rail. Financial incentives are how capitalism works and the purpose of governments under capitalism…

Should cyclists be charged a special tax for bike lane construction and maintenance? What about sidewalks, should you need a pedestrian pass?

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#349
post #26
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not always a no-brainer. If you live in a good established neighborhood in a warmer climate you'd have to remove tree coverage. Even if you did that, it's the other guys not oil or gas that will make it a hassle.

Houses where the roof is completely in the shade from trees? That's not a very common sight.

Depends on the city. Here in Atlanta we are a "city in a forest" and for older neighborhoods with mature trees it's more common than not.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#350

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…

The Greener Homes Grant and Greener Homes Loan you describe have ended, but the 160% tarrif on imported solar panels remains. Solar prices in Canada are still quite expensive, and regulations are needlessly strict. Solar fencing is illegal in many jurisdictions, balcony solar is illegal everywhere, and utility-scale solar is effectively prohibited in the regions with the most sunlight. Solar production in Canada will…

I’m wondering out loud if you might be able to purchase what would essentially be the component parts of a solar panel but deconstructed (eg frame, cells, glass, wires; maybe the cells need further deconstructing) and do final assembly in Canada such that the final panel meets criteria to be “built locally”, potentially built of local and imported parts.

Surely local manufacturers don’t use 100% Canadian made parts.

Post reply on HN