In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

Post by mekdoonggi » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 6:46 PM UTC

doublerabbit wrote: post #141

mekdoonggi wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick search says the UK produced 18,314 GWh of solar last year. And this was mostly funded by private investment? It seems like for some infrastructure investment, the government is getting long-term renewable power. If the solar isn't making money, why is it growing 30% annually? What is stupid about nuclear? It's a huge amount of clean, secure energy. Would your preference be dependence on Russian/US oil natural…

> What is stupid about nuclear? It's a huge amount of clean, secure energy. It's not the stupidly of the reactor producing. I don't agree with it personally, but hey whatever, it's a thing. The stupidly of it is that we are small island. Claim what you wish about how safe they are but like anything: errors and malfunctions. Cyber sabotage and all that. If an reactor were to implode we're eff'd. We don't have landmass…

Post by eigenspace » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 6:53 PM UTC

Moldoteck wrote: post #345

eigenspace wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by ndsipa_pomu » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 6:53 PM UTC

coryrc wrote: post #277

simion314 wrote: post #191

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…

Post by nuancebydefault » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 6:57 PM UTC

SamPatt wrote: post #317

triceratops wrote: post #271

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.

Post by Moldoteck » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 6:59 PM UTC

eigenspace wrote: post #353

Moldoteck wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not a constant oversupply because then you'd never need the hydrogen in the first place. H2 economics (if they ever work) will work in a place where there's a seasonal gradient in energy production that's over too long a time horizon for batteries.