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

Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

seanobannon.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 187 posts

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#111

Post by kragen »

WalterBright wrote: post #102
_bin_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we cannot afford, geopolitically, to have a hostile rival nation with whom we may in the next decade be at war control our energy. There is no if, and, or but about that. Of course, most of said solar and battery tech was originally developed by Americans; chinese bought old patents, bought companies out of bankruptcy, and threw obscene amounts of state capital at developing it further. and now we're stuck wi…

Japan's entry into WW2 was the result of not controlling their oil needs. A large part of the German's military initiatives in WW2 were about obtaining access to oil, and the most successful Allied initiatives were about cutting off that oil.

Right! Which makes it, at best, pants-on-head crazy that current US trade policy is aimed at cutting off US access to, and domestic production of, energy, and promoting continued dependence on oil.

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#112

Post by epistasis »

cbsmith wrote: post #85
merely-unlikely wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some data: China's share of of electricity production from coal is at 60% as of 2023[1] compared to 16% for the US[2]. That's down from 80% in 2005. It currently generates 35% of its electricity from renewable sources as of 2023 compared to 41% in the US. The US has been replacing coal with gas - gas was 19% in 2005 and 42% in 2023. China first exceeded the US's annual carbon emissions in 2006 with both outputting ab…

> China's share of of electricity production from coal is at 60% as of 2023[1] compared to 16% for the US[2]. That's down from 80% in 2005. Yeah, but they're kind of leapfrogging from coal to clean energy. In 10 years, they are expected to be at 60% renewables.

And they don't have access to cheap natural gas so the financial incentive to switch to renewables is even stronger. Even more so given the inability of coal to flexibly produce power throughout the day, so cheaper renewables just completely kill the economic feasibility of coal.

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#113

Post by Calwestjobs »

HillRat wrote: post #39
buckle8017 wrote: post #16

The Texas grid was deregulated in an era where solar and wind were not price competitive. The price competitive producers were all stable fossil fuels, natural gas and coal. They failed to take into account unreliable low cost producers forcing reliable but marginally more expensive producers out of the market. If solar/wind producers had to guarantee power 24x7 at fixed rates the cost would vastly exceed natural gas…

During "snowmageddon" and similar winter outages fossil fuel shoulder load also broke down, since the dynamic pricing market doesn't pay to keep spinning capacity, and the plants couldn't start up, which is why the cost curves went berserk: the price pressure escalated to try and incentivize production, but the production wasn't to be had. (The JIT nature of Texas LNG logistics also played its part; some gas turbines…

build better houses,

and in process lower your household energy need

BY INCREASING comfort.

BREEAM / Passive house.... In passive house in norway (alaska of europe) you can be 3 days without electricity(or gas or any other heating medium) and in coldest of cold days you do not need to put sweater on, because it is still comfortable, heat is not escaping as fast.

so there is deregulation of market and there is not educated customer + educated regulation which bankrupts your company if you build trash like they mostly build in USA. so it is not only energy, there are other regulation not in sync with reality/human nature.

and by lowering your household energy needs(by increasing comfort), higher ratio of renewables can be used cheaply or even onsite/roof.

and your energy requirement can be manipulated more in time i.e. you can heat house few degrees more few days in advance. after you see on tv that next few days will be cloudy/stormy/ hurricane/frost... or just make app do that for you

or you can heat your hot water at noon where electricity prices are almost 0$

so less effort providing energy for household is, more effort can be put into providing energy for business

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#114

Post by kragen »

colechristensen wrote: post #79
kragen wrote: post #21

The most significant US regulations in the area aren't even mentioned in this article: the prohibitively high tariffs on Chinese solar modules and electric vehicles, which at least double the cost of solar panels and EVs in the US compared to much of the rest of the world. Current US elites grew up in the energy crisis that started with the Arab oil embargo of 01973 cutting off US energy imports, and they seem determ…

Regardless of tariffs, solar is still the cheapest energy source in the US and the fastest growing even in absolute terms. We shoudln't let China overproduce and dump excess solar productions in its own attempts to control the market. We're trying to not repeat the energy dependence on unfriendly foreign powers. We don't want the Chinese Solar Embargo of 2026.

It's not better to have a Self-Imposed Chinese Solar Embargo of 02012-02026. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43463872 for my thoughts on the implausible "dumping" story.

Promoting domestic PV panel production would be reasonable, but that's not what current US industrial policy is aimed at. Instead it's trying to resuscitate fossil fuels, like Tinkerbell, through sheer force of belief.

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#115

Post by asacrowflies »

kragen wrote: post #108
asacrowflies wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I am not confident that this comment promotes an atmosphere of curious inquiry based on a presumption of good faith.

Calling out a rather destructive take with just harsh NO is pretty high on the the hierarchy of disagreement. If you refer to the "bitch" statement that is quoting the person I replied to .... Their own comment seems heavily concerned with "being a bitch" which implies deep insecurity or trauma on their part .... Pretty typical maladaptive coping mechanism...

Are all these extra words to say the same thing I already did better for curiosity?

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#116

Post by _bin_ »

asacrowflies wrote: post #115
kragen wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not confident that this comment promotes an atmosphere of curious inquiry based on a presumption of good faith.

Calling out a rather destructive take with just harsh NO is pretty high on the the hierarchy of disagreement. If you refer to the "bitch" statement that is quoting the person I replied to .... Their own comment seems heavily concerned with "being a bitch" which implies deep insecurity or trauma on their part .... Pretty typical maladaptive coping mechanism... Are all these extra words to say the same thing I already…

It’s a crude term, sure, but sums up a potential future where total dependence for critical materials leads to one nation being able to do relatively whatever she wants while the other is stuck taking terms as given. If you’d prefer “highly disadvantaged diplomatic, economic, and security situation” I can say that, but this is an internet comment not a freaking Brookings Institute report.

Calling me an insane jingoist with no particular rationale isn’t really helpful. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe you are, but neither of us will ever learn which at that rate.

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#117

Post by piva00 »

dingnuts wrote: post #87
kragen wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually it signals that the person is opposed to US foreign policy because they consider it imperialist, but in this case it seems to signal that the person favors an explicitly imperialist foreign policy for the US. Horseshoe theory, I suppose.

no, the commentator is simply proposing actually responding to the imperialism of China by protecting US assets and national security instead of rolling over and taking it because of misguided principles about free trade and intellectual property that the CCP has undermined for forty years to arrive in a position where they can undercut us on price through human rights abuses. It is China that is imperialist and that…

> It is China that is imperialist and that has ruined the post cold war free trade world order. The US must respond or China will be the world hegemon.

The USA is the current imperial power, go ask us born in South America how it felt to listen to stories on dictatorships brought on by the imperialism of the USA; or societies having to bend for the spread of Reagan's economics cancer dismantling any semblance of social democracy to give into "The Third Way" which had to embrace the economic policies the USA wanted others to abide to.

At this exact moment, with the current American situation with a sick society electing a sick individual into power: yeah, I think I'd like to give a chance to China if Xi is out of power and someone like Deng Xiaoping or Hu Jintao is in control.

> intellectual property that the CCP has undermined for forty years to arrive in a position where they can undercut us on price through human rights abuses.

You should check out the stuff the USA outright stole to become the hegemony it is: jet propulsion, radar, atomic bomb developments, the Brits had to see it all get blatantly taken by the USA after needing help in WW2.

Edit: or even more relevant to contemporary times we live now, ask Canadians how they feel about the USA forcing their hand on Arrow Aviation, subsequently stealing their brains to build NASA Jet Propulsion Labs. Now they don't have a well developed Arrow to build jets when the USA turns over talking about annexation.

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#118

Post by merely-unlikely »

epistasis wrote: post #112
cbsmith wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China's share of of electricity production from coal is at 60% as of 2023[1] compared to 16% for the US[2]. That's down from 80% in 2005. Yeah, but they're kind of leapfrogging from coal to clean energy. In 10 years, they are expected to be at 60% renewables.

And they don't have access to cheap natural gas so the financial incentive to switch to renewables is even stronger. Even more so given the inability of coal to flexibly produce power throughout the day, so cheaper renewables just completely kill the economic feasibility of coal.

I think you have that flexibility backwards. Coal can be ramped up relatively quickly and operates in nearly all weather conditions, but wind and solar are at the whim nature. Unless you're only talking hydropower and nuclear power which China is also building, but those like coal have significant upfront capital investments and minimum scale.

Either way, the idea that coal is economically infeasible is contradicted by the fact that China is building huge amounts of it[1]. For China energy production is an "and" question, not an "or" question.

[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-construction-of-new-coal-...

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#119

Post by Calwestjobs »

throw9494999 wrote: post #25

In EU renewable are not competitive without strong regulations and subsidies. Distributors are forced to buy renewable at 5x the cost, and keep gas power plants at hot standby in case wind stops, or cloud comes. At the same time, long term investments into fossil fuels and atomic energy are forbidden! Saying "deregulated" energy markets drive solar, is another level of evil. It is logic that drove dependency on Russi…

well i understand what you want to say and yes you are correct.

but people seem to fall in trap of not thinking about user/customer.

if pv is so cheap that it can pay itself in 6-7 years, by customer lowering his draw from grid drastically most of the time, whole energy transition will not be so painful for other participants of market. wast majority of thinking is going to energy providers, not a lot of thinking is going to changing customers habits ( of which most energy intense can be automated and either spread out or concentrated towards time when energy is cheap - you know sun will be shining tomorrow or day after, renewables are not as unpredictable)

customers and provider can cooperate.

and so " In EU renewable are not competitive.." for whom? for energy providers ? Or for customer which can easily and cheaply lower his energy draw from grid by 70% most of year by installing solar pv hot water heater + heatpumpin for 7 months of cooling his house from pv? even before installing batteries? (just electric hot water heater)

Re: Deregulated energy markets accelerate solar adoption

#120

Post by Jtsummers »

_bin_ wrote: post #88
kragen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't afford to go to war with an industrialized nation whose energy is immensely cheaper than your own, nor with a nuclear-armed nation. Solar panels are different from oil in that their producers cannot turn them off, so importing them now would increase your energy security, not decrease it. For EVs the situation is more complex because of potential backdoors in firmware, but PV modules do not have any firmwar…

I think you are misguided because of a true belief in "the system". The problem is systems often fail to handle bad-faith actors who intentionally abuse them. Absent a higher system, we lack good means to address this. But the system is not a moral good and we don't owe it to anyone or anything to maintain arbitrary rules when our enemies are using them to hamstring us and threaten our citizens, liberties, and way of…

> We can't afford not to respond. If we are unwilling to go to war, we'd have to concede to being [C]hina's bitch, which is a worse option than war.

Current US foreign policy is a bit all over the place, but it's difficult to determine if the US is actually willing to go to war or not to defend its allies or even its own interests. There were the attacks on the Houthis, ok, but in order to facilitate that the US requires military bases outside the US territories proper. At the same time, the US is threatening to stop supporting allied nations, which means it's also threatening to close its bases outside the US and its territories (why would those nations host the bases if not in exchange for some degree of protection?). This will put the US in a position where it is unable to prosecute a war effectively.

This sends a signal that the present US government may not be willing to go to war. Of course, as with all things Trump this could all be bluster and provocation to see some desired action or response, we'll know more in a few months or so.

Post reply on HN