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

IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first

electrek.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 140 posts

Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first

#61

Post by gregwebs »

These reports are inferring a lot from 1 year trends that are often changing only around 1%. Certainly it is great if new energy is coming mostly from cleaner sources, but the idea that we are actually getting rid of the non clean sources is something we should be skeptical of.

This graph shows all energy usage over time: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy

New energy sources have always been additive. We have never gotten rid of an energy source unless we exhausted the resource or it got prohibitively expensive (whale blubber having a population collapse). Coal is far more polluting then any other fuel source and globally we aren't reducing its usage. This graph is not updated for 2026, but I doubt the message will change much.

As we now undergo a worldwide population decline things might change. But at the same time we are also introducing energy intensive technologies: AI and robots, so there is no clear end in sight to increased energy consumption yet.

Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first

#63

Post by deaux »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #59
deaux wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trump's stated goal of regime change in Iran would (likely) have been a positive outcome if it has actually happened The number of Americans still believing this is baffling and saya everything about their history education. "The previous 20 times we forced regime change ended up a net negative for the people in those countries, but surely this time it would've been different!".

> previous 20 times we forced regime change ended up a net negative Plenty of counter-examples, too. WWII. South Korea. Potentially Venezuela, mostly because we constrained our objectives. I also don’t think it’s fair to constrain OP’s statement to “the people in those countries.” Regional impacts matter, too. An Iran that isn’t funding terrorist proxies everywhere could still be a net positive even if the average Ir…

> Plenty of counter-examples, too. WWII. South Korea.

To even hint at those being in the same category of "regime change attempt" as Iran (2x), Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Congo is really desperate. Come on now. Not comparable and irrelevant.

Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first

#64

Post by pfdietz »

marcosdumay wrote: post #54
meibo wrote: post #3

Maybe "accidentally killing fossil fuels" will be DT's singular good deed

The man is an overachiever. He is in the process of killing the rise of neonazism, exposing those religious extremists that want constant wars on the Middle East, creating a multipolar world commerce chamber, turning the EU into a federation, popularizing socialism (and even outright communism) in the US, dismantling the US's foreign government overthrowing apparatus, creating actual diplomatic relations between the…

He's also making the case for radical downsizing of the US military, since he's shown the military's take that it won't obey illegal orders was a sham.

Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first

#65

Post by pfdietz »

stavros wrote: post #21
fxwin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think that's why they used the word "accidentally"

Let me rephrase: You can't really attribute to someone something they did accidentally while trying to do the opposite.

We can, but ironically.

Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first

#66

Post by JumpCrisscross »

deaux wrote: post #63
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> previous 20 times we forced regime change ended up a net negative Plenty of counter-examples, too. WWII. South Korea. Potentially Venezuela, mostly because we constrained our objectives. I also don’t think it’s fair to constrain OP’s statement to “the people in those countries.” Regional impacts matter, too. An Iran that isn’t funding terrorist proxies everywhere could still be a net positive even if the average Ir…

> Plenty of counter-examples, too. WWII. South Korea. To even hint at those being in the same category of "regime change attempt" as Iran (2x), Chile, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Congo is really desperate. Come on now. Not comparable and irrelevant.

> the same category of "regime change attempt" as Iran (2x), Chile, Iraq

…why are Japan and Germany not comparable to Iraq? We’re talking methods and outcomes, not motivations. All involved a wholesale invasion, occupation and supervised restructuring followed by disarmament.

Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first

#67

Post by pfdietz »

XorNot wrote: post #44
childintime wrote: post #18

> And nuclear is making a comeback: More than 12 GW of new reactors began construction in 2025 By the time they are ready they will have contributed so many carbon emissions, that they'll have to run for 25% of their expected life span to get them back. But by the time they are commissioned (~2036), solar + battery + solar-made hydrocarbons will have made them uneconomic, and solar would have made far fewer emissions…

Solar made hydrocarbons are never going to be economical. Confident predictions of the inevitability of renewable diesel at $3 a liter don't add up because diesel is $3 a liter right now . I am literally paying that at the pump. I will actually happily pay more then that if the diesel were actually renewable, but instead it doesn't exist.

I expect in a post-fossil age we'll get organic chemical feedstocks from biomass, and non-biomass solar will help with that by providing hydrogen for hydrodeoxygenation. That will roughly double the hydrocarbons one can get from a given quantity of carbohydrate. Biomass here will also include waste stream organic matter.

Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first

#68

Post by locallost »

gregwebs wrote: post #61

These reports are inferring a lot from 1 year trends that are often changing only around 1%. Certainly it is great if new energy is coming mostly from cleaner sources, but the idea that we are actually getting rid of the non clean sources is something we should be skeptical of. This graph shows all energy usage over time: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy New energy sources have always been add…

While your statement is true your graph is misleading for two reasons.

1) comparison of spent energy for fossil fuels vs electricity is not a good way to do it because electric motors use less for the same output. Compare kWh per 100km for an ICE car and EV. Electrification will lead to a drop simply because of this

2) the graph is global, we have seen energy consumption go down in the developed world. E.g. the EU now uses less electricity than 20 years ago.

Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first

#69

Post by dv_dt »

red75prime wrote: post #46
xbmcuser wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost is no longer the barrier as today even the upfront cost of solar is competitive against upfront cost for building coal or gas power plant. While there is no cost of fuel for solar. In China and India even solar + battery is cheaper than new coal power plants.

A recent Danish research[1] found that the cheapest energy mix (that includes system costs like energy storage) right now for them is offshore wind power (66%), natural gas CCGT (26%), and solar PV (8%). Solar panels are cheap, but their system cost is the highest. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...

I presume that this paper assumes some form of stable costs for natural gas... what happens when that stability is soundly invalidated?

Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first

#70

Post by deaux »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #43
deaux wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No chance, fossil fuels are subsidized more. A large share of solar growth is from countries like Pakistan who have had some subsidies but total dollar amount of them is trivial.

Got source? China only ended solar panel export subsidy this month.

Pricing fossil fuel pollution at zero is the biggest subsidy in the world bar none. Contrast this with for example nuclear power, where potential pollution risks as well as storage of its spent resources are some of the biggest costs. If they were subsidized equally to fossil fuels, the costs of those would be very low, with the public simply paying the price for any negative health effects.

Oil is directly subsidized in most oil producing countries. Go look at what fuel costs in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, vs what they could sell it for on international markets. That's a subsidy.

Jet fuel is universally exempt from tax. Try finding any other energy source that is.

Post reply on HN