366
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 75 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Here in Belgium there used to be big government subsidies for solar panels 5-10 ago.

Now the same wattage battery + solar setup without any government subsidies is a good chunk cheaper than that time with the large subsidies.

Pretty cool and shows the power of government renewables subsidies. A huge percentage of houses in Belgium have solar panels now.(and electricity still costs 0.30€/kWh average because of fossil fuel energy lobbies)

Now that there is a local industry around it, most renovations and almost all new builds include them.

[-] sirboozebum@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

4 million households in Australia have solar panels.

They are great value.

[-] Akasazh@feddit.nl 13 points 1 week ago

As your northern neighbors. We did subsidize it too, but now the privatized energy companies started whining that there wasn't enough capacity, so now they charge you for creating free energy

[-] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 9 points 1 week ago

Yes I'm considering buying a high power laser so I can send the energy back into space instead of paying the power companies for the privilege of giving them electricity.

[-] Akasazh@feddit.nl 8 points 1 week ago

Great idea! Some inspiration right here :

https://what-if.xkcd.com/13/

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 1 week ago

I'm fairly sure that all newly built houses in the UK require solar by law.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 points 1 week ago

All the new houses around here with no solar would indicate that is not true. They're not even required to have a south facing roof.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

Solar has always an extremely high ratio for megawatt per mass unit.

This price is really good

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

Just have to buy 1100 panels 😋 but then the price is 0.055€/watt ...

I Want one, but only one or a couple, to put on my balcony...

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

These are topcon modules only. Considering a 400W panel will have about 72 modules in it, that's only about 15 panels worth. Of course, then you have to actually build the panel and connect the modules, put it behind glass inside a frame, then put in a bypass diode and leads for connection. So an actual panel ends up being about 5-10X the cost of the modules per W.

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

You can pay a lot less than 10x for completed panels. https://store.santansolar.com/ amazed me.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 16 points 1 week ago

$60k per MW or $210M for a nuclear reactors worth (3.5GW). Sure... the reactor will go 24/7 (between maintenance and refuelling down times, and will use less land (1.75km² Vs ~40km²) but at 1% of the cost, why are we still talking about nuclear.

(I'm using the UKs Hinckley Point C power station as reference)

[-] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago

but at 1% of the cost, why are we still talking about nuclear

Sure... the reactor will go 24/7 (between maintenance and refuelling down times, and will use less land

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 6 points 1 week ago

The land thing isn't anywhere near enough of a concern for me, especially when dual uses of land are quite feasible.

24/7 is just about over commissioning and having storage. Build 10x as much and store what you generate. At those sorts of levels even an overcast day generates.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Benaaasaaas@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Because there are nights there are winters there are cloudy and rainy days, and there are no batteries capable of balancing all of these issues. Also when you account for those batteries the cost is going to shift a bit. So we need to invest in nuclear and renewables and batteries. So we can start getting rid of coal and gas plants.

[-] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Also when you account for those batteries the cost is going to shift a bit.

You better be bringing units if you're going to be claiming this.

Still less than half of the LCOE of nuclear when storage is added: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1475611/global-levelized-cost-of-energy-components-by-technology/

Given that both solar and storage costs are trending downwards while nuclear is not, this basically kills any argument for nuclear in the future. It's not viable on its face - renewables + storage is the definitive future.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] suzune@ani.social 18 points 1 week ago

But Germany has no space for nuclear waste. They haven't been able to bury the last batch for over 30 years. And the one that they buried most recently began to leak radioactivity into ground water.

And.. why give Russia more military target opportunities?

[-] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 week ago

I'm not a rabid anti-nuclear, but there are somethings that are often left out of the pricing. One is the exorbitant price of storage of spent fuel although I seem to remember that there is some nuclear tech that can use nuclear waste as at least part of it's fuel (Molten salt? Pebble? maybe an expert can chime in). There is also the human greed factor. Fukushima happened because they built the walls to the highest recorded tsunami in the area, to save on concrete. A lot of civil engineering projects have a 150% overprovision over the worst case calculations. Fukushima? just for the worst case recorded, moronic corporate greed. The human factor tends to be the biggest danger here.

load more comments (3 replies)

If France can find space, surely Germany can.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 11 points 1 week ago

You're using factors of less than 10 to argue against a factor of 100.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I think there's a contingent of people who think nuclear is really, really cool. And it is cool. Splitting atoms to make power is undeniably awesome. That doesn't make it sensible, though, and they don't separate those two thoughts in their mind. Their solution is to double down on talking points designed for use against Greenpeace in the 90s rather than absorbing new information that changes the landscape.

And then there's a second group that isn't even trying to argue in good faith. They "support" nuclear knowing it won't go anywhere because it keeps fossil fuels in place.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What isn't sensible about nuclear? For context, I'm coming from the US in an area with lots of empty space (i.e. tons of place to store radioactive waste) and without much in the way of hydro (I'm in Utah, a mountainous, desert climate). We get plenty of sun as well as plenty of snow. Nuclear should provide power at night and throughout the winter, and since ~89% of homes are heated with natural gas, we only need higher electricity production in the summer when it's hot, which is precisely what solar is great for.

So here's my thought process:

  • nuclear for base load demand to cover nighttime power needs, as well as the small percentage of homes using electricity for heat
  • solar for summer spikes in energy usage for cooling
  • batteries for any excess solar/nuclear generation

If we had a nuclear plant in my area, we could replace our coal plants, as well as some of our natural gas plants. If we go with solar, I don't think we have great options for electricity storage throughout the winter.

This is obviously different in the EU, but surely the nordic countries have similar problems as we do here, so why isn't nuclear more prevalent there?

[-] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 week ago

Because it makes no sense, environmentally or economically speaking. Nuclear is, as you said, base load. It can't adjust for spikes in demand. So if there's more energy in the grid than needed, it's gonna be solar and wind that gets turned off to balance the grid. Investments in nuclear thus slow down the adoption of renewables.

Solar is orders of magnitude cheaper to build, while nuclear is one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity, even discounting the waste storage, which gets delegated the the public.

Battery technology has been making massive gains in scalability and cost in recent years. What we need is battery arrays to cover nighttime demand and spikes in production or demand, combined with a more adaptive industry that performs energy intensive tasks when it's abundant. With countries that have large amounts of solar, it is already happening that during peak production, energy cost goes to zero (or even negative, as traded between utilities companies).

About the heating: gas can not stay the main way to heat homes, it's yet another fossil fuel. What we need is heat pumps, which can have an efficiency of >300% (1kWh electricity gets turned into 3kWh of heat, by taking ambient heat from outside). Combined with large, well-insulated warm-water reservoirs, you can heat up more water than you need to higher temperature during times of electricity oversupply, and have more than enough to last you the night, without even involving batteries. Warm water is an amazing energy storage medium. Batteries cover electricity demand as well as a backup in case you need uncharacteristically much water. This is a system that's slowly getting adopted in Europe, and it's great. Much cheaper, and 100% clean.

[-] xthexder@l.sw0.com 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You bring up heated water as a method of storage, and it reminds me of a neighborhood in Alberta, Canada that uses geothermal + solar heated water storage for 52 homes. They've been able to successfully heat the entire neighborhood with only solar over the winter in 2015-2016 and have gotten > 90% solar heating in other years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Landing_Solar_Community

There's a huge number of new storage technologies being developed, and the fact that some even work on a seasonal basis for long term storage is amazing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

A MW of solar averages out to about .2 MWh per hour. A MW of nuclear averages about .9 MWh per hour.

But even so as the UK does it, nuclear power isn't worth it. France and China are better examples since they both picked a few designs and mass produced them.

China's experience indicates you can mass produce nuclear relatively cheaply and quickly, having built 35 out of 57GW in the last decade, and another 88GW on the way, however it's not nearly as quick to expand as solar, wind, and fossil fuels.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
[-] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 12 points 1 week ago

Theyre $1.25 per watt in south America right now (we have an energy crisis due to climate change caused drought)

[-] Vendul@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

It’s kinda good but it completely destroyed the European manufacturing for solar

[-] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 week ago

When panels were 30c/watt, projects at $1/watt in EU and US happened. 70c/watt was spent on labour, copper, support structures, and grid connection equipment. All of those can be locally produced, with possible exception of last item.

At 6c/watt, that is over 90% of power projects are local economy boosting instead of 70%. It provides cheaper energy that is useful for industrialization and cost of living benefits too. US tariffs on solar are entirely about protecting oil/gas extortion power instead of a $10B solar production industry that needs fairly expensive support.

Solar imports does not cause energy dependence. You have power for 30+ years with no reliance on continuous fuel supplies. Shoes and apparel is a $450B industry in US. You need new supplies every year, and it makes much more sense to secure supply in that industry for war on the world purposes.

[-] Allero@lemmy.today 17 points 1 week ago

It is good, period.

Local manufacturing is politically advantageous and may employ some people at the same time, but that's where benefits end.

Europe didn't reject Chinese face masks during COVID-19, and Europe shouldn't reject Chinese solar during a climate emergency.

Solve that first, and political struggles later.

[-] nexusband@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's not only a political struggle. Working conditions are tremendously better in Europe, Environmental Protection as well. Manufacturing photovoltaics takes a huge pile of chemicals that need to be handled properly to not cause any harm to the environment - China neither cares nor has any other incentives to actually do this properly, which is exactly why they are so cheap. Theres also the issue of poor quality, that if you're manufacturing something that can have a significant impact on the environment, it should "count" and not be waste 10 years later.

Not only that, China's subsidies are utterly unfair.

Destroying the environment in one part of the world to "save" a different one due to climate change is just ridiculously stupid and simple minded.

[-] Allero@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I see where you're coming with that, and in principle, some of the points you make I would clearly share under different circumstances.

But to me, even with the side effects, rapid rollout of green tech (even if its production is not kept to the best standard) beats slow incremental growth with good standards in place, given the urgency with which world requires it. After all, even poorly produced Chinese options very much do offset their footprint compared to the alternatives.

There are some points for concern, such as the use of lithium ion batteries, for example, but Chinese companies also think ahead and implement alternative options - in case of batteries, they increasingly work with sodium-ion instead.

As per "unfair" subsidies - I'd rather urge all countries to go all in and compete on those, rather than complain about those who implemented them. Subsidies for green tech are essential to secure our future, they boost the green industry and expedite its expansion, and they should only be seen as a good, not the evil.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yep the EU will be beholden to a dictatorial regime again. Instead of placating Putin for gas it will be Xi for solar panels and batteries.

At least those items you only need to buy once.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

By providing big subsidies to green energy developement. Something the EU could also have done but refused to. And so they lost their entire lead.

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

You’re either an astroturfer or useful idiot spreading oil lobby talking points.

Either you believe the climate science or you don’t. If you do, you know that we don’t have time for industry protectionism.

[-] Allero@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago

Do not assume bad faith over anything you disagree with.

While I disagree with the original statement, hostility never changed anyone's mind.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Venicon@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Good news perhaps but I’m sure I won’t see any benefit in Scotland, still thousands to add solar panels.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 12 points 1 week ago

Scotland has really good wind power, anyway. Between that, nuclear, and a few other renewable sources, you guys are down to 10% fossil fuel energy use. So don't worry about solar.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Apathy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Assuming these prices are ideal for a solar grid, which EU country(s) would have the highest chance of shifting towards solar; I wonder

[-] mholiv@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Probably all of them. Germany is really not ideal for solar in terms of weather, yet they are installed by many people all over the place, even today. With the cheaper prices things will get even better.

Germany is already over 50% renewable. :)

https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Energy/Production/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
366 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

59674 readers
1980 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS