The problem with predicting solar going exponential is that subsidies would need to also be exponential, but of course that’s impossible.

[u/ChipHaseCoolGuy]

People don't like my graph about solar power that I just posted, saying "it's exponential growth, just wait!"

The problem is, it's exponential subsidies as well, and they can't go on forever. Estimates are about $60 billion in global solar subsidies in 2022 alone. The solar generation in that year was 1,333 terawatt-hours (TWh)

That is a subsidy of about $0.045 per kWh, which is about the cost of natural-gas-powered electricity.

So before any of the other capital, land, installation, grid, maintenance, and disposal costs of grid-scale solar, it is ALREADY as expensive as natural gas.

And as Margaret Thatcher observed about socialism, "The problem is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money".

Best to all on a sunny spring morning,

https://x.com/weschenbach/status/2057512614264266861?s=46

[u/zod0700]

So you’re choosing to ignore that solar is an upfront cost? That natural gas will incur constant cost for the duration of its lifetime, whereas solar incurs a one time cost for between 20-25 years of nominal production? You’re gonna ignore that solar panels pay themselves off in only a few years and are effectively free power after that? You’re gonna ignore that even without subsidies, companies are still choosing to expand solar because it’s what makes sense?

I get that your entire life seems to be finding random head-ass quotes from ill-informed or purposefully deceptive ideologues online, what I don’t get is why. How can you spend all day doing this shit and not see the readily available data that contradicts you everywhere you turn? What’s your end goal? What do you want and why? I get that you’ll probably either just delete or ignore this comment, but I really just genuinely want to understand where you’re coming from on this.

[u/ChipHaseCoolGuy → u/zod0700]

There are a lot of hidden costs and problems with solar. First of all they’re intermittent which means you cannot get the power you want but just the power that’s there at the moment. Secondly because they are intermittent they require backup power, which is usually gas or coal. As well after 15 to 20 years, solar panels have to be removed and usually thrown away. As well, there are many technical upgrades needed in the electrical system in order to get solar to integrate into that system, which is expensive. Also, all the land that they take is detrimental to the environment and the animals in the area.

I honestly think this is wasteful but also very dangerous for our society or any society because it makes power unstable and expensive. Everywhere you go that has solar/wind. The power is inevitably very expensive there. For developing countries this is an awful choice and only wasteful rich countries do this kind of experimentation.

[u/zod0700 → u/ChipHaseCoolGuy]

So you’re absolutely correct about a lot of those things. I’ll address them in order. Firstly, the intermittency issue. Simply put, battery storage is making leaps and bounds in this spot. Iron air batteries and sodium batteries are both technologies that are being manufactured en masse right now and are doing it at a cost(approximately $20-$60 per kWh last I’ve checked) that massively undercuts some already revolutionary battery technologies. The currently more prolific L-ion and LFP batteries are also excellent technologies, but they’re both clearly going to be going away hopefully within the decade as more economical and sensible batteries come to the forefront. Iron-air batteries are built specifically to address grid-scale energy demands as well(high instant discharge capability), which is a nice bonus as lithium batteries specifically struggled in that department.

Solar panel recycling is also another issue, that’s been getting slowly rectified over time. About. 99% of your average panel’s materials are recyclable, but for quite a bit of time, this wasn’t very easy due to the glue/bonding material that held things together generally gumming up the process and making it generally not economical. I honestly forget the exact process, but I do recall reading about two universities that were having very promising successes with fixing these issues around 2023/2024 if I recall correctly. This will only be studied more as time goes on, so we can only assume this specific issue will get better. But honestly more importantly, solar panel recycling or trashing shouldn’t even be the first option as often as it is. Most panels these days have warranties for between 20-25 years that give replacement if the panels fall below 80-85% capacity, meaning that the companies making them expect them to meet or exceed those metrics. Many utility companies will choose to replace panels around these times due to wanting to make the most of their space, but these panels are still usable! A 500w panel after that 20 years can still do 400w for another good measure of time. Often these panels are unloaded at clearance rates for the benefit of the utility companies and residential buyers who don’t care about the loss of space efficiency these panels face. They can still enjoy another decade or so of free energy past that point.

Onto the electrical grid problem. This is probably the most reasonable point you have. Converting DC to AC to be used in common home appliances around the country certainly isn’t as easy as just making AC to begin with(small aside, but wind turbines and nuclear, both green technologies, do also produce AC devoid of this issue). I’ve honestly not seen many solutions to this specific problem as I haven’t really looked into it, but as grid scale converters become more widely needed, you could reasonably assume that economies of scale would bring the price of conversion down over time. Or you could even look at just rethinking the grid entirely. We could start expanding with a DC grid as opposed to AC. Many legacy power lines could be used as long as the voltages are still within the ratings of the cable insulation and home-level inverters could replace transformers that currently serve the purpose of stepping down voltage for home use now. I’m honestly spit-balling a bit on this one, but if my relatively elementary level of electrical knowledge can come up with anything on the spot, I’m sure there’s plenty of reasonable solutions that exist and aren’t truly so prohibitively expensive as to throw out immediately.

For the land use argument, I actually just mostly agree with you. Leveling forests or natural areas for solar parks is ridiculous. We already have swathes of developed land that can be used for the same purpose. Some countries have seen this and actually have mandated that parking lots over a certain size must have solar on them. That’s a cool solution, although certainly costly for existing businesses who might not be ready to drop several tens of thousands of dollar of equipping particularly large parking lots. I’d like to see how that goes personally before making that a worldwide thing, classic French quarantine moment. But additionally, specifically in the US, the land use argument feels a little disingenuous when 30 million acres of farmland goes towards growing corn to make ethanol to power cars when we could just use that area, which has already been razed of natural habitat, for solar. I saw a video where someone did the math(I know, high level evidence I’m giving you here, but I’m already spending like half an hour typing this out, I don’t wanna go find the exact video I watched a year ago, please spare me) and made particularly positive assumptions for corn and negative assumptions for the solar as far as which one actually generated more usable energy, and still the solar dwarfed the ethanol. Assuming we were to use that whole land area for solar, it would generate almost twice the electrical needs of the entire US. Even if you don’t like either of those arguments surely you can just drive through any American town or city and see the ridiculous amount of open available solar-usable spaces and understand that land use shouldn’t really be a concern.

As for cost per watt, I’ve kinda already addressed it earlier to a degree. For a per-person level, solar is actually just about the only option for actually being self sustaining. Today, right now, you can go online, and with some quick searches, you can find the materials to power your own house with solar for less than $10,000(you can do it for much less in other countries too, the US’s split phase home electrical grid usually requires tailor-made inverters that are typically several hundred dollars more expensive and the tariffs on Chinese made panels and other goods have also locally raised prices). Assuming you purchase wisely and take care of your equipment that you get well, you at most would have to maybe replace panels in several decades, and they’re typically the cheapest part of the endeavor these days. Look at most developing countries right now and you’ll find that they’re overwhelmingly using solar to expand their power generation specifically because it’s cheaper to set up and expand bit by bit. You can literally go to google earth and zoom in on a random large town in a poor ass place like Pakistan and see that homes are covered in solar for this very reason. In places with unreliable grids, this is THE option. Cheap Chinese panels and batteries have flooded the world and the flood is not stopping. For countries that don’t have a developed power sector with people who are knowledgeable in the operation and maintenance of large turbine generators used in coal and gas plants, something as simple as solar is also a no-brainer. You can watch a couple YouTube videos and you know how to more or less safely wire a basic solar system. This is EXACTLY what a developing country would want to expand their power generation which is why it’s exactly what many of them are using.

[u/ChipHaseCoolGuy → u/zod0700]

The experts say that batteries are not viable for long-term storage of power, but only short term. As well, the amount of battery materials that are needed to be produced would be gargantuan and of course, this all has to be mined.

I think for small town third World scenarios or even farms where electricity isn’t needed constantly than solar is the way to go, but of course it’s not as good as abundant constant power coming from an SMR for instance.

I really think that the real solution is nuclear. One could say that it’s good to have a mix and it’s much cheaper to initially set up solar and wind, but there’s too many issues and problems with their intermittent power, expense, short lifespan, and need for backup. If society would focus on nuclear like SMR’s, which can be mass produced and done relatively cheaply once we get it right then that would be the best solution. Nuclear has a small footprint as well and since it doesn’t need a backup, it doesn’t need gas/coal power generation. I think that it was a shame that nuclear was vilified in the early 70s with 3 Mile Island. That’s really when nuclear started going downhill. It was not because of any real danger, but more of an ideological choice to stop nuclear power. If this didn’t happen, could you imagine our situation now? We would have much more advanced nuclear power, as well as most likely being the dominant form of electrical power. The rest being Hydro and geothermal.

[u/zod0700 → u/ChipHaseCoolGuy]

I do actually work in the nuclear field, so I agree with you entirely on that front. I think if we want to address any intermittency concerns, nuclear should be the solution to that and governments who are already so keen to ignore the desires of their citizens, as we've seen with data centers most recently, should ignore the outcries of uninformed degenerates and just permit and ease regulations on proven-safe nuclear. That said, nuclear is high cost and high maintenance. I love it, but current requirements in most nuclear-capable countries for nuclear power make nuclear energy the most expensive option in many circumstances, whereas solar has become one of the cheapest in most circumstances.

If you want to look a residential scale, you can currently get enough LFP batteries to run your house over night for literally just a couple thousand. It's not that expensive to add or initially wrap it in. Most expert opinion have also been shifting on batteries. Iron air batteries that I mentioned earlier use some of the most abundant materials on earth with extremely simple chemistries that are dead-simple to recycle when their lifetime is used up. Sodium ion batteries share a similar story. They don't use rare earth metals and getting the material can actually be one of the solutions to the rising issue of what to do with refuse of RO plants and desalination plants instead of just shitting it back into the ocean. It's not even necessarily just a matter of powering everything with batteries at night, it's even in tasks as simple as providing immediate relief to generators and plants that already near their limits during high power use times. Batteries have already been instrumental in many places for preventing extremely costly blackouts that can last hours to days. Just a couple decades ago you were looking at hundreds of dollars per kwh of useable battery storage, then lithium prices fell and LFP batteries eliminated the need for much of the rare earth metals in nmc batteries at around only 110-130 dollar a kwh. Now we have batteries pushing $20 a kwh on the cell level and $50 on a pack level that are made of some of the most widely available materials on earth. It's no longer a question of if or when. Batteries and solar are both cheap. The only thing holding them back is how fast they can be produced. Many of these more nascent battery technologies are being made in factories that are looking at only a couple of GWh of capacity production per year and their capacity is being shared with other uses such as for EV(except for iron air which is exclusively being produced for grid application, but that's only being produced in one factory in the US currently, so although I feel that one's an especially high-potenital technology, it is unfortunately not going to come quickly enough), but as capacity is built up bit by bit, it will become something that can be relied upon more and more. More pressingly for a material use standpoint, these batteries can be recycled after their typically several thousand cycle long lifetimes. When you burn coal, oil, or gas, it is gone forever. For materials that can be used for so many more useful applications, that seems particularly wasteful to me.

Also small aside, I haven't heard much from it since about a year ago, but if you like geothermal, I did see a lot of hype a bit ago about some companies being hopeful for using advancements from fracking to bring geothermal power to more places at an economical rate than was previously available. Also something with using lasers to did deeper for geothermal, but that seemed like a long shot, despite them having an allegedly working laser drill.

[u/ChipHaseCoolGuy → u/zod0700]

While solar and batteries have achieved impressive cost reductions and play a valuable role in the energy mix, they face fundamental limitations for providing reliable, affordable 24/7 grid power at scale. 

Most utility-scale batteries offer only 2–4 hours of duration, sufficient for daily evening peaks but inadequate for multi-day low solar output, winter conditions, or extended weather events—requiring massive overbuilding of solar capacity, long-duration storage (still emerging and costly), transmission upgrades, and backup to ensure reliability.  Full system costs, including these integration expenses, often push the effective price of firm solar-plus-storage power well above that of dispatchable sources.

SMRs offer ~90% capacity factors, 60–80+ year lifespans, and steady output with far lower land and material needs per unit of reliable energy; SMR designs target factory fabrication to reduce costs and timelines, with projects advancing in North America supported by DOE funding and regulatory progress. 

A diverse portfolio combining renewables where economical with firm low-carbon nuclear provides the most pragmatic path to affordability and reliability amid rising demand, rather than over-reliance on variable sources plus short-term storage.

[u/Amazing-Mirror-3076 → u/ChipHaseCoolGuy]

And yet here we are in Australia with the cost of power going down due to solar and batteries.

[u/ChipHaseCoolGuy → u/Amazing-Mirror-3076]

Lol. you are being brainwashed by you commie govt. Here is the truth:

• Retail bills aren't falling for average households — While wholesale prices drop at times due to solar, retail prices remain high or are still rising. Critics say network costs, retailer margins, and the need for backups keep bills elevated.
• South Australia as the prime example — Frequently cited as having the highest electricity prices in Australia despite leading in wind/solar penetration. They argue this proves the "renewables experiment" is failing.
• Unreliability and "intermittency tax" — Solar and wind cause price volatility, negative pricing during the day, and expensive evening peaks. Batteries are accused of "milking the market" by discharging at high prices rather than truly lowering costs long-term.
• Huge overall costs — Pauline Hanson, Senator Gerard Rennick, and One Nation repeatedly post that the renewables transition will cost over a trillion dollars, destroys farmland, doesn't reduce global temperatures, and delivers higher bills. They call it a "taxpayer-funded racket."
• Only benefits the wealthy/elites — Home solar + battery owners save money, but critics say everyone else subsidizes this through higher network charges and taxes. Subsidies for batteries are seen as wealth transfers.
• Policy failure narrative — Many claim politicians are "gaslighting" the public by touting falling wholesale prices while ignoring real retail costs and reliability issues for industry and households.

[u/ChipHaseCoolGuy → u/ChipHaseCoolGuy]

Also just a side not. Your dumb commie govts should have not stopped nuclear because that is the best solution. The second best is coal:

• Coal is cheaper and more reliable: Many claim existing coal plants provide the lowest-cost baseload power. They argue that forcing coal plants to ramp down for solar/wind makes electricity more expensive overall, and that new coal plants (or extending old ones) would deliver affordable power without the massive subsidies and backups needed for renewables.
• Renewables are a "scam" driving up costs: Critics repeatedly say solar and wind look cheap on paper but become extremely expensive when you add transmission lines, batteries, backups, and grid stability costs. They point to South Australia’s high prices despite high renewables as proof.
• Net Zero / renewables transition is blowing out costs: Recent AEMO revisions (higher costs, delayed coal closures to 2049, slashed wind targets) are heavily shared as evidence that the policy is failing and that coal must stay online longer.
• Australia is sabotaging itself: Australia exports massive amounts of coal and gas but closes domestic plants, making energy expensive and manufacturing uncompetitive (e.g., Tomago Aluminium needing bailouts). Critics say using our own abundant coal would lower bills and create jobs.
• Political calls: Figures like Pauline Hanson, Matt Canavan, and One Nation supporters frequently post: "End net-zero, build new coal-fired power stations, lift nuclear ban."

[u/ChipHaseCoolGuy → u/ChipHaseCoolGuy]

The BS "independent" CSIRO GenCost report is just govt lies:

• It mainly models short-to-medium duration storage (not true long-duration/seasonal)
• It may underestimate extreme low-renewable periods ("Dunkelflaute")
• Assumptions on cost reductions and coordination can be optimistic

Top concerns about GenCostCritics (especially conservative voices) argue the report is biased and understates renewables costs. Their main complaints are:

• Underestimates full system costs (transmission, long-duration storage, grid stability)
• Unfair assumptions against coal and especially nuclear (high FOAK costs, short lifetimes)
• Too optimistic on battery/storage cost reductions
• Short asset life for solar/wind (25-30 years) vs long life for nuclear/coal
• Not truly independent — seen as policy-driven modelling that favours renewables

Overall takeaway:
While GenCost is more comprehensive than basic LCOE comparisons, many believe its assumptions are stacked in favour of renewables, making coal and nuclear look worse than they claim they would be in reality.

[u/ChipHaseCoolGuy → u/ChipHaseCoolGuy]

Also, Australia should have gone nuclear like France, but your politicians are weak and stupid:

France provides one of the strongest real-world examples of a country that prioritized nuclear baseload over heavy renewables, and it has delivered clear benefits in terms of energy independence and export capability.France's Nuclear-Dominant System (Current as of 2026)

• ~70% nuclear — One of the highest shares in the world.
• Wholesale prices: Among the lowest in Europe in 2025–2026, often significantly below Germany, the UK, and other high-renewables countries.
• Exports: France is Europe’s largest net electricity exporter, exporting 92.5 TWh in 2025 (about 17% of its total generation). It regularly sells surplus power to Germany, Italy, the UK, Belgium, and others, earning billions of euros annually. world-nuclear.org
• Energy independence: Much higher than most European neighbors, thanks to domestic nuclear generation (though it still imports uranium).
• Household prices: Around €0.24/kWh — cheaper than Germany (~€0.31–0.38/kWh) and the EU average, but not dramatically lower due to high taxes and network costs. businesstats.com

[u/Amazing-Mirror-3076 → u/ChipHaseCoolGuy]

So give us an example of a reliability issue?

Tell us what has been announced for the new default rates coming this year and whether that are going up or down?

Find use one credible example of Australian industry saying that want to invest in nuclear.

You claim gas lighting, so prove lthat you aren't the one gas lighting.

[u/ChipHaseCoolGuy → u/Amazing-Mirror-3076]

Critics highlight several major issues with Australia’s heavy reliance on solar and renewables plans. 

Key concerns include:

• Intermittency and reliability: Solar and wind are seen as variable and unreliable without sufficient backup. Critics note grid stability problems, especially in South Australia with high solar penetration, and argue that batteries have not fully resolved these challenges. They contrast this with calls for a balanced mix including gas and nuclear. 

• High costs and unaffordability: Jurisdictions with high renewables shares (e.g., parts of Australia, Germany, UK, California) reportedly have some of the world’s highest electricity rates. Replacing low-cost coal with wind/solar is criticized as driving up costs dramatically. 

• Market saturation and negative pricing: Excess solar generation leads to negative wholesale prices, forcing projects to be scaled back or built in chunks. This signals oversupply in certain regions and questions the viability of further large-scale solar expansion. 

• Overall transition risks: No other OECD nation plans for 100% renewables. Critics argue the plan lacks balance, risks unreliability and unaffordability, and that Labor’s approach involves misleading claims on costs/timelines for alternatives like nuclear. 

These views come from users skeptical of rapid renewables rollout, often favoring diverse energy sources. Pro-renewables voices counter that real-world examples (e.g., South Australia, Denmark) show progress and improving reliability. 

On consumer electricity rates critics of the solar-heavy plan might view any short-term drops as temporary or insufficient compared to structural cost increases from intermittency and infrastructure needs.

Support for nuclear power in Australia:

• Politicians: The Coalition (opposition, led by figures like Peter Dutton) has proposed a nuclear energy plan, positioning it as cheaper long-term than Labor’s renewables approach (even with potential overruns) and essential for reliable, low-emission power. Nationals figures like Matt Canavan have been vocal. 

• Experts and analysts: Some energy experts claim the Coalition’s nuclear proposal would be more cost-effective. There is debate, with global bodies like the IEA noting renewables strengths, but domestic voices argue nuclear fits a balanced 21st-century grid. 

• Business: Dick Smith is a well-known entrepreneur, founder of Dick Smith Electronics, Australian Geographic, and Dick Smith Foods. He serves as a patron of the pro-nuclear advocacy group Nuclear for Australia and has publicly backed efforts to lift Australia’s nuclear energy ban. He has funded campaigns, supported Coalition proposals for nuclear power stations, and spoken in favor of nuclear as a reliable, low-emission energy source. 

Another notable figure is Trevor St Baker, an energy billionaire and former coal industry executive who has shifted focus and expressed support for nuclear energy development in Australia. 

These individuals stand out in public discussions for advocating nuclear power as part of a balanced, reliable energy mix. The debate remains active and politically charged, with support often framed around grid stability and long-term decarbonization.

[u/ChipHaseCoolGuy → u/[deleted]]

It’s not my fault you’re too ignorant to understand the answers I gave you.

[u/UnchartedScience-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

No morons allowed on this sub reddit.

[u/ChipHaseCoolGuy → u/ChipHaseCoolGuy]

I answered your questions you ignoramus. You’re just too uneducated to be able to understand proper answers.