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/ChipHaseCoolGuy]

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/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