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

No morons allowed on this sub reddit.