this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2026
302 points (98.7% liked)

Green Energy

4261 readers
282 users here now

Everything about energy production and storage.

Related communities:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It doesn't matter as long as Big Oil controls policy. Can't fucking wait for Big Solar to displace them in terms of political influence.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Or for them to just be uneconomical, and there to be no big solar, as it’s lots of competing companies with low barriers to entry.

[–] pdqcp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Everyone is their own big solar; decentralized solar

[–] BriniaSona@piefed.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Solar can't be owned by people and not be completely controlled by a huge company. Solar is decentralized energy and it needs to be embraced way more

[–] morto@piefed.social 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The production of solar panels and mineral can be controlled by groups. It's not as decentralized as we think, but still better than oil, nonetheless

[–] French75@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 month ago

As well as the permitting policies, tarriffs, and fees for grid-connected solar systems. At least where I am (California), governments and utilities have made solar much more expensive than it needs to be.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago

Solar can't be owned by people and not be completely controlled by a huge company.

Think you accidentally added an extra 't

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 19 points 1 month ago (3 children)

How do you even compare something that generates energy for decades and can then be recycled and generate energy for further decades vs something that you use once and then it’s gone forever?

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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

calculate total costs of power plant + fuels over the power plant's lifetime, divide by total kWh produced --> that gives you the average cost per kWh.

it is key here to see that even if solar panels produce energy over and over again, they still have a finite lifetime so they only produce a finite amount of energy per panel. so you can still calculate the cost per kWh by dividing panel cost by total kWh produced. the result then is non-zero because total kWh produced is not infinite.

[–] whyrat@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

By price, obviously!

/s (but a little bit not /s?)

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I mean, sure, but it’s comparing $ per kWh vs $ per kW

Edit: To be clear, I do understand that consumer pricing is kWh across the board. My point is that the producer side for solar doesn’t actually scale per hour the way it does for fossil fuels. So while $/kWh is a convenient metric to shove renewables into the existing market, it kinda stacks the deck in favor of fossil fuels.

[–] Cort@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

(Total cost of install + total expected maintenance + fuel costs) / expected lifespan

Then divide that by kwh or mwh or GWh expected to be produced during that lifespan

The catch is that solar is outliving the expected lifespan estimated and warranty periods which means things still tilt towards legacy fuels (doesn't tip enough in their favor to make them less expensive though)

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Guterres also pointed out that fossil fuels still get almost nine times the government consumption subsidies as renewables.

The problem, as always, is not the technology but the politics.

[–] Shirasho@lemmings.world 9 points 1 month ago

Cheaper, takes up less space, and isn't consumable, but worse because...uh....

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I've always been supportive of solar. After all, if the Sun goes out, we got bigger problems than charging our cell phones.

I've had many, many people over the years tell me it's too expensive, not efficient enough, etc., and I always said that research will fix all that, and someday it would work great, AND be economical. I never figured it would be because Trump would fuck up the energy economics of the entire planet, and solar would suddenly be the best choice.

[–] megopie@beehaw.org 2 points 1 month ago

I don’t think it was even a matter of research, or it least it hasn’t been for a while, more it’s a matter of scaling production and competitive supply chains.

If there are 15 steps to produce a panel and you need to make 20% profit to pay off the capital expense and cover fixed costs, then the final product is going to be expensive, if the scale is large enough to afford to only make 1% profit at every step things get cheap.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

You ain’t seen nothing yet

[–] ellen.kimble@piefed.social 8 points 1 month ago

Will nations finally see what a geopolitical risk oil is?

[–] megopie@beehaw.org 3 points 1 month ago

But gas is also more profitable than ever for those involved. Any increase in price gets passed along to down stream consumers, but the margins have increased.

And since the people deciding what electrical generation are getting put in are not the ones paying the final bill, they have no reason to pursue solar at scale.

Some places are installing it at scale, but it’s almost always due to some public mandate, or because the people putting it in are the ones paying for the final power.

[–] Sunshine@piefed.ca 3 points 1 month ago

Euronews has Orban ties.