Based on current deployment rates, it is likely that solar will surpass wind as the third-largest source of electricity. And solar may soon topple coal in the number two spot.
Looking ahead, through July 2028, FERC expects no new coal capacity to come online based on its “high probability additions” forecast. Meanwhile 63 coal plants are expected to be retired, subtracting 25 GW from the 198 GW total, and landing at about 173 GW of coal capacity by 2028. Meanwhile, FERC forecasts 92.6 GW of “high probability additions” solar will come online through July 2028.
It’s not actually cheap though, that’s the problem. Basically every country that is pushing “renewables” are having their power bills increase over and over and over with no sign of slowing down because it’s not cheap.
No one wants to build them without giant subsidies and guaranteed returns. Why do you think that is?
Solar panels crom China made it a lot cheaper than it used to be. There are also other major advatnages, such as increased independence. You just buy a bunch of solar panels and now you can indenepdently generate energy for the next 30 years.
https://x.com/jnampijinpa/status/1973660876793368808
https://www.cis.org.au/publication/the-renewable-energy-honeymoon-starting-is-easy-the-rest-is-hard/
This is an important point to consider. However, to me it seems somewhat separate from your previous comment.
Of course, no sane government should push for a country to rely solely on wind and solar. Ideally you have a mix of various energy sources, even potentially including some fossil fuels. Hitting that 20-30% sweetspot, as mentioned in the paper, looks to be fairly cheap and beneficial for everyone.
That’s what almost every “net zero” government has been pushing though. They claim it is doable with zero fossil fuel, just 100% “renewables”.
Solar panels are not the expensive part of using solar to power the country - the storage and transmission is.
Although having said that, the cost of regularly cleaning panels, replacing them, throwing them in landfill, and mining materials to make new ones every 15 years or so is also huge - and destructive to the planet. It’s just more of a slow burn cost that snowballs.
True, batteries are quite expensive and very much not environment-friendly when built on such a scale. Though it should be noted good solar panels last longer than 15 years. Even cheap panels can last 20 years.
They need regular cleaning otherwise they can very quickly drop to close to zero output, and storms - especially hail - can destroy entire solar farms at once.
Just no
Some reading for you, which I hope you’ll read:
https://www.cis.org.au/publication/the-renewable-energy-honeymoon-starting-is-easy-the-rest-is-hard/
https://x.com/jnampijinpa/status/1973660876793368808
Since I doubt you or anyone else will, I’ll take some bits from it:
As you can see, as wind + solar generation share goes up, retail electricity prices go up. They never go down. They never even stay the same.
…
…
Big surprise, running 50 year old plants lead to lower bills than new infrastructure. Now do new coal plants.
Don’t need new coal plants.
Should be building nuclear anyway.
I’m not going to read propaganda from an Australian right wing think tank, you’re right.
I can’t speak for every country, unlike you, but in Southern Europe the trend is exactly the opposite of what you’re saying. https://www.bbvaresearch.com/en/publicaciones/spain-more-renewables-to-continue-lowering-costs/
“I’m not going to read your link cause it proves my ideology wrong. Here’s a link that proves mine right, and mine is much much much narrower in scope so as to not show the global trend”
lol
JFC mate, you’re linking to content by the traitor Jacinta Nampijinpa-Price, and you have the gall to accuse others of ideological bias? Fuck man, you couldn’t be more out-of-step with reality.
No, it’s just that the study you linked is wrong in may aspects. The one I linked comes from a bank not a think tank, but you can find thousands more.