this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
612 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

59539 readers
3199 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 116 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (12 children)

Here in Belgium there used to be big government subsidies for solar panels 5-10 ago.

Now the same wattage battery + solar setup without any government subsidies is a good chunk cheaper than that time with the large subsidies.

Pretty cool and shows the power of government renewables subsidies. A huge percentage of houses in Belgium have solar panels now.(and electricity still costs 0.30€/kWh average because of fossil fuel energy lobbies)

Now that there is a local industry around it, most renovations and almost all new builds include them.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 17 points 3 days ago (2 children)

As your northern neighbors. We did subsidize it too, but now the privatized energy companies started whining that there wasn't enough capacity, so now they charge you for creating free energy

[–] iknowitwheniseeit@lemmynsfw.com 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Yes I'm considering buying a high power laser so I can send the energy back into space instead of paying the power companies for the privilege of giving them electricity.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 8 points 3 days ago

Great idea! Some inspiration right here :

https://what-if.xkcd.com/13/

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sirboozebum@lemmy.world 23 points 4 days ago

4 million households in Australia have solar panels.

They are great value.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago

Solar has always an extremely high ratio for megawatt per mass unit.

This price is really good

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 34 points 4 days ago (44 children)

$60k per MW or $210M for a nuclear reactors worth (3.5GW). Sure... the reactor will go 24/7 (between maintenance and refuelling down times, and will use less land (1.75km² Vs ~40km²) but at 1% of the cost, why are we still talking about nuclear.

(I'm using the UKs Hinckley Point C power station as reference)

[–] Benaaasaaas@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Because there are nights there are winters there are cloudy and rainy days, and there are no batteries capable of balancing all of these issues. Also when you account for those batteries the cost is going to shift a bit. So we need to invest in nuclear and renewables and batteries. So we can start getting rid of coal and gas plants.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 22 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (5 children)

Also when you account for those batteries the cost is going to shift a bit.

You better be bringing units if you're going to be claiming this.

Still less than half of the LCOE of nuclear when storage is added: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1475611/global-levelized-cost-of-energy-components-by-technology/

Given that both solar and storage costs are trending downwards while nuclear is not, this basically kills any argument for nuclear in the future. It's not viable on its face - renewables + storage is the definitive future.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] suzune@ani.social 25 points 4 days ago (10 children)

But Germany has no space for nuclear waste. They haven't been able to bury the last batch for over 30 years. And the one that they buried most recently began to leak radioactivity into ground water.

And.. why give Russia more military target opportunities?

[–] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 12 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I'm not a rabid anti-nuclear, but there are somethings that are often left out of the pricing. One is the exorbitant price of storage of spent fuel although I seem to remember that there is some nuclear tech that can use nuclear waste as at least part of it's fuel (Molten salt? Pebble? maybe an expert can chime in). There is also the human greed factor. Fukushima happened because they built the walls to the highest recorded tsunami in the area, to save on concrete. A lot of civil engineering projects have a 150% overprovision over the worst case calculations. Fukushima? just for the worst case recorded, moronic corporate greed. The human factor tends to be the biggest danger here.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 13 points 4 days ago

You're using factors of less than 10 to argue against a factor of 100.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (14 children)

I think there's a contingent of people who think nuclear is really, really cool. And it is cool. Splitting atoms to make power is undeniably awesome. That doesn't make it sensible, though, and they don't separate those two thoughts in their mind. Their solution is to double down on talking points designed for use against Greenpeace in the 90s rather than absorbing new information that changes the landscape.

And then there's a second group that isn't even trying to argue in good faith. They "support" nuclear knowing it won't go anywhere because it keeps fossil fuels in place.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (42 replies)
[–] Vendul@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (20 children)

It’s kinda good but it completely destroyed the European manufacturing for solar

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 38 points 3 days ago

When panels were 30c/watt, projects at $1/watt in EU and US happened. 70c/watt was spent on labour, copper, support structures, and grid connection equipment. All of those can be locally produced, with possible exception of last item.

At 6c/watt, that is over 90% of power projects are local economy boosting instead of 70%. It provides cheaper energy that is useful for industrialization and cost of living benefits too. US tariffs on solar are entirely about protecting oil/gas extortion power instead of a $10B solar production industry that needs fairly expensive support.

Solar imports does not cause energy dependence. You have power for 30+ years with no reliance on continuous fuel supplies. Shoes and apparel is a $450B industry in US. You need new supplies every year, and it makes much more sense to secure supply in that industry for war on the world purposes.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 18 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It is good, period.

Local manufacturing is politically advantageous and may employ some people at the same time, but that's where benefits end.

Europe didn't reject Chinese face masks during COVID-19, and Europe shouldn't reject Chinese solar during a climate emergency.

Solve that first, and political struggles later.

[–] nexusband@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

It's not only a political struggle. Working conditions are tremendously better in Europe, Environmental Protection as well. Manufacturing photovoltaics takes a huge pile of chemicals that need to be handled properly to not cause any harm to the environment - China neither cares nor has any other incentives to actually do this properly, which is exactly why they are so cheap. Theres also the issue of poor quality, that if you're manufacturing something that can have a significant impact on the environment, it should "count" and not be waste 10 years later.

Not only that, China's subsidies are utterly unfair.

Destroying the environment in one part of the world to "save" a different one due to climate change is just ridiculously stupid and simple minded.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I see where you're coming with that, and in principle, some of the points you make I would clearly share under different circumstances.

But to me, even with the side effects, rapid rollout of green tech (even if its production is not kept to the best standard) beats slow incremental growth with good standards in place, given the urgency with which world requires it. After all, even poorly produced Chinese options very much do offset their footprint compared to the alternatives.

There are some points for concern, such as the use of lithium ion batteries, for example, but Chinese companies also think ahead and implement alternative options - in case of batteries, they increasingly work with sodium-ion instead.

As per "unfair" subsidies - I'd rather urge all countries to go all in and compete on those, rather than complain about those who implemented them. Subsidies for green tech are essential to secure our future, they boost the green industry and expedite its expansion, and they should only be seen as a good, not the evil.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Manufacturing photovoltaics takes a huge pile of chemicals that need to be handled properly to not cause any harm to the environment

Source for this? Cadmium is exclusive to 1 US manufacturer.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] st0v@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago

Solar manufacturing is not destroying China's environment, fossil fuels are. By a massive margin.

They need to get off that merry go round as quickly as possible. While the efforts they've made are incredible it needs to continue to accelerate.

I wouldn't say they've achieved these prices through subsidies in the way many people think. government support pushed their entire renewable industry ecosystem, western manufacturing went belly up, and now they are reaping the benefits.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It seems like China is putting a lot of efforts into becoming environmentally cleaner in the last few years though. I'm hoping that they've finally realized that pollution is bad.

[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There's something called an environmental Kuznets curve that suggests that a population will sacrifice environmental health to industrial degradation in favor of per capita income up to a point, after which they are affluent enough to care, and after this environmental health improves. China seems to be at the inflection point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Local manufacturing is politically advantageous and may employ some people at the same time, but that’s where benefits end.

There are legitimate strategic concerns with sourcing things long-term from potentially hostile states.

Europe should absolutely take advantage of current Chinese production to improve their own green energy efforts, but looking into local production in addition is not just a 'for-show' move. As sanctions on Russia show, dependence on markets that can potentially turn hostile can be very damaging.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Sure, that's what I threw in the "politically advantageous" bucket to not expand on it too much

Though I do not expect China to blackmail Europe with solar, but I see the concern.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Europeans demolished their manufacturing sector when they stripped all the wiring out of the walls during the austerity years.

You can't blame people for buying foreign when you've been defunding domestic infrastructure for over a decade.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Yep the EU will be beholden to a dictatorial regime again. Instead of placating Putin for gas it will be Xi for solar panels and batteries.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago (5 children)

At least those items you only need to buy once.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

By providing big subsidies to green energy developement. Something the EU could also have done but refused to. And so they lost their entire lead.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 23 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Just have to buy 1100 panels 😋 but then the price is 0.055€/watt ...

I Want one, but only one or a couple, to put on my balcony...

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago (6 children)

These are topcon modules only. Considering a 400W panel will have about 72 modules in it, that's only about 15 panels worth. Of course, then you have to actually build the panel and connect the modules, put it behind glass inside a frame, then put in a bypass diode and leads for connection. So an actual panel ends up being about 5-10X the cost of the modules per W.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Venicon@lemmy.world 27 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Good news perhaps but I’m sure I won’t see any benefit in Scotland, still thousands to add solar panels.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 31 points 4 days ago

Scotland has really good wind power, anyway. Between that, nuclear, and a few other renewable sources, you guys are down to 10% fossil fuel energy use. So don't worry about solar.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 12 points 3 days ago

Theyre $1.25 per watt in south America right now (we have an energy crisis due to climate change caused drought)

load more comments
view more: next ›