Australia has so much solar that it’s offering everyone free electricity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But Trump wants us down in the mines digging coal and partying like it's 1899.

FFS why are we stuck with this idiot's ideas and why don't Republicans display some common sense and speak up?

The mid-terms can't come fast enough.

Solar is more expensive, as seen in the RGGI.
And in Europe, they are backing off their targets as models clash with reality.

That doesn't mean they won't fund ways of decarbonzing their energy needs. they also do a lot of things like geothermal, sewer-heat and other district energy installations that mitigate their oil and gas demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But Trump wants us down in the mines digging coal and partying like it's 1899.

FFS why are we stuck with this idiot's ideas and why don't Republicans display some common sense and speak up?

The mid-terms can't come fast enough.

Seriously. This particular a-hole will be dead soon and the rest of us will be cleaning up the mess he made of a decent system for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But Trump wants us down in the mines digging coal and partying like it's 1899.

FFS why are we stuck with this idiot's ideas and why don't Republicans display some common sense and speak up?

The mid-terms can't come fast enough.

Solar is more expensive, as seen in the RGGI.
And in Europe, they are backing off their targets as models clash with reality.

Actually commercial solar is the second cheapest type of electricity to generate by source even in the US( even in North Dakota)

Below are the estimated unsubsidized LCOE ranges in dollars per megawatt-hour ($/MWh) for new power plants, based primarily on 2024 and 2025 reports from sources like Lazard and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA):
Technology

Unsubsidized LCOE Range ($/MWh)

Onshore Wind $27 – $86
Utility-Scale Solar PV $29 – $92
Natural Gas (Combined Cycle) $48 – $107
Geothermal $55 – $396
Coal $68 – $166
Offshore Wind $74 – $157
Natural Gas (Peaker Plants) $115 – $262
Nuclear $141 – $221

Esmeralda 7 Plant that was cancelled by Trump was schedule to produce 6.2 gigawatts at $25-$30 per MWh.

[Anonymous]

The Trump administration’s cancellation of the largest solar project in the United States has sparked confusion and concern among Republicans and Democrats alike.

Known as the Esmeralda 7, the collection of seven solar projects in rural Nevada was set to generate up to 6.2 gigawatts of energy when complete, enough to power 2 million homes. That’s an eye-popping amount of power to add to an electrical grid that desperately needs more of it, due to the insatiable demand from AI-related data centers and increasing residential needs.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/14/climate/trump-solar-project-nevada-electricity

Why are residential consumers paying for Data center increase demand for electricity? Trump canceled this and is planning to replace this demand with nuclear in 10-15 years(the time it takes to build a nuclear plant) with a cost of $141 to $221 per MWh. You need 5-7 nuclear power plants to generate 6.2 GWh at conservatively 7-10 billion per nuclear plant.

Esmeralda 7 solar plant estimated cost of $25-$30 MWh.

What are we doing?

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why we should be worrying about scaling when the data centers that are driving demand are so inefficient.

Take Java and Garbage collection. They know that it's inefficient like 30% of the hardware energy usage is just dedicated to these programming practices that are designed so they can get a foreigner that has never used a computer before to be a software engineer. They don't have to think about "memory", it's easy to program, but it's inefficient. They could get by on less hardware, but they don't. Why should we subsidize their energy needs.

Brute force deep learning is the same idea. It's designed such that you don't have to know anything to run these incredibly inefficient algorithms.

Why is that my problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, we should do this in Minnesota and North Dakota…

Wind produces a ton of energy in ND.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But Trump wants us down in the mines digging coal and partying like it's 1899.

FFS why are we stuck with this idiot's ideas and why don't Republicans display some common sense and speak up?

The mid-terms can't come fast enough.

Solar is more expensive, as seen in the RGGI.
And in Europe, they are backing off their targets as models clash with reality.

Actually commercial solar is the second cheapest type of electricity to generate by source even in the US( even in North Dakota)

Below are the estimated unsubsidized LCOE ranges in dollars per megawatt-hour ($/MWh) for new power plants, based primarily on 2024 and 2025 reports from sources like Lazard and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA):
Technology

Unsubsidized LCOE Range ($/MWh)

Onshore Wind $27 – $86
Utility-Scale Solar PV $29 – $92
Natural Gas (Combined Cycle) $48 – $107
Geothermal $55 – $396
Coal $68 – $166
Offshore Wind $74 – $157
Natural Gas (Peaker Plants) $115 – $262
Nuclear $141 – $221

Esmeralda 7 Plant that was cancelled by Trump was schedule to produce 6.2 gigawatts at $25-$30 per MWh.

It makes me crazy when people talk about the green scam. Clean energy is literally the cheapest to produce. It's just energy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But Trump wants us down in the mines digging coal and partying like it's 1899.

FFS why are we stuck with this idiot's ideas and why don't Republicans display some common sense and speak up?

The mid-terms can't come fast enough.

Solar is more expensive, as seen in the RGGI.
And in Europe, they are backing off their targets as models clash with reality.

Actually commercial solar is the second cheapest type of electricity to generate by source even in the US( even in North Dakota)

Below are the estimated unsubsidized LCOE ranges in dollars per megawatt-hour ($/MWh) for new power plants, based primarily on 2024 and 2025 reports from sources like Lazard and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA):
Technology

Unsubsidized LCOE Range ($/MWh)

Onshore Wind $27 – $86
Utility-Scale Solar PV $29 – $92
Natural Gas (Combined Cycle) $48 – $107
Geothermal $55 – $396
Coal $68 – $166
Offshore Wind $74 – $157
Natural Gas (Peaker Plants) $115 – $262
Nuclear $141 – $221

Esmeralda 7 Plant that was cancelled by Trump was schedule to produce 6.2 gigawatts at $25-$30 per MWh.

It makes me crazy when people talk about the green scam. Clean energy is literally the cheapest to produce. It's just energy.

It's also the hardest to use. In my experience corporations won't lift a finger to think about things like that. They literally don't care if it isn't simple, flip a switch and it comes on. It's sunny "time to train the model", you won't ever hear Zuckerberg say that.

[Anonymous]

China has been very successful in their transition to renewables - especially solar. That's the largest economy in the world and is built on making things.

We could power the entire country with solar and wind if it weren't for the dinosaurs in the GOP who are fixated on expensive and dirty coal. Throw in nuclear, and we are all set when it comes to non-carbon energy.

Carbon-free domestic energy is there for the taking, if only we had the political will.

[Anonymous]

To increase the U.S. grid's annual electricity supply by 3% an additional around 125 to 140 TWh (terawatt-hours) of electricity generation would be needed.

In 2024 the US generated 218 TWh of grid solar in the US and 84 TWh in small scale/residential. Total of 303 TWh. 2025 solar is estimated to supply 286 TWh and 97 TWh in small scale/residential.

Commercial grid solar alone increased the US grid capacity by 2% in this year and it reduce the cost of electricity. Residential solar reduced peak demand load.

This does not include wind -453 TWh in 2024. It add 18 TWh in 2025.

Solar is projected to grow at 15% and 6% for wind year over year for the next 5 years.
With those growth rates(both 1/2 by Trump’s policies) the US will easily meet the growth demand of 3% with in 5 years. That will be 5 year before the first nuclear plant could be built.

After Trump is gone and we can get back to making decisions based on what is the most economical options for power generation. This will likely be solar and wind with battery storage. Solar and wind keep increasing is efficiency- ie generate more power from the same amount of resources and keep decreasing in price. Batteries prices are also falling very fast

[Anonymous]

So if we take the 80 billion Trump committed to nuclear and invested it in wind the US could generate an additional 3,077 TWh a year.

This would be equivalent to a 6% compound annual growth rate over 10 years for our electricity grid generation.

Though you could build it out is 5-6 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This could be us.

Sure could. Would just involve covering most of the southwest US with solar panels.

Oh well, gotta break some eggs to make an omelette, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:China has been very successful in their transition to renewables - especially solar. That's the largest economy in the world and is built on making things.

We could power the entire country with solar and wind if it weren't for the dinosaurs in the GOP who are fixated on expensive and dirty coal. Throw in nuclear, and we are all set when it comes to non-carbon energy.

Carbon-free domestic energy is there for the taking, if only we had the political will.

China also brings an additional, brand new, coal fired power plant on line about every 10 days, too. Almost 38 new coal plants annually. They’re both the world’s largest domestic producer AND importer of coal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PERTH, Nov 4 (Reuters) - Australia will offer at least three hours of free solar power every day to households including those without solar panels under an energy-saving programme that is expected to go live in 2026, energy minister Chris Bowen said on Tuesday.
The Solar Sharer programme will begin in the states of New South Wales and South Australia as well as southeast Queensland before it is expanded elsewhere

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/australia-offer-three-hours-free-solar-per-day-millions-2025-11-04/

Australia generates too much electricity during peak times for solar. The huge increase in residential solar installations has created a record drop in demand during peak generation times. They hope this will shift how residential power use during the day.

Unlike here where we have to pay for data centers!

Australian has about the same land mass of America with 10% of the population.

Not gonna happen in the US.

Do you know how much empty land there is in the southwest/nevada/Utah?

It’s not “empty land”. Things live there. Plants and animals that are found nowhere else.

You think we should pave it over with solar panels and kill everything living there so you can charge your EV?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

PERTH, Nov 4 (Reuters) - Australia will offer at least three hours of free solar power every day to households including those without solar panels under an energy-saving programme that is expected to go live in 2026, energy minister Chris Bowen said on Tuesday.
The Solar Sharer programme will begin in the states of New South Wales and South Australia as well as southeast Queensland before it is expanded elsewhere

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/australia-offer-three-hours-free-solar-per-day-millions-2025-11-04/

Australia generates too much electricity during peak times for solar. The huge increase in residential solar installations has created a record drop in demand during peak generation times. They hope this will shift how residential power use during the day.

Unlike here where we have to pay for data centers!

Australian has about the same land mass of America with 10% of the population.

Not gonna happen in the US.

Do you know how much empty land there is in the southwest/nevada/Utah?

It’s not “empty land”. Things live there. Plants and animals that are found nowhere else.

You think we should pave it over with solar panels and kill everything living there so you can charge your EV?

You can install solar over parking lots. If you installed solar over just large parking lot in the US you could generate 1,500 to 4,400 TWh. That would be about a 1/4 of the large parking lot in the US.