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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are moving away from coal. Their new coal plants are not for baseload. They are high efficiency coal plants that will be run 10-20% of the time to handle peaks. China has already hit peak oil demand because of the EV. There has been a big drop off in permitting for new coal plants in China. India and China are both building coal plants but have moved to solar. Lots of the residential electricity is being filled by solar and battery in India. Huge growth market. Everything has changed in the past 3 years but it takes a while for this to show up in building electrical plants.

Interesting if china generated all its electricity from coal(which it does not) but continues its EV growth in 3 years China would reduce its carbon emissions. This is because electric power is 90-95% efficient. While fossil fuel is at best 24-30% efficient. Every EV reduce carbon emissions Vs gas cars by 70% and oils demand by 3 to 1. So the emissions reduction would come from transportation.

China is build Talatan Solar Park. When fully built out it will produce 8 gw. This is the equivalent of 4-8 coal plants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even more wonderful than banning Candace. Two stars for Australia.

+1. They also had one mass shooting in the 1980s and had a huge gun buyback that worked well so that shootings there are now rare.

[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 is so much more complicated than that. And LCOE, which is what the poster above used, is a deeply flawed metric that green energy supporters love.

Energy delivery is subject to important midstream system constraints as well as dependability/reliability issues.

The two most important are interrelated: Americans expect the lights to come on when they flip a switch. Intermittent power sources struggle with this. Second, your midstream and backup dispatchable system has to be built out and maintained to deliver at peak demand when non-intermittent are not available, not average. So when intermittent sources are low (say 10% of the year), dispatchable energy sources have to make a ton of money during that 10% of time in order to pay for their existence 100% of year (variable costs are obviously saved, but 100% of fixed costs have to be earned during that 10% of time).

The reactions to this Australia post are very telling. The “free” energy is causing significant problems/volatility to their energy grid (see also, Spain’s blackout earlier this year). The Aussies are passing emergency legislation to deal with the instability they are facing. I am curious to see if they are going to be able to avoid blackouts.

Check in on the Australian energy grid in about 9-12 months and let us know how “great” this is.

I am not anti-green energy. It has its place and role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 is so much more complicated than that. And LCOE, which is what the poster above used, is a deeply flawed metric that green energy supporters love.

Energy delivery is subject to important midstream system constraints as well as dependability/reliability issues.

The two most important are interrelated: Americans expect the lights to come on when they flip a switch. Intermittent power sources struggle with this. Second, your midstream and backup dispatchable system has to be built out and maintained to deliver at peak demand when non-intermittent are not available, not average. So when intermittent sources are low (say 10% of the year), dispatchable energy sources have to make a ton of money during that 10% of time in order to pay for their existence 100% of year (variable costs are obviously saved, but 100% of fixed costs have to be earned during that 10% of time).

The reactions to this Australia post are very telling. The “free” energy is causing significant problems/volatility to their energy grid (see also, Spain’s blackout earlier this year). The Aussies are passing emergency legislation to deal with the instability they are facing. I am curious to see if they are going to be able to avoid blackouts.

Check in on the Australian energy grid in about 9-12 months and let us know how “great” this is.

I am not anti-green energy. It has its place and role.

Here is it is! Oh Australia grid has collapsed! No Australia’s grid is actually setting records for lows on peak and minimum demands on their grid. This is because so many(1 in 3 residential) use have solar. There are no blackouts and no grid problems. Australia grid uses synchronous condensers and large batteries address oscillation and base load. In fact the grid has become more and more decentralized because of solar.

The same decentralized is happening in India with solar because of its unreliable grid using coal power plants. Should we stop using fossil fuels because India has blackouts? According to you yes!

If you are such the expert tell us how California avoids all the black out experts predict? Solar power and batteries. Wow!

According to Institute of Technological Research’s report Spain’s blackout was caused by primary the Iberian Peninsula grid having insufficient dispatch of synchronous generation with dynamic voltage control(managing flow rates) combined with the limited resilience of the electricity transmission network(ie the Iberian Peninsula grid is not sufficiently connected to the larger European grid). So insufficient synchronous generation, the fragile state of the transmission network(grid infrastructure) and an inadequate security margin to prevent collapse due to overvoltage. Oh and Spain’s largest nuclear plant was on that grid(guess we have to stop using nuclear!). One of the recommendations to address the problem is to copy the Australian grid!

Now tell us how solar and wind froze in Texas while NG saved the day!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 is so much more complicated than that. And LCOE, which is what the poster above used, is a deeply flawed metric that green energy supporters love.

Energy delivery is subject to important midstream system constraints as well as dependability/reliability issues.

The two most important are interrelated: Americans expect the lights to come on when they flip a switch. Intermittent power sources struggle with this. Second, your midstream and backup dispatchable system has to be built out and maintained to deliver at peak demand when non-intermittent are not available, not average. So when intermittent sources are low (say 10% of the year), dispatchable energy sources have to make a ton of money during that 10% of time in order to pay for their existence 100% of year (variable costs are obviously saved, but 100% of fixed costs have to be earned during that 10% of time).

The reactions to this Australia post are very telling. The “free” energy is causing significant problems/volatility to their energy grid (see also, Spain’s blackout earlier this year). The Aussies are passing emergency legislation to deal with the instability they are facing. I am curious to see if they are going to be able to avoid blackouts.

Check in on the Australian energy grid in about 9-12 months and let us know how “great” this is.

I am not anti-green energy. It has its place and role.

Here is it is! Oh Australia grid has collapsed! No Australia’s grid is actually setting records for lows on peak and minimum demands on their grid. This is because so many(1 in 3 residential) use have solar. There are no blackouts and no grid problems. Australia grid uses synchronous condensers and large batteries address oscillation and base load. In fact the grid has become more and more decentralized because of solar.

The same decentralized is happening in India with solar because of its unreliable grid using coal power plants. Should we stop using fossil fuels because India has blackouts? According to you yes!

If you are such the expert tell us how California avoids all the black out experts predict? Solar power and batteries. Wow!

According to Institute of Technological Research’s report Spain’s blackout was caused by primary the Iberian Peninsula grid having insufficient dispatch of synchronous generation with dynamic voltage control(managing flow rates) combined with the limited resilience of the electricity transmission network(ie the Iberian Peninsula grid is not sufficiently connected to the larger European grid). So insufficient synchronous generation, the fragile state of the transmission network(grid infrastructure) and an inadequate security margin to prevent collapse due to overvoltage. Oh and Spain’s largest nuclear plant was on that grid(guess we have to stop using nuclear!). One of the recommendations to address the problem is to copy the Australian grid!

Now tell us how solar and wind froze in Texas while NG saved the day!

1. Every territory in Australia is presently prepping emergency plans for blackouts due to what they are terming "reliability gaps" (euphemism for volatility introduced by transition to intermittent power sources). If you know better than the people running the system over there, you should probably get on a plane and go help them.

https://cyanergy.com.au/blog/power-shortage-by-2027-in-australia-and-how-to-avoid-it/#:~:text=Coal%20plant%20retirements:%20In%20Australia,power%20stations%20will%20shut%20down.

In fact, the center-left government just introduced legislation materially reforming environmental review for natural gas and renewable projects because otherwise the system cannot possibly transition to avoid blackouts. Does that sound like a stable system to you?

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/australian-government-says-its-environmental-protection-bill-will-help-business-2025-10-29/

2. I am not familiar with India, so I won't comment.

3. California consistently has the highest or second highest energy prices in the lower 48 (both consumer and commercial). I'm not sure that is the model I would point to, but you do you. CA gets about 40% of its energy production from renewable, yet prices are twice as high as Texas, which gets about 31% of its production from renewable. There are better examples to use.

4. Why did the Spanish peninsula need more synchronous power generation (hint: that means hydro or dispatchable power generation, and explicitly excludes solar and wind)? Would the underlying voltage surge (first known in history to cause a material blackout) have occurred in a fully dispatchable system? Certainly much less likely. Again, I am not anti-renewable. I think it has an important role to play in energy markets.

5. Wind was around 10-13% of power generation in ERCOT during winter storm Uri and solar was 0%. Dispatchable power sources clearly failed Texas in that moment, but are you honestly trying to imply that wind and solar were reliable during the Texas winter storm? Put down the Kool-Aid.

[Anonymous]

1. Every territory in Australia is presently prepping emergency plans for blackouts due to what they are terming "reliability gaps" (euphemism for volatility introduced by transition to intermittent power sources). If you know better than the people running the system over there, you should probably get on a plane and go help them.

https://cyanergy.com.au/blog/power-shortage-by-2027-in-australia-and-how-to-avoid-it/#:~:text=Coal%20plant%20retirements:%20In%20Australia,power%20stations%20will%20shut%20down.

This is a grid problem not a solar problem. Otherwise Australia’s would not function all the time because grid scale solar is now 21% of their generation and with other renewable reaching 77% of the generation power. If you do not invest in the grid it crashes. The grid does not crash because you use renewables.

In fact, the center-left government just introduced legislation materially reforming environmental review for natural gas and renewable projects because otherwise the system cannot possibly transition to avoid blackouts. Does that sound like a stable system to you?

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/australian-government-says-its-environmental-protection-bill-will-help-business-2025-10-29/

Australia is a major natural gas producer. These plants are a result of that lobbying efforts. They’re very controversial. The energy generated will be the highest cost on their grid and the projects will not generate enough power to have a meaningful impact. Most experts say it is unneeded and will become a stranded asset. Just solar grid growth will make these plants idle. Add in the residential growth and the new battery program and these will be very expensive government boondoggles.

This has happened in Pakistan with their new coal plants. Pakistani grid is in a death cycle because solar power and batteries are cheaper and more reliable vs the grid. This makes people invest in solar and batteries off the grid. The power company increases in pricing because the customers base has shrunk causing more people to leave.

2. I am not familiar with India, so I won't comment.

3. California consistently has the highest or second highest energy prices in the lower 48 (both consumer and commercial). I'm not sure that is the model I would point to, but you do you. CA gets about 40% of its energy production from renewable, yet prices are twice as high as Texas, which gets about 31% of its production from renewable. There are better examples to use.

Electricity is expensive in California because of high costs from wildfire mitigation(climate change), grid modernization and a tiered rate system where usage costs increase after a certain baseline. It is not high because of solar or other renewables. Though the nuclear power plants are very expensive.


4. Why did the Spanish peninsula need more synchronous power generation (hint: that means hydro or dispatchable power generation, and explicitly excludes solar and wind)? Would the underlying voltage surge (first known in history to cause a material blackout) have occurred in a fully dispatchable system? Certainly much less likely. Again, I am not anti-renewable. I think it has an important role to play in energy markets.

Please they had one blackout because their grid is old and poorly connected not because they use solar, wind, nuclear and hydro. You seem to over look that Spain is using solar and wind all the time. It is a very large part of their grid and growing. This means you must update the grid.

5. Wind was around 10-13% of power generation in ERCOT during winter storm Uri and solar was 0%. Dispatchable power sources clearly failed Texas in that moment, but are you honestly trying to imply that wind and solar were reliable during the Texas winter storm? Put down the Kool-Aid.

The storm hit a night but when the sun was out solar was generating power. Also residential solar helped reduce the demands on the grid overall. The big problem was natural gas supply was frozen at well sites, pipelines and processing plants were unable to provide fuel to power plants. You know that already. So guess you want to do away with natural gas power now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Glad you like being taxed with higher electricity cost for data centers. Guess the data center millionaires and billionaires can’t pay for this themselves? Why do data centers pay 1/2 of what residential use pay?

Why am I paying tax subsidies to complete strangers buying EVs?

[Anonymous]

Some people seem to be missing the point. We are talking about rooftop solar rather than vast solar farms.

The huge surge of popularity in rooftop solar panels in Australia has essentially created a good problem, too much solar energy. The state governments drove this surge through their incentive schemes. The uptake was not driven by altruism but by what made financial good sense. My Australian mother has not paid an electricity bill in about 20 years. In fact, she usually receives money for generating electricity.

The huge popularity is a problem nonetheless. It has produced instability due to the fall in demand from a grid which was designed around coal fired power stations rather than rooftop solar energy. It is difficult and expensive to redesign an entire electricity grid.

Following on from the success of the state government schemes, the federal government has now introduced a scheme for a 30% rebate on the installation of solar batteries for homes businesses and for communities.

This use of solar energy does not need to be a political issue. But it does need government support to pave the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some people seem to be missing the point. We are talking about rooftop solar rather than vast solar farms.

The huge surge of popularity in rooftop solar panels in Australia has essentially created a good problem, too much solar energy. The state governments drove this surge through their incentive schemes. The uptake was not driven by altruism but by what made financial good sense. My Australian mother has not paid an electricity bill in about 20 years. In fact, she usually receives money for generating electricity.

The huge popularity is a problem nonetheless. It has produced instability due to the fall in demand from a grid which was designed around coal fired power stations rather than rooftop solar energy. It is difficult and expensive to redesign an entire electricity grid.

Following on from the success of the state government schemes, the federal government has now introduced a scheme for a 30% rebate on the installation of solar batteries for homes businesses and for communities.

This use of solar energy does not need to be a political issue. But it does need government support to pave the way.

Australia generates 20% of its grid power through large scale solar farms. In addition it generates another 12% by residential solar. Australia has just introduced a program for residential battery. “Cheaper Home Batteries Program” has added 2 GW of storage in the last 4 months with 100,000 solar small scale batteries installations. The program was funded through 2030 but looks likely to run out of money in the first 6 months. I think is Vermont or New Hampshire the power company subsidizes batteries with solar installations. It situation where the grid is stress the power company can pull from these distributed batteries network. I do not know if Australia is doing this.

Residential solar in the US is 2-3 times more expensive vs Australia and EU because of tariffs and governmental red tape design to discourage installation. If the government would get out of the way, residential solar would be cheaper vs grid power by a significant amount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even more wonderful than banning Candace. Two stars for Australia.

+1. They also had one mass shooting in the 1980s and had a huge gun buyback that worked well so that shootings there are now rare.

Not just a gun buy back but a conservative prime minister soon enacted stronger gun safety laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This could be us.

I agree

My buddy Prof AI says the key differences between US and Oz in solar feasibility are mostly due to higher costs related to red tape and utility interference. I experienced a lot of that when installing solar in DMV.

Cost: Residential solar panel installation in Australia costs around \(\$1\) per watt, while in the US it can range from \(\$2.20\) to \(\$3.50\) per watt, with a median of \(\$2.80\) per watt.

Bureaucracy: Australia has a much simpler process for permits and grid connection, which can be completed via an app in as little as 24 hours. In the US, the same process can take months due to complex regulations and utility interference.

Market structure: The Australian solar market is more competitive, with a large number of small, local installers and less utility interference. In the US, utilities can make the process more difficult and expensive.

Adoption rates: Due to lower costs, Australia has a much higher rate of rooftop solar installations per capita, despite having a much smaller population. 


The US has a massive rooftop solar potential, Experts suggest that by simplifying the process and reducing "soft costs" (non-hardware costs), the US could lower solar installation prices. 


It is nuts that the current administration cut many incentives and subsidies to the solar industry and will likely cost 300k solar jobs in US.

[Anonymous]

All this excess energy, they should put it towards mining bitcoins.

[Anonymous]

US President Donald Trump’s war on the US solar industry is going sideways. Investment has slowed this year, but the industry has gathered enough momentum to carry itself through to next year and beyond. That may seem like wishful thinking now, but a new report from Deloitte outlines how the domestic solar industry can survive, recover, and persist long after President Trump leaves office on January 20, 2029 — peacefully this time, one hopes.
It’s a matter of common knowledge that solar power is now the fastest, most accessible, and most economical way to get more kilowatts into the hands of energy-thirsty ratepayers. A new report from the US Energy Information Agency also notes that solar power plant projects have faced fewer construction delays in the most recent reporting period, indicating that the industry has adopted more effective systems to carry a project through its final months.

Now here comes the US-based global firm Deloitte with a new analysis that underscores the powerful, and persistent, role of the US solar industry in the nation’s power supply.

While taking note that both wind and solar investments fell significantly during the first half of this year, Deloitte emphasizes that power generation capacity additions in during the first half of this year were dominated by renewable energy projects at 93%, for a total of 30.2 gigawatts. Solar and storage alone accounted for 83% of new capacity additions, underscoring how the solar industry has sidelined wind and other renewables, at least for the time being.
..
Deloitte analysis projects that annual solar, wind, and storage additions between 2026 and 2030 could fall to a range of 30 GW to 66 GW, down from a range of 54 GW to 85 GW under pre-OBBBA trajectories,” Deloitte estimated, referring to the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in July.

https://cleantechnica.com/2025/11/13/us-president-caught-napping-by-us-solar-industry/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

actually, it is not corporations or the military blocking this. they want it. It is the oil oligarchs. They are the only ones blocking it. And they are so powerful they are successful (well, that and a few coal miners in WV who are now learning that the president doesn't care at all if they die of black lung disease)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this excess energy, they should put it towards mining bitcoins.