upvote

points

by cloche4 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby adjejmxbdjdn3 hours ago|
next
[-]
Imagine how much faster it would be growing if the U.S. government wasn’t paying companies billions to not produce wind energy

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/23/climate/offshore-wind-gas...

or delaying standard approvals

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/04/climate/wind-solar-projec...

reply
upvoteby wat100003 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Or forcing unprofitable coal power plants to remain operating against their owners' wishes. https://www.energy.gov/documents/doe-order-no-202-26-19-scha...
reply
upvoteby willio583 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
It’s already irreversible, but it’s just disappointing to see how the U.S. administration has chosen to actively fight against it, while other countries like China are embracing reality.

It’s actually funny if you don’t think about it too hard. The U.S. president is trying to make us more reliant on fossil fuels, while starting a war in Iran that’s led to the global fossil fuel market to be negatively impacted, forcing most Americans to pay more for fossil fuels. Who could have seen that coming? We’re doing great!

reply
upvoteby dnautics3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> the U.S. administration has chosen to actively fight against it

the biggest producer of renewables is Texas, by a longshot. and the state of california just created insane NEM laws that favor the pockets of pg&e (and are shit for the environment) and as a result solar home installations have cratered.

reply
upvoteby ceejayoz3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> the biggest producer of renewables is Texas

That doesn't refute the point at all.

reply
upvoteby dnautics3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
no, but renewables do speak for themselves in dollars and cents, even if they dont have subsidy. now should petrochem subsidies end too? probably yes.
reply
upvoteby ceejayoz3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> renewables do speak for themselves in dollars and cents

Yes. But administration opposition can change that math, as they have with the tariffs.

reply
upvoteby toast03 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
From the CalISO graphs, there doesn't seem to be a shortage of solar power for most of the day. It doesn't seem reasonable to incentivise production in the same way as it was when that wasn't the case.

I think NEM 3.0 incentivises storage now? Which seems to be what the (California) grid is looking for.

reply
upvoteby ZeroGravitas2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Texas barely scrapes into the top ten red states by percentage of wind and solar, despite its ideal geography.
reply
upvoteby 2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby some-guy3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Both NEM 2.0 and 3.0 have serious issues, but for different reasons. NEM 2.0 was basically a early adopter's rich person's subsidy that heavily distorted the market, and NEM 3.0 does not have nearly enough subsidies to justify the cost unless you pay cash up front for a large system. (For the record, I am on NEM 3.0 and got such a system).

At the end of the day, the best case scenario is large scale renewable / battery storage to bring costs down as much as possible, and for those of us who want battery backup / solar can choose to invest in it, but it shouldn't be "the" solution.

reply
upvoteby mrhottakes3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
"No One Could Have Predicted This!" - Nation where this happens all the time
reply
upvoteby jqpabc1232 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Even so, the article says it grew 8% YOY in the US.

Versus 35% YOY in China.

China gets it, the USA doesn't.

The best is to hope that this is an unstoppable trend

The trend is the USA choosing politics over reality as China becomes unstoppable.

https://carboncredits.com/china-adds-power-7x-more-than-the-...

reply
upvoteby ceejayoz3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Never underestimate the capacity of shitty people to shoot themselves and others in the foot.
reply