Why solar will soon dominate & what that means for the world

[@MoneyMacro]

Get access to global coverage at an exclusive 20% discount at economist.com/moneymacro

[@MoneyMacro]

Further reading mentioned in video: Goodbye oil: www.economist.com/special-report/2024-03-16 Solar power Saudi Arabia: www.economist.com/business/2024/01/04/meet-acwa-power-saudi-arabias-unlikely-solar-star What The Economist got right & wrong about solar: www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2024/06/21/what-the-economist-thought-about-solar-power

[@ProgressiveEconomicsSupporter]

Is The Economist open to heterodox economic theories and proponents, like MMT? 🤔

[@michaelharrison1093]

I have personally been tracking the total global PV deployment now for 30 years and have data that goes back to the 1950's. Anyone who claims that the growth of PV has just started to grow exponentially has not looked at all the data. The growth of PV has been fairly constant at an average CAGR of about 40% if represented in terms of power output. This relates to a much more modest financial CAGR due to the high "learning rate" for PV technology. This constant exponential growth rate apparently started in 1957.

[@andraspalanki6173]

I would not be so rosy about this. Germany before ww2 tried adopting autarky, to not be defeted by the lack of oil. No matter how I look at this, all I can see is China thinking about how it could power its wareconomy without blockable oil imports. ​@@MoneyMacro

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

​@@MoneyMacro China = Subsidies are key. It is not the capitalists who control the state. But the state Who controls the capitalists and the free market.

[@VladyVeselinov]

Man I really love when you make optimistic videos, they really help the seasonal depression

[@Kris_M]

@@deadwood2757 Exactly what bad advice did the video give?

[@InternetOfStories]

You should get your bloodwork done to see if you lack vitamin D. Even if you don’t take some daily it’ll help with the depression during winter.

[@290revolver290]

😂😂😂

[@gergelyoskolas182]

man if You have seasonal depression, check out a psycologist or a priest. It is something that can be helped.

[@satrah101]

​@@InternetOfStories Most mental health medication will dry the mouth, this will cause vit d deficiency, tooth decay and a need to eat sugar. Get vit D checked people. Really important.

[@oxsameer]

I live in Pakistan. A lot of home and businesses are installing solar panels on their roofs. My home has 10KW solar setup as well.

[@augustus331]

I have a MSc in renewable energy and I am so excited that I can provide some additional insights which I usually can't with Joeri's video's! I love the positive things mentioned in the video, but there's some nuances here that are worth mentioning. 1. Though the *cost of production* from solar-PV is negligible, the fact is that energy prices will *rise* in the near future. The reason for that is the cost for managing the electricity grid outpacing the reduction in production prices for solar-PV. Joeri rightly mentions the lower prices for battery systems, but this is a long-term solution and grid-congestion costs my country (Netherlands) *1-4% of annual GDP per year* because we neglected our energy-infrastructure for decades (like the US has until Biden). We can't add any more supply or demand to our energy grid. 2. Solar power is *intermittent* meaning there is a disconnect between peak-production and peak-consumption, whereas fossil-powered electricity is real-time. Africa and Asian nations can indeed use solar to meet some of their energy needs but effectively managing a Solar-PV based energy system requires smart-grid implementations, storage capacity and real-time monitoring, which just isn't financially feasible in a country like Indonesia or Nigeria. 3. You mention Chinese-made solar-PV as a supplement to Russian gas, this isn't necessarily true. Solar panels produce energy for longer but natural gas is used for non-electric processes and for these processes we cannot supplement gas with electricity. For example: There's a particular problem with the decarbonisation of industry, which is my job. Industry requires high-temperature heating which is not feasible with electricity. I know there are examples of industrial heat being delivered with electric means but trust me when I say that it isn't generally feasible to electrify manufacturing and other industry. Therefore, solar will be a big portion of the energy-mix, but we need other forms of energy (fuels) that aren't electric. This either means advanced biofuels or hydrogen, the latter necessitating a large amount of freshwater to produce. Love the video!! Thanks for dissecting this information, we need to embrace the energy transition because it makes sense, but I would say we should have a MUCH more balanced prioritisation between the *production* of renewable energy and *energy-infrastructure* because the power grid is just as important and again costs the Dutch economy €10-40 billion/year so there is also an economic necessity.

[@rutessian]

When you burn hydrogen, doesn't it turn back into water?

[@alexeypilipenko7111]

You've provided a fair amount of criticism to solar-optimism, thanks. But what exactly makes true Your claim that "we need other forms of energy (fuels) that aren't electric"? Yes, the grid is not ready, solar-power production is not ready to replace other fuels today in volume, but why exactly some other types of fuel are actually necessary? (other than current transition phase) (the only obvious exception I see ATM is aviation fuels, which is impossible to replace with todays battery tech)

[@RikkerdHZ]

Reducing the earth's water supply? Either burning or combining it with oxygen in a fuel cell will both turn it back into liquid water.

[@augustus331]

@@RikkerdHZ good call, it has been a long day. It is problematic in practical terms though, reducing freshwater whereas most countries are facing shortages in drinking water. It actively reduces our access to drinking water. Edit: European nations have been importing hydrogen from "water-rich" countries like Morocco to meet their needs. It shows the practical impact of hydrogen on water supply.

[@augustus331]

​@@alexeypilipenko7111 I am not a chemistry major so I'll probably oversimplify here. I think the immediate brute force of incineration provides the necessary amount of joules/second to produce the required heat for many industrial applications. Other reasons are that aviation is hard to electrify and you cannot use hydrogen for seafaring-transportation, because the amount of fuel it would take would expand the fuel tanks beyond reasonable size.

[@ashishpatel350]

It's cheap the only lacking thing is energy storage with batteries etc that's the next leap forward

[@rogerk6180]

This will also be a private matter mostly. Decentralised power generation as well as storage. As it becomes cheaper to simply generate and store energy yourself then pulling it from the grid. Cheap battery storage will spread into every home and building really quickly.

[@TankDerek]

Cheap solar provides a lot of economic incentive to develop cheap energy storage. If you can buy the panels for half the price you normally would, it makes it easier to justify buying more storage to accompany it

[@ashishpatel350]

@@rogerk6180 in America you need to have an electric connection and pay the connection fee

[@randxalthor]

Hopefully it'll also be overallocated solar power sinking into green hydrogen during times of overproduction to allow for even more systems to move away from fossil fuel power.

[@termitreter6545]

Seems questionable; batteries are just too expensive and ineffective. Seems like we are magnitudes away to actually store meaningful amounts of energy via batteries.

[@sambojinbojin-sam6550]

Cheers to the comments section! For once, it's actually a really good read, and almost as interesting as the video itself.

[@philsburydoboy]

I work in grid scale battery storage and my team developed the best trading system for power in ERCOT (Texas). Texas is the second largest battery market on earth, will become the largest in ~1 year, and is the most “free market” for batteries (we are mostly unsubsidized). There are a lot of barriers for batteries to replace thermal generators. First, they need to be able to operate overnight at roughly 2/3 the rate of the solar. This means a duration of ~16 to 20 hour durations in regions like Europe or the northern US. Most batteries are 2h systems, and once you go beyond 4h it becomes cheaper to just build natural gas (unless you’re in California where NG is penalized and batteries are subsidized). This transition can be smoothed by maintaining existing gen, but eventually costs either need to fall ~10x or a new 10x more cost efficient technology must be developed. Cost efficient batteries are often NOT power efficient. This means that they consume 2-4x more power than they produce (lithium ion systems consume about 1.15x). This means you’ll need 6-12x more solar to cover your overnight power needs. So again, you need a 10x improvement in cost or technology. This doesn’t even account for the transmission issues and infrastructure costs that would come from these gigantic daily fluctuations in solar productivity. Finally, there is a reliability issue. You really need to double or triple all of those battery durations to maintain a reliable grid in the event of major weather and transmission issues. With all this in mind, the cost of installing scrubbers and other fossil fuel cleaning systems starts to become attractive compared to solar/batteries when capacity exceeds peak demand. Even developing new nuclear capacity is vastly cheaper than overnight solar. This isn’t to say that solar is bad. It is wonderful for consumers and grid stability up to a point. There is a limit however, storing solar power for overnight use or for a true green transition is ridiculous without a massive (20x or more) technological advancement. With lithium ion, the cost of raw materials (not including lithium) is too high for even a 5x reduction to occur without a revolutionary breakthrough.

[@cameronf3343]

I imagine you’re all looking forward to these new Sodium Ion manufacturing plants going giga-level. So am I.

[@fnorgen]

It's a pity there aren't that many energy hungry places with great solar and hydro potential. One fun option I've seen is undersized, salt cooled nuclear reactors with thermal energy storage and oversized generators, specifically so the reactor can run at a fairly continuous output while electricity output varies enormously throughout the day. Not sure how far that tech has gotten, but superficially it strikes me as quite elegant if electricity storage doesn't get drastically cheaper, or daytime electricity doesn't get borderline free.

[@xiphoid2011]

Nothing says the energy grip must be 100% green. A solar + natural gas combo (or solar+wind+NG) can work without battery. Use surplus solar power during the day to scrub CO2 from natural gas used at night. As long as the outcome is a net zero, then it's good enough.

[@dakaodo]

@philsburydoboy You mentioned raw material costs excluding lithium. I'm not an industry person, so I only have read layman articles that said the scarcity of lithium, cobalt, manganese, as well as rare earth metals puts constraints on future renewable energy growth, as well as causing environmental, economic, and geopolitical disruption as more developed countries reposition to secure these new strategic resources. Is it a problem of industry and infrastructure size to extract enough of these elements to meet demand on shorter (yearly) timeframes, or is there just not enough of these elements accessible on the planet at all, to fulfill a complete green energy transition at a reasonable cost?

[@jacobjones630]

I would believe you, but you are from texas so…

[@madtechnocrat9234]

Truth is, healthy people are more productive. So breathing less toxic air not only improves economy, but also drives down costs of healthcare for a country.

[@Swordphobic]

And there's exactly where you'll find pushback, there's lots of money that some people won't be making if healthcare costs go down.

[@madtechnocrat9234]

@@Swordphobic Every day i thank god, whom i don't believe in that i live in Europe.

[@War4Skills]

These people die less fast which means they require pension longer which costs a lot too

[@madtechnocrat9234]

@@War4Skills Also true. But it is good that economical point of view is not the only point of view we should consider. However it is also a question whether cost of pensioners is greater or generation of additional wealth, by healthy workforce, would overcome that. Healthier old people, could also enable to push retirement age further, which would reduce the cost of pensions, though this would be unpopular move.

[@Swordphobic]

@@madtechnocrat9234 Honestly, pensions are fine for the economy, its just that greedy milionaires want more.

[@t.miller8456]

It's an often overlooked fact that the development of the Global South is going to bring so much prosperity to the rest of the world too. Just imagine how much the world would be a better place if Africa, Asia and South America had the same easy access to clean energy as us.

[@pedrobernardo5887]

Brazil has been "clean" on hidropower since the 50's and that does not translate to economic development.

[@1queijocas]

@@pedrobernardo5887and Brazil was the country with the cleanest car fuel (ethanol) for decades until electric cars came about

[@peterkratoska4524]

@@pedrobernardo5887 Brazil also used alcohol in its ICE fleet long before it became a thing in the US. But your point still stands.

[@lolcatjunior]

​@@pedrobernardo5887Brazil suffers from a high unemployment rate. That's why crime is so high.

[@aCycloneSteve]

Prosperity is "created" by government's that are not corrupt. If you can trust that your contracts will be enforced and your assets will not be seized you can develop.

[@BooBaddyBig]

That graph @0:20 is due to the IEA. Guess who finances the IEA? Hint: first word 'oil' second word 'companies'. Who could ever think that they would deliberately talk down the prospects for solar power? Who?

[@xx133]

I agree, but at the same time, China makes up for the majority of solar development over the past decade. I doubt many could have predict the exponential success of China in this area. Regardless, wouldn’t make a difference. Us capitalism is incompatible with a green economy. They can’t make endless profits, nor have leverage over the public, if energy is democratized in a way where every one can generate it on their own after installing solar, geothermal, etc.

[@christianlibertarian5488]

I have observed from both personal experience with solar and California’s experience that when you hit roughly 1/3 solar in total electricity production, an inflection point exists. That is because solar doesn’t produce at times of highest demand-the well known “duck curve”. At that point, storage is required, which has an entirely different cost structure than straight production. Australia is near that point. In California, they “solve” this problem by selling to other states. Australia doesn’t have this option, so it will be interesting to see how they progress.

[@rogerk6180]

Battery technology is reaching a simmilar point and is starting the same s-curve as solar is experiencing now. Storage will be just as ubiqitus in every building as solar will be. These 2 things will become stardard equipment to any building within a decade the same as water heaters and such.

[@dexterdr.7020]

battery is one solution while there's another one kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3S5nZV4jtFohbc

[@XMysticHerox]

No need to put solve in quotation marks. Having a strong electrical grid that can distribute power over long distance is a very real solution to the storage issue. When you combine it with other renewables especially. The cheapest scenarios for carbon neutral electricity all include it.

[@christophorus9235]

Sun shines all day, there are other ways to solve the "duck curve" issue.

[@pradeep_krishna]

Would 'One World, One Sun, One Grid' initiative help in selling it to other countries?

[@pepeteperez7142]

Spain is producing 59,8% of the total electricity in 2024 using renewable energy. Objective for 2030 is 70%. We are in track to do even better.

[@PxThucydides]

"On track"

[@AWE_ZIOLIO]

spain has highest energy prices it ever had spain gdp barely came back to it's 2019 after 2020 fall there is no doubt spain will loose it's production rates in few years

[@valdomero738]

Bullish on Spain, bearish on Germany who has no sun, wind or nuclear.

[@pepeteperez7142]

@@AWE_ZIOLIO Not true. We have the lowest in Europe. We are getting big investments from data center because of that. Amazon for example o Microsoft to invest $7.16 bln in new data centres in northeastern Spain.

[@WinterGK]

​@@AWE_ZIOLIOSpain's economy relied a lot on tourism and Spain obviously suffered due to Covid travel restrictions. Spain is experiencing good growth now and I don't know why you think something like Covid is on the way again

[@SamaelZem]

I work in solar data services, all of these points are accurate, industry is booming and will continue too but with huge hurdles. Grid limitations are by far the largest issue, as atm plenty of solar is curtailed yet fossil fuels still are purchased by grid operators enabling higher prices for consumers. The manufacturing situation is shifting slowly from China to India then to USA then maybe one day in Europe… unfortunately the margins for manufacturing modules are razor thin and China threw all the subsidies at it. Lastly, growth in Africa is actually much larger than it is portrayed here.

[@imakevideos5377]

Europe is fucked, no manufacturing will ever return to europe except for high tech industries.

[@rokhamler3352]

I would expect and hope Africa has growth in solar given how much usable sunlight the continent receives.

[@yusufemrullahparlak496]

​@@rokhamler3352 Most of Africa's renewable energy resources are financed by Europe, China, and the US. The potential is high, but it has again succumbed to modern colonialism.

[@SamaelZem]

⁠@@imakevideos5377 Well I work in Europe, and have met a few manufacturers here. But they are in great scarcity and constantly voice how impossible it is to compete with cheap Chinese modules

[@secretname4190]

@@imakevideos5377 Protectionism to counter subsidized foreign industries, simple as that.

[@senerzen]

So, public takes all the risk and then once new tech is proven profitable, the profits are privatized. And that is all normal. Good to know.

[@robinbennett5994]

Those private profits are also taxed, so the money does come back.

[@senerzen]

@@robinbennett5994 That is an extremely naive take. Why are most big companies headquartered or have subsidiaries in tax heaven countries like Ireland, Netherlands or Luxemburg? Apple, Goodle, Microsoft, Facebook all have subsidiaries in those places to funnel money through. Haven't you heard about "Double Irish, Dutch Sandwich" ? Did you forget about "Panama Papers"? Why do private owners have private accounts in tax heaven treasure islands? Why do they buy all those art pieces just to keep them locked up in no-man's land in airport warehouses, outside of tax laws of any country? They build businesses off of tax payer money and then they pay 10~20% of it back, and that is somehow okay... Jesus!

[@Mnv26]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@senerzenall the companies you listed pay plenty in taxes to the American gov, yes they use loopholes to pay less than what they should, but let’s not act like the amount they are paying is not multiple magnitudes greater than any tax funded investments into the specific fields they are in. Also, you fail to realize these companies bring plenty of value to the average citizen even without paying taxes, even while making large profits as there is a mutually beneficial arrangement between consumers and producers, otherwise you wouldn’t use these products. Would you rather have no google, apple, microsoft etc.? Obviously not. Lastly, the privatization of technology promotes innovation which is contrary to your narrative that companies just steal info from tax-funded research. apple and other companies have incentive to innovate as they can protect innovation under ip temporarily, and when the time limit expires, this innovation is available to anyone else to use (think IBM PC architecture, google PageRank, Adobe PDF)

[@xx133]

@@robinbennett5994they aren’t. Also, it’s undemocratic. The tech was developed by the public, it should be not for profit, and owned by+ run democratically.

[@xx133]

@@Mnv26they aren’t run democratically. They use their profits to make society less democratic. They write the tax laws. The transfer of wealth over the past couple decades has been in the tens of trillions. So no, they aren’t getting taxed nearly enough.

[@SapereAude1490]

Wow, that's a wonderful outfit. Patrick Boyle has some competition.

[@ManNoName-c9u]

Nah, until some nifty glasses appear, Boyle is always the winner.

[@Texacate]

Every article like this focuses on panels. WHY? They are only 30%-50% of the total cost. The electronics, installation, storage, and distribution of solar is STILL expensive. If the USA want to compete, we need to incentivize the whole thing, not simply tariff Chinese panels! And the media needs to STOP focusing on just flashy imagery of PV panels. Start reporting on the other 50% - 70% of the costs.

[@golagiswatchingyou2966]

solar, hydro and nuclear seem like the best potentials for near infinite energy, seeing the development of these sources of energy rise and become cheaper and more advanced is a good thing for everyone, a glimmer of hope in our current age of uncertainty.

[@imakevideos5377]

Bro you forgot wind, especially offshore, its not too big now but it has some incredible advantages like having higher capacity factors than even the best gas plants, and producing incredible amounts of power for the actually space needed per turbine, new offshore turbines have capacities of 14mw, 10x higher than even 10 years ago.

[@strigoiu13]

i will die and nothing of this will put into mass practice...i hear this mantra repeated since my high school 30 years ago! and in the mean time, energy prices have soared immensily!

[@HailAzathoth]

​@@imakevideos5377naw too hard to maintain

[@tanalson]

Tidal and nuclear has the biggest potential. Solar and wind requires very vast pieces of land. For wind, we just need it to be very high up in the air without requiring huge infrastructure

[@jasonneugebauer5310]

All the technology's you mention have some issues. Solar has a capacity rating of 15-25% IE its intermittent with insufficient storage. Nuclear is very expensive, maybe more expensive than gas to build, maintain and operate. That money represents the fossil fuels used to make the system work. Hydo electric has the problem of stopping the flow of sediments, filling up the dams with dirt. Check out the Three Gorges Dam or the Hoover Dam as examples. I am not saying these technologies are not good options. I'm just saying they have there difficulties and we should not expect them to be cheaper than fossil fuels. That's because they take a whole lot more resources, infrastructure, and manpower with a lower ROI and their own potential climate change and pollution problems. How much money and diesel will it take to remove all the built up dirt behind the Three Gorges Dam? How many hundreds of millions of lithium ion baterys will need to be built, installed, then 10-20 years later those baterys full of toxic gick will need to be "recycled" and replaced, for solar power to be used for more than 10-15% of the grid. Nuclear has the NIMBY problem every time there is a nuclear disaster. And no one can agree on anything nuclear in the US.

[@Ryukachoo]

7:00 The impact of this is hugely slept on A lot of developing nations are poised to completely leapfrog centralizes electricity and have more energy than they ever thought feasible. The quality of life improvements from this are gonna be gigantic

[@blackcountrysmoggie]

See, these are the kind of 15 minute adverts I can get on with. Interesting and informative. If I wasn't already subbed to the economist I'd consider it

[@Oooooof2024]

Some good news that are very needed in thess times

[@SilverScarletSpider]

too bad its just over-sensationalized clickbait, as all the other commenters have pointed out

[@NadeemAhmed-nv2br]

​@@SilverScarletSpiderit's not, directly from China, on the cell lvl, Lifepo4 batteries cost less than $60 per Kwh while panels costs 11 cents per watt and this includes transport costs. A typical American home can go completely off grid with a multiple day battery backup under 10,000. We just need the middle men to stop ripping us off. I have a 7kw DIY system at the cost of $2000 and the battery backup being $500 so. $2500 for 1 complete day off grid. If I spent $4000, I'd have a multi day backup and this includes running my 2.5 ton Hvac.

[@matm4413]

what times?

[@jimmcneal5292]

*bad news

[@liketheduck]

Collaboration with The Economist?! Congratulations. You are killing the KZbin business. Glad to have a trusted source of info and interpretation getting the success he deserves!!

[@michaelthomas2414]

I work in the renewable energy industry. I remember seeing in a presentation that new solar builds are up in the US 3-5x, and new battery storage sites are up by a factor of 20x! Storage is a key part of why solar is starting to make a lot more sense! It'll be exciting to see what all the new battery research will yield! Another comment pointed out that natural gas has non-electricity uses so solar electricity won't be able to substitute for those cases. I wonder (honestly, not rhetorically!) how big that slice of gas demand is. Enough that Europe still needs Russian gas OR is it small enough that the Netherlands could supply 100% of its gas needs and export more? (EDIT) A quick Google found a DOE article stating that 40% of gas is used for non-electric purposes. If more people use electric stoves, heat pumps, etc. I bet we could theoretically reduce our gas use by 50% without a lot of pain or new tech. Wow!

[@milospavlovic7520]

Heatpumps are now a gamechanger that enables the electric heating to be more efficient than burning gas, even when the electricity itself was produced from that same gas in powerplant (restrictions, caviats and adoption pains apply though), hence the gas can be replaced in households in a matter of years. However, for industrial processes it is often possible to replace gas by electricity for heating, however, that often comes with significant capital investments, hence we are switching from years to 1-4 decades, but if there is the will it will happen eventually

[@imakevideos5377]

@@milospavlovic7520 Coal is on its way out, even in china, the average capacity factor for new coal plants is dipping below 40%. Gas will take longer, but i could easily see cities without any public gas infrastructure in the future especially in places like here in australia, no need for lots of heating, heatpump uptake being extremely high, and a switch to induction, electric and other types of power in the home. Gas for resedential is going to die out.

[@st-ex8506]

The largest "non-electrical" uses of natural gas are not for heater or stoves, by a HUGE margin... but for hydrogen production for fertilizer, steel, oil refining and chemical industries.

[@JSM-bb80u]

There is more wind energy during winter. So we can heat pumps powered by electricity produced from wind. Insulation is another thing. There are passive houses which doesn't need any kind of heating during winter at all. We can make bio char from human waste and burn them in cogeneration plants during winter to produce heat for district heating and electricity for the grid.

[@JSM-bb80u]

​@@imakevideos5377Cities are best suited for district heating systems.

[@rogerk6180]

The famous exponential S-curve. We have seen this comming for 10 years already. It is only old energy institutions that have been under estimating solar for many years. 85% of energy production will be renewable within a decade.

[@number2and3]

Now the big old energy play might be to downplay it and lobby against while silently investing massively in it.

[@rogerk6180]

​@@number2and3 they will have to if they want to survive. The big challange has always been to convert the grid from a 1 way system where centralised power plants feed to many consumers to a peer-to-peer system where unlimited producers can distribute to unlimeted consumers. Soon pv and battery instalations will become standard equipment to every building and overproduction needs to distributed the other way.

[@MrPetzold123]

Haha 😂. Edit. Let me explain. According to "Statistical Review Of World Energy", fossil fuel usage (in exajoules) grew *more* than renewables in 2023.

[@rutessian]

Tell that to China building tens of coal fired power plants each year

[@rogerk6180]

@@rutessian they aren't building any coal power anymore at all. They are instaling almost half of the renewable capacity installed every year though. They have been going greener faster then anyone else in the world for quite a few years now. A lot has changed in the last 10 years.

[@anotherelvis]

From the article: Solar capacity has doubled every approximately three years. This corresponds to an annual growth of roughly 25%. So the growth is indeed exponential in the mathematical sense

[@SilverScarletSpider]

brother does not understand the definition of "exponential" lmfao

[@jasonneugebauer5310]

Solar is so small in the market it hasn't quite hit the wall yet. Solar won't pass 20% of stable grid energy in the next 50 years. I don't think you could find anyone that understands the electric utility grid operation that would disagree with this assessment. Solar is not storage it is variable minute to minute and that's not good for the grid. We need reliable long lasting inexpensive storage of at least 8 hours to get solar up to 4 hours of moderate reliable power, but we will still need 100% backup power source available immediately after storage is exhausted.

[@michaela.178]

I appreciate that the advertisement block is dedicated to real media backed by real experts and narrators - namely the Economist. Lately, all over KZbin, there was a mass of advertisement for GroundNews which essentially denied true human expertise, inherent balance, and transparent discussions provided by "traditional" media outlets which come with a sense of inherited obligation to quality.

[@aurelspecker6740]

The bottleneck of Solar installations are not the panels anymore, but skilled installers and grid management. This can be overcome, but not exponentially.

[@RussellFineArt]

I work in the utility-scale solar industry, for the world's largest solar module manufacturer. ALL new electrical generation capacity in North America that is scheduled to construct in the next 5-years is: solar and wind + battery storage. The few remaining gas plant projects, have been cancelled, and the hope of small nuclear reactors, have faded with their extremely high costs and long time-lines. Solar will deliver: ~60% of all power capacity, with wind at: 25% and hydro and nuclear, making up the rest, in the next ~20-years. These are facts reported by decommissioning power plants and new projects in scheduled development. What most people don't know is, there is as much solar, wind and battery storage on the grid, operating, now, as there is built, waiting to be connected to the grid.

[@Theiliteritesbian]

I have no facts or experience to argue with you, but this does not sound right. All i hear is how cheap and abundant natural gas is. I hope i am wrong - this just does not seem correct haha

[@jillfizzard1018]

​@@Theiliteritesbiannatural gas can be very cheap in places that have large gas reserves, like e.g. Siberia. But as soon as you have to start moving that gas longer distances, the costs really start mounting up.

[@louvendran7273]

The one thing we can rest assured is the role of lobbying in the USA. It can possibly derail your plans for energy independence & reduced reliance on harmful/unsustainable energy sources including renewable agrifuel which is extremely harmful but branded as a renewable energy source. Thank you for sharing.

[@mponyt]

@@louvendran7273 The stranded asset mentality will kill us.

[@mponyt]

@@Theiliteritesbian Most natural gas in the USA is burned to generate electricity. @MrArtist7777 is correct. Here are the economic reasons for the USA: www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf

[@wasnt.here.3853]

As always, the economics here are sound and well explained, BUT MAN, what an outfit! Nice tie and shirt combo! Not everyone could pull that one off.

[@peterjohn5834]

Excellent presentation. You have added value to KZbin.

[@scpatl4now]

I would love to have solar panels on my house, but the electric utilities make it so difficult and they impose a $30/month fee just to have them. Like you said, Chinese solar panels have high tariffs and the US produced ones are way more expensive, so for US residents it's not there yet. Big Oil fights it tooth and nail and since they own Congress it wont change anytime soon.

[@icecp4279]

Just smuggle them through the Mexican border. Easy peezy.

[@rogerk6180]

One problem is also long supressed energy costs in general in the USA. This makes alternatives just not as attractive because the treshold for achieving significant savings is a lot lower. In other parts of the world solar has been a no brainer and a big money saver for a while now. And the ones who invest in it will basicly have free power for 40 years or more. Especially if you combine it with other ways of saving energy.

[@wertigon]

$30 a month, that just means you need to produce more than $360 worth of transfer costs a year. Given that most utilities list this at $.20-ish, your panels need to produce ~1 800 kWh per year to offset that fee.

[@scpatl4now]

@@wertigon It's even worse than that. In Georgia the public utility will only buyback excess power at the wholesale rate, not what they charge you when you use electricity. The only way to go is to have solar with battery backup which is more expensive up front.

[@stafer3]

@@scpatl4now I mean, that’s how supply and demand work, no? If you produce a product, which they don’t actually need, the price will be low. If it is shining on your rooftop, then it obviously shines on everyone’s else rooftop, you are over-saturating market. On the other hand, when you need electricity, it means sun doesn’t shine on your rooftop, and therefore no one else’s rooftop. So the only producer of electricity is someone with other source of energy who can, less supply, more demand, higher price.

[@kushalvora7682]

Solar will be the game changer for all the developing countries which depend on oil imports. India spends 5 to 10% of their gdp to import fossil fuels and related products. Now just imagine that money staying in india creating a current account surplus and since energy is involved in everything, it ends up combating inflation and thus low interest rates. I think the developing countries around the world will see growth rate of >10% once solar becomes dominant.

[@secretname4190]

corruption will ensure that none of that ever happens

[@NoobGamer-ki9pz]

Lmao, don't be such a pessimistic ​@@secretname4190

[@Arya_amsha]

​@@secretname4190 Already happening

[@hschan5976]

Crude oil is still required to produce many manufactured goods, such as polymers and industrial lubricants for example. Industrial heating for manufacturing processes also cant be converted to be electrically powered, as another commenter mentioned. Passenger jets and military vehicles also can't run on electric power. Renewables will reduce oil consumption but won't be able to fully replace it. And as the economy of the country improves, the per capita energy consumption will rise quite quickly such that country's net oil consumption might increase even though the percentage of oil fossil fuel consumption has decreased compared to renewables

[@jimmcneal5292]

It won't eroi is too low, so amount of energy produced is net zero

[@igormoravcik300]

the Figure at 4:00 is from what source? I was not able to find it based on the description provided in the video. Can you please provide link? it seems to good to be true for the world

[@XxSliMoO]

Way back in 2014 Tony Seba predicted the clean disruption that solar would make fossil fuels obsolete by 2030. Good work Tony!

[@richdobbs6595]

Solar and wind power is cheap as long as you do an apples-to-oranges comparison ignoring cost of energy storage and system reliability. Batteries are cheap if you focus on price reduction compared to before, rather than how low batteries need to be utilize that "free" solar power. Essentially all PV installations are dependent on using up what used to be considered required over-engineering of the electrical grid.

[@secretname4190]

This. The video is far too optimistic. It doesn't even take into account seasonal variety, that no battery can help with.

[@st-ex8506]

@@secretname4190 That is absolutely correct! Batteries cannot help with seasonal variations. But there are 5 other methods that can, together, perfectly deal with that problem! Renewable power intermittence IS an issu, but an issue that can be handled! I have written a white paper, before I retired of a chief engineer job in renewable energies, of which I can share with you the summary, if you are interested.

[@secretname4190]

@@st-ex8506 Yes I love this subject!! If you could link it in some way that youtube doesn't delete it, that would be great!

[@st-ex8506]

@@secretname4190 I cannot share on YT the whole white paper., as it is too long for the media.. furthermore, it belongs to my employer and is behind a pay wall. However, I am allowed to share a summary of it. here it is: Ways to remediate the intermittent nature of solar and wind power generation N.B.: The following methods are listed hereunder in a logical order of conceptual planning, but NOT in chronological order of implementation. 1. Size of grid The larger and more diversified the grid is geographically, the lesser the variations. In this respect, the European grid is the best in the world. The US one could be yet better… provided it be a single unified one, which it is not! The grid of an isolated island/archipelago (Hawaii or Taiwan for example) obviously stands at a big disadvantage on that dimension! 2. Long-distance connections (via HVDC lines) East-West connections will decrease solar generation variations throughout any 24-hour period. A complete round-the-world HVDC grid would make solar PV generation not an intermittent but a constant power source! Obviously an economically non-optimal extreme, but a technological possibility. South (tropical latitudes) to North connections will decrease seasonal variability. 3. Proper technology mix, adapted to local characteristics. Solar’s yield is obviously lower in the winter in mid to high latitudes… while wind generation is higher, compensating each other quite well, at least on a monthly basis in Europe, for example. 4. “Foisonnement” (in English “abundance”… but not quite). Installing a generating capacity not dictated by yearly averages, but by the most demanding, say weekly period. Obviously, this solution cannot be economically, as well as environmentally pushed to an extreme, an economic and environmental optimum must be found. 5. Voluntary curtailment. Pay industries to be ready to voluntarily curtail their energy consumption in peak stress periods. That can also be done with private consumers by having the right fee structures (see TEMPO contract of French EDF). That solution is cheaper than storage for the same capacity! 6. Storage capacity. Whether pumped-hydro (cheapest where conditions are right), batteries or other storage technologies. This is the last measure to be implemented in order of logic (not always of timing, though!), not the first one!

[@st-ex8506]

​@@secretname4190 I cannot give you the whole papers it belongs to my employer, and is behind a paywall. But I may share its summary. Here it is: Ways to remediate the intermittent nature of solar and wind power generation N.B.: The following methods are listed hereunder in a logical order of conceptual planning, but NOT in chronological order of implementation. 1. Size of grid The larger and more diversified the grid is geographically, the lesser the variations. In this respect, the European grid is the best in the world. The US one could be yet better… provided it be a single unified one, which it is not! The grid of an isolated island/archipelago (Hawaii or Taiwan for example) obviously stands at a big disadvantage on that dimension! 2. Long-distance connections (via HVDC lines) East-West connections will decrease solar generation variations throughout any 24-hour period. A complete round-the-world HVDC grid would make solar PV generation not an intermittent but a constant power source! Obviously an economically non-optimal extreme, but a technological possibility. South (tropical latitudes) to North connections will decrease seasonal variability. 3. Proper technology mix, adapted to local characteristics. Solar’s yield is obviously lower in the winter in mid to high latitudes… while wind generation is higher, compensating each other quite well, at least on a monthly basis in Europe, for example. 4. “Foisonnement” (in English “abundance”… but not quite). Installing a generating capacity not dictated by yearly averages, but by the most demanding, say weekly period. Obviously, this solution cannot be economically, as well as environmentally pushed to an extreme, an economic and environmental optimum must be found. 5. Voluntary curtailment. Pay industries to be ready to voluntarily curtail their energy consumption in peak stress periods. That can also be done with private consumers by having the right fee structures (see TEMPO contract of French EDF). That solution is cheaper than storage for the same capacity! 6. Storage capacity. Whether pumped-hydro (cheapest where conditions are right), batteries or other storage technologies. This is the last measure to be implemented in order of logic (not always of timing, though!), not the first one!

[@RealistReviewer]

I just wish do it yourself solar was cheaper and we did more plug and play, like if every home could power some of it's devices from solar rather than relying on the grid, it would be a good thing, every little helps and every home would have solar backup power. Camping kits are paving the way.

[@sa.377]

Solar is perfect for fry sunny climates with generally stable weather conditions. In Greece many remote households use it.

[@st-ex8506]

Solar power generation can now be implemented profitably all the way to Southern Alaska and Scandinavia! And that limit is moving north every year with the decline in solar panel costs.

[@vylbird8014]

It was. Solar photovoltaic technology has improved in recent years, to the point it is usable in less-than-ideal climates. Not ideal, but viable. And importantly, profitable.

[@jimmcneal5292]

​@@vylbird8014 profitable because of subsidies

[@huboz0r]

In some countries, it's beyond 'so cheap' - actually costing money to find ways to burn excess energy to keep the grid stable

[@prebenpetersen5982]

That is correct. When having too much renewable energy in the grid, you still have to run gas turbines or coal power to generate stabilizing power to prevent the grid not collapsing. The European population are being told incredible LIES EVERY DAY ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY. Renewables is a scam and expensive as hell. And in general the reason why Europe is collapsing

[@jasonneugebauer5310]

Solar is only over producing on a sunny day for about four hours. For 12 hours per day solar is producing absolutely zero power.

[@philiphsinh9214]

Chemical energy storage is one thing. Another interesting power storage is hydro. Simply draw water up when the sun shines, open the flood gates when you need to draw on that stored power.

[@georgesmith4768]

That requires the right geography to be cost effective, and most pumped hydro locations are already being used for that. Batteries are necessary (though what they might look like might be weird. Molten sodium batteries are wild)

[@Swordphobic]

@@georgesmith4768 I would say that Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay would benefit quite a bit from using their regular hydro dams for storage.

[@edsteadham4085]

Yes, go ahead and fight the environmental lobby and bulldoze millions of acres of wildlife to make room for more dams. Go ahead, calculate what happens to hydro power during droughts. Oh yeah, how do those fancy solar power pumps work in northern latitudes during, I forget what it is called...winter? And on cloudy days.

[@GlobalDrifter1000]

That chestnut has been around for a millennium

[@willabyuberton818]

The cheapest right now is compressed air.

[@Based_Mannn]

While I wanted to switch to solar, I found for installation of off grid solar system ,the majority of the cost isn't even the solar panels but the inverter and batterie cost more than solar panels.

[@ianhamilton3113]

And scaffolding for the roof.

[@purplecat4977]

You know, I never stopped to consider solar as a driver of productivity the way that coal and oil were in their respective eras. That's a really interesting possibility.

[@rogerk6180]

Any source of cheap energy, especially efficient energy like electricity, will increase productivity.

[@edsteadham4085]

especially at night. Of wait...what to do then? Burn coal, gas, use nukes...or freeze.

[@CmdrTobs]

Why would it be a driver when the real effect of renewables is to increase energy prices that disincentivise automation It also cannot be a driver of productivity since we already had cheap all-you-can-use electricity in the form of Coal. The extra Jobs required by solar/wind industry represent a decline in productivity. A negative railway if there ever was one.

[@BasementTracks]

The economist predicted jack shit. Tony Seba, among others has been predicting the solar S curve for a decade now.

[@calc1657]

This is very true. Tony Seba is the true visionary. However, the Economist is notable as an indicator of establishment acknowledgement.

[@travcollier]

Tons of folks have seen this coming for several decades. And lots of folks (institutions and governments as well) have actually put their money where their mouth is, which is what made that S-curve happen. That's how it works

[@JSM-bb80u]

Tony Seba is proven right again and again. Batteries are now following the same S curve.

[@strigoiu13]

just a lobbyst. he predicted nada, just advertise it for others to bring the money and the government to subsidize so the private money keep flowing. and here we are now, the most expensive energy prices ever for consumers and governments running out of subsidy money and the grid in shambles. but, hey, we need batteries now, a new "shiny bubble" to waste our money on!

[@5353Jumper]

Also there is the point that solar is the most easily democratized form of generation. So in regions where the grid oligopoly does not have enough control to block it, you have residential, business and community solar projects adding significantly to the deployment numbers. Small capital outlay to supplement small end users, not waiting for mega projects and capital investment.

[@jasonneugebauer5310]

Solar is great just as long as you can afford the installation, the batterys, the inverter and you don't mind paying higher than grid costs all up front. I tried it. For me, as long as the grid is there and less expensive, I will gladly let the power company deal with production and delivery. When my inverter died my break even period whent from 23 years to 30 years. That is proving my batterys and equipment last 30 years. What could go wrong, right?

[@shaydza]

Im in south Africa and went solar a few years ago. The barrier to entry now is more cost effective inverters and batteries. Panels are not a major cost anymore.

[@loovthejungle]

In Greece while solar and wind farms multiply exponentially, electricity bills get steadily more and more expensive

[@strigoiu13]

and remember this happens when solar and wind is subsidized...if they were not subsidized, the cost in bill would have skyrocketed!

[@robinbennett5994]

Gas is still the largest source of electricity in Greece, and is expensive because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Your bills would be a lot higher without the wind and solar you have.

[@CmdrTobs]

@@robinbennett5994 .... but nobody used gas as a prime generator of electricty BEFORE renewables. It was mainly coal. Coal for electricty Gas for home and industrial heat Oil for transport. That is the actual counterfactual.... not saying it's great for the enviroment, but it was cheap. Don't lie to people.

[@jimmcneal5292]

That's because solar panels have EROI close to net zero. I.e. to produce X amount of energy by them you need to spend around the same amount to manufacture solar panels

[@blabla5534]

I'd love to hear your take on the cannibalisation effects of a large rise of photovoltaics. The paradox of having a high levelized cost of electricity and a near-zero marginal cost of electricity.

[@archkral]

Love it. So happy you kept the quality up. Also very nice we get some good news once in a while! ^^

[@dengris457]

thanks for not having background music and taking your time!

[@richtofein]

This seems really promising. Fingers crossed :)

[@alexeypilipenko7111]

One missing piece was agrophotovoltaics. In a favorable circumstances combining solar with agriculture may be a pure win-win (and otherwise reasonable trade-off is still possible).

[@overthecounterbeanie]

We should be cautious in saying that solar and wind are cheaper than conventional sources of energy since this is cost based on installed capacity. Actual output cost should be analyzed.

[@nunterz]

Exactly. What really matters is how much it costs me to access 1kW any time of the day and year I want.

[@robinbennett5994]

No, those are levelized costs of electricity produced, not based on installed capacity. What they don't consider is the cost of storage or grid upgrades, but then the cost of fossil fuels ignores the future cost of climate change, which dwarfs everything else.

[@nunterz]

@@robinbennett5994 then you need to talk about the compound cost of efficiency loss that you introduce with (prematurely pushed) renewables too, meanwhile it's still only a guess that paying for all these costly upgrades indeed avert climate change.

[@davechapman6609]

I got an MS in Photovoltaic Technology in 1982. Right around that time, Reagan and the Saudis made a deal to push down the price of oil, which created the first "Solar Winter". It sure has taken a while to get to the point of "Solar is Taking Over the Energy Market". Worth the wait.

[@frankwilson2607]

Hmmm and it looks like the orange guy and son-in-law seem to be up to no good on that front, don't you think? Thankfully Biden isn't running so at least there's a hint of optimism.

[@solo_wing_pixy_fan7367]

i'd like to see a solar vs neclear video on the basis of economics.

[@robinbennett5994]

One of the two is getting cheaper rapidly. The other is getting gradually more expensive. The cross-over point happened a few years ago.

[@jimmcneal5292]

Nuclear actually produces net energy, solar panels don't. So as source of energy nuclear is incomparably better. The problem is that government subsidizes solar power while putting excessive restrictions on nuclear reactors

[@peterpayne2219]

Wow, that was a really outstanding discussion!

[@Zed_Oud]

It’s so steep it’s hard to fit the mandatory s-curve.

[@Moneyuncharted]

Amazing video as always! 👏 Kudos for all the research work! 📚💡

[@alexclifford2485]

I'm not into the whole eco warrior thing. But yes solar is super cheap when using direct. 10 cents per watt for wholesale panels, each of those will generate a multiple every day. Batteries are expensive. Instead of shaming and guilting everyone into this green energy - instead we should say solar/wind will make the oil/gas/coal we have last 4-5x longer than the current resources and reduce the impact. Have the old fuels as backup and the solar and wind when its churning out loads. We adapt our needs to what's abundant. We have nearly free energy when its sunny and windy, and use a much more limited amount of old power when it needs a boost. When batteries are cheaper we can adopt more than a kind of failover amount.

[@IverKnackerov]

You’re still prepared to bet against engineers solving the storage challenge, given all the recent technology changes …… really ?

[@geoffdavids7647]

Just to clarify, does "I'm not into the whole eco-warrior thing" just mean "I don't really think climate change is a pressing problem / that real at all"?

[@calamityjean1525]

Battery costs are expected to fall by 50% over the next two years (IOW by 2026 or '27). How cheap do you need them to be? Existing coal burning power plants already can't compete with solar in many locations. Peaker plants are being killed by batteries now. The more-efficient Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power plants see the handwriting on the wall and will likely be gone within ten years unless they are mothballed for emergency use.

[@KraussHelmut]

This presentation overlooks many fundamental considerations. You can’t just extrapolate an exponential curve like this for any given region. Reasons: 1) These resources are intermittent 2) supplementing intermittency with batteries is expensive, eroding the economics of solar/wind (not mentioning the ecological challenges of batteries) 3) Many units are installed in low solar resource regions bolstered by subsidies, artificially depressing prices. The availability of solar in such regions absent subsidies is unlikely 4) There is substantial import dependency for PV systems (he touches on this but it’s worth flagging that this is a major systemic vulnerability) Solar and wind are both great but their capacity needs to be accurately presented

[@kevincronk7981]

To your point about what newly cheap energy could do for economies, I agree. Predicting *what* innovations will occur in the future is a fool's errand. But identifying the conditions under which innovations, whatever they may specifically be, typically occur and predicting if and when those conditions will exist is definitely possible. Just from things I have heard of before, there are many industries where there are multiple approaches to achieving some goal, and one of those approaches is to just throw energy at it until the problem goes away. If you make energy really cheap, that could potentially revolutionize some parts of the economy without even needing any additional innovations.

[@coolbanana165]

It could help alot with AI, where energy costs is one of the limiting factors. Combine renewables, AI, and robotics, and things could change very quickly.

[@UndeadSages]

Finally, a serious channel that recommends a serious product! I don't mind all the shilling, I understand good content takes time and focus that might be directed elsewhere, but most of the channels I follow are full of scams. The Economist is definitely not a scam, and I can happily recommend reading their content to anyone. Well done Joeri! (also, properly good video dude)

[@tarstarkusz]

First, solar is artificially cheap. China has MASSIVE overcapacity problems and is losing money on both solar and batteries. But besides that, solar isn't cheap. Solar is only cheap by one metric, LCOE. This does not take into account baseload. The cost of baseload will increase the cost of solar by a factor of 10x at least.

[@Ottovonostbahnhof]

none of your claims are true. The top 10 solar panel companies in China are all profitable without subsidies.

[@markoliimatainen2565]

Actually it will increase it by factor of 100000000000x and solar panels if shortcircuited could cause thermonuclear explosion when the photons inside the panels starts to fuse into heavier elements like iron and steel.

[@robo_t]

@@markoliimatainen2565What's that number broski

[@bjrnhjortshjandersen1286]

I really like some really informative channels like yours. 😉

[@ohkee]

Bedankt!

[@StupitVoltMain]

At least some good news in this decade

[@ywtcc]

It's a hopeful economic case presented here, but I think the political and governmental hurdles are more significant and time consuming than accounted for. In my area in the USA, it seems that solar and batteries are already good investments, but that's not the whole problem. There's a role for finance here, and there's still hurdles to providing this kind of investment capital to the masses. With microfinance involved, it solves the final hurdle to adoption. Anyone with an electricity bill could pay that bill to a solar company. Then , the solar company installs solar and batteries, and collects the difference in electricity bills until the loan is repaid. Until there's a nationwide policy to allow such agreements, and to coerce local governments into adjusting their building policies, the economics only works for people with capital.

[@edsteadham4085]

Yes, every ounce of battery power can power the grid for, what, 20 minutes? And if you are so sure that fabulous battery technology is just around the corner, please, tell me, I will put $1,000 for me, $1,000 for you, and you have to put in 10,000.

[@ywtcc]

@@edsteadham4085 Grid storage isn't so bad a technological problem. For grid, you don't have to worry about weight, it's just a matter of keeping materials and construction costs low. Sodium is a good alternative to lithium here, but there's other options. For transportation you may have a point, but that was never going to be solar powered. Having said that, with cheap and plentiful enough solar capacity, excess energy could be turned into hydrogen, or other chemical energy storage, that can be used in transportation.

[@cameronforester8413]

I needed this dose of optimism thank you

[@willabyuberton818]

I love that opt-Ed: "if you ignore the biggest producer, there's way less production."

[@Abrown2048]

One BIG caveat to the solar panel tariffs is that there is a carveout for bifacial modules (modules with PV on both sides to take advantage of light reflecting off the ground). Everyone just switched to bifacial imports instead of American made panels.

[@tomarmstrong1281]

I dream of walking down my local high street and not having to breathe in the exhaust fumes from the lumbering wagon on its way to who knows where.

[@SilverScarletSpider]

ban rolling coal diesel trucks, but keep turbo gas cars

[@tomarmstrong1281]

@@SilverScarletSpider I will be happy when ALL fossil fuel burners become fossils themselves,,and it won't be long.

[@st-ex8506]

@@SilverScarletSpider Why in h.ll should we keep the turbo gas cars???? Here in Europe, those turbo engines are failing one after the other. The only realistic solution are electric cars!

[@TheRezro]

But instead drink toxic lithium from cheep Chinese batteries.

[@TheRezro]

@@st-ex8506 In the cities yes. But gas engine would not die.

[@Danji_Coppersmoke]

I am absolutely looking forward to this future.

[@madcow3417]

Europe relied on cheap Russian fuel for years, and then had to cut it off quickly. With solar panels, if China cuts us off then we continue to use the panels we already have while we get our own manufacturing up to speed. There's no major risk to this dependence, but lots of benefits.

[@lolcatjunior]

Northern Europe is a poor source for solar energy.

[@secretname4190]

@@lolcatjunior but they are great with geothermal/hydro/wind

[@ympkilla]

this is very short sighted... China will not cut off exports, they will manipulate your economic/foreign policies with your reliance on their solar panels. And you never want to cut off solar imports because it is a source of cheap energy. If it is economical you want to install as many solar panels as feasible, which would take decades, and then you will have amortization of existing solar panels as they need to replace every 20 years or so. Also, good luck competing with China's economies of scale if you want to produce them domestically.

[@secretname4190]

@@ympkilla just put tariffs lmao

[@networm78]

It's the US that cut off Russian gas supply from Europe. It's also the US that have banned / sanctioned Chinese technology. You should worry about what the US will do instead of what Russia or China will do.

[@RavarsenBlogspot]

Even if solar is limited to powering during day, it's still a revolution in energy.

[@sudazima]

look johnny, its the economists predicting exponentials again! lets learn how wrong they'll be this time Few points: levelized costs of energy is NOT a good way to determine costs for solar (or wind), firstly since its actually subsidized by Chinese low cost coal burning and second since it does not take energy storage into account at all. (which is also why it DOES work for most other sources). in addition solar intermittency has been subsidized by base load power for now. CONSISTENTLY you mess up "electricity production" and "energy production" which are not the same, electricity grid power is only 25% orso of primary energy usage. most solar power can be generated in place where people simply dont live, and so transmission is a serious concern, unlike for most other sources. even with lots of solar, demand for oil for plastics and chemicals will still be plenty high. also large scale solar investments have not actually decreased emissions that much, which if you recall is the whole point. etc etc

[@sandrothenecromancer6810]

Just saying we could have free energy with nuclear. I wonder how much has the economist been paid or if they are just dishonest.

[@JSM-bb80u]

​@@sandrothenecromancer6810Nuclear plant would take 20 years and twice the amount of money intially assumed. China is fastly installing more solar wind and batteries. Oil is subsidized more than renewables. Also isn't plastic bad for environment and our health too? Plastic becoming costlier would be a net positive.

[@mr-boo]

I can see where you may have gotten the inspiration, but you look dashing either way!

[@KrystianKarbowski-kh3pd]

Very interesting and very good news. Great analysis from economical point of view.

[@jimmcneal5292]

*bad

[@KrystianKarbowski-kh3pd]

@@jimmcneal5292 bad? What is bad about cheaper power?

[@beardmonster8051]

Super cheap solar will be handy to have, but we're very far from being able to rely purely on solar, no matter how cheap solar panels become, partly because of the intermittency (including basically zero production half the time), partly because of the frequency stability issue, where the large generators in large-scale hydro, fossil fuel plants and nuclear plants are very important currently, just to mention a couple of major issues. I'm sure solar will dominate in the very long run, but maybe not until we expand into space, but in the upcoming decades we'll also have to invest heavily in nuclear power if we really want to get rid of fossil fuel dependency.

[@vylbird8014]

Frequency stability is a solvable problem. If need be, grid operators can just build giant flywheels - it won't even be that expensive, you can repurpose old coal plants to use the existing grid connection and generator. Wind and solar can also provide some contribution to grid stability just by designing the capability into their inverters.

[@beardmonster8051]

@@vylbird8014 I'm not saying it's impossible to solve things just using wind and solar. But it's weird to just see cheap solar panels and think that things are solved. We have no good reason to think that a complete energy system without a hefty nuclear component will be cheaper and faster to set up than one just using wind and solar, and we can be very sure that the wind/solar solution would take a higher toll on our environment. It would make sense to factor in that too when we whine about high upfront costs for nuclear reactors. What value do we assign to our environment?

[@memofromessex]

I'm really interested what will happen in oil-producing countries following this

[@rogerk6180]

Financial collapse..

[@randxalthor]

Contraction, sure, but fossil fuels in some areas, especially diesel and jet fuel, have no practical replacement in sight. Airliners can't fly on anything other than jet fuel (everything else is too heavy) and tankers are also too big to run on battery or hydrogen power.

[@XONNIE2011]

​Yes but who s going to blink first and cut production? Only the cheapest way of extraction and way​ lower margins will survive.@@randxalthor

[@thomassenbart]

Nothing because solar is not going to replace hydrocarbons in anyone's lifetime.

[@anotherelvis]

Hopefully the middle east can become more peaceful.

[@Tony-m5t]

This is basically an advertisement for The Economist. But the rag is good and I would listen to the video anyway.

[@null090909]

Exponential growth? Revolution? Isn't it what they always say right before the bubble bursts?

[@TheRezro]

Not in this case. Energy industry is quite complicated and mostly related to government. And government do not make bubbles. But there were massive recent investments in green energy, mostly for geopolitical reasons. Industry in this case is bit reactive rather proactive. In most cases you can't even realistically invest in that.

[@null090909]

@@TheRezro Governement do not make bubble 😂 Lookup "Compagnie du Mississippi" 😉 Historical joke aside, you have a point. But I would still argue this is really true for the lowcarb energy market as a whole. Not for a specific form of production like solar (or nuclear, or wind...). Because governments don't really care about a specific model, they just want the cheapest GWh.

[@TheRezro]

​@@null090909 Indeed! Generally what we see is future diversification. Not replacement of one source with other. And ban on non-electric cars is a idiocy! (maybe beside city centers) I don't think that is even debated anymore. Especially with tariffs on Chinese electric cars.

[@null090909]

@@TheRezro If SimCity is to be trusted, only nuclear works long term. 😉

[@ericdane7769]

Still remember vividly the discussions I had with my college prof. (2005) who maintained that solar and wind were a money sink and would never be cost efficient. It all depends on what you compare to. If the oil just comes oozing out of your soil, then yeah that's probably true. But how many countries can count on that? And what about future costs to deal with climate change?

[@ReidMcCarty]

This seems like a great video but it’s hard for me to get over the full endorsement of the economist. There is no criticism whatsoever of the article or the outlet which makes the video come across as a paid advertisement and nothing else. The argument is indisputably compelling, I just don’t feel genuinely informed.

[@Ca2C4]

Yeah, this video reeks of shill energy. This topic is not really in the wheelhouse of this channel, no offense to Money & Macro. This topic is about much more than production costs etc as presented in this video.

[@p24ify]

For once I'd rather have a raid ad. At least that is outright crap.

[@jjamespacbell]

Rather than an incentive for using clean renewable energy, dirty energy should be penalized to pay for environmental and health issues. Those funds should be used to incentivize long distance power transmission, as well as energy storage at both power generation sources and additional storage near point of use.

[@schubajo]

We can do both but subsidies are usually more politically acceptable compared with taxes even though the effect is the same.

[@jimmcneal5292]

There is no clean energy(except for nuclear), and solar panels are worse for the environment than fossil fuels

[@gregvanpaassen]

Oh, no! If The Economist is predicting this, it won't happen. The Economist is a jinx.

[@patrickbateman1660]

Since when has the economist been a jinx?

[@shawnstangeland3011]

Love my panels. Fantastic being self sufficient

[@rutessian]

Nuclear power was sidelined/eliminated and activists/politicians pushed for the production of solar power facilities. As to the predictions at the beginning of the video, "the future ain't what it used to be".

[@robinbennett5994]

You think China's economic strategy was controlled by green activists? That sounds pretty unlikely. I think they just saw an opportunity that everyone else ignored, went all-in and are now reaping the benefits of global dominance.

[@jimmcneal5292]

My theory it's because it couls justify mining all those minerals, basically artificial creation of demand

[@stegsjenga5088]

I think you missed Brett Christopher's main point, which is that growth in renewables remains dependent on governments being willing to provide derisking via fixed prices (contracts for difference) or subsidy, so that even if progress has been exponential that isn't due to some standard price falls, profits increase, market drives a change all by itself, in spite of whatever governments do scenario. I think a lot will actually depend on how quickly the Chinese want t push their solar tech (and whether they set out to close down their coal industry) and the success of international Chinese diplomacy in places like Africa, which is probably quite an uncomfortable political conclusion for many.

[@adrienbeauduin6307]

I think that this video overlooks two important issues with solar : 1) availability and 2) transmission. 1) We’re still far from being able to store solar on a large scale, so this cheap energy would only be available during the day. 2) there are huge issues with bringing clean energy to users, because grids are not adapted. I think we will need to have more smart pricing to encourage people to use more electricity during the day and less in mornings / evenings-night. And we will need to have energy usage closer to energy sources. Amongst others, electric car charging should really be where cars are during the day (and not primarily at home like now, where they mostly charge at night).

[@peterkratoska4524]

also availability by location. I live in Canada on the West coast - lots of sun in the summer (in fact it would be ideal to put on all the flat warehouse roofs, my building gets really hot in the summer months) but forget it in winter where you're lucky if you see the sun once a week. Also look what happened in Alberta last January, -37 polar vortex and Albertas 28% renewables were producing zero, 2 gas plants were down and the grid nearly failed. Alberta Energy had to text everyone in the province to reduce unnecessary electricity. That would be pretty hard if everyone used heat pumps and evs. But we absolutely should use wind and solar if the location is good for it.

[@aussie405]

I am in Western Australia. I have solar panels on my roof, a 15kWh home battery and an electric car. I start charging my car at 3 or 4am, with yesterday's left over sunshine. By the time the sun rises, I have mostly emptied my home battery. The sun takes over charging the car, then it recharges the battery. I don't pay for electricity (I do send excess power to the grid) and I don't pay for petrol (gas). About one third of houses (and we mostly live in separate bungalows) have solar panels. We are now rounding the corner where people are getting home batteries. The case for home batteries, if you own an electric car here, is overwhelming.

[@adrienbeauduin6307]

@@aussie405 thanks for the info, it’s good to hear, unfortunately not as much sun in other Global North countries as Australia… I think that factory / warehouses / supermarket roofs connected directly to parking lots could really be better in Europe. Also because batteries are still expensive and resource intensive (lithium mining is pretty horrible).

[@aussie405]

@@adrienbeauduin6307 it has taken me a while to work out the most beneficial way to use my system. I am sure I will be able to power a second ev when we get one. The best way to use renewables will vary from place to place. Here the problem is when the sun doesn't shine. I believe in Britain people are encouraged to get a battery, charge it at night on low cost grid power, and use it during peak times. The real need is to massage the excess power at one part of the day, to be used at the peak times. It is fascinating to see how that can be done.

[@aussie405]

@@adrienbeauduin6307 our excess power is in the middle of the day and needs to be massaged towards the evening. The cheapest power in Britain tends to be at night and needs to be held for peak times. Places with hydro and / or nuclear will have a more regular supply but need to boost it at peak times. Shopping centre car parks are being covered in solar panels here, it keeps the cars cooler and provides power to run the centres. It is fascinating to watch how the boffins are sorting it out. The cheapest option will win.

[@ZeroResolve-0]

Nice graph! This yellow line, when the value is growing slowly initially.

[@darkgalaxy5548]

Solar is great, as long as the sun shines.

[@rabokarabekian409]

Is it also true that most Earth water is wet?

[@NoobGamer-ki9pz]

Lmao, so do you think some alien just gonna cover the sun or something??

[@darkgalaxy5548]

@@NoobGamer-ki9pz You may have noticed darkness occurring every 12 hours or so. You might have even seen a cloudy day now and then.

[@NoobGamer-ki9pz]

@@darkgalaxy5548 there are batteries for the same reason, mate. Do you really think if solar energy becomes dominant, countries won't save solar energy for a few days if not months?? Just like now we do with oil or coal for example.

[@darkgalaxy5548]

@@NoobGamer-ki9pz Here's a little exercise for you mate. Go look up the amount of known lithium reserves. Then go calculate the amount of lithium needed to create enough battery farms to power North America, Europe, & Asia for 3 days (we'll leave out Africa, Central & South America for the moment). Let me know what you come up with. Lastly as a bonus exercise, calculate the cost of these battery farms, using today's lithium prices (we'll ignore the price impact on lithium, nickel, and other necessary metals that would take place with increased demand). Take your time, I'll await your reply.

[@ebipere]

The comments on this thread are golden. It is clear that there are a number of industry participants. I would advise people to read and re-read them.

[@lematindesmagiciens8764]

At first, the naysayers were pointing out at the cost of solar panels. Then the prices dropped dramatically. Then the next objection was the sun is not always shining. Then came the cheap batteries. After that, skeptics were pointing at the unreadiness of the power grid to accommodate such an unsteady source of energy. Then power companies started investing and improving their grid management. Finally, forecasters were saying that solar would never account for more than 10% or 20% of energy production for a country. We now have Spain with more than 60% of energy production coming from renewables. Excellent video.

[@thomassenbart]

All of these issues remain, read my above comment

[@laurencefraser]

That last one does vary based on where you are, admittedly, and while batteries are currently pretty good for keeping a (reasonable) house running over night they still have issues at grid scale, so there is still need for other generation methods... but battery technology, and electical grid technology, continue to improve, and even as they are they do allow for solar and wind to make up a fair chunk of energy generation, which allows for a reduction (or at least lack of increase) in use of other generation methods, so they're absolutely worth investing in.

[@sol_in.victus]

While i very much think renewables are gonna be huge in the next couple of decades, and it would be foolish to think solar wont lead the charge, i think its also disingenuous to ignore that there very much are problems with it (same as any other energy source). Biggest problem with solar is storage, which is a whole 'nother industry and while solar just gets cheaper and cheaper, energy storage is not so simple, creating batteries is very resource intensive and im not sure energy storage prices have have the same path solar has. It will be interesting to see how the world solves these drawbacks, and hopefully we reach a point where producing enough energy for everyone wont necessitate terrible consequences for the world

[@lematindesmagiciens8764]

@@laurencefraser I agree. Other generation methods are still needed. We need, as the pandemic has shown, to build resiliency in our systems. That means having other sources of energy. Can a country go a 100% renewables? Personally, I am skeptical. But in the same way as the forecasters of the past, I might be wrong!

[@anotherelvis]

60% of electricity production... but still this is great news. Spain has lots of room for solar panels.

[@demven04]

This is so exciting! We also need a revolution in energy storage.

[@calamityjean1525]

Research into new battery chemistries is a hot topic right now.

[@janthijs8806]

TIL the channel is called Money and Macro not Money and Marco (which I presumed was the host's name)

[@balazsvida7045]

😂

[@seneca983]

Maybe he should change the channel name to Money & Joeri.

[@ArnaudJoakim]

Good news! 🎉

[@todo9633]

The issue for me is that the vast majority of solar panels and tech are built in China, so I worry how long they'll last before needing replacement, and how expensive replacing them will be with how many we have.

[@DF-wl8nj]

This is a very strange myth that has persisted into the 21st century even though it’s not really true. Yes, early Chinese manufacturing was pretty cheap, as the country had basically no large industry prior to it. However, modern Chinese manufacturing, especially for advanced manufacturing like fabs and cars, is definitely world class and on par with things made in America and the EU. No country can be the best at everything, but Chinese goods are decent to good quality across a large swathe of technologies.

[@laurencefraser]

In so far as it's a thing, that would be a product of the USA actively killing off domestic production for decades due to, if I remember correctly, oil industry propaganda and lobbying.

[@zvikabar-kochva3641]

The current cheep PV pannels are rared to about 20 -25 yrs. of usefule life., depending on their failure rate distrubution, this could mean that up to 63.2% of all pannels will fail by 20 - 25 yrs. The question is what will do with the failed pannels and peripheral equiptment. I'm not quite sure that by the time the current generation of pannel will start failing in mass, recycling their materials will be economically viable. What I'm certain about is that the enviromental footprint of producing these pannels is huge compared to other method of power generation. They require far more materials, which have to be mined and proccessed with a high energy conssuming methods. Currently this is done in China using cheep energy by largelly coal power plants. Did anybody mentioned CO2 emmisions?

[@edwardgrigoryan3982]

Thank you for exhibiting Doom when discussing the IT Revolution. It is details like this I am looking for when I consume rigorously researched economic reporting.

[@smoothemoveexlax]

It's only cheap because the current establishment has made decisions that increased the cost of oil. Storage is still the biggest problem with Solar.

[@secretname4190]

not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The real issue is seasonal variation and dunkelflaute

[@caravelasengenharia6539]

We work with solar here in Brazil since 2018, with almost 7 MW installed.

[@StevieFQ]

This is extremely optimistic. Most ppl I know put solar on for one of 2 reasons. The subsidies made it bearable, though the requirement to use "authorized" installation providers artificially limited supply hence increasing the pricing significantly. They don't care that it will never cover the costs. They're ok with losing out on it just to fit an idea they have in their heads of the self sustaining home. And if you live in an area where power outages occur often enough it's extremely easy to buy battery backup + solar out of pure spite. For this to continue you need to drive down the upfront cost, significantly. I don't see that happening. Mostly because even if the cost of panels go down to 0 the extra cost of installation, inverters, etc forces the upfront cost up to the current unpalatable position.

[@vericulum6810]

Where are you from? Here in Poland sh!t ton 9f people has been installing solar in the past 4 years. Tellemarketers who sell them are driving me crazy.

[@hackerbrinelam5381]

Experts: "Its going linear" Reality: *goes exponentially casually *

[@matthiasknutzen6061]

Battery storage isn't feasible, too expensive because the amount of storage needed is huge. Also we arent even close to being able to produce enough batteries for the worlds grids, and that production uses a lot of co2. Northern europa should focus on nuclear and wind, while southern can deal with solar and also wind of course.

[@junct]

battery storage is not the solution to the energy surplus from solar, and no one is trying to use battery to store all the energy surplus if you pay attention to the energy prediction graph in the video, you will notice around 25% of the energy will come from P2X by 2040 P2X stands for Power-to-X conversion. there are so many current and developing P2X technology that can potentially solve our energy surplus problem that i really recommend looking more into it.