[littlestymaar]

> Helsinki is around, judging from looking at a chart on a phone screen, 20-30% more expensive than Munich per kWh produced using solar.. And still, Helsinki still is cheaper by a factor of roughly 2 than the average spot market kWh prices in 2022.

The price doesn't have anything to do with the carbon footprint though…

> Also, Finland installed a ton of solar lasr year, so I guess if someone is doing sometjing someone else claims is impossible, it is possible regardless of what people say and believe.

Sure it is possible to install solar in Finland, if you're a politician and you want to do a PR move it's probably even a good idea, but it's not for producing electricity.

[hef19898]

Solar, once installed, has close to zero CO2 emissions (maintenance being the only source). And it is absolutely possible, and done. Not by politicians, but by people investing in the projects. And those expect, and get, returns. Funny, how otherwise reasonable people insist to argue against reality...

Disclaimer: Obviously, installing PV around the arctic circle is better during summer than winter...

[littlestymaar]

> Solar, once installed, has close to zero CO2 emissions

Thanks for this fabulously insightful take. Here's a similar one: “Coal, once burned, has closed to zero CO2 emissions”. I mean, yes, for sure, but that's a bit strange of an analysis isn't it?

> Not by politicians, but by people investing in the projects.

Well, first of all it is also done by politicians. And then “people investing in the project” is also a common sentence when discussing NFTs so I'm not sure how convincing you think it is.

Each euros that goes to solar in Finland and doesn't get to hydro, wind, biomasse or whatever, is wasted. Wasted in terms of energy production, and have a much bigger carbon footprint per kWh, but hey it's trendy (mostly because it makes total sense in California, the cultural center of the Western world).

> Funny, how otherwise reasonable people insist to argue against reality...

Funny indeed.

[hef19898]

Nobody in Europe installs solar because of California... Strabge idea. As is intentionally misunderstanding the fact that electricity out of coal produces CO2, while PV does not.

And regardless of NFTs, people investing in PV, as opposed to me putting one on my roof, expect returns on said investment. These returns come from selling electricity. Of thos equation isn't working, people don't invest. If it does, people invest. And that is proof that solar works out financially. Even in Finland.

Funny as well, how people use the "market" as argument for anything working, only to turn around and totally ignore it if the market confirms something they don't want to believe.

Reality is, Finland becomes a market for solar, believe it or not. That also being the case for utility scale projects, means it is financially viable. Those arw verifiable facts. Now you can choose to ignore them, or not, I don't care. What I care about is HN turning into a olace where people ignore facts and realizy, just to confirm their points. We can do better around here, because if not, there is no point in sticking around here anymore.

[littlestymaar]

> As is intentionally misunderstanding the fact that electricity out of coal produces CO2, while PV does not.

You're making a fallacy here, that it's either coal or PV. It's not. In tropical and subtropical places, solar make sense, else where you're better off with anything else that's not fossil. In fact, PV is not even a good substitute for coal, because coal plants can't be turned on and off easily twice a day (unlike gas turbines).

> people investing in PV, as opposed to me putting one on my roof, expect returns on said investment. These returns come from selling electricity. Of thos equation isn't working, people don't invest.

People investing in NFTs is a proof that NFTs make economical sense then? People invest because they believe, no matter if those believes are grounded or not, so using the existence of market as a proof of something working in completely self-referential believes confirmation.

> Funny as well, how people use the "market" as argument for anything working, only to turn around and totally ignore it if the market confirms something they don't want to believe.

Funny to see that people use the market as a justification for things working, when we have plenty of evidences of markets for things that made no economic sense (crypto, NFT, tulips, etc.).

> What I care about is HN turning into a olace where people ignore facts and realizy, just to confirm their points. We can do better around here, because if not, there is no point in sticking around here anymore.

Please be the change you want to see in the world then, and stop drinking cool-aid and using rhetorical fallacy instead of arguments…

[hef19898]

Institutional investeros investing in long-term projects, here PV, are devidedly not the same category of people investing in NFTs... God, this truely is somewhat pointless.

Summary: You say PV in Finland isn't feasible. People building PV, and profiting from it, disagree. Those people put their money where their mouth is. Same goes for the Netherlands. I'll stop now, if you want the sky to be red and clouds be purple, sure, belive that... I linked to a comprehensive report on solar in Europe elsewhere, all you do is moving goal posts and repeating false claims...

Not that I think you'll read this, but here you go:

https://api.solarpowereurope.org/uploads/5222_SPE_EMO_2022_f...

Pages for Finland:

37 & 38, 43: Finland will achieve its NCEP tarhets a lot earlier

52: Finland will be a GW solar market in 2025

These reports, they are publoshed annually, turned out to be largely correct since tgey are published. While the IAEA is usually of by almost an order of magnitude, underestimating solar growth, these folks are sometimes a bit too pesimistic. Good thing, I did read one of there reports again, the last one was before Covid...

[littlestymaar]

> Institutional investeros investing in long-term projects, here PV, are devidedly not the same category of people investing in NFTs...

I think you missed the memo: institutional investors definitely invested in NFTs during the peak fad in 2021.

> Summary: You say PV in Finland isn't feasible.

Nope, I said building PV there is possible, albeit nonsensical. People put their money where their mouth is, and sometime it doesn't make sense and they get burned. If you think markets are always right, I have some tulips to sell you.

And again, as I said at the very beginning of the thread, there's no link between economic performance and CO2 footprint, something can be a very profitable endeavor even if it's completely counter-productive in terms of climate change, or even electricity production.

> I linked to a comprehensive report on solar in Europe elsewhere, all you do is moving goal posts and repeating false claims...

“Please check my gigantic comment history if you care about facts, I promise it's totally related to the current discussion”. Yeah sure.

Funny how you at the same time write in a very confident way (one could even say “arrogant”), and at the same time only respond to very small portions of my messages (“California”, “NFT”), putting the annoying parts under the rug.

We're losing the climate battle by a large margin, but shills like you are in full “this is fine” mode “solar will save us”, this is so depressing…

Like solar? Want to invest in it? Then finance solar panels where it make sense, in the middle East, in India, in Africa, in South America, and stop wasting them in Finland or Canada… Otherwise it's as stupid as Germany that got rid of its perfectly working nuclear plants before spending a decade trying to catch-up in terms of CO2 emissions (it's still has among the most CO2-heavy electricity mix in the EU to date), wasting hundred of billions in the process (while increasing its dependency to Russian gas, which their economy has now been paying a dire price since the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine: play stupid games, win stupid price…)