Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by decimalenough 56 days ago
Very misleading title: it should be "Solar leads global energy growth for the first time".

Still good news, but a long, long way from solar becoming the world's primary source of energy.

3 comments

Yes, from the source report, for total generation capacity, solar is in a distant sixth:

Coal: 10858 TWh

Natural Gas: 6822 TWh

Hydro: 4470 TWh

Nuclear: 2859 TWh

Wind: 2723 TWh

Solar: 2653 TWh

Decent growth, but still a long way to go.

The energy system has investment cycles counted in decades.

Looking at TWh of renewables added each year we will have grids entirely dominated by them in 10-15 years. That is lightning speed for the energy system, and we’re still speeding up.

But people still want results immediately. Which is the explanation I've seen for why nuclear isn't as big. Takes multiple times longer for a nuclear plant to come online vs coal. So some aspects are decades, others are one politician term.
This delay in nuclear means that, by now, nuclear is no longer a solution. Had we started with nuclear somewhere in the first decade of this millennium, then it would have been a good solution to climate change, and we would be in a better position.

But in our current position, nuclear is too slow, and luckily we have alternatives in wind and especially solar. Where the main advantage of solar is how quickly it’s scaling. Notably, the slowness in building nuclear also limits how fast you can improve the process of building nuclear. Whereas solar is so quick to build you can learn lessons and try innovation much faster.

I think it will happen in the next 5 years. Not 10-15. It's just becoming a necessity for a lot of counties at this point.
Solar generation capacity is growing by 30+% a year with the cheaper grid batteries and the current world political situation the growth might even accelerate. Solar will get ahead of Natural gas by end of 2028 I predict as the next 2 years there will be huge move to renewables in Asia from gas and oil.
If the 50-year-old exponential keeps up, we will have 90 percent solar before 2040 though.
> solar becoming the world's primary source of energy

Solar has always been the primary source of energy, Something like 99.95%, with geothermal taking 90% of the rest and tidal being basically zero

You can look at coal, oil, gas as form of compressed solar energy, because all of them have biological source, stored millions of year ago. It's just burning coal, oil, gas has nasty side effects.

" Volcanic coal-burning in Siberia led to climate change 252 million years ago.

Extensive burning in Siberia was a cause of the Permo-Triassic extinction " https://www.nsf.gov/news/volcanic-coal-burning-siberia-led-c...

You can.

Oil consumption is about 4,000 TWh per year, or about 10^19 Joules.

The Earth receives about 170,000 TWh per year of Solar energy.

The Earth receives approximately 173,000 terawatts (TW) of solar power continuously, not per year.
What about nuclear?
Uranium is only naturally formed by the r-process (rapid neutron capture) in supernovae and neutron star mergers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Origin

Fuel was created by the explosion of supernovae, still solar but not our sun.
By that logic, all of the Earth and the moon were once parts of stars, so tidal and geothermal are also solar.

When people say "solar energy", they are usually referring to first order solar energy, directly from photons, not second or third order solar energy after it has been trapped into other sources of potential energy.

Tidal kinda isn't solar since it's from rotation's and orbits' energies though.
If it's not our sun then it isn't solar.
Pedantry I can get behind. Cheers
Probably neutron star collisions, actually.
tiny insignificant amounts
Should it be ‘solar leading energy subsidy growth’.
No chance, fossil fuels are subsidized more. A large share of solar growth is from countries like Pakistan who have had some subsidies but total dollar amount of them is trivial.
Got source?

China only ended solar panel export subsidy this month.

Pricing fossil fuel pollution at zero is the biggest subsidy in the world bar none. Contrast this with for example nuclear power, where potential pollution risks as well as storage of its spent resources are some of the biggest costs. If they were subsidized equally to fossil fuels, the costs of those would be very low, with the public simply paying the price for any negative health effects.

Oil is directly subsidized in most oil producing countries. Go look at what fuel costs in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, vs what they could sell it for on international markets. That's a subsidy.

Jet fuel is universally exempt from tax. Try finding any other energy source that is.

There isn't really an alternative for jet fuel, is there? Synfuel still has pollution problem and represents like 0.1% of total jet fuel used.

Yes some places choose to lower fuel taxes. But that's not really a subsidy is it.

(And tbf nor is my mentioned Chinese solar panel export subsidy as it was actually a GST/VAT rebate).

> There isn't really an alternative for jet fuel, is there?

But in many cases there is an alternative to air travel, at least for short distances. I don't really understand why railways (at least in the UK) such ridiculously expensive. Return flights from London to Edinburgh start at £30, train tickets between the same cities start at £100. A return ticket from a station in 50 miles from London is more than £65 (peak times).

> There isn't really an alternative for jet fuel, is there? Synfuel still has pollution problem and represents like 0.1% of total jet fuel used.

There isn't an alternative for water, electricity and food. Easy to find places where the former two are taxed, the latter is taxed effectively everywhere.

The US oil subsidy currently is projected to increase the Pentagon budget from one trillion to one and half. I bet one could build a lot of solar panels for 500 billion dollars, and you can use them more than once, too.
Subsidies for fossil fuels in 2020 were $5 trillion according to IMF Working Paper:

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Sti...

> Just 8 percent of the 2020 subsidy reflects undercharging for supply costs (explicit subsidies)

So $400b. Still a lot.

The majority of the subsidies are implicit, in the form of negative externalities that are not priced in.

But I really should locate a more recent version of this report...

https://www.imf.org/en/publications/wp/issues/2025/12/20/und...

In 2024 they found $725bn in explicit subsides, plus $6.7tn in implicit subsidies.

Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Reached $7 Trillion in 2022, an All-Time High: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-subsidies-2022

Plus, add the entire defense budget of US + western countries, which only exists to protect oil interests.

In the "unpaid cost of climate change and air pollution as a result of burning fossil fuels" etc. sense, not in a cash given to fossil fuel folk sense.
> explicit subsidies, such as price caps on fuel, accounted for 18 percent of this total.
Solar subsidies still pale in comparison to oil and gas subsidies worldwide