[dn3500]

California imports a third of its electricity, and that's expensive. It gets almost another third from natural gas. They've been changing rapidly from fossil fuels and nuclear to renewables and that's pretty capital intensive. And there have been some huge costs associated with the wildfires.

There's a bit more technical info on California battery storage here:

https://www.ess-news.com/2025/04/11/california-battery-domin...

[londons_explore]

It appears expensive electricity is mostly a policy decision. Schemes to support low carbon energy, strict emissions controls etc.

Let everyone do what they were doing in 1980, and prices would be rock bottom by now.

[remarkEon]

Yeah I don’t understand why the first priority of any policy maker isn’t to make the cost of electricity as low as possible. We certainly have the technology to do this.

[ZeroGravitas]

In general, imports are cheaper than the alternative, because if you have local gas plants that aren't maxed out, then you'd use those rather than pay more to import.

Some quick googling suggests this holds in California too.

[dheera]

The problem with renewables I have is that "what's good for the earth" and capitalism simply don't mix.

Solar was fundamentally supposed to be almost-free electricity. You put a bunch of panels up and free energy from the nearest star. The stark reality though is that the people and institutions in control of solar equipment (this includes manufacturers, tariffs, etc.) reprice their stuff to match the price of the dirty electricity. And then they reprice their stuff again to assume that everyone loves to borrow money. At that point it becomes not worth it at all.

No, I don't want a solar installation to pay for itself in 15 years. I want equipment that gives me free electricity starting next month. If it costs less than a months' worth of electricity and I won't have an electricity bill starting next month, I'm interested. If not, it's outside my budget and planning horizon.

[pingou]

How do you explain that solar got 50% less expensive in the last 10 years?

Why would people and institutions in control of solar equipment reprice their stuff to match the price of dirty electricity? You think there is no competition? Or you confuse it with the system that has been put in place where the price of electricity in the grid is set up by the most expensive producer at the time (which does make sense although you can argue against it).

Solar installation should pay for itself in less than 15 years in most cases, half the time according to that article: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/10/03/average-u-s-residenti... (and residential solar is much less cost-effective than large-scale solar farms).

[dheera]

> less than 15 years

But can it pay itself in a month or two? That's the bar. I cannot financially plan for even one year later. Too many unknowns.

A really good coffee machine that can do lattes costs maybe $200. If lattes at coffee shops cost $8 including stupid high CA taxes and the stupid puppy face guilt tips, it pays for itself after ~35 lattes including supply costs, or just over a month. That's the bar for pretty much anything.

Figure out how to sell me $500 in solar panels that generates $500 worth of electricity over the next month and make it tax deductible with no income limits. That is how you cover the country in clean energy. FAST. Until politicians can get their act together, slam the hammer and make exactly this happen, we're going to be on dirty electricity for a long time.

That should especially be the bar for clean energy. Clean energy shouldn't be a luxury for the wealthy.

[pingou]

Well first of all TFA is not talking about individuals buying solar or anything, so do we at least agree that renewables make sense for countries/state?

It seems like you have set an impossible bar for renewables so I don't know what to say to you. I do not think you'll be able to put a mini nuclear station, gas or coal one in your garden for less than the monthly electricity fee, so it's unclear to me what you are comparing it to.

The problem with giving money to individuals for their rooftop solar is that rooftop solar is not cost effective compared to large scale solar, if you really care about the planet and money is limited you should maximise the bang for your buck and help solar farms instead. But it's no secret that the current US administration is loudly anti-renewable and not keen on helping either of them.

[dheera]

I'm just saying what needs to happen in order for people to be lining up for solar in hordes and convert the country to renewable overnight.

The IRS needs to say: "We value clean energy in our country, we can live without nickel-and-diming people on the income used to make their solar purchase"

The Fed needs to say: "We value clean energy in our country, we can lend money to businesses at 0% interest, for the sake of supporting our country's clean future. Heck, -10% interest if you deploy today!"

The president needs to say: "We value clean energy in our country, we want solar as fast as possible, we will impose 0% tariffs on panels regardless of wherever they came from"

Wall Street needs to say: "We value clean energy in our country, it is saving the country from a multi-trillion dollar climate disaster, therefore we value solar companies at 100X their current valuations because that's what they are truly worth"

Solar companies need to say: "We aren't here to optimize profits; our only KPI is deploy solar as fast as possible"

The government needs to say to solar companies: "Do it! And don't worry if you're unprofitable, we value averting a 10 trillion climate crisis and will subsidize your losses from that 10 trillion loss that we averted"

Yeah, I know, it sounds impossible. Humans are shits, and they won't do the above. That's why the climate disaster is happening.

[tatersolid]

One thing that gets neglected by policymakers is that our top priority for energy policy should be resiliency. That means distributed systems with varied generation sources, without dependence on foreign suppliers.

This requires regulation unfortunately as it is inherently less efficient and cost optimized than the 1-2 solutions the market will coalesce around.

Solar + batteries are great but if the panels and cells all come from China we can’t base our energy future on that. We’d just be trading the Strait of Hormuz for the Taiwan Strait.

I know the USA can build forests of wind turbines that stretch from horizon to horizon. I’ve seen it in central Indiana. But can we do the same with solar cells and batteries?

[MattPalmer1086]

The break even for home solar is too long for me also. Every now and again I look at it, and even with subsidies it's gonna be about 12 to 15 years before I see any cost saving.

[bartvk]

What if you drive electric?

[dheera]

I drive an electric. It doesn't save money because the car itself is more expensive by exactly as much as you would save over the life of the car. And then the $700/year registration fees because you don't pay the fuel tax. Again, stupid capitalism.

[nkmnz]

Let me translate that four people who don’t speak “capitalism BAD”: Why don’t other people work for free for me? Why don’t Chinese and African miners work for free so I can get free minerals from the earth? Why don’t workers in refineries work for free so that I can get free metals and free silicon of highest purity? Why don’t all the companies that produce solar cells from raw materials, construct modules from the cells, install the modules on roofs, do the electrical wiring, stabilize the grid, provide electrical storage… WHY DON’T THEY WORK FOR FREE EVEN THOUGH I’VE CRITICISED CAPITALISM?