[epistasis]

Perfect project for rural Minnesota, that needs the ammonia, but also has a surprising amount of solar colocated with farms. And a fair amount of wind in the southwest.

However there are far far larger projects going on over the world. China is building multiple GW of wind and solar to power a massive ammonia/green hydrogen site right now. I frequently hear of sites in Spain in the hundreds of MW range.

The US has been pivotal in the invention of these technologies, but hyper-conservatism to protect fossil fuel interests is preventing us from getting the benefits as quickly as we should.

[strictnein]

> hyper-conservatism to protect fossil fuel interests

The #1 state, by far, in terms of solar, wind, and energy storage is Texas. There is likely no other state that is also as pro-fossil fuels as Texas. It's also a state known for its conservative stance on almost everything.

But the market doesn't care and it flourished without government intervention or significant aid, simply because Texas let's you build things, and the market likes to make money.

[thelastgallon]

Its mostly because of this guy(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Osborne

"Renewable Energy Policy. In 1984 Osborne co-founded the Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association (now Alliance) (TREIA)[1] with two partners and worked with other key individuals and organizations to bring the nascent renewable energy industry to the attention of policymakers on the state and federal level. "

This was a unplanned, unanticipated freak accident that gave Texas an early transmission for wind power. Because most of the farmers are republican, they built a transmission network for the farmers. This led to CREZ (Competitive Renewable Energy Zones), the goal of which is to integrate the wind supply regions with the large demand centers. Rich farmers are a much larger voting block than the dozens of fossil fuel billionaires.

The bragging by Texas about renewables is entirely accidental and is a side-effect of building a transmission network for the rich farmers. Not because Texas runs markets efficiently, pro-business or pro-efficiency or anything like that. Thats just nonsense.

Today, Texas tries very hard to limit renewables, but fails. They only want coal and natural gas, and use the legislation and state money to fund them: https://www.powermag.com/texas-moves-forward-with-5-38b-in-l...

(1) I think this is the guy, but am not entirely sure. I read an article about this curious case of renewables in Texas, a long time back. It is hard to find that article, I've been searching for an hour and most of what I find credits politicians for CREZ. But there was a private person who made this possible. I'm assuming its this guy.

[strictnein]

> "The bragging by Texas about renewables is entirely accidental and is a side-effect of building a transmission network for the rich farmers. Not because Texas runs markets efficiently, pro-business or pro-efficiency or anything like that. Thats just nonsense."

Farmers aren't business owners and the policy helping them isn't pro-business? And the state allowing things to actually be built, unlike California, doesn't make it more pro-business? I don't think that makes any sense at all.

So the only reason that tens or hundreds of billion dollars have flowed into Texas renewables is just a random coincidence and nothing has changed over the last 42 years and the state is actually against it? This is approaching a "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" type of thing.

[Dibby053]

So, synthesizing both comments: state-backed infrastructure funding + deregulated free-market buildout = rapid expansion

[KaiserPro]

> Spain in the hundreds of MW range.

Its got to the point where there is now so much solar, that during solar maximum, there is too much energy and plants are being told to turn off.

Natural gas was the main pricing predictor, but now that link has been pretty much severed. Given that spain is dependent on russian gas, its good that they are able to _try_ to lower their dependence.

[epistasis]

Spain has only started installing storage too; that will not only make energy cheaper but also increase reliability massively. California's grid is rock solid these days because of it, and it pays for itself with time arbitrage of solar.

[buckle8017]

Fossil fuels remain more cost effective.

The US isn't a centrally planned economy (sort of) so the more economical option wins.

[epistasis]

For a very very long time, fracking was not economical, and only through massive government investment did it become cost effective.

Same goes for renewables, and electrolyzers. All evidence points to a future with renewable energy costing a small fraction of fossil fuels, and electrolyzers being cheaper than hydrogen from gas. But the future needs to be built. We can either lose out and buy the tech from others, or be leaders and reap the early rewards.

[colechristensen]

Where solar in particular really drops the cost of electricity is towards the end and beyond its design lifetime of 25-30 years. That's how a bunch of the costs are calculated and it's turning out systems are continuing to produce significantly beyond that. Paired with inflation, this makes old systems produce extremely low cost electricity.

It's not about tech now, it's just commodity install base making sure to ride the adoption curve at a healthy pace which people are more than happy to do just because of greed.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

The US is centrally planned to some degree, just in different ways and by different interests.

I suspect the interests/actions of lobbyists for certain companies/sectors had significant influence on things like taxes, and is a type of central planning.

It's different than most central planned economies because there are two entities operating in parallel (a quasi-private corporate state in addition to the usual government state), but I'd say it's still centralized/planned, even if it's not the state/government doing the planning.

[zanecodes]

Fossil fuel being heavily subsidised kind of undermines both of your points.

[cmrdporcupine]

Heavily directly subsidized and then additionally "subsidized" through massive military expenditures as well.

[zanecodes]

Not to mention indirectly subsidised by ignoring the externalities imposed on the health of ourselves and our environment.

[yegle]

Mostly because the carbon dioxide emission is not properly reflected in the fossil fuel pricing.

Basically, every single person on earth is subsiding the big oil by bearing the consequence/cost of the higher CO2 concentration.

[kulahan]

No they don’t. They remain subsidized. Solar surpassed fossil fuels in efficiency ages ago, and I don’t even LIKE solar. Fossil fuels have no redeeming qualities in the major energy sectors anymore, aside from ONE: the plants are VERY cheap to build.

[otterley]

Solar farms are even cheaper to build!

[benj111]

Surely the redeeming feature is that they are already here...

[kulahan]

I thought the same thing, but actually, no. Fossil fuel plants are expensive to run. "That they are already here" is an argument for plants which are more advanced and thus, much more expensive to build, but much cheaper to maintain.

[askvictor]

Which fossil fuel plants are cheap to build? Cheap compared to what?

[colechristensen]

>solar surpassed fossil fuels in efficiency

What does this even mean? What inputs and outputs are you comparing to get an apples-to-apples comparison between efficiency between fossil fuels and solar?

[kulahan]

It's talking about the economic inputs required to create a unit of energy. Literally all you have to fathom is "can we add up what it takes to make a watt of energy from coal, vs. from solar power vs. some other plant, amortized over the lifetime of said plant?"

[hunterpayne]

"Solar surpassed fossil fuels in efficiency ages ago"

You are going to have to explain this. Because there is no measurement of efficiency in which solar PV in Minnesota in efficient in any way. To produce a watt of electricity using natural gas actually produces less CO2 than a watt from solar that far north. So it isn't even more environmentally friendly. And its far more expensive. It uses far more energy. So I have no idea at all what you are referring to. Cap Ex perhaps or cap cost...if that's what you mean, you have no idea what you are talking about.

[defrost]

> to produce a watt of electricity using natural gas actually produces less CO2 than a watt from solar that far north.

For the next watt, you need more natural gas which co-releases more CO2 .. or you can just use the same solar panel again - with its fixed up front CO2 cost already "paid for"

Over 25 or 30 years a panel keeps producing w/out additional CO2 release, during that same period natural gas extraction and consumption continue releasing CO2.

[lebuffon]

And when we begin coupling solar to cheap sodium ion battery banks it gets very interesting. Sodium ion will even be compatible with a Minnesota winter!

[icehawk]

> To produce a watt of electricity using natural gas actually produces less CO2 than a watt from solar that far north

What about the watt after that? I still got the solar panel for that next watt, and with natural gas I have... well I don't have anything, I need more natural gas!

[benj111]

What the bloody hell are you taking about. Minnesota is further south than the UK. Southern Minnesota is the same latitude as the Mediterranean coast.

Learn some facts before spouting bs.

[hunterpayne]

The UK is in the same boat as Minnesota for solar PV. There isn't a solar panel in the UK that will ever make more power than it took to produce.

[benj111]

It takes 1 to 3 years to offset the energy used to manufacture a solar panel.

The only situation where you would have a point is micro wind generation, and that's basically no longer a thing because it doesn't work.

[otterley]

You keep getting downvoted because nearly everything you say is not only factually incorrect but contradicts common sense.

If you want people to take you seriously, start linking to facts and analyses by credible sources or showing your math.

[serf]

>There isn't a solar panel in the UK that will ever make more power than it took to produce.

You're clearly and provably wrong, and looking at your comments shows me lots of clearly and provably wrong statements, and almost every single one of them pertains to energy.

..so I presume you have a dog in this race.

[stymaar]

Like it or not every, non-failed-state, modern economy is a centrally-planned one. The economy never lives in a vacuum, it's always a product of the institutions that govern them (regulations, subsidies, taxes, etc.) Something is always “the most cost-effective option” because the institutions made it so.

[andrekandre]

well, just to add to that: you cant even have any kind of economy at scale without some central authority to enforce property rights or contract law etc anyways...

[otterley]

Solar and wind energy have been more economical than fossil fuel on a cost per unit energy basis for quite some time. The reasons we're still so tied to fossil fuel are largely political, not economic.

Technology Connections goes into this in exhaustive detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

Also, you may not have heard that the Trump administration is actively stonewalling green energy projects, regardless of their economic prospects: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2026/06/29/87...

[hunterpayne]

You are confusing capacity costs (capital outlay) with utilization costs (what you actually pay per watt). Its true that renewables have a very low cap cost. They are also several times the utilization cost. That's why electricity in CA is 2-3x what it was just 10 years ago. And energy prices are basically the same as 10 years ago.

PS LCOE is a BS stat used to confuse those that don't understand energy markets, not a real market calculation that anyone pays.

[otterley]

> They are also several times the utilization cost

Prove it.

> electricity in CA is 2-3x what it was just 10 years ago.

That has nothing to do with the cost of generation. The reason costs have gone up are 1/wildfire mitigation and liability, 2/replacement of aging grid infrastructure (plus a geographically diverse state - replacing infrastructure in mountains is costly), 3/rising demand and new fixed infrastructure cost (which is subsumed into everyone's bills), and 4/decommissioning of power plants (San Onofre and Diablo Canyon were both mothballed and haven't been replaced).

Also, California utilities are heavily regulated. Utility rates have to be approved by the government, making the rate-setting process highly politicized. For a very long time the regulators refused to let the utilities raise rates even though it was necessary. Eventually, though, that became unsustainable. The result was that instead of raising rates a percentage point or two per year, all of a sudden there was a real threat of the system going completely bankrupt and so prices shot up dramatically.

If you really want to understand the energy markets in CA, there's no better source than the Los Angeles Times. Or what's left of it, anyway.

> LCOE is a BS stat used to confuse those that don't understand energy markets

Let me get my popcorn while you explain it to us ignoramuses.

[firsthummus]

LCOE is helpful but only holds up to a certain point. Latest Lazard report has levelized cost of firming included as well. Dispatchability of power is an important part of the picture missed by LCOE for weather-dependent generation. Once grids are meaningfully composed of solar/wind, the cost of firming is significant and mostly comes from gas peaker plants these days.

[colechristensen]

>That's why electricity in CA is 2-3x what it was just 10 years ago

No, CA electrical cost is about paying for PG&E's insurance liabilities and subsidizing the living situation in places which are de facto uninhabitable on account of wildfires.

[hunterpayne]

Sorry, PG&E's accounting says otherwise.

[colechristensen]

PG&E is incentivized to spend more money on capex because the state guarantees a return on investment, a perverse incentive which causes them to make stupid money decisions to realize more profit. For example doubling the cost of energization by having a large proportion of it done by external contractors.

24% of PG&E's revenue (that is customer rate payments) goes to wildfire related costs.

[otterley]

What exactly does their accounting say?

[jamal-kumar]

If you're not accounting for all the wildfire smoke costing billions of dollars maybe your calculations for cost effectiveness have some adjustments to be made

[jimnotgym]

Yeah I can see your problem

> owned by farmer cooperatives

No way for a Corp to benefit=communism

[dkackman11]

lol

[avadodin]

I don't support fossil fuels but wind works a small fraction of the time, it is awful to wildlife and it is an eyesore.

Instead of wasting the already wasteful energy by making fertilizer out of air, these farms could likely much more efficiently re–capture runoff from their waterways that is now being dumped into the sea harming humans and wildlife alike.

[BigTTYGothGF]

> awful to wildlife

I think this has been greatly exaggerated, but even if the claims are true it's as nothing compared to fossil fuel.

[epistasis]

Calling wind power "wasteful" is just silly. We need to be a bit more hard nosed when it comes to energy policy. Not only does wind save tons of money, t is hyper efficient, and anti-correlates with solar in most geographies. Meaning a small amount of cheap battery storage mixed with wind plus solar delivers extremely cheap, reliable energy, with amazing dispatch characteristics.

People get all emotional about views, but most people find it beautiful and a few people's visual aesthetics should not override one of the pillars of the future economy.

Additionally, the fix for runoff from farms into the gulf is mere regulation and fining, but that's not going to stop the need for ammonia! Plus, try to regulate these farmers, they are largely parasites in the country through the farm bill yet still remain one of the most potent political factions in the country.

[avadodin]

The same rare earths and quality steel could have been used on a water or vapor dynamo that runs 24/7 and doesn't have any additional harmful impact.

And even if wind wasn't wasteful at the outlet, you're still using it to turn air nitrogen into the same compounds that you are dumping into the seas, lakes and drinking water.

[ElevenLathe]

Re-concentrating fertilizer from runoff sounds like an energy-intensive activity. Why wouldn't cheap wind power make it easier?

[undersuit]

How are you going to recapture fertilizer runoff.

[avadodin]

There are techniques both at origin and downstream.

I have not reviewed every method but, even if they are energy intensive, they probably beat blasting a carburetor and dumping the compounds.

[undersuit]

I mentioned removing the excess nutrients from the water because removing them "works a small fraction of the time, it is awful to wildlife and it is an eyesore." not to mention the energy requirements which you think shouldn't include wind.

[strictnein]

The runoff from farms in rural Minnesota is being dumped into the sea? There's almost no place farther from the sea in North America than upper midwest rural farms.

[epistasis]

It causes massive algeal growths in the Gulf of Mexico. This sucks massive amounts of oxygen out of the water leading to so-called "dead zones".

[anyonecancode]

It runs into the Mississippi river, which runs into the sea.

[strictnein]

Sure, some small amount of it may go down the 2000+ mile trek from rural MN to the gulf, but that's not what anyone imagines when someone uses the term "dumped into the sea".