this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
569 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

59436 readers
3939 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 108 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (15 children)

Here in Belgium there used to be big government subsidies for solar panels 5-10 ago.

Now the same wattage battery + solar setup without any government subsidies is a good chunk cheaper than that time with the large subsidies.

Pretty cool and shows the power of government renewables subsidies. A huge percentage of houses in Belgium have solar panels now.(and electricity still costs 0.30€/kWh average because of fossil fuel energy lobbies)

Now that there is a local industry around it, most renovations and almost all new builds include them.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

electricity still costs 0.30€/kWh average because of fossil fuel energy lobbies.

This is the price of guaranteed electricity delivered to your doorstep. We can't get rid of gas fired power stations and kms of electricity grid network yet.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sirboozebum@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

4 million households in Australia have solar panels.

They are great value.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago

Solar has always an extremely high ratio for megawatt per mass unit.

This price is really good

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 12 points 1 day ago

Theyre $1.25 per watt in south America right now (we have an energy crisis due to climate change caused drought)

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Just have to buy 1100 panels 😋 but then the price is 0.055€/watt ...

I Want one, but only one or a couple, to put on my balcony...

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Thousands of people buying rooftop panels was never going to be the best way towards a Water/Wind/Solar (WWS) future. Fitting panels to the roof has to work around the roof geometry and obstructions like vents. That makes every job a custom job. It also means thousands of small inverters rather than a few big ones.

Compare that to setting up thousands of panels on racks in a field. As long as it's relatively open and flat, you just slap those babies down. You haul in a few big inverters which are often built right into shipping containers that can just be placed on site, hooked up, and left there. Batteries need inverters, too, so if your project includes some storage, then you only need one set of inverters.

I get the feeling of independence from the system that solar panels on the roof gives people, but it's just not economically the best way to go. The insanely cheap dollars per MWh of solar is only seen when deploying them on a mass scale. That means roofs of commercial/industrial buildings or bigger.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (5 children)

These are topcon modules only. Considering a 400W panel will have about 72 modules in it, that's only about 15 panels worth. Of course, then you have to actually build the panel and connect the modules, put it behind glass inside a frame, then put in a bypass diode and leads for connection. So an actual panel ends up being about 5-10X the cost of the modules per W.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 30 points 1 day ago (69 children)

$60k per MW or $210M for a nuclear reactors worth (3.5GW). Sure... the reactor will go 24/7 (between maintenance and refuelling down times, and will use less land (1.75km² Vs ~40km²) but at 1% of the cost, why are we still talking about nuclear.

(I'm using the UKs Hinckley Point C power station as reference)

[–] dgmib@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

We can’t manufacture and install enough solar farms and storage to get us off of fossil fuel within 20 years and more importantly available investment capital isn’t the limiting factor.

Investments in nuclear power are not taking money away from investments in solar.

We can do both, and it gets us off fossil fuels sooner.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Investments in nuclear power are not taking money away from investments in solar.

This is interesting. Why do you think that?

I would disagree, because is see investment capital as finite. There are only so many investors able to operate at infrastructure scales. And therefore I see nuclear's true cost as opportunity cost.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 19 hours ago (7 children)

Total solar manufacturing capability has been increasing exponentially. So has wind, and so have various storage methods.

Yes, we can install enough.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 19 hours ago

Also the budget and timeline is always understated, because otherwise government could withdraw funding if they don't sink a little more cost into the budget every year.

load more comments (67 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›