An underappreciated fact is that the Japanese/German renewable push starting in the early 2000s contributed a lot toward the global state of solar power now.

Solar programs/subsidies there is how a lot of local (and later Chinese) industry was bootstrapped despite being far from competitive with fossil energy back then.

Those initiatives might have accelerated the whole solar power industry by half a decade or more. We are now reaping even (indirect) benefit from industrializing countries (Pakistan, India, etc) that go straight to solar instead of conventional plants.

People often insist that western climate initiatives are "meaningless", "wasteful" and "ineffective", but examples like this prove that global effects are absolutely realistic.

If those two countries had fully invested into nuclear power back then, we might be significantly worse off right now as far as global CO2 emissions are concerned.

At least in America the greatest hurdle imo is both the cost of labor and the local/state red tape that has been pushed from local grid operators. Balcony solar should be available in all states across the country. I know on my state they require all this additional steps to get solar (including a bs solar study for your home) which just amounts to a significant permit fee which makes the investment less economical.

The solution is to charge for power, not for energy.

Utilities are reacting to this problem by separating connection fees from energy fees. The big problem is this is highly regressive. Rich and poor people pay the same connection fee.

The solution is to also charge by peak power use. Rich people use more power on cloudy days than poor people do.

This has the great advantage of aligning with utility costs. Utilities pay a great amount of money to be able to handle peak loads, not so much for normal loads.

forever link https://ghostarchive.org/archive/Nkrxp

Interesting solar PV facts (as of this comment):

- Wood Mackenzie estimates Chinese solar manufacturing capacity at roughly 1.36TW.

- By the end of 2025, installed small-scale solar capacity worldwide had reached ~1.2TW.

- While solar does not generate at full capacity around the clock, the installed total is about three times the size of the global nuclear fleet.

- Ember Energy expects Africa to add about 17GW of solar this year.

- In the Philippines, rooftop solar capacity may have nearly doubled in the 12 months through April, rooftop systems generated 372 gigawatt hours in the first six months of the year and residential systems can now pay for themselves there in a little more than three years.

- India is scaling rooftop systems through a national subsidy program launched in February 2024. The program has installed panels on more than 5 million homes and is adding about 500,000 homes a month.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci...

The problem with Solar is once someone buys it they can continuously use it for a long time with out participating in the economy. That is unacceptable especially from local grid providers and many in the energy sector and since China makes the best solar panels in quality and quantity that will take us maybe more than 3 years to catch up just in quality, it makes them even more bold in not allowing or making it hard for solar to proliferate. The risk is that the cost of energy will be high enough not to make manufacturing and other sector competitive enough but that does not matter as long as energy sector makes money the US can decline the number one goal is each individuals own goal there is no collective goal unless it just happens to be sadly a goal that is shared and individually beneficial.

Hopefully at some point the price of tokens will collapse, forcing data centers onto cheaper renewable energy in order to stay profitable.

One of the important questions to always ask about solar is the energy inputs required to make a solar panel, and the time required to "earn it back" with solar electricity. This is different than "cheap price" because the energy consumed in manufacturing usually happens on a different continent, in a different currency, different regulatory regime and is thus easily obscured.

Also syndicated without a paywall at arstechnica https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/09/offensively-cheap-so...

I like the idea of getting rooftop solar. The solar cells themselves are cheap. But the hitch is (1) living far north, (2) cloudy climate, (2) hiring professionals, (3) paying for an inverter and other interconnections, (4) paying for a "safe for a house" battery if I want any solar after 14:00 in the winter (N) ...

This is Norway and it's been raining all summer. So you'd think hydro would make all of this moot. Doesn't seem it. Because the rates were high even after all the rain.

I have high hopes for solar and batteries, but for the grid. I don't like the idea of a grid upgrade coming indirectly via thousands of bespoke homeowner increase my property value projects.

I think one of the most important videos for the solar salesman here in the comments to read is about inverter instability and what it does to a grid at large scales.

That and the subsidy, rare earth, power output decrease, and China manufacturing problems (them undermining the market with intentionally low prices to kill US solar). All of these problems have solutions, but the main problem right now is partisanship.

It used to be Chinese panels were the worse quality with short lifespans. Now they're everywhere.

“If you have a massive cloud formation, the rooftop PV production can drop by so much that it looks like you have lost basically almost a nuclear power station.”

A good problem to have but still a problem. Who would have thought weather forecasting would be critical to grid maintenance.

Coincidentally quoting some of the most despised grid operators in the world. Which obviously correlates with a desire to flee them when offered a solar/battery escape hatch.

> energy groups in some [Australian] states are having to literally give away excess power generated during the middle of the day.

And yet they needed to be forced to offer this by government and most responded by upping grid connection fees and rates at other times, actively undermining a move that would be to the benefit of the entire nation. Curious that they weren't more keen to get rid of that horrible solar energy that's threatening their grid balance if it meant they had to reduce the price to raise demand.

Paywalled article, so who knows what it says.

My main gripe with solar is that it doesn't last long enough. The panels have to be replaced about every two decades, but they take a bit more than two decades to amortize. This is why everyone I know that wanted to get into solar did not get into solar.

Offensively cheap to the billionaires because they'll start losing consistent money.

> The problem with Solar is once someone buys it they can continuously use it for a long time with out participating in the economy.

An odd statement. That could be considered a "problem" for an incumbent energy provider, like say Exxon. But it would be considered a solution for an energy user who would now have more money to devote to something else in the economy.

This is also supported by the Federal gov since recently power inverters were banned and there is no major US maker of power inverters this is purposely a policy designed to stymie Solar proliferation. This policy was bought and paid for by the energy sector.

With the electrification of transportation and heating, electricity consumption is only going to increase. Not every household will be able to offset this with their own panels. More centralized solar plants and grid-level batteries will still be a thing.

As for panel production, you don’t really have to make them locally. Panels are sold with minimal margins (although your tariffs could allow for some local margins). You can make more money off installation and related services.

I don't think that is at all true.

The only real problem is the inverter sync problem. Inverter supply increases grid instability, so much so that most residential units are not allowed to push back into the grid.

> they can continuously use it for a long time with out participating in the economy

Yeah, low-cost, low-maintenance, clean energy from the Sun is great and all, but I can't shake the feeling that I'm just not participating the economy enough. Heating and cooling my home with renewable energy is great for my Family and my community but I really should think of the energy sector and their shareholders first.

How is buying energy from a probably unsavoury regime 'participating' in the economy?

Not sending that money to said regime allows you to spend it locally.

> That is unacceptable especially from local grid providers and many in the energy sector

I truly can't tell if this is sarcasm..

Of course people should be encouraged, wherever feasible, to take advantage of natural energy like solar and wind. That is a feature not a problem.

Only for the corporate oligarchs is that "a problem", since they want everyone to be paying perpetual fees to them.