Hacker News Reader

Comment by pavlov | Hacker News Reader

Why the assumption that coal is always the cheapest and most easily available? Modern solar is so affordable, it's probably a much more realistic option for those rural areas.

View on HN

So people who make less than ~$2/day are supposed to now save up (and spend less on food/water/etc) for these "so affordable" panels? And even if they could, how are you going to get those panels (or parts replacements for these "so affordable" systems when they will degrade and break down) to these places that have bad or no roads at scale and struggle to get __anything__ to their regions? And completely eschew local mines and resources that are easier to access with less (upfront) capital? Nuts.

I worked remotely for a nigerian fintech that had to do intergrations between the big banks in western africa (and crypto markets) and farmers trying to sell their crops and they pretty much had to get access to capital (which is hard for most people not already intimately connected to wealth/power) to fund __infrastructure__, even before doing anything else (market places local producers/traders getting access global commodity markets via crypto). Even the big banks in nigeria don't even want to fund infrastructure stuff…

Same is true for many places i've visited within Indonesia (been living thru ME to east asia since 2016), its crazy to see local news about new airport being built in an area with pretty much nothing there for most people who are quick to overlook these types of things because they take it for granted in their everyday life.

Sure, it's possible that the cost on paper of solar is cheaper. But what about the infrastructure? For instance many people I'm sure live in extremely basic homes that aren't setup to be heated using solar. That alone would cost massive amounts of money they don't have.

Coal is cheap, available when needed, requires minimal capital (a mud or brick stove), and is used not just for thermal power generation but industrial use (steel production) and direct thermal heat. In areas with minimal infrastructure, all these are compelling advantages.

There's that long-term downside of destroying the planet. If your planning horizon is next year, or next month, or next week, that might not be a major consideration.

Those who do have a long-term planning horizon must take into consideration those who do not.

Is that without subsidies? Because subsidies are just make believe money to push people in some direction, the money for the infrastructure still has to come from somewhere.

Solar is only cheap when sun is shining bright. Just batteries needed for cloudy days or nights is multiple times more expensive than burning coal. solar+storage might become cheaper than coal by the end of this decade.

The initial cost of installing panels are not cheap, when compared to the continued use of existing coal plants

it's not just upfront cost, but the practical costs of using coal is much lower than having to set up a solar infrastructure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com