Hacker News Reader

Comment by GenerWork | Hacker News Reader

I realize Trump is being used as a hook here, but isn't the real story the fact that at this point solar is completely viable to build without federal subsidies? As the article notes, the OBBB axed a lot of solar subsidies, yet 73% of all new solar last year was installed in states that voted for Trump, which probably don't have solar friendly subsidies.

View on HN

I live off-grid in California, and pretty much every time I've evaluated options for something that would save energy, I've been better off by forgoing the subsidized option. It can be difficult to motivate behavior as intended through subsidizing, especially in a quickly changing field. If I were naïve and assumed that the subsidized products would always save me energy usage, I would be spending more money and saving less energy.

When a state is against subsidizing, but not against what is being subsidized, it can be more beneficial than an inefficient subsidy.

I think solar starting construction before July 2026 or completed before 2027 still got the old federal subsidies. Residential cut off was the end of last year.

So we don't know exactly how things will look after subsidies and there will have been a pull forward effect before the various deadlines.

Texas is a leader in renewables for the same reason it is a leader in oil and gas.

https://www.conservativetexansforenergyinnovation.org/how-te...

that's a hell of a domain name

I bet they rank for "conservative texans for energy innovation" but if they were serious about that they'd put that in text in an <h1>.

Lots of subsidies?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com