Hacker News Reader

Comment by frollogaston | Hacker News Reader

People on HN keep saying it is, but I'm still not seeing it. Companies are building datacenters in vast, sun-blasted deserts and still choosing to power those with natural gas. This in turn makes people complain about emissions pledges being reversed, but if it were economical, no pledge would be needed.

Of course, USA has cheaper oil/gas than other countries. But if you look elsewhere, rich countries are subsidizing solar, poor ones are basically not using it.

View on HN

I don't think you have an updated view of energy production.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/07/20/how-globa...

In the chart for section 3, how many countries have seen their share of electricity being generated by fossil fuels increase in the last 5 years? Only Canada.

Take a look at the charts for Pakistan, Australia, Nigeria, and China for the last few years. Pretty dramatic drops for fossil fuels generation.

Oof. What's going on here in Canada with that recent uptick? Last I checked it seemed like all the trends were good.

They cherrypicked 15 countries. And still, some of those still had renewables decrease since 2000 like Nigeria, others saw an increase but it's still way less than fossil, and others like China are heavily subsidizing solar. I don't doubt that it's economical for individuals when the govt is subsidizing it.

> They cherrypicked 15 countries.

The "world" chart shows an increase from 19% renewal to 34%. Did they cherry-pick that? (Also, "European Union" is more than one country.)

> I don't doubt that it's economical for individuals when the govt is subsidizing it.

Does that distinguish renewables from fossil fuels? Haven't governments been essentially subsidizing fossil fuels (not least by allowing environmental externalities to be ignored) for as long as they've been in use?

Because a lot of countries in the world, especially the EU, are subsidizing solar. That doesn't make it economical.

Externalities ignored from fossil fuels, yes. That's not a subsidy though. I'm not saying they should ignore it, but if they do, they aren't the ones who pay for it.

That's not a good point though, a lot of countries, including the EU, also subsidize fossil fuels.

Solar is cheaper, but requires more room and time to spin up (think datacenters, where you can put a turbine within a month) and storage or backups for windless nights.

Look at Australia then. Millions of homes already using solar yo basically power their homes for free most of the time. Yes it was subsidized, like oil was and still is. Solar without subsidies is already miles better than oil and gas.

Australia is a rich country that subsidizes solar, and they're still 90% fossil according to their Wikipedia article, so idk why the mismatch with this article.

Sounds like a perfect opportunity to put in an edit with the Wikipedia page then :)

Solar is dirt cheap in China, where 85% of panels are produced. The problem is they're made in China and face tariffs/import bans in the US/Europe.

Nat gas is preferred for AI DCs because it has faster time-to-market, doesn't have the intermittency issues. Training on solar + storage is an issue because of network synchronization.

I get the gas turbine for semi-temp power when there's not enough grid support, but Google leadership is talking about doing this long-term and at scale: https://www.gstatic.com/marketing-cms/79/80/fb229abf40efa81e... . Not a single mention of "solar" or "renewable" in there. Are they just trying to appease Trump administration?

Google may not have written about it in that document, but they're funding what will be the highest storage capacity battery system in the world for a renewable-powered data center in Minnesota:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/worlds-largest-grid-battery...

That's great news then, I hope they continue in that direction.

> poor ones are basically not using it.

I don't think that's true: https://rmi.org/resources/the-global-souths-cleantech-revolu...

"RMI drives investment to scale clean energy solutions"

To power an AI data center with off-grid solar panels, you'd need about 45,000 acres of land devoted to your solar farm. The panels themselves could be literally free and the natural gas plant would probably be more economical.

Data centers need lots of power 24/7 and regardless of cloud cover. Solar is great to reduce your daytime bills but you still need other methods to cover the downtime.

I would be surprised if data centers didn't put in gas _and_ solar.

That's why I'm surprised, they're doing like 100% gas.

Also wouldn't be surprised if they are just waiting for a new US administration.

They might be, but if they are, it's because a new administration might subsidize solar again. Meanwhile Trump seems like he'd be against solar even if it were economical, I guess cause oil companies.

What makes me pessimistic is even during Biden's administration, these companies made meaningless pledges more than actual changes. This suggests that the most profitable thing to them is fossil.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com