'Offensively cheap': solar power is looking up | Hacker News Reader

'Offensively cheap': solar power is looking up

ft.com

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.

You're right on the labor, that only goes up. On the local/state red tape kind of. You can sell a residential solar system and get a contract signed and installed and get PTO within 30-60 days, which isn't terrible. However, utility scale solar farms can take 3-5 years before you even break ground at the earliest but that's a different story. There's a ton of local/state rep tape there so you're def right there.

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.

While I don't think this is entirely an answer I do agree with the general idea--utility infrastructure costs are based on peak load, not on average load. Solar cuts fuel use, it doesn't cut infrastructure.

I would be more inclined towards a system that is weighted towards when their system is under high load. You draw a lot of power when their load is low, it's not going to matter. You draw a lot of power when their load is high, it matters.

Many customers need costs to be predictable and bounded. So a cost structure that depends on external factors is very rough on those at the margins. You can encourage many people to move to rate plans that depend on external factors, but not all.

And I'm not sure how your plan addresses the problem. Suppose I install enough panels and batteries for 48h of power. I only draw from the grid when there are 3 cloudy days in a row. If I pay by kWh, I don't really care how much it costs per kWh since I use so few of them. Yet I cost the grid operator just about as much as a normal customer since they need to maintain the capacity for that 3rd cloudy day.

Yeah, that case gets even worse.

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

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.

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.

It's not just the energy sector though being big business I assume they do the bulk of the lobbying.

The electrician's trade groups and that whole supply chain are also scared shitless of a future where you can't lord a meter connection over people.

To an only slightly lesser degree building inspectors and Karens of all colors are also not fans for similar reasons. In exurban and rural areas (i.e. below a certain density depending on climate) the idea that some guy could just move into an old house or slap up a new building, throw up a bunch of panels on a stand, throw a bunch of batteries in a shed and live there without cutting checks to all sorts of parties and jumping through all sorts of compliance hoops and that you'd have to go after them after the fact is a big threat to these people's ability to micromanage how other people live.

But the US also has a large number of people who are extremely interested in "off grid" living (or even just LARPing it), I would expect them to be able to exert a lot of counter pressure

Those people aren't wealthy enough to have any real political power, though.

Nor do they have much economic surplus worth extracting so there's no reason for the .gov to throw them a bone or otherwise curry favor with that demographic.

Another policy is to charge EV's registration fees that are way higher than ICE vehicles.

The argument, which isn't entirely unreasonable, is that ICE cars are obviously paying a per-mile usage fee in the form of fuel taxes which supposedly (not always in practice) are supposed to be used to maintain roads. And it works sort-of, since very light cars (which do least damage to road surface) often have good fuel economy so they pay less tax per mile, vs. heavy trucks which do more wear on the road have usually worse mileage so end up paying more per mile in taxes. Not perfect of course, but approximately reasonable.

EVs break this system because they pay zero fuel taxes but are quite heavy (for their size) so they wear out the road like a heavier car but pay nothing.

I wonder if heavy trucks pay correspondingly higher then. I would imagine the damage they do is disproportionately higher.

If a truck is getting, say, 12MPG it is paying a lot more in per-gallon taxes than a car getting 40MPG. So yes.

(Trucks also pay higher registration fees, but that's separate)

> 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.

the US is an odd place and so I guess it depends on what you consider a norm there. Favouring incumbent rent extractors and profits, versus maximising consumer benefit with low costs — it’s arguable the norm in the US is the former

What is the cost of electricity per KWh where you are from?

Here in the USA it varies greatly from Hawaii and California having prices that exceed $0.30 to $0.50+ per KWh but in the midwest electricity is cheap as low as $0.12-15 per KWh for American standards. The former markets lead the USA in soalr installs and that's why. It's a financial decision and the ROI on going solar in the Midwest, USA for example is very long. Illinois is a Midwestern state and is a SREC market so that's a added incentive from the state so the ROI is less. For residential solar cash and bank financed solar projects, we lost the Federal ITC last year but PPAs in residential still exist. The Federal ITC existed though from 2006 under President Bush a Republican extended under President Obama a Democrat and ended under President Trump 2026 for just cash and bank financed residentials projects. The 30% Federal tax credits for the cost of the solar system and a reduction in your federal income taxes lasted for 20 years which is really what drove solar energy growth along with state tax incentives in USA. We had the Rural Renewable Energy Programs (REAP) grants or used to which made the cost of solar for farmers in America like a 2-3 year payback after the Federal ITC, State tax credits and REAP grants. I support solar and have worked in the industry for 10+ years. It's not going anywhere in the USA. We just have to adopt and grow but the USA is still one of the global leaders in the solar installed capacity.

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.

What do you mean? Where does this happen? Inverters don't push electricity into the grid, the bidirectional meter does when you install solar.

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.

> 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.

what do you mean? You are directly supporting the economy e.g. paying solar installers, local distributors, permits, engineering, etc. You're just owning your power, not leasing it. Also, you export electricity into the grid. With extreme heatwaves we have seen in New York, you can couple the solar system with battery storage and discharge when the grid is stressed.

It was sarcasm to the post above.

lol my bad lol

Your primary duty as a citizen consumer is to maximize shareholder value for the dominant corporations.

> 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.

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

Or the quality of tokens will improve such that I don't have to ask model A to critique and summarize tokens from model B.

The frontier AI companies have occaisionally been using their latest and greatest (and most power hungry) models to research large efficiency gains for their older, lesser models.

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...

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.

1 to 3 years payback for energy.

Check out my post above. What state?

The question is about energy payback. Generating the energy required to create it.

Your comment, if I'm looking at the correct one refers to electricity prices.

You're right. I misunderstood. I think you're right on the 1-3 years though. I think i've heard/seen that before in the solar industry.

> manufacturing usually happens on a different continent, in a different currency, different regulatory regime

that's irrelevant. They're selling panels at a profit and are churning them out by the millions daily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment

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.

That far north batteries and solar don't make much sense in winter, by the time you can cover three cloudy winter days you'll generate enough energy in summer to be legally considered as a small local electric plant.

> rates were high even after all the rain

Do Norwegian hydro prices vary with rainfall?

I live in Western Wyoming. We feed off cheap Pacific Northwestern hydro. It's a fixed price. (I pay a bit more for wind + hydro, but it's still fixed.)

Inverters are indeed expensive, so are batteries (and you will need batteries to make good use of solar; otherwise, you will be getting the ridiculously low energy company rates for what you over-produce). Being far north is somewhat compensated by the fact that solar batteries run much more efficiently when they are cold. Also, modern solar cells are surprisingly effective on cloudy days, unless it is really dark.

> Being far north is somewhat compensated by the fact that solar batteries run much more efficiently when they are cold

Uh? It's a major pain in the ass, you actually need to heat these batteries, most won't even charge below 0c, their peak performance is in the 15-25c range

Sodium Ion Batteries like those under mass development by CATL offer an exceptionally Wide Operation-Temperature Range from −70 to 100.

Worth keeping an eye on. These have recently moved into mass production but I’ve personally not yet seen them come to market as available to retail buyers. Keep an eye out though!

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.202116930?a...

https://www.ess-news.com/2026/04/20/a-closer-look-at-catls-n...

Sorry, it was a thinko — I meant "solar panels".

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

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.

>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

But solar panels last a long time. If china starts turning the screws tomorrow, current panels will still work.

You're basically complaining about a Chinese subsidy, and potential issues that we will have years to address, if they become issues.

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

They don't have short lifespans anymore.

Do you have a good source for lifespans of panels by country of origin?

80% of panels are made in China, if they were all so terrible I doubt they would dominate the market so much

> if they were all so terrible I doubt they would dominate the market

Plenty of markets are dominated by the less-durable product offered at a lower up-front cost.

They all come with ~30 years warranty, I think you're stuck in the 1970s when it comes to Chines manufacturing capabilities, the top of the line chinese factories are just as good as EU/US ones, probably even more high tech

> you're stuck in the 1970s when it comes to Chines manufacturing capabilities

Probably not, having done contract manufacturing in China quite recently. Asking for a source isn't the same as disputing an assertion.

> top of the line chinese factories are just as good as EU/US ones, probably even more high tech

This is my guess. I like to substantiate my guesses.

iPhones are made in china...

For a residential setting, installation quality probably dominates, and I doubt country of origin is statistically significant. Otherwise look at warranties which specify a performance curve over lifetime (generally 25y, also some are independently guaranteed by an insurance company that might actually survive that long). There are public performance datasets from NREL, TUV, but be careful about choosing representative examples (e.g. utility scale reliability is different from rooftop)

I meant it as a general thing. These days all manufacturers, from all countries, offer 20+ year warranties. Not just Chinese ones.

However you inspired me to do some research, and I found this: https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/best-solar-pa....

The article lists top PV manufacturers and their efficiency ratings, production warranty, and other statistics. There are several Chinese companies on the list with 25+ year warranties. The article's top-rated manufacturer in the category of "Longest production warranty" is ZNShine Solar, a Chinese company that offers a 30 year warranty.

Thanks! What is the significance of all-black models?

I think it's more cosmetic than anything else. All black panels blend in better with dark roofs.

“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.

> Who would have thought weather forecasting would be critical to grid maintenance.

They already have to keep an eye on the weather. For example, to predict demand spikes during heatwaves or cold snaps.

It always has been. A weather forecast is a major input into future demand prediction. Not just for heating and cooling, but there are also many second order effects.

Also severe weather predictions are crucial to have the staff ready to respond to grid outages due to weather.

Weather forecasting is important even before solar/wind. Extreme, temporary temperature swings require the power company to be prepared for the extra power generation.

With just coal/gas/hydro, this can be mitigated much easily, but still needs to be handled with care. If not, then the lack of power generation could cause brownouts for hours or days as backup power generation takes time to spin up.

TVA experienced an issue like this in 2023, where it was inadequately ready for a winter storm: https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/report-examin...

Since we build for "1-in-a-100", it's expected we'll have these failures, as a 1% chance every year is a pretty high chance that will keep increasing as these power companies rely more on non-failsafe power generation strategies. Texas is the extreme example, where over-reliance on those systems caused too much damage.

Weirdly phrased since when you have a full, real nuclear plant you need to be ready to deal with that tripping off the grid suddenly, because it happens regularly.

> Weirdly phrased since when you have a full, real nuclear plant you need to be ready to deal with that tripping off the grid suddenly, because it happens regularly.

It does not, what is with solar proponents and lying?

And yet in the US one tripped this month (that we are only two weeks into) and one tripped last month too.

HN link for last month's:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49320856

Nuke plants are hypersensitive about tripping.

The problem is they are required to maintain two entirely separate external sources of power at all times. Something drives it below two, the plant trips even though absolutely nothing is wrong with the plant.

Do you think they haven't always needed to predict a cold snap?

Here in the UK they needed to watch the TV because a break or end of a large football match would cause a spike in demand.

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.

Have you run your numbers recently because a 20+ year break-even isn't common? I wonder if you have some highly subsidized power or something because most places would be under 10.

The decision to not do solar was made last year, so that's how old the numbers are. It was made together with the people selling solar. It's very dependent on the direction your roof is facing and how much roof space you have. Also, installing solar is expensive (20k€ to 30k€) here in Germany, so despite power also being super expensive it still makes no sense. There's one neighbor that did it and kinda regrets it, since it's more expensive all around.

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

I believe the article means like attacking, not like rude. English is weird sometimes.

No? I'm a Brit, it's a British newspapers.

It's equivalent to saying it's "disgustingly cheap"

Ah, yea ok, that also makes sense. The comment I was replying to seems to have thought it meant "<actually bad> cheap" instead of "<very> cheap" though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com