The real question is why we aren’t spending $20 trillion for 8%.
4 Likes
The process of government is not always perfect, nor smooth, nor even sometimes understandable. But I’d guess that having solar that’s a bit less efficient - is preferable to having all the northern states say “We won’t support it at all if it comes up
again.”
Solar is, according to experts, particularly well suited to Nordic Countries which, correct me if I’m wrong, are “northern.” So it’s not as though the money is just being thrown away by sending some to northern states, it perhaps just not the perfectly optimum way to do it if all you care about is “producing energy today.” If you care about getting the idea popular throughout the country, then maybe it’s a good idea after all.
6 Likes
They also have to account for access to distribution networks and so on. Northern states tend to have greater enery needs due to cold and hot weather. Plus, climate change is making significant portions of many Southern states essentially not livable due to extremes of weather. Lack of water and extended extremely high temperatures dry out the land and make farming impossible. So larger areas become abandoned over time.
Solar is producing electricity in all of the following high latitude countries:
Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway are above latitude 55 degrees N
UK and Ireland are above latitude 50 degrees N
Even in a lower latitude country like continental US , states like Minnesota are producing electricity with solar.
Minneapolis is at latitude 45 degrees N
1 Like
Very true we saw that with fossil fuels. I get your point.
Minnesota does not like coal fired power plants even without subsides. Coal has gotten subsidies for years, now its solar and wind that should get subsidies. The coal industry never complained about subsidies when they were getting them.
1 Like
Solar panel efficiencies are higher in cold weather, but “particularly well suited” is certainly a misnomer. Solar is used in Nordic countries, but the levelized cost of solar energy even in southern Sweden is almost twice as high than it is, say, in New Mexico and Minnesota about a third higher than New Mexico.
DB2
Bob,
At this point solar and wind are not the bottleneck. Batteries are.
Storage is very important (particularly in the winter if you’re depending upon solar in Minnesota). Then there multiple bottlenecks of the grid itself. Don’t forget permitting. And then there’s NIMBY…
DB2
Have no fear. 
Here are the 2022 numbers by energy type (subsidies and total energy produced) courtesy of the EIA:
Million$/TrillionBTU Million $ Trillion BTU Solar 4.153 7,522 1,811 Geothermal 1.665 353 212 Wind 0.947 3,592 3,791 Coal 0.072 873 12,033 Biomass 0.060 312 5,171 Nuclear 0.048 390 8,065 Oil & Nat Gas 0.033 2,304 68,804
The subsidy dollar per energy generated is 13x for wind and 57x for solar.
DB2
1 Like
What significant areas are being depopulated?
I certainly hope Minnesota has other plans to “largely” replace baseload power.
In a related story, Amazon is siting a data center right next to a nuclear power plant (rather than the Minnesota example of destabilizing supply while ramping up demand).
Today, over at Grid Brief, I covered Amazon Website Service’s acquisition of Talen Energy’s nuclear-powered data center for $650 million. It’s sited beside the Susquehanna nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. Here’s what AWS had to say about it:
“To supplement our wind and solar energy projects, which depend on weather conditions to generate energy, we’re also exploring new innovations and technologies, and investing in other sources of clean, carbon-free energy. This agreement with Talen Energy for carbon-free energy is one project in that effort.”
In short, Amazon needs firm power around the clock. So much so that it plans on scaling the data center up to 960 MW. And Amazon’s not alone…
DB2
You are only looking at 2022, which is not the whole truth of the matter. You need to look at all the subsides that coal industry got for the last 50 years. The coal industry is squilling like a stuck pig because their industry is dying. Good ridence.
This is a good idea for the existing nuclear plant which will now have a steady demand day and night from the data center next door. It reduces transmission loses and eliminates a major grid upgrade.
But what does this do for building new nuclear power plants? The Susquehanna nuclear plant is close 40 years old. It would cost $30 Billion and more than 10 years to build another Susquehanna.
Amazon is also calling a nuclear power plant as a renewable enrgy source which is not true.
Nuclear is a good idea for baseload power. What would not work well is solar in Minnesota.
Actually, I believe they referred to it as “clean, carbon-free energy”.
DB2
NIMBY applies more to pipelines and fossil fuel developments. I think you are confused.
Not really. Here are some examples:
Nebraska:
Germany:
Europe:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-wants-to-kick-russian-energy-local-opposition-may-get-in-the-way-11653906781
“In Italy, Europe’s second-biggest Russian gas consumer, authorities reject 90% of all wind energy projects. Permitting obstacles have slowed the development of utility-scale solar farms across the continent. Regulations and public opposition in Poland, France and Hungary have shut off large areas of the countries from wind-energy development…”
Australia:
Energy Australia wants to build and operate a pumped hydro dam on Mount Walker at Lake Lyell near Lithgow…However, plans for a large concrete reservoir along the ridge line of Mount Walker have residents worried about a popular recreation spot and sparked concern among local Indigenous communities.
And in New England…
Maine voters reject $950M transmission line for hydropower
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/579887-maine-voters-reject-950m-transmission-line-for-hydropower-imports/
DB2
2 Likes
That is all you gots?
You want more?
Advocates: Solar arrays in Fort Edward threaten habitat of large grassland birds
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Solar-arrays-in-Fort-Edward-threaten-habitat-of-17678231.php
Grassland Bird Trust is fighting to reduce the footprint of a 100-megawatt network of solar arrays in Fort Edward and Argyle proposed by Boralex, a Quebec-based renewable energy company. As currently proposed, the Boralex panels will be placed in fields, some of which are deemed critical to the survival of short-eared owls, northern harriers and snowy owls as well as other grassland birds.
“The loss of prime agricultural land to install solar projects of an industrial magnitude is a serious attack on the food security of Puerto Rico, which is already in precarious condition,” said David Sotomayor, a soils professor at the University of Puerto Rico.
In her role as the head of the Preservation Society of Newport County, Coxe announced that her organization has filed a massive federal lawsuit to block the construction of an offshore wind project off the coast of Rhode Island.
DB2
3 Likes
Oil and gas
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2A11EI/
This grinds to an entire stop for nuclear.
What is your point?
Do not do the right thing? No renewables?
Here is an up to date reference for solar potential by country 2024: