5 ms·
Just look at the title.. "Solar executives warn..". Of course they do, their business model is government subsidy. I live in a blue state that has decided to be
by cbradford 1y ago
Just look at the title.. "Solar executives warn..". Of course they do, their business model is government subsidy. I live in a blue state that has decided to bet on renewables and our electricity rates are skyrocketing. If solar was viable, it would not require forcing tax payers to fund these businesses.
- olddustytrail 1y agoIt doesn't. Solar is ridiculously cheap and requires no subsidy at all to be profitable. If this is happening (which frankly I doubt) it's just corruption.
- lotsofpulp 1y agoIf this were true, then wouldn’t every electricity supplier be building tons of solar, regardless of what the government does?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> wouldn’t every electricity supplier be building tons of solar, regardless of what the government does? They are. And it’s undercutting the owners of pricier plants. Hence Trump using environmental regulation to block more solar.
- lotsofpulp 1y agoLand of the free, home of the brave gets funnier and funnier.
- softwaredoug 1y ago93% of new energy generation is renewable. Nobody wants a new coal or nuclear plant in their back yard. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5319056/trump-clean-energy-electricity-climate-change#:~:text=The%20buildout%20of%20big%20solar,93%25%2C%20the%20EIA%20said. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5319056/trump-clean-ene...
- olddustytrail 1y agoAs JumpCrisscross said, they really are. Look at solar deployments across the planet. They do need planning permission of course and that's where they can be blocked.
- lotsofpulp 1y agoI see that now, thanks. So much for all that freedom.
- lukeschlather 1y agoAccording to the article Trump is trying to ban new solar developments. Suppliers are building tons of solar but they can't do so if the government makes it illegal.
- dragonwriter 1y agoWell, not in California where there is both a residential solar mandate assuring new distributed supply and where solar already reaches over 100% of demand at peak; adding new utility-scale solar doesn't make a lot of sense even if it is cheap.
- zahlman 1y agoIf solar is "ridiculously cheap" (per GGP) and California has abundant supply of it, why does electricity in major cities in California (see e.g. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APUS49B72610 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APUS49B72610) cost several times what it does in Toronto, Ontario (https://www.oeb.ca/consumer-information-and-protection/electricity-rates https://www.oeb.ca/consumer-information-and-protection/elect... , and note these prices are in CAD)?
- dalyons 1y agoPolitics and corruption. The generation cost is low, but the government backed monopoly folds all kinds of distribution, deferred maintenance, fire damage, and political pet projects into the retail price. It sucks.
- thunderfork 1y ago[dead]
- cure 1y ago> If solar was viable, it would not require forcing tax payers to fund these businesses. This is not true. Solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuel generation for new capacity. Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-energy-are-cheaper-than-electricity-from-fossil-fuel-plants/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-en...
- dimitrios1 1y agoSo then removing the subsidies shouldn't be an issue?
- JumpCrisscross 1y agoIt shouldn’t. Trump is using environmental regulation to block projects. It’s crazy seeing the GOP embrace San Francisco’s last decade of policy.
- coredog64 1y ago"'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party."
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Sayrus 1y agoIf it was only the subsidies, but it's not. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-orders-orsted-halt-offshore-wind-project-deepening-industry-woes-2025-08-22/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-orders-orsted-ha...
- MyOutfitIsVague 1y agoIt's not just subsidies, it's also permitting and any other roadblocks they can manage. This isn't just economic or political, it's a weird personal crusade.
- abeppu 1y agoBut the Biden administration which introduced the IRA subsidies also jacked up tariffs on solar panels, increasing the price of these projects. Would many of these businesses been viable if neither subsidies nor tariffs had been introduced? Given the declining cost of PVs over time, would they have become viable eventually?
- derbOac 1y agoWhatever cost it is, I highly doubt it's cheaper to cancel projects that are well underway without recouping any benefits at all, in some cases over the objections of local customers, without an alternative in place with environmental and financial analysis to support it. Otherwise you're just burning money without an alternative to meet increasing demand (which is likely why costs are increasing and why the additional supply is being built).
- wat10000 1y agoIf fossil fuels were viable, they would not require the right to put toxic substances into my lungs without compensation.
- emorning4 1y ago[dead]