Remix.run Logo
EcommerceFlow 4 days ago

If Solar can't compete with natural gas economically, and subsidizing solar ends up de-incentivizing natural gas production by artificially lowering energy prices, what's the solution here?

henearkr 4 days ago | parent [-]

Your question is weird.

Solar does compete economically with methane already, and it's only going to improve even more.

EcommerceFlow 4 days ago | parent [-]

If true, why aren't we mass scaling it all over the American West? We have railways running from West -> East, why not include power lines that can take power from energy farms in the West -> East? No major project in AZ, TX, or CA to give a city free power? etc

ux266478 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> We have railways running from West -> East, why not include power lines that can take power from energy farms in the West -> East?

Firstly, there is no such thing as an infinitely scaling system.

Secondly, because power transmission isn't moving freight. The infrastructure to move electricity long distances is extremely complicated. Even moving past basic challenges like transmission line resistance and voltage drop, power grids have to be synchronized in both phase and frequency. Phase instability is a real problem for transmission within hundreds of miles, let alone thousands upon thousands.

Also that infrastructure is quite a bit more expensive to build than rail or even roads, and it's very maintenance hungry. An express built piece of power transmission that goes direct from a desert solar farm to one of the coasts is just fragile centralization. You have a long chain of high-maintenance infrastructure, a single point of failure makes the whole thing useless. So instead you go through the national grid, and end up with nothing, because all of that power is getting sucked up by everyone between you and the solar farm. It probably doesn't even make it out of the state it's being generated in.

BTW the vast majority of the cost of electricity is in the infrastructure, not its generation. Even a nuclear reactor is cheap compared to a large grid. New York city's collection of transmission lines, transformers, etc. (not even any energy generation infrastructure, just transmission) ballparks a couple hundred billion dollars. Maintenance is complex and extremely dangerous, which means the labor is $$$$. That's what you're paying for. That's why as we continue to move towards renewables price/watt will continue to go up, even though we're not paying for the expensive fuel anymore. The actual ~$60 million worth of fuel an average natural gas plant burns in a year pales in comparison to the billions a city spends making sure the electrons are happy.

gpm 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

60% tariffs on solar components from China, an executive that is actively hostile to renewable energy, and you still are massively scaling it to some extent.

67% of new grid capacity in the US was solar in 2024 (a further 18% was batteries, 9% wind, and 6% for everything else). In the first half of 2025 that dropped to 56% solar, 26% batteries, 10% wind, and 8% everything else (gas). Source for numbers: https://seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-rep...

henearkr 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is massively scaling everywhere, and notably in Texas btw.

philipkglass 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Getting approval across multiple states for lines takes a very long time. The federal government and just about any state, municipality, or private land owner along the proposed route can block or delay it. The TransWest Express transmission line project started planning in 2007 but couldn't start construction until 2023, and it only needed to cross 4 states.

If the coast-to-coast railways hadn't been built in the past, I don't think the US could build them today. There are too many parties who can now block big projects altogether or force the project to spend another 18 months proving that it should be allowed to move forward.