←back to thread

Solar power has begun to transform the world’s energy system

(www.newyorker.com)
353 points dmazin | 1 comments | 09 Jul 25 12:31 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
rel_ic ◴[10 Jul 25 13:39 UTC] No.44520938[source]▶
Renewable energy is great, but we're not replacing fossil fuels with it, we're just adding more energy usage. And our energy usage is destroying the environment.

Don't let these advancements in solar make you think things are getting better. We need to reduce fossil fuel usage, not just increase solar usage.

https://pocketcasts.com/podcasts/b3b696c0-226d-0137-f265-1d2...

replies(9): >>44521010 #>>44521628 #>>44521789 #>>44521802 #>>44521954 #>>44522009 #>>44522223 #>>44523270 #>>44524628 #
unbalancedevh ◴[10 Jul 25 14:53 UTC] No.44521789[source]▶
The article notes several examples of reduced use of fossil fuels:

> California is so far using forty per cent less natural gas to generate electricity than it did in 2023

> total carbon emissions in China had actually decreased

> kept the country’s coal use flat and also cut the amount of natural gas used during the same period in 2024 by a quarter

replies(2): >>44523810 #>>44530604 #
AlexandrB ◴[10 Jul 25 18:06 UTC] No.44523810[source]▶
Meanwhile Germany shut down its nuclear plants while keeping coal and natural gas around to supplement renewables. One of the biggest unforced errors I've heard of recently.
replies(2): >>44524499 #>>44524670 #
1. jfengel ◴[10 Jul 25 19:16 UTC] No.44524499[source]▶
Natural gas and coal are better at throttling up and down than nuclear plants are.

So if they need to run 10% of the time, then you've still reduced your carbon output by 90%. The goal is 100%, but the remaining fossil fuel plants are not the biggest issue.

A nuclear plant would also be carbon-free, but Germany had other reasons not to want it. So it was a reasonable decision to keep the fossil fuel plants around, and shut more and more of them down over time.