Despite what's happening in the USA, renewables are winning globally

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Land use & ecological impacts of solar

  • Several commenters react negatively to the article’s solar-farm photo, calling it an “ecological nightmare,” but others argue that:
    • Almost any large-scale human land use (cities, plowed monoculture fields, coal plants, mountaintop removal) is visually and ecologically harsh.
    • Intensive agriculture is already highly destructive; replacing some biofuel or grazing land with solar may be a net win.
  • Hail and wind damage are raised as risks (glass fragments, cleanup), but others note panels are built to similar standards as roofs and cars.
  • Agrivoltaics (solar coexisting with crops or grazing) is highlighted as promising; partial shade can benefit some plants and animals (e.g., sheep).

Biofuels vs solar productivity

  • A widely cited anecdote compares 1 acre of corn ethanol vs 1 acre of solar for powering a Ford F‑150:
    • Rough figures offered: ~25,000 miles/year on ethanol vs ~700,000 miles/year on solar electricity.
    • Some say this mainly shows how bad corn biofuels are; others stress the durability and low maintenance of panels compared to annual planting.

Where solar “makes sense” & EROEI disputes

  • One view: northern locations like Iowa are “too far north” for solar to meaningfully help climate, and panel manufacturing emissions allegedly outweigh benefits there, citing a low solar EROEI and a supposed “solar albino” threshold.
  • Multiple replies call these claims outdated or simply false, pointing to:
    • Comparable or better insolation than much of Europe.
    • Maps showing Iowa only moderately worse than US Southwest.
    • The concept “solar albino” being unknown and likely invented.
  • Broader land-use question: can utility-scale solar meaningfully eat into farmland? Back-of-envelope estimates suggest:
    • An acre of solar can power multiple households and that meat production and biofuels already consume far more land.

Grid, storage, and data center demand

  • Strong agreement that renewables are now the fastest way to add capacity; rooftop solar in particular scales quickly.
  • Concern: grids often aren’t ready for large injections (utility-scale solar, wind, data centers), and upgrades can lag for years.
  • Batteries are seen as promising for hourly/daily smoothing, but commenters doubt they can economically cover multi-day or seasonal gaps; some argue backup baseload (often nuclear or gas) will remain necessary.
  • Data centers (AI and Bitcoin) are cited as a rapidly growing load:
    • Estimates mentioned: several percent of US electricity already, with projections upwards, and >20% grid share in places like Ireland.
    • Others push for careful quantification and context, noting global energy use still dwarfs AI/crypto.

Global manufacturing, China, and geopolitics

  • Many note China’s overwhelming dominance in panel manufacturing (≈80% cited), raising:
    • Worries about overdependence on a strategic rival for critical infrastructure.
    • Counterpoints that panels are relatively commoditized; many countries could ramp production if economics or security demanded.
  • Some suggest strategic subsidies and aggressive domestic deployment to sustain local manufacturing; others prefer tariffs/import bans over subsidies.
  • China’s high emissions and “world’s factory” role are invoked both to downplay US climate influence and to highlight outsourced emissions embedded in imports.

Policy, economics, and the US role

  • Multiple commenters stress that, despite federal hostility, the US remains:
    • A top global producer of solar and wind (solid #2 in both).
    • A market where ~90% of new generation capacity additions are renewables in 2025 (per a linked trade source).
  • Disagreement over how much federal policy can slow this:
    • One side: where renewables are cheapest, they win regardless of ideology; Texas is cited as a conservative, high-renewables state.
    • Other side: federal cancellations of major solar and offshore wind projects increase risk, chill investment, and may lock in higher prices by delaying new capacity while gas turbines are backlogged.
  • Several argue capitalism now broadly aligns with renewables: they are often the cheapest new generation even without subsidies; fossil owners fear stranded assets and some governments actively prop up coal to protect legacy investments.

Europe, Germany, and nuclear

  • A linked critique questions whether Germany’s energy transition is underfunded and driving deindustrialization via high power prices.
  • Replies are mixed:
    • Some see Germany’s anti-nuclear, pro-gas-and-Russia path as a cautionary tale; others say this misstates both the aims of the Energiewende and the impact of the Russia gas cutoff.
    • There’s debate on whether Europe’s focus on non-nuclear renewables will prove costly if AI and electrification make cheap power more critical.
  • France’s large nuclear share is mentioned as a contrasting model; others assert that, in today’s West, new nuclear is prohibitively expensive compared to renewables plus storage.

Broader climate and “winning”

  • Several commenters want a clearer definition of “winning”: subsidies, installed capacity, share of new capacity, emissions avoided, or profitability?
  • Skeptical notes:
    • Some distrust energy or emissions data from China/Russia.
    • One raises the long-debunked idea that extra CO₂ will be simply absorbed by plant growth; others push back as recycled denialism.
  • Others emphasize geopolitical stakes:
    • Renewables could weaken the oil/gas geopolitical lever, but the transition itself may destabilize petrostates.
    • Even a fully renewable grid doesn’t automatically decarbonize military assets; synthetic fuels from cheap electricity are discussed as a long-term option.