Policy based on revenge, stupidity and probably bribes.
guywithahat · 2m ago
Why would canceling contracts require bribes? Bribes are something you do to get government contracts. I wouldn't bribe you to not give me money
pavel_lishin · 32s ago
If there's fewer money to invest in solar, that means traditional (read: fossil) fuels get used more.
avgDev · 31m ago
The only good thing about this, is that I won't have these annoying solar companies knocking on my door.
Not that this news is great. We should promote green energy.
I will just get the panels and do it myself.
dawnerd · 11m ago
Oh I they’re still going to be knocking. Their sales pitch here has already shifted.
quesera · 32m ago
Performative ostriching.
The rapture cannot come soon enough.
myrmidon · 13m ago
I'm very curious if there are any well-informed positive takes on Trumps climate policy.
Personally, I believe even Biden-era efforts were insufficient; but all the common arguments to do less against climate change that I encounter regularly fall into the following 3 categories:
1) Selfishness/Freedom at someone elses cost ("why should I suffer from restrictions just to mitigate negative externalities")
2) Poorly informed skepticism toward solar panels, batteries, electric vehicles, frequently involving extremely implausible assumptions about production costs.
3) (Misinformed) dismissal of climate-change consequences ("a few degrees warmer won't hurt too much")
Currently I can't help but think that people will look back on this in a few decades and regard the whole position as obvious idiocy (similarly to the US waging war in Vietnam).
cogman10 · 10m ago
The best positive take I could make for the Trump policy is that the negative consequences of it are somewhat too late.
Solar, wind, and battery, even without the grants, is already quite cheap. You'd have to fine the industries to really slow down deployment at this point.
That means the 7B is mostly saved money with not too much negative impacts.
(I still think it's a bad idea, don't get me wrong, but it's probably not the worst thing in the world).
actionfromafar · 8m ago
I think they will find a way to fine or otherwise penalize wind and solar. Just give it some time, it hasn't been even a year yet.
Once again cutting off their nose to spite their face. And showing their complete ignorance of economics. Or possibly just their personal indebtedness to the oil and gas industries for supporting their election. The long term costs of climate change are going to dwarf any outlays for renewable energy adoption.
philipallstar · 29m ago
> Michelle Moore, the chief executive of Groundswell, a nonprofit group that received a Solar for All grant, said revoking the award would undermine the Trump administration’s efforts to address soaring electricity demand fueled by artificial intelligence data centers.
Solar is so expensive and cost-inefficient per-household. Data centers need their own large, uninterrupted power supplies.
hristov · 24m ago
Wrong, solar is cheap and probably the cheapest energy source a household can get if they have a sunny roof. Source - I have solar, have done the math.
bfeynman · 16m ago
Is this if you just do the entire setup yourself? I'm pretty sure the math on solar currently is quite bad for the vast majority of people in the USA.
ben_w · 5m ago
If so, please ask your representatives to copy Germany's "Balkonkraftwerk" rules.
We've got one, cost €350 including delivery and a balcony railing mounting kit, could've been €250 if we'd collected and not had the stands. Whole thing is trivial DIY, no skill or training needed: you literally just assemble the kit and plug it into a power socket, register it online as a small power station, and you're done.
Sure, the legal limit of 800 W output sure isn't a huge supply, but at that cost it's also a no-brainer — at €350, it will pay for itself in 1y8m.
garciasn · 8m ago
I had it priced out by 5 different vendors. Only one of those 5 was in any way truthful about the reality for my particular home: "you will likely only get 15% of what others with panels might due to the shape of your roof and tree cover now and especially in 10 years." That said, WITH grid-kickbacks (all of which are not at all guaranteed), according to 4 of them, I would be looking at a net zero cost in 30-36 years.
I'm not even talking about the fact that panels MAY act like a pool for resale. Some people DO want them--again depending on your locale--most, at this point, do NOT where I live.
I was looking primarily for cost reduction and a very small percentage of saving the environment or whatever you want to call it. But; depending on your locale, home structure, etc, solar may not at all be that. If you're leaning more on the side of energy independence and eco-friendliness, maybe it's a better fit for you.
Spivak · 19m ago
It's not ideal for everyone's situation but it's damn cheap. One of my neighbors has solar panels, no battery or storage of any kind, we don't have net metering here, and their electric bill is single digits.
at-fates-hands · 12m ago
I live in Minnesota, we get about 34% less sun than most of the southern states like Arizona or Florida.
Arizona - 3,800 hours of sunlight hours per year
Minnesota - 2,500 hours of sunlight hours per year
Ergo, I can't generate as much energy as someone who lives in a state that gets significantly more sunlight.
I would also add that setup and installation of even a small solar array has an ROI of around 10 years because I can't generate as much energy, therefore it takes longer for me to break even.
Right now in Minnesota:
The average cost of installing a 5 kW solar panel system in Minnesota is approximately $14,900 before applying the 30% federal tax credit, which can significantly reduce the overall expense. After incentives, the out-of-pocket cost can be around $13,860
Sorry, I'm not going to lay out 15K and then have to wait ten years before I break even. If you want to know why people aren't adopting solar, this is the reason. Its cost prohibitive for many, many people.
Does it make sense for people in those Southern states? 100%. For everybody else? Not so much.
mstachowiak · 5m ago
You can finance the purchase to avoid upfront payments. And in many cases, the energy savings exceed the finance payments, resulting in a net monthly gain from a cash flow basis with no upfront payment.
garciasn · 6m ago
I live in MN. When I priced this out for a 2700 square foot house (approximately 1350 roof) the mean across 5 vendors was $47,500 (pre-tax-credit) in 2022.
ben_w · 11m ago
Solar is so cheap that it's worth doing even just to reduce the fuel consumed running an existing plants.
Not that this news is great. We should promote green energy.
I will just get the panels and do it myself.
The rapture cannot come soon enough.
Personally, I believe even Biden-era efforts were insufficient; but all the common arguments to do less against climate change that I encounter regularly fall into the following 3 categories:
1) Selfishness/Freedom at someone elses cost ("why should I suffer from restrictions just to mitigate negative externalities")
2) Poorly informed skepticism toward solar panels, batteries, electric vehicles, frequently involving extremely implausible assumptions about production costs.
3) (Misinformed) dismissal of climate-change consequences ("a few degrees warmer won't hurt too much")
Currently I can't help but think that people will look back on this in a few decades and regard the whole position as obvious idiocy (similarly to the US waging war in Vietnam).
Solar, wind, and battery, even without the grants, is already quite cheap. You'd have to fine the industries to really slow down deployment at this point.
That means the 7B is mostly saved money with not too much negative impacts.
(I still think it's a bad idea, don't get me wrong, but it's probably not the worst thing in the world).
Solar is so expensive and cost-inefficient per-household. Data centers need their own large, uninterrupted power supplies.
We've got one, cost €350 including delivery and a balcony railing mounting kit, could've been €250 if we'd collected and not had the stands. Whole thing is trivial DIY, no skill or training needed: you literally just assemble the kit and plug it into a power socket, register it online as a small power station, and you're done.
Sure, the legal limit of 800 W output sure isn't a huge supply, but at that cost it's also a no-brainer — at €350, it will pay for itself in 1y8m.
I'm not even talking about the fact that panels MAY act like a pool for resale. Some people DO want them--again depending on your locale--most, at this point, do NOT where I live.
I was looking primarily for cost reduction and a very small percentage of saving the environment or whatever you want to call it. But; depending on your locale, home structure, etc, solar may not at all be that. If you're leaning more on the side of energy independence and eco-friendliness, maybe it's a better fit for you.
Arizona - 3,800 hours of sunlight hours per year
Minnesota - 2,500 hours of sunlight hours per year
Ergo, I can't generate as much energy as someone who lives in a state that gets significantly more sunlight.
I would also add that setup and installation of even a small solar array has an ROI of around 10 years because I can't generate as much energy, therefore it takes longer for me to break even.
Right now in Minnesota:
The average cost of installing a 5 kW solar panel system in Minnesota is approximately $14,900 before applying the 30% federal tax credit, which can significantly reduce the overall expense. After incentives, the out-of-pocket cost can be around $13,860
Sorry, I'm not going to lay out 15K and then have to wait ten years before I break even. If you want to know why people aren't adopting solar, this is the reason. Its cost prohibitive for many, many people.
Does it make sense for people in those Southern states? 100%. For everybody else? Not so much.