Developments and News in clean energy: Wind, solar and batteries grow despite economic challenges

publiusr · 15 April 2026

Halcyon66 · 15 April 2026

Suniva to Build 4.5 GW Solar Cell Plant in South Carolina

https://oilprice.com/Company-News/Suniva-to-Build-45-GW-Solar-Cell-Plant-in-South-Carolina.html
Regards,

Halcyon66 · 15 April 2026

France to Double Electrification Spending to €10 Billion by 2030

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-...ification-Spending-to-10-Billion-by-2030.html
Regards,

publiusr · 15 April 2026

Big news I hope
https://phys.org/news/2026-04-photosynthetic-molecule-bacteria.html https://phys.org/news/2026-04-carbon-unraveling-roles-photocatalysis.html https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-urban-consumer-products.html https://phys.org/news/2026-04-temperature-shifts-proteins-power-photosynthesis.html
On aviation
https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-reveals-potential-cellulosic-feedstocks-sustainable.html https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-sustainability-outcomes-scale-aviation-fuel.html

Halcyon66 · 17 April 2026

Iran war sparks ‘fundamental energy transition’ in Seoul toward renewables: Energy minister

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/16/ira...-toward-renewable-energy-energy-minister.html
Regards,

TinWing · 17 April 2026

Halcyon66 said:
Suniva to Build 4.5 GW Solar Cell Plant in South Carolina

https://oilprice.com/Company-News/Suniva-to-Build-45-GW-Solar-Cell-Plant-in-South-Carolina.html
Regards,

So many failed American solar cell manufacturers. Suniva itself went bankrupt in 2017, taken over by a private equity. Hilariously, investors were dumb enough to buy into the IPO of an unrelated, similarly named Sunnova IPO in 2019…which went bankrupt last year. Basically, solar cells are low profit margin, undifferentiated commodity products. It doesn’t really matter who makes them or where they’re made.

https://www.energysage.com/news/sunnova-bankruptcy/#why-are-big-solar-companies-going-under

1635yankee · 17 April 2026

TinWing said:
I’m

Never in a positive way. California shuts off the electricity to millions of residential customers every time the wind blows and the typical Californian now suffers without air conditioning during peak hours because of “smart meter” billing. I can’t think of a state with a worse track record in managing energy, green otherwise.

The California power company bears those responsibilities, not just the government. been

martinbayer · 17 April 2026

sparky42 said:
It's Ireland, every Capital program is always 15+++ years from coming online, just keep shifting the timeline.

Those are called Rainbow Projects, because they seem to recede as you try to approach them, so you never reach that fabled pot of gold at the end - very apt for Ireland, but it's really a global phenomenon...

T. A. Gardner · 17 April 2026

TinWing said:
So many failed American solar cell manufacturers. Suniva itself went bankrupt in 2017, taken over by a private equity. Hilariously, investors were dumb enough to buy into the IPO of an unrelated, similarly named Sunnova IPO in 2019…which went bankrupt last year. Basically, solar cells are low profit margin, undifferentiated commodity products. It doesn’t really matter who makes them or where they’re made.

https://www.energysage.com/news/sunnova-bankruptcy/#why-are-big-solar-companies-going-under

What makes them an attractive "investment" for the principles opening these companies is heavy government subsidies. What they do is set up a manufacturing site using mostly government funding. They give themselves big salaries and produce some solar panels which aren't that hard to manufacture. Sure, the company is losing money except for the subsidies propping it up.

After a few years of operation and the owners making their millions off of it, they go bankrupt and walk away with the taxpayer holding the bag. It has literally become a questionable and just legal scam.

Solar power simply is not cost effective as a commercial generation system in a larger power system of some country.

publiusr · 17 April 2026

I have seen dropping weights used as alternative energy. I wonder if air resistance can be used in slowing descent for heavy objects:

Spillover
https://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news3/newsid=69166.php
Bikes
https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-gas-prices-fluctuate-commuting-alternative.html

Halcyon66 · 18 April 2026

Hydropower Is Making a Global Comeback

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Hydroelectric/Hydropower-Is-Making-a-Global-Comeback.html
Again, this war is putting renewables front and centre which is one positive.

Regards,

Halcyon66 · 18 April 2026

The Race for Long-Term Energy Storage Is Heating Up

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-En...r-Long-Term-Energy-Storage-Is-Heating-Up.html
Regards,

T. A. Gardner · 18 April 2026

Halcyon66 said:
The Race for Long-Term Energy Storage Is Heating Up

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-En...r-Long-Term-Energy-Storage-Is-Heating-Up.html
Regards,

Storage is unnecessary with conventional electrical generation. That means unless storage costs approach zero they are too much to be paying for what is an unnecessary system addition to use intermittent generation sources like wind and solar.

tomo pauk · 18 April 2026

T. A. Gardner said:
Storage is unnecessary with conventional electrical generation. That means unless storage costs approach zero they are too much to be paying for what is an unnecessary system addition to use intermittent generation sources like wind and solar.

I'm all for the solar & wind electric generation, as well as for the storage systems. Far better to rely on Chinese parts of the renewable system, than to hope that the lunatic does not decide to attack another oil-rich country.

Halcyon66 · 18 April 2026

T. A. Gardner said:
Storage is unnecessary with conventional electrical generation. That means unless storage costs approach zero they are too much to be paying for what is an unnecessary system addition to use intermittent generation sources like wind and solar.

Really, you have to pay for oil, gas, coal whatever with "conventional electrical generation", and let's not forget the massive ongoing operational cost.

Once renewables are setup your production and operational cost is miniscule

Also, the best part is storage gets cheaper everyday unlike fossil fuels.

Regards,

T. A. Gardner · 18 April 2026

tomo pauk said:
I'm all for the solar & wind electric generation, as well as for the storage systems. Far better to rely on Chinese parts of the renewable system, than to hope that the lunatic does not decide to attack another oil-rich country.

I'm not. The systems are unreliable, and ungodly expensive in end cost. They will easily double to triple the cost of electricity in any nation that makes heavy use of them.

T. A. Gardner · 18 April 2026

Halcyon66 said:
Really, you have to pay for oil, gas, coal whatever with "conventional electrical generation", and let's not forget the massive ongoing operational cost.

Once renewables are setup your production and operational cost is miniscule

Also, the best part is storage gets cheaper everyday unlike fossil fuels.

Regards,

The problem is the cost of setting them up is such that it's cheaper to go with conventional generation like natural gas over the lifetime of the plant. Storage is never going to be cost effective, and that's another huge problem.

tomo pauk · 19 April 2026

T. A. Gardner said:
I'm not. The systems are unreliable, and ungodly expensive in end cost. They will easily double to triple the cost of electricity in any nation that makes heavy use of them.

Sun and wind are free. Today, money is cheap.
Imported gas and other hydrocarbons are expensive, and too much susceptible to the whim of a person in charge in Moscow, Washington DC, or the paragons of democracy and stability that litter the Middle East. Europe, Japan, China, India and many countries are much better off with buying cow, than with buying milk.

T. A. Gardner said:
The problem is the cost of setting them up is such that it's cheaper to go with conventional generation like natural gas over the lifetime of the plant. Storage is never going to be cost effective, and that's another huge problem.

The further we're away from the imported hydrocarbons, the better.

Arjen · 19 April 2026

T. A. Gardner said:
The problem is the cost of setting them up is such that it's cheaper to go with conventional generation like natural gas over the lifetime of the plant.

If you don't take environmental damage into account - yes, initially.
Then add geopolitics and finite resources.

lmaoxd · 19 April 2026

T. A. Gardner said:
The problem is the cost of setting them up is such that it's cheaper to go with conventional generation like natural gas over the lifetime of the plant. Storage is never going to be cost effective, and that's another huge problem.

https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/new-record-lows-for-battery-prices/
"The average pack price for stationary storage systems dropped to $70/kWh, 45% lower than in 2024. This is the sharpest drop across all segments and makes stationary storage the lowest-priced segment for the first time."

We have a clear trend of battery storage dropping in price consistently as massive battery production comes online all around the world(especially China). Sodium ion tech will help stationary storage drop even furthur as weight is not a important factor in stationary storage.

Fun fact : Closed loops PSPs also exist for Long term grid storage and they're also experiencing a boom.

T. A. Gardner · 19 April 2026

tomo pauk said:
Sun and wind are free. Today, money is cheap.
Imported gas and other hydrocarbons are expensive, and too much susceptible to the whim of a person in charge in Moscow, Washington DC, or the paragons of democracy and stability that litter the Middle East. Europe, Japan, China, India and many countries are much better off with buying cow, than with buying milk.

The further we're away from the imported hydrocarbons, the better.

So? Money is money. It is never "cheap."

The problem with solar and wind is they are intermittent generation sources. That means you have to have something available when they aren't producing. That in turn, means duplication of generation sources.

Every nation--EVERY NATION--that has heavily invested in wind and solar has seen the cost of electricity double to triple or more. They have also seen grid stability plummet. It doesn't help if you buy a cow that only gives a day's worth of milk one time a week...

T. A. Gardner · 19 April 2026

lmaoxd said:
https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/new-record-lows-for-battery-prices/
"The average pack price for stationary storage systems dropped to $70/kWh, 45% lower than in 2024. This is the sharpest drop across all segments and makes stationary storage the lowest-priced segment for the first time."

We have a clear trend of battery storage dropping in price consistently as massive battery production comes online all around the world(especially China). Sodium ion tech will help stationary storage drop even furthur as weight is not a important factor in stationary storage.

Fun fact : Closed loops PSPs also exist for Long term grid storage and they're also experiencing a boom.

Doesn't matter. It's still too expensive.

tomo pauk · 19 April 2026

T. A. Gardner said:
So? Money is money. It is never "cheap."

The problem with solar and wind is they are intermittent generation sources. That means you have to have something available when they aren't producing. That in turn, means duplication of generation sources.

Every nation--EVERY NATION--that has heavily invested in wind and solar has seen the cost of electricity double to triple or more. They have also seen grid stability plummet. It doesn't help if you buy a cow that only gives a day's worth of milk one time a week...

We can do this all day long.

The bottom line for a government of any European country ( bar Norway and Russia), as well as the EU, Japan, China, India and other countries that have no easy access to the hydrocarbons, is to step-up the generation of energy by solar and wind, as well as to increase the storage capacity. The more success they have in these regards, the better the people are off, and the less the damage is done by the people that think that they can leverage their oilfields in order to enforce their will abroad.

It is okay if you disagree.

T. A. Gardner · 19 April 2026

tomo pauk said:
We can do this all day long.

The bottom line for a government of any European country ( bar Norway and Russia), as well as the EU, Japan, China, India and other countries that have no easy access to the hydrocarbons, is to step-up the generation of energy by solar and wind, as well as to increase the storage capacity. The more success they have in these regards, the better the people are off, and the less the damage is done by the people that think that they can leverage their oilfields in order to enforce their will abroad.

It is okay if you disagree.

China is betting heavily on hydroelectric with some incredible dam projects.

Nicknick · 20 April 2026

tomo pauk said:
We can do this all day long.

The bottom line for a government of any European country ( bar Norway and Russia), as well as the EU, Japan, China, India and other countries that have no easy access to the hydrocarbons, is to step-up the generation of energy by solar and wind, as well as to increase the storage capacity. The more success they have in these regards, the better the people are off, and the less the damage is done by the people that think that they can leverage their oilfields in order to enforce their will abroad.

It is okay if you disagree.

Nuclear power will be the answer. Some Europeen countries (Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and to a certain degree Italy and Danemark) have stopped their nuclear cancelation program and now want to build new reactors, others are working on their first nuclear reactors (Poland) or expand their nuclear capacity (France, Hungary, Slowakei, Tchichia, Romania).

Arjen · 20 April 2026

In the Netherlands, if the decision is made to build them, nuclear reactors will not be operational this decade, nor the next. Maybe the decade after that. Construction of solar and wind parks is ongoing. The energy grid needs upgrading whichever decision is made.

Nicknick · 20 April 2026

Arjen said:
In the Netherlands, if the decision is made to build them, nuclear reactors will not be operational this decade, nor the next. Maybe the decade after that. Construction of solar and wind parks is ongoing. The energy grid needs upgrading whichever decision is made.

Wind energy is very short lived, usually they need to be replaced after 25 years.and for offshore applications even this seams unrealistic (in Germany a hughe offshore windfarm was scrapped after just 14 Years). So even in case that you are right, it is now the time to prepare for a better solution.

Arjen · 20 April 2026

Nicknick said:
So even in case that you are right

Construction of nuclear power plants takes a long time. Partly because of planning and approval, partly because they are complex beasts.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...d-start-up-project-Source-IAEA_fig5_304660691

... Firstly, their inertia complicates the adaptation of the production to 2 General introduction the consumption. Secondly, the period of time between the wish of the construction of a nuclear power plant and its commissioning is often more than 10 years [29] which is long considering the urgency of the situation. The renewable energy production systems are quicker to install and should thus be used simultaneously to meet the challenges of the greenhouse gas reduction. ...

Admittedly from ten years ago, but my browsing power plant construction news over the years has not made me more optimistic about construction times:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ing_of_Manufacturing_for_Nuclear_Industry#pf2

One of the key considerations for an organization seeking to construct and operate a nuclear facility is timely procurement of items which are critical for all nuclear systems. Well-planned activities towards construction and commissioning of a nuclear power plant (NPP) take typically up to 11-12 years. The average construction time of a unit is 7 years. The actual duration of a construction will depend on the complexity of the design and experience with a given technology.
[...]
However, around 75 percent of nuclear reactors under construction worldwide are facing delays [3]. Eight reactors have been under construction for more than 20 years. The construction time of the last 37 reactors started up in 9 countries since 2004 ranged from 3.8 to 36.3 years

Nicknick said:
it is now the time to prepare for a better solution.

I grew up on the Dutch coast, I regularly visit the old place and the wind park construction business there is showing no signs of slowing down. Twenty years or so ago I moved east some 100 km, to witness the closing down and partial demolishing of the local plant of TKF.
https://www.tkf.nl/en/catalogueTKF makes power cables.
Dutch wind park construction caused the demand for power cables to increase so fast, the company decided to reopen the plant a few years later. That plant shows no signs of slowing down either.
Over here, wind power is still considered to be a very important part of that better solution.

Arjen · 20 April 2026

2023 nuclear powerplant construction time data from Boston University.
https://visualizingenergy.org/global-nuclear-reactor-construction-starts-and-duration-1949-2023/It looks like a plateau has been reached.

publiusr · 20 April 2026

Halcyon66 said:
Again, this war is putting renewables front and centre which is one positive.

Solar fuel
https://phys.org/news/2026-04-tiny-shift-big-solar-fuel.html
Cooling
https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-energy-efficient-cooling-elements-3d.html
The NIMBY effect
https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-solar-gap-pro-citizens-local.html https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-survey-solar-power-grids.html
A little extreme, but
https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-fuel-crisis-approach.html
An odd turn of events:
https://phys.org/news/2026-04-climate-ocean-diverge-drought.html
There may, however, be another explanation...

Greta:
"I don't understand---there should have been dramatic ocean rise....how do you do it?"

Poseidon:
"Easy! When Biden was president, I got on talk radio and said there was going to be a water tax and rationing....and the next thing you know, half the Pacific is now bottled up in prepper bunkers below Nevada."

T. A. Gardner · 20 April 2026

Arjen said:
2023 nuclear powerplant construction time data from Boston University.
https://visualizingenergy.org/global-nuclear-reactor-construction-starts-and-duration-1949-2023/It looks like a plateau has been reached.

That's far more about politics than it is about sound engineering or economics. A big problem with nuclear power is that for the vast majority of people they've been indoctrinated to believe all things nuclear are evil and bad.

Halcyon66 · 20 April 2026

China’s energy fortress was built to withstand just this type of oil shock

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/20/china/china-energy-security-global-oil-crisis-iran-intl-hnk
Regards,

Halcyon66 · 21 April 2026

Cambodia Turns to Hydropower as Fuel Crunch Hits

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-En...-Turns-to-Hydropower-as-Fuel-Crunch-Hits.html
Regards,

Arjen · 21 April 2026

T. A. Gardner said:
That's far more about politics than it is about sound engineering or economics. A big problem with nuclear power is that for the vast majority of people they've been indoctrinated to believe all things nuclear are evil and bad.

Whatever the causes, reality is that current global mean construction time is 9.4 years.
From the Boston University piece:

“Time is money.” The cost-competitiveness challenge faced by nuclear power is underscored by the steady increase in the time it takes to construct a new facility. Construction times ballooned and cost increases were inevitable. Plants grew larger and more complex, and following high-profile nuclear accidents such as Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986), many countries implemented much stricter safety regulations. In the United States, the process of obtaining the necessary licenses and permits for new nuclear plants became longer and more cumbersome. This included environmental impact assessments, public consultations, and negotiations with multiple regulatory bodies, which can significantly extend construction times.1 Strident public opposition sometimes forced delays, as when upwards of 200,000 people protested the Lemoniz Nuclear Power Plant near Bilbao, Spain in 1977.2 Recent construction times exhibit wide variability and averaged 9.4 years from 2013 to 2022.3

That mean number includes PRC construction, which alone accounts for over one-half of global construction starts in the 2015-2023 period.
How do you envisage politics to change for lower construction time? In the PRC, for instance?

publiusr · 21 April 2026

Bloody wind turbines again:
https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-overlooked-turbulence-battering-giant-turbines.html
Good news
https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-renewable-energies-overtook-global-electricity.html https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-liquid-droplet-mops-solar-panels.html https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-thin-polymer-material-generation.html
The Gas Battery...steaming mad at emissions:
https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-gas-battery-pollution-electricity-air.html
Hydrogen release... cascade
https://phys.org/news/2026-04-barrier-catalysts-hydrogen-magnesium-hydride.html
Well now....the crap-eater 2000
https://techxplore.com/news/2026-04-wastewater-sludge-treatment-boosts-renewable.html
My old job

Formate
https://phys.org/news/2026-04-biomass-hydrogen-formate-energy-electrolysis.html
Import
https://phys.org/news/2026-04-qa-nature-plays-role-national.html

Nicknick · 22 April 2026

Arjen said:
2023 nuclear powerplant construction time data from Boston University.
https://visualizingenergy.org/global-nuclear-reactor-construction-starts-and-duration-1949-2023/It looks like a plateau has been reached.

You need to differentiate between countries which haven't built a new one since.decates or never builed any. The Chinese managed to half the cost over the last 15 Years and reduces the time required to built a new reactor down to 60 month. Once the process is going, it becones cheaper and faster, that's simply the economy of scale.

Arjen · 22 April 2026

Boston University's mean construction time for nuclear power plants over the last decade is calculated taking into account PRC construction, which is over one-half of global construction over that same decade.

Nicknick said:
The Chinese managed to half the cost over the last 15 Years and reduces the time required to built a new reactor down to 60 month.

Which source supports the PRC's deviation from the global construction mean? Such a big deviation implies a rest-of-the-world mean nearly three times that of the global mean.
If the PRC deviation is real, should the rest of the world adopt PRC construction practices?
Where do they differ?

Nicknick · 22 April 2026

Arjen said:
Boston University's mean construction time for nuclear power plants over the last decade is calculated taking into account PRC construction, which is over one-half of global construction over that same decade.

Which source supports the PRC's deviation from the global construction mean? Such a big deviation implies a rest-of-the-world mean nearly three times that of the global mean.
If the PRC deviation is real, should the rest of the world adopt PRC construction practices?
Where do they differ?

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power

Arjen · 22 April 2026

60 months would be from this quote?

In May 2017 CNNC said it was ready to build the first unit at Changjiang. Preliminary work began in July 2019 and full construction has begun, but no official announcement has been made. 58 months construction is expected.

What is realised?
This leaves the questions
- where do PRC practices differ from those in the rest of the world?
- which PRC practices should be adopted in the rest of the world to reduce construction times?

Nicknick · 22 April 2026

Arjen said:
60 months would be from this quote?

What is realised?
This leaves the questions
- where do PRC practices differ from those in the rest of the world?
- which PRC practices should be adopted in the rest of the world to reduce construction times?

Actually, the timeline is 50 month from the first concrete to grid connection and as we see in the charts, they are usually at least close to this target with their Hualong 1.

Note, in PRC is unsuprizingly a big difference between a standart reactor type (Hualong 1) and new types. Experimental designs take much more time to built, like everywhere else.

The lessons could allready be learned from France, 40 years ago. Find a suitable standart design and repeat building it without mayor changes. Focus on modularisation and cost reduction. And equally important, standartize the application process.

This could be done in every developed nation.

Developments and News in clean energy: Wind, solar and batteries grow despite economic challenges

The Anti-Proxmire

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

The Anti-Proxmire

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Recovering aeronautical engineer

ACCESS: Above Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

The Anti-Proxmire

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Arjen de Bruine

ACCESS: Confidential

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Arjen de Bruine

ACCESS: Top Secret

Arjen de Bruine

Arjen de Bruine

The Anti-Proxmire

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

ACCESS: Top Secret

Arjen de Bruine

Attachments

The Anti-Proxmire

ACCESS: Top Secret

Arjen de Bruine

ACCESS: Top Secret

Arjen de Bruine

ACCESS: Top Secret

Similar threads