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

Bottled lightning

Good vibes

Seeing solar from the inside

On the flip side

Other news


All the oil in the world
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
Halcyon66 said:
Suniva to Build 4.5 GW Solar Cell Plant in South Carolina

oilprice.com

Suniva to Build 4.5 GW Solar Cell Plant in South Carolina | OilPrice.com

Suniva is expanding U.S. solar cell manufacturing with a new South Carolina facility set to open in 2027.
oilprice.com oilprice.com

Regards,
Click to expand...

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.

www.energysage.com

Sunnova Went Bankrupt—What Does It Mean For Other Major Solar Players?

Sunnova Energy, a leading U.S. solar installer and lease provider, said it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Sunday, just a week after one of its subsidiaries took the same action.
www.energysage.com www.energysage.com
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
The California power company bears those responsibilities, not just the government. been
 
sparky42 said:
It's Ireland, every Capital program is always 15+++ years from coming online, just keep shifting the timeline.
Click to expand...
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...
 
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.

www.energysage.com

Sunnova Went Bankrupt—What Does It Mean For Other Major Solar Players?

Sunnova Energy, a leading U.S. solar installer and lease provider, said it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Sunday, just a week after one of its subsidiaries took the same action.
www.energysage.com www.energysage.com
Click to expand...
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.
 
Government subsidizes roads and other things. Good. I don't hate all government like some do.

On solar degradation

Fighting ice

CO2 capture

Carbon simply cannot be matched due to not just energy density but ease of handling.
Here, the handling tech can remain:

Propene?

At last

Iron, water and UV light all that is needed for hydrogen?

Electrolysis

Wind

Wood

More

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

Spillover

Bikes
 
Last edited:
Hydropower Is Making a Global Comeback

oilprice.com

Hydropower Is Making a Global Comeback | OilPrice.com

Hydropower is regaining global attention as a flexible, scalable, and underutilized solution for energy security and renewable integration.
oilprice.com oilprice.com

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

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

oilprice.com

The Race for Long-Term Energy Storage Is Heating Up | OilPrice.com

A new and exciting technology shows promising results in solving the challenge of long-duration, grid-scale energy storage critical for a fully renewable energy future.
oilprice.com oilprice.com

Regards,
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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,
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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,
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
The further we're away from the imported hydrocarbons, the better.
 
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.
Click to expand...
about.bnef.com

New Record Lows for Battery Prices | BloombergNEF

Lithium-ion battery prices dropped again in 2025, with average prices coming down 8% to $108 per kilowatt-hour, according to BloombergNEF’s annual price survey.
about.bnef.com about.bnef.com

"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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
lmaoxd said:
about.bnef.com

New Record Lows for Battery Prices | BloombergNEF

Lithium-ion battery prices dropped again in 2025, with average prices coming down 8% to $108 per kilowatt-hour, according to BloombergNEF’s annual price survey.
about.bnef.com about.bnef.com

"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.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. It's still too expensive.
 
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
China is betting heavily on hydroelectric with some incredible dam projects.

 
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Nicknick said:
So even in case that you are right
Click to expand...
Construction of nuclear power plants takes a long time. Partly because of planning and approval, partly because they are complex beasts.
... 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. ...
Click to expand...
Admittedly from ten years ago, but my browsing power plant construction news over the years has not made me more optimistic about construction times:
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
Click to expand...
Nicknick said:
it is now the time to prepare for a better solution.
Click to expand...
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.
www.tkf.nl

Products - TKF - Complete portfolio cabels and systems

TKF offers a complete portfolio cable solutions for energy and data connections. See our catalog.
www.tkf.nl www.tkf.nl
TKF 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.
 
Last edited:
2023 nuclear powerplant construction time data from Boston University.

Global nuclear reactor construction starts and duration, 1949-2023

The construction of new nuclear power plants reflects changing electricity demand and technology competitiveness. Despite industry and government support, nuclear power faces challenges such as cost-competitiveness and safety concerns, leading to extended construction times. While some advocate...
visualizingenergy.org visualizingenergy.org
It looks like a plateau has been reached.
 
Halcyon66 said:
Again, this war is putting renewables front and centre which is one positive.
Click to expand...
Solar fuel

Cooling

The NIMBY effect

A little extreme, but

An odd turn of events:

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."
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
2023 nuclear powerplant construction time data from Boston University.

Global nuclear reactor construction starts and duration, 1949-2023

The construction of new nuclear power plants reflects changing electricity demand and technology competitiveness. Despite industry and government support, nuclear power faces challenges such as cost-competitiveness and safety concerns, leading to extended construction times. While some advocate...
visualizingenergy.org visualizingenergy.org
It looks like a plateau has been reached.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
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?
 

Attachments

  • construction time global.png
    construction time global.png
    85.5 KB · Views: 4
  • construction starts global.png
    construction starts global.png
    74.1 KB · Views: 4
  • construction starts by country.png
    construction starts by country.png
    96.4 KB · Views: 4
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
2023 nuclear powerplant construction time data from Boston University.

Global nuclear reactor construction starts and duration, 1949-2023

The construction of new nuclear power plants reflects changing electricity demand and technology competitiveness. Despite industry and government support, nuclear power faces challenges such as cost-competitiveness and safety concerns, leading to extended construction times. While some advocate...
visualizingenergy.org visualizingenergy.org
It looks like a plateau has been reached.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

Nuclear Power in China - World Nuclear Association

China has become largely self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. The strong impetus for nuclear power in China is increasingly due to air pollution from coal-fired plants.
world-nuclear.org
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom