Unregistered solar is huge in the developing world. In the Philippines, basically no one tells the utility they installed solar, because the net metering application is so expensive, comes with tons of red tape (read as opportunities for government officials to extract bribes), and only gives you billing credits anyway. So people just install batteries and automatic transfer switches. Some even disconnect from the grid completely, or never connect in the first place because it was too expensive to get the line installed. Automatic transfer to a generator is now very simple, and with LPG generators, extremely clean and low maintenance.
As I understand it, this is very common across much of the developing world now. So the tracking of how much solar energy there is in the world is almost certainly a lower bound on the reality.
HexnMarcusWolfetoday at 3:19 AM
It's been cheaper than nuclear for a while now, it was only a matter of time.
Personally i'm waiting for the next iterations of Kesterite cells.
If we can get single cells to crack ~20% efficiency. With a tandem cell architecture, it's going to become the new standard overnight.
Durability of silicon cells or better, but orders of magnitude $ cheaper to produce, and without the need to use toxic agents as in perovskite cells.
We're movin' fast.
For over a decade we were stuck at ~12% efficiency. And in the last 4 years (probably with AI help) we've cracked 15% efficiency
Few more years, and with a bit of luck, we'll all be around to see solar panels that cost 1/10th of what they do now.
8bitsruletoday at 5:46 AM
I'd like to see more examples of (non-hydro) Gravitational Potential Energy Storage tried out. Very large containers full of sand, for example. If you have no mountains, a deep hole will do.
"Current levelized cost of storage ranges from $150-300 per MWh for established pumped-storage systems, while newer solid-mass gravity systems estimate costs of $200-400 per MWh. These figures are competitive with long-duration storage applications but remain higher than lithium-ion batteries for shorter-duration uses."
More stoked for when the same is said for storage.
Solar is cool but solar that can make it through the night and a couple cloudy days is way cooler
laweijfmvoyesterday at 3:58 PM
I think weâll see a pivot from the right on solar soon, once they realize how cheap it is and how much money they can make. Theyâll spin it as home-grown local jobs stuff but regardless itâs a win-win.
WalterGRtoday at 12:35 AM
For more, see âSolar surpasses nuclear power globally for first timeâ with 464 comments from 9 days ago.
Solar's global peak month in (northern hemisphere) summer 2024 nearly equaled nuclear, the full calendar year 2025 slightly beat nuclear and now it's possible that the next yearly minimum month coming up this december will match nuclear. That's a lot of change in just 2.5 years.
Also, the graph shows the world needs more wind power as it counter cycles both solar and hydro supply.
Evidlotoday at 3:43 AM
Is there any practical way for US individuals to invest in solar? With the anti-solar attitude from the government, is now a good time given that's where the world is obviously headed?
bhoustonyesterday at 3:46 PM
It is amazing that solar, a ridiculous cheap and easy to install solution is winning the energy future. In the past, based mostly on playing SimCity, I would have thought that Nuclear and then Fusion was the future, but solar does seem to be winning and pretty thoroughly.
I guess this is in part because it only needs amazing factories and not complex deployed and maintained infrastructure that is at risk of blowing up.
Solar seems to fix the mould of a disruptive technology to a T.
postepowanieadmyesterday at 5:40 PM
Poland is going all on solar. People are enthusiastic about generating their own power, government had to step in and curb the enthusiasm.
everdriveyesterday at 4:04 PM
Is it? I keep hearing something like $30k. That might pay for itself over time, but it's hardly cheap.
everdriveyesterday at 4:07 PM
Does anyone understand why you can't generally use solar when the power goes out? Is it just risk to line workers? (Couldn't you just auto-disconnect from the mains?) Is it just too variable to be useful enough on its own? Is my premise just wrong?
[edit]
According to HN you can totally do this and I'm just wrong.
Benderyesterday at 4:00 PM
The price coming down is great, more accessibility to more people. Have there been any significant breakthroughs in overall average efficiency/conversion? e.g. 30%+ Asking for my own selfish needs as I am in a place with reduce sunlight availability.
hdjdnxjzhzhstoday at 2:15 AM
Solar power is nuclear!
Before you get angry, remember what the sun is....
khalicyesterday at 3:59 PM
I'm happy if we don't need more nuclear. We're already leaving the place in a sorry state, might as well not litter it with stuff that can kill you if you look at it too long...
nromiuntoday at 4:47 AM
It was bound to happen sooner or later. People tend to forgot nuclear is old technology. We went so hard on nuclear in 1960s because there was no alternative, nobody knew semiconductors would be so disruptive. Nuclear reactors are huge (to be efficient), still not completely solved (we are finding new methods of cooling every year) and require extensive regulations to save ourselves from human errors. Solar is the opposite. Build it, use it, throw it away etc. And your biggest problem is the environmental pollution and energy storage. Much better problems than trying to make nuclear safe. And even the energy storage problem is getting solved slowly by pumped hydro.
<subsidised, officially sanctioned by nearly every government, regulated to be easily deployed> technology overtaking <banned by several governments, mired in red tape, with a huge opposing lobby with deep pockets that's part of every group that should be supporting it> technology who would have thunk it.
jaffa2yesterday at 4:00 PM
arghhh âquietly becomingâ I smell AI
realusernameyesterday at 4:12 PM
I'd rather focus on the fact that neither coal or gas seems to go own.
dyauspitryesterday at 3:34 PM
Why do I keep getting $20k quotes to install it then in the US. We seem to be doing something incorrectly here. The underlying hardware seems cheap (through independent research) but the labor and add in fees seem to be making this expensive. At sub $10k prices for the panels + batteries I would get it yesterday.
it's a great source of energy mind you, but I kind of wince everytime people are trying to say it's better than nuclear (if you put the dangerosity of the raw material aside of course)
there are excellent storage capacities now, which helps a lot, but nuclear stays unmatched in producing vast amounts of electricity on demand (as long as we're not in a brutal heat wave to be fair)