Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power The Almighty Buck

Solar Power To Overtake Oil Production Investment For First Time (reuters.com) 136

Posted by BeauHD from the times-they-are-a-changin' dept.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), investment in clean energy is set to surpass spending on fossil fuels in 2023, with solar projects expected to outpace oil production for the first time. Reuters reports: Annual investment in renewable energy is up by nearly a quarter since 2021 compared to a 15% rise for fossil fuels, the Paris-based energy watchdog said in its World Energy Investment report. Around 90% of that clean energy spending comes from advanced economies and China, however, highlighting the global divide between rich and poor countries as fossil fuel investment is still double the levels needed to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century.

Around $2.8 trillion is set to be invested in energy worldwide in 2023, of which more than $1.7 trillion is expected to go to renewables, nuclear power, electric vehicles, and efficiency improvements. The rest, or around $1 trillion, will go to oil, gas and coal, demand for the last of which will reach an all-time high or six times the level needed in 2030 to reach net zero by 2050.

Current fossil fuel spending is significantly higher than what it should be to reach the goal of net zero by mid-century, the agency said. In 2023, solar power spending is due to hit more than $1 billion a day or $382 billion for the year, while investment in oil production will stand at $371 billion. Investment in new fossil fuel supply will rise by 6% in 2023 to $950 billion, the IEA added.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Solar Power To Overtake Oil Production Investment For First Time More

Solar Power To Overtake Oil Production Investment For First Time

Comments Filter:

  • On related news... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OpenSourced ( 323149 ) on Friday May 26, 2023 @05:47AM (#63552333) Journal

    Well, another way of looking at it is that till now we were investing more into new oil sources than into solar. Shows the dedication to decarbonization.

    • Its a weird headline for sure. More money spent does not necessarily equate to more productivity. We could both buy a Cadillac Escalade, you spending $60k and myself spending close to $90k that doesnt specifically mean I have better features. It could mean I am bad at negotiating costs. Im not saying its the case here, but boasting money spent only means something to non-crtical thinkers.

      • More money spent does not necessarily equate to more productivity.

        Sure it does. Look at the trillion+ dollars the U.S. taxpayer has spent propping up oil companies for the past nine decades and how low the price of gas is because of it. More money spent = more oil production = lower prices.

        • Is it lower prices? Where did the money come from to prop up the oil production? If I pay taxes AND gasoline at some point I am paying the full cost. The only difference is that its a sliding scale of contribution based on income. The lower base price of gas might be your only cost if your income is low enough. Subsequently high income earners technically pay more for their gas. Arent you big on sticking it to the 1%ers? This is one of those income adjusted pricing models always touted by a lot of democrat
        • Yeah, it's called taking from Peter to pay Paul. If you're into free market neoliberalism, then why aren't consumers given the choice of where to spend their hard-earned in this respect. Why not put the price at point of consumption rather than tax everyone to subsidise it. Where's the consumer choice & market forces in that case?

        • Re: On related news... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Friday May 26, 2023 @07:49AM (#63552575) Homepage

          Look at the trillion+ dollars the U.S. taxpayer has spent propping up oil companies for the past nine decades

          We can't, because you provided no source for your numbers. This page [eesi.org] (from an anti-fossil-fuel group) claims US $20B/year in tax subsidies. However:
          1) The "tax" qualifier is important. By the same definition, US taxpayers "bail out" homeowners for at least $160B/year [treasury.gov], and we bail out people with employer-provided health insurance for $336B/year.
          2) The same source says the corresponding EU tax subsidy is 55B euros/year, essentially three times as much -- yet EU GDP is a third less than US GDP, meaning the EU subsidizes fossil fuels at four times the GDP rate as the US.
          3) Inflation probably doesn't make that add up to $1T over 90 years, especially because...
          4) Something like $10B/year is from a fossil-fuel exemption to the repatriation tax in 2017's TCJA. That tax did not exist before, so it only counts as a "tax subsidy" since then.

          • 1) The "tax" qualifier is important. By the same definition, US taxpayers "bail out" homeowners for at least $160B/year, and we bail out people with employer-provided health insurance for $336B/year.

            Well, good? The oil companies don't need bailouts, but some people obviously do.

            The same source says the corresponding EU tax subsidy is 55B euros/year, essentially three times as much -- yet EU GDP is a third less than US GDP, meaning the EU subsidizes fossil fuels at four times the GDP rate as the US.

            Hmm, that sounds suspicious considering how much more they tend to pay for fuel?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Entrope ( 68843 )

              The tax studies I mentioned are not just for some people, but for most of them. Why do we need to bail out most of the public? That's not what bailouts are for!

              I don't care what you think sounds suspicious. Bring data, not feelings.

              • Why do we need to bail out most of the public? That's not what bailouts are for!

                Because you've been bailing out corporations to protect profits, and that's not what bailouts are for. They're for temporarily aiding corporations to protect jobs, but the layoffs are proceeding until morale^Wprofit improves anyway so clearly they didn't do that.

          • There's a fantastic amount of subjectivity in any such calculation, of course.

            For example how much of the cost (in both money and lives) of the 9/11 attacks and subsequent decade of global war on terror should we attribute to oil?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            I wonder if we would have been so interested in bringing "peace" to the Middle East if there wasn't any oil there. How much did that all cost?

      • Re: On related news... (Score:5, Funny)

        by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Friday May 26, 2023 @06:44AM (#63552455)

        "We could both buy a Cadillac Escalade, you spending $60k and myself spending close to $90k that doesnt specifically mean I have better features. It could mean I am bad at negotiating costs."

        You're both bad.
        You bought a Cadillac!

      • You do end up with whatever you invest in.

        To me if there's anything misleading about it, it's comparing oil to just solar. I would add investment in wind to the solar, at least.

        I used to think the future would be more solar, but now it seems like probably more wind. As of the end of 2021, the world was producing almost twice as much wind as solar [ourworldindata.org].

        Europe is a huge power market, and very serious about switching to renewables, and they just don't have that much solar, and offshore wind is still fairly

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. My first though was "Isn't that a bit late?".

  • I'm not sure ... (Score:3)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Friday May 26, 2023 @05:51AM (#63552341) Journal
    ... that I would want to brag about the inputs rather than the outputs, lol

  • My real world consumer experience (Score:5, Interesting)

    by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Friday May 26, 2023 @05:51AM (#63552343)

    My home solar went online about 3 months ago.

    I bought a huuuuuuge system, ridiculous numbers of batteries, filled the roof with ~100 high end panels, the works. I totally went for it.

    My experience:
    1) 170k up front cost
    2) financially unviable without 30% tax credit (means you guys paid 30% of my cost with your taxes)
    3) took 9 months to turn on from after contract signed and first payment made even though was only 5 total days labor
    4) despite the 60+ kWh battery system I can't go entirely off grid without shutting off my ac and running the batteries to near zero on a sunny day. I'm still grid dependent.
    5) the system is very fidgety. There aren't enough qualified people to do work so they've had to return several times to fix things the install crew botched. I had a guy here for 5+ hours 2 days ago to get the batteries back online and another guy is coming back tomorrow morning to redo core electrical panel work, so still not done

    It's a huge pita but I'm happy to get free car charging and zero electric bills now (was previously 500-800/month depending) but you gotta be really dedicated and self educated to get the right system at a viable price and make it work.

    On the industrial side, I have a few family members nepotismed into the local power company. The shit going on at the power company isn't much different than my solar consumer experience. We're lucky the industrial solar works at all in this area. I don't imagine its dramatically better in most other places as this was one of the first regions to take solar seriously at industrial scales.

    Having solar is better than not but the entire industry needs serious quality improvements. I wouldn't have my economy dependent on it. Solar is at about the same level of dumb as how Texas runs their power grid. It's fine until, it's not.

    • It seems pretty sad that you spent $170K and you still need to be grid dependent, imho. And that's in Texas, that means there is no hope for people in Canada. A lot of us near the coast have heat pumps but we still need to rely on electric baseboard heaters on cold days. In the middle of Canada, an air transfer heat pump doesn't do enough to be worthwhile. In major centers you have nat gas but still many people rely on electric heat, and even geothermal heat pumps need electric backup. Also I'm guessin

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        Or perhaps it means he should have also invested in insulation. Lots of folks report success with solar from Germany, and that's well north of Texas.

        And do note that he was talking about using the system to charge his car, so you need to factor that in, also.

        He should have either sized his system to not need the grid, or he should have used a lot fewer batteries. (The batteries and associated electronics were a large part of his system cost.)

        • Insulation is prohibitively expensive to retrofit. Tear down all your walls and insulate? Seriously? Might as well rebuild the house.

        • He spent 170k and said his energy bill was about $800 a month. That's about 12.5 years of electric bills, or 149 months. We don't know how much he was spending on fuel to move his car around, but me driving a hybrid and going ~200 miles a week, I only pay around $80 a month (at California gas prices). So if we say 880 a month or 119k (after 30% discount), is 135 months comes out to about ~11 years and change.

          I guess it's worth it but he did mention that he still has a grid connection and his system doesn't

      • It seems pretty sad that you spent $170K and you still need to be grid dependent, imho. And that's in Texas, that means there is no hope for people in Canada.

        I dunno, let's stop for a minute and ponder the energy requirements for air conditioning, in Texas, in a home large enough for 100 rooftop solar panels. Oh, and one or more electric cars. He's living large.

    • Re:My real world consumer experience (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday May 26, 2023 @07:08AM (#63552493) Homepage Journal

      For someone called "iAmWaySmarterThanYou" you sure made some questionable decisions.

      Presumably your daily usage includes a significant amount of vehicle charging. Otherwise you house must be incredibly inefficient, and you could massively reduce your energy consumption with some very low cost insulation.

      For reference, the Passivhaus standard requires a maximum of 4.5kWh of heating or cooling per day to maintain a comfortable temperature.

      • Presumably your daily usage includes a significant amount of vehicle charging. Otherwise you house must be incredibly inefficient, and you could massively reduce your energy consumption with some very low cost insulation.

        I think he mentioned something about AC.

        I'm not sure where he lives, but if it is anything remotely like where I live (New Orleans area)...AC is a HUGE part of your electric bill for pretty much 8 months of the year.

        My AC pretty much *clicks* on late March or early April and pretty much

        • In the vast majority of buildings the biggest energy use is heating water & heating/cooling airspace. If there's nothing more than essentially plasterboard walls & metal roofs, then expect heating/cooling bills will tend to be extraordinarily high due to loss into the atmosphere. I'm sure that with a budget of $170,000, one could afford to do an energy efficiency evaluation?

          Where I live it typically goes up to 45C in July & August inland (35C on the coast but more humid). Most homes do have ai

          • In the vast majority of buildings the biggest energy use is heating water & heating/cooling airspace. If there's nothing more than essentially plasterboard walls & metal roofs, then expect heating/cooling bills will tend to be extraordinarily high due to loss into the atmosphere. I'm sure that with a budget of $170,000, one could afford to do an energy efficiency evaluation?

            Where I live it typically goes up to 45C in July & August inland (35C on the coast but more humid). Most homes do have ai

            • If you have the money and means, you can and should be able to live how you want in the home you want.

              First, not necessarily. If it's inherently unsustainable and affecting others' ability to live at all, no you shouldn't.

              Second, what's being discussed in this thread is making it cheaper to do that, not to stop you from doing it.

              • First, not necessarily. If it's inherently unsustainable and affecting others' ability to live at all, no you shouldn't.

                This is not a zero sum game.

                If I can afford to pay the power to my home I can afford for the AC to cool it to the temperature "I" find to be comfortable....

                That does nothing to impact if someone else can afford a home or air conditioning to the level I work out.

                My work and earnings do not prevent anyone else from affording what they can afford.

                • If I can afford to pay the power to my home I can afford for the AC to cool it to the temperature "I" find to be comfortable....
                  That does nothing to impact if someone else can afford a home or air conditioning to the level I work out.

                  That's flatly false, even if you use solar. If you use energy continually to get more cooling, then it takes more energy input to support that, which at best means more solar panels once. If you use energy once to put more insulation on the building, so it doesn't take so much energy to keep it cool, then what you're ultimately accomplishing is reducing the lifecycle pollution, and therefore your AGW contribution.

                  It's also just cheaper and smarter to improve insulation, although this is best done at constru

            • I had to google what "45C" was in F....it gets up to 113F there commonly? Whew...that IS hot. My I ask what part of the world you are in?

              I'm in Andalusia, Spain; the hottest part of Europe. Highest recorded & verified temp was at least 47C, & a 48C temp is disputed. We can have daily 41+C temps for weeks at a time (over 41C is where it gets uncomfortable to be outside for any length of time). To add to the efficiency, many Spaniards would rather head to their local bar/café to enjoy each others' company & the air-con than put their own air-con on at home. Many bars & cafés are family friendly here. Can you think of

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HiThere ( 15173 )

          He did says something about AC, and he also said Texas. But insulation is STILL what you need to reduce heating/cooling costs. With enough insulation you can get by with nearly no heating and very little AC. You will start needing to worry more about air quality, as that will reduce the circulation if the climate is extreme, but that's relatively easy to handle. Simple heat exchangers on the input, a small electric fan, and a few monitors for CO, CO2, radon, etc (which are recommended anyway).

          • He did says something about AC, and he also said Texas. But insulation is STILL what you need to reduce heating/cooling costs. With enough insulation you can get by with nearly no heating and very little AC. You will start needing to worry more about air quality, as that will reduce the circulation if the climate is extreme, but that's relatively easy to handle. Simple heat exchangers on the input, a small electric fan, and a few monitors for CO, CO2, radon, etc (which are recommended anyway).

            Frankly, I do

    • This sounds brutal, but I suspect you have much higher than typical power demands. My typical consumption is only 30-35kwh/day for a 3 bedroom, spacious (not palatial) home built in the 90s - ok but not exceptional insulation. I have friends who are off grid with a tiny power system, but step one was very efficient insulation and appliances. Admittedly, going to just a couple kWh /day does require sacrifices, but there's a lot of room between 1-2kwh and over 60. You also mention an electric car. Are yo

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        He mentioned charging his car from the system. That could mean lots of different things, but it could really drive up the electric usage.

    • So you’re saying you went all out on an evolving technology that still requires subsidies and you’re disappointed in your returns?

      Yeah I spent $4000 on a gaming PC and I’m disappointed that it’s not much better than my friend’s $2000 gaming PC compared to the improvements he sees over a $1000 PC. What a scam.

    • Re:My real world consumer experience (Score:5, Interesting)

      by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Friday May 26, 2023 @07:32AM (#63552533) Journal
      I would have suggested you plow some of that $170k budget into reducing your demand first. You would have gotten a better rate of return.

      60 kWh/day [1,800 kWh/month] for a household is more than 2x the U.S. average [google.com], which is itself more than 2x the rest of the industrialized world [shrinkthatfootprint.com].

      The good news is that you can still make improvements to the efficiency of your household, which will make the solar a better match to your needs.

      • Re:My real world consumer experience (Score:4, Informative)

        by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Friday May 26, 2023 @08:23AM (#63552683)

        What he claimed is a work of fiction.

        • What he claimed is a work of fiction.

          I would think so. $170K for a solar and battery system is a lot of money to spend without considering overall household efficiency.

          The average household uses about 1kW per hour (24kWh/day) - this is average use with A/C, heating, refrigeration and other loads taken into account (e.g., you might use 20kW for your stove, but it's for a short time).

          A 60kWh battery system is huge - that's equal to a large chunk of most EVs today. That should last you a good 2 days if completely blacked out. If you cut down to essentials, say, fridge, cooking and internet and computer, you can easily extend that over a week (Vehicle to Load, or V2L, is a compelling feature of many EVs now too - here you're using the EV battery pack to power a few essential items).

          100 high end panels is 30kW of power at peak generation - the top end LG panels are over 300 watts each, so 100 of them can go up to 30kW. At your standard household 240V, that's 150A.

          Most new homes have 240V 200A service, which is 48kW. And most homes don't get anywhere near that continuously. So someone who's needing that much power is probably doing something wrong, or theyre one of the few who actually own a home large enough to get 300A or 600A service. (600A service is actually just 3-phase 200A service which the power company can deliver to you). But that's still considered pretty much for mansions and such.

          Each panel is also around 1.7 square meters (LG says 1.7mx1m in size), so 100 panels is 170 square meters, or 1800 square feet. Roof space wise, that's at least a 2000 square feet roof , and if you're spending that kind of cash, you aren't going to line your whole roof with it - either it's a flat roof and you have the panels angled or you have standard pitched roofs and thus putting them on the side getting the most sun, meaning the roof area is even larger still.

          I think that pretty much dictates that the OP either owns a mansion or is basically way above what ordinary people live in right now.

          • I don't know, if we're assuming Texas that means space is cheap and commutes are long typically. If you don't live in California or New York a 2000-3000 sq ft Ranch house isn't that uncommon, I wouldn't even put it in the McMansion category. If you were routinely commuting 30 to 60 miles with an EV, and had to cool 3000 sq ft in an environment like Texas, those numbers he gave don't sound that crazy. On the high end for sure, but it's not exactly a bitcoin operation or something.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Or they are just lying. That account and the various others that are probably the same person will post all sorts of nonsense to pan renewables, and then mod themselves up. They must have a system in place to notify them when any energy related story goes live, so they can post some copy/paste BS.

            How would someone so dumb as to spend 170k on a solar system for their mansion get 170k and a mansion in the first place? Lottery win perhaps? Inherited wealth?

            Based on their username they clearly think pretty high

          • His numbers seem possible. I have 14 cheap 315 watt pannels and average about 16 kWh a day. Higher efficiency panels are often 400 watts. With 100 he would average 145 kWh a day with my setup. Seems like he's claiming 60 kWh. So maybe he's further north and has panels in less than ideal locations. (With that many panels it's probably unavoidable on a roof install.) Even his price is plausible. It's just not an ideal install. Also maybe his state doesn't have net metering which is why he wants the b

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by kaur ( 1948056 )

      I helped a friend install solar panels on his roof a few weeks ago.
      His upgraded hist current system to reach 20 kW power generation. He would be selling most of it back to the power grid.
      The design and planning were done by himself, most manual work by friends.
      His estimates that he will completely cover the initial costs (panels, inverters, cabling, etc) in 4 year. After that it will be pure profit.

      Now we live at 60 degrees latitude and in a super cloudy, rainy area (Estonia). Our winter months from October

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by MacMann ( 7518492 )

        I cannot imagine a solar project in Texas to be "financially unviable".

        I can imagine that happening. If too many people try selling their excess electricity from solar power then the value of that electricity could drop to a point it's not paying off the interest on the loans for the install, the insurance, and whatever other costs to cover install and maintenance. We've seen spot prices for electricity go negative because of too much wind and solar on the grid.

        What does it mean for electricity rates to go negative? It means the electricity producers are paying people to ta

    • Why don’t I believe you?

    • Wowza.

      1. If #4 is true... something is seriously amiss at this price point
      2. you're welcome. :-)
      3. your point #5 suggests this is inaccurate. I suspect there was labor not seen onsite (designing, ordering, prepping, etc.) and you didn't mention the reason(s) for the delay so I'm presuming it was permitting and politicking... vote in different people.
      4. something's amiss here: insulation on the home? oversized and/or ancient HVAC? so much square footage you're cooling a McMansion? #5 might present a clue...
      5

    • My experience has been quite different. I paid $8.4K ($12K before the tax credit) for a much smaller system, but I only wanted panels on the sunniest parts of the roof. (Turns out I could have gotten more panels since contractors removed a bunch of vents from my roof when it was redone.) Also we have net metering (and reliable eletricity) where I live so there is no need for a battery. Took a couple of months to turn on given all the issues with permits and such. Also it didn't work when first turned on

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        There's a lot of expensive electronics involved if you want to be able to switch your system from being on grid to being off grid ... or at least there was a couple of decades ago (plus a bit). His system cost and utility still doesn't make any sense to me except possibly....he talked about charging his electric vehicle from the system, and mentioned other family members, who I'm guessing may do the same.

        I can imagine lots of scenarios where that might be a reasonable cost and return. E.g. perhaps he cons

        • Yes his numbers look a bit off, which is why I wanted to give a counterpoint. However, they are not inconceivable. As you said, a big issue is off-grid and the batteries. He's looking at about 70K in batteries. Also he claims he has high efficiency panels which probably doesn't make economic sense. My panels are fairly basic which I actually prefer since they have known reliability. Also with so many panels, the average placement is going to suffer, and maybe he lives further north which will also hu

  • The Key Word here is "Investment"
    The truth is of course many nations are still opening up new oil and coal fields and our emissions are still increasing year on year.

    • The truth is of course many nations are still opening up new oil and coal fields and our emissions are still increasing year on year.

      Well, you can't turn the "spigot off" till the alternatives are actually ready, you know?

      Until the infrastructure, power grid and a number of other issues are ironed out and ready, we're not going to be cutting over any time soon.

      Not unless you are prepared to end the economy and level of comfort in life we currently have in a very drastic fashion.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close