Comment by FrustratedMonky 12 hours ago
What is the argument against it? I've never heard any logical reasons beyond hating the Left.
It's like hating bikers, why? The same people that have pickup trucks and swerve to intimidate bikers, seem to hate solar energy. But why?
Highest demand for energy is during the day.
Highest output of solar is during the day.
Your comment about energy supply implies we just don't need any solar at all.
I think we need is a large set of incentives to do home solar with storage.
My comment doesn't imply that at all. We absolutely need more solar, and a lot of it. Just that we don't necessarily need more of it everywhere without making accompanying storage investments. (+ possibly transmission investments).
We shouldn't be overpaying in generous subsidies to homeowners for power mid-day where it's now worth the least.
Early net metering schemes were often basically 1:1. You supply a kWh mid-day where it's not worth much and that's "equal" in value to you drawing a kWh at 18:30, even though the market price of electricity then might be 10x what it was when you earned your "credit" and the grid is far more strained.
-------
Most regions that already have a decent amount of behind the meter home solar at this point exhibit a strong "duck curve" effect, at least on sunnier days. Mid-day demand is deeply suppressed while solar output is strongest.
Meanwhile, the AM/PM peaks remain and are at times of the day when solar output is very low.
With more storage - solar can help cover those peaks (+ overnight demand). Without, you're not accomplishing all that much by just depressing mid-day loads even further unless you can restructure society to better match it's energy demands to those solar supply curves.
A few illustrations/articles:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56880
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915
https://www.iso-ne.com/about/where-we-are-going/solar-power-... (New England).
> We absolutely need more solar, and a lot of it. Just that we don't necessarily need more of it everywhere without making accompanying storage investments. (+ possibly transmission investments).
Maybe not literally everywhere, but almost everywhere would continue to benefit from more solar even if it's lacking storage. Despite the duck curve.
> We shouldn't be overpaying in generous subsidies to homeowners for power mid-day where it's now worth the least.
It's a bad way to do a renewable subsidy, but we do want some kind of subsidy and flawed is usually better than nothing. I'd prefer replacing the subsidies with a carbox tax but that is not going to happen.
Thank You. That seems like some reasonable issues to address.
Highest demand for energy in residential areas is generally at the beginning and end of the work day, which is not when solar peaks at all.
p.s. owner of self-installed 7kW ground mount array in New Mexico
I think you'll have a difficult time comprehending the phenomenon if you look for reasoned arguments. A much more productive framework, IMO, is to see it in terms of a feedback loop between funding sources and the aggregate valence of speech on a particular topic.
The energy industry is one of the largest in the world, with trillions of revenue on the line. The FF component of that industry has every incentive to turn sentiment against upstart competitors, but you do that at scale less by reasoned arguments and more by gut level appeals: "the people who want renewable energy hate your culture and way of life", "renewal installations are ugly and a blight on the landscape of your home", etc.
Because anything one side says the other must automatically and reflexively oppose no matter what. The example here is Right hating on Left, but the Left as the same illogical hate against the right - though in different areas.
This has often been blamed on first past the post voting - if you want to win you have to team up which means your views on Abortion and Environment Policy have to align even though there is no reason to think the two should have anything to do with one another. Since there is no room for thinking each side is correct one one and wrong on the other you have to oppose anything the other does without wondering if maybe they are correct. Now remember that are thousands (millions?) of different issues, and many of them have a range of different answers, yet there can only be one unified position that you support...
I'm not convinced that the various alternatives are really better though. They all seem to have issues in the real world, and too often people will look at what they have an ignore the issues because they want to feel better.
Firearms for home and personal defense. Also, not to even dig deeply into the many lunacies that the progressive left became insane about during the pandemic (both sides were guilty here, but it was BOTH sides).
Don't get too smug. You really think your entire half of a political spectrum is free of stupidity and irrational thinking?
Oh sure, the Left has plenty of irrational but deeply held beliefs. Anti-firearms though... when they kill more people through suicide than homicide...
1: https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/new-report-highlights-us-2...
being against the #1 killer of children in the US hardly seems insane to me.
> Firearms for home and personal defense.
What current policy, legislation, court decisions, etc do you oppose?
> Firearms for home and personal defense.
Given the current political climate, the left should definitely get on board with this one ASAP.
There's lunacy on both sides for sure, but MAGA has a pretty strong hold on blatant cruelty when it comes to their issues. Also, I'd argue the Overton window has shifted pretty far right, so you have to be pretty extreme to be considered a right wing extremist these days. In fact, some of the major MAGA rallying points could actually be points of compromise to most progressives if they weren't so cruel about it (ICE, farm slavery visas, trans sports). Plus curiously the one we could all agree on but don't hear much about on the right anymore; Epstein.
Most of the "real" opposition is against providing further federal subsidies, along with it doesn't eliminate the need for base load during bad weather. The closing of the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility has been making the rounds, as it had received $1.6 billion in funding but can't compete.
I think most people would be less opposed if they saw the math behind more of the actual PV installations.
> It's like hating bikers, why?
Totally off topic, but I was walking through a city yesterday. Cars politely stopped for me as I crossed roads. Bikes didn't, and they also swerved onto sidewalks past me. They obeyed fewer rules of the road and put me at greater risk of harm than did any vehicle.
I grew up an avid bicyclist out in the countryside, but people on bikes in the city manage to piss me off far more than most drivers do.
Yeah, I don’t hate bicyclists in the “I would try to make them feel less safe” sense (I tend to go way the opposite way, if anything) but I do dread seeing them when driving or walking in the same spaces. They’re really unpredictable, and their presence creates extremely unsafe-feeling situations for everyone around.
When I ride a bike, I don’t do it in places where, when I encounter a bike driving, it makes me especially anxious.
Who is driving the two ton vehicle that has killed millions worldwide?
Yes, of course. But the bikes are the ones making the space those murder-machines operate in operate differently from how it usually does, which is inherently not great.
I’d like to see car use reduced as much as the next sane person, but I still go “ah, goddamnit” when I see a bicyclist approaching an intersection or come up on one going uphill on a twisty no-shoulder 35+ mph road.
It acknowledges the reality of global warming. Furthermore, and the real reason why it's considered "woke", is that it implies taking some action to reduce the harm done to others. People who enjoy threatening to harm others (such as your biker example) get very angry about that.
I think guilt plays in also, a sizable fraction of the population don't want to hear that the way they live their lives is damaging everyone (even themselves, poignantly enough).
To try and put that in a more sympathetic light, they don't want to hear they need to invest a significant chunk of their income in reducing that harm (like improving the efficiency of their home, installing PV, driving an EV or even biking to work instead of hopping in the pickup). It'd be nice if there were some subsidies to make that easier... except those are now getting the axe.
Rhetoric mostly I'd say. The idea being promoted is that clean energy subsidies hurt the honest Joe coal miner (details being very hand wavy). I'm not convinced it's really that well thought out though and might just be about owning the libs. Maybe there's a MAGA in here that can educate us.
Technically I could see some reasons. Grids need serious upgrades to support personal solar properly. Which is €€€ and, if end-customers would have to foot the bill themselves, very few people would install solar at home. On top of that, at least in my whereabouts solar is receives a fuckton of subsidies. In the long run lower energy prices will pay back those subsidies for the society, but for now I could see why some people ain't happy to foot the bill. Especially when it's usually better-off people installing solar. While poor people end up partially footing the bool.
Last but not least, Chinese domination in modern solar equipment is mind-boggling. At least when I was installing solar, buying western-made would have been much more expensive, to the point that it wouldn't be worth to go through.
P.S. I got solar on the roof myself. „Free“ electricity is damn nice.
This is a good reply since it feels accurate but generally is not, which captures the sentiment of those opposing solar.
1. “The grid needs an upgrade”. This is true regardless of whether solar exists or not. Energy demand, battery technology, etc have all changed but the grid has not kept pace (on purpose). End customers may foot the bill, again, regardless of solar.
2. Solar does receive more subsidies, intentionally. This is how you quickly drive adoption of new technology and stop the old technology (gas/coal) from using its market power to stop new technology growth. Subsidies jumpstart the switch to solar, which in the long term is good for our country (export more energy), our planet, and for individuals who want energy independence.
3. Taxes aren’t flat rates, so when you make more you pay more progressively. A poor person pays significantly less than a rich person does for solar subsidies.
4. Chinese domination isn’t a reason for not using solar. If we want to change that, the US should motivate buyers to buy US (subsidize), increase import costs (targeted, time limited tariffs), or promote growth of the industry (education, research, etc).
>2. Solar does receive more subsidies, intentionally. …
>3. Taxes aren’t flat rates, so when you make more you pay more progressively. A poor person pays significantly less than a rich person does for solar subsidies.
Yes, subsidies are done to help drive adoption. The key is that the subsidies should go where they can do the most good. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar. It is understandable that anyone getting free money thinks it is good. But if the less well off people (renters, etc.) learn that they are paying a great deal more for power to subsidize wealthier residents (when that money could have gone MUCH further if spent on other solar projects) - it isn’t hard to imagine that might lower enthusiasm for government subsidizing the move away from fossil fuels. This sort of wealth transfer to the more wealthy actually hurts everyone in the long run. The goal should be to decarbonize the grid - not implement some kind of a reverse Robinhood scheme.
I am not an electrician, but big problem with home-solar is grid not being bi-directional. In my whereabouts it's common to have good „down“ power, but no permit for „up“ back to the grid. Which makes it not worth it for home users. Batteries make it somewhat better, but it's still far from ideal.
For big commercial arrays, the grid used to have main lines to certain old school plants. Now for solar new major lines are needed to middle-of-nowhere locations to connect solar and wind farms. While old-school plants were more concentrated and closer to major locations, it was less costly than major lines out-there and to many more locations. And, obviously, investors into solar/wind ain't willing to food those bills.
The problem with solar subsidies, especially when it comes to home solar, is that they're very skewed to favor better-off people.
As for Chinese, yes, something needs to be done. But for now I kinda understand people who ain't happy subsidies are ending up in China.
Isn't US made equipment facing the headwinds of the US being anti-solar. It seems more like the US shot itself in the foot by letting the Chinese get the lead on this technology. And by subsidizing, and maybe regulating buying US, we could support our domestic industry.
Seems like all over the place we are giving up and letting China win the technology race. Robots, cars, solar, all the future tech is in trouble.
I don't know why anybody is against clean air. It makes no sense.
The US has invested a lot of money, lives, political capital & environment to become a big oil & gas producer.
One of it's potential weapons against China is that China imports most of it's oil & gas. China also has a few easy geographical choke points to prevent it from importing gas. Solar & wind plus electrical vehicles destroy this advantage.
So China has many reasons to push in this direction while the US is doubling down on it's bet, even while other historical oil countries like Saudi Arabia are diversifying away from oil.
It should also be noted that many Chinese companies are selling at a loss or very low margin, especially the electric car companies. https://www.reuters.com/investigations/china-is-sending-its-...
Arguments only matter if we assume totally rational actors. There is ample evidence that this could potentially be a faulty assumption.
A questiom: What do you think, do people first have an emotion and then try to rationalize it? Or do they first have a the rational judgment and only after that start to become emotional?
If you watch right wing media it is pretty clear that emotions play a huge role for them. And because nobody particularly likes having emotions they can't explain, the rationalizations come after: "Windmills are destroy the landscape" (unlike let's say an oilfield which is somehow totally fine), things about the infrasound (which if a concern you can get rid off by the same way it is done with nuclear waste in the US, just use that massive land mass to your advantage).
If we had rational, emotionally distanced actors they would change their mind once all doubts are addressed and the facts are on the table. But that is not the case here in my own experience. Once the last rationalization breaks they go back to the feeling of: "I just don't like it".
That means the much more fruitful question to investigate is that particular dislike and where it might come from, emotionally.
Surely this isn't just one root. For some it may be the "safe" opinion of their herd/tribe. Others say it, their entertainment (that under traditional media law wouldn't deserve the title "News") says it and so on.
For yet others this may be a question of their insecure masculinity. They feel insecure, but men have to be strong! So they try their best to appear strong, by buying manly products, driving manly trucks and spouting manly opinions. You know what isn't manly in their mind? Being sensible. Sensible with other people, the environment, wensible with thought. And then a sensible energy option come around. Guess what, that feels like an attack to them. Suddenly society wants to erect huge pillars thst remind them that being sensible is now required. That really touches their core fear of not being manly enough. Being sensible could be misread as being gay after all.
There are probably more reasons.
P.S.: I am not saying there are no rational critics of wind energy. Whwt I am saying is the bulk of categorical dislike comes from an entirely uninformed, purely emotional direction
(To preface: I am strongly in favor of renewable energy overall).
To the extent that there is anything real to their dislike:
Poorly structured/overly generous homeowner net metering initiatives, especially for solar without storage, legitimately have escalated costs for everyone else in some regions.
The excessive subsidy given to those homeowners for power that's often not very valuable (as it comes primarily at a time of day that's already well supplied) comes from somewhere, and somewhere is....the pockets of everyone who doesn't have home rooftop solar.
And those people are typically poorer people in rented, denser housing than the average homeowner.
Most places have been moving to correct this mistake for the future (ex: CA's "Net Metering 3.0"), but that also gets pushback from people who wanted to take advantage of that unsustainable deal from the government or who incorrectly think it's a part of general anti-renewable pushes.
------
Aside from that, in regions known for production of coal/oil/gas or major processing of, it's seen as a potential threat to jobs + mineral tax revenues that are often what underwrite most of their local/state government functions.
While there are plenty of job creation claims for renewables, it doesn't take a genius to see that they don't appear to need all that many workers once built, and that the manufacturing chain for the solar panels or wind turbines is probably not to be put in places like West Virginia, Midland TX, Alaska, etc.