Au contraire, the oil lobby very much wants this.
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
207 points (99.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5539 readers
542 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
an energy emergency that for some reason can't use renewable energy.
“ThErEs an EnRGy EmergEnCy!
Also, no more wind power please.”
Drill baby's future, drill!
At the end of 2024, a Silicon Valley team that included researchers from Stripe, Anthropic, Tesla, and elsewhere produced a report showing that solar microgrids are by far the fastest way to build the power that data centers need. “Estimated time to operation for a large off-grid solar microgrid could be around 2 years (1-2 years for site acquisition and permitting plus 1-2 years for site buildout), though there’s no obvious reason why this couldn’t be done faster by very motivated and competent builders,” the report states. That’s because essentially all you have to do is put up a bunch of solar panels and some batteries and run a wire to your data center—not build a huge centralized power plant and connect it to the grid. The report continues, “Off-grid solar microgrids offer a fast path to power AI datacenters at enormous scale. The tech is mature, the suitable parcels of land in the US Southwest are known, and this solution is likely faster than most, if not all, alternatives.”
I like this.
Why off-grid tho? We should build decentralized grid-tied solar. Every house covers their roofs with free panels
I want solar but I don't want it on my newish roof with a 50 year waranty. I get why roof installs are popular but why does it seem to be the only solution for consumers that is offered. They can look at my house from maps and see of got a sizable empty plot of land next to my house that could also be used.
why does it seem to be the only solution for consumers that is offered
Because it's the least intrusive and most economical option?
They can look at my house from maps and see of got a sizable empty plot of land next to my house that could also be used.
Then put it there and pay more. Up to you.
Great in theory. I tell them I want it off the roof. What do I get? A quote for it on the roof lol
And not to mention how expensive it is to get a new roof installed with solar panels on it. They charge a lot of money to remove and put back the panels.
It should be illegal to have a roof without solar.
It should be illegal to not architect a home to maximize solar.
California has a terrible law that promotes "builder grade" solar of the minimum regulatory size, and then makes adding proper solar more expensive than if they didn't fuck up the house intentionally.
The builders' lobby is powerful in CA.
Very likely, but their choices are:
- make the worst house possible to thumb their nose at CA government and its regulations.
- Improve value of home that with ultra high CA electricity rates pays for itself very quickly, and adds value more than the cost, and so makes more money for builder.
Eh I got the land for it why couldn't I use it? Solar on the roof means you have to go on the roof to fix or troubleshoot. You are adding holes to your roof, unless if you get the tesla solar roof in the first place which you can't trust anything made by them so you are better off keeping them separate.
The only pro I have seen with it being on the roof, which is probably a good one if true, since it is attached to your house, your home insurance would have to cover damages from bad storms / freaks of nature.
Edit: Also beyond the obvious not needing additional land for it.
Because you should be planting trees on that land.
one solar panel removes more Co2 than 10 trees. (by displacing FF energy)
We need both
Depending on the location, no, not really.
Yes, though in practice overall system cost and reliability can be improved by adding wind to the mix.
And hydro (to run only at night when the sun and wind isn't producing. For 100% renewable)
Siting them close to data centers, and connecting them to grid is easy because the utility controlled grid wants the datacenter customer. Utilities are slow to connect solar because they either own or can be bribed by existing FF plants.
A grid connection allows oversizing the solar production, and exporting. But where massive datacenter expansion strains the grid is during daytime peaks. Solar and batteries locally avoids that congestion, and then grid can provide energy and better utilize grid at night.
He doesn't give a shit. He's going to be dead within a decade.
Fingers crossed it's the earlier part of that decade.
Thoughts and prayers
So say we all.