Readit News logoReadit News
jimmydorry commented on US attack on renewables will lead to power crunch that spikes electricity prices   cnbc.com/2025/08/24/solar... · Posted by u/rntn
jmyeet · 6 days ago
They are correct. You will see in the coming years that electricity across the US is going to get substantially more expensive. There are several reasons for this:

1. Data centers, primarily driven by AI. Why? Because they can (and do) negotiate deeply discounted prices AND either don't pay for the connection and required infrastructure or they only pay a portion of it. Who pays for the rest? Consumers. Who subsidizes the discounted electricity? Consumers.

2. Increased electricity use in an area tends to raise the prices for everyone. We actually saw this in the crypto mining boom (eg [1]). In short, in a region like upstate New York where it otherwise has access to cheap hydro power, the local provider will have a long term power supply contract for a certain amount of electricity. A big increase usually means they now have to buy power on the spot market, which can be much more expensive. This raises the average electricity price for everyone;

3. The administration is pushing a huge expansion in LNG exports. IIRC ~41% of US power generation comes from natural gas. A huge increase in LNG exports will inevitably cause a rise in natural gas prices for all domestic power producers. This is in part driven by the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine but natural gas suppliers have seen (and pounced upon) an opportunity to drive up the wholesale price of natural gas;

4. The dam has really broke on contraining price hikes for pure profit purposes (eg [2]). If you look at the finances of any private electricity utility, you'll see that simply increasing shareholder profits is probably the biggest single factor in electricity price hikes;

5. While all this is happening and we're not really building new power plants (at least not enough to match demand), the administration has cut off renewables, which are key to meeting demand beyond any environmental concerns (which are real and true). Power usage spikes during the day. Well guess what? That's when solar power production happens. So adding significant solar power production to your electricity mix will decrease the baseline power needed from other sources;

6. Private equity has turned its eye to the guaranteed profits of electricitiy providers [3]. This will do absolutely nothing other than raise prices; and

7. Lip service is given to nuclear but it simply isn't the answer, primarily because the lead time for building a nuclear power plant is about 10-15 years. Plus it's one of the most expensive forms of electricity (in LCOE terms) and having a company safely manage a nuclear power plant in an era where regulation is being gutted doesn't seem like a great idea.

Not a single nuclear power plant has been built without government subsidy. Why not just subsidize renewables instead, particularly solar? Efforts such as small modular reactors to lower costs simply make no sense. Larger reactors are more efficient.

I think by 2030 a significant portion of the population will be paying $0.50/kWh or more for residential electricity.

[1]: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/when-crypt...

[2]: https://cleanenergy.org/news/tva-executes-the-largest-electr...

[3]: https://jacobin.com/2025/08/private-equity-minnesota-power-t...

jimmydorry · 6 days ago
> Power usage spikes during the day. Well guess what? That's when solar power production happens. So adding significant solar power production to your electricity mix will decrease the baseline power needed from other sources

Wrong, actually. At least in Australia, peak energy is in the late afternoon when everyone comes home, around 6pm. The other peak is in the morning around 7am. These are times when solar is not producing significantly, meanwhile it makes baseload unviable during the day.

jimmydorry commented on James Webb, Hubble space telescopes face reduction in operations   astronomy.com/science/jam... · Posted by u/geox
biorach · 2 months ago
> JWST is advancing humanity's knowledge far less than Hubble did

Strong claim. How are you quantifying this?

> These are visions that will, sooner or later, come to fruition - and will completely reshape humanity.

Another strong claim.

jimmydorry · 2 months ago
>Strong claim. How are you quantifying this?

We could start with the article [1]:

>"Hubble... produced a record 1,073 peer-reviewed publications last year... JWST is performing better than NASA expected, has produced around 1,200 papers since beginning operations in 2022...

Last I checked, 1000 paper a year is more than 1200 papers in 3 years. It will take JWST many years to catch up to Hubble, and Hubble still has atleast another 8 years left in it. If you divide the cost of each telescope by the number of papers tied to it, the cost of the knowledge Hubble advanced humanity by will be many times cheaper than JWST, and that doesn't look like it will change given JWST may operate for 10-20 years.

[1] https://www.astronomy.com/science/james-webb-hubble-space-te...

jimmydorry commented on OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D   kbkg.com/feature/house-pa... · Posted by u/tareqak
dalyons · 2 months ago
why does that matter anymore? they are cheaper now without incentives, so whether they were subsidized in the past doesnt really matter right?
jimmydorry · 2 months ago
Except this isn't the case. GP talks about how removing the incentives is "going to have a big negative impact on the economy" due to all these green projects no longer being viable. Indeed, whether they were subsidised or not in the past doesn't matter... but it's also not relevant to this discussion either.
jimmydorry commented on OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D   kbkg.com/feature/house-pa... · Posted by u/tareqak
dalyons · 2 months ago
they're building that coal in the role of gas peaker plants - backup power. It will probably never be used at any significant % of capacity, as the solar and battery revolution continues to astound in its speed.
jimmydorry · 2 months ago
>Nobody but the 3rd world is increasing investments in coal/oil

This was the assertion. It is demonstratably false.

jimmydorry commented on OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D   kbkg.com/feature/house-pa... · Posted by u/tareqak
0xbadcafebee · 2 months ago
> We have long been told that renewables are cheaper in every way that matters, so let's see the economics of that play out.

Renewables are cheaper now than they used to be. Why? The same reason anything is cheaper the longer you make it: technological improvement, economies of scale, production efficiency, increased # customers, reduced capex, amortized r&d, etc.

"the economics of that" aren't black and white. Just because something is expensive today doesn't mean it will be expensive tomorrow. But if something cheaper exists today, and nobody invests in the expensive thing (because "the market" doesn't see immediate cash gains in it), then the expensive thing never has the opportunity to become cheap.

> The renewable industry in the US was wrought with companies seizing as many renewable credits and subsidies as they can, while providing as little as possible to show for them.

The "show" is long-term. That's the whole point of all green energy: it's expensive at the beginning, and then becomes increasingly cheaper over time, to the point you start saving money, and then you keep saving money. But to ever get to that point, you have to invest big at the start. That's what the subsidies are for!

China has a massive and cheap labor force and decades of manufacturing expertise. That makes their products/services cheap and advanced. Unless we literally take over Mexico, we don't have the labor. And unless we start investing now, we'll never have the expertise. Without subsidies, we will never get on renewables, and we will always pay more for energy. Since the whole future of the world is dependent on energy, it might be a good idea for us to invest in it!

jimmydorry · 2 months ago
>But if something cheaper exists today, and nobody invests in the expensive thing

I think you are talking past me. The green bodies have constantly touted how we already reached the inflection point where renewables are cheaper than coal, nuclear, etc. The quiet part that isn't spoken aloud is that these renewables were only economically positive with substantial subsidies and credits. You can't have an honest conversation when the water is mudied to such an extent.

jimmydorry commented on OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D   kbkg.com/feature/house-pa... · Posted by u/tareqak
wraptile · 2 months ago
China has been rolling back subsidies because they won solar panels. No other country is even remotely close to market strength as China here and obviously for Chinese it makes sense to reduce incentives but does that make sense for the US which has 1% of this market power?

> Between January and May, China added 198 GW of solar and 46 GW of wind, enough to generate as much electricity as Indonesia or Turkey [1]

1 - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/26/china-breaks-m...

jimmydorry · 2 months ago
China "won solar panels" because they subsidised the production to the point that their companies could sell panels cheaper than they cost to make, and then these companies were allowed to dump them below cost into the western markets to destroy all the local innovation. Germany and the US in particular just sat back and watched that happen.

However, market share doesn't really translate into the economics of large scale generation. The projects that are marginal (or negative) in the US and rest of the world for that matter, are costed using whatever the cheapest panels or materials available are. Whether they are local or not does not matter. You are conflating two unrelated things here (local manufacturing capability and power generation e.g. actually deploying renewables).

China meeting arbitrary targets is also beside the point. They are building a tonne of solar and wind, but they are also building more coal too. (Refer to my previous comment in how they along with many other G7 and developed nations are investing more in coal than they were in 2020).

GP made some specific claims which were demonstratably false. The points you raise here aren't particularly related to those.

jimmydorry commented on OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D   kbkg.com/feature/house-pa... · Posted by u/tareqak
0xbadcafebee · 2 months ago
The elimination of green energy incentives is going to have a big negative effect on the economy. Those billions of dollars not only were going to new businesses and jobs, but they were joined with loans from banks and commitments from customers with the expectation that the government would be funding the remainder. This means private industry and banks will be shouldering the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars, which, as any astute person should know by now, later gets shouldered by the average citizen in rate hikes, stock market plunges, increased inflation, etc. There goes your job and 401k and here comes more expensive products.

Aside from the direct negative effects: we lose even more to foreign countries who now have even more runway to gain expertise in green energy and sell to everyone else investing in it. Nobody but the 3rd world is increasing investments in coal/oil and there's no money we could make there anyway. So there goes any money we could've made on energy internationally.

Either this country is intentionally being tanked, or we're in the stupidest timeline.

jimmydorry · 2 months ago
The largest competitor to US renewables, would be China. They have been rolling back their subsidies for years. [1]

China, India, Russia, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia (off the top of my head, and a quick google to add a few I missed [2]) have all increased investments into coal since 2020.

The renewable industry in the US was wrought with companies seizing as many renewable credits and subsidies as they can, while providing as little as possible to show for them. If this moves the industry as a whole to focus on projects that are not just marginal at best, we should start to see better traction on projects that actually matter.

We have long been told that renewables are cheaper in every way that matters, so let's see the economics of that play out.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-roll-back-clea...

[2] https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/wind-and-solar-repla...

jimmydorry commented on Next month, saved passwords will no longer be in Microsoft’s Authenticator app   cnet.com/tech/microsoft-w... · Posted by u/ColinWright
sydbarrett74 · 2 months ago
I should’ve clarified: I consider it relatively smooth for a technical user.
jimmydorry · 2 months ago
Yes this is being pushed on everyone, including grandma's and the tech illiterate. If the "best" solution is clunky at best, what chance to the tech luddites have?
jimmydorry commented on OpenAI dropped the price of o3 by 80%   twitter.com/sama/status/1... · Posted by u/mfiguiere
pembrook · 3 months ago
I don't like requiring phone numbers either, but saying OpenAI shouldn't do freemium model for hottest tech product of this century (AI) is a fundamental misunderstanding of how humans and the world works.

Also, if they don't do freemium they're getting way more valuable information about you than just a phone number.

jimmydorry · 3 months ago
What part of this thread relates to freemium? Use of the API requires tokens that are paid for. General use of the AI via the web interface does not require a phone number.

Only requiring the phone number for API users feels needlessly invasive and is not explained by a vague "countering fraud and abuse" for a paid product...

jimmydorry commented on How Riot Games is fighting the war against video game hackers   techcrunch.com/2025/05/03... · Posted by u/badmonster
doikor · 4 months ago
This is actually how cheating is "solved" to some degree in South Korea. Basically you can't play without logging in with your government provided id.

Though they do also use it for stuff like under 16 year olds not being able to play online games between midnight and 6am.

edit: Some extra details about this from a few months ago https://x.com/deteccphilippe/status/1883945555102957617

> KR (Korea) requires national identity numbers for gaming, which opens up a convenient opportunity to ban cheaters at the “soul” level. It is remarkably effective at keeping them out of game for longer periods of time—cheaters have to buy whole new identities to keep playing, so the bans really stick.

jimmydorry · 4 months ago
This makes the stakes for getting caught cheating, much higher. It does nothing to "solve" cheating. If someone is using additional code to gain an un-fair advantage, knowing who they are does nothing to detect this.

u/jimmydorry

KarmaCake day982January 12, 2018
About
5lwaqqg8 [at] getdotastats [dot] com
View Original