Oil is more profitable than solar. Well, in the short term. Once the planet becomes unlivable and the consumer market severely diminished, oil is going to be much less profitable.
It's more affordable thanks to grants and production and installation provide a lot of jobs, but it's less profitable for the comically wealthy. Good for the economy though. You don't have monopoly giants moving mass profits around like a shell game through shipping, refining, drilling, the list goes on. In time solar may generate its own barrons that play that game but it's not the tycoon industry like oil is.
Solar is cheaper per watt, but it's pretty much a one time investment. Buy the panels and you get the energy. With oil, you get to continually make money by controlling its flow
Energy economists call it VALCOE. Even when adding transmission upgrades and storage, the full system cost rarely exceeds $70-80/MWh. Nuclear is usually $120-150/MWh.
The issue is, that's only if solar comprises the minority of energy production. If renewables comprised >50% of the energy supplied to the grid, then we would need to switch from short-term to long-term battery storage and overbuild transmission and storage capacity to account for seasonal fluctuations in generation (e.g. winter storms), which would push the VALCOE of renewables over those of fossil fuels and nuclear. So even though renewables are now technically cheaper, they can never be the backbone of the grid barring a major innovation in battery technology.
There are simultaneously misconceptions that solar/renewables are cheaper and more expensive than fossil fuels. Both are kind of true. Energy is complicated, so not easy to talk about in a would where 1-sentence hyperbole is the discourse.
662
u/acceptbellybuttonpic Sep 13 '26
Oil is more profitable than solar. Well, in the short term. Once the planet becomes unlivable and the consumer market severely diminished, oil is going to be much less profitable.