Solar energy is now the cheapest source of power, study

2025-10-0717:50272321www.surrey.ac.uk

Some of these cookies are necessary and are used to help make our site work. With your consent, we will also use cookies to improve your experience, analyse site usage and assist in our marketing…

Some of these cookies are necessary and are used to help make our site work. With your consent, we will also use cookies to improve your experience, analyse site usage and assist in our marketing efforts. By clicking 'Accept all', you consent to our use of cookies.

You can learn more about these cookies and manage your preferences at any time on our cookies page .

Solar energy is now so cost-effective that, in the sunniest countries, it costs as little as £0.02 to produce one unit of power, making it cheaper than electricity generated from coal, gas or wind, according to a new study from the University of Surrey. 

The research team also found that the price of lithium-ion batteries has fallen by 89% since 2010, making solar-plus-storage systems as cost-effective as gas power plants. These hybrid setups, which combine solar panels with batteries, are now standard in many regions and allow solar energy to be stored and released when needed, turning it into a more reliable, dispatchable source of power that helps balance grid demand. 

Despite many reasons to be optimistic, the ATI research team points to several challenges – particularly connecting large amounts of solar power to existing electricity networks. In some regions, such as California and China, high solar generation has led to grid congestion and wasted energy when supply exceeds demand. 

  • The full paper can be found here.
Affordable and Clean Energy UN Sustainable Development Goal 7 logo
Sustainable Cities and Communities UN Sustainable Development Goal 11 logo
Climate Action UN Sustainable Development Goal 13 logo


Read the original article

Comments

  • By m55au 2025-10-0719:275 reply

    It has become so incredibly cheap that in some parts of the world it has started eating itself, called solar cannibalization.

    https://www.aalto.fi/en/news/rapid-growth-of-solar-power-in-...

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/plunging-solar-captu...

    • By oompydoompy74 2025-10-0719:346 reply

      It’s almost like market forces aren’t what you want for a utility.

      • By jmward01 2025-10-081:30

        Too bad gas and oil didn't have trillions in subsidies over the past 100 years. Maybe had we listened to Jimmy Carter we would have continued to lead the world instead of now being firmly in the back.

      • By ViewTrick1002 2025-10-0722:25

        Works perfectly for the electricity market. Negative prices is just an opportunity waiting to be exploited.

        The transmission should of course be state owned due to being a natural monopoly.

      • By epistasis 2025-10-0719:404 reply

        Very few people realize that for most of the US, cheaper electricity costs for the utilities means lower profits, because most are regulated utilities that take a fixed profit on costs. Models for this vary greatly, sometimes they only take fixed profit on necessary grid investments (where necessary is determined by the utility, then stamped for approval by a Public Utility Commission, which has a board that might be elected and susceptible to bribing/election malefeasance, such as in Arizona...)

        So-called "natural" monopolies are quite difficult to regulate correctly. And the solution we chose as a society a century ago might not be the right one for today.

        • By floatrock 2025-10-0720:081 reply

          Utilities tend to make most profit as a fixed rate of return on infrastructure built, not really based on electricity costs. Build a new substation, some poles & wires to distribute it to the new subdivisions, and bammo, regulator grants you a fixed rate of return on that from your ratebase (paying customers) over the lifetime of that infrastructure.

          • By zdragnar 2025-10-0720:131 reply

            You get a fixed return on that infrastructure, but you need to keep pace with inflation in all other areas of the business. Storms, errant vehicles, animals, fires, all sorts of things cause that same infrastructure to require maintenance personnel and equipment, and that equipment needs its own maintenance, as do the offices for the personnel, and so on. It becomes a balancing act because you only get to adjust the rates every so often, and with regulator approval.

            • By strawhatguy 2025-10-085:33

              Regulator approval really isn’t market forces, to tie this to comment above.

        • By pfdietz 2025-10-0721:14

          Solar also offers the possibility of grid defection, as is occurring on a large scale in Pakistan. At some point (and particularly if that thermal storage thing I've been touting matures) electric utilities may see dramatic shrinkage, particularly in less populated areas with ample unused land.

        • By bobsmooth 2025-10-0720:131 reply

          >cheaper electricity costs for the utilities means lower profits

          You say that like it's a bad thing. Maybe electricity generation shouldn't be a profit seeking enterprise?

          • By epistasis 2025-10-0720:391 reply

            I don't say it as a bad thing at all, I say it as a thing that's in contrast to the rest of the companies and proprietors and corporations we deal with. (And my last comment also hinted that I think it's time to reevaluate this social relationship with the utilities...)

            Typically, if a person/corporation is clever and figures out a way to reduce costs, they are incentivized heavily to do so because they take the gains, at least for a while until others figure it out too and compete.

            With utilities, they are actively incentivized to increase prices as much as possible. This is a crucial distinction for people asking why cheaper electricity generation methods are not resulting in cheaper utility bills: because the regulatory structure is not operating the way it should, and they need to get involved democratically to change the system!

            • By tehjoker 2025-10-0722:141 reply

              Sounds like you're saying it's a bad thing.

              • By epistasis 2025-10-0723:03

                Well I'm not. Which of my words are giving the other impression to you?

        • By kulahan 2025-10-0721:022 reply

          A century isn't very long. I guess things have changed somewhat since then, but age isn't a very convincing argument against these regulations imo. Having to update all of this every hundred years sounds exhausting to me.

          • By array_key_first 2025-10-092:031 reply

            Updating laws every 100 years to keep up with technology sounds perfectly reasonable and actually, like, super cheap.

            I wouldn't expect most things from 1920 to still apply today. I can't smoke inside and I don't have to drink ethanol.

            • By kulahan 2025-10-0919:371 reply

              There's nothing techy about cigarettes, and you can still vape inside in lots of places, so 100 years really is either too much or not enough anyways. Maybe we shouldn't regulate things that are so flimsy?

              • By array_key_first 2025-10-1014:351 reply

                Ah yes, the classic solution: it's slightly challenging so let's do nothing instead and hope for the best.

                This usually doesn't work out.

                • By kulahan 2025-10-1018:211 reply

                  I never said to do nothing, so this is a pretty lame strawman.

                  • By array_key_first 2025-10-1115:44

                    Yes you did, you said "let's not regulate things that are flimsy" and your example was smoking (???) because we have vapes now (???) and so effectively people still smoke inside (???)

                    Really? We can't even regulate smoking? That's too far for you? Jesus Christ.

                    If this isn't "we tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" then I don't know what is.

                    Yes, regulations are not perfect and do have to be updated. That doesn't mean theyre worthless and we shouldn't bother. Thats stupid.

          • By bb88 2025-10-0721:42

            Fortunately, we pay people who are called "legislators" who pass laws and are paid to pass legislation to fix problems like this and update laws when they become outdated.

      • By ClayShentrup 2025-10-086:17

        of course they are. market forces are what you want for everything. granted, you may want to internalize a negative externality like the climate change induced by greenhouse gas emissions, but that's literally correcting market forces.

      • By adrianmonk 2025-10-0821:08

        I kind of agree in the sense that utilities at least need regulation. You can't leave it all up to the market. (I've lived through the winter storm days-long blackout that lies down that path.)

        But, I don't think this particular thing proves that point. What we have here is a chaotic shift to a new equilibrium. Technology has changed and needs/priorities have changed.

        People wouldn't overbuild solar if they could forecast that it wouldn't be profitable. The issue is they can't forecast.

        The reason we aren't allocating resources optimally is not about who is in control or what their motives are. It's that we don't have the information we would need in order to be able to.

        TLDR: growing pains, not misaligned incentives.

      • By skrebbel 2025-10-085:531 reply

        Couple of years with occasional negative prices and that market you so detest will cover the place with batteries, solving both the negative prices and reducing load on the grid.

        • By oompydoompy74 2025-10-0810:462 reply

          And all it cost was a 6th major extinction event! I don’t believe we have the luxury of letting the market figure this out. We should have started turning the ship decades ago.

          • By skrebbel 2025-10-0815:00

            Solar didn't get this cheap magically. It’s in big part a consequence of public policy.

    • By skybrian 2025-10-0719:351 reply

      This seems good for investors in utility-scale batteries, since they can charge them very cheaply and sell at night.

      (Although, that might not work well in Finland in the summer.)

      • By adrianmonk 2025-10-0723:10

        You can view this as a natural or even beneficial feedback mechanism that keeps solar generation and battery storage on par with each other.

        Too much solar leads to crashing prices which leads to more battery investment. Once the batteries are built, solar prices recover somewhat and solar investment starts to make sense again.

        Ideally you wouldn't overshoot too much on the solar and have big price crashes. But if you do overshoot dramatically, the incentive to build batteries increases, so maybe you recover faster.

    • By ZeroGravitas 2025-10-0719:361 reply

      This was one of the actual problems highlighted by the people who coined the term "duck curve" over a decade ago.

      One of the main ways we've avoided this problem so far is that solar kept getting cheaper.

      So it's not really a problem caused by cheap solar, it's just basic market competition, lots of supply with no barrier to entry drives prices down towards the long term marginal cost.

      • By m55au 2025-10-0722:161 reply

        Right, but would not marginal cost approaching zero amplify this problem under the current market system (and without any other mitigations)? So not exactly causal, but making it from a small to a bigger issue.

        • By ZeroGravitas 2025-10-0723:031 reply

          The issue was that the decarbonisation of electricity (and therefore society) would slow or stop before we'd decarbonise if expensive solar lost any of its market. Not cheap energy, that is a good thing.

          Between batteries, wind, demand response, EVs etc. that slowdown doesn't seem likely to happen.

          And the lure of cheaper energy expands solar out horizontally to new markets, speeding up global decarbonisation.

          • By m55au 2025-10-080:25

            I don't think it will happen either, but I do think there is a bit of imbalance developing in the whole system right now.

            For example a decade ago electricity prices in Nord Pool were relatively stable (and reasonable/lowish). Now it is quite common to either have 0 or even negative prices during summer and artificially set maximums in the autumn/winter. IIRC, the rules were that if the price hit 60% of the maximum, it had to be raised by 1000 €/MWh. It got to 4000 €/MWh (which is 4 € or $4.7/kWh) in 2022 and was supposed to be raised by another 1000, but it was decided not to do it, so I think it stands there right now. But in any case, this is a ridiculous price. As are the negative ones.

    • By jaggederest 2025-10-0720:211 reply

      This is really a non-problem. Curtailment is easy and doesn't cost anything, it just needs a slightly better feedback mechanism than the current grid supplies, but honestly even a 24hr timer and ammeter would do it.

      • By m55au 2025-10-0721:352 reply

        This is not about grid balance, so I'm not sure what you mean here by curtailment.

        It's about nobody making any money, so there will be no incentive to continue building solar.

    • By silvestrov 2025-10-0722:00

      We already have this in Denmark as we have a lot of wind mills: when the wind is blowing a lot, the electricity prices goes negative!

      5th October was one such day. From midnight to 17:00 the spot price was negative or zero.

      Taxes and distribution costs make the consumer price a lot higher than zero.

  • By Tepix 2025-10-0719:224 reply

    With $40/kWh batteries available soon, i think even having 100 kWh of storage for a house will be rather common. With 14.4kWp solar, 5 MWh of electricity use per year and 100 kWh at 50€/kWh of battery you have 90% autarky and a time-to-value of 8-9 years. Pretty sweet.

    • By nevi-me 2025-10-0722:361 reply

      My cheat code for 100 kWH is an EV that supports V2H. It's becoming supported in more cars, so I want to buy an EV as my next car. I don't anticipate battery savings and new tech reaching me faster than replacing my aging car with an EV, hence this path.

      I'm in South Africa if relevant, and range anxiety is being alleviated by competition in the vehicle charging space, and municipal grid charging still comes to about 70% cheaper than fuel.

    • By snickerer 2025-10-0719:442 reply

      $40/kWh sounds so fantastic, I can't believe it. Could you please provide a source for that price? Where will I get such cheap batteries?

    • By bboygravity 2025-10-0719:312 reply

      Not if you consider that you need to either renew or add battery capacity (and panels and power electronics) after x years? Or did you take that into account?

      • By onlyrealcuzzo 2025-10-0719:45

        That doesn't impact payback cost, if the batteries & panels last longer than 8-9 years (and they do).

        It's just one metric.

      • By triceratops 2025-10-0720:30

        x = ~25 years for the panels. They're paid off long before that.

    • By ReptileMan 2025-10-0719:353 reply

      There is small problem though - all of the people will need the last 10% at the same time. And because you need infrastructure that will work only 10 percent of the time, expect the price of kwh to be 10 times the current to compensate.

      The less you need the grid - the more expensive is what you will pull from it because the infrastructure costs will be spread on fewer kwh.

      • By epistasis 2025-10-0719:531 reply

        I'm not sure if everybody will need the last 10% at the same time. Perhaps on a grid that's only a few counties large?

        100 kWh of energy will last the average US house three days. And when you throw in people's EV batteries too...

      • By Tepix 2025-10-0720:251 reply

        Yes. If the price per kW goes up too far, guess what? More batteries. Luckily they are about to get very cheap.

        • By spwa4 2025-10-0815:061 reply

          Sadly, it won't matter. Governments/electricity companies have already somewhat adapted:

          1) a big part of your energy bill is "connection charge" or similar. Not related to usage but just to be connected at all.

          2) they don't allow disconnection

          3) most of what you pay in electricity bills is effectively a tax, not for the actual electricity, and isn't really per-kWh. This is masked by the government loading the grid companies up with debt in the past, getting the money and then "making them independent companies", then voting in a levy on tax.

          Note I call this masked because the government can't let these companies succeed (it'd be a political disaster if they make real profits, and they can just raise the levy), and they can't let these companies fail (that would mean no more electricity grid for some regions). So it's a matter of time before the government is forced to buy these companies back and all netted out this will just have been a really expensive loan for the government (that past administrations got to spend, and present (it's already begun) and future administrations have to pay)

          In some countries there's already talk of giving the grid company the right to charge a connection charge ... when there's no actual grid connection (in Australia), and there isn't even the theoretical option to deliver electricity to an address. Don't worry, they "have plans" to connect everyone (but some of those plans have been there for 80 years and still aren't implemented. But you'll have to pay for just being in the plan)

          So the problem is that the government won't let you save money by lowering your usage from normal levels. That would screw up the government budget.

          And all they have to do is make connection charge 90%+ of your bill, with some "free" included electricity and your solar installation no longer saves you money.

          • By Tepix 2025-10-0818:13

            What country do you live in? That's not how it works here.

  • By specialist 2025-10-0811:27

    Interview with paper's authors:

    Solar+storage is so much farther along than you think / A conversation with Kostantsa Rangelova and Dave Jones of Ember. [2025/07/16]

    https://www.volts.wtf/p/solarstorage-is-so-much-farther-alon...

    Really, every one interested in renewables and net-zero should listen.

    IIRC, my own take aways from this interview:

      At the time of this interview, in the USA, because of subsidies and tariffs, only natural gas (IIRC ~$70 gWh) is cheaper than solar + battery for new generation. 
    
      Battery storage costs continue to drop faster than any one has anticipated. -40% in 2024 alone. Wow!
    
      Even people savvy about our glorious renewable energy future don't fully appreciate just how quickly how fast both solar and batteries have and will continue to improve.
    
      I don't remember the specifics when where wind is preferable to solar. IIRC, even in Finland solar + battery still pencils out.
    
      Since solar + battery only gets us ~90% (?) to net-zero, we'll still need wind. (Ditto adv geo therm, heat batteries, pumped hydro, etc. Because we'll need A LOT more of everything for net-negative, to restore 360 ppm for CO2 and other GHGs.)
    
    
      Personal note: Am very eager for Jenny Chase's yearly report on solar. Especially prospects for scaling up wind generation. Chase previously expressed concern about wind lagging behind solar. Which is bad, because we'll still need a lot of wind (at northern latitudes).
    
    
    Having quickly scanned prior comments here, my impression is that u/epistatis is spot on.

    In other words, most everyone's priors need a major update.

HackerNews