[cbradford]

Just look at the title.. "Solar executives warn..". Of course they do, their business model is government subsidy. I live in a blue state that has decided to bet on renewables and our electricity rates are skyrocketing. If solar was viable, it would not require forcing tax payers to fund these businesses.

[cure]

> If solar was viable, it would not require forcing tax payers to fund these businesses.

This is not true. Solar and wind are already cheaper than fossil fuel generation for new capacity. Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-en...

[dimitrios1]

So then removing the subsidies shouldn't be an issue?

[derbOac]

Whatever cost it is, I highly doubt it's cheaper to cancel projects that are well underway without recouping any benefits at all, in some cases over the objections of local customers, without an alternative in place with environmental and financial analysis to support it.

Otherwise you're just burning money without an alternative to meet increasing demand (which is likely why costs are increasing and why the additional supply is being built).

[wat10000]

If fossil fuels were viable, they would not require the right to put toxic substances into my lungs without compensation.

[olddustytrail]

It doesn't. Solar is ridiculously cheap and requires no subsidy at all to be profitable.

If this is happening (which frankly I doubt) it's just corruption.

[lotsofpulp]

If this were true, then wouldn’t every electricity supplier be building tons of solar, regardless of what the government does?

[abeppu]

But the Biden administration which introduced the IRA subsidies also jacked up tariffs on solar panels, increasing the price of these projects. Would many of these businesses been viable if neither subsidies nor tariffs had been introduced? Given the declining cost of PVs over time, would they have become viable eventually?