Why Peter Zeihan Is Wrong About Solar 

Zeihan speaks about a lot of topics most people don't know anything about it, but he once spoke about a topic I knew about it and he was so incredible mistaken and wrong about this topic. It opened my eyes to his geopolitics expertise.

You are absolutely correct. On top of the production being good, you also need to look at the cost of electricity in the area where you live. Where I live in New England, even though solar production is somewhat lower, with the higher cost of electricity in my area solar makes more sense financially than it does in Colorado because of the electric cost..

I think Peter Zeihan is talking about replacing base load power - not the cost effectiveness of any individual system, or the payback period of their individual investment.

I've followed Peter Zeihan for a couple of years now and have grown increasingly skeptical of a number of his views as of late. (Largely because he has made some factually inaccurate statements about finance and technology of which I have some knowledge.) I normally wouldn't care, but Zeihan's star has been rising lately and more people are starting to listen to him. He has a well oiled performance that he gives in front of general audiences and rarely speaks in front of experts. He also speaks with absolute conviction about everything he talks about. However, I've grown concerned that I don't ever see him speaking to groups who are actually real experts in any of the fields he discusses. This means he rarely engages with people whom have deeper subject matter knowledge than himself and thus is rarely challenged on any of his ideas by people with the intellectual capacity to do so. I'm glad that he is finally gaining the attention of real subject matter experts and academics who are starting to challenge some of his ideas.

My gosh, this chap is so correct. In Northern Ontario, we are 8 hours north of Toronto but solar produces more power here because panels are more efficient at cooler temperatures.

I put in solar with battery backup over 20 years when it was stupid expensive. I'm in northern NH. It was worth it even then. Power outages were common. Most of the folks around here had generators. During long outages everyone ran out of fuel. Having power that just worked was a huge boon. The big thing is that it keeps the lights on and the water pump running. The original panels are still quietly putting out good power.

You definitely need to take anything Peter sats with a grain of salt;) He was way off on EV's too. So much I was left wondering if he was being sponsored by Big oil/auto.

I’m in the Cleveland area, we can get around 13,000 kWh annually.

You are both right. Using Ontario government sources an individual can get about one half of the power that is produced on a panel in Arizona. In Toronto, a city of over 3 million only 40% live in single detached houses. Half of them have shading problems mainly from trees but also adjacent buildings. So it is not just downtown jungles but most of the city. Even in the suburbs, densification, a government policy is becoming the norm. My property is surrounded by 60 to 80 foot mature trees which I love and cuts my air conditioning bill way down in the summer. My brother in law on a farm in South western Ontario has solar panels on a farm where there is more sun. He Had to wait over five years to get connected because the local grid was overloaded. That area has wind farms since it is surrounded on three sides by water from the Great Lakes. It is one of the few areas in Ontario that has reliable wind in the summer. I know, because I sail on Lake Ontario. In Ontario, solar may work OK for an individual, but not the whole grid. In Ontario, the peak demand is between 5 and 9 pm during the summer. Solar does not do much good then when it is really needed. Base power is provided by nuclear, about 60%. Hydro is around 25%, wind and solar about 8% and natural gas peaker plants about 7%. After 20 years of renewables, the government has decided that they are not reliable enough for us and is going to build a new large scale nuclear plant, up to 4 small modular plants, refurbish the 60 year old Pickering plant as well as increasing gas plants to about 9 to 11% until the new nukes come online. What is good for the individual is not necessarily the best for the whole grid.

Fantastic work bud. I too am generally a fan of his geopolitics, but was also very confused by his 'math'. I knew intuitively it had to be flat wrong, but great to see the science laid out

Nice job clarifying or should I say correcting Peter. I felt the same way when I watched his video, you took the time to put data to it. Makes me wonder about many of the other figures he states in his discussions. I do enjoy his geopolitics though.

I had sunrun install panels on my roof in Chicago suburbs and it was a disaster from start to finish. First they inspected my roof to check its condition and see if it needed replacement. They said it was great. I moved in 3 years prior and did not know how old the roof was. Then one of there installers fell off the second story of my roof and ripped of the rain gutter on his way down. Supposedly these were experienced installars from Arizona. After instalation it took additional 6 months of multiple repairs and inspections before the city approved the install. It took even longer to get my rain gutter replaced as the company said they could not find a company to replace one rain gutter and I would need to find someone myself to replace under there quoted dollar amount. I was told that the system was actually 10% oversize for the amount of electricity I used. And all I would need to pay was a connection fee to the electric company. That was a lie. My panels rarely produced enough power to cover my needs. If you have ever been to northern Illinois for a exteneded time you would know the sun rarely shines. In winter it almost never happens except with temps are extremely cold at witch point the panels are usually covered with snow. It is very depressing. Then my roof started leaking. What they dont tell you is that if you need roof repairs or replacement, you are also responsible to pay thousands to remove and replace these useless panels before and after repairs. It was also a massive headache to sell my house as well. Many people dont want these panels. Many people dont like how they look. It was extremely hard to find someone to take over the remaining 15yrs of my 20yr lease in addition to buying my house. For sure I took a hit on my profits because of price negotiation caused by those dam panels. Never again!!!!!!!

I think the point he is trying to make (but is muddling badly) is that it is much harder to go to 100% green energy in, say, New England than in Denver. That 100% combines with the fact that peak energy usage happens in winter instead of summer to produce the 4x or 6x factor that he cites. If I remember correctly, I’ve heard him say that he is all in favor of going 15% or 20% solar even in New England.

Great feedback, & information. Thanks!

I agree!

I agree with you. He is wrong on solar and is wrong on electric cars. There is no demand problem with electric cars, there is just a demand problem with non-Tesla EVs.

I am shocked that he already has solar roof!. Even if his "math" is right, still solar beats hands down any other source of electricity (financially, environmentally, and speed to build). You are correct, Peter gets tech wrong every time., he is wrong about micro chips, electronics, EVs, batteries, too. I suspect what he is missing in his tech calculations is inovation (which is the key).

Hello Julian, I think you are right in calling him out on the magnitude in how much "good" and "bad spots" for solar differ. Clearly not 4-5x difference in terms of kwh per year, if the difference is between 13 000 and 16 000. However, I think you are talking past each other. You are clearly focused on the unit economics and individual business case, and fair enough. Looking at his video, I saw his point more as an argument about resource utilization at large, meaning that there are alternatives ways of using limited resources and putting solar panels in marginal locations may have a decent payback period but may not be a good policy for the overall economy and the planet. From this perspective, there might be 4-5x differences which matters for the planet and the global economy but not for the individual solar panel project payback time. Makes sense? Note that I found your video very informative, I am merely asking for more nuance and clarity regarding what one is problematizing. Cheers!

So it works if somebody else is paying for it? Without subsidies, it doesn’t work. How long does the equipment last?

But how is the mining/production/disposal of solar panels "green"?

Well, I am about to find out for myself. I live in extreme northern PA in a rural area with a large workshop that has a nearly south facing (175 degree orientation) roof with a slope of 18 degrees. I am a retired EE and fairly familiar with the technology underlying solar panels and the related electronics. The solar company gave me their proposal which includes their forecast for power production and cost savings. They showed a payback of about 9 years. I began with the NREL calculator and created my own model working from irradiance up to actual savings each month using my average monthly use and the exact rates my cooperative uses and their exact net metering algorithm. This is currently 1:1 but likely to change in the near future as many PA cooperatives are starting to move away from 1:1 net metering due to the cross subsidization. My model is close to the solar company model in power output, I think I was only a couple of percent lower, but I was about 10% lower on cost savings and show a payback period closer to 11 years. And this is with the 30% federal tax subsidy and the 1:1 net metering subsidy from the cooperative. Without those two things, the payback would not exist as it would be at or beyond the life of the solar system. I decided to proceed as I am really curious to see how reality matches the forecast. My system should be installed in December or January and I have my spreadsheet in place to track the actuals each month. The main difference I saw between my spreadsheet and that from the solar company was in cost savings rather than in power output. The reasons are mainly that they apparently don’t tailor their model to each customer location, but use average values for PA. For example, it appears they assume a negligible monthly basic fee as most IOCs that are PUC regulated have very small basic monthly fees of $10-15. Most cooperatives are 2-3 times higher than that. My cooperative is $30 and this is a significant part of the monthly bill that solar doesn’t offset. Also, the solar company model appears to not look at the details of how the net metering works and just assumes that my savings are equal to the total power generated by my array at the retail rate. This isn’t the case as the net metering credits work on a month to month basis and when I ran the actual numbers, there are several months a year where I will have used up my rolled over credits from a prior month and have to pay for some power at the going rate. And then I will end the net metering year with unused credits which the power company pays me for, but at a much lower than retail rate. This is due mainly to the timing of the annual net metering “true up” being at the end of May. My model shows that my system will generate more than I use during the January through May time, but since I can’t use those credits at the end of the year in the October through December time, but lose them during the “true up” at less than retail value, I end up saving less than the solar company model suggests. If the “true up” occurred at the end of the calendar year, I think the solar companies model would be more accurate. Also, the solar company model assumes you can use the full 30% tax credit in year 1. Few of us retired folks own enough in federal tax to take the credit in one year. It will likely take me 2 or 3 years to use the credit fully. Even though my model isn’t as optimistic as the solar company’s model, it was close enough that I shouldn’t lose my shirt on the project and the engineer in me always loves a good experiment. So, I am about to embark on this experiment and I am really curious to see how it goes, see if the cost savings materialize, see if the solar equipment is as reliable as I’ve been told, etc. Time will tell. Back to the topic here: I think Peter is more accurate overall than Julian wants to admit. Yes, he may be off on the details, but then anyone who has watched Peter for any length of time knows he isn’t a detail person, he is a 40,000’ analyst. I think he is also talking about the averages in an area and not a specific place. The reality is that about half the population of NY live in NYC and other cities where solar isn’t an option. So, in the general case this is a significant consideration. I think Peter also ignores subsidies and discusses how a given technology stands on its own merits. Without the subsidies, I would not be installing solar as it simply doesn’t stand on its own without heavy subsidies from the government and from the grid operators. If you required a solar system to provide the same 7x24x365 production as say a nuclear plant provides, the cost of the solar system and its required storage batteries would be several times higher than the mythical LCOE numbers that the “green” folks like to use. These numbers are pure fiction as they don’t compare the various energy sources on the same playing field. Apply the same production and reliability requirements to solar, wind, gas and nuclear, and the LCOE numbers would be dramatically different.

I have the greatest respect for your channel but. I think you are not listening to his exact words and unsaid inclinations. He made reference to being green and his carbon footprint . Solar panels and needed equipment makes the carbon footprint to output ratio go towards a negative gain impact . Also smog and short day light hinder output. Also cost of insurance has skyrocketed in Florida and other states requiring riders and or separate policies.

this from the hey lets put solar cells on roads. you know, where we drive cars.

Solar works pretty well on the residential level as a supplement to a home’s power source, but as a commercial venture it’s not very practical

Same here. He's talking base load power, and even on an individual level, he's talking about total environmental costs, not how much you save as an individual, which can be mitigated through incentives. So, I think you need to address those too and I would send your counter argument to him once you've shown he's wrong on those points.

Former Principal Engineer at NREL. I saw his video and recognized the significant error on energy production. Keep in mind that PV is more efficient as temperatures drop! Phoenix gets so damn hot that the PV production is reduced from nameplate. Peter is correct as to the energy (mostly coal) used in China to produce the PV modules, and it’s difficult to offset the carbon reduction (sometimes you are better off with NG or nuclear generation). It’s not a simple equation to realize how much GG is being offset by dirty manufacturing, and you should know that China brings on a new coal plant every 10 days, and their designs are horrible compared to the much cleaner power industry in US-Canada.

He’s also wrong about the transition to electric vehicles, especially long term. Yes, the changeover is less than desirable but long term it very positive.

So R is to be a supplement you cannot use it all the time until we have a better battery but the present goings on should not be stopped because they will give us data which is TBE ultimate

The truth is if they were such a great deal the government wouldn't need to subsidize them.

Write him....comment...etc. Good video.

You don't directly answer his points. He said that cloudy days, humidity, or temperature are major factors that can reduce benefits.

ya Zeihan is another promotor of the world using the same amount of energy we use now- that is not sustainable or environmental. the important step is to use less energy (energy conservation). we really need a pollution of types TAX. this will establish a sustainable economy. yes it will take sacrifice- but if not then life for our kids- and for all ecosystems- will be rough. also it should be COD for the long side of buildings/homes to face south- this will locate most roofs appropriate for PV and just alone will save the residents $10-15% in their heating/cooling bils.

You misunderstoodd Zeihan. You are saying solar can still make financial sense above the latitude mentioned by Zeihan. That is correct. However, what Zeihan is saying is that it does not make sense based on the carbon footprint. Two very different animals.

Florida has a lot of afternoon thunder bumpers which won't helped solAr

The power transmission seems to be the major problem with solar.

If does not totally penetrate heavy humidity

He's an energy industry insider and he probably recruits a lot of support from big oil. I don't think he's dishonest I just think he's negatively incentivized and he gravitates to the lower end research on this stuff.

We live in a Township outside of Cleveland Ohio. I have played around with solar from more than 50 years and I am an engineer unbelievable how far the technology has come Our solar is on the ground because property taxes are very high and I do not want them being increased even further weather on the roof.. solar works wonderfully in the summer but horribly in the winter because we are one of the cloudiest areas of the country.

It depends on your needs. If you need enough output in New York to equal the average power of a system in Phoenix, then Julian is correct. If you need enough output in New York to guaranteed stay warm through a cold, cloudy winter storm, then Peter is correct. Peter is correct for my needs.

Florida has so much humidity I can see it being worse instead of better

Quite sick of Zeihan about now... on pretty much all subjects he cherry picks the worst data set and passes it off as 100% the future... its wrong 90% of the time

Your 5-year payback period completely depends on taxpayer subsidies of your solar system. We can debate whether subsidies should or should not be included, but that's a separate argument.

I just spent $44K on a 14.4 KW system but I live in AZ so I believe in it for the right situation Germany doesn't have near the sunny days I have. Are you saying Germany spent those trillions and will recoup at near the rate I will?

He's a tent preacher

His comments on electric vehicles is off the mark .

Isn’t Toronto abt 5000 only

When I played this Zeihan video I couldn’t believe the bullshit I was hearing. Zeihan gets the big picture pretty good. But he has always been questionable on the small or narrow cases. I’m going to question him more after he totally twisted solar.

Thank you!! His position in solar is astoundingly wrong!! Also EVs….

But it seems plausible that after all these years of solar innovation it still only makes 3% of Worldwide power used. If you think about it the technology has not changed very much over 40 years. If it was more cost effective and efficient there would be greater growth.

I’m sorry, but his arguments were far more compelling then yours. Besides I believe he’s trying to make the argument of building to scale compared to most other options. What about the carbon footprint making solar panels? Battery storage and capacity is still an issue. Scale is really the issue.

What price would grid electricity have to be before you would say that solar panels on one's roof can't compete? I live near the city of Montreal, and the local power company is at 100 percent renewable electricity generation. Four percent wind and ninety five percent hydroelectric. The rates are 6.5c for the first 40kw/h daily and 10c above that (about 4.9 and 7.5 cents US per kw/h). Does any type of solar installation come close?

Thank you for addressing this topic, I’ve called out Zeihan on every video he’s talked about solar and wind energy as I’ve worked in the industry the past 16-years and know he’s dead wrong. I’ve asked Zeihan to stay away from the topic until he does some actual research and presents facts.

You read this under so many of his videos: "I think Zeihan is a great guy who is super knowledgeable about everything, but the one time he talked about something I know something about, he got the facts totally wrong." Which makes you wonder how much of his stuff is actually wrong...

This probably translates to other things he states. He seems to always want to sell dramatic stories. The reality is often more boring 😅

Zeihan just assumes the worst case for solar

He works for the oil industry.

Is your point that if you live in a city with large subsidies solar may be a good investment? That’s not the point Zeihan is making

Ummm idk about his numbers. But as far as most people in newyork city than countryside. That's incorrect.

Show me in incentives and I'll show you the outcomes solar guy

Are you including cloudy days? It'd be nice to take a few sample actual systems in these areas and state what they produce. I've had my 10.6 kW system running for 11 months now in Phoenix and have so far generated 15.8 MWh, which includes the inverter being off line for 2 weeks in August (horrible timing for an inverter to break). So my numbers are going to be quite close to what you list for phoenix. I'd like to see other real case numbers. No net metering here, so I think at best I'll break even in 20 yrs, if electricity stays cheap in Az (11 cents/ kWh flat rate)

When you talk about costs or financial feasibilty, you should take out government subsidies. Someone is still paying, it's just not the end user. Like with nuclear power, if you take out the permitting and all the incredible amount of costs the government imposes, nuclear looks much better. The way you calculate costs, if the government subsides all costs, its all free and the system and the power it generates is all with no cost which is a very bad way to look at things.

Peter is also wrong about EVs. He's wrong about various other things, but always sounds confident, so he fools a lot of people. There are multiple videos on RU-vid about things Peter is wrong about. It's a growth industry.

I see that you agree with Peter that having solar panels 5 miles outside the city makes a lot more sense than having them in a city like Chicago. If you average in all these extra factors, it reduces the efficiency from, the ideal and optimal ideal conditions that you use that only work for a few people over all. Plus, real state in the city generally costs a lot more than rural locations, even in the suburbs and houses there generally are more shaded with smaller roof areas for solar panels which are factors you do not take into account in your calculations

I believe Peter is talking about the carbon debt. Yes it makes sense financially but my solar roof in MA will not pay off the carbon emissions it took to build the equipment, I actually increased my carbon footprint.

Know a guy who went bankrupt after one hail storm destroyed his new solar panels.

Your calculations in this advertisement conveniently doesn’t take into account weather conditions.

I posted your video and contact info on Peter Zeihan's comment section and asked him to respond to your challenge. I hope he does as he has a lot more research and researchers available to him than you do on climate science technologies

Horses for Courses, Solar O.K for some, not for others!

He is also very wrong about EVs.

Yeah he has repeatedly disappointed me lately. He really has some great insights on some very specific things… BUT then he pulls his CONFIDENCE MAN where he totally bullshits his way through things… which is a shame because he Repeatedly undermines his credibility and integrity…. Well you know CON Man.

If you like the idea of solar energy, skip the panels that only last 20 years... Look into solar powered Stirling hot air engines. They last forever with little or no maintenance. .. use simple parts, not exotic materials... Biogas can be used to keep them going at night as well. ..better energy absorption and conversion ratios...

PZ is a lot more correct than this guy. Relying on solar for major power production is foolish. The (unacknowledged) ancillary costs are so high that the lifetime of solar panels is much more costly than natural gas.

Wonder who is running the website that is measuring how much solar is needed?! Need an independent study to prove. Sounds like installer is afraid of losing business.

His video was about himself about what he has and what you can't get.

3:05 "If your goal is to generate electricity AND to reduce your carbon footprint . . . " You dealt exclusively with the value of the solar power, but not with the issue of reducing your carbon footprint, as Peter emphasized. Why did you ignore that important factor as most everyone else does but Peter does not, which makes his focus much broader in focus than the information you presented. This is like ignoring the much larger carbon footprint to make EV cars over ICE cars.

He's not.

This guy is wildly overstating the case for solar panels. That is because he is trying to sell them.

Julian solar consulting is clearly just trying to salvage his business model Peter Zion is overestimating the impact a little bit of location however Julian is definitely overestimating how beneficial is location. Rule number one salesmen are always trying to separate you from your money

If you don't like what you see on U tube, just find a channel that supports what you believe. They are right......Get it. If you sell a product, the last person you would agree with is the one in dissagreement. I believe that government grants and giveaways are unconstitutional. I bet someone dissagrees.

He's also wrong about electric cars

Follow the money. This guy is a solar installer, as he said in the video. He makes money installing solar systems. He's going to find statistics that support his business.

Did u try to bring this up with Peter. If so, this is a problem with our society. You should go to him privately and ur grevious & give him a fair chance to either explain to u or to process ur information & change his mind. Instead, it's a way of telling. U don't truly care about him. If u did, u would show him respect & not put a video out monetizing ur disagreement. Now u am sure I am humping the gun. It is just backward to spend the time creating a very nice well produced. Visual pleasing video( I am not mocking u. This is meant to be a great compliment.) Elon said that solar won't be much better because it's not going to improve much, if at all in the next 50 years. I am not agreeing or disagreeing. This is more about how we have lost our way & all common sense. isn't who is right wrong. It's about having conversations, not videos, where we do the liberal trick. Compliment & proclaim love admiration over the past several years. When many would say u did this to try to make money. Trolling someone who is a pretty respectful dude. He doesn't pic 1 side blindly with politics he is honest & transparent & portrays them in an honest way, i think. If u would try to confront him. U might like the person behind the response. Think about the earnings & the lesson to society that a conversation can go a long way if both participate. That's why Congress can't get anything done. The floor used to be a place for debate to make laws better from both sides. Now the author of a bill gets up gives a sales pitch & mic drops & leaves not giving the other side a chance to give there perspective. That is one of our strengths. We all want the same thing. We just have different ideas about how to achieve the ideal society. Thunk about the synergistic affect u 2 could have. We all know Peter is awesome, especially when he admits if he is wrong. Please just think about it. U 2 together & coming to an understanding if not being in agreement. Keep up the great work.

That calculation is dead wrong

It's funny how stupid Zeihan sounds sometimes.

Well Peter Zeihan isn't really an expert in anything. He just says stuff that comes from his idiotic mind.

His arithmetic was linear and this is not a linear problem

I chuckle when I think that a geopolitical strategist doesn't consider that Germany analyzed the bejeezus out of the solar power potential of their northern, cloudy country before they kick-started the whole industry by subsidizing rooftop solar. And it worked, thank you Germany for bringing the world to mass production and low prices.

Zeihan is a smart dude but a bit full of himself at times.

Zeihan is not high quality content unless he is talking Western/Russian geopolitics. Beyond this, it's just fast talking bullshit