10 ms·

Fossil fuels fall below 50% of US electricity for the first month on record

• neallindsay 2y ago
  Despite all the data about climate change, the thing that is actually shifting us away from fossil fuels is that solar panels are cheap.
  • stavros 2y ago
    That's all we've ever cared about, unfortunately.
  • pyfon 2y ago
    Yeah I'd be subsidising panels coming in from China personally.
    • xbmcuser 2y ago
      Lol this to me was the greatest stupidity from Europe. I get Petro states like US or maybe even Canada complaining about China subsiding energy and hurting their oil and gas but what the fuck did Europe protect. They even got fucked over by US into a Russian war and now they are stuck buying US gas.
      • pjc50 2y ago
        The Russian war is entirely the fault of the Russians, along with massive complacency after Russia shot down a planeload of Dutch nationals and used chemical weapons in a UK city.
        • Gibbon1 2y ago
          What's interesting is the US has always been opposed to Europe being dependent on Russian natural gas. And historically the US is an importer of natural gas. so it's not like the US wants to sell it's natural gas to Europe instead.
        • NooneAtAll3 2y ago
          any war is fault of diplomacy it's european version of Cuba crisis - geopolitical enemy in the underbelly of nuclear power
          • LunaSea 2y ago
            It really isn't, Russia was integrated in most diplomatic and economic circles before they started to invade multiple neighbouring countries. This integration is what led to Germany's Russian gas dependency in the end.
            • NooneAtAll3 2y ago
              > Russia was integrated in most diplomatic and economic circles before they started to invade multiple neighbouring countries. ...and how did that help solve the "european version of carribian crisis"? ignoring reasons citing costs only expresses you having different values - but it doesn't solve the problem there were attempts to make safeguards - to allow Ukraine into EU, but not NATO. Those failed War is the result of those failures
              • LunaSea 2y ago
                > ...and how did that help solve the "european version of carribian crisis"? Well it didn't, and that's my point. This was the diplomatic route and it completely failed. There was never going to be a diplomatic solution. > there were attempts to make safeguards - to allow Ukraine into EU, but not NATO. Those failed Yes, in 2013 Ukraine signed a trade deal with the EU and already at that time Russia pressured Ukraine to renounce this deal. Russia showed their hands at that point and clearly displayed to the world that it had nothing to do with NATO but rather about total control of Ukraine. > War is the result of those failures War started 11 years ago, after Euromaidan, at a time where Ukraine wasn't talking about joining NATO yet. NATO became a priority for Ukraine in response to the Russian invasion in 2014.
          • mopsi 2y ago
            > it's european version of Cuba crisis - geopolitical enemy in the underbelly of nuclear power The Cuban Missile Crisis was about nuclear missiles only minutes from Florida. After the crisis, Cuba continued to host Russian fighter jets, bombers, tanks, and tons of other weapons until the USSR finally collapsed in 1991. Ukraine had nothing of this sort, and to this day, doesn't have. It is a lazy comparison thrown around to justify a textbook imperial land grab by Russia.
      • hylaride 2y ago
        > They even got fucked over by US into a Russian war and now they are stuck buying US gas. Europe was stupid as they let "green" political groups (often historically clandestinely backed by Soviet/Russian government) get nuke plants shut down to shift to coal/gas. While Europe was incredibly naive to remain so udderly reliant on Russian gas, especially after the the annexation of Crimea and the shoot-down of MH17, the war is 150% the fault of the Russian government and nobody else (USA, NATO, Ukraine, etc).
        • Workaccount2 2y ago
          The irony that the Chernobyl meltdown was probably the most profitable thing to ever happen to Russia.
        • rjsw 2y ago
          s/Europe/Germany/
          • hylaride 2y ago
            Germany was not the only one, but arguably the worst.
            • Timon3 2y ago
              But it was the conservative government in Germany that shut the nuclear plants down, the Greens were in the opposition at the time. When they were in power, the Greens even pushed back the shutdown. Kinda seems like you're assigning the blame unfairly.
  • gmuslera 2y ago
    Maybe not shifting, but adding. Alternative energy sources are being adopted in increasing ways, but in absolute numbers traditional sources keep increasing too.
    • xbmcuser 2y ago
      The shift is about to come now as LCOE of Solar + Bess is cheaper than coal in China now and getting cheaper https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43749571 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43749571
    • wolfram74 2y ago
      No, it's definitely shifting, based on [0] the carbon emissions per kwh globally are down from 542 g/kwh to 481 g/kwh in the last 10 years, that's over a 10% reduction. Countries that are staying flat are the exception, not the norm. [0]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity?tab=chart https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric...
    • tialaramex 2y ago
      Because we're talking about electricity the total power usage for the US is mostly stable. It's not declining like the UK (efficiencies mean total electricity production is down about 25% this century despite population growth) but it's growing only a tiny fraction, like maybe 2% in a decade - much less than the amount of new solar and wind. So it's definitely shifting, the biggest shift is away from coal. Coal is awful, it's too expensive and it's incredibly polluting, some of that shift is towards gas, which is also a fossil fuel but has the advantage that it burns cleaner and is often cheaper - but as we see in this data lots of the shift is to "green" sources.
    • bryanlarsen 2y ago
      That may no longer be true. For example, China's coal usage is down 5% YoY despite increased electricity usage. https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/20/chinas-coal-generation-dropped-5-yoy-in-q1-as-electricity-demand-increased/ https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/20/chinas-coal-generation-...
  • testing22321 2y ago
    And getting cheaper everyday. A year ago I paid $8k for 7.8kw on my roof. My Dad just paid $5k for 10kw. Neither of us will ever pay for power again. Edit: Western, southern Canada for those asking.
    • isoprophlex 2y ago
      ... during daytime, in summer. Or did you install a load of batteries, too?
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • testing22321 2y ago
        We use the grid like a battery, getting a one for one credit for everything we put in. So during summer/daytime we put in enough to then use up our credit in winter/nighttime. The power we put in even covers the monthly connection fee. I’m just about to hit 12 months with mine, 8 Mwh generated, never paid a bill. In our area the cost of electricity is already Confirmed to increase 5% a year forever, so this will only get better for us.
        • belorn 2y ago
          Subsidies like one for one credit are generally going away since those are prohibitively expensive and not sustainable when the ratio of renewables start to climb. It can be useful to jump start adoption, but having the government pay the true cost of the grid only moves the energy bill to the tax bill.
          • testing22321 2y ago
            When that happens, I’ll get batteries.
            • tasuki 2y ago
  • baxtr 2y ago
    China saving the Planet? How dare you…
  • amima 2y ago
    To my understanding, scaling production to bring prices down due to economy of scale is the part of the initial plan, which was based on the data about climate change. So these things are connected.
    • moffkalast 2y ago
      Not to mention how much's been invested in government subsidies to develop that scale. Cheap solar is not a spontaneous occurrence by any means.
  • toddmorey 2y ago
    That's the only environmental hope I've been able to hang onto. It's now cheaper in most places[1] for net new energy installations to NOT use fossil fuels. I knew environmentally conscious approaches could never survive being the morally correct yet more expensive option. [1] IRENA 2023 report shows that solar photovoltaic (PV) generation was 56% less expensive than the weighted average fossil fuel-fired alternatives, despite being 414% more expensive back in 2010. Bloomberg New Energy Finance found in March 2021 that "renewables are the cheapest power option for 71% of global GDP and 85% of global power generation."
    • Paradigma11 2y ago
      But how much more expensive would it make the power for the last 15% of global power generation? What is the total cost for both scenarios?
      • ls612 2y ago
        There’s probably nothing wrong with using fossil for the last 15% of generation for at least our lifetimes. As well as for things like airliners and rockets where energy density is king.
        • SirHumphrey 2y ago
          It makes sense to start decarbonising where it’s easiest (cheapest) to do so.
      • bryanlarsen 2y ago
        Use it for the 85% first, and then when that's done, battery prices will have declined enough that the number will be a lot closer to 100%.
        • SOLAR_FIELDS 2y ago
          And honestly 85% would be pretty damn good all by itself. That would significantly stem the bleeding and give time to address the long tail
  • 1970-01-01 2y ago
    Tariffs are changing this, however. Buy them ASAP if you're building.
  • thinkingtoilet 2y ago
    I'm confused by your statement. What else would it be if not cheaper renewable options?
    • jeffbee 2y ago
      You could instead make the fossil fuels cost more.
      • delusional 2y ago
        Why would you do one or the other? We've done both so far. Let's keep doing both.
  • TuringNYC 2y ago
    >> solar panels are cheap I want solar panels, but i'm also a skeptic on the cost, and not enough time has passed to prove how things will go. While I agree the metered cost may now favor solar -- what is the TCO for the average resident? Some things on my mind: 1. Everything seems inexpensive at first, before you have to pay for servicing. Just like with cars, HVAC systems, plumbing systems, or any complex system where you are at the mercy of repair companies that are highly local. With plumbers in our area, you cannot even effectively get multiple quotes because there is a "visit fee" of $125, which gets credited to repairs if you choose the provider. 2. Roofs in general are expensive to maintain and repair. Here on the costs, i've never seen even a minor repair be under 1k. Major roof replacements cost 5 to 15k for average homes. This might be a greater-metro-NY issue though. Part of it is the liability insurance of workers being on the roof, so I'm not saying the cost is unjustified -- just that it is really expensive. 3. What happens when these solar panels need to be serviced? Many of these solar shops are fly by night, looking to cash in on govt incentives. Will they be around to service malfunctioning or panels? What will repair costs be? Who guarantees the warranty? As an example, here in NJ even minor tweaks on a leaking showerhead will cost $500 to $1000. I can only imagine what a broken solar panel will cost. 4. I realize this is a very selfish opinion -- but just from a systems boundary perspective, traditional energy complexity is all upstream and I consume the end-product. Solar energy complexity is all local and I take the risk.
    • jeffbee 2y ago
      Nobody even mentioned rooftop solar.
    • kadushka 2y ago
      Major roof replacements cost 5 to 15k for average homes I just got some quotes to replace a tile roof on my very average 2400 sqft house in FL: 50-60k. Asked neighbors - seems reasonable to them.
      • apercu 2y ago
        I assume Florida is an outlier due to storms, in most of the country you'd probably pay half that unless your roof is complicated.
  • moomin 2y ago
    Yes, but solar panels are cheap as a consequence of investment, partly supported by many solar promotion policies around the world, that were inspired by climate change concerns. This is actually a victory lap for political activism, we just need a lot more of it.
  • ashoeafoot 2y ago
    What could real push a shift would be thermal longtime storage. Basically heatpump heating with a artificial heat stored underground in the summer.
    • mulmen 2y ago
      What geological impacts does heating the ground cause?
    • jandrese 2y ago
      If you could figure out a way to do this economically you could have a real winner. Ground source heat pumps already exist, but they're so expensive to install that they basically never make their cost back vs. air source heat pumps.
  • bufferoverflow 2y ago
    And it doesn't make almost any difference, because other countries are building hume amounts of coal plants. China started 95GW of coal plant construction just last year.
    • bryanlarsen 2y ago
      China's coal usage is down 5% in the last 12 months: https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/20/chinas-coal-generation-dropped-5-yoy-in-q1-as-electricity-demand-increased/ https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/20/chinas-coal-generation-... They're adding coal capacity quickly, but they're lowering the capacity factor of that usage even faster. Those coal plants are peakers that only run when solar & batteries are empty.
      • jahnu 2y ago
        I think it was on Volts podcast where I heard that many of them are built as political insurance for regional governments who don’t want an angry population if they have an unusually cold winter and a lot of them are going to end up as stranded assets which the population gets way less mad about.
        • bryanlarsen 2y ago
          Ironically building coal plants probably helps wean China off coal. They use a lot of coal for heating. But nobody is going to want to switch to a heat pump unless they have reliable electricity.
        • dalyons 2y ago
          to add, given the governing structure in china, the coal plants don't have to make economic sense. one-party politics would thus prefer to overbuild as a hedge against the population getting mad at them.
      • Aloisius 2y ago
        Not in the last 12 months. This quarter compared to a year ago. It was up 1.5% for 2024 compared to 2023: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-thermal-power-generation-inches-up-15-2024-2025-01-17/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-thermal-power...
  • Tireings 2y ago
    Yes but climate change made them so cheap. Lucky enough for us and everyone else economy of scale kicked in. I'm taking it
    • r00fus 2y ago
      s/climate change/China/ The US bungled its lead in photovoltaics and politics prevented us from catching up - so like most other things, China leads the way, and we benefit.
      • jaco6 2y ago
        [dead]
      • gamblor956 2y ago
        China literally just subsidized soar panel manufacturing to the time of several billions of dollars with the express goal of killing manufacturing everywhere else and then raising prices once the competition was gone.
        • cogman10 2y ago
          There's really no reason the US or other major economies couldn't have followed suit. The chinese plan only works because the other major economies are more than willing to give them that manufacturing capacity since it means a local (although somewhat temporary) boon. The whole plan could have been snookered by the US similarly subsidizing their solar production 10 or 20 years into the chinese plan. Which would have put most of the cost onto China while we reaped the benefits of cheap power production.
          • jandrese 2y ago
            The Obama administration tried, but it was too little too late and they were raked over the coals by Republicans for "choosing winners". But fundamentally solar cell production was (is?) pretty dirty and US environmental regulations were always going to be a stumbling block. One used to be able to spot Chinese solar factories on satellite maps by looking upstream from deadzones, but apparently that has been enough of an embarrassment that even the CCP has started cracking down.
  • gotoeleven 2y ago
    I keep hearing that solar panels are cheap but then I get my PG&E bill every month.
  • porphyra 2y ago
    I personally think that it is amazing that we are likely going to shift away from fossil fuels out of pure capitalistic greed. Trying to convince people to give up fossil fuels out of some altruistic desire to save the planet was never gonna work.
    • jandrese 2y ago
      If you want to change the world you need to align the incentives.
    • ZeroGravitas 2y ago
      It has been the smart economic decision for a decade or more already. Capitalistic greed caused some to spread FUD around that issue, deny there was a problem and attack several useful tools for dealing with it. The fact that capitalistic greed has caught up with reality a decade later after most of the hard work was done and is now fighting on both sides of the issue is somewhat tragic. Doubly so if you consider what it means about every other global problem we face that might affect a powerful incumbent's short term profits.
    • pests 2y ago
      Capitalism can solve anything it just needs to be directly threatened. Far off future maybes aren’t enough.
  • hinkley 2y ago
    We have at least subsidized solar enough to build up enough manufacturing to contribute to that price.
  • tw04 2y ago
    >Despite all the data about climate change, the thing that is actually shifting us away from fossil fuels is that solar panels are cheap. It also requires the political will. Texas is showing us that the market is in fact not rational, and will absolutely do something that's universally contrary to everyone's best interests for the sake of grandstanding. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-markets/texas-bill-gas-over-renewables https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-markets/texas-bi...
    • 9283409232 2y ago
      That is not showing us the market is not rational, it is showing us that Texas politics is corrupt. Texas is interfering in the market and picking the winners despite renewables being the favorable market option. Republicans are only in favor of no regulations and letting the market decide when it favors them.
      • moate 2y ago
        >>That is not showing us the market is not rational, it is showing us that Texas politics is corrupt. Dear capitalists, this is not a bar: The first thing proves the second. The market is a real thing that exists in the universe we live in, not just in academic research. The markets are never "rational", because they're just people. They may be "predictable" or even "stable" but humans are not rational. The fact that the market can be manipulated, means that it is manipulated.
      • alephnerd 2y ago
        Texas subsidized wind energy for 30 years now - it was actually George W Bush and Rick Perry's legacy making project when they were Governors of Texas [0][1][2] and made up 20-30% of total energy produced. Issue is, a significant proportion of Texas's budget comes out of NatGas and Oil revenue, so there's a perverse incentive when renewables end up pricing well below NatGas and Oil, and labor unions aligned to ONG like the UAW, ILU, and affiliates of the AFL-CIO like the United Steelworkers are VERY politically powerful. This will be a major hurdle in energy exporting countries like the US, Norway, Canada, Netherlands, the Gulf, etc and it can't be handwaved away. And no - rETraInInG doesn't work when much of the renewable industry is heavily automated, a major reason the ILU, UAW, and parts of the AFL-CIO ended up supporting the Trump admin's tariffs regime: either you drop the unions and cause tens of thousands to lose high paying jobs and radicalize a vast swath of Americans OR you do nothing and let the earth cook. [0] - https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/08/29/70295/george-w-bush-helped-make-texas-a-clean-energy-powerhouse/amp/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/08/29/70295/george-w-b... [1] - https://www.texastribune.org/2013/09/16/book-excerpt-go-get-smart-wind/ https://www.texastribune.org/2013/09/16/book-excerpt-go-get-... [2] - https://www.masterresource.org/texas/george-w-bush-wind-energy/ https://www.masterresource.org/texas/george-w-bush-wind-ener...
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • worewood 2y ago
    That's why environmental "awareness" doesn't mean dog poo; environment-friendly will only be prioritized when it's cheaper to do so. That's why government subsidies and taxing are REQUIRED for the switch to more environmentally friendly alternatives--this applies to everything, from fossil fuels to packaging.
  • newuser94303 2y ago
    Solar panels WERE cheap until 145% tariffs were applied
  • DontchaKnowit 2y ago
    Yeaaaahhh but the data on climate change informed government policy that subsidized renewable energy.
  • paxys 2y ago
    Solar panels are cheap because of government subsidies. Goverments subsidize solar because of climate change.
    • gnabgib 2y ago
      Confidently wrong. Solar panels are cheap because of manufacturing improvements, and in some (small) jurisdictions they're further subsided. They are not cheap because of subsidy.
      • paxys 2y ago
        And you think the manufacturing just spontaneously improved? Governments worldwide have invested heavily into solar production in the last 20-30 years. Cheap panels today are a direct result of that.
        • gnabgib 2y ago
          Do you think manufacturing improvements were government subsidised? Does China (the solar powerhouse @78% of the world's supply) get a direct kickback from your government? Perhaps it's market based. https://www.sunsave.energy/solar-panels-advice/solar-energy/where-are-solar-panels-made https://www.sunsave.energy/solar-panels-advice/solar-energy/... https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketeconomy.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketeconomy.asp
          • paxys 2y ago
            The Chinese government invested $818 billion in solar energy in 2024 alone, but sure, keep telling me about your magical free market.
            • gnabgib 2y ago
              Could you provide a reference? The only $818B I can find.. is a purchase of $818B of renewables, not just solar and not a subsidy/tax break. Perhaps you have a better source. Their 887GW of solar capacity alone costs $887B at current market rates. https://deepnewz.com/china/china-leads-global-clean-energy-investment-818b-2024-contributing-10-to-gdp-us-d75a962c https://deepnewz.com/china/china-leads-global-clean-energy-i... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-solar-wind-power-installed-capacity-soars-2024-2025-01-21/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-solar-wind-po...
  • NoPicklez 2y ago
    But that's what it was going to take, economic incentives to achieve a long term goal. It's also climate change that is pushing for an alternate method to make cheaper.
  • thiht 2y ago
    Oh don’t worry it won’t last, since Trump wants to impose 3000% tariffs on Asian solar panels. He’s doing his best to destroy the world at every level. https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-war/US-sets-tariffs-as-high-as-3-403-on-solar-cells-from-Southeast-Asia https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-war/US-sets-tariffs-as...
  • a1371 2y ago
    Is it safe to say that would not have happened without China? With all of the strong energy incumbents that the US has and their lack of desire for disruptive innovation I wonder how much the US can take credit for this reduction.
  • ashoeafoot 2y ago
    even after tarifs?
  • dornan 2y ago
    [dead]
• acidburnNSA 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • pjc50 2y ago
    Had to check, and was surprised to see that new reactors have actually come online in the last couple of years. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=228&t=21 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=228&t=21 Hydro still growing too despite the occasional dam removal project: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61883 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61883 But the reason wind and solar are winning is that they're so, so much easier to deploy. More countries should legalize balcony solar, too.
    • infecto 2y ago
      Is hydro growing or is it simply the change in rainfall year to year causing the fluctuations. Hydro is not that great for the surrounding environment.
      • devoutsalsa 2y ago
        One of the limitations of hydro is that most of the good spots are already in use. And that doesn’t account for environmental impact or age of damns.
        • bryanlarsen 2y ago
          Most of the good spots for hydro for generation are already in use, but there are 100X as many good spots that could be used for storage.
    • xeromal 2y ago
      I believe Georgia, my home state, has installed 2 new reactors in the past few years.
      • jeffbee 2y ago
• jmyeet 2y ago
  Energy is a frustrating topic because people have some very entrenched but uninformed opinions about it, like hte "energy independence" argument. We're clearly energy independent but people will look to see that we still import oil and natural gas and say we're not. That's a business. Refining is a business. Making LNG is a business. Canada has no real way of exporting oil and natural gas so we buy it, process it and either use it or export it. Another: peak total and per-capita greenhouse gas emissions in the US peaked in about 2007 and has decreased ~10% since then [1]. We still produce the most per-capita so there's a long way to go. China leads the world on renewable energy builds by a mile. It's not even close. Yet their usage of coal is still increasing as is their greenhouse gas emissions (total and per-capita) due to a still industrializing population. Electricity costs continue to increase [2]. Some blame this on renewables. It's not. This is a longstanding trend. It goes beyond inflation though. Utilities are generally regional monopolies. For some reason we've decided that privatizing these is somehow a good idea (it's not). The need for ever-increasing profits just means things will continue to get more expensive. [1]: https://www.wri.org/insights/charts-explain-per-capita-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.wri.org/insights/charts-explain-per-capita-green... [2]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU000072610 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU000072610
  • EduardoBautista 2y ago
    > Canada has no real way of exporting oil and natural gas so we buy it, process it and either use it or export it. Just to be clear, you mean "we" as in the USA? So the USA basically manages the exports of Canadian fossil fuels?
    • jmyeet 2y ago
      Yes, I mean the USA. Here's a presentation on the Canadian oil and gas industry [1]. You can see that a very small portion is exported directly. Almost all of it is via pipelines to the USA. This is a huge strategic benefit to the US, which is yet another reason why alienating Canada through tariffs and other policies is such a laughably ignorant and terrible idea. It's also why anyone pointing to non-zero US imports of oil and gas as damning proof of the US not being energy independent is incredibly ill-informed. [1]: https://www.capp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Canadian-Exports-of-Crude-Oil-and-Natural-Gas.pdf https://www.capp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Canadian-Expo...
• thegreatpeter 2y ago
  Is it bc solar is subsidized or is it bc it's cheaper? Every time I walk into Lowes I'm sold on solar but they say it's bc the government is heavily subsidizing it
  • Bluecobra 2y ago
    If you look up your address here it will give you the cost breakdown. (https://sunroof.withgoogle.com/ https://sunroof.withgoogle.com/) I just checked my house again and it’s $30K for 10kW, but there is a $10K tax credit, so the subsidy is a 1/3 of the cost.
  • mulmen 2y ago
    It’s both. The subsidies help the solar power market develop. Supply lines of panels, installation, etc. as these grow and mature prices come down. We subsidize fossil fuel production as well with similar results.
  • vikramkr 2y ago
    It's cheaper and they're all subsidized. Solar is subsidized, oil and gas is subsidized, nuclear is subsidized. Fracking recieved significant subsidies to develop the market initially. Right now, solar/wind is cheaper than fossil fuels by a lot, which is why it's the largest percentage of newly added energy capacity worldwide. Cheaper, faster, and after installation, the power plant doesn't need to keep getting fed with a consumable (incredibly low variable costs are causing issues where markets are getting messed up and going into 0/negative prices since power plants are competing to dump energy it doesn't cost them anything to generate)
  • jandrese 2y ago
    It is still subsidized, to the tune of 30%. However, that subsidy is mostly because rooftop installs have very high labor costs in the US. Solar farms pay far less per watt. The actual hardware, especially the panels, have dropped so much in price that if you're capable and willing to do the work yourself you can have a solar install paid off in 2-5 years, depending on how much sun you get and how expensive your local power is. I've seen homebrew setups down south that were paid off in just over a year, but those were guys who live way out in the desert and were getting ripped off by their power company. One thing you don't see anymore is fancy sun-tracking mounts. Back when panels were expensive they sometimes made sense, but these days it's pretty much always better to just install more panels instead. You can even point them differently, with half facing SE for morning sun and the other half facing SW for evening sun, flattening your production curve and allowing you to use a cheaper and smaller inverter.
• tiffanyh 2y ago
  One important point that’s not obvious from this article: U.S. pollution from fossil fuels isn’t actually decreasing. From what I understand (and please correct me if I’m wrong), overall energy demand in the U.S. continues to grow year over year. Most of the additional energy needed is now being supplied by renewables. So while we’re adding less new pollution—because the new energy is cleaner—we’re still producing the same amount of fossil fuel pollution as before. The baseline pollution hasn’t gone down; we’ve just slowed the rate at which it increases.
  • wat10000 2y ago
    Is that a fact or a supposition based on fossil fuel generation continuing to grow? Pollution produced by fossil fuels isn’t necessarily equal. Modern power plants are significantly less polluting, and gas is much better than coal. If coal continued its decline and newer plants replaced some old ones, you could easily have less total pollution from increased fossil fuels generation.
  • ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    In the US greenhouse gasses are down across a variety of absolute metrics: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states#what-are-the-country-s-annual-co2-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/united-states#what-ar... In the electricity grid specifically they peaked around 2006 and are 15% below 1990 due to switching from coal to gas and introducing renewables What you say is broadly true globally but western nations are mostly on the downslope and the globe as a whole is slowing and hopefully going negative soon.
    • tiffanyh 2y ago
      That's one of the most interesting links I've seen in a long time (regardless of subject). Thanks for sharing because it puts things in perspective much easier due to the data it sourced.
      • jmknoll 2y ago
        If you’re convinced by the materials shared, you may want to consider editing your original content. It’s currently the most-upvoted comment, and is materially incorrect.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• apercu 2y ago
  I'd like to get solar, but I'm starting with a battery pack and a smaller solar install to cover those things that I would normal use a diesel generator for. It's amazing that the "cleaner" energy deniers won't be able to hold back cheaper energy.
• bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Related: 40% of world's electricity is zero emissions: https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/19/zero-emissions-electricity-surpasses-40-of-world-electricity/ https://cleantechnica.com/2025/04/19/zero-emissions-electric...
• neonate 2y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20250421133427/https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/fossil-fuels-fall-below-50-of-us-electricity-for-the-first-month-on-record/ https://web.archive.org/web/20250421133427/https://ember-ene... https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/fossil-fuels-generate-less-than-half-us-electricity-first-month-ever-says-energy-2025-04-04/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/fossil-fuels-generat...
• maxnevermind 2y ago
  Am I reading that chart incorrectly, why summer months has a drop of green energy generation?
• gwbas1c 2y ago
  I wonder what next month will be. April / May tends to be the months that I generate more electricity with my solar panels than I consume. Winter: Not a lot of sunlight, and I heat with a heat pump. Summer: A lot of sunlight, but my AC eats a lot of the power.
• kylehotchkiss 2y ago
  Oh man, didn't the president just re-activate coal mining? What are they going to do with all that coal? Asia might of wanted it before the trade war, but not anymore? Oh. I guess we can feed it into the AI data center generators.
  • r00fus 2y ago
    Trump can say what he wants, but the market has moved on from coal.
    • chrisco255 2y ago
      Except in India and China: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/china-and-india-are-building-coal-generating-capacity-for-energy-security/ https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/chin...
      • porphyra 2y ago
        At least the percentage of renewable energy generation in China is steadily increasing. It has gone from 17% back in 2008 to 32% in 2024. And solar and wind are growing at a rapid pace. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
      • bamboozled 2y ago
        Both countries are smart enough to know that being reliant on foreign oil and coal for everything is stupid, they are moving away to solar and wind, not just for security reasons but also because they produce most of the panels already so they supply their own demand then use the extra capacity to profit via exports. It's done.
  • bamboozled 2y ago
    If you go look at the price of some of the mid-high end Chinese panels, you could pay 200% in tariff costs and still be getting a bargain. Check out LONGi for example. I'll be ordering a bunch of these for a renovation I'm doing this year and I'll be installing quite lot of capacity, it's a no brainier to go solar, especially considering the price of energy now days. Maybe people doing this will be labeled radical, extremists or activists for installing panels on their roof soon but I don't care, it's my roof.
• chickenbig 2y ago
  Last month 18.2% of the US's electricity was generated by nuclear (61.8TWh), according to the media pack "All electricity sources data.csv". Renewables (110.6 TWh) = Wind (51.6 TWh) + Solar (31.1 TWh) + Hydro (27.9 TWh) Clean = Nuclear (61.8 TWh) + Renewables (110.6 TWh)
• ein0p 2y ago
  Amazing what can happen once you shift most of your industrial pollution to China and pretend it's not yours.
• tranchms 2y ago
  And Energy prices are at an all time high— go figure! https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SEHF01 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUSR0000SEHF01
  • DoctorOW 2y ago
    Correlation is not causation. Energy companies have increased their prices largely to increase profits.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • mmooss 2y ago
      How is it correlation?
      • DoctorOW 2y ago
        Increase in renewable power correlates with increase in prices.
        • mmooss 2y ago
          I see both happened around the same time. Correlation requires showing that both increase together and both decrease together (and that it's not chance).
  • vikramkr 2y ago
    not sure if you meant to link a different chart - that chart is the electricity component of CPI-U (an inflation measure) meaning it's by definition not inflation adjusted - you'd probably want to find a chart of nominal values for electricity spending and adjust for inflation to see whether or not it's at an all time high. Which, recently it's run ahead of inflation because of the overall surge in demand and investment in upgrading aging infrastructure/adding new capacity, but long term it's pretty flat/down
  • 2y ago
• foobarbecue 2y ago
  What does "clean" mean here? Wind and solar are 24.4% and "fossil" is 49.2% so what's the remainder? Are they counting natural gas as "clean"? It's not...
  • vel0city 2y ago
    They're not counting natural gas, and I imagine they also don't include "clean coal". The remaining 26.4 is probably a mix of nuclear and hydro. Which lines up with historical US generation percentages.
    • jandrese 2y ago
      Nobody includes "clean coal" because it is a myth the fossil fuel industry made up to try to keep their business alive and to give politicians cover. There are around three tiny "clean coal" plants in the world, all together producing only a tiny fraction of a percent of the energy on the grid.
      • vel0city 2y ago
        Fully agreed on all points!
  • hinkley 2y ago
    Hydro is a big slice out west and they’ve likely included nuclear.
  • zahlman 2y ago
    Natural gas is considered a fossil fuel, per Wikipedia. Unless you mean biofuels like methane, at least - but as far as I know, those are scarcely used anywhere on a large scale, certainly not the US. "Clean" sources are generally anything that isn't burning hydrocarbons. This includes nuclear, hydro and geothermal. Edit: See also a previous comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43755528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43755528
• nojvek 2y ago
  Drill baby drill. 401k retirement savings being drilled right now. There's less oil drilling than Biden's time. Weirdly a good thing for the planet, just like Covid allowed many ecosystems to recover. I am no degrowth fan. However I do believe we ought to use our brains to build technology that allows us to live sustainably with the planet while harnessing more energy and automation.
• jgalt212 2y ago
  How much lower would we be without all the GPUs?
• lambdaone 2y ago
  One thing which has not been mentioned in this discussion is that the wholesale market price of power at any given time is substantially driven by the marginal cost of generation. When renewables (including storage) can't take up the entire load of the system, that marginal generation is nowadays going to be gas power, and right now the global price of gas is unprecedentedly high. To simplify things somewhat; the larger the fraction of the time gas generation can be turned off, the lower the annualised price of electricity will be. At the moment, we are already seeing renewables taking up 100% of the load for short periods. As more renewable capacity gets built, those periods will get longer and longer, this effect will get ever larger. In some countries this effect is expected to become significant within the next five years, even at current rates of progress, and will only get better as time goes on. Lower annualised electrical prices will be good for the economy and the individual, and encouraging this should be a priority for any rational government which thinks more than a few years ahead.
  • testing22321 2y ago
    >Lower annualised electrical prices will be good for the economy and the individual, and encouraging this should be a priority for any rational government which thinks more than a few years ahead. But it will be bad for profits for the private companies who generate power with gas who have been lobbying the government to the tune of billions of dollars to protect those very profits. Saving money for the consumer is the polar opposite of what these companies , and therefore the government wants.
    • lambdaone 2y ago
      This is one of the things I was talking about when I said "simplifying". That's exactly their motivation, yes. Resisting it requires political will, or we will continue to let the increasingly irrelevant tail wag the dog. There is definitely a case for subsidising the existence of mostly-idle gas plants to make the costs of keeping them around profitable for the medium term (you can think of them roughly as playing the role of a battery), but indefinitely subsidising the equivalent of buggy-whip manufacturers is not a long-term solution for the economy.
  • deleted 2y ago
• sharemywin 2y ago
  wonder how this plays into the mix? US sets tariffs of up to 3,521% on South East Asia solar panels https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ygdv47vlzo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ygdv47vlzo
• mugiseyebrows 2y ago
  Was wood and coal burnt for heating homes in rural areas accounted in this data or we talking electricity only?
• llamajams 2y ago
  Where are these figures sourced from? This data does not seem to be consistent with EIA reports which bucket the contribution of renewable (including hydro and biomass) closer to 20% for 2023.