4 ms·

A year of clean energy milestones

49 points by speckx 10mo ago

pfdietz 10mo ago
The figure should be dollars per megawatt-hour, not per megawatt.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- halfdeadcat 10mo ago
  That is incorrect. The article is referring to the cost of the infrastructure, not the cost of the electricity that infrastructure produces. Power plants are spec'ed by megawatt (peak).
  - pfdietz 10mo ago
    In no way is the capex of any of those options that low, not by orders of magnitude.
- gregbot 10mo ago
  Dollars per kilowatt would also make more sense but yes the number are off by about a factor of 1,000. If a 1 GW nuclear power plant cost only $200 per megawatt the entire plant would cost $200,000 which is… completely wrong
  - pfdietz 10mo ago
    Utility scale solar is around $1/W, so even $/kW wouldn't work.
- credit_guy 10mo ago
  You are right. I checked the source, it is the graph on slide 14 of the Lazard presentation [1]. The graph is the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) in dollars per MWh. [1] https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2025-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...
miduil 10mo ago
Reading through this makes me realize that I wonder what will come after "energy wars"? Like if around ~2040-2050 almost 100% of electricity demand is hopefully renewable, that means a completely new area of power. Till then, fossil energy has been the strongest dominator on which establishment is holding power - once that's becoming the past - what will happen on the world table? Of course, mining etc. is part of the answer; but I feel like there is much more flexibility around working around refined material availability, than it is with access to energy to start with. Also, contrary to Energy, almost anything that's mined will stay in recyclable economy - so the dominance/control one country can exercise is limited.
- phtrivier 10mo ago
  Unfortunately, some of the convertors for électrification depend on minerals which, if not "rare", are unevenly distributed. That leave plenty of room for "battery wars", "motor wars", Even "solar panel" wars if we need to. I do not believe Putin and Trump are eying Dumbass and Groenland only because of the scenery - and the general historical lesson of the 2020s is that brute force _is_ worth it. China only is self sufficient, as far as I understand it. Europe could use minerals from its soil, if we accepted mining. But we don't want that either, any more. (And given what is about to happen to Groenland, it may be a blessing in disguise not to be too resource-rich. Again: pray the Emperor may ignore you.)
  - Yizahi 10mo ago
    Funnily enough, one of the big reasons for Ukraine invasion was to block our gas extraction, it happened right after Shell did a discovery research on the Donbass, and for many years the occupation had been contained precisely to the two regions where Ukraine had some deposits - Donbass and Black Sea. It's only later mental decline caused him to expand the attack. And vice versa, while there are some rare earths in the Donbass, they are not very convenient to extract. Trump's mining deal was more like throwing a useless toy to a kid throwing a tantrum. It's notable that no one even remembers that "deal" lately.
- throwaway_df878 10mo ago
kibwen 10mo ago
Energy is the next Space Race, and Trump has already conceded. The US will run out of oil-rich countries to invade before China runs out of sunlight.
- yanhangyhy 10mo ago
  The United States should use Starlink or other means to completely monopolize sunlight.
bwestergard 10mo ago
This post says: "For the first time, wind and solar supplied more power than coal worldwide, while plug-in vehicles accounted for more than a quarter of new car sales." This does not mean that wind and solar are replacing coal, oil, or wood, all of which were produced and used in greater volumes in 2025, so far as I can tell. https://www.coalage.com/departments/closing-notes/global-coal-demand-hits-record-high-in-2025/ https://www.coalage.com/departments/closing-notes/global-coa... All past price declines in energy commodities have lead to increased consumption of other energy (and raw materials) commodities. The production of whale oil declined, but only due to environmental regulation. For more, see: https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/464145/more-and-more-and-more-by-fressoz-jean-baptiste/9781802067316 https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/464145/more-and-more-and-mor...
- pfdietz 10mo ago
  It means the replacement process is moving well along, though. Coal is persisting mostly because of the installed base, but new capacity is overwhelmingly renewables.
  - bwestergard 10mo ago
    The rate of growth of coal has declined, but growth continues. https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-tracker/dashboard/ https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-t...
- burkaman 10mo ago
  You're right about coal and oil, but wood seems like it's been declining since 2000: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix. On coal, from the report they're citing: > For 2025, global coal demand is projected to reach 8 845 Mt, setting a new record. The increase of around 40 Mt compared with 2024 is very similar to the forecast we made last year. While there were some unusual regional trends, they had the effect of cancelling each other out. The United States posted the largest absolute gain of about 37 Mt, supported by policy measures and higher gas prices. So nearly the entire 2025 increase came from the US, where the federal government is ordering retiring coal plants to stay open and aggressively blocking all non fossil fuel development. Without this artificial and very temporary boost, I'm not convinced coal demand would have risen last year. > The production of whale oil declined, but only due to environmental regulation. I don't think this is an exception, it's an example of what needs to happen. Fossil fuels are bad for the environment and need to be regulated, just like whale oil.
kachapopopow 10mo ago
I genuinely don't understand why there's no movement to just shove solar panels onto every apartment building subsidizing the initial cost in form of a loan that gets repaid as paying for power bills - the cost wouldn't change or even be lower than current power bills in a lot of european countries. It really makes no sense to not use solar except in very few exceptions where it's genuinely never sunny and doesn't have that many sunny days, but hey estonia is making it work. obviously there is some added maintenance like cleaning the panels, but that also applies for general services that residents of buildings already share.
- raybb 10mo ago
  In Germany they allow people to install solar panels on their balconies. https://cleantechnica.com/2024/12/21/germany-embraces-balkonkraftwerke-balcony-solar-for-apartments/ https://cleantechnica.com/2024/12/21/germany-embraces-balkon... Though last I looked this probably isn't feasible in the US due to differences in our electrical systems or something like that?
  - kachapopopow 10mo ago
    in some states they're now allowing to just plug in panels without any permits up to 1.5kw so actually, no. In US specifically it's just lobbying or hurricane safety since panels flying off and creating even more debris is obviously not great.
    - raybb 10mo ago
      Which states are allowing it? Also this hn comment seems to confirm it's not a tech problem just a policy one! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43007271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43007271
    - pfdietz 10mo ago
      Specifically, Utah. I don't know if it's allowed yet in another state. In my state a law to allow such is working through the legislature right now. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8512/amendment/original https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8512/amendm...

49 points by speckx 10mo ago

pfdietz 10mo ago

The figure should be dollars per megawatt-hour, not per megawatt.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
halfdeadcat 10mo ago
That is incorrect. The article is referring to the cost of the infrastructure, not the cost of the electricity that infrastructure produces. Power plants are spec'ed by megawatt (peak).
- pfdietz 10mo ago
  In no way is the capex of any of those options that low, not by orders of magnitude.
gregbot 10mo ago
Dollars per kilowatt would also make more sense but yes the number are off by about a factor of 1,000. If a 1 GW nuclear power plant cost only $200 per megawatt the entire plant would cost $200,000 which is… completely wrong
- pfdietz 10mo ago
  Utility scale solar is around $1/W, so even $/kW wouldn't work.
credit_guy 10mo ago
You are right. I checked the source, it is the graph on slide 14 of the Lazard presentation [1]. The graph is the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) in dollars per MWh. [1] https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2025-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/5tlbhyla/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...

miduil 10mo ago

Reading through this makes me realize that I wonder what will come after "energy wars"? Like if around ~2040-2050 almost 100% of electricity demand is hopefully renewable, that means a completely new area of power. Till then, fossil energy has been the strongest dominator on which establishment is holding power - once that's becoming the past - what will happen on the world table? Of course, mining etc. is part of the answer; but I feel like there is much more flexibility around working around refined material availability, than it is with access to energy to start with. Also, contrary to Energy, almost anything that's mined will stay in recyclable economy - so the dominance/control one country can exercise is limited.

phtrivier 10mo ago
Unfortunately, some of the convertors for électrification depend on minerals which, if not "rare", are unevenly distributed. That leave plenty of room for "battery wars", "motor wars", Even "solar panel" wars if we need to. I do not believe Putin and Trump are eying Dumbass and Groenland only because of the scenery - and the general historical lesson of the 2020s is that brute force _is_ worth it. China only is self sufficient, as far as I understand it. Europe could use minerals from its soil, if we accepted mining. But we don't want that either, any more. (And given what is about to happen to Groenland, it may be a blessing in disguise not to be too resource-rich. Again: pray the Emperor may ignore you.)
- Yizahi 10mo ago
  Funnily enough, one of the big reasons for Ukraine invasion was to block our gas extraction, it happened right after Shell did a discovery research on the Donbass, and for many years the occupation had been contained precisely to the two regions where Ukraine had some deposits - Donbass and Black Sea. It's only later mental decline caused him to expand the attack. And vice versa, while there are some rare earths in the Donbass, they are not very convenient to extract. Trump's mining deal was more like throwing a useless toy to a kid throwing a tantrum. It's notable that no one even remembers that "deal" lately.
throwaway_df878 10mo ago

kibwen 10mo ago

Energy is the next Space Race, and Trump has already conceded. The US will run out of oil-rich countries to invade before China runs out of sunlight.

yanhangyhy 10mo ago
The United States should use Starlink or other means to completely monopolize sunlight.

bwestergard 10mo ago

This post says: "For the first time, wind and solar supplied more power than coal worldwide, while plug-in vehicles accounted for more than a quarter of new car sales." This does not mean that wind and solar are replacing coal, oil, or wood, all of which were produced and used in greater volumes in 2025, so far as I can tell. https://www.coalage.com/departments/closing-notes/global-coal-demand-hits-record-high-in-2025/ https://www.coalage.com/departments/closing-notes/global-coa... All past price declines in energy commodities have lead to increased consumption of other energy (and raw materials) commodities. The production of whale oil declined, but only due to environmental regulation. For more, see: https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/464145/more-and-more-and-more-by-fressoz-jean-baptiste/9781802067316 https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/464145/more-and-more-and-mor...

pfdietz 10mo ago
It means the replacement process is moving well along, though. Coal is persisting mostly because of the installed base, but new capacity is overwhelmingly renewables.
- bwestergard 10mo ago
  The rate of growth of coal has declined, but growth continues. https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-tracker/dashboard/ https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-t...
burkaman 10mo ago
You're right about coal and oil, but wood seems like it's been declining since 2000: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix. On coal, from the report they're citing: > For 2025, global coal demand is projected to reach 8 845 Mt, setting a new record. The increase of around 40 Mt compared with 2024 is very similar to the forecast we made last year. While there were some unusual regional trends, they had the effect of cancelling each other out. The United States posted the largest absolute gain of about 37 Mt, supported by policy measures and higher gas prices. So nearly the entire 2025 increase came from the US, where the federal government is ordering retiring coal plants to stay open and aggressively blocking all non fossil fuel development. Without this artificial and very temporary boost, I'm not convinced coal demand would have risen last year. > The production of whale oil declined, but only due to environmental regulation. I don't think this is an exception, it's an example of what needs to happen. Fossil fuels are bad for the environment and need to be regulated, just like whale oil.

kachapopopow 10mo ago

I genuinely don't understand why there's no movement to just shove solar panels onto every apartment building subsidizing the initial cost in form of a loan that gets repaid as paying for power bills - the cost wouldn't change or even be lower than current power bills in a lot of european countries. It really makes no sense to not use solar except in very few exceptions where it's genuinely never sunny and doesn't have that many sunny days, but hey estonia is making it work. obviously there is some added maintenance like cleaning the panels, but that also applies for general services that residents of buildings already share.

raybb 10mo ago
In Germany they allow people to install solar panels on their balconies. https://cleantechnica.com/2024/12/21/germany-embraces-balkonkraftwerke-balcony-solar-for-apartments/ https://cleantechnica.com/2024/12/21/germany-embraces-balkon... Though last I looked this probably isn't feasible in the US due to differences in our electrical systems or something like that?
- kachapopopow 10mo ago
  in some states they're now allowing to just plug in panels without any permits up to 1.5kw so actually, no. In US specifically it's just lobbying or hurricane safety since panels flying off and creating even more debris is obviously not great.
  - raybb 10mo ago
    Which states are allowing it? Also this hn comment seems to confirm it's not a tech problem just a policy one! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43007271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43007271
  - pfdietz 10mo ago
    Specifically, Utah. I don't know if it's allowed yet in another state. In my state a law to allow such is working through the legislature right now. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8512/amendment/original https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S8512/amendm...