15 ms·
US electricity demand surged in 2025 – solar handled 61% of it
- MonkeyClub 10mo agoCuriously, TFA doesn't raise the question of why demand surged, it spends its 8 microparagraphs only praising solar.
- mcny 10mo agoI'm going to go out on a limb and say it has some thing to do with those data centers and LLM stuff.
- MonkeyClub 10mo agoFunny, I was thinking the same thing.
- anovikov 10mo agoSo the increase was 3.1% and it was "fourth largest in the last decade", which means, "barely above average growth rate". Considering that economy growth rate was the fastest in a decade except 2021 which was a covid recovery year, it doesn't really show anything abnormal at all.
- hackable_sand 10mo agoAll that work and we still have a broken economy, go figure.
- xeromal 10mo agoWhat's broken about it?
- MonkeyClub 10mo agoGranted, that wee bit 3.1% increase corresponds to an extra 135 TWh of demand. T for tera. The mind boggles.
- jennyholzer4 10mo ago[dead]
- Kon5ole 10mo agoSolar can be deployed by hundreds of thousands of individual efforts and financing at the same time, with almost no bureaucracy. It starts to produce electricity basically the same day. I can't imagine anything being able to compete with that for speed and scale - or costs, for that matter. Once deployed it's basically free.
- danmaz74 10mo agoThe issue is that works perfectly well when solar is a small % of the grid, but when that number grows, then you need grid scale solutions and coordination for things to continue working well. And that requires both technical skill and political will.
- taminka 10mo agoi wonder if ppl's electricity consumption habits will change in response to this, idk like turning the heat way up during the day or using high power appliances more during the day
- mschuster91 10mo ago> idk like turning the heat way up during the day That is something you can reasonably do, but it's only useful in winter. > or using high power appliances more during the day Well, given that people have to work during the day, I doubt that that will work out on a large enough scale. And even if you'd pre-program a laundry machine to run at noon, the laundry would sit and get smelly during summer until you'd get home. The only change in patterns we will see is more base load during the night from EVs trickle-charging as more and more enter the market.
- infecto 10mo agoAt least in the US there is a push to make electric appliances smarter already. So for example, the electric hot water heater responding to the strain on the grid. The same could happen for AC, heat, EVs and other higher load appliances. At scale that can help out the grid immensely either in times of peak load or dip in demand.
- jna_sh 10mo agoJevons paradox in action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- consp 10mo agoAlso known as induced demand (as more is available)
- mschuster91 10mo ago[flagged]
- zahlman 10mo ago> Where are all the "without nuclear power we're dooooooomed" people at the moment? I haven't seen any on HN across multiple submissions discussing both solar and nuclear power (or both at once). I have, however, seen people unreasonably characterized as such.
- idiotsecant 10mo agoIt's so frustrating discussing topics you know about on HN because you get so many software developers, which naturally know everything, that make comments like this. Solar does not 'just work' - in the US it's a crisis in the making. Power prices in several areas of the grid routinely go negative because the grid is a zero sum game - there is very little storage so what goes in must exactly match what goes out or grid frequency deviations and eventually blackouts happen. This is much more likely to happen once undispatchable resources climb past a certain threshold in our generation mix. To fix this we need massive storage and transmission investment, like moon landing and WW2 put together. We desperately need to do that before we add more non-dispatchable generation. Solar with storage is an amazing resource. Without storage it's counterproductive if it's grid tied.
- 7952 10mo agoBut respectfully isn't the crisis more in the American political system and regulation? And surely large scale solar farms/batery storage connected to a supergrid (or whatever they are called) are a relatively good fit for this kind of legacy grid.
- idiotsecant 10mo agoI mean..yes? Megaprojects are always political. But that's exactly the issue. No politician gets interest when they talk about building transmission towers and battery plants. They get fawning well meaning but inherently ignorant attention when they build renewable generation. The incentive is to support generation and avoid the politically less popular, more expensive, and ultimately much more important transmission and storage.
- listenallyall 10mo agoConfusing headline (on purpose I'm sure). No, solar didn't handle 61% of total energy demand. It handled 61% of the so-called "surge" - 3% growth over the prior year.
- torginus 10mo agoThere should be a minimum level of expertise or commitment to the truth so that publication who certainly think of themselves as major league or factual don't publish blatantly false statements like this. Yes, demand rose, and solar panels were installed whose capacity was about 60% of the new demand, but to say solar handled 60% of new capacity is blatantly false. As someone who owns solar panels, I'm painfully aware that there can be days, weeks of bad weather when there's barely any generation. But even at the best of times, solar has a hard time covering for the demand of something like data centers which suck down insane amount of juice round the clock. There's also no information about whether these data centers are located to be close to solar farms, and we know that in many cases, they're not.
- jakobnissen 10mo agoNo, you are reading the article wrong. It is indeed 60% of new electricity generation that is from solar, not capacity
- phendrenad2 10mo agoThen shy doesn't the article literally say that? Why does it take three carefully-crafted sentences to say it? Because they're fooling you.
- 93po 10mo agoelectrik is notoriously pretty horrible and not real journalism
- torginus 10mo agoI think it's incredibly fishy. If I add a 1MW coal plant to the grid, I can pretty much run it at nominal capacity all year round, so 1MW * hours in the year is afair calculation. If I add the same 1MW for solar, needless to say even assuming perfect weather, I'm lucky to get 1/3rd of that. Under real circumstances, the numbers are probably much worse. When looking at marketing, I think it's always safe to assume they picked the most flattering numbers when they didn't specify how they made the calculation. That's why it's very meaningful to talk about adding kWh - 1 kWh peak solar means more in Texas than in Chicago. It's even less meaningful for batteries - they can sustain incredible currents, to the point it's very rarely the meaningful bottleneck. Yet that's exactly that what the cited 'global think-tank' Ember did, which the article cites as source. So they either misled on purpose, or like a lot of people, they confused GWh and GW, which is such a grave error for a supposed expert, that their whole analysis should be disregarded.
- jokoon 10mo ago[flagged]
- integricho 10mo agoThank god it's not those pesky windmills...
- BLKNSLVR 10mo agoDon 'Quixote' Trump
- glimshe 10mo agoI've thought about installing solar panels on my roof for years. But when I factor in installation costs, it never makes sense because the local energy rates are pretty reasonable... Also, I live in Southeast, a place with plenty of sun but nowhere near the Southwest. Solar panel prices fell hugely in the past years. Is there anything that could significantly reduce installation costs?
- apexalpha 10mo agoPV is wildly expensive in the US. Apparently you even need a permit from the grid operator for it. Here in NL they come to your house a week after you call and your panels are up and connected in 4 hours or so.
- maxerickson 10mo agoResidential is expensive anyway, larger installations are plenty viable. My town in a northern Michigan is installing solar to help stabilize the rates they offer (I pay about 11 cents per kWh).
- briHass 10mo agoLabor for anything is expensive in the US. Parts/materials costs in contractor quotes are often padded so they aren't completely overshadowed by the labor portion. In any job where there's specialized knowledge or license restrictions (HVAC) or risk (walking on a roof), the floor for labor rates is usually 2-4x the materials cost. But, the real issue is that almost nobody pays cash upfront for their solar install. Between incentives, loans, and/or predatory PPAs, the prices lose touch with reality. See healthcare, college tuition, housing prices, etc. for similar scenarios where credit or third-parties distort the market.
- apexalpha 10mo agoOver here installation takes 4 hours or so, probably less. How much more expensive can that be? It's probably much more in the planning process and tariffs on Chinese PV.
- greenacred 10mo ago[dead]
- ztetranz 10mo agoHere's a good podcast (with written transcript) about what's happening in Australia. https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-the-real-story-with-australian https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-the-real-story-with-australian The difference in the permitting process between Australia and US is staggering.
- cbmuser 10mo agoAustralia is still highly dependent on coal. They’re not a prime example of how to decarbonize an electricity grid. If you want a good example, rather look at France!
- ZeroGravitas 10mo agoSince 2005 France has deployed as much solar and wind generation as they've removed nuclear, about 10-15%. You probably meant late 20th Century France, when better renewable alternatives didn't exist, not current 21st century France.
- gregbot 10mo agoAhh yes. France’s investment in replacing carbon free nuclear with… carbon free intermittents. Fortunately that hype-driven waste is not stopping France from building out new EPR2 reactors.
- ruben81ad 10mo agoNot all australia is moving g at the same speed. Check south Australia, and it is a massive success. The difference is that the government invested in renewewals, along with solar in rooftops. As SA is smaller they did not had pressure from lobbies. Now, are almost 100% renewal energy all year long. It can be done.
- intexpress 10mo agoThere is a very funny nuclear power plant in France which is located in such a way to be surrounded on 3 sides by Belgium instead of by France. (EDF Nuclear Power Plant Chooz)
- sandworm101 10mo agoContrary opinion: too much farmland is being turned over to solar. Our regulatory systems are not working. Land that once produced food now produces electricity. Turning a food farm into solar is too easy (ie cheap). The land is flat and there are nearby roads and electricity networks. And who is going to tell a farmer how to best use thier land? But the world needs more than datacenters. The world needs food. Solar should be installed on unproductive land. Buildings should be covered in panels. Carparks should have solar roofs. If i were king of zoning, every new construction would be required to cover say 50% of thier footprint in panels. That is the direction to go. We should not continue to convert farmland. A total parody, but on point. "Can I Beat Farming Sim WITHOUT FARMING?" - The Spiffing Brit https://youtu.be/MaJvrGHJoAQ https://youtu.be/MaJvrGHJoAQ
- g8oz 10mo agoAgrivoltaics are a thing.
- Aboutplants 10mo agoBut there are also millions of acres of corn being grown solely for the purpose of ethanol. A lot of that acreage could be better off utilized as solar farms
- fpoling 10mo agoThere are a lot of places where solar panels can increase yield for specific plants by providing a shade. They also can generate electricity to run electrical pumps for targeted irrigation saving a lot of water.
- sandworm101 10mo agoYa, but that isnt as widespread as fields being rededicated from crops generally to solar exclusively. And mixed use doesnt mesh well in a world of crop rotation and crop-specific harvesting equipment. I have yet to see a combine that can drive over solar panels without touching them.
- 10mo ago
- chiefalchemist 10mo agoSo I'm reading it correctly, 39& of "the surge" was covered by traditional energy sources. Which still means use of traditional sources increased. Correct? I guess the good news is, solar is available when demand is highest. Nonetheless, is it helping to solve a problem or is it serving more as an enabler of the status quo?
- fulafel 10mo agoSo, where's the emissions graph?
- jordanb 10mo agoWhile I'm concerned about the environmental challenges of reversing the trend and increasing energy consumption, I'm happy that people are living in more comfortable homes, that the Amercian industrial base is being restored, that more and better services are being provided (better healthcare, inexpensive and healthy food, comfortable, efficient and inexpensive transportation). That is what we're using this electricity for, right?
- gtirloni 10mo agoForgot /s
- le-mark 10mo agoThat’s what I was thinking, clearly sarcasm because none of that is true.
- justin66 10mo agoBetter: advertising!
- b65e8bee43c2ed0 10mo agothe US is not a planned economy. if it was, computers would exist only to guide missiles and operate industrial machinery, and you would be mining coal, farming wheat, or manning an assembly line for a living.
- Fraterkes 10mo ago…and I wouldn’t have to read this kind of drivel. Sounds like a blessing.
- echelon 10mo agoSome of the economy should be encouraged with heavy subsidy or though DoD purchases. It's worked out well for us in the past. Wind and solar, nuclear, EVs, manufacturing, robots, chips, and drones should be helped along by the state. We would be stupid not to spend in these categories. We should also build out chemical inputs manufacture, rare earths refining, pharmaceutical manufacture, etc. to support the work that happens downstream and to be less fragile to supply chain disruption. A multi-polar world is inherently less stable and demands more self-sufficiency.
- londons_explore 10mo ago> the fourth‑largest annual rise of the past decade Really doesn't sound like much of a surge then!
- kowbell 10mo agoHey, that still means it's higher than the median annual rise AND higher than most years!
- londons_explore 10mo ago> higher than the median annual rise Of that we cannot be sure... Because maybe 6 years saw a fall - so there would only be 4 rises, of which this is the smallest!
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- cbmuser 10mo ago»US electricity demand jumped by 135 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2025, a 3.1% increase, the fourth‑largest annual rise of the past decade. Over that same period, solar generation grew by a record 83 TWh – a 27% increase from 2024 and the biggest absolute gain of any power source. That single jump in solar output covered 61% of all new electricity demand nationwide.« This article equates generation with consumption which is a fallacy. Lots of solar and wind generation is actually produced without meeting demand meaning that the generated electricity often has to be wasted.
- xeromal 10mo agoI'm a luddite so forgive me when I ask this. How does the grid "waste" electricity to avoid overfilling?
- baking 10mo agoIt really depends on how you write the headline. "US electricity demand surges in 2025 while new utility-scale solar installations decrease from 2024" is equally accurate. It's unclear what the future holds if the trend remains down or flat.
- ZeroGravitas 10mo agoThe USA had a pull forward effect in 2024 because some tariffs applied to anything completed after the end of that year. This pumps the numbers for 2024 and depresses them for 2025.
- PeterStuer 10mo agoDid "demand surge" or was excess peak power sold of for nearly 0 to people that can spin up and turn off load on the turn of a dime (crypto)? We have had negative pricing (they pay you to take the power) to stabilize the grid due to solar/wind peaks.
- einpoklum 10mo agoThe title is somewhat misleading. First, US demand increased by 3.1%. That is bad - demand should be going down, since there is a need to conserve electricity while much of it is provided by CO2-emitting sources. That said - it is not such a huge "surge" that the fact that 61% of it was covered by an increase in Solar capacity is so impressive. Second, Solar generation is said to have reached 84 TW. But if the increase in demand was 135 TW, and that's just 3.1% of total demand, then total demand is 4355 TW, and Solar accounts for 1.92% of generation. That is _really_ bad. Since we must get to near-0 emissions in electricity generation ASAP to avoid even harsher effects of global warming; and most of the non-Solar generation in the US is by Natural Gas and Coal [1]. You could nitpick and say that the important stat is "total renewables" rather than just Solar, and that the US has a lot of Nuclear, and that's technically true, but it's not as though Nuclear output is surging, and it has more obstacles and challenges, for reasons. So, the big surge to expect in the US is Solar - and we're only seeing very little of that. If you mis-contextualize it sounds like a lot: "60% of new demand! 27% increase since last year!" but that's not the right context. [1] : https://www.statista.com/statistics/220174/total-us-electricity-net-generation-by-fuel/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/220174/total-us-electric...
- morshu9001 10mo agoGonna fully admit I skipped reading the article when I saw a confusing title, and now I'm leaving instead of trying to figure out what it meant.
- seniortaco 10mo agoThe title is disgusting click bait with the hopes to falsely make the reader believe that Solar covered 61% of the total annual power need and not just the YoY delta.
- phil21 10mo ago> First, US demand increased by 3.1%. That is bad It is not bad. Energy usage is the best proxy we have for societal wealth. It's starting to somewhat decouple, but I'd posit that's largely due to financial woo-woo than actual real wealth. Time shall tell. A lot of energy (no pun intended) was put into short-term easy wins on the efficiency side the last couple decades, but those low hanging fruits are largely picked over. In the end, it requires serious capital investment into energy production and distribution. > demand should be going down Naw. If we want to actually regain any sort of self-determination as a nation we need to re-industrialize and learn to make things again. This is a multi-generational project that takes decades to even build the foundation for. This all requires energy - preferably as clean and cheap as possible. We should be looking what what China is doing. Building everything possible as quickly as possible. Spam solar, wind, nuclear, and yes natural gas which enables the former two to exist to begin with. Start spinning up battery plants as well on top of it. Coal I can grant is silly to invest in these days, re-purpose those plants as their useful lifetimes run out into natural gas or nuclear power plant sites. Then start spamming long distance transmission lines throughout the country to further even out demand vs. supply, so more sunny and windy locations can pick up the slack in other regions of the country. Start telling NIMBYs to go pound sand. This degrowth stuff is just a way to make poor and working class folks suffer. China and India are building so much energy production capacity it simply doesn't matter anyways. Build or have your grandchildren be left behind.
- hasanabi 10mo ago[flagged]
- ciferkey 10mo agoThe book Here Comes the Sun by Bill McKibben is a really great read on the changing economics of solar. It came out August 2025 so its fairly up to date too.
- crystal_revenge 10mo agoThe cognitive dissonance around optimism regarding renewables and the fact that there are multiple military actions going on around the globe right now focused exclusively on extracting more fossil fuels from the ground is a bit much sometimes. Why do people even pretend like we haven't signed up for "what's worse than the worse case scenario?" as far as climate goes? The only way to reduce the already severe impacts of global warming are to keep fossil fuels in the ground. It doesn't matter how much energy is generated by solar so long as we continue to dig up and burn fossil fuels. It's quite clear that we have zero intentions of slowing down or even keeping our fossil fuel consumption steady. If we had record electricity demand, and anything short of 100% of it was covered by renewables, that means we're burning more fossil fuels then we were before. We have, pretty unequivocally at this point, signed up for seeing what the end game of civilization looks like rather than realistically exploring or even considering any alternatives.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- chickenbig 10mo agoWhat about behind the meter fossil fuel for datacenters? The underlying Ember one [0] is nearly all about the grid, with mention of behind the meter solar data being incomplete. [0] https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-met-61-of-us-electricity-demand-growth-in-2025/ https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-met-61-of-us-...
- erricravi 10mo agoThis 61% figure is a significant milestone for grid resilience. At Storify News, we’ve been tracking how the 2025 surge wasn't just about general demand, but specifically the localized clusters of AI data centers and the electrification of industrial heat. What’s particularly interesting here is the "duck curve" management—solar handled the bulk of the demand surge, but it’s the rapid deployment of BESS (Battery Energy Storage Systems) that actually made this 61% figure viable without destabilizing the frequency. The question for 2026 is whether the transmission infrastructure can keep up with this pace of interconnection.
- wyattshacker 10mo agoThe delta here between population growth and energy consumption, + solid state storage, + the rate of PV efficiency improvement = FOS and NUC will very soon be the backup system. REN are the future. Dead dinosaurs are not.
- wyattshacker 10mo agoThe delta here between population growth and energy consumption, + solid state storage, + the rate of PV efficiency improvement = FOS and NUC will very soon be the backup system. REN are the future. Dead dinosaurs are not the future.