4 ms·
I don't think this article did the math right. In the linked source from the article (https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?entity=United+St
by ike2792 6mo ago
I don't think this article did the math right. In the linked source from the article (https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?entity=United+States&metric=absolute&fuel=total&tab=main&chart=trend&mode=stacked&multi=true&temporal_res=monthly&date=2026-03-01&date_from=2022-03-01 https://ember-energy.org/data/electricity-data-explorer/?ent...), in 03/2026 combined generation from hydro (26 TWh), wind (53), solar (27.7), bioenergy (3.82), and other renewables (1.51) is 112.03 TWh, vs 120 TWh for natural gas. It's still an impressive number but it is still slightly less than natural gas.
- 0xdde 6mo agoI think you misread the solar number. The link says 37.6TWh solar with the remaining numbers matching what you wrote. That gives a total of 120.42TWh.
- ike2792 6mo agoYou are right, I read 37 as 27. I will update my parent comment.
- mekdoonggi 6mo agoI am not seeing those numbers in the chart. For March, I see 37.6 solar, 53 wind, 26 hydro, 60.4 nuclear, 5.3 other, together for 182.3 vs 120 for gas.
- ike2792 6mo agoUPDATE: Solar was 37.6, not 27.7. I'm not quite sure where I got the incorrect number from. The corrected total is 121.93, which is indeed greater than the 120 for natural gas. I apologize for the error but I can't edit my original comment anymore so I'll just post the correction here. Thanks to mekdoonggi and 0xdde for correcting my mistake.