Solar and Wind are Covering ALl New Power Demand in 2025 (electrek.co)
- Reference: 0180079640
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/25/11/15/0633205/solar-and-wind-are-covering-all-new-power-demand-in-2025
- Source link: https://electrek.co/2025/11/13/solar-and-wind-are-covering-all-new-power-demand-in-2025/
> Solar and wind are growing fast enough to meet all new electricity demand worldwide for the first three quarters of 2025, according to new data from energy think tank Ember.
>
> The group now expects fossil power to stay flat for the full year, marking the first time since the pandemic that fossil generation won't increase. Solar and wind aren't just expanding; they're outpacing global electricity demand itself. Solar generation jumped 498 TWh (+31%) compared to the same period last year, already topping all the solar power produced in 2024. Wind added another 137 TWh (+7.6%). Together, they supplied 635 TWh of new clean electricity, beating out the 603 TWh rise in global demand (+2.7%). That lifted solar and wind to 17.6% of global electricity in the first three quarters of the year, up from 15.2% year-over-year. That brought the total share of renewables in global electricity -solar, wind, hydro, bioenergy, and geothermal — to 43%. Fossil fuels slid to 57.1%, down from 58.7%.
>
> For the first time in 2025, renewables collectively generated more electricity than coal. And fossil generation as a whole has stalled. Fossil output slipped slightly by 0.1% (-17 TWh) through the end of Q3. Ember expects no fossil-fuel growth for the full year, driven by clean power growth outpacing demand.
[1] https://electrek.co/2025/11/13/solar-and-wind-are-covering-all-new-power-demand-in-2025/
Two greenwashing links in the feed in one sitting? (Score:1)
cat 'electrek.co' >> DNS_blacklist.fckem
Re: (Score:1)
Here in Florida, we have a special section at the DUMP, for "Solar Panel Waste" Aka, the "MILLIONS" of crushed and destroyed panels, from 2x Hurricanes back to back in 2024... And seeing a 100 acres of Farmland, filled with Solar panels, while your Grocery bill average tops 300$ a week... Yeah. You can't fix Stupid. ;-D
Lies, damn lies, and statistics (Score:1, Informative)
[1]Primary energy consumption worldwide in 2023, with a forecast until 2050, by energy source and scenario [statista.com]
> Almost 85 percent of the global primary energy demand was met by coal, natural gas, and oil in 2023. According to projections based on the current trend of the energy sector, fossil fuels will maintain a leading role in the primary energy sector until 2050.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1605591/projected-global-energy-consumption-by-source-and-scenario/
Lies, damn lies, and people who can't read. (Score:5, Informative)
I know there's a typo in the title, but it's not in the word "new". Please re-read what this article was saying and then post statistics relevant to the article rather than the completely different thing you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Typical MAGA-level of no insight whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I just modded you down. If you don't understand the difference between primary energy and electricity, you should not comment on these topics.
It has here (Score:5, Interesting)
For some time now. Wild wet and wonderful PA, one of the cloudier area, has been using Wind and solar very effectively for some time now.
Solar has an unexpected use. End of line extensions. When there isn't enough ugga-duggas left to meet demand at the last sub-station, solar comes to the rescue.
Placing panels is so much less expensive than getting new right of ways, running new lines, maybe even moving the substation, when new housing developments and businesses need their electricity. And please people, storage batteries are no longer science fiction. There are even bolt on solutions for arrays that don't have tehm now.
Then there is wind. There are places where the wind never stops, the Allegheny Front for instance. At this point, our new wind installs are less than before. The reason? At the moment, what we have now are supplying the power we need at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
> “China was going to hit us with rare earth,” he said. “Now, everybody says, ‘What does that mean?’ Magnets. If China refused to give magnets because they have a monopoly on magnets because they were allowed to — it happened over a 32-year period — there wouldn’t be a car made in the entire world, there wouldn’t be a radio, there wouldn’t be a television, there wouldn’t be internet, there wouldn’t be anything because magnets are such a part — Now, nobody knows what magnets are, and not overly sophisticated, but to build a magnet system would take two years.”
> --Donald Trump 2025
Pretty good idea posting as the middle card you are. A non-sequitur irrelevant to the matter we're discussing.
Aren't you a little old to be crying when you can't find your binky? P.S. all bold is the same thing as all caps - a clueless person with a rageboner.
Re: (Score:2)
> We can back Jasmine Crockett up to a line of windmills and let her naturally breaking wind turn them.
A very attractive lady.
AI headline not spell checked (Score:2)
ALI? This is happening frequently around here. We're being led around by AI summaries now?
Back to on topic: So I guess we don't need all that power that the hyperscalers are building?
Re: (Score:2)
They hyperscalers are building out (or re-activating) grid-level power supplies for DCs that are not online yet, so are essentially not included in the 2025 figures. All Electrek (a pro-green energy site with a very obvious bias to that effect) are saying is that we collectively built out enough solar and wind to exceed the overall global increase in demand during 2025. Sure, that's a good thing, but it says nothing about how much excess non-green capacity was decomissioned last year (relatively speaking,
Re: AI headline not spell checked (Score:2)
Thanks for the comment. Makes sense. Totally agree about the cheerful spin on so much paper thin "good news".
Suspicious (Score:3)
Read the article, couple pretty graphs from a group called Ember which I never heard of. Why am I suspicious. Well here [1]https://www.texastribune.org/2... [texastribune.org] is an actual buildout of a 1.2GW fossil plant for A data center. Lets do the numbers. 1.2GW x 24 x 365 = 10.5TWh. As another example, we also know musk added temp gen's for the memphis DC and some are still running. We also know turbines are back ordered and in fact several are using old jet engines to spin generators for power. So while the graphs are pretty, other on the ground facts tell me the graphs are not accurate. I just am not hearing of gas plants being retired but I have heard of coal plants coming back to you guessed it, power data centers.
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/05/texas-data-centers-gas-power-plants-ai/
Re: (Score:2)
Just because they need the fossil plants for 100% uptime doesn't tell you how often they run.
Re: (Score:2)
The average uptime for a coal power plant is between 70% and 90%. Your example should be closer to 8 TWh/year. That means that you would need about 80 of them to provide the same power as Wind and Solar.
Re: (Score:3)
Its nat gas, not coal. There is a reason DC's are going up like weeds in west tx and PA. Both have nat gas. Easy access to power. And to add to that, no one seems to be explaining why the those gas turbines are backordered for years. [1]https://www.publicpower.org/pe... [publicpower.org] If there is no demand for more fossil, why can't I(well not me obviously) buy a turbine? From the article from Nextra "He said that “if we want to build a new gas-fired generation facilitywe can’t get it online until 2032.”
[1] https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/with-gas-fired-generation-surging-gas-turbine-backlogs-come-forefront
Not gonna believe it until (Score:2)
the emissions curve stops looking like a parabola with a positive second derivative. Theres basically only one way that carbon is getting in the atmosphere - humans burning fermented dino in mountain-sized quantities. Until that curve changes, articles like this are like a toddler denying they were in the cookie jar while their mouth is smeared with crumbs and bits of chocolate chip. Uh huh. Sure.
Re: (Score:2)
The second derivative on emissions has been negative for a while.
China had massive surpluses of PV to get rid off internally, I could see that compensating for India in 2025 and everyone else relevant is flat or declining.
Re: (Score:2)
PS. assuming the Trump effect won't kick in for the US over 2025.
Sure they are (Score:2)
Wind plus solar installations are 3000 MW here. The output is represented by the green line.
[1]https://transmission.bpa.gov/b... [bpa.gov]
What do you think the capacity factor might be?
9 hours 16 minutes of daylight expected today, skies partly cloudy, current wind speed is 8 mph.
[1] https://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.aspx
"ALI" of it? (Score:1)
> Solar and Wind are Covering ALl New Power Demand in 2025
Mohammad Ali has been gone for quite some time; how much could he possibly demand?
Re: (Score:1)
I remodulated the power influx through the multi-modal reflection sort algorithm and removed the impurities. I can now redirect it through the phase inducers as a baryon-centric tachyon pulse and increase efficiency to 156%. That should be enough to power all needs, assuming we can keep the variance interval to within 0.045 micro-midians.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't use the main deflector dish *or* reverse the polarity of the neutron flow. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to dock some points on your technobabble score.
Re: (Score:3)
I couldn't. They are down for maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
Neutrons do not have polarity. Not even on Star Trek. Don't try to trick me man! I know what I've got!
Re: (Score:2)
But perhaps the neutron flow has a polarity...? Or he tried to trick you.
Re: (Score:2)
Say your reactor has a neutron injector on a rotor. The fission fuel has started vibrating, creating a feedback loop that could cause the reaction to become unstable. Running the rotor in reverse would change the pattern of incident neutrons just enough to stop the vibration. And the way you make a rotor go the other way is by reversing the polarity of its drive current.
That's the best that I could ground this technobabble off the top of my head.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a play on words with the typo in the title ... oh, never mind, lol!
Re: (Score:2)
We got it.
Then played some more (;
Re: (Score:2)
Well played ;)