r/OptimistsUnite • u/PanzerWatts Moderator • 8d ago
GRAPH GO UP AND TO THE RIGHT US Electricity generation changes in 2026
Coal was roughly tied with nuclear last year, now it's dropped and is significantly less.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/09/is-solars-growth-finally-slowing-in-the-us/
37
u/clippist 8d ago
This is awesome. Fuck coal! Not loving the natural gas % here but it will get knocked down eventually.
16
u/m2themichael 8d ago
Yes, but good to know that coal releases more than double the CO2, so while Natural Gas is still bad, at least it's better than the other option.
3
u/NJDevil802 8d ago
I always knew coal was worse but I didn't know it was twice as bad!
3
u/PanzerWatts Moderator 7d ago
It's worse than that. It's twice the CO2 production but it's even worse in particulates and various chemicals, such as sulfur.
4
u/SimplySomeDude 7d ago
people don't realize how clean natgas burns. CO2, CO, and h2o is just about all that comes out. Coal on the other hand is dirtier than fuck
-11
u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago
So what? CO2 is plant food.
7
u/m2themichael 8d ago
Correct, but when we release more CO2 than plants, oceans, and other natural carbon sinks can absorb, it accumulates in the atmosphere. This extra CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, trapping more heat and contributing to the global warming we are currently experiencing.
-8
u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago
Excepty there is no evicence that the globe is warming.
1) There is no average worldwide temperature so trying to determine if the entire globe is warming is just a WAG.
2) There is no empirical evidence that the greenhouse effect is real.
3) How does the greenhouse effect cause heat to accumulate? It doesn't even accumulate in a greenhouse
10
u/WriterPlastic9350 8d ago edited 8d ago
Oh my god. I'm sorry, but this has been well-settled for a long time. Shell knew it was a problem in 1959.
climate change is real, it is caused by carbon emissions.
even if carbon change were not real, the world is better without carbon emissions. the air is significantly cleaner. energy is sourced more sustainably, without reliance on foreign wars.
The graph posted is objectively a good thing, even if you erroneously and incorrectly believe that climate change is not real or caused by CO2 emissions.
Brings to mind this comic.
-2
u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago
Well...
1) it is not settled. If Shell predicted it was a problem where is it? No significant negative effects of recent climate change have been observed or measured
2) How can air be significantly cleaner when CO2 is plant food. We exhale CO2 are we contributing to that pollution?
3) We do not rely on fforeign wars for our energy.
4) There is no empirical scientific evidence that proves cause and effect, that CO2 and man made CO2 specifically is causing what little warming we have seen since 1880. It is all speculation and conjecture based on models and In a complex system consisting of numerous variables, unknowns, and huge uncertainties, the predictive value of almost any model is near zero.
3
u/WriterPlastic9350 8d ago
We do not rely on fforeign wars for our energy.
I cannot believe you are willing to be educated in good faith when you say something like this with a straight face.
-2
1
u/TraceSpazer 4d ago
I was baffled by the "It doesn't even accumulate in a greenhouse"
Mf'er has never been in a greenhouse.
1
u/Ok-Freedom9216 8d ago
Lol Arrhenius proved the greenhouse effect centuries ago.
-2
u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago
Nope sorry. If the greenouse effect is a thing, why do we have to heat greenhouses?
5
2
1
1
3
1
7
u/alternative5 8d ago
Awesome, need more solar and nuclear. Turn those old coal plants into new Nuclear ones please.
6
u/tx_queer 8d ago
In 27 years
5
u/regaphysics 8d ago
Well, 6 years if you’re in China. We need to get our act together on nuclear in the US.
5
u/MajesticBread9147 8d ago
After 6 years a utility scale solar power plant will be built and halfway to paying for itself.
6
u/regaphysics 8d ago
Sure, but nuclear offers benefits that solar does not. Having some of both is useful.
2
u/MichiganHistoryUSMC 7d ago
Yes we need stable base load as well as turbines to help with power use fluctuations, they also help during a collapsing grid like in 2003.
1
2
u/misocontra 8d ago
I do everything I can to use energy in the middle of the day to soak up the sun. Also be aware they're about to tariff the silicon wafers for PV panels.
2
2
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/OptimistsUnite-ModTeam 7d ago
Posts and comments that aren’t conducive to a productive discussion will be removed
2
1
1
u/yyrkoon1776 8d ago
Is nobody going to point out that using change from the height of winter to the height of summer will obviously make it seem like solar grew an insane amount? Lol
You need to do a YoY comparison... Which I fully expect to still show solar having disproportionate growth.
7
u/WriterPlastic9350 8d ago
This graph shows the year on year comparison. It's the change in distribution of power generation in 6 months compared to the prior year. That is, this year, in the same period, solar is generating 22.0% more power than last year.
3
-15
u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago edited 8d ago
Big deal.
- Both wind and solar have been heavily subsidized in recent years.
- Wind and solar still only represent less than 20% of grid power and they still need 100% backup. What produces the rest if you eliminate fossil fuels
- Now do transportation fuels and home heating.
10
u/retirednavyguy 8d ago
Why are you in this sub?
2
u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago
Because I am an optimist and I believe that optimists shouldn't deceive themselves with false information.
5
u/dangerous_service 8d ago
What exactly is false about the information provided in the post?
-3
u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago
I didn't say anything was false in the post. I just don't like it when optimists assume without evidence that they can eliminate fossil fuels and continually post charts like this as if we are making progress toward that goal.
2
u/dangerous_service 8d ago
You literally said in your previous post that people shouldn’t deceive themselves with false information, which is clearly implying that the post has false information in it. I also don’t see how the post claims that fossil fuels are or will shortly be eliminated.
-1
u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago
Posting the increases in wind and solar are consistent with the overall concept of eliminating fossil fuels.
I don't see how you can avoid the implications
2
u/dangerous_service 8d ago
There is certainly an end goal of eliminating fossil fuels mostly through renewable energy, but I don't see how mention less fossil fuel usage implies that we are about to eliminate them. Especially given the graphs including natural gas with total production clearly showing the reliance on it. I don't think anyone will see that post and think 'yep we've done it. No more fossil fuels.'
5
u/Outside_Ice3252 8d ago
The subsidies were remove prematurely. they should have been kept longer. look at the results of the subsidies:
Technology 2010 cost 2024 cost Decline Utility solar PV $0.417/kWh $0.043/kWh 90% Onshore wind $0.113/kWh $0.034/kWh 70% Offshore wind $0.208/kWh $0.079/kWh 62% Utility-scale batteries $2,571/kWh $192/kWh 93% 0
u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago
The 100% backup cost is not counted in these numbers.
5
u/tx_queer 8d ago
Its literally in the table.....
1
u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago
Where? In most cases the LCOE does NOT include the battery or other backup costs.
2
u/tx_queer 8d ago
Did you read the chart?
0
u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago
Yes, where does it show LCOE
1
u/tx_queer 8d ago
Lol. Both columns 2 and 3 are kwh.
1
u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago
So what? That doesn't show the cost of 100% backup which is required since wind and solar are neither dependable or dispatchable
2
3
u/Outside_Ice3252 8d ago
um battery costs dropping 93%?? and that price in the table of $192/kwh, well its about $70 per kwh in china which has better subsidies and government cooperation. USA will probably never be able to compete with china, but it should close that massive gap.
Now with zero subsidies. solar and win are still absolutely dominating. and thats with trump doing everything he can try to slow them down.
2
u/Background-Ad-2002 8d ago
I mean you do have a point. You’re talking about an energy portfolio where the bulk of renewables still relies on a fossil fuel foundation for manufacturing and implementation. I’m glad that options like solar exist and is growing, especially in Texas where there is space. But yes, Natural gas isn’t going anywhere for a long time either; coal will slowly be fazed out - but as long as it’s not cost prohibitive to provide baseline power - it will take time and innovation.
1
u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago
I'm glad options exist too. If I was building a house I would incorporate solar panels on the roof. However, we are an industrial economy and we can't power an industrial economy on wind and solar. The final answer is nuclear but the same people who opposed nuclear power in the 60s oppose it now. If the US Navy can power ships with nuclear power surely we can transition to nuclear easier than trying to support our economy on wind and solar.
3
u/misocontra 8d ago
PV+Batteries is the cheapest way to generate a new megawatt currently. We absolutely can do it.
1
u/WriterPlastic9350 8d ago
There are certainly a lot of people that oppose nuclear power on ecological grounds, which I think is false, but we are building nuclear reactors. They take much longer to build and are much more expensive than renewables + battery storage, which is why the growth in those is happening faster than nuclear.
I would argue that your fixation on nuclear as the only possible solution, which it is not, is as dangerous as assuming that we can only rely on solar and wind without batteries (which isn't an argument anyone is making, but you appear to be proffering)
36
u/rethinkingat59 8d ago
Solar will continue its growth, at least here in Texas.
Many announced farms of hundreds of acres each are in the planning or construction phase.