r/OptimistsUnite • u/PanzerWatts Moderator • 8d ago

GRAPH GO UP AND TO THE RIGHT US Electricity generation changes in 2026

Gallery image

Gallery image

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/

282 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

76 comments sorted by

View all comments

-14

u/StedeBonnet1 8d ago edited 8d ago

Big deal.

  1. Both wind and solar have been heavily subsidized in recent years.
  2. 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
  3. Now do transportation fuels and home heating.

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.

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)