> Solar added about 600 terawatt-hours of generation globally > And nuclear is making a comeback: More than 12 GW of new reactors began construction in 2025 Am I reading it right that growth in solar was 50000x that of growth in nuclear? (And those reactors of course won't be finished / online until some years into the future.)
No, you are comparing watthours to watts. At 90% used factor 12GW would be ~95 TWh.
IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first
81–90 of 140 posts
Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first
#82Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first
#83> And nuclear is making a comeback: More than 12 GW of new reactors began construction in 2025 By the time they are ready they will have contributed so many carbon emissions, that they'll have to run for 25% of their expected life span to get them back. But by the time they are commissioned (~2036), solar + battery + solar-made hydrocarbons will have made them uneconomic, and solar would have made far fewer emissions…
Solar made hydrocarbons are never going to be economical. Confident predictions of the inevitability of renewable diesel at $3 a liter don't add up because diesel is $3 a liter right now . I am literally paying that at the pump. I will actually happily pay more then that if the diesel were actually renewable, but instead it doesn't exist.
"Predictions are hard, especially about the future".
Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first
#84Very misleading title: it should be "Solar leads global energy growth for the first time". Still good news, but a long, long way from solar becoming the world's primary source of energy.
Coal: 10858 TWh
Natural Gas: 6822 TWh
Hydro: 4470 TWh
Nuclear: 2859 TWh
Wind: 2723 TWh
Solar: 2653 TWh
Decent growth, but still a long way to go.
Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first
#85These reports are inferring a lot from 1 year trends that are often changing only around 1%. Certainly it is great if new energy is coming mostly from cleaner sources, but the idea that we are actually getting rid of the non clean sources is something we should be skeptical of. This graph shows all energy usage over time: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy New energy sources have always been add…
The use of primary energy on the vertical axis is an old trick by the fossil fuel industry to mislead people into thinking that one unit of fossils = one unit of renewables. In fact, one unit of primary energy for wind or solar electricity is the equivalent of three units of fossil fuel electricity.
Another trick is to pretend we need all those fossils if we switched to renewables. In fact, if we switch to renewables, 12% of the fossil fuel energy disappears because that is how much energy is used to mine-transport-refine fossil fuels+uranium for energy, and we wouldn't need to do that anymore
A third trick is to pretend we need so much energy if we go to all electricity powered by renewables. In that case, because EVs use 75% less energy than gasoline/diesel vehicles, heat pumps use 75% less energy than combustion heating, etc., energy demand goes down another 42%.
In sum, this plot illustrates the real story of where we are and where we need to go. The proper metric is end-use energy, not primary energy.
and here's the paper
Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first
#86Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> comparison of spent energy for fossil fuels vs electricity is not a good way to do it because electric motors use less for the same output. Compare kWh per 100km for an ICE car and EV. Electrification will lead to a drop simply because of this Yes but there are losses in generating electricity, and in transmitting it as well. If you only measure from energy in your car's battery to motion you're right, but I don't…
Then you also have to account for losses in drilling oil, shipping it to a refinery, refining it into gasoline or diesel, shipping it to a distribution hub, then to a gas station. And all the electricity consumed in doing that. And the navy and coast guard ships that need to patrol all the oceans to keep the oil tankers safe. And...
Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think 2) is a lot more complicated to the point statements like that are misleading. Take a look Graph of energy consumption of China which is about double the US: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/china The energy consumption of the United States has flat lined: https://ourworldindata.org/profile/energy/united-states One can argue that the US and Europe have maintained a low energy consumption by de-indusr…
> A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery Does it take into account the "massive energy cost" of manufacturing the ICE vehicle then?
Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you also have to account for losses in drilling oil, shipping it to a refinery, refining it into gasoline or diesel, shipping it to a distribution hub, then to a gas station. And all the electricity consumed in doing that. And the navy and coast guard ships that need to patrol all the oceans to keep the oil tankers safe. And...
Yes, and the same for building and fuelling the power station I suppose. That's why I'm saying you need to pick a sensible point to compare efficiency at.
Solar panels or windmills are like oil drills. They aren't oil.
Re: IEA: Solar overtakes all energy sources in a major global first
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A simple ICE vs EV comparison ignores electric grid generation efficiency and transmission losses as well as the massive energy cost of manufacturing the battery Does it take into account the "massive energy cost" of manufacturing the ICE vehicle then?
Or the gasoline generation efficiency and transmission losses? Or the economic impacts of oil pollution? Getting oil from the ground to the pump isn't free either.