And we are already in the process to replace non-electricity energy.

Not as far as you’d think though. According to [0] in 2024 it was 6.9% solar, 8.1% wind, and 14.3% hydro, I.e. 29% renewables. Given the trajectory I wouldn’t be surprised if that total was ~33% in 2025.

[0]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-prod-source-s...

AKA the forward march of progress.

Energy independence is a two way street. This is essentially a domestic internal soft power lever that is going to go away or be nerf'd.

https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/modern-renewable-energy-c...

https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/indias-electrotech-...

(global solar PV deployment is just a bit below ~1TW/year at current deployment rates)

That's why Putin attacked in 2022, and didn't wait any longer to build a stronger military. He knew he was on the clock as Europe slowly switched to renewables his fossil fuel leverage got weaker.

Unrelated, but doomer version of me expects that China will wait for the US to exhaust it's cruise missile supply bombing Iran, then move over Taiwan. Hope I'm wrong about this.

uh,...yea?

That being said, peak fossil fuels is the future date at which we are burning more than ever followed by the slow decrease. Meaning we are still accelerating CO2 emissions and even if we emit less, every emission is still cumulative so the march towards actually fixing the climate will only start at peak fossil fuels. We still need to remove all that GHG.

"accelerationist" yes, not sure about the other parts.

Some panel in a solar farm in Canada is not gonna see the conditions that let it produce rated capacity nearly as often as one in Arizona. So the guy in Canada installs more capacity to get the same power. Meanwhile the guy in Arizona doesn't have enough copper leading out of his site to handle the power he could produce at peak on the best days, because he over-provisioned too, in order to be able to produce a given amount earlier/later in the day. The actual generation hardware is so cheap that this is just the sensible way to deploy renewables, but it makes for stupid misleading numbers.

Legacy power generation has much different numbers and isn't subject to the whims of the weather so installed capacity is a number that means something in that context.

Domestic users can just do the same. Some of us already have.

Yes, it’s not alway possible but a huge portion of domestic usage can be covered with a small install. Payback 5-10 years.

Both on daily cycles and seasonally for anywhere that uses airconditioning. It's a good fit for 2/3rds of the global population.

Some people live nearer the poles and wind lines up better with their heating needs. And of course you can combine them because they anti-correlate.

The issue is that comparing "capacity" as a percentage is misleading. A baseload generation source can have average generation above 90% of its rated capacity, solar at something like 25%, wind something like 25-40%. Which means that saying "nearly 50%" of capacity can imply something closer to 15% of generation, and potentially even less if the amount of local capacity is high, because then you get periods when renewable generation exceeds demand and the additional generation has nowhere to go, which effectively reduces the capacity factor even more.

And on the other side, natural gas peaker plants can have a capacity factor even lower than solar and wind because their explicit purpose is to only be used when demand exceeds supply from other sources, so that "nearly 50%" in a grid which is entirely renewables and peaker plants could actually imply more than 50% of total generation. This is much less common in existing grids but it makes looking at the nameplate capacity even more worthless because you can't just multiply it by a fixed factor to get the real number.

Whereas if they would just publish the percentage of actual generation, that's what people actually want to know. But then you'd have to say "13%" or "24%" or whatever the real number is, instead of "nearly 50%".

The largest electricity consumers all have good places to put solar farms.

OK, but what if someone looked at the rated capacity of all trucks and noted that in the last 5 years it went up by 24%, 22%, 28%, 54%, and 45%? That would strongly suggest that the amount trucks actually being used is growing rapidly because people aren't going to be buying new trucks unless they have to.

I see nothing wrong with power users committing to clean energy and storage to accelerate their development plans, or to allow them at all. I am unsure who is going to complain about this model. Lease or buy as much land as you need to deploy clean energy.

https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/infrastructure-and-clo...

Regulatory filing: https://mi-psc.my.site.com/s/case/500cs00001amKTrAAM/in-the-...

> Google’s data center operations will be served by 2.7 gigawatts (GW) of new resources for the grid, including solar power, advanced storage technologies and demand flexibility. This Clean Capacity Acceleration Agreement with DTE (the same structure as the Clean Transition Tariff) will bring new, clean resources online, while supporting the state’s transition away from coal-fired power. As part of our standard approach to building new data centers, Google will fully cover its electricity costs and infrastructure needs, helping to ensure that its growth protects local ratepayers and actively bolsters the long-term resilience of the state’s electricity grid.

The hydro fraction is also a really bad indicator in general, because it basically just reflects geography of a country and not really its effort to reduce CO2 emissions.

https://ember-energy.org/latest-updates/24-hour-solar-now-ec...

https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/solar-electricity-e... ("104$/MWh: Achieving 97% of the way to 24/365 solar in very sunny regions is now affordable at as low as $104/MWh, cheaper than coal and nuclear and 22% less than a year earlier.")

> Legacy power generation has much different numbers and isn't subject to the whims of the weather so installed capacity is a number that means something in that context.

Legacy power is ridiculously expensive in comparison. Who will invest in fossil gas generation when ~20% of LNG exports have been taken offline for the next 3-5 years?

https://www.lazard.com/media/eijnqja3/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... (page 8)

Strikes on Qatar's LNG Ras Laffan plant Will Reshape the Future of Fossil Gas - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47484246 - March 2026

Fossil fuels are over, it's just how fast we get to "done." Enough sunlight falls on the Earth in 30-60 minutes to power humanity for a year. Solar PV and battery manufacturing continues to spool up, and year by year, more fossil generation is pushed out.

California is routinely operating at 80% renewables, 90% low carbon generation during daylight hours as they work towards installing battery storage to replace their fossil generation (~52GW target by 2045), for example, while having plans for 10s of GWs of additional solar to come online over the next decade.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-CAL-CISO/live/fi...

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/were-harvesting-t...

First: The same argument applies to suburban population, where autarky is even easier/cheaper than for industrial consumers: Just slap panels on the roof and a bunch of batteries into a shed, done. We won't even need much cheaper panels nor cells, really; it's mainly labor, integrator-margins and regulations that make this less (financially) attractive than the grid right now (pure cells are already in the $60/kWh range for single-digit quantities).

Second: If industrial consumers stop contributing towards electric grid costs and the general public dislikes it, you can just regulate against it, problem solved. But in practice governments already try to make the energy situation as appealing as possible for industry, so there is very little actually leveraged power that you really give up anyway.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2026/02/25/solar-and-storage-to-...

Humanity does far more wasteful things than build some extra solar panels.

But in much of the world, setting up PV is economically sound simply because it displaces a certain amount of kWh generated over the course of a year from other sources that are more polluting and more expensive.

In this regime, the dynamics of production over time don't matter yet.

At some point, when renewable generation has very high penetration, you'll reach a point where building more is uneconomical, and to then displace the remaining other power sources you'll need to overpay (ignoring externalities).

However, that's assuming no technological change on the way there, which is a whole separate topic.

As a ‘clean green New Zealander’, your comment is perfect.

We trash our country in such appalling ways. The fact they there aren’t many of us and that the easy way of getting power is hydro is coincidence, not a national conscience.

A lesson we learn again in 2026: one can’t seize and hold territory with air power alone.

China can almost certainly deny U.S. warships access to the Taiwan Strait. They can probably deny U.S. access to the South China Sea. But the U.S. (and Taiwan and Japan) can do the same back, similarly from a distance, and that’s the equilibrium currently keeping the peace.

I looked it up because I was curious, according to Wikipedia average PV capacity factor is 25 % in USA, 10 % in the UK or Germany.

Nuclear has 88 % capacity factor worldwide. Meaning to replace 1 GW of nuclear installed capacity you need 8.8 GW of PV installed capacity in Germany or 3.5 GW of PV installed capacity in US.

Which might still be economically worth it, I don't know. But it is a number that surprised it.

> you can just regulate against it, problem solved

I think that is exactly what you'll lose the ability to do. If Marvin Heemeyer didn't need the town's septic connection we wouldn't know his name.

A huge fraction of regulatory enforcement exists in the gray area of "the government is wrong, or their enforcement of it is wrong but it's cheaper to bend over and take it than to fight it through a courtroom". If farmer Johnson can slap up a building kit on his property and power it with stuff he bought online and doesn't need the power company, Joe Schmo can do the same with an ADU. Yeah, they'll both get dragged through court but $50-100k of court costs to be proven right is a much smaller threat when the project can be done and generating income for the duration of the court case (it also renders the typical tactic of dragging out such cases much less effective).

And at a slightly larger scale, if some business interest can negotiate purely with a municipality to take over some disused factory and bring it back into use and get their power via bunch of panels and not get bogged down with state permitting to get a transmission line and substation the state loses a huge number of levers over the business interest and also they lose levers to control poorer municipalities (who'd happily take the business). Once again, they'll get dragged through court by the state, but spending 5yr and $200k just to be right isn't a dealbreaker when your widget factory has been operating the whole time.

Yes, of course governments can do worse things if they feel like it, but they run into problems of political optics and will more or less instantly.

You already see this kind of thing in some of the highest cost areas. Certain demographics in the greater NYC area often do building and land development things this way. It costs the same at the end, but by doing it without asking you get to use it while the whole process runs.

I'm in favour of having it but the reason why you need to over provision is because of the intermittency. This can also push out proper base load (e.g. nuclear) although it's not simple.

You have to think about the portfolio.

In Britain at least there is also a bit of a sleight of hand where the marginal costs are reported but not the CFD strike prices used to incentivise the buildout.

They're so cheap they get over-provisioned on purpose. Can you imagine some guy speci'ng switchgear and transmission lines for a coal or gas plant that can't handle the plant running full tilt? Yeah me either. But that's exactly how it's done for renewables because that's where the sweet spot of cost-benifit is.

A dozen 10mw turbines might be fed through 100mw of transmission hardware. They can never produce their rated 120mw because liquid copper would happen if they did. But they were intentionally provisioned that way so that based on weather patterns and whatnot they'd be able to expect say 80mw a certain number of days per year.

There are untold numbers of renewable installations out there that cannot supply their nameplate capacity to the grid in such a manner.

EDF fleet upkeep will cost over 100 billion euros by 2035, court of auditors says - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-fleet-upkeep-wil... - November 17th, 2025

French utility EDF lifts cost estimate for new reactors to 67 billion euros - Les Echos - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/french-utility-edf-l... - March 4th, 2024

Explainer-Why a French plan to take full control of EDF is no cure-all - https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/07/07/edf-nationalistion - July 7th, 2022

Spain’s Nuclear Shutdown Set to Test Renewables Success Story - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-11/spain-s-n... | https://archive.today/4fB7K - April 11th, 2025 (“Spain is a postcard, a glimpse into the future where you’re not going to need baseload generators from 8am to 5pm” with solar and wind providing all of the grid’s needs during that time, said Kesavarthiniy Savarimuthu, a European power markets analyst with BloombergNEF. Still, she said, there is a reasonable chance this goal may take longer than expected and “extending the life of the nuclear fleet can prove as an insurance for these delays.”) (My note: As of this comment, Spain has 7.12GW of nuclear generation capacity per ree.es, and assuming ~2GW/month deployment rate seen in Germany, could replace this capacity with solar and batteries in ~17 months; per Electricity Maps, only 15.45% of Spain's electrical generation over the last twelve months has been sourced from this nuclear: https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/ES/12mo/monthly)

If gas plants cannot economically compete, they will not be built or fired. And the evidence shows they cannot compete, regardless of their competing capacity factor and dispatchability.

That's just wrong.

EDF nuclear fleet is highly profitable with around 92TWh exported in 2025 and more than 5 Billions of benefits for the country and the company.

https://www.sfen.org/rgn/le-nucleaire-en-chiffres-923-twh-de...

The reason EDF had to be nationalized is because the government used the company as a "price shield" to protect consumer against energy price rise on the European market in 2022 with a mechanism named TRV (Tarif Régulé vente). That digged up EDF dept tremendously.

> Spain plans to deprecate their remaining nuclear for renewables for similar reasons

Span deprecated their nuclear government because their current Socialist government is aligned with Ecologists that are, like everywhere in Europe, antinuclear.

Additionally, the lack of spinning generator in Spain is currently partially what caused the Blackout in Spain in 2025 due to a lack of inertia in the system.

> EDF fleet upkeep will cost over 100 billion euros by 2035, court of auditors says

This is over 25 years and will prolong-ate the lifetime of the 56 reactors by 20 more years. These produce 70% of the country need in electricity.

In comparison, the German energiewende cost 400 billions for 37% of electricity of 2025 produced by solar and wind. With production medium that will need to be entirely renewed in 20 years.

> California will achieve a low carbon generation profile for far cheaper than it cost France (refer to the Lazard LCOE

That is also wrong.

Because LCOE calculation does not take into consideration the price of the grid consolidating necessary for renewable nor the necessity of backup generation in case of dunkleflaute.

Solar cannibalises solar, so the price when the sun shines may tend to zero, but that does not ensure the price to the consumer of the electricity they need tends to zero, or even lower than it was.

A better metric would simply be annual production, where we're in the ~30% range globally (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-renewab...). Even that comparison portraits renewables very favorably, because dispatchable power is easier to handle than the same output from intermittent sources.

If you look beyond electricity (heating/total primary energy use) the picture gets even worse.

This is not an argument against renewables, this is against premature cheering and misleading use of numbers.

A healthy power network will have a variety of generations sources available.

I wish I didn't live in coal and NIMBY land.

No, it's correct, the total costs of the 2022 bailout was almost 10bn, and that was to get control over a company that had over 50bn in debt.

Furthermore it was discovered that the plants had neglected maintenance that had to be undertaken rightaway, that had nothing to do with the TRV.

Of course, the TRV didn't help, it caused a loss of 18bn in 2022 on top of everything else, but things were bad already.

So even if the mentioned 5 bn export now was pure profit - which is isn't - it would take 15-20 years to cover the bailout that has already taken place. The 100 billion of investments until 2035 is in addition to that.

And they will have to sell their power on markets that will increasingly often have free electricity from solar and wind. How do you pay 1000 educated plant operators when electricity prices are negative?

Unfortunately nuclear power isn't the kind of thing you can try and then walk away from when it turns out to be a bad idea. Which is likely the main reason it's still around.

The thesis is simply this chart: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capaci...

Of course, there is nuance, but the facts are that in the next 10-20 years, renewables and storage will have destroyed demand for fossil fuels for electrical generation. That's progress. We might go faster or slower, depending on policy and other factors, but this is the trajectory we are currently on, based on the data presented in this piece.

The Economist wrote a piece explaining this, if that is helpful:

The exponential growth of solar power will change the world - https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/06/20/the-exponential... | https://archive.today/lp9pZ - June 20th, 2024

> To call solar power’s rise exponential is not hyperbole, but a statement of fact. Installed solar capacity doubles roughly every three years, and so grows ten-fold each decade. Such sustained growth is seldom seen in anything that matters. That makes it hard for people to get their heads round what is going on. When it was a tenth of its current size ten years ago, solar power was still seen as marginal even by experts who knew how fast it had grown. The next ten-fold increase will be equivalent to multiplying the world’s entire fleet of nuclear reactors by eight in less than the time it typically takes to build just a single one of them.

> Solar cells will in all likelihood be the single biggest source of electrical power on the planet by the mid 2030s. By the 2040s they may be the largest source not just of electricity but of all energy. On current trends, the all-in cost of the electricity they produce promises to be less than half as expensive as the cheapest available today. This will not stop climate change, but could slow it a lot faster. Much of the world—including Africa, where 600m people still cannot light their homes—will begin to feel energy-rich. That feeling will be a new and transformational one for humankind.

> To grasp that this is not some environmentalist fever dream, consider solar economics. As the cumulative production of a manufactured good increases, costs go down. As costs go down, demand goes up. As demand goes up, production increases—and costs go down further. This cannot go on for ever; production, demand or both always become constrained. In earlier energy transitions—from wood to coal, coal to oil or oil to gas—the efficiency of extraction grew, but it was eventually offset by the cost of finding ever more fuel.

So! The transition is going fast (~1TW/year), and it is likely to continue to increase in speed (more solar manufacturing and battery storage will continue to be be built year over year, increasing annual production and deployment rates from today's rate(s)), based on all available data and observations. This is the good news to cheer. Nameplate and capacity factor arguments are meaningless in this context. We are at the hockey stick inflection point: look up.

https://www.iea.org/commentaries/global-battery-markets-are-...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Money will eventually win the war. Depressing way to get there but this crisis will accelerate the change.

Bailout of 2022 alone was around 22bn, where was added on top of it the historical debt.

Revenue of EDF in 2025 is over 100Bn to put things into perspective.

> Furthermore it was discovered that the plants had neglected maintenance that had to be undertaken rightaway, that had nothing to do with the TRV.

That is also wrong. The immediate maintenance in 2022 was related to "corrosion sous contrainte" which has nothing to do with carelessness. It was mainly the French nuclear regulator (ASN) over-reacting to some non critical cracks find in some pipes. They have themselves said afterward that the immediate actions were not necessary, the actions overreactive (from EDF side) and the calendar very unfortunate.

> So even if the mentioned 5 bn export now was pure profit - which is isn't -

Indeed. Profits in 2025 were currently over 8bn€, so well over 5bn€.

5bn€ just concern the profit made by the exports.

This is not hard to understand: Making a profit by selling valuable nuclear energy during evening peak consumption while buying cheap intermittent solar during low consumption time is an easy game.

People generally do not understand that Nuclear is a CAPEX game, not an OPEX one.

> And they will have to sell their power on markets that will increasingly often have free electricity from solar and wind. How do you pay 1000 educated plant operators when electricity prices are negative?

By selling them nuclear electricity at 180€/MWh every night when the sun do not shine.

(This is the average price, every evening peak this month)

Meaning-while, the profitability of solar operators will sink to the ground due to the overcapacity and negative price during the day and many of them will die if not state subsidized with public money.

> nuclear power isn't the kind of thing you can try and then walk away from when it turns out to be a bad idea

It is currently the best low-carbon energy around. And will continue to be for the next 2 decades.

The current Co2/kwh emission of France (27g/kwh). The ones of country like Germany (397g/kwh) or even California (190g/kwh) speak for itself.

And I can bet that in 15y from now, the French grid will still be greener than the German one.

https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-export-data/

> As the world’s largest manufacturer of clean technologies, data on China’s cleantech exports provide an important early insight into the pace and scale of the energy transition. In 2024, China produced around 80% of the world’s solar PV modules and battery cells, and 70% of electric vehicles.

Clean tech printer goes brrr.