this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
510 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

75846 readers
2214 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
510
U.S. solar will pass wind in 2025 and leave coal in the dust soon after (pv-magazine-usa.com)
submitted 6 days ago by spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world
108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Based on current deployment rates, it is likely that solar will surpass wind as the third-largest source of electricity. And solar may soon topple coal in the number two spot.

Looking ahead, through July 2028, FERC expects no new coal capacity to come online based on its “high probability additions” forecast. Meanwhile 63 coal plants are expected to be retired, subtracting 25 GW from the 198 GW total, and landing at about 173 GW of coal capacity by 2028. Meanwhile, FERC forecasts 92.6 GW of “high probability additions” solar will come online through July 2028.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Some reading for you, which I hope you'll read:

https://www.cis.org.au/publication/the-renewable-energy-honeymoon-starting-is-easy-the-rest-is-hard/

https://x.com/jnampijinpa/status/1973660876793368808

Since I doubt you or anyone else will, I'll take some bits from it:

As you can see, as wind + solar generation share goes up, retail electricity prices go up. They never go down. They never even stay the same.

“As the proportion of weather-dependent energy in the grid grows, the costs and difficulties of integrating this energy also grow at an increasing rate.”

...

The paper found (as per the graph):

•⁠ ⁠Countries with less than 21% wind and solar generation have electricity prices of around US $0.15/kWh on average.

•⁠ ⁠Countries with between 21% and 33% wind and solar generation have electricity prices of around US $0.24/kWh on average.

•⁠ ⁠Countries that exceed 33% wind and solar generation, have electricity prices of around US $0.37/kWh on average.

...

The research notes, “No country has achieved penetrations higher than 60%, let alone 90%, without costs going up. A low-cost, wind-and-solar-dependent country simply does not exist.”

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Big surprise, running 50 year old plants lead to lower bills than new infrastructure. Now do new coal plants.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 4 days ago

Don’t need new coal plants.

Should be building nuclear anyway.

[–] sucius@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I'm not going to read propaganda from an Australian right wing think tank, you're right.

It’s not actually cheap though, that’s the problem. Basically every country that is pushing “renewables” are having their power bills increase over and over and over with no sign of slowing down because it’s not cheap.

I can't speak for every country, unlike you, but in Southern Europe the trend is exactly the opposite of what you're saying. https://www.bbvaresearch.com/en/publicaciones/spain-more-renewables-to-continue-lowering-costs/

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

“I’m not going to read your link cause it proves my ideology wrong. Here’s a link that proves mine right, and mine is much much much narrower in scope so as to not show the global trend”

lol

[–] Ixoid@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago

JFC mate, you're linking to content by the traitor Jacinta Nampijinpa-Price, and you have the gall to accuse others of ideological bias? Fuck man, you couldn't be more out-of-step with reality.

[–] sucius@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

No, it's just that the study you linked is wrong in may aspects. The one I linked comes from a bank not a think tank, but you can find thousands more.