Solar Energy Was America's Largest Source of New Energy for 21 Straight Months (electrek.co) 103
"Solar and wind accounted for almost 91% of new U.S. electrical generating capacity added in the first five months of 2025..." reports Electrek, citing new data from America's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
"Solar has now been the largest source of new generating capacity added each month for 21 consecutive months, starting September 2023." The 11,518 MW of solar added during the first five months of 2025 was 75.3% of the total new capacity placed into service... Between January and May, new wind provided 2,379 MW of capacity additions, accounting for 15.6% of all new capacity added during the first five months of 2025. For the first five months of 2025, solar and wind comprised 90.9% of new capacity while natural gas (1,381 MW) provided just 9.0%; the remaining 0.1% came from oil (14 MW). Solar + wind are 22.9% of U.S. utility-scale generating capacity.
The installed capacities of solar (11.1%) and wind (11.8%) are now each more than a tenth of the U.S. total. Taken together, they constitute 22.9% of the U.S.'s total available installed utility-scale generating capacity. At least 25-30% of U.S. solar capacity is in the form of small-scale (e.g., rooftop) systems that are not reflected in FERC's data. Including that additional solar capacity would bring the share provided by solar + wind to more than a quarter of the U.S. total. With the inclusion of hydropower (7.7%), biomass (1.1%), and geothermal (0.3%), renewables currently claim a 32.0% share of total US utility-scale generating capacity. If small-scale solar capacity is included, renewables are now about one-third of total US generating capacity....
Taken together, the net new "high probability" capacity additions by all renewable energy sources over the next three years — the bulk of the Trump Administration's remaining time in office — would total 113,097 MW. There is no new nuclear capacity in FERC's three-year forecast, while coal and oil are projected to contract by 24,913 MW and 1,907 MW, respectively... If FERC's current "high probability" additions materialize by May 1, 2028, solar will account for 16.7% of US installed utility-scale generating capacity. Wind would provide an additional 12.7% of the total. Thus, each would be greater than coal (12.2%) and substantially more than nuclear power or hydropower (each 7.2%). In fact, assuming current growth rates continue, the installed capacity of utility-scale solar is likely to surpass that of either coal or wind within two years...
At the end of 2024, the mix of all renewables accounted for 30.96% of total generating capacity. Solar alone was 10.19% while wind was 11.68%. By the end of May, renewables' share had risen to 31.98% with solar at 11.13% and wind at 11.80%.
FERC also says that 43 "units" of solar totaling 1,515 megawatts (MW) were placed into service in May, according to the article, "accounting for 58.7% of all new generating capacity added during the month."
"Solar has now been the largest source of new generating capacity added each month for 21 consecutive months, starting September 2023." The 11,518 MW of solar added during the first five months of 2025 was 75.3% of the total new capacity placed into service... Between January and May, new wind provided 2,379 MW of capacity additions, accounting for 15.6% of all new capacity added during the first five months of 2025. For the first five months of 2025, solar and wind comprised 90.9% of new capacity while natural gas (1,381 MW) provided just 9.0%; the remaining 0.1% came from oil (14 MW). Solar + wind are 22.9% of U.S. utility-scale generating capacity.
The installed capacities of solar (11.1%) and wind (11.8%) are now each more than a tenth of the U.S. total. Taken together, they constitute 22.9% of the U.S.'s total available installed utility-scale generating capacity. At least 25-30% of U.S. solar capacity is in the form of small-scale (e.g., rooftop) systems that are not reflected in FERC's data. Including that additional solar capacity would bring the share provided by solar + wind to more than a quarter of the U.S. total. With the inclusion of hydropower (7.7%), biomass (1.1%), and geothermal (0.3%), renewables currently claim a 32.0% share of total US utility-scale generating capacity. If small-scale solar capacity is included, renewables are now about one-third of total US generating capacity....
Taken together, the net new "high probability" capacity additions by all renewable energy sources over the next three years — the bulk of the Trump Administration's remaining time in office — would total 113,097 MW. There is no new nuclear capacity in FERC's three-year forecast, while coal and oil are projected to contract by 24,913 MW and 1,907 MW, respectively... If FERC's current "high probability" additions materialize by May 1, 2028, solar will account for 16.7% of US installed utility-scale generating capacity. Wind would provide an additional 12.7% of the total. Thus, each would be greater than coal (12.2%) and substantially more than nuclear power or hydropower (each 7.2%). In fact, assuming current growth rates continue, the installed capacity of utility-scale solar is likely to surpass that of either coal or wind within two years...
At the end of 2024, the mix of all renewables accounted for 30.96% of total generating capacity. Solar alone was 10.19% while wind was 11.68%. By the end of May, renewables' share had risen to 31.98% with solar at 11.13% and wind at 11.80%.
FERC also says that 43 "units" of solar totaling 1,515 megawatts (MW) were placed into service in May, according to the article, "accounting for 58.7% of all new generating capacity added during the month."
Fusion .. the only way forward (Score:5, Funny)
We need to get energy from fusion. If only we had a giant reactor.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay you got a Dyson sphere to go with it? Didn't think so. We might want to build some smaller ones.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Everyone that is tired of your Creimer fetish appearing in every story. Get a life or move on to new topics. Perhaps tripping old ladies or tipping over wheelchairs would be amusing to you too.
Re: Propane .. the only way forward (Score:2)
AC, at this point i have to assume you're not going to pass the Turing test. Even for AC this is low effort.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Joking aside, this is how renewables will ultimately triumph over everything else. Capitalism - people can generate their own electricity instead of being forced to pay someone else for it. The returns are guaranteed and very good in comparison to other investments. The be centralized producers can try to make it less attractive by reducing payments for grid feed-in, but in doing so they just make going off-grid or setting up a micro grid more attractive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as capitalism can be influenced to protect consumers from its worst excesses, it can also be influenced to make its excesses worse.
Corporations absolutely can buy laws (in the US these days, by bribing just a single person who wears a lot of orange makeup) which prevent citizens from installing their own solar power systems.
Re:Fusion .. the only way forward (Score:4, Interesting)
Solar, wind and batteries are now almost always cheaper than any other energy source.
The "free market" will take care of implementation.
Of course, fossils are afraid of being replaced and is heavily leaning on our corrupt government to tilt the scales. There are short term obstacles but solar, wind and batteries taking over.
Re: Fusion .. the only way forward (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Renewables?
Solar = always sunny, Wind = always windy, geothermal = not hot enough to make enough steam to be useful, fusion = a bit away from being usable (but has promises), fission = waste disposal/storage, hydro = works but requires more dams than possible on actively flowing rivers.
Each one has issues... it'll have to be some combination of whatever tech you can name.
Solar works where it's sunny, but isn't durable enough to put in tornado alley, wind works if it's in a windy place (and you can get a mai
Re: (Score:2)
Joking aside, this is how renewables will ultimately triumph over everything else. Capitalism - people can generate their own electricity instead of being forced to pay someone else for it. The returns are guaranteed and very good in comparison to other investments. The be centralized producers can try to make it less attractive by reducing payments for grid feed-in, but in doing so they just make going off-grid or setting up a micro grid more attractive.
Those who believe these things should spend more time pricing required technology out and not ignoring or otherwise neglecting that long tail required to keep the lights on 24x7.
Sure it is cheap and easy to put enough panels on the roof to collect more energy than you will ever use in a year yet the costs of such things are literally rounding errors compared to resources required to convert this into energy available on demand.
Re: Fusion .. the only way forward (Score:2)
This is basically for the folks who don't want to buy 60+ kwh of storage and a fancy hybrid inverter setup and do the same thing on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather have a giant robot!
Re: (Score:1)
Agree! (Score:1)
the key word - "WAS" (Score:4, Informative)
Going even farther, he blames renewables for rising electrical prices: https://apnews.com/article/tru... [apnews.com]
Re: the key word - "WAS" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Solar had rebates. Fossil fuels offer kickbacks. Guess which one the Orange Cheeto likes better?
Re: the key word - "WAS" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant. Some days I wish I didn't have a conscience.
Re: the key word - "WAS" (Score:2)
Re: the key word - "WAS" (Score:4)
>> makes way more sense than solar
No it doesn't.
Re: the key word - "WAS" (Score:5, Insightful)
Modular nuclear makes way more sense than solar. Easier to maintain and much smaller footprint. Stop getting angry at politicians and listen to common sense
And how many modular reactors are now in production? Until there is some financial and engineering data, "is" remains the appropriate verb and, once more data on real use cases becomes available, my bet that operational costs will continue to leave modular nuclear behind for most use cases. Beating near zero operational costs and increasingly lowering costs will keep solar and, to a lesser case, wind in front.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope, for your sake, that this was a joke.
Re: the key word - "WAS" (Score:4, Informative)
Modular nuclear makes way more sense than solar.
No modular reactors are operating anywhere in the world.
If they are great as you say, profit-seeking capitalists would be building them with enthusiasm.
They're not.
Re: the key word - "WAS" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's just hype for now.
SMN doesn't exist so everything you read about it is just hype.
Re: the key word - "WAS" (Score:5, Insightful)
Modular nuclear makes way more sense than solar. Easier to maintain and much smaller footprint.
Arguing for SMRs as a present-day solution isn't common sense; the data shows the opposite. According to FERC, the three-year energy pipeline contains 113 GW of new renewables and zero nuclear. While it's true NuScale's SMR design was certified by the NRC—a major achievement—that doesn't mean they're viable. Their flagship project, the Carbon Free Power Project in Idaho, was canceled due to soaring costs before they even broke ground. The most advanced SMR in the country failed because the economics didn't work, while we're deploying over a gigawatt of solar every month.
You mentioned land use and maintenance. Yes, a nuclear plant's footprint is small, but that ignores the massive lifecycle footprint of uranium mining and permanent waste storage. And the idea that a fission reactor is "easier to maintain" than a solar panel is simply not a serious argument. Maintaining a solar farm involves checking inverters and cleaning panels. Maintaining a wind turbine involves servicing a gearbox. These are standard industrial tasks. Maintaining a nuclear reactor, otoh, is one of the most complex, expensive, and heavily regulated maintenance jobs on the planet, requiring elite specialists, massive security, and the handling of radioactive materials.
In a bucket, utility-scale solar and wind are the cheapest forms of new energy generation in history. As the FERC data shows, we are installing over a gigawatt of solar every month, while SMRs like the CFPP are failing before a shovel even hits the dirt. Don't misconstrue me, here -- I think SMRs have a future role, but right now, solar and wind are the clear winners in terms of real-world deployment economics, and nuclear power, even promising tech like SMRs, still has real world problems to overcome before they can be economically deployed at scale.
Stop getting angry at politicians and listen to common sense
Politics is the entire reason this is a debate. Do you really think Trump or his MAGA enablers in congress would give a shit about energy economics, if Obama's and Biden's names weren't attached to prominent, successful examples? The success of renewables is a direct result of policies like the Obama era recovery investments in clean energy, and Biden's ITC extensions of Obama's renewable energy tax breaks. The current administration's "Big Beautiful Bill" is a politically motivated attempt to kneecap that progress on behalf of fossil fuel interests. Pretending policy doesn't matter is disingenuous, especially in the Trump era, where successful lobbying is defined by figuring out which of Trump's emotional levers is easiest to pull.
Re: the key word - "WAS" (Score:5, Interesting)
Not american; don't know the exacting details - but my understanding is that no new projects will be approved on "productive farmland".
Furthermore; given that solar is the cheapest alternative there is per kwh - economic conditions alone will ensure that lots and lots of solar capacity will be added by enterprising individuals, and companies.
The trick is that now that battery prices are plummeting in addition, battery capacity is needed for when the sun doesn't shine, and flywheels are needed for inertia.
Even with that, it's cheaper than any other power plant solutions.
Re: the key word - "WAS" (Score:4, Interesting)
> but my understanding is that no new projects will be approved on "productive farmland".
And that's an accurate but shallow read on it.
The way it's framed makes it sound like we're paving over large open fields once used for crops and installing solar panels and wind turbines. While wind turbines often share land with crops (they take up a negligible amount of land in comparison), we're definitely not doing that with solar.
The practical reality is any land associated with a farm is considered "productive farmland." So basically if you own a farm you are not getting any help installing renewable energy anywhere on your property.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Solar is a great way to shave peak demand in the late afternoon and evening when combined with batteries, but it cannot provide baseload power during the night or when the sun is not shining. You need natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, or coal(!) for that. But is a great thing as long as Congress quits subsidizing it. It isn't economically efficient to do so (excess deployment due to subsidies make retail electric rates go up not down) and we have a $2T a year budget deficit and we cannot afford it. S
Re: (Score:3)
...and we have a $2T a year budget deficit and we cannot afford it.
Right, the self imposed excessive debt that we got so billionaires could get a nice tax break.
Re: (Score:3)
This. The solution is so simple that even a right-wing nut can understand it. That's why they're panicked.
Re: the key word - "WAS" (Score:5, Informative)
Coal -- I mean, "beautiful, clean coal" -- fired power plants, on the other hand...
A coal-fired plant in Michigan was to close. But Trump forced it to keep running at $1m a day [theguardian.com] "in operating costs, ... that midwest residents will have to meet through their bills." The Michigan grid operator MISO stated that it had “adequate resources to meet peak demand this summer” without the coal plant in operation.
In Michigan, the cost of keeping JH Campbell open is set to be steep. Consumers Energy initially estimated its closure would save ratepayers $600m by 2040 as it shifts to cheaper, cleaner energy sources such as solar and wind. Reversing this decision costs $1m a day in operating costs, an imposition that midwest residents will have to meet through their bills.
Should the Trump administration go further and force all of the US fossil fuel plants set to retire by 2028 to continue operating, it will cost American ratepayers as much as $6bn a year in extra bills, a new report by a coalition of green groups has found [earthjustice.org].
Re: the key word - "WAS" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya kinda gotta ask yourself: Why the fuck is a Federal person fucking around with a State level item? Is it because the Federal person thinks everything within the country is within 'his' jurisdiction?
Oh wait, no. We all agreed and voted for a King, not a president.
Fuck this shit.
(I remember Sue) ;(
Re: (Score:2)
Does this include Texas? Since Texas has its own grid, and manages the grid itself, without Federal oversight, I would assume that Trump has no authority to stop solar and wind projects in Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
The approach used is called the "Big Lie" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie). Works well on uneducated idiots with delusions. Obviously, the orange moron did not invent it or even optimize it, that was done by much smarter people (albeit with just about the same lack of morals, honor or integrity).
Re: (Score:3)
Its been the cheapest power for a while (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Starting from about 2012, USA should have deployed solar everywhere below roughly the 38th parallel as quickly as possible & worked to have better interconnects between the various grids especially to be able to shunt power across the southern latitudes from FL to CA and back, including & especially through TX
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Expect it to be banned if enough states don't knuckle under and keep installing solar.
"States rights", the rallying cry only exist so states can oppress women and of course to proselytize the word of Jeebus in schools, courts and other parts of the public sphere. When it comes to doing something regarded as against the interests of the GOP, there are no states rights.
Re:Its been the cheapest power for a while (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect a lot of it is patents expiring. The university I went to had a giant solar power research lab thingo at the back of it, and I'd go down there occasionally on campus busibness. One of the guys there claimed part of the problem was BP and certain other oil companies had a number of the key solar patents locked up and where charging through the nose to use them, This was 25 years ago, and a lot of those patents have expired in the time since. Be very wary when oil companies get involved with renewables. Chances are , its to lock up the patents and sabotage the market.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Solar really isn't "cheap" by any stretch of the imagination. The requirement of huge battery farms that need to be maintained just to have power generated by solar to remain remotely useful during peak times almost makes it not just more expensive but to the overall power use of the grid almost not useful at all.
Re:Its been the cheapest power for a while (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Countries get lots of value out of solar without storage. Every $ not spent on paying for the fuel for fossil fuel generators is a $ saved. Just the duck curve alone is massively economically positive
2. Storage costs are falling rapidly, have been for decades, and will continue to fall in the future
3. If solar really were as shit as you think it is, it wouldn’t be dominating new power deployments across the globe, both public and private
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on where you live. I had solar heat as a kid, and I lived in far north America (St Paul area, Minnesota). Solar heat was on 2 hours a day and had to be shoveled off continuously, including roof panels. I would rate it a 1/10 for convenience and due to the short days, 1/10 for heat. Probably cost my parents 5000x what it benefited them and that was because 2 kids constantly shoveled off the panels on the roof, then dived into a snow pile from clearing the driveway (ok, that was fun). So yeah, I'm
Re: (Score:2)
You're so completely full of shit I don't even know where to begin.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason you see ANY push back on solar is because the sun can not be metered for profit.
Other than that, it makes sense to install solar any time it fits.
Re:Its been the cheapest power for a while (Score:4, Interesting)
This used to be true, but is no longer true - and will be even less true year over year.
Battery prices are continuing to decline. China has been manufacturing solar planels like crazy, and are now manufacturing batteries like crazy.
I'd highly recommend that you read the June 22nd 2024 edition of The Economist (https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2024-06-22 ). Their main feature is not their front page, but rather their "Dawn of the Solar Age" feature.
I was extremely surprised. Up until June last year I was "yeah, yeah, Solar is still for specially interested people". Now I'm in the "OK. Solar will happen no matter what, given the economics" camp.
Re: (Score:3)
Solar really isn't "cheap" by any stretch of the imagination. The requirement of huge battery farms that need to be maintained just to have power generated by solar to remain remotely useful during peak times almost makes it not just more expensive but to the overall power use of the grid almost not useful at all.
Secondary storage exists for a lot of power plants to assist during periods of high demand. For example, Virginia has the Bath County Pumped Storage Station [wikipedia.org], with a net generating capacity is 3,003-megawatts, and was the largest pumped-storage power station in the world until 2021. This allows other power generating plants to operate at close to peak efficiency even during periods of low demand -- especially nuclear plants which are difficult to ramp up/down and (basically) operate most efficiently runni
Re: Its been the cheapest power for a while (Score:2)
2010 called, they want their papers back.
Its 2025. Solar and wind have been the cheapest choice for a few years now and costs will continue to decrease relative to other options.
Unless ofc you run unfiltered coal plants or nuclear plants after their economic lifetime. Those are the only cheaper alternatives to renewable energy until someone installs working SMRs (that look suspiciously like standard reactors, even the scale of them) that are actually both small and standard, or we get working fusion.
Neither
Re: (Score:2)
The requirement of huge battery farms that need to be maintained just to have power generated by solar to remain remotely useful during peak times almost makes it not just more expensive
Solar + battery is cheaper than coal, let alone nuclear
Re: (Score:2)
Solar + battery is cheaper than coal, let alone nuclear
This is wishful thinking. It is economically feasible to run the grid entirely on nuclear or entirely on coal. The same cannot be said for solar + ESS which is completely infeasible given currently available technology.
Re: Its been the cheapest power for a while (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pro solar and do see this (incl battery storage) as the eventual, dominant source of electricity in the future. The cost, environmental benefits, and geo-political benefits are far better than the alternatives, especially in the United States. Can you imagine a world where Russian, Iranian, Venezuelan, Saudi oil is worthless? Such a better planet to inhabit. Heck we could save trillions in avoiding future oil wars alone. China gets it...too bad the US doesn't. The current administrations anti s
Re: (Score:2)
Solar will be dominant just because it's nearly impossible to prevent people from installing it. Just try putting up a coal plant in a blue state. Investors won't even touch you with a 10-foot pole.
Not when honestly measured (Score:2)
If government puts its finger on the scale and presses really hard, then yes, boutique energy sources like wind and solar are the cheapest...but ONLY because government has artificially inflated the prices of the other, actually cheaper, sources.
In the 1960s, electricity companies were constantly encouraging their customers to consume MORE electricity. New nuclear plants were going online and the industry was saying that electricity was becoming "too cheap to meter" - they were starting to talk about just
In a few generations (Score:1)
Interior lighting will be a thing of the past. That is, unless solar and wind power are scaled massively. Nuclear won't be enough alone. Even with all three, it's doubtful the energy debt caused by the depletion of fossil fuels will be overcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
we are doomed to be a movie of the week if this is allowed to continue.
Movies can always get better. Reality TV stays uniformly awful.
Re: In a few generations (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interior light was already solved by Shuji Nakamura and his blue LEDs.
You can light an entire big house using the same power as one strong incandescent bulb now.
You probably can optimize it more by solving the issue of each light having it's own AC/DC converter, but there's bigger fish to fry, like heating and cooling.
Re: (Score:2)
In a few generations (Score:1)
by TheStatsMan ( 1763322 ) 08-23-25 20:32 (#65611570)
Interior lighting will be a thing of the past.
Where are the stats, man?
Re: (Score:2)
The stats are 80% of global energy production is, fossil fuels. A resource that will, eventually, run out.
Sure, for now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>> Wait until modular nuclear
I'm waiting to see some successful pilot plants. 5 years or more?
Re: Sure, for now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until modular nuclear takes off
So forever then? The only company which got approval to build one so far decided not to because it wasn't going to be profitable. Even SMR proponents don't want to actually build one because then we'd all find out that it's just a scam.
Re: (Score:2)
If we're going to have a SMR at every data center, shouldn't the same vulture capitalists bankrolling chatgpt also chip in a few billion to move past the conceptualization phase?
We aren't, but sure, that would make sense.
It's never, ever going to make economic sense to put a single SMR at a data center when you could put multiple SMRs on a site which makes more sense. But by the same token, that will never make sense either when you could save on per-unit costs by putting a smaller number of larger reactors there. And just to follow this line of thinking to the logical conclusion, that's never going to make sense either while it's cheaper to do renewables plus storage.
It's got to stop! (Score:2)
I am glad the *president* is already on it! /s
Re: (Score:3)
Battery prices are dropping. Residential, municipal and grid-sized battery solutions will be used to store solar for when the sun doesn't shine.
The good thing is that battery prices are dropping, and expected to continue to drop for quite some time.
This headline is quite misleading ... (Score:2)
This headline "Solar Energy Was America's Largest Source of New Energy for 21 Straight Months" is wildly misleading because even if it's true that it is the largest producer currently being built as new construction it is still producing such an infinitesimally small amount of actual energy comparatively speaking that it's barely even statistically significant.
Re:This headline is quite misleading ... (Score:4, Informative)
This headline "Solar Energy Was America's Largest Source of New Energy for 21 Straight Months" is wildly misleading because even if it's true that it is the largest producer currently being built as new construction it is still producing such an infinitesimally small amount of actual energy comparatively speaking that it's barely even statistically significant.
So you did not even read the summary:
The installed capacities of solar (11.1%) and wind (11.8%) are now each more than a tenth of the U.S. total. Taken together, they constitute 22.9% of the U.S.'s total available installed utility-scale generating capacity. At least 25-30% of U.S. solar capacity is in the form of small-scale (e.g., rooftop) systems that are not reflected in FERC's data.
+11% barely significant, yeah right :)
When will electric be cheaper? (Score:2)
Since solar is so cheap when can we expect to start paying less for power? Why do markets with high concentrations of solar have high energy costs?
Re: (Score:2)
Since solar is so cheap when can we expect to start paying less for power?
The price you pay isn't based on the average cost of generation.
It is based on the marginal cost of the most expensive source.
Solar is cheap for me because I have my own panels.
Re: When will electric be cheaper? (Score:3)
Some hobbyists installed hardware to charge their home batteries during that time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: When will electric be cheaper? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The price you pay isn't based on the average cost of generation.
It is based on the marginal cost of the most expensive source.
Where I live electricity is dirt cheap as most of it comes from hydro.
Solar is cheap for me because I have my own panel
What matters is total cost of electricity including all relevant capital expenditures not "solar is cheap for me".
Re: (Score:2)
This. I posted a similar question. The states (regulators) need to do a better job about smoothing the costs over a longer stretch of time. Current ratepayers seem to be getting stuck with a bigger proportion of the upfront, capital, install costs. California, we're talking about California here. they have the highest install of solar + batteries, but the consumers in CA pay the highest KWh rates in the nation. It'd be so much better if solar-heavy CA also had reasonable rates to demonstrate that s
Re: Incredulous Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
So ... GW problem solved then? (Score:2)
Picking nits (Score:2)
While the metric "installed capacity" has merit, when looking at the big picture capacity factor should be taken into account. 75% x 20% CF = 15.6 vs 25% x 90% CF = 22.5, so non solar sources added are still capable of more energy generation.
ha ha ha (Score:1)
When you typed "Solar keeps on winning. The data is undeniable" you were both wrong AND you probably did not realize you were refuting your own argument.
"As you stated: "This momentum didn’t happen by chance. It's the direct result of a decade of forward-looking policy: Obama’s 2009 recovery investments, state-level renewable standards, and critically, the long-term tax credits extended by Biden's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)." - in other words: this is the result of YEARS of government po