99% of New US Energy Capacity Will Be Green in 2026 (electrek.co) 71
This year in America, renewables and battery storage "will account for 99.2% of net new capacity — and even higher if small-scale solar were included," reports Electrek, citing EIA data reviewed by the SUN DAY Campaign:
EIA's latest monthly "Electric Power Monthly" report (with data through November 30, 2025), once again confirms that solar is the fastest-growing among the major sources of US electricity... [U]tility-scale solar thermal and photovoltaic expanded by 34.5% while that from small-scale systems rose by 11.3% during the first 11 months of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024. The combination of utility-scale and small-scale solar increased by 28.1% and produced a bit under 9.0% (utility-scale: 6.74%; small-scale: 2.13%) of total US electrical generation for January to November, up from 7.1% a year earlier.
Wind turbines across the US produced 10.1% of US electricity in the first 11 months of 2025 — an increase of 1.2% compared to the same period in 2024. In November alone, wind-generated electricity was 2.0% greater than a year earlier... The mix of all renewables (wind, solar, hydropower, biomass, and geothermal) produced 8.7% more electricity in January-November than a year earlier and accounted for 25.7% of total US electricity production, up from 24.3% 12 months earlier. Renewables' share of electrical generation is now second to only that of natural gas, whose electrical output actually dropped by 3.7% during the first 11 months of 2025...
Since January 1 to November 30, roughly the beginning of the Trump administration, renewable energy capacity, including battery storage, small-scale solar, hydropower, geothermal, and biomass, ballooned by 45,198.1 MW, while all fossil fuels and nuclear power combined declined by 519.2 MW...
[In 2026] natural gas capacity will increase by only 3,960.7 MW, which will be almost completely offset by a decrease of 3,387.0 MW in coal capacity.
Wind turbines across the US produced 10.1% of US electricity in the first 11 months of 2025 — an increase of 1.2% compared to the same period in 2024. In November alone, wind-generated electricity was 2.0% greater than a year earlier... The mix of all renewables (wind, solar, hydropower, biomass, and geothermal) produced 8.7% more electricity in January-November than a year earlier and accounted for 25.7% of total US electricity production, up from 24.3% 12 months earlier. Renewables' share of electrical generation is now second to only that of natural gas, whose electrical output actually dropped by 3.7% during the first 11 months of 2025...
Since January 1 to November 30, roughly the beginning of the Trump administration, renewable energy capacity, including battery storage, small-scale solar, hydropower, geothermal, and biomass, ballooned by 45,198.1 MW, while all fossil fuels and nuclear power combined declined by 519.2 MW...
[In 2026] natural gas capacity will increase by only 3,960.7 MW, which will be almost completely offset by a decrease of 3,387.0 MW in coal capacity.
Title (Score:4, Funny)
If you read the title "99% of New US Will Be Green in 2026" without the story, you may be thinking this is about Greenland.
Re: (Score:2)
It was probably green when the Vikings discovered it
Re: (Score:3)
No it wasn't, it was just called Greenland to trick people into living there.
This appears to be true [wikipedia.org]:
The Saga of Erik the Red states: "In the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it had a favourable name."
The title is missing a (Score:4, Funny)
The title is missing a
Re: (Score:2)
"babies"
Re: (Score:2)
My guess for the missing word is money.
They are not producing 1 cent coins any more, so they are printing mostly paper currency which is green.
Or another idiomatic use of the word green refers to inexperience.
Members of the Trump staff could be said to be green.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Since when are renewables green?? (Score:5, Informative)
Alec of Technology Connections recently published an excellent video (probably his best video yet) about exactly this subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Basically, he completely obliterates the misinformation and lies continuously spread, either by ignorance or malice, by people like you. And he has the numbers to prove it. It's rather long, but very indepth and frankly quite easy to watch. Of course, I know full well that you won't watch it, because it contradicts your beliefs, and we can't have that now, can we ? But I hope it will be useful and interesting to other people here, and to those, liberals and conservatives, who are actually interested in reality.
In the last half of his video, he goes into a very well written and extremely heartfelt rant about the state of things in the U.S. right now. No doubt it will completely infuriate your average Trump cult member, but it will profoundly touch every human being that actually has a heart. Well worth a listen. If you can, forward this to every person you know. Videos like this just might be what's needed for your country to avoid devolving into another civil war.
Re:Since when are renewables green?? (Score:5, Interesting)
The only area I disagree with him is on home solar and battery storage. I get what he is saying that it makes more sense to pay commercial suppliers to do it on a massive scale, but there are advantages to having your own at home too. Of course, up front cost is the biggest barrier for house owners, and people renting or living in an apartment often can't install more than balcony solar.
Aside from the benefits to the owner, it will keep the large scale generators a bit more honest in future. In the past the only way to make your own electricity was a generator, which was expensive to run compared to just buying electricity from the grid. Now those grid suppliers are in competition with home solar and battery storage, and competition is good.
Re:Since when are renewables green?? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only area I disagree with him is on home solar and battery storage. I get what he is saying that it makes more sense to pay commercial suppliers to do it on a massive scale, but there are advantages to having your own at home too.
I'd rather spend $20k on a solar + battery setup for backup power than $10k on a generator because I can actually use solar every day to dramatically decrease my electric bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Around here you can actually make a nice profit if you play your cards right. Feed into the grid when demand is high, draw from it when demand is low, and profit from the difference in pricing.
Re:Since when are renewables green?? (Score:4)
Around here you can actually make a nice profit if you play your cards right. Feed into the grid when demand is high, draw from it when demand is low, and profit from the difference in pricing.
Grid tie wasn't price effective here last I looked but I've not crunched the numbers since we've been switched to time of day pricing. My thought is to first put in a battery bank + inverter to run the critical parts of my home at all times. Charge from and use the grid when it's cheapest, switch to battery when it's most expensive. This type of system I can install myself, no permits needed, nor is the electric company involved. As a side effect everything important is basically on a big UPS. I know from experience the Victron MultiPlus and Quadros switch fast enough that my desktop won't even notice it.
Later I can add solar to it but that's going to take some thought and effort because the trees. Then there is the hail factor. I've never owned a vehicle here that doesn't have pings in it before I'm ready to sell it [sigh]
Re: (Score:2)
If you get a lot of wind, you may consider exploring what small wind turbines can do for you. It might be an affordable way to diversify your energy generation. Just a thought.
Re: (Score:2)
If you get a lot of wind, you may consider exploring what small wind turbines can do for you. It might be an affordable way to diversify your energy generation. Just a thought.
Lots of wind, including in the last 5 years alone a 90mph and 100mph straight line lol. I'd likely get the evil eye from my wife on this one as she didn't much care for the one we had at our farm when it came time to sleep.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh yes, better stick to solar then. I forget that turbines do indeed produce noise pollution and ultimately, happy wife happy life wins out.
Re: (Score:2)
In some places that works economically with simply buying storage, agreed.
Re:Since when are renewables green?? (Score:4)
The only area I disagree with him is on home solar and battery storage. I get what he is saying that it makes more sense to pay commercial suppliers to do it on a massive scale, but there are advantages to having your own at home too. Of course, up front cost is the biggest barrier for house owners, and people renting or living in an apartment often can't install more than balcony solar.
Thank you for this input. It reminds me to do a bit of follow the money when listening to any advice laid out in detail.
Aside from the benefits to the owner, it will keep the large scale generators a bit more honest in future. In the past the only way to make your own electricity was a generator, which was expensive to run compared to just buying electricity from the grid. Now those grid suppliers are in competition with home solar and battery storage, and competition is good.
I hear what you're saying, but I really don't think that large scale providers look at the homeowner getting their energy for free off their personally owned solar panels as "competition". They view that as someone stealing from them. And they fucking lobby accordingly. Which makes me question someone suggesting Big Solar as suspect all the more.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on where you live, it's very likely already illegal to disconnect from the main grid, even if you have battery+solar. The more rural, the more likely you'll be able to go off-grid but if you are in a major city, most (at least in California) will insist you be on the grid.
With that in mind, you can still add a battery+solar without an inter-tie agreement and just not sell back to the grid. This will offset your usage and you'll just have to pay the flat rate connection charge and the various fees
Re: (Score:1)
With that in mind, you can still add a battery+solar without an inter-tie agreement and just not sell back to the grid. This will offset your usage and you'll just have to pay the flat rate connection charge and the various fees and government mandates. Yes, that's frustrating but it will probably still have you coming out ahead of the game in the long run.
Never underestimate the power of small cheap point of use power stations. Imagine just plugging panels into them and configuring PV priority. When the sun is shining the loads and battery are charged. When the sun isn't shining the battery runs down until either the sun comes up or grid picks up the slack.
I have a few small power stations throughout the house that consume most of the load computers, fridges and shit which works for me. All temporary, no hard wired NEC 706 or 690 insanity to worry about
Re: (Score:3)
There are some issues with installing solar at home. We did it a few years back and have had issues with roof leaks and some general system maintenance issues. The installers are separate from the solar companies are separate from the equipment manufacturers, and even if we are willing to pay out of pocket for repairs it can still take a long time to sort out who can fix the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
He may be basing that of the European grid, which is pretty reliable. I have had two outages here in the last 26 years, one lasting 3 minutes and one (10 minutes later) lasting 10 second. Both were localized. And that is it.
From an US perspective, with their flaky grid and non-transparent pricing, doing your own solar plus storage may well be worth it.
That said, you also have a point, depending on the situation. I could get solar energy here and the electricity would be a lot cheaper from the supplier than
Re: (Score:2)
I see solar as the only way to basically fix your energy price for a period of time. Unless the politicians get off their collect rumps, data center expansion and ev expansion are going to continue to drive high demand for electricity, which will push the price up for the citizenry.
I'd recommend anyone that has the ability to get solar to do so. It's a worth while investment. If you have spare yard space with no obstructions of most the sky, you can install this stuff on racks a few feet off the ground and
Re: (Score:3)
I feel really sorry for anyone renting that's at the mercy of both their landlord and the utility companies, as neither cares how expensive life is for you.
Well. I am renting. I get a detailed break-down of all costs, including how the rent is calculated. There are strict regulatory limits on how much profit they are allowed to make. And the utility is the city.
See, this can be done right. Just not in greed-nation, I guess.
What strikes me about this (Score:2)
They figured out a long time ago that renewables were going to dominate especially in America where we have so much land we can just keep putting them
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, he completely obliterates the misinformation and lies continuously spread, either by ignorance or malice, by people like you. And he has the numbers to prove it. It's rather long, but very indepth and frankly quite easy to watch. Of course, I know full well that you won't watch it, because it contradicts your beliefs, and we can't have that now, can we ? But I hope it will be useful and interesting to other people here, and to those, liberals and conservatives, who are actually interested in reality.
I found it disappointing. He is making the same classic errors as most people when they first start researching these issues. Solar in the grand scheme of things can easily and cheaply produce far more electrical energy than is currently consumed. This is amazing yet aggregate production was never the salient issue needing to be solved.
The entire problem space is the distribution of non-dispatchable energy to time and place needed. A subject not seriously broached by the video you cite. Notice he did c
Re: (Score:2)
He thinks he obliterates the misinformation. I have a bone to pick with some of his assumptions however.
He says he's in Chicago.
I'm near Detroit. I put solar panels on my roof ~4 years ago. ~22kW nameplate capacity [outside of sunny April days, never exceed 16kW]. I checked my 2023 numbers [so before I got a plugin-hybrid]. 20MWh used, 19MWh generated. I'd say it went well.
But he makes assumptions that 12x500W panels would charge his [all-electric] car. Actually, he says "in the middle of December". Which,
different scales of waste and pollution (Score:5, Insightful)
Waste is fine, you can store, process, or convert it. Pumping carbon from under ground to send into the atmosphere with no intention of pumping it back. And the massive chemical industry around processing that creates waste and serious environmental disaster from time to time.
Look, nobody cares if your cargo ship hauling turbine blades tips into the ocean. Sure, there will be micro plastics and localized clutter or even toxic leeching. But it's a far more serious problem when it's a tanker full of crude. And those tankers transport many times more frequently than windmill parts and solar panels.
Re:Since when are renewables green?? (Score:5, Informative)
The claim that renewables like solar and wind are "far from being green" due to short lifespans, waste generation, and production-related devastation and pollution is a common criticism, but it doesn't hold up when examining the full lifecycle impacts compared to alternatives like fossil fuels.
Solar panels typically last **25-35 years** (with many manufacturers warranting 25+ years and real-world data showing even longer operational life in many cases). Wind turbines generally last around 20-30 years. While not eternal, this is comparable to or longer than many other infrastructure components, and during operation, they produce near-zero emissions.
Production does involve mining (e.g., silicon, silver, copper for solar; steel, concrete, and sometimes rare earths for wind magnets) and manufacturing, which can cause habitat disruption, water use, pollution from chemicals, and energy-intensive processes. For solar, this includes quartz mining and purification (often in energy-heavy facilities), plus hazardous materials like hydrofluoric acid or trace toxics (cadmium in some thin-film types). For wind, rare earth mining (e.g., neodymium) has raised concerns about radioactive waste, heavy metals, and water contamination in extraction regions.
End-of-life waste is a valid issue: Projections estimate millions of tons of solar panel waste by 2050 globally (e.g., up to 78 million tons cumulatively), with some panels containing lead or cadmium that require careful handling to avoid soil/water contamination if landfilled. Recycling rates are improving but not yet universal or cheap everywhere.
However, these downsides are **substantially outweighed** by the benefits when viewed through lifecycle assessments (cradle-to-grave analyses from mining to decommissioning):
Mining for renewables is more "up-front" and one-time per installation, while fossil fuels involve perpetual extraction and burning. Per unit of energy produced over time, renewables require significantly less mining overall than coal or gas when factoring in fuel needs.
Improvements are ongoing: better recycling (recovering silver, silicon, glass), cleaner manufacturing (some factories now run on renewables), designs avoiding rare earths in some wind turbines, and regulations for responsible sourcing/mining.
Renewables aren't perfect or impact-free—no energy source is—but calling them "as green as the mines they require" overlooks that fossil fuel reliance means **far more mining, pollution, and waste** overall, plus direct emissions driving climate change. The data shows renewables deliver a massive net environmental benefit for decarbonization.
Re: Since when is your argument green? (Score:5, Interesting)
Before the oil glut, a lot of chemistry was lignin based. It can be again.
Lignin based epoxy, plant based carbon fibre. Then at the end chop it up and incinerate it, still net zero.
Re: Since when is your argument green? (Score:2)
PS. lignin can be used for grease too.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is not dispatchable so it won't help there. Coal is only semi-dispatchable due to the long ramp times.
The power lines can't, so home battery storage is useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
We know that [B]with current technology[/B] a mix of renewable up to 80% is not only possible, but profitable.
The remaining 20% can be done through gas until other solutions solve that.
We have some promising paths like hydrogen, other e-fuels, demand management, etc.
Still, a 80% renewable network, even if it's not 100% it's a lot better than the current situation.
Re: (Score:1)
Waves, yes... Hurricane Andrew or F5 tornados? At a minimum, serious repair work (assuming you can get parts from company XYZ), all the way to full replacement.
Nuclear isn't without it's failures, as can happen with _any_ type of power plant. Nuclear isn't alone in that category.
Let's do a little math... say a 65 inch by 39 inch (wide by high) panel generates 2kWh a day... how many do you need to run your precious datacenter (assuming cloudless day)... sure, cover the roof with'em... and the grass field a
Re: (Score:2)
I know... such a hassle doing a little math when you're trying to prove every single person wrong.
So... 17.6 sq. ft., for the _average_ panel (not sure if that's industrial or residential), say an average of 400 watts an hour... what would it take to run your precious datacenter? 25,000 (could've missed a decimal in there), assuming a 10MW datacenter (y'know... 10 million watts divided by 400), and everyone knows it's only gonna grow from there... seems like a lotta land, just to run it only during the day
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Re: (Score:2)
one way to ensure evil triumphs over good is to demand perfection from good
fortunately I don't think making such a disingenuous demand will go anywhere. the train has left the station!
Re: (Score:3)
What you are pushing there is called a "Big Lie" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie). Doing so knowingly makes you a bad person. Doing so unknowingly makes you an "useful idiot".
Re: (Score:2)
The next post has it longer, but for tl:dr, you need to get to the toilet, fast, before you soil your pants.
Fossil fuel burning power plant requires turbines, and engimes, and then decades of fuel.
Wind requires turbines and blades and a mast. No fuel burnt, ever.
Solar requires building the panels, and placing them, no fuel burnt, ever.
units (Score:2)
> natural gas capacity will increase by only 3,960.7 MW, which will be almost completely offset by a decrease of 3,387.0 MW in coal capacity
Is that in thousands of megawatts or kilo-megawatts? What would Doc Brown say?
Reality check (Score:3, Interesting)
There are nearly 3000 MW of installed wind plus solar in the BPA system. That is the green line in the graph.
https://transmission.bpa.gov/b... [bpa.gov]
How much do you think wind and solar are really supplying? When did you intend to charge the batteries? Are you willing to shut down the data centers until the wind starts blowing again?
Bonneville Power Authority [Re:Reality check] (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting site, but I'm not sure what the point is of linking to information about power generation by the Bonneville Power Authority (BPA), which is a mostly hydroelectric powered system in the not-very-sunny Northwest. This really isn't particularly applicable to the US as a whole, which doesn't have that much hydro available.
But, yes, if you're looking for an example of part of the US that is powered almost entirely by renewable energy, this is an example.
It's to cash in on short term price spikes. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it plausible that 99% of new energy this year come from renewable sources because many of those sources come from renewable types with relatively short construction times.
Up until recently, the US adds about 50 GW of capaicty per year. There's a huge uptick in generation capacity because of energy demands from data centers, so recently it's more like 65 GW/year. The challenge is you can't exploit *this year's* high market prices by starting a nuclear power plant that won't come on line for a decade. Even a combined cycle natural gas plant is going to take five years. But you can have a wind farm up and running in months.
It's not the renewability *per se* that's driving this; it's profiting from the high prices before the AI bubble bursts. Nobody is rushing to bring new hydropower or geothermal plants online, and they're just as renewable as wind or solar.
This move to renewables is not about changing the world. it's about short term financial optimization. But these short term, local optimizations *will* change the world, and planning to handle the transformations driven by short-term market forces is going to take coordinated, long term national action. At present there are regional mandates that will stabilize the local grid against variations in electricity supply. But carving up the nation into small regional markets means higher prices and economic inefficiencies where electricity is transfered from high price areas to stabilize low price areas. Market economics don't work if there are non-market forces (stability) that trump profitability.
Hydro? Geothermal? (Score:3)
Nobody is rushing to bring new hydropower or geothermal plants online, and they're just as renewable as wind or solar.
Hydropower is only possible in that very small fraction of the world that has the right combination of rivers and mountains to be able to dam. Most of the really good spots have already been used. And, dams have their own problems. They stop the flow of the river and can play havoc with the locale ecology.
Geothermal is even more problematical and site dependent. If you're in Iceland, which is highly geologically active, it's practical, but most other places it's far from economical. The geothermal gradient [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly did miss the point.
The point is there are 3000 MW of installed wind by nameplate and yesterday the peak was about 1000 for two hours before it dropped to much less.
All these fine articles quote nameplate ratings and do not correct for capacity factor. Daytime solar can be 7% of the official rating. Wind goes completely away. Look at midnight on Feb 1. Dead calm in the dark and you pouduce nothing and the batteries are discharged from the previous day when they never managed to charge.
fake news! (Score:1)
either by green you mean coal or you are suffering from full-blown TDS
More is less (Score:1)
Expect to pay a lot more for all the free energy.
Re: (Score:3)
That is a Big Lie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie) and you know it. Makes you a malicious person. How repulsive.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously (Score:2)
Any other approach is too expensive and too risky. People that invest money competently are pretty conservative. They will go for the best option. And that is renewables.
Amazing... (Score:2)
It's simply amazing that the U.S. was somehow able to accomplish this without being a party to the Paris Climate Accord. Well, actually we only JUST left the Paris Accord last week. [congress.gov]
The elephant in the room (Score:1)