Global Growth In Solar 'the Largest Ever Observed For Any Source' (arstechnica.com) 93
The IEA says 2025 marked a turning point for global energy, with solar posting the largest growth ever seen for any energy source and helping carbon-free power outpace rising demand. The trend led the agency to declare that the world has entered the "Age of Electricity." Ars Technica reports: The IEA report covers energy use, including the electrical grid, transportation, home heating, and other forms of consumption. As such, it can track how some of those uses are shifting, as electric vehicles displace some gasoline use and heat pumps replace gas and oil heating. It also saw a more global trend: The demand for electricity grew at twice the rate of overall energy demand. All of these went into the conclusion that we're starting the Age of Electricity. In terms of specifics, the IEA saw electric vehicle demand rise by nearly 40 percent, with electric car sales being a quarter of the total of cars sold last year. While that's having a measurable effect on electricity demand, it remains relatively small at the moment. It's almost certain to be contributing to the size of the rise in oil use last year: 0.7 percent. In absolute terms, that's less than half the average rise of the previous decade.
[...] When it comes to supplying electrons for those alternatives, the central story is solar power. "The absolute increase of solar PV generation in 2025 is the largest ever observed for any source," the IEA says, "excluding years marked by rebounds from global economic shocks such as COVID-19." In other words, with nothing in particular driving the energy markets in 2025, Solar's growth was unprecedented. On its own, its growth covered a quarter of the rising demand for all forms of energy. If you limit it to electricity, increased solar production covered over two-thirds of the increased demand. Overall, solar generated over 2,700 terawatt-hours last year, more than double its output from three years earlier. It now accounts for over 8 percent of the world's total electricity production. Thirty individual countries installed at least a gigawatt of solar last year, and it is now the single largest grid source by capacity (though other sources still outproduce it at the moment).
[...] When it comes to supplying electrons for those alternatives, the central story is solar power. "The absolute increase of solar PV generation in 2025 is the largest ever observed for any source," the IEA says, "excluding years marked by rebounds from global economic shocks such as COVID-19." In other words, with nothing in particular driving the energy markets in 2025, Solar's growth was unprecedented. On its own, its growth covered a quarter of the rising demand for all forms of energy. If you limit it to electricity, increased solar production covered over two-thirds of the increased demand. Overall, solar generated over 2,700 terawatt-hours last year, more than double its output from three years earlier. It now accounts for over 8 percent of the world's total electricity production. Thirty individual countries installed at least a gigawatt of solar last year, and it is now the single largest grid source by capacity (though other sources still outproduce it at the moment).
Once again, la Presidenta loses (Score:4, Insightful)
China is more insulated from the Epstein-Iran war than most because of their solar. And other countries now realize that allowing the U.S. to start stupid wars in the MidEast causes oil spikes with their name on it. They are starting to look at alternative energy sources, including solar. And China produces a lot of solar.
Once again, la Presidenta is behind the curve and is encouraging the very thing he doesn't want, i.e., alternative energy, especially solar, and helping to position China to beat the U.S. He always destroys anything he touches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
An actual kool aid drinker in the wild.
Re: (Score:1)
It's estimated that 45-50% of China's imported oil travels through the Strait of Hormuz. While only 0.5% of the oil the US imports travels through it. 5% of Europe's, and 52% of Indias.
While China isn't the most effected country, they are close to the top of the list.
The US is also a net exporter of oil.Global oil shipment could be stopped today and the US would continue to meet internal demand with on shore production.
China would run into major problems. In the proper region solar can do well. But you don'
Re:Once again, la Presidenta loses (Score:4, Informative)
Global oil shipment could be stopped today and the US would continue to meet internal demand with on shore production.
That's not how the global oil market works. The US is no position to redirect all of its production to meet domestic demand. In the same way, there is no "local discount" for the US consumers of oil on domestically produced crude. It's a global market and the US will suffer along with everybody else due to shortages and high prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is no longer true: many of America's refineries have upgraded their capabilities to include domestic light sweet crude as well as heavy sour crude and bitumen from places like Venezuela, Mexico and the Canadian tar sands.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Stage 3 smog alerts were year-round when I was a kid in the 1980s. They were more common in the summer, but they could happen any time the temperatures rose, and they were a fact of life at school in the spring and fall. I spent a lot of recess and PE time indoors for Stage 2 and 3 alerts. This page [laalmanac.com] shows the number of days at different air qualities for Los Angeles going back to 1980. The highest number of good air quality days was 11 in 1983. For all but two of the remaining years, it was in single digits
Re: (Score:2)
And I remember what it was like in the '50s, when they banned home incinerators because they were believed to be what was causing smog. It didn't work, but they stayed banned, which was a Good Idea. Things like catalytic converters probably helped, but those expensive "boutique blends" of gas were most likely the key to cleaning up the air.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like the air-quality regulations have been very effective. A similar thing happened in London, dramatically turning around the killer smogs of the 1950s. Soon there won't be anyone living who remembers how bad it used to be.
I see parallels with vaccines. Soon there won't be many people living who remember their classmates dying of polio.
Re: (Score:2)
I just looked out the window from work (37 floors up, close to the CBD centre), I can see some landmarks at least 60km distant. We only have smog now when there's forest fires.
Re: (Score:2)
So, we export the more valuable sweet crude to countries that have sweet crude refining capacity(mostly in Europe IIRC) and import the cheaper, dirtier s
Re: (Score:1)
This is old information, and no longer holds true.
Renewables are not replacing coal in China (Score:2, Insightful)
While state media and propagandist keep telling us China is evil for so many reasons, they're building robots, cars, their own AI-inference chips, and also more renewable resources than anyone else worldwide. This is an excerpt from the article:
"While China commissioned a lot of coal plants in 2025, those were largely started during a prior energy shock. China actually saw its coal use for electricity drop ...
A misleading stat, they merely shift coal use to other industries, and/or report the percentage not absolutely amount used. The percentage gives a false impression because coal use is growing slower than renewables use. Both still growing. Coal is used nationwide as fast as they can mine it or import it. Its preferred due to a lowest cost government policy. Details below.
... last year due to its massive investment in renewables (China was responsible for 60 percent of renewable global growth last year).
China is not displacing coal with renewables. China is supplementing coal with renewables. Coal is their #1 choice for energy due to its
Re:Renewables are not replacing coal in China (Score:4, Informative)
One potentially critical aspect of this is that China’s emissions actually declined in 2025, which the IEA ascribes to a mixture of industrial changes and the explosive expansion of renewable energy.
You can say China is not serious about pollution, they're cost-first, but... hey whatever their philosophy, the ars technica article seems to indicate there are changes for the better. They may still use a fuckton of coal, but they're also investing in renewables at a pace we haven't seen anyone else do.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't reply to me directly
Apologies for the mixed
You can say China is not serious about pollution, they're cost-first, but... hey whatever their philosophy, the ars technica article seems to indicate there are changes for the better.
Ars seems to be talking about growth of emissions not absolute emissions.
They may still use a fuckton of coal, but they're also investing in renewables at a pace we haven't seen anyone else do.
But those renewable are not displacing the dirtiest energy first. They could be reducing pollution if they targeted coal first, not merely slower the growth of their pollution.
Re: (Score:1)
And you could do something about YOUR OWN CO2 footprint, instead of blaming others on the other side oft he world who have not even 25% of YOUR's.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And you could do something about YOUR OWN CO2 footprint, instead of blaming others on the other side oft he world who have not even 25% of YOUR's.
Ah, the per capita myth.
Per capita is the wrong metric. China's pollution is overwhelmingly industrial based. The behavior of individuals is not meaningful. The proper metric is per GDP, and China pollute far more than the US per GDP.
Re: Renewables are not replacing coal in China (Score:2)
Why is per GDP the proper metric? This is going to depend mostly on the kind of industry that you have. If you have lots of heavy industry, then you will have higher CO2 than if you have lots of light industry. So, both per capita and per GDP are flawed metrics and do not carry the full picture. What is clear is that being a large economy with either high per GDP or per capita output of CO2 gives you substantial ability to impact on climate change, as opposed to just trying to pass the responsibility to oth
Re: (Score:2)
The planet doesn't care where the sources of the co2 are coming from or what is causing those sources to produce co2. That's why the poster drnb mentions we should measure co2 output as a function of GDP and not per capita.
The fact that China is choosing to not only use coal but actually is increasing year on year it's coal consumption is very concerning. It's wonderful they are increasing their solar sector but we need them to stop using coal.
Now of course, we can talk about why China has such a high co2 o
Re: (Score:2)
Per Capita is the only correct meaning.
Especially if it is the PERSON doing the pollution, like YOU do, and not the country as a total.
YOU as a person has 2 times higher foot print than a typical European, and probably 10 times higher them ME.
YOU as a person has the 4 times higher foot print than an Chinese as a person.
Industry is completely irrelevant as long as you use 10kWh per day yourself, not even counting your car usage.
A typical Chinese uses 2 or 3kWh per day, in his household.
China as a country is
China per capita caught up to EU, approaching US (Score:2)
Per Capita is the only correct meaning. Especially if it is the PERSON doing the pollution, like YOU do, and not the country as a total.
China's emissions are primarily based on industry, not individuals, hence GDP.
YOU as a person has 2 times higher foot print than a typical European, and probably 10 times higher them ME.
Nope. As of 2024, China is only 37% behind the US per capita. And China's per capita is on a very strong upwards trend.
US emissions have declined 13% while China's has increased 38%. That's a result industry not individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I read "China’s emissions actually declined in 2025", I interpret that as absolute emissions. They've been slowing their emissions growth for a while now, that's not news.
We'll see when the final number for 2025 are in. The fact remains the emission could be so much lower if China would choose less polluting fossil fuels to fill the gap between renewables and demand.
Re: (Score:1)
Coal is not lowest cost.
Solar is.
However solar is not dispatchable.
Stupid China haters.
Why spread such nonsense? Who do you wany to reach with that for what purpose?
China should be using nat gas to fill gap ... (Score:2)
Coal is not lowest cost. Solar is.
Coal is the lowest cost fossil fuel. That is why China is not replacing coal with solar. Solar is supplementing coal, not replacing it.
Stupid China haters. Why spread such nonsense?
Because China and the world would be better off if renewables were replacing coal. If when China had to use fossil fuels to make up the gap between renewable and demand they used something cleaner like natural gas. China unnecessarily chooses to maximize its pollution. It could do so much better, but it prefers lowest cost where fossil fuels have to be used, ie coal.
Re: (Score:1)
China is on the way to replace coal with renewables.
No idea what your problem is.
They will be probably 100% CO2 free before your farked up country is.
And then? It will again be Chinas fault ... because of *insert reason*.
Re: (Score:2)
China is on the way to replace coal with renewables.
Coal has still not been replaced. It is still being used as fast as they can mine or import it.
"[26 March 2026] Despite being a renewables superpower, China continues to permit and build new coal-fired power plants at a rapid pace. Analysts say the nation’s new five-year plan will ensure further coal plant expansion and jeopardize China’s ability to deliver on its climate promises.
In 2021, China’s leader Xi Jinping made two important promises intended to signal China‘s commitment
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If when China had to use fossil fuels to make up the gap between renewable and demand they used something cleaner like natural gas.
China is already the world's largest importer of natural gas. While they do have natural gas reserves, they don't have enough to replace their electrical generation. I expect they mostly are looking for an energy source they don't need to import.
Re: (Score:2)
If when China had to use fossil fuels to make up the gap between renewable and demand they used something cleaner like natural gas.
China is already the world's largest importer of natural gas. While they do have natural gas reserves, they don't have enough to replace their electrical generation. I expect they mostly are looking for an energy source they don't need to import.
China is also the largest importer of coal. Cost has priority, so coal is prioritized over natural gas. They'll use natural gas when they've used all the coal they can dig up or import.
Re: Once again, la Presidenta loses (Score:3)
And US companies sell off their renewable technology IP to China, because they arenâ(TM)t getting the investor or government support in the US. This leads to a furthering of Chinese strength, while US businesses build and lobby for a world that is 20-30 years in the past.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
China is more insulated from the Epstein-Iran war than most because of their solar.
Also because of coal. Honestly, more as a result of coal, though they certainly have built a lot of solar. But the reason they've been building coal plants like crazy, so much so that many of them are idled from the day they go into service, is because it was their insurance against problems with the oil supply.
I'm a fan of solar power and happy to see the world is building a lot of it, but intellectual integrity demands that we also acknowledge China's investment in coal generation capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but as you yourself describe, net new coal investments are frequently being used as backup / peaker. And as China builds out storage and overbuilds renewables (not just solar), coal use is clearly going to decline and more and more of those plants will sit idle for longer and longer.
yes drnb (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly. I read Texas farmers want it. And, well, it so happens I just signed a contract to put solar on my roof (MD, DC 'burb) yesterday.
Re: yes drnb (Score:5, Funny)
You shouldn't tie yourself down to one energy technology, it is better to take a mix-and-match approach, which is why I recently installed coal panels on my roof.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes Dumb Republican No Brains, America is still going all in on coal.
Hey! That's "Beautiful, Clean Coal" ... 'cause wind and solar are a "scam".
-- from The Gospel of Trump, our infallible Dear Leader.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes Dumb Republican No Brains, America is still going all in on coal.
Hey! That's "Beautiful, Clean Coal" ... 'cause wind and solar are a "scam".
-- from The Gospel of Trump, our infallible Dear Leader.
He can say whatever he wants, but US industry has been replacing coal with cleaner sources for decades. The fossil fuel growth in the USA is really natural gas.
The resurgence of the coal industry is mainly due to exports. It turns out the EU's plan of Russian oil and natural gas wasn't such a good idea.
Re: (Score:1)
It turns out the EU's plan of Russian oil and natural gas wasn't such a good idea.
Perhaps you should read some news sometimes.
Those plans got canceled YEARs ago.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out the EU's plan of Russian oil and natural gas wasn't such a good idea. Perhaps you should read some news sometimes. Those plans got canceled YEARs ago.
Yes, that is what I was referring to. And years ago is when US coal exports to the EU shot up.
Re: (Score:1)
Coal is not a replacement for gas.
That should be a no brainer.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal is not a replacement for gas.
It is in China, they build new coal plant instead of natural gas plants. They don't care about emission, they care about low cost.
Re: (Score:2)
You specifically said Europe, you disingenous twat.
And Europe didn’t increase imports of coal from the US (and other nations) because it relied on Russian *oil and gas*, but because it banned the use of Russian *coal*. And in the very same year that it banned the use of Russian coal due to the invasion of Ukraine and increased its imports of coal from the US and other nations to replace some of those coal imports, it *also* cut its actual use of coal by 23%, and then another 13% the year after, and a
Re: (Score:2)
He can say whatever he wants, ...
He usually does, often unfiltered. :-)
The sad part is that some people (still) believe him.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that idea is that the numbers don't match. While indeed, Germany imports now about a million tons more from the U.S. then they did in 2019, it's already down from a maximum in 2023 with 9 million tons to 7.7 million tons in 2025. At the same time, Germany stopped importing coal from Russia completely (11 million tons in 2022, now zero). In total, Germany reduced the imports of coal from 35 million tons in 2019 to 21 million tons right now. The country which increased its exports of coal to Germany the most was Columbia, more than doubling its exports to Germany to 4.8 million tons.
Whatever the resurgence of the coal industry in the U.S. was, it had peaked in 2023 - at least when it comes to exports to the E.U..
The fact remains that the resurgence in the US coal industry is exports based.
The EU use of coal was never anything more than an emergency stop gap measure. It would take time to replace RU oil and natural gas with other sources of oil and natural gas. One of those sources being the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Yale Univ says China and Xi are all in on coal (Score:2)
America is still going all in on coal.
Actually China is all in on domestic coal usage, the US is exporting, US industry continues to move to cleaner fossil fuels like natural gas when gaps need to be rilled between renewables and demand. Unlike China which is coal first seems to be planning to stay that way.
"[26 March 2026] Despite being a renewables superpower, China continues to permit and build new coal-fired power plants at a rapid pace. Analysts say the nation’s new five-year plan will ensure further coal plant expansion and jeopa
"China is evil" (Score:5, Insightful)
"While China commissioned a lot of coal plants in 2025, those were largely started during a prior energy shock. China actually saw its coal use for electricity drop last year due to its massive investment in renewables (China was responsible for 60 percent of renewable global growth last year).
Last year, nuclear remained stable, with about 3 GW of newly commissioned plants offsetting the retirement of 3 GW elsewhere. China is the major player here, too, with enough plants under construction that it will eventually surpass the US in installed nuclear capacity if all of them are commissioned. Twelve GW of new plants started construction last year, with nine of the 10 total plants being located in China.
We're witnessing the fall of an empire and the rise of another one in real time.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably is time for a change of the guard. The existing one, sadly, has become pretty rotten and no longer able to behave rationally.
China coal use still growing (Score:2)
While state media and propagandist keep telling us China is evil for so many reasons, they're building robots, cars, their own AI-inference chips, and also more renewable resources than anyone else worldwide ...
But they are not using those renewables to displace coal internally. They still prefer to use coal as fast as they can mine it or import it.
This is an excerpt from the article:
"While China commissioned a lot of coal plants in 2025, those were largely started during a prior energy shock. China actually saw its coal use for electricity drop ...
A misleading statistic. Two tricks are being played here. First, they report only a single industry not total use. Coal is merely being shitted to other industries. Second, The PERCENTAGE of coal used is only lower because coal use is GROWING slower than renewable use. Both are still growing. Renewables are not replacing coal, they a
Re: (Score:2)
It was increasing, but from 2025 on it seems to be decreasing; point is that their solar buildouts are so vast that they simply don't need as much coal any more.
And the kwh from solar is cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
It was increasing, but from 2025 on it seems to be decreasing; point is that their solar buildouts are so vast that they simply don't need as much coal any more.
They are still using all the coal they can mine or import. Renewables are not replacing coal. The percentage of renewable used is increasing because renewables are growing faster than coal is growing.
And the kwh from solar is cheaper.
That's not the issue. It's the cost of fossil fuels. The cost of fulfilling the gap between renewables and demand. China chooses coal for that.
Re: (Score:2)
But they are not using those renewables to displace coal internally. They still prefer to use coal as fast as they can mine it or import it.
I don't think that's accurate -- the only people who "prefer to use coal" are in the Trump administration. China, like the rest of the rational world, prefers to use whatever energy source is cheapest and most effective, which might be coal in some situations, or it might be solar, or nuclear, or hydro, or something else.
Re: (Score:1)
They actually have since about 3 or 4 years optical AI inference chips, about 1000 times faster than GPUs and roughly 10,000 times more energy efficient.
Germany has some companies working in the same areas, I know about 2 ... not sure how many in total.
Then Asia is shifting to Gallium Nitrit semi conductors, at least in high voltage/power computing, chargers and similar things.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is happening while the old guard decided to start an elective war without an endgame. Sending oil prices through the roof, at a time when China was uniquely positioning itself for.
China has no oil resources - they've had to import oil, and Iran is one of their biggest suppliers (and China is Iran's biggest customer).
But at the same time, China was developing its renewable energy supplies from wind and solar, as well as becoming one of the largest vendors of solar panels. This is for energy independ
Supplying electrons (Score:3)
Solar supplies electrical energy. Every electron was already there, the electrical energy just caused them to move very slightly with a small amount electrical energy adsorbed (converted to heat) by the electrons unless we are designing a heater.
4D Chess (Score:2)
Renewables, baby! Renewables!
I'm so impressed that the current POTUS earns millions in support from the oil industry while promoting renewables.
my 9D chess Trump's 5D chess (Score:4, Informative)
Non-stupid countries read that signal correctly and will respond more-or-less rationally. To whit, get the fuck off middle east oil.
I am a tiny, tiny part of this in 2026 (Score:5, Informative)
With the solar+home battery, all my domestic electricity usage is easily taken care of. I also took the opportunity to put in a whole home backup, meaning that if there's a power cut the house carries on. Power cuts aren't really a big problem in the UK but little micro ones do happen, and I got fed up of resetting the digital clocks and rebooting everything.
The solar+battery doesnt take care of 100% of my usage though, not by a long way. I've been driving an EV since 2018. I do around 22,000 miles per year, My solar peaks at around 5kWh and is best used to power the house and add to the house's battery capacity. I use about 22kWhs on a round-trip commute, and the home battery is 12.5kWh. The typical max I might need then is 34.5kWh a day, and I also need it overnight - solar isn't going to help me there. My actual pattern is load-shifting: charge both car and home batteries cheaply overnight, use solar+battery through the day on the house and sell the daytime excess to the grid.
On the car alone I have saved around £8-10,000 vs petrol, add in the car maintenance and the savings are even higher. For solar+home battery I don't yet know, not owned it long enough to be able to give good figures but the usage pattern is looking good. If I'm asked about EVs I rarely make an environmental argument - if you can charge at home, the cost argument is so massively in favour of them that's it's barely worth a debate. If you can't - nuance time and more questions to be asked.
I'm not off fossil just yet - still have gas heating. The heat pump equations are a lot trickier to work out - without load shifting it's much more expensive, plus how will it average out over winter when I presumably get less solar to recharge the home battery during the day. So heat pump is the next bit of research rather than my automatic next move. For the rest though - just no argument, the renewable/EV route is just better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I’m considering doing the same, but I have a messy roof, with no single large area to place panels. Would need them on three or even four different surfaces, annoyingly.
Just for reference (Score:3)
Bush I: Gulf War 1.0
Bush II: Gult War 2.0
Trump: Gulf War 3.0
I'm seeing a pattern here.
Age of Electricity? (Score:2)
It might be, if demand weren't outstripping supply in most of the world.
As such, that's a truly crap pronouncement.
This is the age of AI-driven scarcity.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the age of AI-driven scarcity.
On the plus side, once the AI bubble bursts and 75% of the AI companies go under, there's likely to be a lot of electrical capacity (and GPUs and RAM) suddenly available at fire-sale prices, at least for a while.
I would hope so... (Score:1)
Humanity notices large star close to Earth and begins gathering sunlight despite Wall Street's assurance that the Sun is extremely dangerous, unrefined, and not yet ready for public utilization as it must first be turned into oil, coal, lng, gas, alternating current or batteries by an authorized reseller to be safely purchased.