Wind and Solar Generated More Power Than Gas Globally in April (electrek.co) 144
Last month saw a world first, reports Electrek. Wind and solar generated more power globally than gas:
According to new analysis from independent energy think tank Ember, wind and solar produced 22% of the world's electricity in April 2026, compared to 20% from gas. Together, the two renewable sources generated a record 531 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity during the month, 54 TWh more than gas plants generated globally, at 477 TWh...
Five years ago, in April 2021, gas generation was almost identical to today's level at 476 TWh. But back then, wind and solar combined generated just 245 TWh — less than half of what they produced this April...
Wind and solar generation increased across nearly every major market reporting April data... April tends to be the strongest month for this kind of milestone because spring weather in the Northern Hemisphere usually brings a combination of strong wind generation, rising solar output, and lower electricity demand between heating and cooling seasons. Still, the broader trend is clear. Ember's recent Global Electricity Review found that wind and solar met all global electricity demand growth in 2025.
"Governments around the world are also ramping up renewable energy targets to reduce dependence on volatile fossil fuel imports..."
Five years ago, in April 2021, gas generation was almost identical to today's level at 476 TWh. But back then, wind and solar combined generated just 245 TWh — less than half of what they produced this April...
Wind and solar generation increased across nearly every major market reporting April data... April tends to be the strongest month for this kind of milestone because spring weather in the Northern Hemisphere usually brings a combination of strong wind generation, rising solar output, and lower electricity demand between heating and cooling seasons. Still, the broader trend is clear. Ember's recent Global Electricity Review found that wind and solar met all global electricity demand growth in 2025.
"Governments around the world are also ramping up renewable energy targets to reduce dependence on volatile fossil fuel imports..."
Possibly the only good thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
People realizing they need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels is probably the only good thing to come out of the Trump regime's Iran sh*t-show.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil Fuel prices are not likely to come down for years.
Re:Possibly the only good thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
People realizing they need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels is probably the only good thing to come out of the Trump regime's Iran sh*t-show.
Sorry but this has nothing to do with Iran. The trend for wind and solar has been moving this way steady for years before anyone knew where on the map the Strait of Hormuz was. Sure it's not negative, but at best it cements something that that people were already doing.
Re: (Score:3)
The trend for solar/wind (the headline) is indeed unrelated to the war; it could not have been otherwise, as there was not enough time for the war to influence the building of new capacity and effective production in April. However, there is a "people realizing" part, unrelated to the slashdot post, that has to do with Iran. The increase in price of oil due to the war in Iran is being quoted worldwide as a reason to acquire an EV, such news are all over the press https://time.com/article/2026/... [time.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Iran thing has absolutely nothing to do with the 'AI and job replacement' thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The data shows that the Straits attack had a substantial accelerative effect on sales of renewables (and EVs). There may be more to come as well, when the price shock kicks in properly later this year, although by that time the economic impacts may mean less ability to invest the capex too, sadly.
Re: (Score:2)
My top suggestion for you, before anything else, is to reflect on why you don't understand a basic word like "falsified". I am referring to the technical sense, in that you're incapable of using the correct term in your sentence to describe what you're trying to describe. Because if you're so poorly educated that you can't use find the correct terms to use in your writing, then it's unlikely you can understand the things you read properly either. And if you can't read well, and you can't write well, then yo
Re: (Score:2)
(that was posted from my cellphone... damned autocorrect... the bedroom laptop was rebooting (which took a surprising amount of time to do a Windows Update... I'll have to look into that)
Poorly educated? Can you translate Latin on the fly (reading or hearing)? How many quarters did you shrink to the size of dimes? What's the highest voltage you've worked around?
And, I'm not cut off from being able to think well, and never will be.
Love when someone assumes I'm a complete moron who can't even understand a
Re: (Score:2)
Solar ain't gonna help, because nowhere gets full 24-hour sunshine 365-days, and wind turbines only help if they're built someplace that has wind 24/7/365.
What do ya do at night on a calm wind night? Can't fall-back on those polluting sources of power.
Draw on the stored energy from when the sun was shining and the wind was blowing. There are these things called "batteries" that you may have heard of....
or
Rely on "the grid" to transport power from where the sun is shining or the wind is blowing to where you need to consume it. The sun is always shing somewhere, and the wind is always blowing somewhere. Blows your mind eh? Witchcraft! Sorcery! Technology!
Re: (Score:2)
So, let's say 12V batteries, 200A max sustained draw... you're gonna need a lot of'em to store 5GW and keep that precious DC running the entire night. Fusion would be better, runs all day and night without needing storage. Storing it slowly in batteries and rapidly drawing from them is gonna cause them to wear out sooner, which means you need to get more batteries from the slow-boat from China (that, coincidentally, is running on diesel and polluting a whole lot)... hence, fusion! Not to mention, where d
Re: (Score:3)
This particular statistic has nothing to do with Iran, but we can expect a significant global boost for renewables due to the currently ongoing debacle. Businesses and governments worldwide knows how bad this hurts, and is still going to hurt. They know that they need to decouple from oil strategically. The cheapest route to do that is solar + batteries (for most of the world). Some northern countries (Scandinavia, Canada, northern Russia, plus a bit of central europe) - will of course need "winter gene
Re: (Score:2)
We already had that thanks to Russia. When Europe showed the world fossil fuel dependence on foreign nations isn't a viable strategy, THAT is when a major acceleration to energy independence starts. And ever nation has light and wind.
Yeah like I said positive effect, but one already known. Any country who were looking towards hedging any kind of bet on energy already got the hint a few years ago. Those who didn't are unlikely to be moved this time.
Re: (Score:1)
for years before anyone knew where on the map the Strait of Hormuz was.
I guess you underestimate the education regarding geography on the world.
Well, perhaps I over estimate it.
Re: (Score:2)
And, unfortunately, the trend towards solar/wind/hydro has happened before the understanding and tech to make it happen in such a way that it'll be productive towards society today is a good thing (there's probably a better way to say that)... because if we're going to steam our way towards those replacements for power and force that as the new norm, there's no going back.
And, it's the same with the whole AI movement... the advances the whole thing makes are happening faster than our understanding of how to
Re: (Score:1)
People realizing they need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels is probably the only good thing to come out of the Trump regime's Iran sh*t-show.
There is something more important to learn. That we need to reduce fossil fuels prioritized by their pollution. Remove coal first, then oil, then natural gas, as the west generally does. It's something China desperately needs to learn.
Re: (Score:1)
(Bing/CoPilot)
"In 2024, the United States consumed approximately 4.086 trillion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, with projections to rise to 4.165 trillion kWh in 2025."
So... where ya gonna put all those solar panels and wind turbines?
Where do they come from? How much fossil fuels (NatGas, diesel, coal) are used to make the solar panels and wind turbines?
You need square footage for all this, that square footage (at the start) is available, then cuts into land that's used for crops and grazing, and soon
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Possibly the only good thing... (Score:2)
This is the intellectual level of people opposed to renewables.
Re:Possibly the only good thing... (Score:4, Informative)
It would have taken you a matter of minutes to check your intuition and find that it’s possible to generate 4 trillion kWh annually from 4000 square miles of SW American desert, ie 8% of the Mojave. That is a small slice of one existing desert with no competing land use. in total, there’s 1.3 *million* square miles of SW American desert. If you covered the whole thing with solar panels, it would generate 510,000 TWh annually, which is three times more than humanity’s annual primary energy output and 8 to 10 times the annual consumption of energy for real work (vs waste).
Workings for the first calculation:
Annual solar energy per metre squared in the SW American desert is 6kWh/m2/day * 365 = 2190kWh, giving 394kWh annual solar output from a panel per metre squared allowing for 18% efficiency.
4.1 * 10 to the 12 divided by 394 kWh / m2 = 10.4 * 10 to the 10 = 4015 square miles.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay... put up a major ton of solar panels there to power the country, and tear down the the nuclear plants and coal plants and anything that isn't renewable, and pollutes (and NatGas doesn't count as renewable because it pollutes).
Were those Chinese solar panels (making them in US would cost too much) produced using only renewable power (see first sentence)? Were the minerals needed produced without polluting or child labor?
Not to mention the diesel burned to slowly haul the solar and wind parts to the US
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, your first post made a wildly wrong claim, didn't it? And I showed you how you were wrong with some very basic facts and maths.
So here's a new word for you: introspection.
The correct response to finding that you have a made a big claim and got it completely wrong is to introspect. It should lead to such questions as "why was I so confident in my belief?"; "how did I get it so wrong?"; "were my priors getting in the way of correct thinking?"; "does my education on this topic lack substance"; an
Re:Possibly the only good thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
That is a lot of solar panels. Using the sheer number of panels theoretically required as an excuse to not do solar is silly. I have half a megawatt of solar on my land. It's placed on a just a few of acres of marginal, otherwise-unused land. Grass grows great still underneath them. Gotta start somewhere.
Most buildings should have solar of some kind on their roofs. In some parts of the world, solar water heaters have been mandated on roofs for decades. Data centers should have their roofs entirely covered in solar panels and a certain amount of battery storage should be included in the development plan. Vertical bifacial panels have a place too. As for carbon cost of manufacturing and installing solar, yes it is definitely there. So the choice is emitting some carbon once every thirty years to build solar, or continuously emitting orders of magnitude of carbon dioxide just burning the stuff (once and done)---the answer seems pretty clear to me!
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone (not even most) have that much ground space in the lot their house is on.
Covering the roof in solar panels would only be worth it if you have enough roof to support 5GW of solar panels, and that power usage is going to do nothing except go up every couple months as new GPUs/NPUs and bigger better racks are brought into the DC.
And, hope those wind turbines and solar panels can withstand severe weather (which is probably going to get worse)... stuff like tornados, straight-line winds, golf ball-s
Re: (Score:3)
Your main problem is that your analysis is trite. You talk about primary energy, for example. Ember have written an entire report about why primary energy is weak way to understand energy systems. Its excellent, you should go read it:
https://ember-energy.org/lates... [ember-energy.org]
It is also really time to stop worrying about cropland lost to renewables production if you’re not going to acknowledge that cropland (and actual ecosystems) are being lost at a way higher rate to climate change. It’s like idiots bla
Re: (Score:2)
Agrivoltaics would be a way to preserve both.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed.
And wind does not cost much crop land, as the pillars of the turbines only use very little land.
Solar can be everywhere, it is only put on crop land: if all agree the land usage has to change away from crops - for what ever reason.
And putting solar on crop land only makes sense for large installations anyway. Most installations are on buildings ... and soon parking lots and so on.
Then again: the percentage of land any country uses as crop land is extremely low. If some usage is diverted away from tha
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
(Bing/Copilot)
"A single commercial wind turbine typically requires 40 to 70 acres of land for optimal operation, though the turbine itself occupies less than 1.5 acres.
Physical Footprint vs. Total Land Area
The direct footprint of a wind turbine, including the foundation and immediate access pad, is relatively small, usually 0.25 to 1.5 acres per turbine
This is the area physically occupied by the tower, base, and nearby infrastructure.
However, the total land area needed for a wind farm is much larger to ensu
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so they can be built suspended? Awesome!
They have a footprint, require a big concrete base, require maintenance (is the company still around in 10 years? will some other outfit service a competitors equipment?), how do they handle severe weather?
(Bing/CoPilot)
"Typical dimensions and volumes:
Small to midsized turbines (1–2MW):
Foundation diameter: ~13–18m (43–60ft)
Depth: ~1.5–2m (5–6ft)
Concrete volume: ~130–240m (320–630yd)
Example: A 1.5MW turbine in 2004 used a
Re: Possibly the only good thing... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Trump may have done really well in addressing the problems of climate change. Obviously, and due to his persistent total incompetence and lack of a clue, he did intend the total opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
"Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News" [whitehouse.gov]
—The White House, June 25, 2025
So, their nuclear facilities were obliterated more than 9 months before the current conflict according to sources that you would undoubtedly characterize as reliable.
Stop spreading fake news.
US numbers are good too (Score:2)
Here's the US solar growth numbers from the same report: https://ember-energy.org/lates... [ember-energy.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the US solar growth numbers from the same report: https://ember-energy.org/lates... [ember-energy.org]
Not bad for what Trump has repeatedly called a "scam".
Ending the Green New Scam [whitehouse.gov]
Google: trump renewables scam [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not bad for what Trump has repeatedly called a "scam".
Ending the Green New Scam [whitehouse.gov]
Google: trump renewables scam [google.com]
That White House link is crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, turns out that the "chief dealmaker" lacks even basic knowledge about economic factors and how things really work in the business space. If you have solution that is far superior on cost, it will be used.
Gas? (Score:2)
This is American, right? So this means petroleum gasoline?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it means natural gas, which is mostly methane.
Gasoline, and petroleum in general, is way too expensive to use to generate electricity except in special circumstances where your options are limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Biomass from agricultural waste would be a good start.
Cue all the Big Oil trolls... (Score:2)
Why smoke alarms are deadly things (satire) (Score:2)
Some satire similar to the logic fossil fuels sometimes uses against renewables:
(begin satire) Smoke alarms are a leading cause of deaths and fires in the home. Every years, lots of people are killed falling off of ladders to change smoke alarm batteries. False alarms from smoke detectors cause numerous kitchen injuries as people using kitchen knives are startled and accidentally cut themselves or stab nearby family members. Smoke detectors wired into home electrical systems can short out and burn down your
The only thing stopping us (Score:5, Interesting)
Also it's hard to explain to people that just because you won't let Elon Musk own the electric grid doesn't mean somebody is going to snatch your car and your toothbrush... It's really hard to get people to grasp any level of nuance. It doesn't help that 60% of them read at the level of a 12-year-old...
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing stopping us from an immediate switch is billionaires want to be in control of the energy supply
Nonsense.
Oh, there are some forces slowing us down, especially the orange man, but even if all of those forces went away or even reversed course 180 degrees there's no way we'd make "an immediate switch". It would and will take many years. It's complicated, there are a lot of moving parts, and we'll get to a point (CA is already there on a lot of days) where renewables frequently have to be curtailed because there isn't enough storage to shift that generation to times of low renewable generation.
It's really hard to get people to grasp any level of nuance.
Indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there are various ways existing and researched of storing everything. Some even depend upon materials from China to pull off. Another unsaid is the simple fact that grid components are on a long backlog.
Thanks for proving my point about nuance (Score:2)
I'm talking about the entire electric grid the entire human race. In this context the word immediate is still 10 to 20 years. In the sense of a project of that size the word immediate still applies. But it doesn't mean it happens in 2 weeks like how peace with Iran happens in 2 weeks.
This is the problem we have. Any sense of nuance goes out the window and you have to be so damn fucking blunt with everybody.
There was a push called The Green New deal that was going to be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They read at the level of 12 year olds? I doubt that. Just like their big cult leader, I think they do not read at all.
Transition (Score:1)
Five years ago, in April 2021, gas generation was almost identical to today's level at 476 TWh
In other words, renewables do not replace fossil.
Re: (Score:2)
Simplistic insightless conclusion is simplistic and insightless.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice, but ... (Score:1)
531 TWh represents 0.28% (1/300) of total energy (not electricity) production.
How about nuclear? And why look at percentage? (Score:2)
Does it mean that the total power consumption actually increased, or is it nearly the same while nuclear decreased?
Global warming only cares about the absolute amount of fossil fuels. It does not care about the percentage.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it mean that the total power consumption actually increased, or is it nearly the same while nuclear decreased?
Total energy consumption increased [ourworldindata.org], of course, as it almost always does (there were slight dips in 2009 and 2020).
Over the five years from 2019 to 2024, worldwide total nuclear primary energy production decreased slightly, from 6920 TWh to 6872 TWh, ending at about 3.69% of total worldwide primary energy production.
Global warming only cares about the absolute amount of fossil fuels. It does not care about the percentage.
Percentages are relatively easy to understand, and if the goal is to reduce the use of fossil fuel, given that total consumption always increases, the percentage of energy production from fossi
Full context yearly (Score:1)
These are the ball-bark yearly numbers confirmed by GPT and Gemini:
Wind + Solar electricity: ~5,000–5,500 TWh
Natural Gas (NG) electricity: ~6,500–7,000 TWh
NG direct heat / non-electric uses: ~10,000–12,000+ TWh equivalent
All fossil fuel electricity (coal + gas + oil): ~16,000–17,000 TWh
All fossil fuel direct heat / transport / non-electric uses: ~100,000–120,000+ TWh equivalent
This puts wind and solar ye
Anyone? (Score:2)
Could anyone forward this article ton trump?
Not relevant (Score:1)
It is only relevant how much wind and solar did in Germany.
Because of nukes and such ... and Russia and gas and such ... and Hitler, of course.
Re:"Governments around the world".... (Score:4, Insightful)
Being aligned with a cult leader pays off.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Rasputin still around? I didn't know that!
I don't see how Trump is anymore of a cult leader (or more evil) than any single other President the US has had ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Dvaputin is still around, though. Unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
His devotees believe everything he says, even when he contradicts himself the next day.
https://www.aft.org/sites/defa... [aft.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Again... "I don't see how Trump is anymore of a cult leader (or more evil) than any single other President the US has had ever"
It's awesome that no single other President ever lied ever!!! What a time to be alive!!!!
I didn't know Trump was a religious figure and had devotees... I must've missed that headline (can you provide a link?) during an internet outage )5G internet) or something.
So, Trump is as evil and manipulative as JFK (y'know... Zapruder and all that)? I know he's as evil as Washington, trying
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and hate to break it to ya... your vote and mine for President and Vice President doesn't vote someone in. That's entirely up to the Electoral College to decide that. Go ahead, and look it up.
Us little people decide the Senate, House, Congress, and whatever littler levels of government.
Re: (Score:2)
It sure does. For everybody not doing it.
Re: (Score:1)
The cult leader was Trump
His policy was increasing America's coal usage [whitehouse.gov]
The result was America increasing coal usage enough that America was responsible for 300% of the global coal increase in CO2 for 2025 [iea.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I can't figure out which way your joke is pointing? Who is aligned with which cult leader? Pretty sure it has something to do with climate change, that famous Chinese hoax. (Or maybe I'm just confused by the book about Chinese Buddhism?)
But I can force fit a thought of the day onto the topic. The YOB's strings are being pulled to oppose change, especially towards the wind power he hates so viscerally. I'm not saying I want him dead, but dropping dead might be the least harmful thing he could do now considering the size of the hole and the available options (in his legendary mind)? (It's not like the veep is the anti-christ. More like the anti-charisma. (Then again, the veep is a close friend of all the top suspects for anti-christ, so...(Except for Xi?)))
Quoted in response to moderation censorship. Convenient that no substantive response is called for?
And no, I don't really care what offended the "angry" sock puppets. It's sufficient to know that the trolls have no response save feeble censorship. (But there are a number of prominent websites where the feedback/moderation problems were worse. Have to use past tense because I only rarely and erratically check back to see if they improved or fixed anything. I can't think of any examples where I've noticed imp
Re: (Score:2)
I just wonder what the trolls are gonna do when someone else is voted in by the Electoral College.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:"Governments around the world".... (Score:5, Informative)
Political leadership (or lack thereof) is not the only thing incentivizing wind and solar. Low operational costs also play a huge factor.
Ember (the quoted source) reports the US at 19% [ember-energy.org]. Effectively, the US is about 3 years behind the average given that wind and solar has been growing in the US at about 1% a year for the past dozen years or so [eia.gov]. Although below average, the US is by no means out of the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Political leadership (or lack thereof) is not the only thing incentivizing wind and solar. Low operational costs also play a huge factor.
Ember (the quoted source) reports the US at 19% [ember-energy.org]. Effectively, the US is about 3 years behind the average given that wind and solar has been growing in the US at about 1% a year for the past dozen years or so [eia.gov]. Although below average, the US is by no means out of the game.
Exactly. This is a very good sign. Despite overt and implicit opposition from the current US government, wind and solar continue to grow. That suggests strong inherent economic motivation.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes a difference if you sail against the wind in innovation markets. The US would have to catch up a lot.
Re: "Governments around the world".... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anybody arguing with absolute numbers instead of per-capita regarding greenhouse gasses is just a big fat and easily spotted liar. You qualify.
Re: (Score:2)
cleaner burning fossil fuels like natural gas
Bullshit weasel words. "Cleaner" does not mean "clean".
A shit sandwich, now with 50% less shit! is still a shit sandwich.
Re: (Score:2)
cleaner burning fossil fuels like natural gas
Bullshit weasel words. "Cleaner" does not mean "clean".
Cleaner natural gas leads to US emissions dropping by 13% while dirtier coal leads to China's emissions rising 38%. The world suffers unnecessarily due to China's choices poor regarding coal.
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have incre
Re: (Score:2)
"[2026 Feb 10] Despite media and other reports that China is into “green energy,” the country is still using coal to power its economy, with about 80 to 100 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity added in 2025. The Statistical Review of World Energy reports that coal accounted for 58% of China’s primary energy consumption i
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, that we (the US) has a big chunk of coal, and needs to get some power going to support the DCs and all that.
(Bing/Copilot)
"Country with the Most Coal Reserves in the World
The United States holds the largest coal reserves in the world, with an estimated 273.2 billion short tons.
Top Coal-Reserve Countries (2023–2026 estimates)
According to World Population Review and other energy data sources, the six largest coal reserve holders are:
United States – 273.2 billion short tons (250 bil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A polluting fuel to replace using a polluting fuel! Awesome!
We have tons of coal... might as well use it for something, unless we're going to have a massive BBQ.
Nuclear does pollute (the waste in the barrels)... strap the barrels to a rocket and launch them into the Sun.
Is NatGas (that we use for heat and cooking) an unlimited resource? Should we use all of it up to keep "Clod" functioning? Sure, switch to electric heat and stoves, that power has to come from somewhere... once the NatGas is gone, what el
Re: (Score:2)
A polluting fuel to replace using a polluting fuel! Awesome!
A less polluting fuel to replace a more polluting fuel, until an even less polluting source can be scaled to match demand.
This minimizes pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
They're doing that while massively installing solar and wind. Go look it up somewhere OTHER than Faux Noise.
Re: (Score:2)
They're doing that while massively installing solar and wind.
Wrong. They are not prioritizing natural gas over coal. They choose coal first due to low cost, unlike the west that chooses natural gas for lower emissions. Solar and wind are supplementing coal, not displacing it.
Go look it up somewhere OTHER than Faux Noise.
You are lying, attempting fake demonization because you have no intelligent response. I quoted statista.com. In other posts I quoted yale.edu, ucsd.edu, iea.org, carbonbrief.org, instituteforenergyresearch.org, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
They also make a ton of stuff and all that industry is contributing to those numbers. Anyone that buys something from China is at least partly responsible for Chinese pollution numbers.
Of course, the same can be said about buying anything from the USA, including our tech services. Want us to stop polluting? Then stop being an accessory and refuse to buy from us because we're filthy polluters.
Re: (Score:2)
And, everything, at least in part, comes from China... even stuff that's labelled as "Made in Pakistan" or Mexico is made from stuff made in China.
And, it's all made in in China or other Asian-area countries because cheap labor makes big money for the right people.
CHINA. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The apparent contradiction stems from what China is actually doing with coal and coal plants, which is to say, retiring old coal plants and replacing with new ones which it uses as backup for renewables. So utilisation of these new plants is pretty low.
Re:This must piss off (Score:5, Funny)
I really wish Scotland would seize his golf course and rename it the Trump/Epstein nature preserve.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:This must piss off (Score:5, Interesting)
Fun fact, to get to net zero the UK needs to dedicate a bit less than all the land currently used for golf courses to solar.
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me they haven't started the conversion process just yet but maybe the next election cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a very nice move, but only if they attach a museum featuring the Trump/Epstein files.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just that but also convert the golf course to a solar or wind park.
Re: (Score:1)
Bonus point, you could put 20 or 30 mini golf curses under the solar cells!
Re: (Score:3)
I really wish Scotland would seize his golf course and rename it the Trump/Epstein nature preserve.
Better yet, lease the offshore rights for a very large wind farm.
Already built. [wikipedia.org] Maybe not a very large wind farm, but 11 turbines is not too small.
Re: (Score:2)
According to new analysis from independent energy think tank Ember, wind and solar produced 22% of the world's electricity in April 2026, compared to 20% from gas.
But are we certain that gas wasn't overtaken by renewables because of the lack of availability of gas from the farts of the obese? After all, a lot of people stopped going to the buffet for 3 hours because they're now using Ozempic. That's not putting America First.
Re: (Score:2)
He’ll never know. He’s pig ignorant and ignores almost everything, certainly including anything that goes against his desires
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately never. The handful of billionaires running the show know you can' just stop buying gasoline or groceries. To quote George Carlin: It's a big club and you aint in it
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately never. The handful of billionaires running the show know you can' just stop buying gasoline or groceries.
Nope. The billionaires will shift to solar and wind as soon as more money can be made from them. Big Oil became Big Energy in the 1970s and has been preparing for Peak Oil for decades. Peak Oil just keeps getting postponed as new reserves are discovered and keeps petroleum more profitable.
The billionaires don't give a shit about the fossil fuels vs renewables, they follow the profits.
Re: (Score:2)
The billionaires don't give a shit about the fossil fuels vs renewables, they follow the profits.
Explains the plane load of tech bros following Trump to China then. Think China will let them in so they can follow the renewable profits?
Re: (Score:2)
The billionaires don't give a shit about the fossil fuels vs renewables, they follow the profits.
Explains the plane load of tech bros following Trump to China then. Think China will let them in so they can follow the renewable profits?
They are following Trump to China for the same old scam that western business has gone to China for for nearly two centuries. The fantasy of selling whatever it is they make to the vast potential Chinese market. It never works. But each generations thinks "this time it will be different".