Renewable Energy Just Hit 30% of America's Electricity Generation (electrek.co) 63
America generated 10.06% more energy with renewables in the first four months of 2026 than it did in the same period the year before. That's according to new figures from America's Energy Information Administration, cited in this report from Electrek:
The growth was led by utility-scale solar (+21.3%), hydropower (+15.7%), small-scale solar
In April alone, wind and solar each produced more electricity than US coal plants, while the combination of solar and wind produced 57.0% more electricity than nuclear power.
The mix of all renewables, including biomass and geothermal, accounted for 30.0% of total US electrical generation during the first third of 2026 — up from 27.8% a year earlier... EIA reported that, in April, utility-scale solar capacity surpassed wind capacity for the first time (160,208.1 MW vs. 160,100.6 MW). Further, utility-scale battery energy storage capacity increased by 17,703.5 MW, or 58.1%. Nuclear added just 18.4 MW. The combined capacity growth of all utility-scale renewable energy sources for the 12-month period (55,980.3 MW) is two-thirds more (i.e., 67.6%) than that added during the previous 12 months (33,392.0 MW).
"EIA projects no new nuclear generating capacity and a net decline of 5,200.5 MW in fossil fuel capacity."
In April alone, wind and solar each produced more electricity than US coal plants, while the combination of solar and wind produced 57.0% more electricity than nuclear power.
The mix of all renewables, including biomass and geothermal, accounted for 30.0% of total US electrical generation during the first third of 2026 — up from 27.8% a year earlier... EIA reported that, in April, utility-scale solar capacity surpassed wind capacity for the first time (160,208.1 MW vs. 160,100.6 MW). Further, utility-scale battery energy storage capacity increased by 17,703.5 MW, or 58.1%. Nuclear added just 18.4 MW. The combined capacity growth of all utility-scale renewable energy sources for the 12-month period (55,980.3 MW) is two-thirds more (i.e., 67.6%) than that added during the previous 12 months (33,392.0 MW).
"EIA projects no new nuclear generating capacity and a net decline of 5,200.5 MW in fossil fuel capacity."
would have been impressive.... (Score:2)
...25 years ago
Re:would have been impressive.... (Score:4, Informative)
It's more impressive when you consider ...America increased coal usage enough that America was responsible for 300% of the global coal increase in CO2 for 2025 [iea.org]
Now where's that Dumb Republican No Brains to come up with some more lies...
China massively increasing coal usage (Score:2, Troll)
It's more impressive when you consider America increased coal usage enough that America was responsible for 300% of the global coal increase in CO2 for 2025
Actually you misunderstood or misrepresented the stats. Your link is a confusing paraphrasing of different sites with the actual data. If you follow the footnotes back you'll find out that the US building 2 coal plants, and temporarily reactivating 2 others. In contrast China is building many new coal plants, at the direction of the President Xi. US industry continues a 70 year trend of moving away from coal. Unlike China which continues to use coal as fast as they can dig it up or import it. The west leans
America massively increasing coal usage (Score:1, Informative)
there he was...
Dumb Republican No Brains...still completely incapable of reading a simple bar chart.
China uses 11 times the coal the USA uses (Score:3)
In 2025 China used 5 billion tons of coal, the USA 0.44. China is burning 11 times the amount of coal the USA does. Hence the long term trend of increasing CO2 emissions by 38% in the same time period the USA reduced emissions by 13%.
Re: (Score:1)
It's more impressive when you consider America increased coal usage enough that America was responsible for 300% of the global coal increase in CO2 for 2025
Actually you misunderstood or misrepresented the stats. Your link is a confusing paraphrasing of different sites with the actual data. If you follow the footnotes back you'll find out that the US building 2 coal plants, and temporarily reactivating 2 others. In contrast China is building many new coal plants, at the direction of the President Xi. US industry continues a 70 year trend of moving away from coal. Unlike China which continues to use coal as fast as they can dig it up or import it. The west leans toward using the least polluting fossil fuels, ex Natural Gas, China prefers to use to lower cost fossil fuels, which is coal.
"[2026 March 26] 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.
The 15th Five-Year Plan offered a chance to correct these negative trends and get China’s climate ambitions back on track, but it is an opportunity the government appears to have missed ... Instead, they changed the way they calculate energy intensity, perhaps to disguise the failure to meet Xi’s target, and set a looser ambition for the next five years. "
https://e360.yale.edu/features... [yale.edu]
"[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 in 2024, with fossil fuels accounting for a whopping 88%.
Coal also provided 58% of China’s electricity generation in 2024.
While a report by Ember indicates that populous developing countries like China and India “led the charge in adding more renewable energies” in the first half of 2025, their generation shares show that coal is still king in these countries, and their coal-fired capacity additions indicate that coal will continue to power their economies for the foreseeable future.
The Statistical Review of World Energy reports that coal accounted for 58% of China’s primary energy consumption in 2024. Oil was at 20% and natural gas at 10%. That means that 88% of China’s energy came from fossil fuels. Carbon-free energy (nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and most other renewables) only provided 12%. Since 2000, China has more than tripled its coal consumption and now uses more coal than the rest of the world’s combined usage, burning 56% of the world’s coal. As Doomberg points out, China consumes almost 20 times the combined consumption of coal by the 27 member states of the European Union, based on 2024 data.
"In 2024, China released 11,173 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — 31.5% of the world’s total. That was about 4.5 times as much as the European Union and almost 2.5 times the amount that the United States released.
China produced 57.8% of its electricity from coal and 33.7% from renewables and hydropower. It is unlikely that China has since switched those numbers so radically when it expanded the capacity of coal-fired plants more in the first half of 2025 than at any time in the past nine years, according to DW. It did so by adding between 80 and 100 gigawatts of new coal power to its grid in 2025, with 21 gigawatts of those gigawatts added in the first half of 2025
The reason that China and India will not divest themselves of coal is that they need affordable and reliable power for their industries and for their residents. With the advent of artificial intelligence data centers that are energy hungry, China will be relying on its vast coal-fired grid — larger than all the generating capacity in the United States — to lead the race. It also needs coal capacity to process the rare earth and other critical minerals that the world needs for “green” technologies."
https://www.instituteforenergy... [institutef...search.org]
"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 increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. ""
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Did you know that critical awareness is a sign of intelligence? Try it here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that critical awareness is a sign of intelligence?
As in being aware that the GP's link was to a subpage of a larger article, a subpage with just an out of context graph. And if one reads the full article with the actual information and data one finds out the GP was misrepresenting things.
China shifts ooal to other industrries (Score:2)
For burning coal for electricity.
China does not use less coal, they merely shifted some coal usage from power generation to other industries.
"[2025 August 21] Coal-power capacity could surge by as much as 80-100GW this year, potentially setting a new annual record, even as coal-fired electricity generation declines." "A former senior official at one of China’s largest power firms stated in an interview in June 2025 that companies are building coal power capacity due to central government pressure."
"The use of coal to make synthet
Re: would have been impressive.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...25 years ago
First it was not possible to have anything but coal or nuclear.
Then it was it gets dark, so impossible to use solar.
Then was there is no way to store the energy. Then it was people will shiver in the dark when the wind dies down.
And now? It is not impressive.
My how the goalposts have moved, and now those grapes are probably sour anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
"First it was not possible to have anything but coal or nuclear"
California had several large wind farms & several hundred MW of solar thermal in the 1980s. America doesn't lack for either wind or sun and has long had the transmission capacity to shunt power where it's needed.
By 2005, tiny Denmark produced 6.6 TWh from wind power, enough to power ~650k US homes for a year.
Re: (Score:1)
"First it was not possible to have anything but coal or nuclear" California had several large wind farms & several hundred MW of solar thermal in the 1980s. America doesn't lack for either wind or sun and has long had the transmission capacity to shunt power where it's needed. By 2005, tiny Denmark produced 6.6 TWh from wind power, enough to power ~650k US homes for a year.
And at the same time a much larger than either, France, hit 70% green power via nuclear in the 80's, and has reached 95% today with a combination of nuclear and renewable energy. So yes, so you can in fact do the majority of your power with nuclear if you decide to spend the money and do it. Adding solar/wind is a good add, as nuclear is great for base power, not so good for the variable part, which is where wind/solar/batteries fit in very well.
Re: (Score:2)
And at the same time a much larger than either, France, hit 70% green power via nuclear in the 80's, and has reached 95% today with a combination of nuclear and renewable energy. So yes, so you can in fact do the majority of your power with nuclear if you decide to spend the money and do it. Adding solar/wind is a good add, as nuclear is great for base power, not so good for the variable part, which is where wind/solar/batteries fit in very well.
I often try to tell people that solar and wind are turbine generations friend They seldom listen, because they are either 100 percent in one camp or 100 percent the other.
My best guest is that at some point in the future, the mega nuclear plants will be much less needed, which is a good thing, because humans aren't good at building and running nuclear power plants - safely. The latest example is the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station scandal in South Carolina. Adding two new reactors, that was
Re: (Score:2)
America has been unable to pull the nuclear waste out of its ass and figure out how to dispose, store or reprocess, something the lame, effeminate communist Frenchie frou-frous figured out long ago.
By contrast the arsenal of freedom has dithered over the issue and now about approx 100k tons spread across 40 states.
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet tells me that California is a mythical place invented to tempt children into windowless vans and teenagers into dressing in black and giving money to poor people. Just like the Internet told me the things the GP said.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1980s you couldn't build BESS. The batteries were prohibitively expensive. So we could use solar to offset air con, but outside of that making good use of renewables was a challenge. It's true we didn't even do that aggressively, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
"In the 1980s you couldn't build BESS. The batteries were prohibitively expensive"
Japan had working prototypes of NaS (sodium-sulfur) batteries in the 80s and several MW in commercial operations by the early 90s
Re: (Score:2)
Carter put solar panels on the roof of the White House during his term. Raygun had them removed.
Re: (Score:2)
in 2010, Bill McKibben took one of those original Carter panels to the White House and shamed the Obama admin into installing new ones, completed in 2013.
around 2003, Dubya installed some on a maintenance bldg to provide heat & power for the swimming pool
Re: mommy (Score:1)
For how much longer? (Score:3)
Given the current regime's policies, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if they started tearing out existing wind and solar infrastructure to build coal-fired generating stations in their stead.
Re:For how much longer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
That's part of what is great about this though. This is happening from sheer economics, despite the Trump admin's attempts otherwise.
Probably why Trump doesn't understand it -- despite, supposedly, having earned a BS in Economics from Wharton.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably why Trump doesn't understand it -- despite, supposedly, having earned a BS in Economics from Wharton.
A BS for Trump? How utterly and tragicomically appropriate!
Re:For how much longer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly that's why it's also on the rise in Germany, despite the current government trying its best to stop it. I just makes so much sense that it cannot be stopped. It's just so affordable that at least home owners can simply invest in it.
It's a microeconomic decision, it will rise from the bottom up. It's not like macroeconomic decisions you can just dictate from above to suit the needs of some big companies. (like it's done in Germany with cars)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly that's why it's also on the rise in Germany, despite the current government trying its best to stop it. I just makes so much sense that it cannot be stopped. It's just so affordable that at least home owners can simply invest in it.
It's a microeconomic decision, it will rise from the bottom up. It's not like macroeconomic decisions you can just dictate from above to suit the needs of some big companies. (like it's done in Germany with cars)
If I could I'd mod you up as either Insightful or Informative - thanks for the fresh take.
The goal is not to stay on dirty energy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What we need is for Mar-a-lago to be knocked down and replaced by a wind farm, and force Don the Con to watch as it happens.
Can we please stop using MW for storage capacity? (Score:5, Informative)
MW is a unit of power. MWh is a unit of capacity - that is, power * time.
If it helps, think of it this way:
- Power is how frequently I can give a f*ck.
- Capacity is how many f*cks I have to give.
Re:Can we please stop using MW for storage capacit (Score:5, Informative)
Both power, and energy are relevant here. The amount of energy the storage can store is one relevant metric, but the rate at which it can supply that energy is another very important metric. For most grid operators it's *far* more relevant to say that a battery bank can provide 100MW for 15 minutes, than to say that it has a capacity of 25MWh.
With lithium cells, *capacity* is what matters (Score:1)
Most lithium cells can discharge at 100 C (that is, at a current which would drain the cell in 1/100 of an hour)... for less than a minute.
This is how those book-sized car jumper batteries work. It's literally 4 banks of lithium batteries connected together and to the clamps via a power FET or relay and a bit of monitoring circuitry.
I'm sitting here looking at a single 5000mAh 21700 cell from one of my flashlights. 5Ah * 3.6V = 18 Wh. But it can discharge 1800W (!) for 1/100 of an hour.
So, is "17,703.5 M
Re: (Score:2)
Most lithium cells can discharge at 100 C (that is, at a current which would drain the cell in 1/100 of an hour)... for less than a minute.
The bottleneck usually aren't the batteries, but the inverter.
The batteries usually have significant margins to avoid stress and gain longevity.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It's hard to tell if they are talking about the power output capability of these systems, or the storage capacity. It could be either.
Re: (Score:1)
This pet peeve is never going to get solved, because the units are the "wrong" way around: The unit of power doesn't include any hint that time is involved, but the way we express energy does. It's exactly opposite compared to the units that laypeople use most often: distance and speed. That's why you see kWh written as "kW/h". It makes no physical sense*, but to someone who just needs to adorn a number with a "unit", it absolutely does make sense. We like to dump on AI for not "understanding" and instead j
There are other units, you know... (Score:2)
1 Joule (J) of energy = 1 watt of power for one second. 1J = 1Ws.
Then if you want time in your power, write 100 J/s instead of 100 W.
Interestingly, strobes (camera flashes) tend to be rated in Ws. A small strobe might be 50Ws, my big handheld strobes are 150Ws, and studio strobes can be 400Ws. Or, 50J, 150J, and 400J. The peak power during discharge is pretty incredible, though. They'll dump all that in 1/500s, so a 150Ws strobe has a peak power output of 75kW (!), similar to an EV motor.
Re: (Score:2)
W is J/s, but the "per second" isn't obvious from the unit W. The energy unit Ws (or kWh, as is more customarily used due to its scale) has the time in the unit, but it isn't actually time based, because the s cancels the s from J/s that is invisible in the W. We could use J for energy and J/s for power (or scaled versions of these units), but we don't. The cardinal mistake was to standardize on W as the unit of power and derive customary energy units from that, instead of standardizing on J as the unit of
Could be worse. How about BTU? (Score:2)
British Thermal Unit doesn't give any hint at all...
I suspect starting with power (vs. energy) is historical. It's horsepower, not oats/second.
But really, which unit is most natural depends on what you're engineering. If you're making a transmission line or a motor or a heater, power is what matters. With a car or a train, power is what gets you over the hill. And you don't buy fuel by the MJ, you buy it by the liter (or, gallon in Freedom Units).
Even just with electricity, storage as electricity is a r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The word you're looking for is "energy."
"Capacity" can have pretty much any units depending on what you're talking about. Generation capacity, for example, is usually measured in Watts. It's common to talk about battery capacity in terms of power because if it can't provide enough power it's no good at all, and then time; i.e. make it work, then make it good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Shhh! Keep it quiet! (Score:3)
Europe comparison (Score:3)
Wind power is relatively cheap and quick to build, but is intermittent with no electricity when there is no wind.
Sure, battery energy storage can help to some extent and Europe is investing too,
but it is expensive technology, has limited capacity and a lifespan of 5 to 15 years.
Europe still uses mostly pumped hydroelectric energy storage (PHES) for storage.
Maybe research can give us better hydrogen storage?
Re: (Score:3)
And also more nuclear power, resulting in fossil fuels now dropping below 30% of electricity production!
A bad day for the stable genius (Score:2)
That's remarkable (Score:3)
why (Score:2)
If there is so much free energy, why didn't my energy bill go down?
So it's down? (Score:2)