The growth of renewables in the United States

[OKIsItJustMe]

These charts, courtesy of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, are current as of March 2025. I accept no credit or blame.

The first chart shows electricity generated by nuclear power. (It ranges roughly between 55K and 75K.)


This second chart shows electricity generated by renewable sources. The top (blue) line is “other renewables.” The next (“dark orange?”) line is “wind.” The third (green) line is "utility solar.” The chart contains other categories, but they’re “also rans."


My Take-aways:

1. In March, 2025 “other renewables” fell just short of 80K, beating “nuclear’s" best monthly performance in a ¼ century.
2. In the same month, “Wind” exceeded 60K competing with “Nuclear.” Assuming its “growth rate” continues, “Wind” should exceed “Nuclear” in the not-too-distant future.
3. “Wind" is generating more electricity than “utility solar” but “Wind” has roughly a decade’s lead, and “utility solar’s” growth rate is accelerating quickly.

Now, it’s not a competition. We need a clean grid, and most authorities agree that it must include increased use of nuclear power. However, by the same token, it should be clear that nuclear power will not be carrying the load alone.

If you care to read about scenarios for creating a clean grid, I highly recommend the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s 100% Clean Electricity by 2035 Study.

Denholm, Paul, Patrick Brown, Wesley Cole, et al. 2022. Examining Supply-Side Options to Achieve 100% Clean Electricity by 2035. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A40-81644. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81644.pdf

(It’s a few years old, and we’re not on schedule, but, the basic facts remain the same.)

[NNadir]

1. Ah, I remember the days when the antinukes used to run around saying that if we spent as much money on "renewables..."

Last edited Fri Jun 13, 2025, 11:16 PM - Edit history (1)

...as nuclear, nirvana would break out.

They certainly won the point with the general public here in the US. These climate indifferent asses managed to destroy nuclear manufacturing infrastructure in this country.

And of course, then as now, the antinukes had no problem with fracking the shit out of the North American continent; they couldn't care less about the collapse of the planetary atmosphere, and they no more care about American dunkelflaute, than they care about the collapse of the planetary atmosphere, disingenuous lip service aside..

As for money spent, well that's another story. I keep handy this graphic and link for whenever an antinuke doesn't give a rat's ass about human poverty, about vast stretches of North America burning, extreme weather, or the fact that all of this so called "renewable energy" bullshit will be landfill before today's infants get out of college, that is to say if enough resources are left for there to be colleges:

The amount of money spent on so called "renewable energy" since 2015 is 4.12 trillion dollars, compared to 377 billion dollars spent on nuclear energy, mostly to keep vapid cultists spouting fear and ignorance from destroying the valuable nuclear infrastructure.



IEA overview, Energy Investments.

The graphic is interactive at the link; one can calculate overall expenditures on what the IEA dubiously calls "clean energy."

Really? Cheap? Let's consider this case, the case of that fossil fuel dependent hellhole California where "activists" call endlessly for shutting Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, which produces on 12 acres of land more energy than all the wind turbines in California, spread well over 1000 square miles, not counting the abandoned ones rotting in the desert.

Source: Total Generation, California 2009-2023, Excel Sheet

Let's see...um...um...um...2023...2023...that would be column Q...wind...wind...wind...that would be row 14. What's that say? Oh 13,920, a number slightly smaller than Column N, row 14, wind in 2021, 15,173. The unit is GWh, a unit of energy, equal, in SI units to 3.6 TJ (Terajoules). Thus in 2021, the "record" year for production of thousands of square miles of industrialized wilderness to serve the stupid affectations of people who hate nuclear energy but don't give a flying fuck about fossil fuels, who love fossil fuels in fact, all the wind turbines in California produced 55 Petajoules on a planet that consumed, in that year, 624,000 Petajoules that year, (624 Exajoules.)

Of course, to antinukes, 5 trillion dollars for their idiot affectation is "cheap," mostly because the bill will come due - for real - in generations to come, not that they give a fuck about future generations. Things aren't so hunky dory here on this planet now, though are they? I mean, Canada burns every summer, huge stretches of it - there goes our paper supply including toilet paper, whose precious "softness" is particularly critically dependent on Canadian boreal forests. And cut 'em' down; they're just going to burn anyway.

But let's not forget the solar industry in California, that easily out stripped California's sole nuclear plant on 8 acres. All those chainsaws to Joshua trees are fine for making solar industrial parks where Joshua trees once stood, because, hell, the Joshua trees are just going to bake anyway.

Of course, it matters when solar plants are available, which certainly isn't at a maximum, even at the summer solstice, when California's electricity demand peaks in late afternoon/early evening, generally around 18:00 hours or a little later.

I know! I know! I know! HYDROGEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We can easily built huge industrial plants that will operate for 30 minutes each day on either side of noon, fitted with powerlines, and water pipes to our big metal electrolyzers: Fuck the laws of thermodynamics and economics. Let's face, California is great at building water pipelines through deserts and has been for a long time. They killed Lake Owens over a century ago, and many more since. What's a few pipelines out to a desert to those big industrial parks for solar farms? Who gives a fuck? Shit for brains tree huggers?

This afternoon, I learned that the capacity utilization of California's gas plants fell by almost 25% since 2025, but they can't shut the gas plants.

In fact, they announced another one on December 10, 2024, but don't worry, be happy, they say it will feature carbon capture.

Now, I'm not a dumb fuck antinuke, nor, for that matter, am I really an economist, although one doesn't need a degree in economics to compare the value of infrastructure that can operate reliably and continuously at full power without a loss of life on 12 acres - if not destroyed by mindless vandals - for more than half a century, as compared to wind turbines with a lifetime of less than 20 years, as I demonstrated from Danish Data. A Commentary on Failure, Delusion and Faith: Danish Data on Big Wind Turbines and Their Lifetimes.

They tell you solar energy is "cheap," but they don't tell you that you will be paying, in your rates, for the O&M for redundant plants that don't generate revenue or do anything at all except when the day is cloudy, or short, or this widely reported event called "night" occurs.

I really, really, really, really don't give a fuck for this "more than nuclear" crap that has been the subject of cheering by dumb fuck antinukes for generations. They're fucking chant is decades old here at DU, one after another, dumber, and dumber and dumber, more and more and more ethically hollow, year after year after year.

It is annoying, of course, when they pretend to give a rat's ass about the destruction of the planetary atmosphere, but their indifference its destruction shows up every time they produce another of these tiresome specious claims, "more than nuclear."

They won. The planet is burning. People are dying in the streets from extreme heat in the evenings, the future is desiccated and blowing away, major systems are failing, the glaciers on which billions depend for water are melting and flowing out to sea.

They. Just. Don't. Give. A. Shit. They can't even be bothered to open a fucking book and read and they certainly are unfamiliar with understanding even basic realities were they even to bother to read.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Table B.4a Technology costs in selected regions in the Stated Policies Scenario

IEA World Energy Outlook 2024
Table A.3a: Technology costs in selected regions in the Stated Policies Scenario Page 333.