Very misleading title: it should be "Solar leads global energy growth for the first time".

Still good news, but a long, long way from solar becoming the world's primary source of energy.

• iso1631

  today at 10:39 AM

  > solar becoming the world's primary source of energy

  Solar has always been the primary source of energy, Something like 99.95%, with geothermal taking 90% of the rest and tidal being basically zero

  • leonidasrup

    today at 11:11 AM

    You can look at coal, oil, gas as form of compressed solar energy, because all of them have biological source, stored millions of year ago. It's just burning coal, oil, gas has nasty side effects.

    " Volcanic coal-burning in Siberia led to climate change 252 million years ago.

    Extensive burning in Siberia was a cause of the Permo-Triassic extinction " https://www.nsf.gov/news/volcanic-coal-burning-siberia-led-c...

  • ilogik

    today at 12:06 PM

    What about nuclear?

• eucryphia

  today at 11:05 AM

  Should it be ‘solar leading energy subsidy growth’.

  • deaux

    today at 11:22 AM

    No chance, fossil fuels are subsidized more. A large share of solar growth is from countries like Pakistan who have had some subsidies but total dollar amount of them is trivial.

    • dzhiurgis

      today at 11:28 AM

      Got source?

      China only ended solar panel export subsidy this month.

      • actionfromafar

        today at 11:50 AM

        The US oil subsidy currently is projected to increase the Pentagon budget from one trillion to one and half. I bet one could build a lot of solar panels for 500 billion dollars, and you can use them more than once, too.

        • today at 11:56 AM

      • RALaBarge

        today at 11:41 AM

        [dead]

  • Aboutplants

    today at 11:24 AM

    Solar subsidies still pale in comparison to oil and gas subsidies worldwide

With PV being the absolutely cheapest form to get energy in most regions of the world already or soon-ish (and even highly useful electric energy at that), I fully expect our capital machines to pour ever more resources into its deployment. This will go on until we have plastered some percentage of the earths surface with PV, there's fundamentally no real constraint to doing so.

Along the way, over the next 10-30 years we will have replaced most major fossil burning things - the only way you will be able to compete with PV power is if you're sitting right on top of a gas field in a location with little sunlight and no grid connection.

Incidentally, with ever-falling battery storage costs, I'd assume the need for large interconnect buildout to be diminishing, but there's lots of inertia in that system so societies might end up with some underused assets. Still better than all the stranded assets I suppose, but still.

"Overall, renewables and nuclear together met nearly 60% of the growth in energy demand".

That's not enough. It's obvious this is going in the right direction but adoption is still too slow, considering how cheap renewables are now (and will be).

• matttttttttttt

  today at 11:39 AM

  Read it carefully. The growth in renewables exceeded the growth in electricity demand. The 60% figure is all forms of energy.

  Stated another way, we could (hypothetically) stop building coal and gas fired electrial generation and we'd still have enough renewable growth to cover electrical needs.

  There's certainly room to start offsetting non-electrical power usage, but that's a different ball game entirely. I'd be pretty happy if we got to a point where only transportation ran on oil. To do that, we need enough renewables to both offset growth (done) and to start shutting down non-renewable generation. Even if we did nothing, those plants have a usable service life of < 100 years so we're within a human lifetime of not needing them anymore.

  • marcosdumay

    today at 11:51 AM

    > The 60% figure is all forms of energy.

    It's even better than this appears, because normally a Joule of electrified work replaces 2 to 4 Joules of fossil fuel. And electrification tends to happen on the less efficient processes first.

• fulafel

  today at 9:54 AM

  In deed. We are really late in ramping down fossils usage and emissions, and the death toll is higher than the other bad things in the news headlines.

  • 21asdffdsa12

    today at 10:55 AM

    The problem is also, that solar infrastructure is vulnerable to some of the attack vectors of climate change. The torrent downpours we see now in the us and in Europe - especially in mountainous regions are endangering the traditional valley cities in the hinterlands- the biggest consumer of solar.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_the_United_States_(2...

• KumaBear

  today at 9:36 AM

  Cost is the barrier

  • xbmcuser

    today at 10:23 AM

    Cost is no longer the barrier as today even the upfront cost of solar is competitive against upfront cost for building coal or gas power plant. While there is no cost of fuel for solar. In China and India even solar + battery is cheaper than new coal power plants.

    • ZeroGravitas

      today at 10:34 AM

      New electricity generation has been 90% clean for a few years now and solar the biggest part of it for 3 or 4 years. This new landmark is about energy.

      That's good progress but it does raise some new cost barriers to get over for each new thing we electrify.

      EVs are over this hump, heat pumps replacing boilers are just about there. Some industrial uses are getting there.

      Notably, in electricity renewables went through being cheaper than new build and reduced further in cost to being cheaper than running existing plants.

      We're not quite at that stage for many electrification use cases, though for growing nations without lots of existing assets that's not as relevant.

    • red75prime

      today at 11:33 AM

      A recent Danish research[1] found that the cheapest energy mix (that includes system costs like energy storage) right now for them is offshore wind power (66%), natural gas CCGT (26%), and solar PV (8%). Solar panels are cheap, but their system cost is the highest.

      [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...

Maybe "accidentally killing fossil fuels" will be DT's singular good deed

• Tade0

  today at 11:31 AM

  Just Stop Oil announced the cessation of all activities in my country.

  Officially it's because reportedly they've achieved their goals locally, but I can't help but think that it was really because the POTUS Just Stopped way more Oil than they ever imagined they could.

• marcosdumay

  today at 11:58 AM

  The man is an overachiever.

  He is in the process of killing the rise of neonazism, exposing those religious extremists that want constant wars on the Middle East, creating a multipolar world commerce chamber, turning the EU into a federation, popularizing socialism (and even outright communism) in the US, dismantling the US's foreign government overthrowing apparatus, creating actual diplomatic relations between the Eastern Asia governments...

• citrin_ru

  today at 9:25 AM

  In a long run - hopefully but in a short run big oil (outside the gulf) collecting windfall profits and Asian countries returning to coal.

  • dv_dt

    today at 9:54 AM

    A substitution of coal for oil, or more likely natural gas, isn't that big a shift of emissions in the short run if it's a stopgap for massive solar and wind investments. Solar and wind install quick.

• iso1631

  today at 10:41 AM

  The world's most effective ecoterrorist.

  Greenpeace should name their next ship after him.

• stavros

  today at 9:11 AM

  You can't really attribute to someone something they did unintentionally while trying to do the opposite.

  • fxwin

    today at 10:14 AM

    i think that's why they used the word "accidentally"

    • stavros

      today at 10:16 AM

      Let me rephrase: You can't really attribute to someone something they did accidentally while trying to do the opposite.

  • boxed

    today at 9:32 AM

    I mean.. we do all the time no? Hitler tried to make Germany great and made it shit. Mao tried to make China great and killed tens of millions. Stalin, Pol Pot.. the list goes on.

    If we attribute accidental evil, why should we not attribute accidental good?

    • stavros

      today at 9:37 AM

      If Hitler was trying to find a gold mine under Germany and instead found a bomb there that killed a bunch of people, we wouldn't blame him for murder, it was an honest mistake.

      Murdering millions of people wasn't exactly "accidental evil", it was very deliberate. Which parts of what these guys did do you think were accidental?

      • vidarh

        today at 9:56 AM

        Mao's campaign to kill sparrows was a result of a belief that they were a net loss for harvests.

        Stalin's support of Lysenko was a result of thinking Lysenko was actually able to drive agricultural growth.

        Both mistakes led to mass deaths.

        We still tend to attribute those deaths to those leaders, because their brutally authoritarian rule was what allowed those mistakes to go unchallenged and get fixed before they caused that level of harm.

        Both of them also killed a lot of people maliciously and intentionally, but a large proportion of their death toll as a side-effect of their oppression, not the goal of it.

        • stavros

          today at 10:03 AM

          > We still tend to attribute those deaths to those leaders, because their brutally authoritarian rule was what allowed those mistakes to go unchallenged and get fixed before they caused that level of harm.

          What is the analogue here for attributing the rise of alternative energy sources to Trump? Being too incompetent to avoid harm isn't the same as being too incompetent to avoid benefit, because your job is to create benefit.

          It's Trump's job to create positive outcomes. If he creates positive outcomes by accident while trying to create negative ones, he should get panned for trying to create negative outcomes.

          • xorcist

            today at 12:06 PM

            > It's Trump's job to create positive outcomes

            For whom?

          • decimalenough

            today at 10:30 AM

            Trump's stated goal of regime change in Iran would (likely) have been a positive outcome if it has actually happened. The problem is that it hasn't.

            • deaux

              today at 11:25 AM

              > Trump's stated goal of regime change in Iran would (likely) have been a positive outcome if it has actually happened

              The number of Americans still believing this is baffling and saya everything about their history education.

              "The previous 20 times we forced regime change ended up a net negative for the people in those countries, but surely this time it would've been different!".

            • stavros

              today at 10:48 AM

              This is off topic for what we're discussing (whether his accidental positive changes can be attributed to him), and agrees with my general point.

              • decimalenough

                today at 11:00 AM

                No, it doesn't, because you're asserting he is "trying to create negative ones".

                • stavros

                  today at 11:02 AM

                  We were clearly talking about the context of energy sources, where he's trying to push something he calls "clean coal". What's the positive outcome there?

> Electric car sales jumped by more than 20% in 2025 to over 20 million vehicles, accounting for roughly 1 in 4 new car sales worldwide.

I wonder if included these numbers in that calculation https://electrek.co/2026/04/16/tesla-cybertruck-spacex-1279-...

;-)

• jve

  today at 10:42 AM

  1279 units vs total 20'000'000 units or 0,006% doesn't make a difference

  What is interesting is that tesla had 1'636'129 deliveries in 2025 which accounts for 8,1% of that number. That means other vendors are healthy and it is a good thing for EV market.

> And nuclear is making a comeback: More than 12 GW of new reactors began construction in 2025

By the time they are ready they will have contributed so many carbon emissions, that they'll have to run for 25% of their expected life span to get them back. But by the time they are commissioned (~2036), solar + battery + solar-made hydrocarbons will have made them uneconomic, and solar would have made far fewer emissions.

Furthermore, they are big up front money sinks, creating a sunk investment, diminishing the gamma of future options one might have wished to invest in, or take advantage of, something nobody talks about. Investing in nuclear is like willingly tying a brick to your foot, severely limiting your investment options.

They are perfect for government vanity projects, though, where a lot of money can be siphoned off to personal crypto gardens, repeatedly. Money laundering is likely the leitmotiv behind why you see them being built.

• XorNot

  today at 11:30 AM

  Solar made hydrocarbons are never going to be economical.

  Confident predictions of the inevitability of renewable diesel at $3 a liter don't add up because diesel is $3 a liter right now. I am literally paying that at the pump. I will actually happily pay more then that if the diesel were actually renewable, but instead it doesn't exist.

  • marcosdumay

    today at 12:08 PM

    Of course they are. We aren't going to be able to take hydrocarbons out of the ground forever.

    You won't burn them in your truck, though. That's an almost certainty. But whatever use they still get when we end transitioning to solar will be met by synthetic hydrocarbons, there's no point on keeping the entire oil production and distribution industries when you can just make a bit of it near the point of use.

More importantly, for the first time ever we generate more electricity from renewables than coal!

> Solar added about 600 terawatt-hours of generation globally

> And nuclear is making a comeback: More than 12 GW of new reactors began construction in 2025

Am I reading it right that growth in solar was 50000x that of growth in nuclear? (And those reactors of course won't be finished / online until some years into the future.)

• Ekaros

  today at 9:41 AM

  No, you are comparing watthours to watts. At 90% used factor 12GW would be ~95 TWh.

  • internet_points

    today at 9:47 AM

    ooh, of course, thank you

• azath92

  today at 10:49 AM

  I made the same gut assumption, and it points to either poor writing, or deliberately misreading writing that they mix units like that in the same paragraph, where presumably the idea is that we get a feel for growth in both?

  Its probably nitpick correct, because the 12GW is planned capacity, while the solar might be measured use? but simple assumptins or conversions, as another comment points out, get you comparable numbers. taking the title into account, the whole article is a little bit smoke and mirrors on clear communication, despite having plenty of numbers. Thats a shame because it sounds like even unvarnished its good results!

• ZeroGravitas

  today at 10:27 AM

  No you're wrong, the nuclear "started construction" and so solar added infinitely more generation than the zero they will generate this year/decade.

  The world did add 3GW of nuclear generation in 2025 but it also closed 3GW.

Sooooo....you're telling me there's a chance! Solar FTW!

I wonder what political and trade consequences can be expected when oil actually does start seeing real decreased usage.

I mean one obvious thing has already started: governments taxing the sun (well, solar panels) pretty heavily (meaning above VAT), which I imagine will increase, and what the result will be. It's weird to say this, but solar panel smuggling is actually already a thing now. I used to have a Louis XIV painting somewhere ...

Oil appears to be 33% of total energy usage, and if you count all fossil fuels (oil, coal, nat. gas) it's 81%. What happens when that starts dropping.

• jahnu

  today at 10:59 AM

  Just to add to your point; The final energy demand is much less than the primary energy we produce due to the energy costs of extraction, refining, transportation, and inefficient end use.

  According to Kingsmill Bond (great name btw) on Dave Roberts' Volts podcast if we magically could replace all fossil energy with renewables today the final energy use would only be ~30% of today's final energy use.

  "We’re pouring, from our calculations, two thirds of the primary energy into the air and wasting it." - Kingsmill Bond

  https://www.volts.wtf/p/clean-electrification-is-inevitable

  • jabl

    today at 11:24 AM

    See also Kingsmill Bond's slidedeck at https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/the-electrotech-rev...

• SiempreViernes

  today at 11:39 AM

  A pretty big one is the hollowing out of the international power oil producers have over the life of fossil importers; the middle east becomes pretty irrelevant for Latin America if you don't need their oil, and maybe Lebanon will avoid an US invasion if the newly discovered gas cannot find buyers anyway.