this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
529 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

75758 readers
2745 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
529
U.S. solar will pass wind in 2025 and leave coal in the dust soon after (pv-magazine-usa.com)
submitted 5 days ago by spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world
111 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Based on current deployment rates, it is likely that solar will surpass wind as the third-largest source of electricity. And solar may soon topple coal in the number two spot.

Looking ahead, through July 2028, FERC expects no new coal capacity to come online based on its “high probability additions” forecast. Meanwhile 63 coal plants are expected to be retired, subtracting 25 GW from the 198 GW total, and landing at about 173 GW of coal capacity by 2028. Meanwhile, FERC forecasts 92.6 GW of “high probability additions” solar will come online through July 2028.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Solar panels crom China made it a lot cheaper than it used to be. There are also other major advatnages, such as increased independence. You just buy a bunch of solar panels and now you can indenepdently generate energy for the next 30 years.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Solar panels are not the expensive part of using solar to power the country - the storage and transmission is.

Although having said that, the cost of regularly cleaning panels, replacing them, throwing them in landfill, and mining materials to make new ones every 15 years or so is also huge - and destructive to the planet. It’s just more of a slow burn cost that snowballs.

[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

True, batteries are quite expensive and very much not environment-friendly when built on such a scale. Though it should be noted good solar panels last longer than 15 years. Even cheap panels can last 20 years.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 3 days ago

They need regular cleaning otherwise they can very quickly drop to close to zero output, and storms - especially hail - can destroy entire solar farms at once.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] DupaCycki@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is an important point to consider. However, to me it seems somewhat separate from your previous comment.

Of course, no sane government should push for a country to rely solely on wind and solar. Ideally you have a mix of various energy sources, even potentially including some fossil fuels. Hitting that 20-30% sweetspot, as mentioned in the paper, looks to be fairly cheap and beneficial for everyone.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 3 days ago

That’s what almost every “net zero” government has been pushing though. They claim it is doable with zero fossil fuel, just 100% “renewables”.