What does it take to succesfully transition to a green energy economy?

[EJ3]

What does your above 5 sentences peppered with words like "skew/manipulation/unethical/better/realistic/extreme" have to do with my citation of the last electricity bill I got costing the same kWh as a Dutch ASR member cited? I didn't know anyone needed to see a screen shot of that exact California electric bill to make my "case."

Edit:
For anyone with genuine interest in comparison with their own country or city's electric bill taxes and/or fees my last (29 Jan. 2026) California electric bill's total paid was composed of 40% in fees/taxes/charges/etc. and 60% was for kWh electricity itself. I get billed every 2 months and my cited consumption was within the lowest rate tier. I can't provide any additional tier prices for comparison as that recent bill shows none. I think it is worth mentioning that my city has it's own electrical power production company and thus other cities in the State of California may have more expensive or possibly less expensive kWh prices plus their own added costs structure.

With your edit, it now makes sense to me.

I apologize for mis-understanding what you were trying to do.

 

[Marc v E]

Hmm it seems that the newly installed power for 2026 will be 99% solar, wind and battery storage. Seems like the cheapest wins, no matter what is being said or done in politics. Go figure.

EIA: 99%+ of new US capacity in 2026 will be solar, wind + storage

Solar, wind, and batteries are set to supply virtually all net new US generating capacity in 2026, according to the latest EIA data.

electrek.co

 

[EJ3]

Hmm it seems that the newly installed power for 2026 will be 99% solar, wind and battery storage. Seems like the cheapest wins, no matter what is being said or done in politics. Go figure.

EIA: 99%+ of new US capacity in 2026 will be solar, wind + storage

Solar, wind, and batteries are set to supply virtually all net new US generating capacity in 2026, according to the latest EIA data.

electrek.co

More porpoises and whales will be dying again, I see.

 

[RandomEar]

More porpoises and whales will be dying again, I see.

You guys need to stop spreading misinformation.

It was found that the overall development of the harbour porpoise population within the German Bight remained stable over the investigated years. However, there was a regional shift in harbour porpoise habitat use, which may have been caused by a change in food availability.

Within the offshore wind farms, significantly higher detection rates were observed than in areas up to 2.5 km outside the wind farms.

Operational wind farms appear to attract rather than deter harbour porpoises.

[...]

Whereas short-term disturbance occurs in the construction phase of offshore wind farms, no negative effects on harbour porpoises were identified in the operational phase.

How do offshore wind farms influence harbour porpoise populations?

BioConsult SH and partners have analysed trends in the harbour porpoise population and the effects of offshore wind farms in the German Bight.

www.bioconsult-sh.de

Despite no actual evidence that links offshore wind farms to whale strandings or deaths, why is this idea spreading on social media and misleading people who genuinely care about whales?

[...]


In the US, experts credibly linked disinformation regarding whales and wind farms back to think tanks, which are organisations that are paid to, among other things, advocate on chosen issues.

The narrative of whales being harmed by wind farms has been traced to think tanks that receive funding from – you guessed it – oil and gas corporations.

Fact check: the truth about whales and wind farms | WWF Australia

Fact check: the truth about whales and wind farms | WWF Australia

wwf.org.au

 

[RandomEar]

In addition: Renewables are growing in the US and the growth rate has been accelerating in recent years. Though the current admin will make a dent in that rate, the LCOE of new on shore wind and solar power is simply below that of any other technology. You can stomp and pout all you want, reality will not change. Companies care about money and you're seeing the results of that.

And the companies building those renewable power plants are the same companies responsible for keeping the grid stable, so they seem to be confident that more renewables on the grid are not a problem. Countries like Denmark or Lithuania already generate more than 80% of their electricity with renewables (mostly wind with some solar and biomass) and they're not known for large scale blackouts.

I also don't get this "rEneWaBleS bAD" mindset. Yes, they were more expensive until a couple years ago. Yes, they require storage solutions and more capacity on the grid. But they can also make you 100% independent from energy imports - no reliance on brazilian coal or saudi oil anymore. It's a question of independence and national security. That alone should be the decisive argument to achieve the transition to renewable energy as fast as possible.

 

[levimax]

In addition: Renewables are growing in the US and the growth rate has been accelerating in recent years. Though the current admin will make a dent in that rate, the LCOE of new on shore wind and solar power is simply below that of any other technology. You can stomp and pout all you want, reality will not change. Companies care about money and you're seeing the results of that.

And the companies building those renewable power plants are the same companies responsible for keeping the grid stable, so they seem to be confident that more renewables on the grid are not a problem. Countries like Denmark or Lithuania already generate more than 80% of their electricity with renewables (mostly wind with some solar and biomass) and they're not known for large scale blackouts.

I also don't get this "rEneWaBleS bAD" mindset. Yes, they were more expensive until a couple years ago. Yes, they require storage solutions and more capacity on the grid. But they can also make you 100% independent from energy imports - no reliance on brazilian coal or saudi oil anymore. It's a question of independence and national security. That alone should be the decisive argument to achieve the transition to renewable energy as fast as possible.

The problem with renewable power is that it is not suitable for the new AI data centers, they need 24/7/365 power and they will need 100 GW additional generation in the next several years in the US alone. The only solution in the short term is gas turbines and then longer term nuclear. https://energyanalytics.org/the-rise-of-ai-a-reality-check-on-energy-and-economic-impacts/

 

[Petrushka]

The problem with renewable power is that it is not suitable for the new AI data centers, they need 24/7/365 power and they will need 100 GW additional generation in the next several years in the US alone. The only solution in the short term is gas turbines and then longer term nuclear. https://energyanalytics.org/the-rise-of-ai-a-reality-check-on-energy-and-economic-impacts/

Battery technology is advancing faster than I expected, and modular nukes could be online in five years.

AI has changed everything about the politics of energy. I could be a conspiracy theorist. It sure looks like someone threw the off switch on climate change politics.

 

[levimax]

It sure looks like someone threw the off switch on climate change politics.

I have never seen a political narrative change as fast as the climate change narrative has.

 

[Titurel]

I have never seen a political narrative change as fast as the climate change narrative has.

adapting from Giuseppe Verdi...

La politica è mobile
Qual piuma al vento
Muta d'accento - e di pensier.

 

[RandomEar]

Nuclear sure would be a solid choice for base load generation, albeit expensive. Sadly, building conventional nuclear plants is risky from a financing perspective and takes somewhere between 10 and 25 years including site search and permits. Way too slow for the AI race. If you want to bet on SMRs, you may get lucky - or burn more money. There's not a single SMR in operation, yet. In the US, only one company has begun construction on a proof of concept reactor (Kairos Power, thermal only, no electric output). While they expect their proof of concept to come online in 2027 and do not have regulatory approval for their final design, they already sold supposedly working reactors for as early as 2030 - pretty risky, if you ask me.

Right now, you've got renewables and gas. That's pretty much it.

 

[Axo1989]

I have never seen a political narrative change as fast as the climate change narrative has.

You'll expect that when political narrators change. The science, not so much.

 

[Axo1989]

More porpoises and whales will be dying again, I see.

Dying again is quite the trick. I'm only expecting to do it once, myself. Your post is sarcasm, of course? I'm second-guessing after @RandomEar's posts now.

 

[Axo1989]

Nuclear sure would be a solid choice for base load generation, albeit expensive. Sadly, building conventional nuclear plants is risky from a financing perspective and takes somewhere between 10 and 25 years including site search and permits. Way too slow for the AI race. If you want to bet on SMRs, you may get lucky - or burn more money. There's not a single SMR in operation, yet. In the US, only one company has begun construction on a proof of concept reactor (Kairos Power, thermal only, no electric output). While they expect their proof of concept to come online in 2027 and do not have regulatory approval for their final design, they already sold supposedly working reactors for as early as 2030 - pretty risky, if you ask me.

Right now, you've got renewables and gas. That's pretty much it.

If you're xAI it's something something Tesla, something something batteries surely. Now there's a narrative departure of convenience. But why not hook up gas burners en masse, approved or otherwise. Move fast and take things, right?

 

[pablolie]

The problem with renewable power is that it is not suitable for the new AI data centers, they need 24/7/365 power and they will need 100 GW additional generation in the next several years in the US alone. The only solution in the short term is gas turbines and then longer term nuclear. https://energyanalytics.org/the-rise-of-ai-a-reality-check-on-energy-and-economic-impacts/

Nuclear is actually pretty green. Stepping away from it as "bad" was a big mistake. Its renewed relevance it utterly inevitable.

And I say that as a great proponent of solar. But while solar is great for energy conscious households, it mathematically cannot keep up with vastly growing energy demands.

 

[Titurel]

You'll expect that when political narrators change. The science, not so much.

Only because science (usually) has better fact checking.

 

[Axo1989]

Nuclear is actually pretty green. Stepping away from it as "bad" was a big mistake. It's renewed relevance it utterly inevitable.

And I say that as a great proponent of solar. But while solar is great for energy conscious households, it mathematically cannot keep up with vastly growing energy demands.

Well, solar is and will remain cheaper. Wind more so. For the former you need space, for nuclear you'll need time. Time is a scarce commodity for those getting in before the faux-AI bubble bursts. So nuclear isn't keeping up at all (long-term may be another thing). Hence gas. Which is retrograde in terms of human survival, but this game doesn't appear to be for humans so much ...

 

[Devnull]

How anyone can make comparisons between the US and individual EU countries escapes me. We have counties that are larger than countries. They move electricity between countries, that's like moving electricity between adjoining states. Denmark's, that's been mentioned in previous posts, total electric production is a fraction of one electric provider in the States.

The logistics and scale of things are vastly different. We hear about 1 GW transmission projects that show case state of the art technology. In the US 1GW of power isn't even a significant digit when it comes to power generation, it's about 1% of the nuke power, which IIRC, is around 20% of US generating capacity.

I'm not even going to get into why the majority of renewables, with the exception of large scale hydro, and batteries are completely useless for base loads. And let's not forget they're grid following not grid forming so they to do almost nothing to help maintain and stabilize the grid. In fact renewables are actually allowed to put more distortion into the grid than traditional generation.

Renewables have a place but a very limited place. A dirty little secret that shouldn't really be a secret. Wind farms have big diesel or natural gas backup generators. That's so if they lose grid power they can still rotate them and feather the blades. They are incapable of using the electricity they produce.

 

[Axo1989]

How anyone can make comparisons between the US and individual EU countries escapes me. We have counties that are larger than countries. They move electricity between countries, that's like moving electricity between adjoining states. Denmark's, that's been mentioned in previous posts, total electric production is a fraction of one electric provider in the States.

The logistics and scale of things are vastly different. We hear about 1 GW transmission projects that show case state of the art technology. In the US 1GW of power isn't even a significant digit when it comes to power generation, it's about 1% of the nuke power, which IIRC, is around 20% of US generating capacity.

I'm not even going to get into why the majority of renewables, with the exception of large scale hydro, and batteries are completely useless for base loads. And let's not forget they're grid following not grid forming so they to do almost nothing to help maintain and stabilize the grid. In fact renewables are actually allowed to put more distortion into the grid than traditional generation.

Renewables have a place but a very limited place. A dirty little secret that shouldn't really be a secret. Wind farms have big diesel or natural gas backup generators. That's so if they lose grid power they can still rotate them and feather the blades. They are incapable of using the electricity they produce.

Pfft. I don't know why people post this outdated shite on their own behalf. How do batteries get filled I wonder? But these aren't serious arguments. Although US exceptionalism did make something of a narrative comeback.

 

[pablolie]

Well, solar is and will remain cheaper.

Such calculations are often biased. I am not convinced that's the case. Sure, the sunlight (yeay it's free) hits your solar panel and you get instant electricity flow. But producing thse panels wasn't cheap at all. On a $/MW scale in production, other stuff beats solar. I am not at all bashing it, I do cover a significant part of me needs with solar. And yeah, with all the roofs we have on the planet, it's silly to not use them for energy production when the surface area is there and there to be used.

Wind more so.

Clearly you don't value birds. :-D

For the former you need space, for nuclear you'll need time. Time is a scarce commodity for those getting in before the faux-AI bubble bursts.

It's not just AI, that's just the -mostly misused- term for a new computing and data center "paradigm shift". I kinda regurgitated a little food using that term, but it is approprate. The new model to deal with big data isn't going away, the new data centers will not get shut down and tumbleweeds will not be blown about those misinvestments. Let's keep financial markets and tech infrastructure separate... the internet didn't break down and disappear when the 2000 bubble blew up.

So nuclear isn't keeping up at all (long-term may be another thing). Hence gas. Which is retrograde in terms of human survival, but this game doesn't appear to be for humans so much ...

The future is most likely nuclear fission (current) and fusion (future). You mentioned space, and that's key for many applications.

I also want to note that I find it's a huge mistake to align energy production with political affiliation. It's about common sense. "Green" isn't a hallmark of liberal thought, and I know many conservatives that drive EVs. Likewise, in several places, fossile stuff is an absolute economic necessity. Shades of gray stuff, so let's cut through the political crap and simply do what makes sense.

 

[RandomEar]

How anyone can make comparisons between the US and individual EU countries escapes me. We have counties that are larger than countries. They move electricity between countries, that's like moving electricity between adjoining states. Denmark's, that's been mentioned in previous posts, total electric production is a fraction of one electric provider in the States.

I'm sorry, but there's just no logic to that argument. "We're bigger so that doesn't work for us"? Like yes, the US is a bigger country with a larger population, resulting in higher power consumption. You need proportionally more power plants and infrastructure for a higher total consumption - how absolutely unsurprising.

Just subdivide this problem and break it down in your mind - if it works for a whole country, why wouldn't it work for one single small to medium sized US provider? If it works for a single provider, why wouldn't it work for the next? And then another one? You get the idea.

In this specific and random example of Denmark, nothing is special about them (no offense to my Danish friends). They probably have more coastline than the average country, which makes wind power more attractive for them to build than solar or hydro. That's pretty much it. It's not some unicorn case like Norway, where 99% of generation is hydro - very few countries have that luxury.