this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2025
293 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

75682 readers
3224 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
293
U.S. solar will pass wind in 2025 and leave coal in the dust soon after (pv-magazine-usa.com)
submitted 12 hours ago by spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works to c/technology@lemmy.world
47 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
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 14 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

That's been the joke of Solar for a while. Engineers could have told you all the way back in the 1970s (really, the 1910s) that it costs less money to leave a big plate out in the bright sun than to drill a giant hole and hope there's enough spicy rocks at the bottom of it to justify the expense.

We should have crested this hill a lot sooner, but the heavy emphasis on subsidized fossil fuels during the 80s, 90s, and 00s kept these fuels artificially cheap. Meanwhile, fossil fuel firms actually did invest in Green Energy R&D but only for the purpose of erecting "patent thickets" that would hinder competitive growth of these alternatives.

This “patent thicket” can create barriers to innovative low-carbon technologies, particularly in markets requiring expensive licensing fees or with complex patent litigation (Cannuscio 2008). A strengthened IPRP can increase market concentration and reduce competition (Liu et al. 2018), with large corporations able to maintain market control in such environments through patents on key technologies. This control not only restricts the entry of emerging low-carbon technologies into the market but also perpetuates the reliance on existing high-carbon technologies.

This has lead to big surges in the development and deployment of Green Energy grids outside of the countries doing most of the cutting edge research. Americans are only now catching up.

[–] whereyaaat@lemmings.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

This is why I have no problem [REDACTED] members of the ruling class.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

You're really discounting that fossil fuels have hella bang for the buck, loads of power per gallon. tl;dr: Energy dense

I can run my little generator at camp all night long if there's as little as 3 gallons in there. Space heater or AC unit, lights, all that. I'd have to have many panels and batteries to compare to that output. My best battery is a huge LIPO4, trolling motor can't kill it, not even close. But leaving the LED lights on for a little over a day drained it dry.

We need way more solar infrastructure to get where we're going, and I'm all about it. But since since the GOP has decided to go back in time, China is going to smoke America, both in renewables and the associated economic benefits.

Did not know about the patent thing! Know any examples?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

You’re really discounting that fossil fuels have hella bang for the buck, loads of power per gallon. tl;dr: Energy dense

Coal is generally the worst of the lot. Oil and gas burn cleaner and have more combustible by weight. Coal is energy dense but also heavy af and dirty as hell. It's also very common place and comparably safe to transport. And it is simpler to use.

Fine enough to warm your home or grill some meat. But you're not putting a rocket into orbit with coal.

My best battery is a huge LIPO4, trolling motor can’t kill it, not even close. But leaving the LED lights on for a little over a day drained it dry.

Sure. Broadly speaking you want to be hooked up to the grid to benefit from electricity. Anything portable is very ineffective for a litany of reasons.