5 comments

  • marcosdumay 12 minutes ago
    What is not on the title:

    For an entire year, that year being 2025.

    Also, yes, absolute generation from fossil fuels is declining quickly. The total generation is changing way more slowly than that share.

  • NishanStepak 26 minutes ago
    Part of this is about a new way to store energy. In the Netherlands, they have started storing heat energy with sand, in Germany, they are using bricks. This has some advantages. It allows the direct use of heat for industrial processes and heating industrial and commercial facilities. They can either convert energy into electricity or use the heat directly. This technology can be used with a wide variety of energy sources. This includes nuclear because it allows thermal storage of excess heat from nuclear energy. This kind of setup is supposed to be more stable for the grid and more reliable for storing energy.
    • raphinou 0 minutes ago
      I think I have read that heat is hard to convert to useful energy. Can someone confirm? But the, if that's true, why use heat as energy storage?
  • citrin_ru 33 minutes ago
    It's a good news and a milestone to celebrate but if we count all energy and not only electricity and not only developed world then the progress is not as fast unfortunately [1].

    Not a long time ago I've seen a post arguing based on the data [1] that renewables are irrelevant and should not be taken seriously and fossils will the main source for the lifetime.

    [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio...

    • ragebol 18 minutes ago
      When looking at hat kind of graphs, it's good to keep in mind that burning hydrocarbons is relatively inefficient: only ~20-30% of the energy in the fuel turns into useful work, while electricity is much, much more efficient. So, we need much less of it.

      Still a long ways to go regardless, but much less bleak. And also, exponentially growing deployments of wind and solar are harder to spot on this 2-year old graph which goes only up to 2024.

  • yeah879846 54 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • suddenlybananas 19 minutes ago
    Imagine how much better carbon emissions would be in Germany if they hadn't dismantled nuclear!
    • throw0101d 4 minutes ago
      > Imagine how much better carbon emissions would be in Germany if they hadn't dismantled nuclear!

      Germany has 15.4 GW of hard coal generation, and 14.7 GW of lignite, for a total of 30.1 GW:

      * https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...

      In 2010, before the shutdowns started, it had 21.5 GW of nuclear.

      So if all the other rollouts (renewables, etc) had stayed the same, but the shutdown of nuclear and coal was swapped, Germany could have reduced its emission generation capacity by an extra 66%. (Focusing mainly on coal, since that is (AIUI) the worst of the carbon emitters.)

      Thanks Greens.

    • toomuchtodo 18 minutes ago
      Those carbon emissions are tuition. Germany is now ramping battery storage, as most of Europe is, to push out more expensive fossil gas.

      Ember Energy: Batteries and demand flexibility are ready to scale across the EU - https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/batteries-and-deman... - June 24th, 2026 ("The EU battery fleet is projected to grow fourfold, from 37 GW in 2025 to 178 GW by 2030. As this growth unfolds, batteries reduce the need for regular gas backup. By 2030, EU batteries could deliver in a single hour over 80% of the power that all EU gas power plants combined can generate in the same period, up from about 20% in 2025.")

      Largest battery storage in Germany set for partial commissioning - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49104584 - July 2026 (0 comments)

      Germany's solar installations drop while new battery storage hits record - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48019046 - May 2026 (8 comments)

      • suddenlybananas 16 minutes ago
        They could have done all this without dismantling nuclear power and emitting more carbon than they otherwise would have.