Looking at the Netherlands (1345KWh per person added over three years, and Sweden (1431), they are adding about 450KWh per year.
That matches the French nuclear boom (450KWh per per person per year) between 1979 and 1989. All be it, the French "boom" went on for the better part of two decades. The "solar boom" has only been going since about 2021.
One thing that differs is that "French boom" enabled closing fossil fuel generation the moment each new power plant started. 1GW of NP start- 1GW of coal/oil/gas not to be needed for ever. No batteries needed, good grid stability without excessive spending, not relying on not so friendly nations, just "good old boring" technology. Getting rid of fossil fuels efficiently and economically (there are billions of people who don't have power at all) is the goal, not this or other technology.
Fossil fuel generation can be reduced every time new renewables/batteries come on-line. And it doesn't need to wait for the entire plant to come on-line. Got a few solar panels operating? The first few wind turbines up & running? The first few containers of batteries in place? Start providing energy to the grid. Then, as more build-out occurs, more clean energy gets connected to the grid.
And what's the problem with batteries? They enable time-shifting of energy. They work. They're cheap. They're quick to install. They work. They can be incrementally added, not as a lump.
Nuclear is, according to Lazard (https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/) and many other reputable sources, the most expensive form of electric power generation (unsubsidized LCOE). According to the World Nuclear Association, the average build time for the most recent power plants is 114 months (WNA 2025 Report, pg 8 https://world-nuclear.org/our-association/publications/global-trends-reports/world-nuclear-performance-report). Bent Flyfvberg, who studies how big things gets done, has nuclear power plants 3rd from the bottom in terms of on-budget, on-time, with original benefits. Solar, wind, and interconnect are at the top of the list. One of the Scandinavian countries (I believe Norway) recently built a $1billion+ off-shore wind farm in the North Sea in 7 months (source: Redefining Energy: Tech podcast)
AND of course , science and reason and evidence combined , ALEX EPSTEIN :
The Ultimate Debunking of “Solar and Wind are Cheaper than Fossil Fuels.” – Alex Epstein
Why we should be suspicious of the pervasive claim that “solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels”
Observe that “solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels” is usually invoked, not to encourage competition but to justify coercive government policies to punish fossil fuel use and favor solar and wind.
Observe that the same people claiming “solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels” moved heaven and earth to demand at minimum hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies under the “Inflation Reduction Act” for these supposedly “cheaper forms of energy.”²
On its face, justifying favoritism toward solar and wind by invoking their cheapness is highly suspicious. If they’re cheaper, why do they need coercive policies to throttle their fossil-fueled competitors (e.g., opposing fossil fuel investment, production, and pipelines) and reward solar and wind?
If a company has a TV set that’s as good as others, but cheaper, they win by selling their cheaper TVs on the market.They don’t ask government to ban other TVs, to mandate their TV, or to give them hundreds of billions of dollars.Truly cheaper products don’t need preferences.
The simple reason that advocates of solar and wind who claim they are cheaper than fossil fuels aren’t willing to outcompete fossil fuels in reality but instead demand massive government favoritism is that in the vast majority of circumstances solar and wind are not actually cheaper.
If solar and wind were cheaper, much-hated fossil fuel use wouldn’t still be growing
That solar and wind aren’t actually cheaper than fossil fuels should be obvious from the fact that despite enormous cultural and political hostility toward fossil fuels that makes fossil fuels artificially expensive, fossil fuel use is still growing.
Notably, fossil fuel growth is centered in the places that care most about cheap energy, above all China—which is using record amounts of coal to produce the solar panels and wind turbines we use. If solar and wind were cheaper they’d use solar and wind to produce solar and wind.³
THEY DON'T........AND THEY ARE WORKING ON BUILDING EVEN MORE NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS THAN THEY ALREADY HAVE [ Fission power ] AND THE EVEN MORE IDYLLIC FUSION REACTORS !!!
THAT is how little "faith" they have in the "RENEWABLES" RUBBISH they are selling us....and yet ,
due to "our" failing-education-system and "our" resulting ignorance in many ways , and "willful blindness" in ignoring the EMPIRICAL and SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE available , "we" are allowing "feelings and emotion" to prevail , and "our" Governments to coerce "us" into buying it !!!
It seems obvious that countries with the highest electricity prices will attract the most new generation.
Much of northern Europe was, and still is to an extent, dependent on imported gas for electricity. And when Russia decided to stop exporting, the price of gas went up (as did its carbon content) meaning the only way to escape high electricity prices is to deploy renewables (or nuclear if you want to wait for cheap SMRs to be developed, approved, consented and built).
Some countries are lucky to have great solar resource, as that is cheaper than wind. So Spain is near the top of the list, and has cheap electricity.
Equally, Texas would be near the top - perhaps at the top - of the list. And they have cheap electricity.
Not so Alex Terrell ! PLEASE READ ALEX EPSTEIN a bit more closely !
.Texas....on a good day the average electricity price in Texas is approximately 10.22¢ per kWh (0.1022 USD) about equal THIRD......but close !
SPAIN is 15 ON THE LIST. AUSTRALIA is 17 ON THE LIST .
.ELECTRICITY PRICES : How did Australia compare to the rest of the world in 2024 ?
Australia – US$0.246/kWh
Australia placed almost exactly IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK during June 2024,
coming in as the 13th most expensive (or 17th cheapest!) country within the study, with a June 2024 average household electricity rate of US$0.246/kWh.
Current electricity prices in Australia are approximately USD 0.22 to 0.30 per kWh, though exact prices vary significantly by state, provider, and consumption plan. For example, a December 2024 figure placed the residential price at about USD 0.252 per kWh.............AND INCREASING !!!!!!!
.
POSITION IN WORLD BASED ON PRICES OF ELECTRICITY TO HOUSEHOLDS :
1. Turkey with a June 2024 rate of US$0.044/kWh.
2. Mexico with a June 2024 rate of US$0.099/kWh.
3. Hungary with a June 2024 rate of US$0.107/kWh.
4. Canada 5.South Korea 6.Norway 7. USA
15. Spain with a June 2024 rate of US$0.234/kWh.
17. Australia 22. Denmark 25. UK 26. Ireland 28. Switzerland....and lucky-last ...29
29. Germany ....with a June 2024 rate of US$0.402/kWh.....about TEN TIMES THAT OF TURKEY !!!!
.
1.Turkey primarily generates electricity from fossil fuels, with coal and natural gas being the largest contributors, but has a significant and growing reliance on renewable sources like hydro, wind, and solar to reduce its dependence on imports and address environmental concerns. While the country possesses substantial renewable potential, particularly in hydropower and geothermal, its energy sector is still dominated by imported fossil fuels, with coal being the largest source of electricity generation in 2023 and a notable portion of that coal being imported."
.
2. Mexico's electricity generation relies heavily on fossil fuels, primarily natural gas, supplemented by oil and coal, but is also increasingly incorporating renewable sources like hydroelectric, wind, and solar power. Hydropower and geothermal energy are the most established renewable sources, while wind and solar generation has significant room for growth.
.
3. Hungary primarily generates electricity from nuclear energy, which provides almost half of its power, and increasingly from solar power, which has recently surpassed natural gas and coal to become its second-largest source. Other sources include natural gas, biofuels, and a smaller contribution from hydro, waste, and wind. The country is also a net importer of electricity.
.
29. Germany primarily produces electricity from a mix of renewable energy sources, especially wind and solar, which together accounted for 43% of its generation in 2024, along with fossil fuels (coal and gas) making up a similar percentage. The country is undergoing an "energy transition" to phase out nuclear power (completed in 2023) and fossil fuels, aiming for a majority of its energy to come from renewables by 2030.
20. France's electricity is primarily produced by a large fleet of nuclear power plants, which accounts for about 72% of its generation, making it a world leader in low-carbon electricity. Other significant sources include hydropower, solar, and wind power. The electricity sector in France is dominated by nuclear power, which accounted for 72.3% of total production in 2016, while renewables and fossil fuels accounted for 17.8% and 8.6%, respectively.[7] France has the largest share of nuclear electricity in the world. The country is also among the world's biggest net exporters of electricity.While France has a low reliance on fossil fuels, it also imports and exports electricity, with nuclear energy being a major source of its export revenue. [ Ironically , much of it to Germany which is "decommissioning" it's Nuclear Power Plants !!!! ].
.
So.....Australia SHOULD be working towards NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS and using SOME of our cheap and abundant CARBONACEOUS FUELS until we have the NUCLEAR PLANTS operating fully !
.
15. Spain with a June 2024 rate of US$0.234/kWh. [ .slightly cheaper than Australia ! ]
Primary energy consumption in Spain in 2020 was mainly composed of fossil fuel sources.
The largest sources are petroleum (42.3%), natural gas (19.8%) and coal (11.6%).
The remaining 26.3% is accounted for by nuclear energy (12%)
and different renewable energy sources (14.3%).
[1] Domestic production of primary energy includes nuclear (44.8%),
solar, wind and geothermal (22.4%), biomass and waste (21.1%), hydropower (7.2%)
and fossil (4.5%).
What is the main source of electricity in Spain?
Wind. 22% of total generation.
Natural gas. 22% of total generation.
Nuclear. 20% of total generation.
...............ALL the "replenishables" are an EXPENSIVE CHINESE JOKE !!!
We have financed the "take-over" of our Australian Resources [ Now about 80 % foreign owned !!!] by buying into their "green delusions" and buying their "green" 'short-lived' machinery.....which needs to be constantly "renewed"
..........................which is about the only way they can be described as "renewable" !!!
Strange that you call solar panels, with an expected life of about 40 years, "replenishables", but not coal and gas, with an expected usage life of milliseconds.
Main sources of electricity in Spain (in 2024) were 1. Wind, 2. Nuclear, 3. Solar, 4. Gas. I'd expect solar to be No 1 in 2025, and gas might be down in place 5.
Household electricity prices in Germany are about 35 cents - though far less for the 15% of households with their own solar power.
For your friends in Germany, batteries make all the difference.
We put in solar PV in 2011, and more in 2023. So cheap electricity some of the time, but not at night. Great for the electric car, but yes, we needed imports.
This spring we put in a smallish battery, and since then imports have been about 10KWh in six months. I'll see how far that can go into the winter (probably till sometime end October, depending on car use)..
Wholesale battery prices plummeted from about 2022 onwards, but that only started to reach the consumer market at the start of this year. Especially for "DIY solar", e.g. Growatt NOAH 2000 batteries at €250 per KWh.
To be really effective, solar needs a battery, and they are only just becoming affordable.
In the UK, it is easier, thanks to cheap night time tariffs. Once you have solar and a battery, you don't need daytime electricity - just night time at 8.5 pence per KWh. Or better still, Octopus Intelligent flux sells and buys at 23p per KWh - they manage the battery. (Germany has fixed network costs, so dynamic prices don't help much).
Heating: despite the reputation, a lot of German housing stock is crap. Not as crap as in the UK, but still crap. And gas is expensive, as it's now LNG which is also stored up for the winter. In 2021, we decided to install solar thermal (with heating support). I calculated the cost of heat would be slightly more than the cost of gas, but I wanted to cut down use of Russian gas. In 2022, it looked like a great financial decision! Overall we cut gas use from 20,000KWh to about 10,000KWh per year.
Solar thermal is now out of fashion. If I were reviewing the decision again, I would have gone for solar PV plus a heat pump. The PV is now cheap, so you can afford to oversize (15 to 20KW) giving enough to power the heat pump for 10 months of the year.
I am not too sure what they have installed [ or not ] since I last discussed it with them , BUT he is a pretty savvy guy and she is as smart as they come.....so I am sure they will follow up on what you have suggested !
Never heard of vested interest? These arguments come from those with most to lose from the decline in fossil fuel use.
Of course natural, inexhaustible sources *should* be cheaper. It's overly complex economic argument and vested interest political influences that put barriers in the way. It's not surprising that governments are attempting to rig the market in favour of renewable energy when so many obstacles are being put in the way.
So David.......YOU buy the propaganda ! Not so well done Dave !
And of course YOU buy the "Government subsidised TV set" .......or have you forgotten that they don't subsidise TV sets and YOU just have to buy the "best you can afford"....and if it happens to also be the cheapest [ due to superior production methods and competition from other manufacturers ! ] then that's a bonus !
Of course , quality , reliability and prestige also come into the decision you make !
BUT , doesn't it ever enter your mind that acceptance of EV's requires subsidies ?
Why , if they are that good did they need the subsidies......and all the "free" use of the roads that ICE's had already paid for .......with TAXES , NOT subsidies !
And the "free network of electric-charging-sites" that ICE owners don'r benefit from , but are an absolute furphy UNLESS you can "charge enough at home" beforehand !
And the there's "subsidised Batteries for households" ........and when they fail.......or catch fire ....MY insurance premium will be INCREASED to cover them ! A subsidy !
The "subsidies" to build wind-farms and solar-farms and their expensive and extensive
power lines , the expropriation of productive FARMLAND to erect these monstrosities
on and the desecration of the site to build them !!!!
......................................"NOT HAPPY JAN !"....................................
"rig the market in favour of renewable energy when so many obstacles are being put in the way."......................LIKE WHAT FOR EXAMPLE ???? NAME ONE ! JUST ONE !!
Petrol was once subsidised to stimulate the ICE vehicles......for a very good reason .....the cities were being BURIED beneath horse manure !!! A health hazard alleviated and new transport efficiencies facilitated .....and lower prices for everyone !
Do you mean the "obstacles" like the FUEL TAX on carbonaceous fuels of all types , the banning of GAS reticulation to NEW HOUSES in Victoria , the FAILURE to approve or IMPROVE gas and oil pipelines , the FAILURE to improve and prolong the life of COAL FIRED POWER STATIONS before we finally "get the message" and INSTALL NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION ???
Oh ! That's probably going to need a subsidy as well !
But at least it will be a long-term solution that "renewables" NEVER CAN or WILL BE !
.
"Never heard of vested interest?"............. YES DAVE , I HAVE !
"These arguments come from those with most to GAIN from the decline in fossil fuel use." LIKE AL GORE....a second rung politician : The former senator, who spent most of his working life in Congress, had a net worth of about US$1.7-million and assets that included pasture rents from a family farm and royalties from a zinc mine.
.
After Al Gore left the White House, he remained active in environmental advocacy.
He wrote and co-wrote several books about environmentalism, including An Inconvenient Truth (2006) , and he 'won' a Nobel Prize , the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, an honor he shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)..
Gore also became a prominent investment manager. Together with David Blood, he co-founded Generation Investment Management in 2004. [Generation manages $31.1 billion. in funds ].Some analysts tracking Al Gore's career say that he has a net worth of about $300 million. NOW......THAT ......IS A VESTED INTEREST !
Perhaps if I offered you a "subsidy" you would change your opinion ????
.
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much!" is a misremembered version of the actual line, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks," from William Shakespeare's play Hamlet
which PROVES that you are , at best , an unreliable witness Dave !
So much for the rest of your contributions then !! Inaccuracy at best !
The renewables share of generation will accelerate as storage and grid expansion continues. The capacity we already have globally is underused until that happens.
There is the dilemma there- storage will unavoidably add costs on top of generation so no chance of combination of renewable plus storage to be cheaper, only more expensive. If somehow storage would become cheaper and plentiful (big if)- it could be combined with reliable power generation as well to increase efficiency- supply power peaking too.
I've posted links in other comments to the latest Lazard reports. Unsubsidized LCOE - solar+storage and wind+storage compete with fossil fuels. Solar, wind, storage are continuing to get cheaper. Fossil fuel costs are not. There's a reason 90% of new electric power is renewables/storage - and it's not "green pressure" or subsidies. It's the businessmen building power plants wanting to buy cheap & sell high, and the cheapest is renewables+storage.
Renewables and storage (batteries) costs/kWh have been heading down since the 1970's, and continue to drop.
I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same Lazard reports somehow. Solar and wind kind of bottomed out and even got more expensive in recent years for example. There is also "catch" in what you wrote- business decides what to build (regulation and subsidies "force that" too). Citizens and industries relying on power suffer. In an alternative sane world Germany could have spent better part of Trillion Euros(their energievende convoluted costs) on modern NPPs and help decarbonize neighboring countries in the process. In sane world building NPPs would be on pair with gas facilities in terms of CAPEX, timelines and we would have forgotten about using coal for electricity and heat already 30years ago. And heat pump would be an obvious choice instead of gas heating because of convenience, safety and price.
And if thinking about environment, sustainability, stopping support of unfriendly nations selling FFs(some people can choose one, two, or three of these as important, fine by me)- I think putting precious batteries inside vehicles may be more efficient. 10kWh net battery in my PHEV car reduces consumption from 5.6l/100km to 1.4l/100km (real example after 70kkm usage in a very cold country). That is good for the wallet, comfort of car usage and environment(charged from clean stable grid). What would be gained from having that kind of battery at home, when "my" grid is clean, reliable already? Bragging rights?
Exactly, although longevity for batteries is unknown comparing to gravity storage with water. Battery added on top of hydropower (it it cannot ramp up/down because limited water storage), nuclear, geothermal will allow both power station and battery to run at full capacity (best utilization of expensive resource). There is no real saving to consider ramping nuclear powerplant down- when it could charge battery, heat water for home use or anything of value.
In the spirit of acknowledging the great work of David JC MacKay in his "Sustainable Energy – without the hot air" and his outreach I will remind some numbers based facts. France got rid of coal and oil from electricity production in about 15ish years and did it 40ish years ago(way before CO2 emissions and sustainability became mainstream thing).
Efficiently done, fast and for good. Tremendous cumulative savings on emissions, keeping price of reliable power low, which encourages decarbonising sectors like domestic heating, transportation.
That puts some important scale on that "wind and solar boom", I would think.
Hydro capacity is pretty static as few new schemes are built. There is a lack of investment: Consider Norway, where the populist parties want to restrict electricity exports to push down consumer prices. Why is there no move to reinvest the profits (from electricity arbitrage) into more capacity?
Alex I think that the Norwegians are making so much money from their sale of oil and gas ....(approximately $A209 billion)....... and hydro-electricity ........one source citing a record-breaking 44.8 billion Norwegian Kroner (NOK) in 2022 from hydropower exports and petroleum combined.
That's about $7 Billion Australian Dollars of combined ENERGY EXPORTS !
There are approximately 4.6 to 4.7 million ethnic Norwegians living in Norway today, representing about 79.2% of the total population, which was around 5.6 million in early 2025. The remaining nearly 21% of the population has an immigrant background.................so................there is NOT a shortage of funding.....and welfare paid out is huge........and they have a high standard of living .....so I don't think that they really need lower electricity prices as well !
As soon as the subsidies for fossil fuels are removed. Without subsidies, solar/wind/storage are cheaper than fossil fuels without storage (source: Lazard LCOE report 2025 - https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/). And they are getting cheaper every year, while fossil fuel plant costs are going up.
From EIA, the generator in a thermoelectric power plant (think coal, oil, the CC side of CCGT, nuclear, and even geothermal) capital cost runs per kW (depending on the report) from 1/2 to 2 times the cost per kW of entire solar, wind, or battery system (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/generatorcosts/#total1https://www.eia.gov/electricity/generatorcosts/#total1 for one report). That doesn't leave a lot (if any) room for the thermal side of the power plant (think the fission reactor, the coal boiler, the steam generator for CCGT, the gas turbine for gas power plants, even the piping and wells of a geothermal power plant). And (see Lazard above for solar/wind/battery trends), as solar/wind/battery (unsubsidized) continue to drop, this cost challenge for thermal plants is going to increase. See the chart under “Replace Fossil Fuels with Carbon-Free Energy” in the MIT Alumni for Climate Action roadmap (https://maca.earth/roadmap/). Renewables+storage costs continue to drop, nuclear costs continues to climb.
The NRC website enables you to track status of nuclear power plants in the US (https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors.html) . Right now, in the pipeline, there are, according to that site, no new large light-water reactors in development in the US. For new, advanced reactors, there are three in the current pipeline (https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/who-were-working-with/applicant-projects.html). Given it takes several years to get through the pipeline after application (for good reasons), and of the three in the pipeline, one submitted their application last year, and the other two just submitted their applications, don’t expect any minor amount of nuclear energy anytime soon. The most recent attempt (NuScale - https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/who-were-working-with/past-license-activities/nuscale.html ) with a SMR design, which was approved and ready to start building with an estimated completion date of 2030 (note that no nuclear plant has ever been completed on time). The effort ended when, despite a $30/MWh subsidy, it couldn’t compete with unsubsidized solar/wind/storage/interconnect and the customers pulled out to instead buy renewable energy (because of cost, not clean) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power). Don’t expect major amounts of nuclear power ever.
Solar, Wind, Battery, on the other hand, made up 80+% of new electric energy generation in the US and worldwide last year (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62864 shows the renewables accounted for 92+% of new electricity in 1H2024, and a planned 94+% in 2H2024). It shows only 1.7% new nuclear, and that’s the first new nuclear in decades, and the last before 2030 at the earliest. Look at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/generatorcosts/#total1 again, look at the plant totals and number of new plants – solar/wind/battery far outnumber nuclear. Current _annual_ solar/wind additions to the US electricity grid equal the total _current_ nuclear generation capacity in the US. That’s the annual additions.
From Michael Barnard’s European report I reference above is a chart out of Bent Flyfvberg's book "How Big Things Get Done" about large scale projects and what work/doesn't work in making them come in on time, on budget, and meeting goals, based upon actual data from thousands of projects that cost more than $1 billion each. The top 3 projects in terms of success are: solar power, interconnect, wind power. The bottom three are: nuclear storage, Olympic venues, and nuclear power plants.
Solar, Wind, Battery, Interconnect – all are “lego” designs (thanks to Bent for the image). Solar farm: Cells make up a module. Modules make up a panel. Panels make up a solar farm. Wind. A wind turbine consists of base, tower, hub, generator, blades. Multiple identical turbines make up a wind farm. Battery farm is made of containers. Which contain modules. Which contain batteries. In all three cases, once part of the system is up, you can start getting power while building the rest. And those parts are made in large, identical quantities – resulting in cost reductions. Which is why the world installed almost 600 GW of solar last year. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/renewables-global-power-construction-2024
Contrast that with a nuclear power plant (or any thermal power plant) made of a lot of different parts (container, pumps, piping, control rods, heat exchangers, etc.). All of which require precise work, all need to work together correctly all the time. Each plant is normally unique. As pointed out above, done in small numbers. Check out https://energy.mit.edu/news/building-nuclear-power-plants/ for past learning (or lack thereof) of the nuclear industry on how to build nuclear power plants.
Nuclear is, according to Lazard (https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/) and many other reputable sources, the most expensive form of electric power generation (unsubsidized LCOE). According to the World Nuclear Association, the average build time for the most recent power plants is 114 months (WNA 2025 Report, pg 8 https://world-nuclear.org/our-association/publications/global-trends-reports/world-nuclear-performance-report). Bent Flyfvberg, who studies how big things gets done, has nuclear power plants 3rd from the bottom in terms of on-budget, on-time, with original benefits. Solar, wind, and interconnect are at the top of the list. One of the Scandinavian countries (I believe Norway) recently built a $1billion+ off-shore wind farm in the North Sea in 7 months (source: Redefining Energy: Tech podcast)
Very interesting analysis. I was just looking at the Baker map of China’s energy infrastructure, so the comparison by proportion of output is really helpful.
I hadn’t considered the other aspects and the percentage increase being distorted by scale of overall energy growth in China.
Main while in Montana our power company is planning on mining coal to power data centers for ai and crypto. This coal fired power plant is the 4th largest polluter in the US. They have sold ahead 1000 megawatts when the whole state generates 750. Totally hideous
Note 2 edit: replace the last "generation" with "capacity"
The increase in solar/wind capacity only makes sense if you look at initial capacity as a baseline. Some countries already have a relatively high capacity. I would like to have seen those increases expressed as a percentage of total capacity, rather than gWh.
Or not. None of the big 4, Germany, France, UK, Italy are on the list. They even got beaten by the USA!
The data roughly captures the rollout from 2021 to 2023, which will have been set by policies from 2016 to 2021 (0ffshore wind farms might take 5 years from auction to commissioning, solar farms 2 years).
Also curious about the change over time of the UK per capita electricity consumption. Will it be closer to Nordic levels once we stop heating most houses with gas and have more EVs?
This data needs to be compared with the analysis Hannah did here:
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/solar-wind-nuclear-rates
Looking at the Netherlands (1345KWh per person added over three years, and Sweden (1431), they are adding about 450KWh per year.
That matches the French nuclear boom (450KWh per per person per year) between 1979 and 1989. All be it, the French "boom" went on for the better part of two decades. The "solar boom" has only been going since about 2021.
One thing that differs is that "French boom" enabled closing fossil fuel generation the moment each new power plant started. 1GW of NP start- 1GW of coal/oil/gas not to be needed for ever. No batteries needed, good grid stability without excessive spending, not relying on not so friendly nations, just "good old boring" technology. Getting rid of fossil fuels efficiently and economically (there are billions of people who don't have power at all) is the goal, not this or other technology.
Fossil fuel generation can be reduced every time new renewables/batteries come on-line. And it doesn't need to wait for the entire plant to come on-line. Got a few solar panels operating? The first few wind turbines up & running? The first few containers of batteries in place? Start providing energy to the grid. Then, as more build-out occurs, more clean energy gets connected to the grid.
And what's the problem with batteries? They enable time-shifting of energy. They work. They're cheap. They're quick to install. They work. They can be incrementally added, not as a lump.
Nuclear is, according to Lazard (https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/) and many other reputable sources, the most expensive form of electric power generation (unsubsidized LCOE). According to the World Nuclear Association, the average build time for the most recent power plants is 114 months (WNA 2025 Report, pg 8 https://world-nuclear.org/our-association/publications/global-trends-reports/world-nuclear-performance-report). Bent Flyfvberg, who studies how big things gets done, has nuclear power plants 3rd from the bottom in terms of on-budget, on-time, with original benefits. Solar, wind, and interconnect are at the top of the list. One of the Scandinavian countries (I believe Norway) recently built a $1billion+ off-shore wind farm in the North Sea in 7 months (source: Redefining Energy: Tech podcast)
Hannah : [ My favourite palindrome ! ]
You ask ..........enticingly...........Which countries are scaling solar and wind the fastest?
Simple answer :
The one's WITH THE HIGHEST ELECTRICITY PRICES !
.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1127457649207622
AND of course , science and reason and evidence combined , ALEX EPSTEIN :
The Ultimate Debunking of “Solar and Wind are Cheaper than Fossil Fuels.” – Alex Epstein
Why we should be suspicious of the pervasive claim that “solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels”
Observe that “solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels” is usually invoked, not to encourage competition but to justify coercive government policies to punish fossil fuel use and favor solar and wind.
Observe that the same people claiming “solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels” moved heaven and earth to demand at minimum hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies under the “Inflation Reduction Act” for these supposedly “cheaper forms of energy.”²
On its face, justifying favoritism toward solar and wind by invoking their cheapness is highly suspicious. If they’re cheaper, why do they need coercive policies to throttle their fossil-fueled competitors (e.g., opposing fossil fuel investment, production, and pipelines) and reward solar and wind?
If a company has a TV set that’s as good as others, but cheaper, they win by selling their cheaper TVs on the market.They don’t ask government to ban other TVs, to mandate their TV, or to give them hundreds of billions of dollars.Truly cheaper products don’t need preferences.
The simple reason that advocates of solar and wind who claim they are cheaper than fossil fuels aren’t willing to outcompete fossil fuels in reality but instead demand massive government favoritism is that in the vast majority of circumstances solar and wind are not actually cheaper.
If solar and wind were cheaper, much-hated fossil fuel use wouldn’t still be growing
That solar and wind aren’t actually cheaper than fossil fuels should be obvious from the fact that despite enormous cultural and political hostility toward fossil fuels that makes fossil fuels artificially expensive, fossil fuel use is still growing.
Notably, fossil fuel growth is centered in the places that care most about cheap energy, above all China—which is using record amounts of coal to produce the solar panels and wind turbines we use. If solar and wind were cheaper they’d use solar and wind to produce solar and wind.³
THEY DON'T........AND THEY ARE WORKING ON BUILDING EVEN MORE NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS THAN THEY ALREADY HAVE [ Fission power ] AND THE EVEN MORE IDYLLIC FUSION REACTORS !!!
THAT is how little "faith" they have in the "RENEWABLES" RUBBISH they are selling us....and yet ,
due to "our" failing-education-system and "our" resulting ignorance in many ways , and "willful blindness" in ignoring the EMPIRICAL and SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE available , "we" are allowing "feelings and emotion" to prevail , and "our" Governments to coerce "us" into buying it !!!
It seems obvious that countries with the highest electricity prices will attract the most new generation.
Much of northern Europe was, and still is to an extent, dependent on imported gas for electricity. And when Russia decided to stop exporting, the price of gas went up (as did its carbon content) meaning the only way to escape high electricity prices is to deploy renewables (or nuclear if you want to wait for cheap SMRs to be developed, approved, consented and built).
Some countries are lucky to have great solar resource, as that is cheaper than wind. So Spain is near the top of the list, and has cheap electricity.
Equally, Texas would be near the top - perhaps at the top - of the list. And they have cheap electricity.
Not so Alex Terrell ! PLEASE READ ALEX EPSTEIN a bit more closely !
.Texas....on a good day the average electricity price in Texas is approximately 10.22¢ per kWh (0.1022 USD) about equal THIRD......but close !
SPAIN is 15 ON THE LIST. AUSTRALIA is 17 ON THE LIST .
.ELECTRICITY PRICES : How did Australia compare to the rest of the world in 2024 ?
Australia – US$0.246/kWh
Australia placed almost exactly IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK during June 2024,
coming in as the 13th most expensive (or 17th cheapest!) country within the study, with a June 2024 average household electricity rate of US$0.246/kWh.
Current electricity prices in Australia are approximately USD 0.22 to 0.30 per kWh, though exact prices vary significantly by state, provider, and consumption plan. For example, a December 2024 figure placed the residential price at about USD 0.252 per kWh.............AND INCREASING !!!!!!!
.
POSITION IN WORLD BASED ON PRICES OF ELECTRICITY TO HOUSEHOLDS :
1. Turkey with a June 2024 rate of US$0.044/kWh.
2. Mexico with a June 2024 rate of US$0.099/kWh.
3. Hungary with a June 2024 rate of US$0.107/kWh.
4. Canada 5.South Korea 6.Norway 7. USA
15. Spain with a June 2024 rate of US$0.234/kWh.
17. Australia 22. Denmark 25. UK 26. Ireland 28. Switzerland....and lucky-last ...29
29. Germany ....with a June 2024 rate of US$0.402/kWh.....about TEN TIMES THAT OF TURKEY !!!!
.
1.Turkey primarily generates electricity from fossil fuels, with coal and natural gas being the largest contributors, but has a significant and growing reliance on renewable sources like hydro, wind, and solar to reduce its dependence on imports and address environmental concerns. While the country possesses substantial renewable potential, particularly in hydropower and geothermal, its energy sector is still dominated by imported fossil fuels, with coal being the largest source of electricity generation in 2023 and a notable portion of that coal being imported."
.
2. Mexico's electricity generation relies heavily on fossil fuels, primarily natural gas, supplemented by oil and coal, but is also increasingly incorporating renewable sources like hydroelectric, wind, and solar power. Hydropower and geothermal energy are the most established renewable sources, while wind and solar generation has significant room for growth.
.
3. Hungary primarily generates electricity from nuclear energy, which provides almost half of its power, and increasingly from solar power, which has recently surpassed natural gas and coal to become its second-largest source. Other sources include natural gas, biofuels, and a smaller contribution from hydro, waste, and wind. The country is also a net importer of electricity.
.
29. Germany primarily produces electricity from a mix of renewable energy sources, especially wind and solar, which together accounted for 43% of its generation in 2024, along with fossil fuels (coal and gas) making up a similar percentage. The country is undergoing an "energy transition" to phase out nuclear power (completed in 2023) and fossil fuels, aiming for a majority of its energy to come from renewables by 2030.
20. France's electricity is primarily produced by a large fleet of nuclear power plants, which accounts for about 72% of its generation, making it a world leader in low-carbon electricity. Other significant sources include hydropower, solar, and wind power. The electricity sector in France is dominated by nuclear power, which accounted for 72.3% of total production in 2016, while renewables and fossil fuels accounted for 17.8% and 8.6%, respectively.[7] France has the largest share of nuclear electricity in the world. The country is also among the world's biggest net exporters of electricity.While France has a low reliance on fossil fuels, it also imports and exports electricity, with nuclear energy being a major source of its export revenue. [ Ironically , much of it to Germany which is "decommissioning" it's Nuclear Power Plants !!!! ].
.
So.....Australia SHOULD be working towards NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS and using SOME of our cheap and abundant CARBONACEOUS FUELS until we have the NUCLEAR PLANTS operating fully !
.
15. Spain with a June 2024 rate of US$0.234/kWh. [ .slightly cheaper than Australia ! ]
Primary energy consumption in Spain in 2020 was mainly composed of fossil fuel sources.
The largest sources are petroleum (42.3%), natural gas (19.8%) and coal (11.6%).
The remaining 26.3% is accounted for by nuclear energy (12%)
and different renewable energy sources (14.3%).
[1] Domestic production of primary energy includes nuclear (44.8%),
solar, wind and geothermal (22.4%), biomass and waste (21.1%), hydropower (7.2%)
and fossil (4.5%).
What is the main source of electricity in Spain?
Wind. 22% of total generation.
Natural gas. 22% of total generation.
Nuclear. 20% of total generation.
...............ALL the "replenishables" are an EXPENSIVE CHINESE JOKE !!!
We have financed the "take-over" of our Australian Resources [ Now about 80 % foreign owned !!!] by buying into their "green delusions" and buying their "green" 'short-lived' machinery.....which needs to be constantly "renewed"
..........................which is about the only way they can be described as "renewable" !!!
.
.
Strange that you call solar panels, with an expected life of about 40 years, "replenishables", but not coal and gas, with an expected usage life of milliseconds.
Main sources of electricity in Spain (in 2024) were 1. Wind, 2. Nuclear, 3. Solar, 4. Gas. I'd expect solar to be No 1 in 2025, and gas might be down in place 5.
Household electricity prices in Germany are about 35 cents - though far less for the 15% of households with their own solar power.
Alex......the 2024 figures were the "most recent" that I could reliably access.
The RATIO may well have altered since then.
My friends in Germany tell me that , even with solar p.v.panels , they still need to access electricity at night....and their heating bills are huge !
For your friends in Germany, batteries make all the difference.
We put in solar PV in 2011, and more in 2023. So cheap electricity some of the time, but not at night. Great for the electric car, but yes, we needed imports.
This spring we put in a smallish battery, and since then imports have been about 10KWh in six months. I'll see how far that can go into the winter (probably till sometime end October, depending on car use)..
Wholesale battery prices plummeted from about 2022 onwards, but that only started to reach the consumer market at the start of this year. Especially for "DIY solar", e.g. Growatt NOAH 2000 batteries at €250 per KWh.
To be really effective, solar needs a battery, and they are only just becoming affordable.
In the UK, it is easier, thanks to cheap night time tariffs. Once you have solar and a battery, you don't need daytime electricity - just night time at 8.5 pence per KWh. Or better still, Octopus Intelligent flux sells and buys at 23p per KWh - they manage the battery. (Germany has fixed network costs, so dynamic prices don't help much).
Heating: despite the reputation, a lot of German housing stock is crap. Not as crap as in the UK, but still crap. And gas is expensive, as it's now LNG which is also stored up for the winter. In 2021, we decided to install solar thermal (with heating support). I calculated the cost of heat would be slightly more than the cost of gas, but I wanted to cut down use of Russian gas. In 2022, it looked like a great financial decision! Overall we cut gas use from 20,000KWh to about 10,000KWh per year.
Solar thermal is now out of fashion. If I were reviewing the decision again, I would have gone for solar PV plus a heat pump. The PV is now cheap, so you can afford to oversize (15 to 20KW) giving enough to power the heat pump for 10 months of the year.
Thanks ! I will pass it on to them !
I am not too sure what they have installed [ or not ] since I last discussed it with them , BUT he is a pretty savvy guy and she is as smart as they come.....so I am sure they will follow up on what you have suggested !
Regards , Trevor.
Never heard of vested interest? These arguments come from those with most to lose from the decline in fossil fuel use.
Of course natural, inexhaustible sources *should* be cheaper. It's overly complex economic argument and vested interest political influences that put barriers in the way. It's not surprising that governments are attempting to rig the market in favour of renewable energy when so many obstacles are being put in the way.
So David.......YOU buy the propaganda ! Not so well done Dave !
And of course YOU buy the "Government subsidised TV set" .......or have you forgotten that they don't subsidise TV sets and YOU just have to buy the "best you can afford"....and if it happens to also be the cheapest [ due to superior production methods and competition from other manufacturers ! ] then that's a bonus !
Of course , quality , reliability and prestige also come into the decision you make !
BUT , doesn't it ever enter your mind that acceptance of EV's requires subsidies ?
Why , if they are that good did they need the subsidies......and all the "free" use of the roads that ICE's had already paid for .......with TAXES , NOT subsidies !
And the "free network of electric-charging-sites" that ICE owners don'r benefit from , but are an absolute furphy UNLESS you can "charge enough at home" beforehand !
And the there's "subsidised Batteries for households" ........and when they fail.......or catch fire ....MY insurance premium will be INCREASED to cover them ! A subsidy !
The "subsidies" to build wind-farms and solar-farms and their expensive and extensive
power lines , the expropriation of productive FARMLAND to erect these monstrosities
on and the desecration of the site to build them !!!!
......................................"NOT HAPPY JAN !"....................................
"rig the market in favour of renewable energy when so many obstacles are being put in the way."......................LIKE WHAT FOR EXAMPLE ???? NAME ONE ! JUST ONE !!
Petrol was once subsidised to stimulate the ICE vehicles......for a very good reason .....the cities were being BURIED beneath horse manure !!! A health hazard alleviated and new transport efficiencies facilitated .....and lower prices for everyone !
Do you mean the "obstacles" like the FUEL TAX on carbonaceous fuels of all types , the banning of GAS reticulation to NEW HOUSES in Victoria , the FAILURE to approve or IMPROVE gas and oil pipelines , the FAILURE to improve and prolong the life of COAL FIRED POWER STATIONS before we finally "get the message" and INSTALL NUCLEAR POWER GENERATION ???
Oh ! That's probably going to need a subsidy as well !
But at least it will be a long-term solution that "renewables" NEVER CAN or WILL BE !
.
"Never heard of vested interest?"............. YES DAVE , I HAVE !
"These arguments come from those with most to GAIN from the decline in fossil fuel use." LIKE AL GORE....a second rung politician : The former senator, who spent most of his working life in Congress, had a net worth of about US$1.7-million and assets that included pasture rents from a family farm and royalties from a zinc mine.
.
After Al Gore left the White House, he remained active in environmental advocacy.
He wrote and co-wrote several books about environmentalism, including An Inconvenient Truth (2006) , and he 'won' a Nobel Prize , the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, an honor he shared with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)..
Gore also became a prominent investment manager. Together with David Blood, he co-founded Generation Investment Management in 2004. [Generation manages $31.1 billion. in funds ].Some analysts tracking Al Gore's career say that he has a net worth of about $300 million. NOW......THAT ......IS A VESTED INTEREST !
Ha! Me thinks the lady doth protest too much 😂
Perhaps if I offered you a "subsidy" you would change your opinion ????
.
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much!" is a misremembered version of the actual line, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks," from William Shakespeare's play Hamlet
which PROVES that you are , at best , an unreliable witness Dave !
So much for the rest of your contributions then !! Inaccuracy at best !
The renewables share of generation will accelerate as storage and grid expansion continues. The capacity we already have globally is underused until that happens.
There is the dilemma there- storage will unavoidably add costs on top of generation so no chance of combination of renewable plus storage to be cheaper, only more expensive. If somehow storage would become cheaper and plentiful (big if)- it could be combined with reliable power generation as well to increase efficiency- supply power peaking too.
I've posted links in other comments to the latest Lazard reports. Unsubsidized LCOE - solar+storage and wind+storage compete with fossil fuels. Solar, wind, storage are continuing to get cheaper. Fossil fuel costs are not. There's a reason 90% of new electric power is renewables/storage - and it's not "green pressure" or subsidies. It's the businessmen building power plants wanting to buy cheap & sell high, and the cheapest is renewables+storage.
Renewables and storage (batteries) costs/kWh have been heading down since the 1970's, and continue to drop.
I'm not sure if I'm looking at the same Lazard reports somehow. Solar and wind kind of bottomed out and even got more expensive in recent years for example. There is also "catch" in what you wrote- business decides what to build (regulation and subsidies "force that" too). Citizens and industries relying on power suffer. In an alternative sane world Germany could have spent better part of Trillion Euros(their energievende convoluted costs) on modern NPPs and help decarbonize neighboring countries in the process. In sane world building NPPs would be on pair with gas facilities in terms of CAPEX, timelines and we would have forgotten about using coal for electricity and heat already 30years ago. And heat pump would be an obvious choice instead of gas heating because of convenience, safety and price.
And if thinking about environment, sustainability, stopping support of unfriendly nations selling FFs(some people can choose one, two, or three of these as important, fine by me)- I think putting precious batteries inside vehicles may be more efficient. 10kWh net battery in my PHEV car reduces consumption from 5.6l/100km to 1.4l/100km (real example after 70kkm usage in a very cold country). That is good for the wallet, comfort of car usage and environment(charged from clean stable grid). What would be gained from having that kind of battery at home, when "my" grid is clean, reliable already? Bragging rights?
Storage is a massive up front cost but relatively low maintenance cost compared to a power station.
Exactly, although longevity for batteries is unknown comparing to gravity storage with water. Battery added on top of hydropower (it it cannot ramp up/down because limited water storage), nuclear, geothermal will allow both power station and battery to run at full capacity (best utilization of expensive resource). There is no real saving to consider ramping nuclear powerplant down- when it could charge battery, heat water for home use or anything of value.
In the spirit of acknowledging the great work of David JC MacKay in his "Sustainable Energy – without the hot air" and his outreach I will remind some numbers based facts. France got rid of coal and oil from electricity production in about 15ish years and did it 40ish years ago(way before CO2 emissions and sustainability became mainstream thing).
Efficiently done, fast and for good. Tremendous cumulative savings on emissions, keeping price of reliable power low, which encourages decarbonising sectors like domestic heating, transportation.
That puts some important scale on that "wind and solar boom", I would think.
There is no mention of Hydro such as Norway and Canada and to a lesser extent Australia.
There is also no mention of the power imported by the US from Canada
Hydro capacity is pretty static as few new schemes are built. There is a lack of investment: Consider Norway, where the populist parties want to restrict electricity exports to push down consumer prices. Why is there no move to reinvest the profits (from electricity arbitrage) into more capacity?
Alex I think that the Norwegians are making so much money from their sale of oil and gas ....(approximately $A209 billion)....... and hydro-electricity ........one source citing a record-breaking 44.8 billion Norwegian Kroner (NOK) in 2022 from hydropower exports and petroleum combined.
That's about $7 Billion Australian Dollars of combined ENERGY EXPORTS !
There are approximately 4.6 to 4.7 million ethnic Norwegians living in Norway today, representing about 79.2% of the total population, which was around 5.6 million in early 2025. The remaining nearly 21% of the population has an immigrant background.................so................there is NOT a shortage of funding.....and welfare paid out is huge........and they have a high standard of living .....so I don't think that they really need lower electricity prices as well !
As soon as the subsidies for fossil fuels are removed. Without subsidies, solar/wind/storage are cheaper than fossil fuels without storage (source: Lazard LCOE report 2025 - https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/). And they are getting cheaper every year, while fossil fuel plant costs are going up.
Fossil Fuel Subsidies - https://robertreich.substack.com/p/were-paying-big-oil-to-kill-the-earth?publication_id=365422&post_id=173141553&isFreemail=true&r=40kuo0&triedRedirect=true
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/solar-wind-speed-rollout/comments?publication_id=1199196&post_id=173067115&isFreemail=true&comments=true&action=post-comment
Regarding nuclear being a “salvation” – I’ve posted this elsewhere:
Check out Lazard's LCOE (https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/) for nuclear, and compare with solar+storage and wind storage in same report. As well, check out Michael Barnard's work on energy, which includes nuclear (https://cleantechnica.com/?s=Michael+Barnard+Nuclear for solely nuclear, https://cleantechnica.com/?s=Michael+Barnard for all of his work). Nuclear is the most expensive, slowest to build, most likely to be canceled form of power production. And getting more, not less expensive.
Around the world, no one is making nuclear work. According to Michael’s reporting, China can't make it work (https://cleantechnica.com/2025/02/09/coal-nuclear-are-very-different-beasts-in-china-per-expert/ and https://cleantechnica.com/2024/12/27/china-hits-ev-target-10-years-early-still-hasnt-reached-2020-nuclear-target). Check his chart on world-wide nuclear installations - https://cleantechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Screenshot-2024-08-27-at-8.07.28%E2%80%AFAM-2048x1151.png Check out Michael's report on Europe's issues with nuclear, paying attention to what is needed to actually hope to make it work (https://cleantechnica.com/2025/07/20/sizewells-exploding-budget-exposes-europes-nuclear-blindspot/). Check out the World Nuclear Association list of nuclear power plants operating and under construction - https://world-nuclear.org/images/articles/World-Nuclear-Performance-Report-2024.pdf Despite that being the nuclear industry’s trade organization and the positive spin it puts on it, nuclear power energy production has been virtually unchanged since the early 2000’s (see chart 6). Average construction time, according to them, is 115 months – almost 10 years. Norway put up a 1GW off-shore wind farm in 7 months (source: Redefining Energy – Tech podcast). No country is managing to make nuclear work from an economic standpoint.
From EIA, the generator in a thermoelectric power plant (think coal, oil, the CC side of CCGT, nuclear, and even geothermal) capital cost runs per kW (depending on the report) from 1/2 to 2 times the cost per kW of entire solar, wind, or battery system (https://www.eia.gov/electricity/generatorcosts/#total1https://www.eia.gov/electricity/generatorcosts/#total1 for one report). That doesn't leave a lot (if any) room for the thermal side of the power plant (think the fission reactor, the coal boiler, the steam generator for CCGT, the gas turbine for gas power plants, even the piping and wells of a geothermal power plant). And (see Lazard above for solar/wind/battery trends), as solar/wind/battery (unsubsidized) continue to drop, this cost challenge for thermal plants is going to increase. See the chart under “Replace Fossil Fuels with Carbon-Free Energy” in the MIT Alumni for Climate Action roadmap (https://maca.earth/roadmap/). Renewables+storage costs continue to drop, nuclear costs continues to climb.
The NRC website enables you to track status of nuclear power plants in the US (https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors.html) . Right now, in the pipeline, there are, according to that site, no new large light-water reactors in development in the US. For new, advanced reactors, there are three in the current pipeline (https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/who-were-working-with/applicant-projects.html). Given it takes several years to get through the pipeline after application (for good reasons), and of the three in the pipeline, one submitted their application last year, and the other two just submitted their applications, don’t expect any minor amount of nuclear energy anytime soon. The most recent attempt (NuScale - https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/who-were-working-with/past-license-activities/nuscale.html ) with a SMR design, which was approved and ready to start building with an estimated completion date of 2030 (note that no nuclear plant has ever been completed on time). The effort ended when, despite a $30/MWh subsidy, it couldn’t compete with unsubsidized solar/wind/storage/interconnect and the customers pulled out to instead buy renewable energy (because of cost, not clean) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power). Don’t expect major amounts of nuclear power ever.
Solar, Wind, Battery, on the other hand, made up 80+% of new electric energy generation in the US and worldwide last year (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62864 shows the renewables accounted for 92+% of new electricity in 1H2024, and a planned 94+% in 2H2024). It shows only 1.7% new nuclear, and that’s the first new nuclear in decades, and the last before 2030 at the earliest. Look at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/generatorcosts/#total1 again, look at the plant totals and number of new plants – solar/wind/battery far outnumber nuclear. Current _annual_ solar/wind additions to the US electricity grid equal the total _current_ nuclear generation capacity in the US. That’s the annual additions.
From Michael Barnard’s European report I reference above is a chart out of Bent Flyfvberg's book "How Big Things Get Done" about large scale projects and what work/doesn't work in making them come in on time, on budget, and meeting goals, based upon actual data from thousands of projects that cost more than $1 billion each. The top 3 projects in terms of success are: solar power, interconnect, wind power. The bottom three are: nuclear storage, Olympic venues, and nuclear power plants.
Solar, Wind, Battery, Interconnect – all are “lego” designs (thanks to Bent for the image). Solar farm: Cells make up a module. Modules make up a panel. Panels make up a solar farm. Wind. A wind turbine consists of base, tower, hub, generator, blades. Multiple identical turbines make up a wind farm. Battery farm is made of containers. Which contain modules. Which contain batteries. In all three cases, once part of the system is up, you can start getting power while building the rest. And those parts are made in large, identical quantities – resulting in cost reductions. Which is why the world installed almost 600 GW of solar last year. https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/renewables-global-power-construction-2024
Contrast that with a nuclear power plant (or any thermal power plant) made of a lot of different parts (container, pumps, piping, control rods, heat exchangers, etc.). All of which require precise work, all need to work together correctly all the time. Each plant is normally unique. As pointed out above, done in small numbers. Check out https://energy.mit.edu/news/building-nuclear-power-plants/ for past learning (or lack thereof) of the nuclear industry on how to build nuclear power plants.
Nuclear is, according to Lazard (https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/) and many other reputable sources, the most expensive form of electric power generation (unsubsidized LCOE). According to the World Nuclear Association, the average build time for the most recent power plants is 114 months (WNA 2025 Report, pg 8 https://world-nuclear.org/our-association/publications/global-trends-reports/world-nuclear-performance-report). Bent Flyfvberg, who studies how big things gets done, has nuclear power plants 3rd from the bottom in terms of on-budget, on-time, with original benefits. Solar, wind, and interconnect are at the top of the list. One of the Scandinavian countries (I believe Norway) recently built a $1billion+ off-shore wind farm in the North Sea in 7 months (source: Redefining Energy: Tech podcast)
Always love to hear your thoughtful breakdowns, Hannah. You're the bomb.
Very interesting analysis. I was just looking at the Baker map of China’s energy infrastructure, so the comparison by proportion of output is really helpful.
I hadn’t considered the other aspects and the percentage increase being distorted by scale of overall energy growth in China.
Main while in Montana our power company is planning on mining coal to power data centers for ai and crypto. This coal fired power plant is the 4th largest polluter in the US. They have sold ahead 1000 megawatts when the whole state generates 750. Totally hideous
Does any of this data include pricing information? Has anyone been able to contain the energy inflation better?
Note 2 edit: replace the last "generation" with "capacity"
The increase in solar/wind capacity only makes sense if you look at initial capacity as a baseline. Some countries already have a relatively high capacity. I would like to have seen those increases expressed as a percentage of total capacity, rather than gWh.
Well done Europe.
Or not. None of the big 4, Germany, France, UK, Italy are on the list. They even got beaten by the USA!
The data roughly captures the rollout from 2021 to 2023, which will have been set by policies from 2016 to 2021 (0ffshore wind farms might take 5 years from auction to commissioning, solar farms 2 years).
So which government are responsible?
Also curious about the change over time of the UK per capita electricity consumption. Will it be closer to Nordic levels once we stop heating most houses with gas and have more EVs?
So it's safe to say China is installing 4x country wide compared to the US. What about on a per capita basis?
TLDR?
2nd chart?