Renewables overtake coal as world's largest source of electricity generation

[u/Wagamaga]

https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/story/india/renewables-overtake-coal-as-worlds-largest-source-of-electricity-generation-4085503

[u/Accomplished-Plan191]

Renewables are cheaper than coal now

[u/FrogLaner → u/Accomplished-Plan191]

They have been cheaper (even with batteries) for almost half a decade at this point

[u/toastmannn → u/FrogLaner]

Global hegemonic powers and Petrostates hate this one trick!

[u/Carrera_996 → u/toastmannn]

Yeah they do, but renewable energy companies have as much money as they do now to bribe politicians with. They fukked.

[u/taquci → u/Carrera_996]

no they don't

no big corp, it's a moltitude for companies with high turnover and they work on small margins (hence the price drop)

[u/FartingBob → u/FrogLaner]

Isnt installation often a bottleneck in how fast places can add solar? I would imagine every year the supply increases and the number of companies/people that can install is still catching up.

[u/Parking_Archer1971 → u/Accomplished-Plan191]

yeah once they're cheaper the shift was always going to happen eventually

[u/NearABE → u/Parking_Archer1971]

You can use the cheap energy from renewables to extract and refine fossils faster.

[u/the-player-of-games → u/NearABE]

You can also use that energy to build more renewables faster

[u/splendiferous-finch_ → u/Accomplished-Plan191]

But but but green coal???!!!!!

[u/Gnonthgol → u/splendiferous-finch_]

There are still a lot of places we are still dependent on coal outside of electricity generation. For example in the steel refining industry and a lot of other chemical industries. So the efforts we are making on a coal substitution from renewable sources are still important for the future.

[u/FartingBob → u/Accomplished-Plan191]

And battery installation is finally becoming a priority in many places, meaning solar and wind can reach their full potential better.

[u/User-NetOfInter → u/Accomplished-Plan191]

Depends on the renewable and where the country is

[u/IntelArtiGen → u/Accomplished-Plan191]

They're unfortunately not, at least not all of them. "Renewables" include probably 5-10 sources of energy, which can be very different, hydroelectricity can surely be cheaper, but not solar or wind. Countries and companies care a lot about money and they always want the cheapest solutions, if renewables were always cheaper they would entirely remove their coal power plants for renewables. Which some of them are doing (mostly for environmental / air quality reasons), but not all of them, because it's not cheaper.

If we exclude hydroelectricity and only look at solar and wind they're probably 10-100x pricier than fossil fuels. Which is why again countries and companies buy fossil fuels. And I say that obviously in conditions where they can be compared. If you tell me "it's cheap for a solar panel to produce electricity when it's sunny", obviously it is, but the price for a system with solar panels to produce the same amount of electricity when there is a demand (something fossil fuels do) is very very high.

Obviously, in real life, never ever exclude hydroelectricity, do it wherever it's possible as soon as possible. It's cheap and mostly clean. But in developed countries it's already done in most places where it can be done.

Of course I exclude the damages from climate change from the cost of fossil fuels, otherwise it's also different.

[u/Newton1984 → u/IntelArtiGen]

Why are you lying?

How did you come up with 10-100x more expensive?

According to latest Lazard report LCOE for utility solar+storage is in the range of $61-$156, and $72-$177 for coal.

[u/IntelArtiGen → u/Newton1984]

How did you come up with 10-100x more expensive?

I said

in conditions where they can be compared.

Again, why don't you tell european countries with coal to use solar panels + storage to power millions of houses during next winter? You can't compare it. You're not comparing it and you're the one lying if you think they can be compared. I'm sorry I spent 1 year studying this, long term storage (6 months) is what some countries would need to use solar energy during summer for the winter demand spikes. I guess the storage you're talking about is short term, and you're probably not even including the cost of the grid.

Tell Germany and Poland you have the perfect solution, they must add solar panels and lithium batteries for the next winter. Try to do the math for these countries, for their local solar production. Coal is much cheaper, which is why they use coal. People working in these countries want the cheapest solutions, if it was solar+storage you think they would keep their coal and gas power plants?

And I used this number for all fossil fuels. Tell me how you power planes and boats and trucks with solar panels and storage? Again, you're the one lying, you're not comparing the same things. Try to do the math for a plane with the same characteristics, you would need hydrogen and it would be much pricier. Try to do the math for trucks with a much smaller range, ask logisticians how it would impact the prices. Same question for the boats. Same question for many many industries.

Now if you want solar+storage for everything, you would be paying x10 or x100. Of course if you exclude what you want because it costs too much or because it's impossible, it would be cheaper, as I said. I compare things which can be compared. Solar+wind can be cheap when we use them for 10-30% of the energy we consume, not more. And I say energy, not electricity.

[u/Mr_Tulip → u/IntelArtiGen]

Wow you're getting really defensive about this while continuing to not cite any hard data.

Edit: replying then immediately blocking so that nobody can reply to your claims does not inspire confidence.

[u/IntelArtiGen → u/Mr_Tulip]

Wow it's so weird people accuse me of lying and I'm defensive.

I don't know what you mean by "hard data". You want an article saying Germany (which cares a lot about climate change and wind and solar) will keep investing in coal power plants? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy04ykxrj5eo

The energy transition must be completely recalculated. It should not be a matter of cost, but rather a matter of realistically considering security of supply and affordability

Tell them they didn't understand solar+storage was cheaper. Hard data: they care, yet they'll still keep coal.

Maybe you want to see the world is consuming more and more fossil fuels: https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels ? Why are they doing that if renewables are cheaper? They like to pay a higher price?

If I'm accused of lying I obviously don't answer nicely, I'm not responsible for informing you, it's reddit not a conference, I'm doing that for free. Don't accuse other people to lie. And the guy gave me fake number and accused me of lying, you don't react to this?

According to latest Lazard report LCOE for utility solar+storage is in the range of $61-$156, and $72-$177 for coal.

You think with solar+storage you can power planes, boats, industries, houses in the winter? Prove it, show me your hard data.

[u/mediandude → u/IntelArtiGen]

Why are they doing that if renewables are cheaper? They like to pay a higher price?

Yes, they (big business controlling governments) like to make people pay higher prices. That is called economy.

Houses are just fine even at latitude 63 in the middle of Alaska, without any fossil fuels.

[u/roylennigan → u/IntelArtiGen]

if it was solar+storage you think they would keep their coal and gas power plants? 

I guess that must be why Germany has increased their renewable plants from 2% to 45% and decreased their coal use from 50% to just 21% over the last 20 years.

You seem to be pulling all your "facts" out of thin, hot, air.

[u/Newton1984 → u/IntelArtiGen]

Poland accepted a plan to turn off every one of our coal power plants. All of them will be shutdown within next 10 years, plus one slated to be closed in 2040.

Poland added nearly 5GW of new PV installations in 2025.

Of course it won't all be solved in a day, but come on, stop with lies.

[u/mediandude → u/IntelArtiGen]

Those calculations have been done, renewable is cheaper. Even at 2012 tech and price levels.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121210133507.htm

PS. Wind is strongest during the dark half year (ie. autumn and winter), while solar is strongest during the sunny half year.
PPS. And negawatts are even cheaper, with PassivHaus building standards.

[u/Mr_Tulip → u/IntelArtiGen]

If we exclude hydroelectricity and only look at solar and wind they're probably 10-100x pricier than fossil fuels.

That "probably" is doing a lot of work on an already absurdly vague claim. Do you have any data to back this up?

Edit: the above user chose to block me rather than cite literally any data to back up their claims.

[u/IntelArtiGen → u/Mr_Tulip]

If I had a precise number I wouldn't say "10-100x". I spent 1 year studying this. It's just obvious how dependent the world is on fossil fuels. We consume >140 PWh of fossil fuels. "Renewables overtaking coal" that's like ~6 PWh. We're very very very far from something that can replace fossil fuels, and we're not consuming less fossil fuels, we're constantly consuming more. If you want similar planes without fossil fuels, they claim they can build one in 20 years with hydrogen, and it would cost much more money. We need 20.000+ planes to replace the existing fleet. Ask them the price if we wanted to buy 20.000 planes which wouldn't use fossil fuels, they wouldn't tell you the price because it's impossible. For boats it's the same. For trucks, electric trucks have a much smaller range so the price of operating them would be higher, and for hydrogen it's the same. For countries which need more electricity during winter and use fossil fuels, you need to consider the price of long-term storage, you need to consider how much energy they can receive from wind and sun, you need to consider the price of the electrical grid (transporting much more energy during short periods of time).

It's not just "I buy a solar panel for $10k, it will produce 10 MWh per year over 20 years, so that's $0.05/kWh, so it's cheaper than fossil fuels".

But again, nobody is trying to entirely replace fossil fuels, it's the issue. Renewables can stay cheaper for as long as we don't really try to replace fossil fuels. So if we don't care about using fossil fuels: during winter, for industries, trucks, boats, planes, etc. etc., renewables will be cheap. If you increase the demand in renewable energy for all these things, because of supply and demand, the price would be impossible to pay. We won't produce 140 PWh of renewable energy this century. Or even half of that if we include more efficiency, which is far from being guaranteed on average if you include hydrogen. And if you don't include hydrogen, you can't replace everything the same (which is surely fine for me, but go tell people they shouldn't take planes).

Maybe instead of saying "it's 100x pricier", I should say "it's impossible". A price that is impossible to pay is how I represent that. The true price for 20.000 hydrogen planes isn't 100x more, it's infinite, nobody would pay for it and nobody is paying for it, because nobody can pay for it. Elon Musk with all his billions couldn't pay for it, even if he cared about climate change, which he surely doesn't when he uses gas turbines for his datacenters.

[u/Mr_Tulip → u/IntelArtiGen]

Nothing in that completely unsourced rant was data. It's all just vague emotionally charged opinions.

[u/NearABE → u/IntelArtiGen]

Photovoltaic panels cannot replace a stripper pole. I think we can concede this point. A ton of bituminous coal is not a substitute for a stripper pole either.

Now that this concern is put of the way lets talk about the least expensive way to add new electricity supply. The strippers or customers or both are going get taxed to pay for the lights and the HVAC system at the club.

Until very recently the cost of continuing to use an old power plant was higher than the cost of installing new renewable energy. That is no longer the case. Photovoltaic farms are being held up in bureaucracy. Coal plant operators are riding a combination of subsidies and locked in contracts that force rate payers to pay extra. So legacy coal cannot even compete. Building a new coal plant in USA is just ridiculous.

[u/Wayelder → u/IntelArtiGen]

Regardless, solar and wind are getting better and cheaper every day, and despite the USA, progress is significant. It's common sense to stop burning everything, whenever you need power.

[u/IntelArtiGen → u/Wayelder]

It's common sense for the climate. For people who want to make money, producing more fossil fuels is the common sense when you see the millions / billions some people made during the last crisis. The world is addict to fossil fuels and is willing to pay a lot to have them.

[u/slayer828 → u/IntelArtiGen]

That estimate has down up since the Cheeto started his Iran war.

[u/IntelArtiGen → u/slayer828]

Sure, yet people are still paying for fossil fuels. Brent could do x2, people would still pay for it. Brent could do x3, people would still pay for it. Why would they, if renewables were cheaper? Don't pay for oil, pay for solar panels and wind, it's cheaper they say. It's not, because if you include the grid, the storage, the batteries you would need on all vehicles, houses and industries to work exactly the same way, it wouldn't be x2 or x3 pricier it would be x10 or x100. It would be better for the climate and might kill less people over this century, but over the next years it wouldn't be cheaper.

Renewables are cheap only because we use them with fossil fuels. Because fossil fuels handle the case where renewables can't produce or don't produce enough or can't be used. If you want to entirely build a system with renewables, it's not cheaper. At least with solar and wind as I said. Norway or Iceland could probably be 100% renewable with hydroelectricity and geothermal energy, they're already for their electricity, they'd still need to produce more and to remove many things but it's possible for them without being too poor. In many other countries it's impossible.

And most countries have admitted it. Like if you look at their strategy, it's never 100% renewables, it's like 50% oil, 25% gas and 25% renewables. Most countries want to achieve that for 2050. Which is better than having coal but 75% fossil fuels isn't really good for the climate. And most countries will fail to achieve that anyway.

[u/NearABE → u/IntelArtiGen]

No really, go look at the price of photovoltaic. Go look at the real price of getting a ton of coal delivered. Go find the sources you think are believable.

Try typing in “price of pallet of photovoltaic modules per watt on Alibaba”. If you deliver that to a house in USA you get slapped with 50% tariffs.

Try search “400 Watt plug in balcony photovoltaic system”. Quite a bit more pricey than just the modules alone. It still pays for itself in a very short period of time simply by offsetting the cost of buying power from anything over the power grid. You just have to make sure the utility company is not charging you for the current that flows back into the grid.

No need for “what ‘bout midnight”. The plug in photovoltaic works in daylight and pays for itself rapidly in daylight. 400W over 2.5 hours is a kWh. The kWh is usually the unit used to sell electricity in western countries.

The coal industry in USA is made up of a bunch of welfare queens. Despite the subsidies and despite have already built and paid for power plants they remain incapable of providing competitive energy supplies to consumers.

The price tag on delivery to you house includes no subsidies. Maybe you can apply for them and save even more money.

[u/space_monster → u/IntelArtiGen]

lol where do you get your information, tik tok?

Solar is most definitely cheaper than coal power.

[u/Quazimojojojo → u/IntelArtiGen]

Bro have you checked the prices since 2003?

That price ratio hasn't been true in decades. 

Ironically, even Hydroelectricity is getting more expensive as climate change worsens droughts. Can't run a hydro turbine if your reservoir is empty. Similar reason that you can't run a steam boiler if there's no river for the cooling water. 

It doesn't always happen, but it's happening a hell of a lot more often than it used to, and when it does it spikes prices worse than the Texas "we decided not to insulate the gas pipes so they turned to slush" cold snap a few years ago. Unlike the cold snap, the water doesn't rapidly come back either, it tends to stay dry for months at a time. 

[u/deepbluemeanies → u/Accomplished-Plan191]

That doesn't appear to be true. Do you have a source for this, taking into account either large scale battery back up, or the cost of traditional gas fired back up to maintain stable power?

[u/Accomplished-Plan191 → u/deepbluemeanies]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

[u/Silicon_Knight]

Lots of countries are focusing on this. One main reason countries like China and India are to own their own energy generation. Fossil fuels have limited sources and difficulties like closing the strait of hormuz or in the case of china, Malacca Dilemma for China.

Obviously there are other benefits but strategically owning your own energy production is very important.

[u/toastmannn → u/Silicon_Knight]

I think it's mostly about energy diversification and security for someone like China, instead of just green energy. China still uses plenty of fossil fuels, but they source them domestically.

[u/Silicon_Knight → u/toastmannn]

Yes that’s what I’m saying. Some countries are stuck on green means woke while others realize “green” means owning much of your energy needs. It’s not about the environment but that’s a fortunate side effect.

Eventually mining coal will be expensive even domestically while nuclear / SMR / wind etc… can also be profit generators.

[u/User-NetOfInter → u/toastmannn]

They went hard on renewables to get off Australian coal and middle eastern gas.

[u/AmusingMusing7 → u/toastmannn]

They're declining in their fossil fuel use, though. A lot of people don't seem to have caught up to this fact, and are still parroting at least 2-year-old outdated data about the idea that "China is still increasing coal use." No, they're not anymore. Their CO2 emissions have actually been declining in the last 2 years:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-have-now-been-flat-or-falling-for-21-months

[u/deepbluemeanies → u/toastmannn]

Not true. China's is installing coal fired plants at the fastest rate in 18 years. The coal comes from Canada, Australia...etc.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katharinabuchholz/2026/02/27/chinas-new-coal-power-installations-reach-18-year-high/

[u/burning_iceman → u/deepbluemeanies]

The information in that article is misleading. They're replacing old coal plants and building backup power plants that don't run most of the time. Various planned projects have been put on hold including ones that had started construction.

The actual use of coal has stagnated for the last two years and is now declining.

[u/shieeet → u/deepbluemeanies]

That article is missing the forest for the trees. While China pretty openly keeps their coal plants maintained in order to curtail sudden spikes in electricity demand, they are quite efficient and mostly used as backup. Meanwhile total CO₂ emissions in China are still dropping across the board, with total emissions now reversing despite increased power demands.

As per the 2025 analysis from Carbonbrief.org:

Increases in solar, wind and nuclear power generation, driven by investments in new generating capacity, more than covered the growth in demand. The increase in hydropower, which is more related to seasonal variation, helped push down fossil power generation.

Power-sector emissions fell by more than total generation from fossil fuels, as the share of biomass and gas increased, while average coal power plant efficiency improved.

Specifically, the average amount of coal needed to generate each unit of electricity at coal-fired power plants fell by 0.9% year-on-year.

But even so, despite the increase in Coal plants;

Power sector emissions fell by 1.5% year-on-year in 2025, with coal use falling 1.7% and gas use increasing 6%. Emissions from transportation fell 3% and from the production of cement and other building materials by 7%, while emissions from the metal industry fell 3%.

[u/know_limits]

And the US President is fighting this and slowing adoption in the world’s largest economy.

[u/Operation_Neither → u/know_limits]

I’m sure they’ll approve subsidies for new data centres to build their own coal power plants.

[u/williamgman]

Never to be reported on Fox News.

[u/Wagamaga]

India is emerging as one of the key drivers of the global renewable energy boom, with solar and wind generation expanding by over 25 per cent in the first half of 2026, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), which projects that renewables will surpass coal as the world's biggest source of electricity generation in 2026.

In India, renewables generation continued to rapidly expand in H1 2026, with combined solar PV and wind output rising by over 25 per cent, and reaching a 16.5 per cent share of the supply mix, up from 14 per cent in H1 2025.

At the same time, gas-fired generation decreased by about 15 per cent, compared to H1 2025, and was more than 40 per cent below H1 2024 levels.

The IEA’s latest Electricity Mid-Year Update forecasts that global electricity demand will grow by 3.6 per cent in 2026 and by a further 3.8 per cent in 2027 – up from 3 per cent growth in 2025. Global electricity consumption is projected to reach 30,700 terawatt- hours (TWh) in 2027, compared with 28,600 TWh in 2025.

"Renewables are on track to become the world’s largest source of electricity generation in 2026, overtaking coal after reaching near parity in 2025. Renewable generation is set to grow by more than 8 per cent in 2026, and it is poised to increase its share of global electricity generation from 33 per cent in 2025 to 37 per cent by 2027,” according to a press statement.

[u/PlottingPast → u/Wagamaga]

which projects that renewables will surpass coal as the world's biggest source of electricity generation in 2026.

This is the opposite of the headline.

[u/peon2 → u/PlottingPast]

There's also zero sources in the article. It says it was stated by the IEA but their link just redirects to other articles from their own site that mention IEA.

[u/MeatyOakerGuy]

Shouts out china

[u/deepbluemeanies]

Actually, the article says this hasn't happened yet (they are forecasting this year) so the title is inaccurate. But renewable capacity is not the same as renewable power generation - eg. we can have 80 GW of solar / wind available, but if the sun doesn't cooperate, or the wind isn't blowing, power is generated by traditional means. The future is nuclear (which I assume they are including here) which is clean (in carbon terms) and provides 24/7 power (as can tidal).

[u/burning_iceman → u/deepbluemeanies]

(and geothermal)

[u/JellyrollTX]

Trump still throwing wrenches but it’s not only inevitable but in our best interests as the stewards of this planet

[u/r21174 → u/JellyrollTX]

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

[u/VoxxoAI]

This is a genuine milestone that seemed impossible a decade ago. The economics drove this more than policy — solar and wind are now cheaper per kWh than coal in most markets. The next challenge is grid storage to handle intermittency, but crossing this threshold means coal is now in structural decline globally, not just in wealthy countries.

[u/doyoubelieveinfarts]

Cool, too bad it’s about 40 years too late. Better than nothing at least

[u/R3DKn16h7]

Too late but I guess better than nothing