lol! After 25 years and $20T wind and solar represent less than 3% of energy *actually* generated and used. 2025 was a record ear for new solar/wind, yet at the 2025 rate it would take 100-400 years to displace current useful (non-heat waste) fossil energy setting aside any growth. People, look at the actual energy generated, not nameplate installed, two very, very different numbers. Spreadsheet is right here with the *real* numbers - https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
It's not clear you read the article you link to. From the link you use, the 3% figure looks like its from 1990 (paragraph 5). The circular chart at the top of the article shows that Other Renewables was 5.5% (a small part of this would be bio fuels, but this is nothing close to 1.5%).
Where do you get the 20TUSD number from? I do know that crazy numbers given for this exclude the costs of business as usual where existing infrastructure would have needed to be replaced but has not. For example a new car is a new car regardless of the fuel, but if you only include the EV cost and exclude the ICE cost you are a cheat.
Where do you get the 100 to 400 years number from? I can see from the article that renewable growth is 5 times that of non renewable, and simply extrapolating that out, with no regard to total energy need, renewable would reach 50% of total in about 50 years (and 90% in 70 years). BUT total energy need will not rise like this. Assuming a constant rise in total need of 2% then without any other changes renewable would supply 100% of energy need by approx 2065.
I used the spreadsheet. I don't know what you used.
One of the saddest conclusions from the EI 2025 data set is that the cumulative new wind and solar *actual* energy delivered was only 20% of the cumulative four year increases in total energy demand, over 70% of all new energy demands of the last four years *actually* been satisfied by fossil fuel.
What I am highlighting here is the misleading communications around the abundance of wind/solar. All of the "hero" metrics we hear about wind/solar deployment are based on nameplate capacity which is highly misleading. For solar, nameplate is calculated based on 24 hours of clear sky continuous sun at the equator (no lie), in reality solar only delivered 13% of nameplate capacity over the last 25 years. For wind, nameplate capacity is assuming 24x7x365 constant rotation at the optimal power generation RPM (again, no lie), in reality wind has delivered about 25% of its nameplate capacity over the last 25 years.
The other big lie we are being told is that wind/solar are the cheapest forms of new energy. In the instant where wind is blowing and sun is shining, this is definitely true. But 87% of the time for solar and 75% of the time for wind this is not the case. If one compares the total cost of firmed up wind and solar, it is significantly more expensive than every other form of energy including nuclear. In order to achieve the same availability numbers as fossil or nuclear, one requires baseline wind/solar generation, extra wind/solar generation to charge BESS, BESS itself (today 99% of BESS deployed is less than four hours), and then a fully redundant fossil backup system. In fact we are paying for three grids and only getting the energy of one.
We are being led to believe that wind/solar deployment is massively consequential and cheap, instead it is massively inconsequential in terms of real energy delivered and terribly expensive. We have wasted 25 years, we are kidding ourselves.
Fun fact, under the Messimer plan, 40 years ago, in just a dozen years France went from 0 to 80% nuclear generation for electricity. Meanwhile wind/solar, after 25 years, represents less than 3% of energy. Second fun fact, China and South Korea do build nuclear power plants at less than 1/3 of the cost and 1/3 the interval of West. Have we followed France and D fossilized as they did starting in the 1980s, we could've avoided hundreds of gigatons of excess/unnecessary CO2 emissions and would be decades further away from critical climate tipping points.
The environmentalists that demonized nuclear energy these past 50 years will have more blood on their hands than any human cohort in history.
Here is where the $20 trillion comes from. I will admit that some of this spending may not be attributable to wind/solar. But it's in the ballpark. I appreciate your dialogue.
Over the 20-year period from 2005 to 2025, global cumulative spending on energy infrastructure totaled approximately $20.0 trillion, according to an aggregation of actual historical capital and operational outlays. The largest single investment category was Transmission & Grid Infrastructure at ~$7.2 trillion, based on IEA World Energy Investment archives showing annual global grid spending rising from ~$300B to ~$410B. This was followed by Wind & Solar Generation at ~$6.5 trillion, which represents hardware and installation costs tracked by IRENA (specifically $5.5T since 2010) and BNEF historical archives. Fossil Fuel Backup (Flexibility) accounted for ~$3.8 trillion in natural gas and coal capital/O&M dedicated to load-following and standby capacity, as sourced from the IEA (World Energy Investment & Power Sector) and Lazard historical capital costs. Finally, R&D, Subsidies & Grants—including the U.S. ITC/PTC, EU Feed-in Tariffs, and direct government grants—reached ~$2.5 trillion, based on the IEA RD&D database and IMF/OECD direct subsidy trackers.
Thank you for questions. All of my numbers are taken directly from the spreadsheet alone, not from any article. Using the 2025 spreadsheet from EI, simply take the world 2024 consumed energy of wind + solar and divide that by all world consumed energy, you should get 3%. Let me know if you do not. Regarding the 100–400 years, if you take total useful fossil (55% of all consumed fossil) and divide that by the new wind + solar that was installed in 2024, you should find that solar would take 400 years and wind would take 100 years. Let me know if you do not.
lol! After 25 years and $20T wind and solar represent less than 3% of energy *actually* generated and used. 2025 was a record ear for new solar/wind, yet at the 2025 rate it would take 100-400 years to displace current useful (non-heat waste) fossil energy setting aside any growth. People, look at the actual energy generated, not nameplate installed, two very, very different numbers. Spreadsheet is right here with the *real* numbers - https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
It's not clear you read the article you link to. From the link you use, the 3% figure looks like its from 1990 (paragraph 5). The circular chart at the top of the article shows that Other Renewables was 5.5% (a small part of this would be bio fuels, but this is nothing close to 1.5%).
Where do you get the 20TUSD number from? I do know that crazy numbers given for this exclude the costs of business as usual where existing infrastructure would have needed to be replaced but has not. For example a new car is a new car regardless of the fuel, but if you only include the EV cost and exclude the ICE cost you are a cheat.
Where do you get the 100 to 400 years number from? I can see from the article that renewable growth is 5 times that of non renewable, and simply extrapolating that out, with no regard to total energy need, renewable would reach 50% of total in about 50 years (and 90% in 70 years). BUT total energy need will not rise like this. Assuming a constant rise in total need of 2% then without any other changes renewable would supply 100% of energy need by approx 2065.
I used the spreadsheet. I don't know what you used.
One of the saddest conclusions from the EI 2025 data set is that the cumulative new wind and solar *actual* energy delivered was only 20% of the cumulative four year increases in total energy demand, over 70% of all new energy demands of the last four years *actually* been satisfied by fossil fuel.
What I am highlighting here is the misleading communications around the abundance of wind/solar. All of the "hero" metrics we hear about wind/solar deployment are based on nameplate capacity which is highly misleading. For solar, nameplate is calculated based on 24 hours of clear sky continuous sun at the equator (no lie), in reality solar only delivered 13% of nameplate capacity over the last 25 years. For wind, nameplate capacity is assuming 24x7x365 constant rotation at the optimal power generation RPM (again, no lie), in reality wind has delivered about 25% of its nameplate capacity over the last 25 years.
The other big lie we are being told is that wind/solar are the cheapest forms of new energy. In the instant where wind is blowing and sun is shining, this is definitely true. But 87% of the time for solar and 75% of the time for wind this is not the case. If one compares the total cost of firmed up wind and solar, it is significantly more expensive than every other form of energy including nuclear. In order to achieve the same availability numbers as fossil or nuclear, one requires baseline wind/solar generation, extra wind/solar generation to charge BESS, BESS itself (today 99% of BESS deployed is less than four hours), and then a fully redundant fossil backup system. In fact we are paying for three grids and only getting the energy of one.
We are being led to believe that wind/solar deployment is massively consequential and cheap, instead it is massively inconsequential in terms of real energy delivered and terribly expensive. We have wasted 25 years, we are kidding ourselves.
Fun fact, under the Messimer plan, 40 years ago, in just a dozen years France went from 0 to 80% nuclear generation for electricity. Meanwhile wind/solar, after 25 years, represents less than 3% of energy. Second fun fact, China and South Korea do build nuclear power plants at less than 1/3 of the cost and 1/3 the interval of West. Have we followed France and D fossilized as they did starting in the 1980s, we could've avoided hundreds of gigatons of excess/unnecessary CO2 emissions and would be decades further away from critical climate tipping points.
The environmentalists that demonized nuclear energy these past 50 years will have more blood on their hands than any human cohort in history.
Here is where the $20 trillion comes from. I will admit that some of this spending may not be attributable to wind/solar. But it's in the ballpark. I appreciate your dialogue.
Over the 20-year period from 2005 to 2025, global cumulative spending on energy infrastructure totaled approximately $20.0 trillion, according to an aggregation of actual historical capital and operational outlays. The largest single investment category was Transmission & Grid Infrastructure at ~$7.2 trillion, based on IEA World Energy Investment archives showing annual global grid spending rising from ~$300B to ~$410B. This was followed by Wind & Solar Generation at ~$6.5 trillion, which represents hardware and installation costs tracked by IRENA (specifically $5.5T since 2010) and BNEF historical archives. Fossil Fuel Backup (Flexibility) accounted for ~$3.8 trillion in natural gas and coal capital/O&M dedicated to load-following and standby capacity, as sourced from the IEA (World Energy Investment & Power Sector) and Lazard historical capital costs. Finally, R&D, Subsidies & Grants—including the U.S. ITC/PTC, EU Feed-in Tariffs, and direct government grants—reached ~$2.5 trillion, based on the IEA RD&D database and IMF/OECD direct subsidy trackers.
Thank you for questions. All of my numbers are taken directly from the spreadsheet alone, not from any article. Using the 2025 spreadsheet from EI, simply take the world 2024 consumed energy of wind + solar and divide that by all world consumed energy, you should get 3%. Let me know if you do not. Regarding the 100–400 years, if you take total useful fossil (55% of all consumed fossil) and divide that by the new wind + solar that was installed in 2024, you should find that solar would take 400 years and wind would take 100 years. Let me know if you do not.