Seven countries now generate nearly all their electricity from renewables (2024)

https://www.the-independent.com/tech/renewable-energy-solar-nepal-bhutan-iceland-b2533699.html

by mpweiher • 3 months ago

669 485 3 months ago

i love that in a lot of countries people think these other countries are in the sticks and that they are modern... (ofc depending who u talk to but im sure we all know such a person...) :) a lot of perceptions based on old world views. Love to see these countries do so well on it. There might be many problems to solve still but it provides a degree of self reliance for energy that is really important today for a country i'd think

giantg2• 3 months ago

It's contrary to what most people think, but the later a country modernized, the better the infrastructure (generally). You basically get to skip the innovation stages where you have a hodgepodge of systems that eventually coalesce into one and all the upgrading required to bring it up to the newest standard. If you have a lower population and smaller geography, it is often easier to upgrade as well.

readthenotes1• 3 months ago

Those "countries in the sticks", one report says that the DRC only has at most 20% of the households on electricity. This report says only 10% https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/democratic-r...

On the other hand, balcony solar power will be a game changer for the world, provided your neighbors won't steal the panels like they do the catalytic converters in my neighborhood.

mpweiher13• 3 months ago

Albania: 90% Hydropower, $12150 GDP/person

Bhutan: 99% Hydropower, $ 4700 GDP/person

Nepal: 23% Imported $ 1381 GDP/person

            rest Hydropower  (2/3 of energy: firewood etc.)

Paraguay: 100% Hydropower, $ 7990 GDP/person

Iceland: 99% Hydry/Geo, $90000 GDP/person

Ethiopia: 88% Hydropower, $ 1350 GDP/person

DR Kongo: 98% Hydropower, $ 760 GDP/person , 13% of country has electricity

Not sure how this is applicable (and in many cases: desirable) for countries that do not have significant hydropower potential or maybe want a GDP greater than $760 per person per year.

Mordisquitos5• 3 months ago

Specifically Albania, Bhutan, Nepal, Paraguay, Iceland, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Not to downplay the positive steps that are being taken towards using renewable energy worldwide, but one must point out that all those countries except one are almost exclusively using hydroelectric power, whose availability at such scale is a geographical lottery. As for Iceland, which also relies mostly on hydroelectric power but not in such great a proportion, it makes up for it thanks to easy and abundantly available geothermal power (which, though environmentally friendly, is arguably not technically renewable).

darkwater• 3 months ago

Why geothermal is not renewable? Earth is not going to cool its magma soon enough

left-struck• 3 months ago

“Technically”

leonidasrup12• 3 months ago

The Earth's heat content is about 1×10^19 TJ. This heat naturally flows to the surface by conduction at a rate of 44.2 TW and is replenished by radioactive decay at a rate of 30 TW. These power rates are more than double humanity's current energy consumption from primary sources, but most of this power is too diffuse (approximately 0.1 W/m^2 on average) to be recoverable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power#Resources

gus_massa• 3 months ago

Geothermal is powered by fission Uranium and other heavy atoms deep in the Earth.

Solar is powered by fusion of Hydrogen in the Sun.

I'd use the same classification for both.

Y-bar2• 3 months ago

Can’t speak for large scale sites with abundant volcanic activity… But for residential geothermal the bore hole has a lifetime based on how much ground water there is and how active usage it sees.

This is because using it cools the hole slowly and after a few decades (depending on how quickly ground water can dissipate heat gradient) a new hole need to be drilled a distance away.

Mordisquitos5• 3 months ago

Only as a technicality. If you find a geothermal hotspot and start to extract energy from it, the hotspot will eventually cool down faster than if you hadn't (which of course depends on the size of the hotspot and how much heat you're pulling out).

However, given that there's no downsides to cooling down a hotspot other than, well, no longer being able to extract energy from it, geothermal is a bit of an honorary "renewable".

Actual renewables ultimately all come down to recent[0] solar energy, which will never deplete their source however much they are used. All the energy in wind, hydroelectric and biofuels has recently originated in the Sun.

[0] I say "recently" because fossil fuels are all also derived from the Sun, but their rate of regeneration is a bit too slow compared to the speed at which we use them.

adev_• 3 months ago

Contrary to a popular belief, most high temperature Geothermal plants have a predicted death date.

This is due to the physics reality of the ground itself: Power of a Geothermal well will decay over time to a point where the well become unusable and need to be closed.

It is due to the fact underground water is rich in minerals and raw elements. This soup will slowly but surely cement the well itself and its associated underground.

There are techniques (similar to 'fraking') to extend the lifetime of a well but only to some extent.

If the topic interests you (and you can bear artificially translated English), a French content creator did a pretty good video on the topic:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q4xZArgOIWc

Additionally, Geothermal plants can emit CO2 (even a lot of CO2) in some geological configuration.

All of that makes Geothermal (for electricity) a bit controversial as "Renewable".

I precise that there is absolutely nothing wrong about low temperature Geothermal energy for residential heating and we should do more.

IneffablePigeon• 3 months ago

Well yes, hydro and geothermal are the easiest (and earliest perfected) renewable sources to provide consistent base load. It would be odd if the first countries to achieve fully renewable power weren’t making use of those technologies.

Other countries will have to be more reliant on interconnects, diverse renewable mixes and batteries. Luckily this is now almost always cheaper and more secure than fossil fuels and the trend lines point towards that continuing to be more and more true over time.

surgical_fire• 3 months ago

Well, when geothermal stops being renewable there will be no humans around to need energy generation.

You are still technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

But if we follow that rationale, in a long enough timeline, solar and wind is also not renewable.

nine_k• 3 months ago

Also, many of these countries are tropical or subtropical, with optimal conditions for solar energy year round. Nepal and Bhutan are relatively far from equator, but have many days of unobstructed sunshine.

coffeebeqn• 3 months ago

The vast majority of humans live in regions with plentiful sun for solar.

jimmySixDOF• 3 months ago

at such as scale

Not to downplay the positive steps that are being taken but we are conveniently skipping over the denominator here at least in the case of Ethiopia and DRC who both have a grid that is only serving their full population at a fraction of the level needed to make this story one about geographical lotteries and abundance instead of one about poverty preventing them from access to the traditional carbon power generating routes to server the rest of the population.

goldenarm• 3 months ago

This article omits important context : these 7 countries have massive hydro power (+geothermal for Iceland) for very little demand.

The only countries with <100 g CO2/kWh and >10TWh/y are using nuclear. Large scale batteries are exciting for the future but need more development. The 2 biggest battery investments in the world are being made in Australia and California, yet still produce 4x the g CO2/kWh of France.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/5y/yearly

realo2• 3 months ago

Perovskite Tandem are the best , according to the graph.

Why is it that those are reserved for ultra-big utility companies and I cannot buy those for my home or even my balcony?

philipkglass• 3 months ago

At present, those tandem cells are still experimental. Nobody is manufacturing them on gigawatt scale like for other solar cell technologies.

realo2• 3 months ago

Well... if you go to the web site , they seem to welcome very large orders. Just not mine or yours.

Might be experimental and unavailable, but just for small orders? Come on ...

nicoburns• 3 months ago

They're much more expensive than traditional silicon cells, they often use toxic materials (lead, cadmium, etc), and IIRC their lifespans aren't as long. Unless you have significant space constraints it's usually better just to get twice as many traditional panels.

aqua_coder• 3 months ago

I live in one of those countries, and while renewable electricity helped to cushion the concern for house electricity, most of the logistics (that being the supply chain for basic commodities) are transported by oil (specifically diesel). Which further increases inflation for import dependent countries. Meaning even for those states (except those that don't import oil to move cars in the country) it will regardless cause an economic crisis.

One state is considered to be fully 'renewable' if the means of transport (excluding Airplanes since I can't find a suitable alternative ) for land is done via electric cars

cenamus• 3 months ago

Or just trains

phtrivier3• 3 months ago

Albania, Bhutan, Nepal, Paraguay, Iceland, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo produced more than 99.7 per cent of the electricity they consumed using geothermal, hydro, solar or wind power.

Let's head to electricitymaps.com !

Albania (https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/AL/live/fifteen_min...)

- On 2026-04-12 16:45 GMT+2, 22,67% of electricity consumed by Albania is imported from Greece, which generates 22% of its electricity from gas. Interestingly, Albania exports about as much to Montenegro as it imports from Greece.

Bhutan:

- 100% hydro, makes perfect sense

Nepal:

- 98% hydro, a bit of solar for good measure

Iceland:

- 70% hydro, 30% geo

Paraguay:

- 99,9% hydro

Ethiopia:

- 96,4% hydro

DRC

- 99.6% hydro

So, the lessons for all other countries in the world is pretty clear: grow yourselves some mountains, dig yourselves a big river, and dam, baby, dam !!

(I'm kidding, but I'm sure someone has a pie-in-the-sky geoengineering startup about to disrupt topography using either AI, blockchain, or both.)

jacquesm3• 3 months ago

And have either a small population or a very low per-person energy budget.

But: 7 isn't the number that matters, what matters is that next year it will be 8 or 9. That would be worth documenting.

tyfon• 3 months ago

There are a few countries just below as well like Norway with about 98% renewables in 2024 [1]. The gas power plant is mostly up north powering the gas compressors that fill LNG ships headed for Europe and the coal I think is for Svalbard but that mine/plant closed in 2025 [2].

[1] https://www.nve.no/energi/energisystem/energibruk/stroemdekl...

[2] https://www.nrk.no/tromsogfinnmark/norges-siste-kullgruve-pa...

ZeroGravitas5• 3 months ago

With modern tech, these 100% renewable electricity countries have effectively overshot. Many other countries would be better off getting to 85% and then shifting to focusing more on EV and heat pump uptake to get the best bang per buck.

WinstonSmith84• 3 months ago

fun fact for Paraguay: the Itaipu Dam is one of the largest in the world located between Brazil and Paraguay, where each country gets 50% of the production. But 50% of that production for Paraguay, a country of 7 millions inhabitants, means that it cannot consume that much, so it's essentially reselling that energy to Brazil, a country with 30x more inhabitants. Paraguay only uses about 1/3 of its share (and thus resells 2/3 to Brazil).

neves• 3 months ago

And it means that it has been oil free since the 70's.

Brazil, a continental country, has more than 80% of its energy from renewables

perlgeek• 3 months ago

Another fun fact: There's a second big dam that supplies Paraguay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yacyret%C3%A1_Dam

It's also a two-country joint venture, this time with Argentina. And again, Paraguay uses much less of the electricity than its bigger partner.

KellyCriterion2• 3 months ago

wasnt New Zealand also already far up beyond 90% renewable electricity a couple of years ago?

direwolf206• 3 months ago

They are blessed with all three of hydro, geothermal, and wind.

input_sh2• 3 months ago

I guess somewhat of a fun fact: Albania has rented(!) two floating(!) oil-powered power plants near the city of Vlöre that are there in case of emergency. The last time they were really needed was in 2022 (if I remember correctly), but these days they're not turned on any more than they need to be to make sure they're operating properly. That very expensive backup system is basically the only non-renewable source in the whole country, and most of the time it's just sitting there doing nothing.

Being powered almost entirely by hydro means that the system is highly susceptible to droughts, so then they either have to spin up those oil plants from time to time or import electricity from abroad. I think it's also worth pointing out that nothing really changed because of climate change, the decision to rely on hydro was made in the 90s. The country used to have its own oil power plant that it heavily relied on before that decision, which slowly produced less and less until it was shut down for good in 2007. Some images of it from 2019: https://www.oneman-onemap.com/en/2019/06/26/the-abandoned-po...

direwolf206• 3 months ago

And this is an expected problem with renewables that can be engineered around. It's unlikely the whole world has a drought at once during a calm night, so developing ways to transmit power long distances will be important.

Shitty-kitty• 3 months ago

Funny, TAP runs straight-thru Albania. They could just build a gas power station. Of course rented rigs line the pockets much better.

graemep3• 3 months ago

Sri Lanka used to rely on hydro, with oil as a backup, and has added a lot of coal.

I wonder how many other countries are increasing non-renewable output?

PaulDavisThe1st2• 3 months ago

I think it's also worth pointing out that nothing really changed because of climate change, the decision to rely on hydro was made in the 90s.

Why do you think it is worth pointing this out?

17186274402• 3 months ago

nothing really changed because of climate change, the decision to rely on hydro was made in the 90s.

Climate change was known well in the 90s, so what is your assumption, that it can't be to help lessen climate change?

WarmWash• 3 months ago

I'm wondering how this picture holds up if we include cooking and water heating.

BigGreenJorts• 3 months ago

And cars. Lots of diesel in Albania.

justsomehnguy• 3 months ago

For some it's an eye-opening experience when they compare the states which are the most vocal about going solar and have a look onto the solar map of the world.

Or then they talk about how some countries have miraculous levels of an energy independence and social services and then look at their total population.

ffsm8• 3 months ago

Tbf, solar has gotten so much more effective/cost efficient in the last 12-24 months that it's beating pretty much everything aside from hydro in the cost efficiency department at this point - including (most of) northern Europe and Canada.

Most data you find will be using data that's massively out of date and be off by at least 2x though...

I had another facepalm moment when I read about EU planning to go nuclear again. That would've been amazing and smart in 2015 - but now? Yeah, it's dumb af. And that's coming from a German living at the northern end of the country.

tootie• 3 months ago

I think they missed Uruguay which is a similar case. They have also traditionally benefitted from a hydro able to cover 80-90% most of their needs but they made a concerted effort to fill the entire remaining gap with wind and solar.

ZeroGravitas5• 3 months ago

Recent video by someone from Puerto Rico comparing their island's renewables with Uruguay and interviewing the guy in charge of their renewables rollout:

https://youtu.be/TsmlyqZJOug

happosai• 3 months ago

Well hydropower is the "easy" level of the decarbonization game. So it's not really surprising first countries to leave fossil fuels behind are also countries with mountains and rivers.

ignoramous2• 3 months ago

not really surprising first countries to leave fossil fuels behind are also countries with mountains and rivers

What's surprising is countries sharing natural resources are among the pioneers, despite the geopolitical implication... like Ethiopia testing the Egyptian waters by building dams on the Nile.

JoBrad2• 3 months ago

Or, more charitably: use the Strangler Fig method to modernize your systems, and start with low-hanging fruit.

LastTrain3• 3 months ago

They worked within the constraints of their own topography - good and bad - to make it work. That is too hard for everyone else?

phtrivier3• 3 months ago

It is indeed harder if you topography writes off certain kind of electricity production.

But of course, good for them that they used their mountains / rivers ! All all power to them to electrify their economies if they have surplus ! And even better if they can use some reservoirs and pump to store, because it means they can diversify their productions by adding wind / solar and store a lot, until batteries of seasonal scale become more widespread.

geoduck14• 3 months ago

So, the lessons for all other countries in the world is pretty clear: grow yourselves some mountains, dig yourselves a big river, and dam, baby, dam !!

It is a relief that Environmentalists have decided that hydro counts as "renewable" energy! When I was in school, hydro was considered really bad for the environment, and projects like the Hoover dam and Yangzie River dam were "not helping"

psychoslave2• 3 months ago

They certainly can be disastrous in ecological terms, and will disrupt all biotopes along the concerned water flows.

But it's extremely renewable none the less.

setsewerd• 3 months ago

Reminds me of when Bjork was protesting the construction of a new hydropower plant in Iceland, when the Director of Iceland's National power company (behind the project) was actually her uncle. I used to be romantically involved with someone in his side of the family and noticed Bjork was conspicuously absent from any family gatherings he hosted, of which there were many.

Gareth321• 3 months ago

Many environmentalists seem completely unwilling to acknowledge the concept of tradeoffs. Unless a solution is 100% perfect in every way, they reject it. Or at least, the committees and infighting become so protracted that they cannot agree no a solution. This is true of our world today. We have limited resources with which to address things like pollution and emissions. We should be focusing on the most impactful changes first, posing the fewest costs. Nothing has zero cost.

Sharlin• 3 months ago

I guess if you're not allowed to use solar in the form of chemical potentials frozen long ago into carbon-y molecules buried underground, the second best thing is to use solar in the form of gravitational potential stored in water molecules that's constantly getting replenished because the planet just happens to work like that.

Flere-Imsaho2• 3 months ago

Hydro electricity is also one of the most dangerous forms of energy production:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

(This is the worst disaster, but could put Chernobyl to shame?)

Full list here:

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

iso16314• 3 months ago

Well most dangerous apart from coal, oil, gas, biomass?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

And that's before you bring into the deaths due to climate change

lxgr7• 3 months ago

Sure, if you consider only local dangers and don't care at all about regional or global externalities.

_blk• 3 months ago

Makes me wonder why solar is not on the list.. I thought all gore said that was gonna solve all energy problems. (Of course not, he's a politician, but I'd have expected to at least see it with some relevant percentage in the African countries) Or could it be that solar is distributed enough to not appear because it's set up directly by/with the consumer rather than the grid producer?

littlestymaar22• 3 months ago

So, the lessons for all other countries in the world is pretty clear: grow yourselves some mountains, dig yourselves a big river, and dam, baby, dam !!

Came to say that, every time you'll see a country running on 100% renewables for an extended period, it's going to be hydro, because it's the only controllable supply among renewables (with geothermal as well, but it's been so niche so far I put it aside, but I hope it will change).

Unfortunately most of the hype and investments go to solar and wind power, which fundamentally don't offer the same capabilities. (Solar is fine as long as you're in q sunny place that is not in Europe though because it can be predictable enough to be relied on, but Solar in above 40° North and wind are borderline scams at this point).

jmyeet• 3 months ago

Ultragrav (YC S27). We plan on generating the geographic tyranny of who has rivers and mountains and who doesn't by seeking to use ultrasonic audio to disrupt gravity so you don't have to hear it. We're hiring in Kansas city, KS.

In all seriousness, thereis of course a list on Wikipedia of countries by renewable electricity production [1]. China leads here but also has 1.4B people and still has significant coal usage and oil and gas imports. But they're working really hard to wean themselves off of fossil fuels while still rapidly industrializing.

China does have mountains and has built the Three Gorges Dam, which is just massive and produces ~22GW. They're building a dam that'll produce almost three times as much power, the Medog Hydropower Station [2], which is planned for ~60GW.

The part that annoys me about a lot of developed nations is that they engage in greenwashing by simply exporting their emissions to poorer countries eg [3]. Let's at least be honest about what fossil fuels we continue to use and the emissions we indirectly create.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medog_Hydropower_Station

[3] https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/18/1533104...

3abiton• 3 months ago

So, the lessons for all other countries in the world is pretty clear: grow yourselves some mountains, dig yourselves a big river, and dam, baby, dam !!

You're forgetting corruption. Many countries can easily go 100% renewable, but there is no profit for dictators/politicians to do so. Most of africa, or the middle east, yet you still have many regions without electricity or water, so that people worry about food for tomorrow instead of better governance in the future.

hunterpayne9• 3 months ago

"Many countries can easily go 100% renewable"

Sorry but no. There are several major issues with that if you want your power to stay on all the time. Storage would be needed which even for the smallest countries on this list would require over a years worth of worldwide battery production. And grid stabilization would be almost impossible and that's just for starters. All 9 of these countries are mostly hydro. The renewables in this case are almost incidental. Also these dams were built decades ago for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment.

dagurp• 3 months ago

Iceland has been selling credits aggressively so my electric bill will include nuclear and coal power

lostlogin• 3 months ago

22,67% of electricity consumed by Albania is imported from Greece, which generates 22% of its electricity from gas. Interestingly, Albania exports about as much to Montenegro as it imports from Greece.

There is solar on my roof. It makes about 125% what we use, but we import power from the grid every day, usually early am before the sun is up, or most days in winter.

In summer we are fully charged and exporting from about 1pm-6pm, with the line out maxed (at a pitiful 5kW, screw you Vector. New Zealand).

I’d guess Albania has the same issue when it isn’t sunny.

imadhiskenderbe• 3 months ago

It is similar but not because of the sun. It produces around 99% from hydro which means that sometimes during the year it overproduces and sells it and when there is less water they have to buy some.

cm2187• 3 months ago

Also half of these countries have frequent outages. Not sure it is much of an example for anyone else (though I frequently hear experts advocating for outages in western countries, i.e. you won't be able to run your washing machine when you need it, it will be up to how much electricity there in the grid - they call that progress).

indigo945• 3 months ago

    (I'm kidding, but I'm sure someone has a pie-in-the-sky geoengineering startup 
    about to disrupt topography using either AI, blockchain, or both.)

Well, there was that plan to use scores of nuclear bombs to alter the geography of Egypt in such a way that the Mediterranean could be drained into the Qattara Basin [1]. I think the story is somewhat well-known now, but it proves, at least, that pie-in-the-sky geoengineering startups are not a phenomenon unique to the 21st century. And given that nuclear bombs essentially were the blockchain of the 1950s, that is altogether unsurprising.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qattara_Depression_Project#Fri...

whatsupdog• 3 months ago

And given that nuclear bombs essentially were the blockchain of the 1950s

They were not destructive enough.

valgaze• 3 months ago

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/453701

“Use of Nuclear Explosions for Excavation of Sea-Level Canal Across the Negev Desert”

harrouet2• 3 months ago

100%

Writing such an article without mentioning nuclear power is a sign of dishonesty.

Wind and solar can't live alone, since they only operate when nature wants it. Perfect match for hydro, but we don't all live in the Hymalaya. Most (e.g. Germany) burn gas and coal to supplement.

Nuclear is the only tech suited for decarbonation, and once you have it, you don't need solar and power because 95% of the cost is in the construction. Since you'll build it to sustain peak demand, wind or solar are just extra costs.

tracker12• 3 months ago

I'm with you... beyond that, there's a lot of other costs involved with solar and in particular wind. Least of which is disposal/recycling on top of the materials and transport for assembly. I think that especially in areas that don't have extreme storms or earthquakes, that nuclear is the most sane answer for electricity generation.

I think another pressing issue would be a resurgence of natural airflow usage from underground exchanges instead of relying solely on air conditioning.

kilzimir• 3 months ago

Portugal doesn't have any mountains and most of the electricity still comes from hydro! (Not saying you can build hydro everywhere, but you certainly don't need the Himalayas)

pelasaco3• 3 months ago

wondering why isn't Brazil in this list https://www.iea.org/countries/brazil

sourcegrift• 3 months ago

Why biased against. Clouds, SSR, and quantum?

tim3332• 3 months ago

A jolly pie-in-the-sky one is to dam the red sea which could produce 50 GW. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea_Dam)

weezing• 3 months ago

So, the lessons for all other countries in the world is pretty clear: grow yourselves some mountains, dig yourselves a big river, and dam, baby, dam !!

And have basically no meaningful industry and small population.

ilitirit• 3 months ago

Probably at least slightly misleading, just reading the names of some of the countries in the list (I am from South Africa).

Just because a country generates 100% of its energy from renewables, it doesn't mean that its enough to power the entire or even majority of the country. Case in point: DRC. I believe only half of the population has access to electricity. It's been a while since I've looked into continental stats, but a quick Google search suggests the situation hasn't changed that much in the last few years.

runako5• 3 months ago

Pushback against the outliers of small + blessed with hydro and geothermal is overshadowing real wins:

- California: 83% renewable, dominated by solar

- Spain: 73%, dominated by solar & wind

- Portugal: 90%, dominated by wind & solar

- The Netherlands: 86%, dominated by solar & wind

- Great Britain: 71%, dominated by wind & solar

There's real momentum happening.

jacomoRodriguez• 3 months ago

Where can I look up this numbers? (Just curious)

arrosenberg• 3 months ago

For California, CAISO publishes a ton of data. Here is daily fuel mix - https://www.gridstatus.io/charts/fuel-mix?iso=caiso

You can also see Texas (ERCOT), New York and a few other operators.

Tade02• 3 months ago

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/live/fifteen_minutes

vpribish• 3 months ago

good hilights! but - and i mean this kindly - you are starting to talk like an AI: "overshadowing real wins" "There's real momentum happening".

onlyrealcuzzo2• 3 months ago

California: 83% renewable, dominated by solar

California's grid is pretty decently balanced. Solar isn't even close to 50% - so saying that it "dominates" is pretty misleading.

It's like ~30% solar, ~12% hydro, ~10% wind, ~10% nuclear, all other renewables ~8% (~70% renewable, including nuclear) -> ~30% fossil fuels.

Are you maybe only counting domestic production and not total consumption? Or are you looking at the best time of the year and not the full year?

Or am I looking at sources that are >1 year out of date and in one year they've jumped from ~70% renewable to ~83%?

lokar• 3 months ago

AIUI, there has been excess solar at peak, but batteries have growing very fast. That might have caused a big change even in a year.

sesm• 3 months ago

Nuclear is not renewable though, those isotopes were created when some past generation star collapsed as supernova.

runako5• 3 months ago

EIA puts this out daily:

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/daily_...

Today was 31% solar, 16% wind, 16% hydro, 6% geothermal, etc.

Some of the difference to your numbers will be seasonal/weather-related, but the pace of solar and wind installation is such that data that's even a year or two old can be wildly out of date.

KevinMS• 3 months ago

Isn't that the list of high energy prices and blackouts?

tialaramex8• 3 months ago

Although "Getting rid of cheaper electricity generation would make the electricity cheaper" is genuinely an actual right wing talking point in the UK it doesn't make any sense. The reason it's a talking point is that they're funded by billionaires who'd reap the rewards from new fossil fuel licensing. They know they can't deliver, but what they learned from Brexit is that their supporters aren't too smart and simple messages, even if nonsensical, resonate well with those voters. "Drill baby drill" is simple. Wrong, but simple.

Right now in a dark and not very windy UK w/ 10GW of gas burners running the spot price for electricity here is almost £150 per MWh, but at 10am it was sunny with a brisk wind and sure enough that spot price was about £25 per MWh. Gee, I wonder whether the wind and sun are cheaper...

rootusrootus• 3 months ago

Are you referring to California? IIRC the prices are driven by several factors, including expensive payouts for wildfire damage, but there isn't anything suggesting that renewables is a major factor. And rolling blackouts haven't been a thing since 2020. That might have been arguably related to renewables since they were experiencing abnormally hot climate change related heat waves that were extending into the evening hours and driving high air conditioning load beyond the time solar was prepared to handle it. I believe that in the meantime they've installed quite a number of batteries, which is why it is not a problem now.

bopjesvla3• 3 months ago

The Netherlands: 86%, dominated by solar & wind

The Dutch bureau of statistics reports 50%, of which a plurality (one third) is biomass. The Netherlands is also famously gas-dependent. Natural gas isn’t converted to electricity for heating and many industrial applications. Can’t quickly find stats on production here, but renewables are only 17% of total energy usage. Renewables without biomass are ~12% of total energy usage.

IshKebab• 3 months ago

This is just goalpost moving. Only a couple of decades ago we were at a solid 0% everywhere.

teamonkey• 3 months ago

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/NL/12mo/monthly

dalyons5• 3 months ago

California is a huge success story at a massive scale. Looking at Casio right now it’s 92% clean energy. For a state of 39 million people! And batteries keep getting deployed faster and faster

2022 - 48% gas power on grid

2025 - 25% gas power on grid

What insane progress.

mpweiher13• 3 months ago

Most expensive electricity in the contiguous United States. By quite a margin.

By contrast, Georgia, which has to pay for the "disastrous" Vogtle 3/4 nuclear construction project, pays less than half that.

Remember: disastrous nuclear projects are significantly better than renewable successes.

offmycloud• 3 months ago

California is not anywhere near 83% renewable for total electricity generation. [1] Are you just adding up nameplace capacities without capacity factors?

1. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=66704

dalyons5• 3 months ago

83 renewable isn’t right, but it’s up to 67% clean in 2025, which is still pretty impressive

runako5• 3 months ago

One thing about power generation stats like these is they are incredibly sensitive to examination dates given the rapid growth of (especially) solar.

That EIA site cuts off in August. The same EIA report shows solar grew 17% from 2024-2025. You can plug in your own assumptions to the solar growth curve since then, as well as your assumptions about the natural gas curve given the ride natgas has been on since August.

EIA also produces live status on the daily generation mix[1]. 69% today was wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro. 12% nuclear, so some of this is whether you consider nuclear renewable or not.

CA's power generation may cost more, but the pricing (for raw power at least) should be a lot more predictable than those of us dependent on fossil fuels. Natural gas, for example, has undergone a ~100% price round-trip in the last 12 months.

1 - https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/daily_...

NoLinkToMe3• 3 months ago

Are you just drawing from today's figures? Or annual figures?

I just checked for NL and in the past 12 months it's 50/50 for electricity (fossil/renewable), with about 10% of the renewables being biomass which isn't particularly renewable.

For NL for example we import wood pellets from North America and then burn them. Yeah, not great. Essentially it's releasing emissions by burning 30-40 years of American forests, which might be replanted, and will have soaked up the Co2 around 2065. Therefore it gets to count those emissions as zero (renewable), despite having a full effect on climate change in the next half century which is critical. Not to mention there's a 15% roundtrip loss from logging, shipping etc.

Agree there's real momentum but these are misleading figures.

rstuart4133• 3 months ago

There is pushback here against the figures you are quoting.

Here is something real. South Australia electricity production averaged 75% from renewables last year. Wikipedia (for 2023) put it at 70%: "70 per cent of South Australia's electricity is generated from renewable sources. This is projected to be 85 per cent by 2026, with a target of 100 per cent by 2027." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_South_Australia They averaged 75% in 2025.

South Australia has no hydro to speak of. They have a some local gas, but no local coal. They do have good wind and solar resources. To me it looks like the transition was driven largely by immediate pragmatism concerns, as renewables are so much cheaper than gas. The politicians make a lot of noise about it of course, but I suspect if they had a local cheap source of coal the outcome would have been different.

Their electricity prices are high by Australian standards - but they have to pay for the gas they import to cover the missing 25%, and gas is by far the most expensive form of generation in Australia. And they are paying for all the new equipment this transition requires.

dyauspitr• 3 months ago

You’re a bit off on the California numbers. It’s off my about 10%. Either ways, what a state. It’s basically a country on its own.

PowerElectronix• 3 months ago

Sadly these are edge cases due to either a lot of hydro, which is terrible for the environment in most cases or having neighbors that buy the renewable and help stabilize the grid with conventional energy.

The best way to go green is still going green yourself. Get some panels, batery, inverter and go where no government wants you to go, off-grid. (And a gas generator, too, just in case...)

lateforwork• 3 months ago

Meanwhile the US is spending billions to cancel renewable energy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/23/climate/offshore-wind-gas...

pfdietz22• 3 months ago

King Canute Trump trying to order back the tide.

LastTrain3• 3 months ago

Blows me away that energy policy is so political, and that somehow self-styled libertarians who don’t say a peep about oil subsidies are deeply offended by renewable ones. It you consider yourself libertarian can you at least be forward-thinking enough to see that shifting to renewables is also a step towards decentralization?

krupan7• 3 months ago

Hi! How is it decentralization if it's subsidized by the government?

And which libertarians are in favor of oil subsidies? I'd like to have a talk with them

CMay• 3 months ago

Climate change policy was a valiant effort to de-influence authoritarian petrostates and prevent Russia from achieving its multi-century goal of expanding its access to actual warm water ports. The major conflicts between Russia and Japan were essentially over that. It's why Japan even attacked Korea, because Russia was trying to gain influence there and it was an essential launching off point if Russia was ever going to attack Japan.

If climate has already changed so much that Russia's ports are no longer going to freeze, then green energy initiatives may just put us at a disadvantage since we don't manufacture most of the products. Solar panels, wind turbines, we don't control a lot of that supply chain which isn't healthy.

There are other advantages to renewable energy, but at the moment the USD benefits from oil reliance and transitioning away from oil while maintaining USD influence is an important goal.

At the same time, oil infrastructure does tend to have a lot of weak points, where renewable energy can be easier to spread out. Eventually I think it will be relegated to military and byproducts more, but for now there is an abundant supply.

sph• 3 months ago

Seeing so many sub-Saharan countries generating >= 50% of their electricity from renewables makes me smile: https://static.the-independent.com/2024/04/16/11/renewable%2...

bluGill2• 3 months ago

It makes me sad - most of them are fairly poor and so don't use much energy. I want those people to have the wealth to consume as much energy as me. (My city is also 100% renewable but since I live in the us we don't show near as well on the charts overall.

celsoazevedo• 3 months ago

Is the glass half empty or half full?

If they're able to produce clean energy to cover a large part of their needs, then that's a reason to be happy. We can also hope their quality of life improves without having to waste as much energy as people in the US do. The amount of electricity, gas, etc, used just to heat or cool down houses... if they can be smarter and do it while using less energy, then good for them.

rs_rs_rs_rs_rs2• 3 months ago

All these industrial powerhouses like Iceland and Albania!

ardit33• 3 months ago

Lol... Hey now, I am Albanian, and we have delicious food. :) And export a bunch of random things (like Oregano, Olive Oil, Lavender, Shoes, etc..), and some steel and oil. But, mostly 'light industry' stuff.

rs_rs_rs_rs_rs2• 3 months ago

Not hating, would have made fun of my poor eastern european country too if it would have been on that list.

efitz• 3 months ago

Mixing in geothermal and hydro really distorts the story. Although technically correct, the common usage connotation of “renewable energy “ today is “wind and solar”.

Lichtso• 3 months ago

the common usage connotation of “renewable energy “ today is “wind and solar”

Hydro, wind and solar. Hydro is often even more important because it runs more steadily than the other two.

Geothermal and nuclear are neither fossil nor renewable, they are their own category.

mentalgear2• 3 months ago

What a great beacon of hope to consider that we are closer than we thought in the clean energy rollout ! I read somewhere, not sure though how it is assessed/how valid it is, that last year 50% world-wide came already from clean power, with countries like the UK around 50% in the middle and others like Spain far ahead.

esskay2• 3 months ago

Yeah UK's currently going through the biggest rollout of renewable energy ever, the pace is insanely high. Theres new rules to allow plug in solar coming into effect too with kits already available for renters and such.

jonatron• 3 months ago

They announced they're thinking about amending regulations to allow plug in solar at some point. Hopefully something eventually actually gets done.

mentalgear2• 3 months ago

Article from 2024: still super impressive in 2024 yet I'd like more recent numbers to see the progress.

dalyons5• 3 months ago

Worse, the summary article makes claims using 2022 data which is so out of date to be useless

birktj• 3 months ago

This is a bit of a weird list. This looks at the percentage of electricity generation that is renewable. But some of these countries are net importers. I think the final row in the table from the report [1] is more interesting. It compares the generation of renewable energy as a percentage of demand. There are quite a few countries that don't quite have 100% renewable generation, but generate way more than 100% of their demand as renewable energy.

[1] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/Countri...

Thlom3• 3 months ago

Should also compare with total energy consumption. Lots of countries have good electricity generation numbers, but use gas or oil at the consumer level for heating (and cooking) and oil products (diesel, gasoline) for transportation. Electrification matters.

amarant• 3 months ago

Honestly surprised Iceland doesn't rely more on geothermal, the entire country is a volcano! I had expected a 70-30 split in the other direction

yownie• 3 months ago

most people from abroad do, but most of that geothermal goes to home heating and not power generation too.

svth• 3 months ago

Geothermal is fantastic for heating. Speaking as an Icelander, we have so much hot water in Reykjavík that we even use the residue to keep our pavements clear of ice in winter. Pipes under the sidewalks carry exiting geothermally heated water from nearby houses. It's great technology and has served us well.

MrDresden• 3 months ago

Hydro power is older and thus makes up a bigger share. There are plans to increase geothermal drilling in certain areas, as far as I am aware.

flakiness• 3 months ago

Japan used to have many dams for the electricity but then scaled them down (or not scale it up) due to environmental concern. I'm not sure it was a right call given the limited availability of options there. They are also strong anti-nuclear sentiment which I have some sympathy. However you need something you have to make a call.

This map says hydro share is like 8%. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/JP/live/fifteen_min...

leonidasrup12• 3 months ago

The article cites research publication by Stanford University professor of civil and environmental engineering Mark Z. Jacobson, very famous 100% wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) advocate.

His past research was already cited by Leonardo DiCaprio on Sept. 23 2014, during opening of the UN Climate Summit.

“The good news is that renewable energy is not only achievable but good economic policy,” DiCaprio told the more than 120 world leaders assembled. “New research shows that by 2050 clean, renewable energy could supply 100 percent of the world’s energy needs using existing technologies, and it would create millions of jobs.”

https://cee.stanford.edu/news/what-do-mark-z-jacobson-leonar...

The 100% renewable papers by Mark Z. Jacobson were subject to strong criticism. Jacobson filed a lawsuit in 2017 against the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Christopher Clack as the principal author of the paper for defamation. In February 2024, Jacobson lost the appeal and was required to pay defendants more than $500,000 in legal fees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson

Jacobson is also very strong critic of nuclear energy. In calculating CO2 emissions from using nuclear energy, he includes carbon emissions associated with the burning of cities resulting from a nuclear war aided by the expansion of nuclear energy and weapons to countries previously without them.

Jacobson assumes that some form of nuclear induced burning that will occur once every 30 years.

raptor99• 3 months ago

Whew, very glad that a leading scientific voice like DiCaprio is speaking of this to world leaders. Solid foundations.

cheema33• 3 months ago

Whew, very glad that a leading scientific voice like DiCaprio is speaking of this to world leaders.

General public does not know the scientists by name. When they say something, few people listen. When a famous person says the same thing, many more people listen. That is the world we live in.

I'll take DiCaprio or any famous person promoting a good cause any day.

hbarka• 3 months ago

Link to the source data:

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/Countri...

librasteve3• 3 months ago

I see that Norway is big on renewables - great that all that Oil & Gas revenue can be used to build hydro & wind to salve their conscience.

chinabot• 3 months ago

Interesting looking at the data, that Norway generates 4x the electricity of NZ and they are roughly the same size and population I assume it exports most.

librasteve3• 3 months ago

I found this info... https://www.nationalgrid.com/national-grid-powers-worlds-lon...

UK generation is 30GW right now, so this is ~ 5%

By enabling the trade of renewable energy between the two countries, North Sea Link will help reduce the burning of fossil fuels in the UK and avoid 23 million tonnes of carbon emissions by 2030.

The 450-mile cable, which connects Blyth in Northumberland with the Norwegian village of Kvilldal, near Stavanger, will start with a maximum capacity of 700 megawatts (MW) and gradually increase to the link’s full capacity of 1400MW over a three-month period. The gradual increase in capacity follows the Norwegian system operator’s standard approach for integrating new interconnectors. Once at full capacity, NSL will provide enough clean electricity to power 1.4 million homes.

North Sea Link will be the fifth interconnector for National Grid, which also operates links to Belgium, France and the Netherlands. By 2030, 90% of electricity imported via National Grid’s interconnectors will be from zero carbon sources saving 100 million tonnes of carbon – equivalent to taking two million cars off the road.

NSL has taken six years to build. Laying of the undersea cables began in 2018 and more than four million working hours have been spent on the project, including 5,880 working days at sea.

Norwegian power generation is sourced from hydropower plants connected to large reservoirs, which can respond faster to fluctuations in demand compared to other major generation technologies. However, as the water level in reservoirs is subject to weather conditions, production varies throughout seasons and years.

When wind generation is high and electricity demand low in Britain, NSL will enable renewable power to be exported from the UK, conserving water in Norway’s reservoirs. When demand is high in Britain and there is low wind generation, hydro power can be imported from Norway, helping to ensure secure, affordable and sustainable electricity supplies for UK consumers.

Thlom3• 3 months ago

A lot of the electricity is gobbled up by a few aluminum plants, but in addition to that Norway is a very electrified country. We don't use gas at the consumer level at all (except for grilling 2 months of the year, lol) and are rapidly moving transportation to electricity.

In a normal year we are a net exporter of electricity, but it's only around 10% that is exported.

MandieD• 3 months ago

It's not (mostly) to salve their consciences; it's fundamental to their avoidance of the Resource Curse/"Dutch Disease". Norway, unlike just about everywhere else "blessed" (and I use those scare-quotes intentionally) with oil and gas, anticipated the value of not getting high on one's own supply: they have some of the most heavily taxed vehicle fuel in Europe, as well as strict limits on how much oil/gas tax revenue can be spent each year with the rest going into an enormous investment fund.

librasteve3• 3 months ago

well yeah. my point is that when you have a small population and massive reserves then you can print money - but rather like we in the UK gloat that we do not burn coal any more (we just buy stuff from China and they do that on our behalf with Aussie coal), its not really a good thing to ship oil & gas abroad where dirtier countries can burn it ... there is a massive argument in the UK right now about whether to reopen the North Sea in the wake of Trumps Iranian "victory" ... but I guess we (all) need to back the case for leaving fossil fuels in the ground

the alternative is the Jeremy Clarkson philisophy that mankind is so greedy that we will burn evey gramme of fossil fuel on planet earth and nothing can stop that (so I may as well burn some in a Ferrari F48)

Epa095• 3 months ago

Funny story is that a very important reason why Norway ended up with the oil policies it did is a Iraq-born immigrant named Farouk Al-Kasim.

He was a geologist with a Norwegian wife, moving to Norwegy since their kid had cerebral palsy. In a testament to how desperate Norway was for competence in petroleum, he could pretty much just walk in to the ministry of industry and get a job, and ended up writing the nation’s blueprint for how it would organise its fledgling oil industry. Without him things could have gone very very different, and he has been awarded Royal Norwegian Order of Saint Olav Knight 1st Class for his importance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farouk_Al-Kasim

https://web.archive.org/web/20100123225932/http://www.ft.com...

triceratops• 3 months ago

Better than having oil and gas revenue and not using it to build hydro and wind. Like some other countries we can all name.

Tor3• 3 months ago

The first hydro power plant in Norway was set up in 1882, and last century it grew very quickly and was fundamental to alumin[i]um and fertiliser production in Norway. Domestic energy use has been close to a 100% hydro electric for almost just as long (and a lot of industry in addition to the above, e.g. iron smelting). Oil and gas are latecomers relative to this and the revenue from that is not behind this.

JumpCrisscross• 3 months ago

About 80% of global primary energy consumption comes from fossil fuels [1]. With renewables growing at 10x the rate of demand growth, we’re moving in the right direction. But it’s dishonest to frame it as a “tipping point.”

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consum...

_ph_• 3 months ago

The comparison with "primary energy" misses the inefficiency of the usage of fossil fuels. If you electrify the main uses of fossil energy, the efficency goes up by like a factor of 3 - electric cars vs. ICE, heat pumps vs. burning fuels.

Yes, it is a long journey until the whole energy consumption is moved to renewables, but running the electric grid of a country like Germany to way over 60% on renewables is an important point on the way there.

PunchyHamster• 3 months ago

I don't think countries with rolling blackout should count.

Unless the point here is "if we accept rolling blackouts we too can go full solar"

tensor• 3 months ago

Funny, the last time there was a blackout, I still had power due to my solar, while all the gas people sat in the dark and pouted.

nofriend• 3 months ago

That's exactly what's going on in africa, people are installing solar panels in order to avoid having their power be out half the time.

gatvol• 3 months ago

Lovely. What does their power cost? How much power hungry industry do these countries have?

latentframe• 3 months ago

Cases are very interesting but most rely a lot on hydro and specific geography : the real shift is not exactly 100% renewables in small systems but maybe more whether large industrial economies can replicate this with maintaining grid stability and lower costs

pif• 3 months ago

Wake me up when a heavily industrialized country will be in the list, thanks!

ragebol2• 3 months ago

That is an good next step, but also kind-of moving the goal posts.

Albania is fairly industrialized though I'd say: ~20% of GDP as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania?useskin=vector#Economy vs 15% of US economy as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...

pelasaco3• 3 months ago

I am not sure, but i guess the Paraguayan Energy is mostly generated in Brazil, which as i can see here https://www.iea.org/countries/brazil generates 88.826% of its own energy from Renewables.

midtake• 3 months ago

Where's nuclear? How is solar more renewable than nuclear?

tim3332• 3 months ago

Nuclear burns uranium which doesn't renew much. Although there isn't really a shortage either.

The sun of course will run out one day but people don't really plan that far out.

jaspanglia• 3 months ago

tbh times like this, thinking about only renewables is totally stupidity. Look at what germany did to it's economy stupid fellas.

sehansen5• 3 months ago

Germany: electricity 56% renewables, 4% GDP growth since 2021Q1, 6.4% unemployment

Denmark: electricity 92% renewables, 14% GDP growth since 2021Q1, 2.7% unemployment

I don't think renewables are what's wrong with Germany, more likely it's a) their lack of infrastructure investment and maintenance in the past decade-an-a-half, b) their excessive coddling of established and well-connected businesses.

olalonde• 3 months ago

Not a country but Quebec has been 95%-99% hydro since the 1960s.

ish099• 3 months ago

This is impressive

tracker12• 3 months ago

I still feel that excluding Nuclear is a mistake for a lot of areas.

Seven countries now generate nearly all their electricity from renewables (2024)

Related Stories