deeeeeznutz
1428
32
4
Feb 9, 2026 11:37 PM
deeeeeznutz
1428
32
4
hushpuppyextraordinaire
1.21 Gigawatts
TigerThong
need more renewables faster is all im seeing
ychaouche
Benny: what? what? what? what? what? what? what? what? what? what? what? what?
Teacher: only 12 whats Benny? that's not very bright!
-- tribute to NeddySeagoon
Problemwoodchuck
Samuel L Jackson contributed one Jule back in the 90s and that's still going
GuitarGeorge
Cool, now show which countries use the most coal and oil.
ProfessorMuChao
Directly or indirectly? Example: US has arguably outsourced a not-insignificant source of our fossil fuel consumption and associated carbon emissions to China (and other nations). We outsourced our manufacturing there, and now import the products. Their energy consumption/emissions go up, ours go down. But if their energy/emissions go up to supply the US with consumer goods, who's really responsible?
cousteau
We're not gonna make it. If climate change doesn't do us in, fuel scarcity and war will.
Coltaine
Ok is there a 2025 edition?
deeeeeznutz
It would look almost exactly the same
ProfessorMuChao
fwiw, annual reports generally come out after summer of the following year. And to OP's comment, gonna look very much the same, just more energy consumed overall.
ProfessorMuChao
Actually, looks like this org has released the 2026 report (https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review). Main takeaway: total energy consumption is up by 1.7% in pretty much every sector/resource. Renewables accounted for most of new growth in electricity (mainly solar), but the general ratio remains much the same as 2025. I.e. growth in renewables, but no real offset of fossil fuels.
rydecker
1 EJ is is 1 QUINTILLION Joules ....10 to the 18 power (what's a Joule i.e. 7 Joules is the energy a 7 Watt light bulb uses in 1 second).
cousteau
Or 278 billion kilowatt-hour, or 239 trillion Calories (uppercase C), or 978 trillion Btu (whatever those are).
ProfessorMuChao
lmao, BTU's are my favorite. The amount of energy required to raise one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. Basically what you get from burning a single matchstick.
ychaouche
Can we make more nuclear?
cousteau
It has some issues IMO, but it beats burning stuff. (The issues mainly being fuel scarcity and control over it by few countries, same as with oil and the like.)
ProfessorMuChao
Can we? Sure. Will we? Prolly not to a significant scale.
ychaouche
why not?
ProfessorMuChao
High upfront costs, complexity, scale, public fear (justified or not, though I tend to personally think mostly unjustified), loss of operator knowledge (esp. a problem in the US), waste management (we know *how* to do it, but very few places have properly invested in long-term storage sites), and at the end of the day, it's still based predominately on a finite resource that's found in only a small handful of places globally.
deeeeeznutz
Nuclear is a long term, expensive investment. Most countries don't have the money or the patience.
CookieMonstersCrumbs
Imagine what we could do if the few people hoarding wealth weren't allowed to.
KuldFyt
It also requires knowing that either your society will continue to make responsible maintenance investments for many decades to come, or will make a large, up-front investment to deal with the waste. That was a pretty good bet when my grandparents were running shit in their 40's and 50's. It's a shit bet now that my parents are running shit into their 70's.
Chereazi
Why would we, we're seeing again in France that it's not as reliable as people keep claiming.
Renewables are a much better investment.
imsurroundedbyassholes
It's extremely reliable. Relying on the lowest bidder is not.
Chereazi
They can't cool anymore efficiently because it's too damn hot, and it's only going to get hotter. Same issue with draughts and other extreme conditions that are getting more extreme. Sure, any issue CAN be solved, but not at costs that make it competitive.
UserNamesArentEasy
Still better than coal, so it's worth solving.
Chereazi
Not if you get more power with renewables for the same money. You're just wasting potential and adding decades to a replacement of coal.
ProfessorMuChao
We might disagree on nuclear generally (pretty sure we've had a spat or two before on the topic, lol), but I genuinely don't know why you're being downvoted here. Whether you're in favor of nuclear or not, what Chereazi points out is simply fact:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/06/24/1139676/europe-heat-power-plants/
Heatwaves are issue that can affect pretty much any thermoelectric plant (hydro plants as well, albeit for different reasons).
gcleff19101
I know nothing about any of this. Just so pleasantly surprised at your interaction here. Anyway carry on.