Share of electricity generation from low-carbon sources
Renewables include solar, wind, hydropower, bioenergy, geothermal, wave, and tidal.
It seems like hydropower is doing a lot of lifting across the developing world. Spots like Ethiopia, Paraguay, and Brazil are all heavily dependent on hydroelectricity to power major municipalities and industrial centers.
As climate change impacts the volume and flow of major waterways, I’m a little worried how that ends up.
United States: 43%
That really shocked me. And, I gotta say, these numbers look deeply suspicious. I work in the Houston energy sector, and I can say we’re not slowing down development of the Permian Basin. US fossil fuel exports are only going up. Then there’s the big investment in data center fossil fuel plants that doesn’t seem to be in the forecasts.
That’s not to say we’re also not building out enormous new solar and wind facilities, even in the belly of the Texas Beast. But the Flint Run plant alone is more than they’re reporting. And that’s assuming Trump doesn’t get his 1.25-gigawatt Terra Energy Center in Alaska.
And, I gotta say, these numbers look deeply suspicious. I work in the Houston energy sector, and I can say we’re not slowing down development of the Permian Basin.
I think liquid hydrocarbons are much more likely to be used directly in combustion engines, rather than electricity generation. So even as oil production increases, the percentage of electricity coming from high carbon sources might still be dropping, while the primary energy numbers might go the other way.
But if you look at primary energy mix, fossil fuels are much, much higher percentage: something like 16.8% low carbon (renewable + hydro + nuclear), 35.0% gas, 38.8% oil, 9.3% coal.
I’m gonna be a bit nit-picky here. You linked the “Low-carbon” source, which includes nuclear energy. Granted, long discussions can be had, whether nuclear counts as green energy, but besides that, I’d argue that nuclear should not be used to generate hydrogen - if at all it should be used the same as hydrogen would be used: to bridge gaps when not enough renewable energy is available.
If you switch to renewables-only in the source just above that graph, the world is, according to latest data (2025), at 33.76% electricity generation from renewables. So when it comes to share of electricity generation with renewables we’re on par with sometime around the 1950s. If you switch that graph to absolute generation and fossil fuels, you can see that electricity generation from fossil fuels has not yet started to decline.
On top of all that, this is electricity generation, not primary energy use. For primary energy use we’re currently at 8.59% world-wide.
I’m not saying this to make us give in, I’m just saying that there is a long way to go - 100 years are (hopefully) a bit too much, but it’s definitely not around the corner. And as an aside maybe also highlight that reductions in (primary) energy consumption are as important as ever.
nuclear should not be used to generate hydrogen - if at all it should be used the same as hydrogen would be used: to bridge gaps when not enough renewable energy is available
Nuclear power can definitely not fill this role of a fast switching on and off tool, it works most efficient as a steady long term output. Technically it can stop sending electricity to the grid, but that wastes all the heat that keeps being generated and is immensely inefficient. Heat storage in liquid salt seems to be an upcoming thing for nuclear power, but is not used there yet.
This statistic includes nuclear and bioenergy. I’m unsure about bioenergy, but nuclear certainly can not qualify as green. Unless you mean green glowing stuff, like nuclear waste is often depicted.
Also 100years are a very long time
Yes and humanity is sometimes very very very slow to change for the better.
They’re probably using green to mean “not CO2 producing” given the context of the discussion being about CO2 emissions. As far as I’m aware nuclear energy fits that criteria.
They’re probably using green to mean “not CO2 producing” given the context of the discussion being about CO2 emissions
I understand the argument and yes CO2 emissions are indeed lower. However, only marketing/sales/lobbyists/politicians would use that to sell it as green energy. It’s not green, it’s not environment friendly, it’s not renewable.
Actually one could argue that it is extremely environment friendly, seeing as Chernobyl has become a wildlife sanctuary.
In terms of carbon emissions, it’s pretty lean. You’re only really talking about the cost of concrete and of harvesting uranium fuel, which is negligible beside the cost of coal or natural gas.
humanity is sometimes very very very slow to change for the better.
The turnover to wind and solar has been genuinely shocking in its rapidity. Market forces are one hell of a drug.
The world is currently at 42.6% green electricity. Also 100years are a very long time.
It seems like hydropower is doing a lot of lifting across the developing world. Spots like Ethiopia, Paraguay, and Brazil are all heavily dependent on hydroelectricity to power major municipalities and industrial centers.
As climate change impacts the volume and flow of major waterways, I’m a little worried how that ends up.
That really shocked me. And, I gotta say, these numbers look deeply suspicious. I work in the Houston energy sector, and I can say we’re not slowing down development of the Permian Basin. US fossil fuel exports are only going up. Then there’s the big investment in data center fossil fuel plants that doesn’t seem to be in the forecasts.
That’s not to say we’re also not building out enormous new solar and wind facilities, even in the belly of the Texas Beast. But the Flint Run plant alone is more than they’re reporting. And that’s assuming Trump doesn’t get his 1.25-gigawatt Terra Energy Center in Alaska.
I think liquid hydrocarbons are much more likely to be used directly in combustion engines, rather than electricity generation. So even as oil production increases, the percentage of electricity coming from high carbon sources might still be dropping, while the primary energy numbers might go the other way.
So for our electricity mix in 2025, we reached 17.4% nuclear, 10.3% wind, 8.6% solar, 5.4% hydro, 1.0% bioenergy.
But if you look at primary energy mix, fossil fuels are much, much higher percentage: something like 16.8% low carbon (renewable + hydro + nuclear), 35.0% gas, 38.8% oil, 9.3% coal.
Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clarifying.
I’m gonna be a bit nit-picky here. You linked the “Low-carbon” source, which includes nuclear energy. Granted, long discussions can be had, whether nuclear counts as green energy, but besides that, I’d argue that nuclear should not be used to generate hydrogen - if at all it should be used the same as hydrogen would be used: to bridge gaps when not enough renewable energy is available.
If you switch to renewables-only in the source just above that graph, the world is, according to latest data (2025), at 33.76% electricity generation from renewables. So when it comes to share of electricity generation with renewables we’re on par with sometime around the 1950s. If you switch that graph to absolute generation and fossil fuels, you can see that electricity generation from fossil fuels has not yet started to decline.
On top of all that, this is electricity generation, not primary energy use. For primary energy use we’re currently at 8.59% world-wide.
I’m not saying this to make us give in, I’m just saying that there is a long way to go - 100 years are (hopefully) a bit too much, but it’s definitely not around the corner. And as an aside maybe also highlight that reductions in (primary) energy consumption are as important as ever.
Nuclear power can definitely not fill this role of a fast switching on and off tool, it works most efficient as a steady long term output. Technically it can stop sending electricity to the grid, but that wastes all the heat that keeps being generated and is immensely inefficient. Heat storage in liquid salt seems to be an upcoming thing for nuclear power, but is not used there yet.
This statistic includes nuclear and bioenergy. I’m unsure about bioenergy, but nuclear certainly can not qualify as green. Unless you mean green glowing stuff, like nuclear waste is often depicted.
Yes and humanity is sometimes very very very slow to change for the better.
They’re probably using green to mean “not CO2 producing” given the context of the discussion being about CO2 emissions. As far as I’m aware nuclear energy fits that criteria.
I understand the argument and yes CO2 emissions are indeed lower. However, only marketing/sales/lobbyists/politicians would use that to sell it as green energy. It’s not green, it’s not environment friendly, it’s not renewable.
Actually one could argue that it is extremely environment friendly, seeing as Chernobyl has become a wildlife sanctuary.
In terms of carbon emissions, it’s pretty lean. You’re only really talking about the cost of concrete and of harvesting uranium fuel, which is negligible beside the cost of coal or natural gas.
The turnover to wind and solar has been genuinely shocking in its rapidity. Market forces are one hell of a drug.