Posted on 04/23/2026 8:13:37 AM PDT by Cronos
Global power generation from fossil fuels fell in the first month since the start of the Hormuz closure, with the fall in gas-fired generation offset by large increases in solar and wind power, rather than coal.
The power generation dataset prepared for this analysis covers countries that disclose near-real-time data. The dataset covers 87% of global coal power generation and over 60% of gas-fired power generation.
Total power generation from fossil fuels in countries with near-real-time data fell 1% year-on-year, with coal-fired generation flat and gas-fired generation falling 4%. The dataset covers the world’s largest power markets: China, the U.S., the EU, and India, among others.
Seaborne coal transport volumes fell 3%, to the lowest levels since 2021. The data contradicts widespread expectations that coal power generation would rise in response to the crisis.
The record buildout of solar and wind in 2025 helped reduce the need for power generation from fossil fuels and mitigate the impact of the Hormuz closure.
Outside China, in countries with real-time electricity data, coal-fired power generation fell 3.5% and gas-fired power generation fell 4.0% in March. This was due to increases in solar power (14%) and wind (8%) generation. Hydropower generation also saw a small increase (2%), but this was more than offset by a drop in nuclear power generation.
Coal-fired power generation fell in the U.S., India, EU, Turkey, and South Africa.
In China, power generation from coal increased 2% in March, according to weekly surveys by China Electricity Council, with generators on the coast shifting from gas to coal in response to the high prices. Coal-fired generation was still significantly below 2024 levels, however, as March 2025 recorded a steep 6% drop.
(Excerpt) Read more at energyandcleanair.org ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
What happens when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine? No mention of that. Also, no mention of what happens when the subsidies run out. No mention of the fossil fuel input to manufacture the products that are used to produce this dubious clean energy.
Why are Europeans, Poles included, still trying to sell this pipe dream? Europe is going down the toilet following this green madness and you’re just pushing it hard here on an AMERICAN forum. Begone Eurotrash.
Although the U.S. is a top global oil producer, refineries—particularly on the coasts—are designed to process heavy crude, while much domestic production is light, shale oil.
It is often easier for East Coast or Gulf Coast refineries to ship oil from Canada or overseas than to move domestic crude from inland fields like Texas via pipelines.
As the USA does BOTH - drill for more oil to sell and increases its solar and other generation, this results in more energy independence for the USA and more revenues from selling to other countries.
“Total power generation from fossil fuels in countries with near-real-time data fell 1% year-on-year”
Not much of a dent.
We should never import any oil and only allow exports of what we can’t use.
Sounds to me like more rainbows and skittle-poop from the Euro-Unicorn Greenie Press.
Meanwhile, between runaway islamist immigration and self-immolation of their economies by socialism and green energy, Yurpean Suicide gathers speed and momentum.
The survival of Western Civ requires learning from Yurp’s catastrophic mistakes, but never, Never, NEVER following their lead — nor taking their delusional advice.
“Although the U.S. is a top global oil producer, refineries—particularly on the coasts—are designed to process heavy crude, while much domestic production is light, shale oil.”
And why is that? It is because the rent-seeking scum that rule us will not let us build the refineries to handle the shale oil. We need to fix the problem at its source.
Solar is not baseload capacity without a massive and energy intensive investment in storage capacity.
Modern power grids do not rely on a single source of energy; they use a “grid-balancing” strategy to ensure reliability. Wind and solar are often anti-correlated (it is often windier when it is cloudy or at night). By spreading installations across large geographic areas, a lull in one region is offset by generation in another.
Large-scale battery storage (Lithium-ion and newer flow batteries) and “pumped hydro” (moving water between reservoirs) store excess energy during peak production to release when needed.
As for subsidies - While subsidies helped jump-start the industry, the economic reality has shifted:
1. According to Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis, utility-scale solar and wind are now the cheapest forms of new electricity generation in most of the world, even without subsidies. https://www.wri.org/insights/setting-record-straight-about-renewable-energy
2. The fossil fuel industry receives significantly larger global subsidies. The IMF estimated global fossil fuel subsidies at $7 trillion in 2022. https://www.imf.org/en/topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies
3. Like computers or LED bulbs, the price of renewables has dropped because of economies of scale.
as to your “ No mention of the fossil fuel input to manufacture the products that are used to produce this dubious clean energy.”
- A typical wind turbine or solar panel “pays back” the energy and carbon used to manufacture it within 6 to 12 months of operation. After that point, it provides carbon-free energy for the remainder of its 25–30 year lifespan.
“We should never import any oil and only allow exports of what we can’t use.”
As I understand it, it’s because of a mismatch in refining capability - US refineries—particularly on the coasts—are designed to process heavy crude, while much domestic production is light, shale oil.
Build some.
>> Not much of a dent.
Worse than that even! Essentially all of the decrease is due to the destruction of their own industry. A dying man’s metabolism dropping, and his doctors bragging that his appetite has decreased!
But then, this is Yurp, where the idiots “fight climate change” by throwing paint on thousand year old art...
Horse puckey.
The USA seriously needs to ramp up nuclear power generation and also get a few refineries built that can process the product of USA drilling (light, sweet crude).
Hopefully both are happening.
“Solar is not baseload capacity without a massive and energy intensive investment in storage capacity.”
True, though the cost of battery storage (BESS) fell by roughly 90% between 2010 and 2025. In many parts of the world, “Solar + Storage” (building a solar farm with a giant battery attached) is now cheaper than building a new coal or gas plant.
While manufacturing batteries is energy-intensive, the “Energy Return on Investment” (EROI) remains highly positive. A battery system typically “pays back” the energy used to build it within a few months of shifting clean energy from day to night.
also, by connecting regional grids with long-distance transmission lines, excess solar from a sunny state can power a cloudy one.
Wind often blows harder at night when the sun is down. By balancing solar with wind and existing hydro-power, the “gap” that needs to be filled by batteries becomes much smaller.
It’s definitely not perfect and will definitely not “fully replace” fossil fuels, but it can reduce their usage, increasing domestic energy independence.
Plus, if you set up your own solar panels and some wind, you can get independent of government / big corporations
the numbers are there, you can dispute them if you want
That’s what the WEF thought. But this article is horse excrement. Fossil fuel power generation fell because the euroweenies were not getting oil, period, not because of solar and wind power. Nothing but false propaganda for the green dbags who eat this crap up.
I doubt that number includes the actuarial hazards.
Consider Moss Landing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.