And now something positive:
solar and wind energy production in the EU surpasses fossil energy for the first time.
☀️ 💨
Source: dr.dk
DR: Nyheder - Breaking - TV - Radio
Dit Nyhedsoverblik: Breaking news og seneste nyheder - Stream DR’s programmer på DRTV - Hør podcast på DR LYDDR
like this
reshared this
Petr Skála
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •↸ ⏚
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •zimward
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •Ariaflame
in reply to zimward • • •zimward
in reply to Ariaflame • • •Ariaflame
in reply to zimward • • •zimward
in reply to Ariaflame • • •Ariaflame
in reply to zimward • • •Philipp Schwendke
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •Kuba Orlik
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •👀
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •Se EU-landenes energirekorder: Danmark bedst på sol- og vind
DROtte Homan - remember Geordie
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •I love how the Danes are juxtaposing images of Denmark and Germany in this context 🙂
Src: dr.dk/nyheder/viden/klima/se-e…
Se EU-landenes energirekorder: Danmark bedst på sol- og vind
DRNicole Parsons
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •1. Want Ukraine to remain a sovereign nation?
Phase out Russian fossil fuel use.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/20…
2. Want to prevent a catastrophic AI bubble?
Phase out OPEC fossil fuel use.
nytimes.com/2025/10/27/technol…
3. Want America to remain a democracy?
Phase out Koch Network fossil fuel use.
nytimes.com/2025/12/20/us/poli…
4. Want a habitable planet?
Phase out fossil fuel use.
time.com/7353478/davos-climate…
theguardian.com/environment/20…
Half of world’s CO2 emissions come from just 32 fossil fuel firms, study shows
Damian Carrington (the Guardian)reshared this
Sheldon and Paul_IPv6 reshared this.
Szewek
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •[AF]2050
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •Marvin R
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •is the framing here a little odd? I only read the auto-translation, why do they treat hydro-electric and other renewables differently?
Sounds like the big milestone might be 2026 if 50% EU wide electricity comes from renewable sources(currently 49%)
Ariaflame
in reply to Marvin R • • •Marvin R
in reply to Ariaflame • • •Wouldn't logically almost all the energy stored in a pump storage come from wind and solar?
Ariaflame
in reply to Marvin R • • •Marvin R
in reply to Ariaflame • • •@ariaflame Yeah no, I don't think that pump storage has anything to do with it. I found a second Danish newsarticle, that explains why they like this "solar + wind" framing:
"Denmark occupies its place as the EU country with the highest share of solar and wind energy in the entire EU - 71 percent."(dr.dk/nyheder/viden/klima/se-e…)
Se EU-landenes energirekorder: Danmark bedst på sol- og vind
DRAriaflame
in reply to Marvin R • • •Marvin R
in reply to Ariaflame • • •Q was: Why does this Danish news org frame the progress with renewables this way? Why is solar + wind being larger than fossil significant, when renewable overall are *much* larger than fossil.
Your theory: Because hydro storage might contain non-renewable electricity.
After some research, my likely answer:
Danish news likes this view, because Denmark has the largest solar + wind percentage in the EU. (But not the highest percentage of renewables over all)
Ariaflame
in reply to Marvin R • • •Wulfy—Speaker to the machines
in reply to Marvin R • • •IMHO Pump storage is not green.
It's claimed it is, but you could by using brown coal offpeak to push the water uphill.
It's purely an economic gimmick.
Bram Koster
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •Vera reshared this.
Fenix
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •Juho Mäntysalo
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •What good news, and more importantly: the trends look positive absolutely as well.
Often one hears that the increase in solar in relation to fossils doesn't in actuality mean decrease of fossils, but slower increase compared to renewables.
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisti…
Statistics Explained
ec.europa.euParttimesailor
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •FelisCatusDomesticus
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •the arc of the tipping point is going to be broad and slow in the USA. The second Obama administration threw money at green energy projects and not all of them were going to stand the test of time. This was understood even at the time. This very expensive facility was built in that era, and is now being converted to solar photovoltaic for several reasons, not least of which is that PV panel prices have come down substantially since the late 2000's when this project was still on the drawing board. Of course anti-green energy people will point to the low, slow and broad nature of progress and say there is no "tipping point" apparent and claim all green energy is a failure (funny they can see this with green energy but not recognize this about "trickle down" economics.. but I digress..).
We are so accustomed to rapid technological progress based on what we experienced in the 20th century.. the first airplanes to the jet era in 40 years and then a man standing on the moon 30 years after that.. Green energy is going to take longer because it involves more people. All of society,
... Show more...the arc of the tipping point is going to be broad and slow in the USA. The second Obama administration threw money at green energy projects and not all of them were going to stand the test of time. This was understood even at the time. This very expensive facility was built in that era, and is now being converted to solar photovoltaic for several reasons, not least of which is that PV panel prices have come down substantially since the late 2000's when this project was still on the drawing board. Of course anti-green energy people will point to the low, slow and broad nature of progress and say there is no "tipping point" apparent and claim all green energy is a failure (funny they can see this with green energy but not recognize this about "trickle down" economics.. but I digress..).
We are so accustomed to rapid technological progress based on what we experienced in the 20th century.. the first airplanes to the jet era in 40 years and then a man standing on the moon 30 years after that.. Green energy is going to take longer because it involves more people. All of society, really. Generation changes, more comparable to the changes in the world that happened starting with the French Revolution to WW1.. utter transformation but it took 130 years, not 40 or 30.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_…
Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Justin Derrick
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •Peter Brown
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •@iveyline
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •Frank Reiff
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •Koochulainn
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/inte…
Shedding light on energy in Europe – 2025 edition - Interactive publications - Eurostat
EurostatNu Modular
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •Lorenzo Isella
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •Renewables cover 11% of the energy used for transport
Eurostatgabriel
in reply to Claes de Vreese ☑️ • • •both are production numbers?
(Or fossil includes imported fossil energy)