Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

Next month will mark four years since the Indian Point nuclear power plant north of New York City began to be shut down.

Indian Point 2 was closed on April 30, 2020. Indian Point 3’s closure followed a year later. The two units, rated at roughly 1,000 megawatts each, started operating in the mid-1970s. A half-century later, their reactor cores lie dismembered. Both units are irretrievably gone, for better or worse.

I believe the closures are for the worse — and not by a little. The loss of Indian Point’s 2,000 MW of virtually carbon-free power has set back New York’s decarbonization efforts by at least a decade.

I hinted at this in Drones With Hacksaws: Climate Consequences of Shutting Indian Point Can’t Be Brushed Aside, a May 2020 post in the NY-area outlet Gotham Gazette. Soon I grew more outspoken. In two posts for The Nation in April 2022 (here and here) I invoked Indian Point to urge Californians to revoke a parallel plan to close Pacific Gas & Electric’s two-unit Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which I followed up with a plea to Gov. Gavin Newsom to scuttle the shutdown deal, co-signed by clean-air advocate Armond Cohen and whole-earth avatar Stewart Brand. Which the governor did, last year.

Once I had regarded nuclear plant closures as no big deal. Now I was telling all who would listen that junking high-performing thousand-megawatt reactors on either coast was a monstrous climate crime, the carbon equivalent to decapitating many hundreds of giant wind turbines — a metaphor I employed in my Gotham Gazette post. My turnaround rested on two clear but overlooked points.

One was that nearly all extant U.S. nukes had long ago morphed from chronic inconsistency into rock-solid generators of massive volumes of carbon-free kilowatt-hours, with “capacity factors” reliably hitting 90% or even higher. This positive change should have put to rest the antinuclear movement’s shopworn “aging and unsafe” narrative about our 90-odd operating reactors. It also elevated the plants’ economic and climate value, making politically forced closures far more costly than most of us had imagined.

The other new point is connected to carbon and climate: The effort to have “renewables” (wind, solar and occasionally hydro) fill the hole left from closing Indian Point or other nuclear plants isn’t just tendentious and difficult. Rather, the very construct that one set of zero-carbon generators (renewables) can “replace” another (nuclear) with no climate cost is simplistic if not downright false, as I explain further below.

These new ideas came to mind as I read a major story this week on the consequences of Indian Point’s closure in The Guardian by Oliver Milman, the paper’s longtime chief environment correspondent. To his credit, Milman delved pretty deeply into the impacts of reactor closures — more so than any prominent journalist has done to date. Nonetheless, it’s time for coverage of nuclear closures to go further. To assist, I’ve posted Milman’s story verbatim, with my responses alongside.

A nuclear plant’s closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up.

By Oliver Milman, The Guardian, March 20, 2024

When New York’s deteriorating and unloved Indian Point nuclear plant finally shuttered in 2021, its demise was met with delight from environmentalists who had long demanded it be scrapped.

But there has been a sting in the tail – since the closure, New York’s greenhouse gas emissions have gone up.

Castigated for its impact upon the surrounding environment and feared for its potential to unleash disaster close to the heart of New York City, Indian Point nevertheless supplied a large chunk of the state’s carbon-free electricity.

Guardian graphic using eGRID data for NYCW subregion. The chart’s other half was excised to fit the available space.

Since the plant’s closure, it has been gas, rather then clean energy such as solar and wind, that has filled the void, leaving New York City in the embarrassing situation of seeing its planet-heating emissions jump in recent years to the point its power grid is now dirtier than Texas’s, as well as the US average.

“From a climate change point of view it’s been a real step backwards and made it harder for New York City to decarbonize its electricity supply than it could’ve been,” said Ben Furnas, a climate and energy policy expert at Cornell University. “This has been a cautionary tale that has left New York in a really challenging spot.”

The closure of Indian Point raises sticky questions for the green movement and states such as New York that are looking to slash carbon pollution. Should long-held concerns about nuclear be shelved due to the overriding challenge of the climate crisis? If so, what should be done about the US’s fleet of ageing nuclear plants?

For those who spent decades fighting Indian Point, the power plant had few redeeming qualities even in an era of escalating global heating. Perched on the banks of the Hudson River about 25 miles north of Manhattan, the hulking facility started operation in the 1960s and its three reactors at one point contributed about a quarter of New York City’s power.

It faced a constant barrage of criticism over safety concerns, however, particularly around the leaking of radioactive material into groundwater and for harm caused to fish when the river’s water was used for cooling. Pressure from Andrew Cuomo, New York’s then governor, and Bernie Sanders – the senator called Indian Point a “catastrophe waiting to happen” – led to a phased closure announced in 2017, with the two remaining reactors shutting in 2020 and 2021.

The closure was cause for jubilation in green circles, with Mark Ruffalo, the actor and environmentalist, calling the plant’s end “a BIG deal”. He added in a video: “Let’s get beyond Indian Point.” New York has two other nuclear stations, which have also faced opposition, that have licenses set to expire this decade.

But rather than immediately usher in a new dawn of clean energy, Indian Point’s departure spurred a jump in planet-heating emissions. New York upped its consumption of readily available gas to make up its shortfall in 2020 and again in 2021, as nuclear dropped to just a fifth of the state’s electricity generation, down from about a third before Indian Point’s closure.

This reversal will not itself wreck New York’s goal of making its grid emissions-free by 2040. Two major projects bringing Canadian hydropower and upstate solar and wind electricity will come online by 2027, while the state is pushing ahead with new offshore wind projects – New York’s first offshore turbines started whirring last week. Kathy Hochul, New York’s governor, has vowed the state will “build a cleaner, greener future for all New Yorkers.”

Even as renewable energy blossoms at a gathering pace in the US, though, it is gas that remains the most common fallback for utilities once they take nuclear offline, according to Furnas. This mirrors a situation faced by Germany after it looked to move away from nuclear in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011, only to fall back on coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, as a temporary replacement.

“As renewables are being built we still need energy for when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining and most often it’s gas that is doing that,” said Furnas. “It’s a harrowing dynamic. Taking away a big slice of clean energy coming from nuclear can be a self-inflicted wound from a climate change point of view.”

With the world barreling towards disastrous climate change impacts due to the dawdling pace of emissions cuts, some environmentalists have set aside reservations and accepted nuclear as an expedient power source. The US currently derives about a fifth of its electricity from nuclear power.

Bill McKibben, author, activist and founder of 350.org, said that the position “of the people I know and trust” is that “if you have an existing nuke, keep it open if you can. I think most people are agnostic on new nuclear, hoping that the next generation of reactors might pan out but fearing that they’ll be too expensive.

“The hard part for nuclear, aside from all the traditional and still applicable safety caveats, is that sun and wind and batteries just keep getting cheaper and cheaper, which means the nuclear industry increasingly depends on political gamesmanship to get public funding,” McKibben added.

Wariness over nuclear has long been a central tenet of the environmental movement, though, and opponents point to concerns over nuclear waste, localized pollution and the chance, albeit unlikely, of a major disaster. In California, a coalition of green groups recently filed a lawsuit to try to force the closure of the Diablo Canyon facility, which provides about 8% of the state’s electricity.

“Diablo Canyon has not received the safety upgrades and maintenance it needs and we are dubious that nuclear is safe in any regard, let alone without these upgrades – it’s a huge problem,” said Hallie Templeton, legal director of Friends of the Earth, which was founded in 1969 to, among other things, oppose Diablo Canyon.

Templeton said the groups were alarmed over Diablo Canyon’s discharge of waste water into the environment and the possibility an earthquake could trigger a disastrous leak of nuclear waste. A previous Friends of the Earth deal with the plant’s operator, PG&E, to shutter Diablo Canyon was clouded by state legislation allowing the facility to remain open for another five years, and potentially longer, which Templeton said was a “twist of the knife” to opponents.

“We are not stuck in the past – we are embracing renewable energy technology like solar and wind,” she said. “There was ample notice for everyone to get their houses in order and switch over to solar and wind and they didn’t do anything. The main beneficiary of all this is the corporation making money out of this plant remaining active for longer.”

Meanwhile, supporters of nuclear – some online fans have been called “nuclear bros” – claim the energy source has moved past the specter of Chernobyl and into a new era of small modular nuclear reactors. Amazon recently purchased a nuclear-powered data center, while Bill Gates has also plowed investment into the technology. Rising electricity bills, as well as the climate crisis, are causing people to reassess nuclear, advocates say.

“Things have changed drastically – five years ago I would get a very hostile response when talking about nuclear, now people are just so much more open about it,” said Grace Stanke, a nuclear fuels engineer and former Miss America who regularly gives talks on the benefits of nuclear.

“I find that young people really want to have a discussion about nuclear because of climate change, but people of all ages want reliable, accessible energy,” she said. “Nuclear can provide that.”

The forces that won Indian Point’s closure were blind to the climate cost. 

By Charles Komanoff, Carbon Tax Center, March 23, 2024

New Reality #1: Indian Point wasn’t “deteriorating” when it was closed.

“Deteriorating and unloved” is how Milman characterized Indian Point in his lede. “Unloved?” Sure, though probably no U.S. generating station has been fondly embraced since Woody Guthrie rhapsodized about the Grand Coulee Dam in the 1940s.

But “deteriorating”? How could a power plant on the verge of collapse run for two decades at greater than 90% of its maximum capacity?

Calculations by author from International Atomic Energy Agency data. Diablo Canyon has also averaged over 90% CF since 2000.

Had Indian Point been less productive, the jump in the metropolitan area’s carbon emission rate would have been far less than the apparent 60 percent increase in the Guardian graph at left. Though the “electrify everything” community is loath to discuss it, the emissions surge from closing Indian Point significantly diminishes the purported climate benefit from shifting vehicles, heating, cooking and industry from combustion to electricity .

The impetus for shutting Indian Point largely came through, not from then-Gov. Cuomo.

Milman pins the decision to close Indian Point on NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Vermont’s U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. While Cuomo backed and brokered the deal (which Sanders had nothing to do with), the real push came from a coalition of NY-area environmental activists led by Riverkeeper, who, as he notes, “spent decades fighting Indian Point.” And it was relentless.

The wellsprings of their fight were many, from Cold War fears of anything nuclear to a fierce devotion to the Hudson River ecosystem, which Indian Point threatened not through occasional minor radioactive leaks but via larval striped bass entrainment on the plant’s intake screens. Their fight was of course supercharged by the 1979 Three Mile Island reactor meltdown in Pennsylvania and, later, by the 9/11 hijackers’ Hudson River flight path. But as I pointed out in Gotham Gazette, few shutdown proponents had carbon reduction in their organizational DNA. None had ever built anything, leaving many with a fantasyland conception of the work required to substitute green capacity for Indian Point.

And while the shutdown forces proclaimed their love for wind and solar, their understanding of electric grids and nukes was stuck in the past. To them, Indian Point was Three Mile Island (or Chernobyl) on the Hudson — never mind that by the mid-2010s U.S. nuclear power plants had multiplied their pre-TMI operating experience twenty-fold with nary a mishap.

No, in most anti-nukers’ minds, Indian Point would forever be a bumbling menace incapable of rising above its previous-century average 50% capacity factor (see graph above). Most either ignored the plant’s born-again 90% online mark or viewed it as proof of lax oversight by a co-opted Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Note too that the “hulking facility,” as Milman termed Indian Point, lay a very considerable 35 air miles from Columbus Circle, rather than “25 miles north of Manhattan,” a figure that references the borough’s uninhabited northern tip. NYC residents had more immediate concerns, leaving fear and loathing over the nukes to be concentrated among the plant’s Westchester neighbors (Cuomo’s backyard). Which raises the question of why in-city environmental justice groups failed to question the shutdown, which is now impeding closure of polluting “peaker” plants in their own Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx backyards.

Still, the shutdown campaigners’ most grievous lapse was their failure to grasp that the new climate imperative requires a radically different conceptual framework for gauging nuclear power.

New Reality #2: Wind and solar that are replacing Indian Point can’t also reduce fossil fuels.

It’s dispiriting to contemplate the effort required to create enough new carbon-free electricity to generate Indian Point’s lost carbon-free output. Think 500 giant offshore wind turbines, each rated at 8 megawatts. (Wind farms need twice the capacity of Indian Point, i.e., 4,000 MW vs. 2,000, to offset their lesser capacity factor.)

What about solar PV? Its capacity disadvantage vis-a-vis Indian Point’s 90% is five- or even six-fold, meaning 10,000 or more megawatts of new solar to replace Indian Point. I won’t even try to calculate how many solar buildings that would require. But this is where Indian Point’s 90% capacity factor is so daunting; had the plant stayed mired at 60%, the capacity ratios to replace it would be a third less steep.

But wait . . . it’s even worse. These massive infusions of wind or solar are supposed to be reducing fossil fuel use by helping the grid phase out gas (methane) fired electricity. Which they cannot do, if they first need to stand in for the carbon-free generation that Indian Point was providing before it was shut.

So when Riverkeeper pledged in 2015-2017, or Friends of the Earth’s legal director told the Guardian‘s Milman that “we are embracing renewable energy technology like solar and wind,” they’re misrepresenting renewables’ capacity to help nuclear-depleted grids cut down on carbon. Shutting a functioning nuclear power plant puts the grid into a deep carbon-reduction hole — one that new solar and wind must first fill, at great expense, before further barrages of turbines and panels can actually be said to be keeping fossil fuels in the ground.

I suspect that not one in a hundred shut-nukes-now campaigners grasps this frame of reference. I certainly didn’t, until one day in April 2020, mere weeks before Indian Point 2 would be turned off, when an activist with Nuclear NY phoned me out of the blue and hurled this new paradigm at me. Before then, I was stuck in the “grid sufficiency” framework that was limited to having enough megawatts to keep everyone’s A/C’s running on peak summer days. The idea that the next giant batch or two of renewables will only keep CO2 emissions running in place rather than reduce them was new and startling. And irrefutably true.

To be clear, I don’t criticize Milman for missing this new paradigm. He’s a journalist, not an analyst or analyst. It’s on us climate advocates to propagate it till it reaches reportorial critical mass.

I credit Milman for giving FoE’s legal director free rein about Diablo. “There was ample notice for everyone to get their houses in order and switch over to solar and wind and they didn’t do anything,” she told him.

Goodness. Everyone [who? California government? PG&E? green entrepreneurs?] didn’t do anything to switch over to solar and wind. Welcome to reality, Friends of the Earth!

I knew FoE’s legendary founder David Brower personally. I and legions of others were inspired in the 1960s and 1970s by his implacable refusal to accede to the world as it was and his monumental determination to build a better one. But reality has its own implacability. The difficulty of bringing actual wind and solar projects (and more energy-efficiency) to fruition has the sad corollary that shutting viable nuclear plants consigns long-sought big blocks of renewables to being mere restorers of the untenable climate status quo.

In closing: Contrary to Milman (and NY Gov. Kathy Hochul), Indian Point’s closure will wreck NY’s goal of an emissions-free grid by 2040.

“Two major projects bringing Canadian hydropower and upstate solar and wind electricity will come online by 2027,” Milman wrote, referencing the Champlain-Hudson Power Express transmission line and Clean Path NY. But their combined annual output will only match Indian Point’s lost carbon-free production. Considering that loss, the two ventures can’t be credited with actually pushing fossil fuels out of the grid. That will require massive new clean power ventures, few of which are on the horizon.

I’ve written about the travails of getting big, difference-making offshore wind farms up and running in New York. I’ve argued that robust carbon pricing could help neutralize the inflationary pressures, supply bottlenecks, higher interest rates and pervasive NIMBY-ism that have led some wind developers to deep-six big projects.

Though I’ve yet to fully “do the math,” my decades adjacent to the electricity industry (1970-1995) and indeed my long career in policy analysis tell me that New York’s grid won’t even reach 80% carbon-free by 2040 unless the state or, better, Washington legislates a palpable carbon price that incentivizes large-scale demand reductions along with faster uptake of new wind, solar and, perhaps, nuclear.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Verra’s VM0051 Gains CORSIA Eligibility, Boosting Rice Carbon Credit Demand

Published

2 days ago

on

April 24, 2026

By

The global carbon market received a strong signal after the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Technical Advisory Board approved carbon credits under Verra’s VM0051 methodology for use in the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation.

This decision brings rice methane reduction projects into a major aviation compliance market. It also opens a new demand channel for agricultural carbon credits, especially for airlines seeking eligible offsets.

The move shows growing recognition that agricultural methane cuts can play a bigger role in global climate goals. It also strengthens the position of rice projects, which have long faced challenges in carbon finance.

VM0051, launched in early 2025, supports improved water and crop management in rice farming. It helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions while improving water use, farm efficiency, and farmer benefits.

With CORSIA eligibility now confirmed, rice carbon credits may emerge as a stronger and more mainstream carbon market asset.

Rice Farming Moves Closer to Mainstream Carbon Markets

Rice production has long carried a large climate footprint. Flooded rice fields release methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.

Most of these emissions come from Asia, where rice remains central to food systems and rural economies. At the same time, rising food demand could push emissions even higher in the coming decades.

rice

VM0051 Brings Scalable Rice Methane Solutions

This created a clear need for scalable solutions, yet carbon finance in rice remained limited for years. But VM0051 aims to change this.

The methodology allows project developers to reduce emissions through improved water and crop management. Farmers can adopt practices such as alternate wetting and drying, better nitrogen management, shorter cultivation cycles, and lower-emission rice varieties. Some projects may also use innovative approaches, such as methanotrophic bacteria or avoiding residue burning.

These measures cut methane emissions while improving resource efficiency.

CORSIA Expands Demand for Rice Credits

CORSIA eligibility gives these credits a potential compliance buyer base, which changes the commercial outlook significantly. Airlines can use eligible credits to help meet offsetting obligations, provided projects also secure required host country authorization.

This link between aviation and agricultural methane reduction could help move rice carbon projects from a niche activity into a larger market segment.

Inside the New Framework of VM0051 

The approval also draws attention to how much the methodology has evolved.

Verra designed VM0051 to replace an older Clean Development Mechanism methodology that was retired in 2023. The newer framework includes stronger safeguards, broader project options, and more rigorous emissions accounting.

  • Additionality requirements have been strengthened to show projects go beyond normal farming practices.
  • Dynamic baselines help reflect changing weather conditions. The methodology also requires monitoring of methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide emissions linked to project activities. This broader accounting matters because carbon markets are placing greater weight on integrity.
  • Flexible quantification approaches, including biogeochemical models, give developers more options for emissions measurement. Digital MRV tools, including remote sensing and machine learning, can also help improve monitoring and verification.

These features make the methodology more aligned with what today’s market increasingly expects.

  • Importantly, VM0051 does more than support methane reduction. It recognizes a broader set of practices, including improved fertilizer management, biochar use, reduced biomass burning, and efficient fossil fuel use in operations.
  • Furthermore, projects must also protect against soil organic carbon losses, an important safeguard in agricultural systems. This wider scope can help developers design stronger projects while improving potential emission reductions.

Credit quality remains central to buyer confidence. In a market shaped by growing scrutiny, methodologies with stronger science and stronger controls tend to attract more attention.

Airlines Could Unlock New Demand for Rice Carbon Credits

The biggest market impact may come from demand. CORSIA eligibility often changes the value proposition of a carbon credit. Access to compliance demand can support liquidity, improve price support, and increase buyer interest.

This is where rice credits may benefit, and countries in South and Southeast Asia could become central to this growth story.

The Verra Registry currently includes eight projects using VM0051, with an estimated annual issuance of more than 1.73 million carbon credits. It remains a relatively small supply base compared with larger project categories in the carbon market.

If airlines begin sourcing these credits, developers may have stronger incentives to expand project pipelines, particularly across major rice-growing economies.

Rice Credits Offer More Than Compliance Value

  • The appeal goes beyond compliance demand alone. Many buyers increasingly seek credits linked to broader sustainability outcomes. Rice methane projects can offer multiple benefits alongside emissions reductions, including improved water management, lower pollution, and stronger farmer livelihoods.
  • Some projects may also support women’s access to training and financial services, adding social value that could strengthen buyer interest.
  • These features may help position rice credits not only as compliance instruments but also as attractive assets in the wider voluntary carbon market.

Market participants will also watch whether CORSIA eligibility supports stronger pricing for these credits.

Historically, compliance-linked credits often receive more market attention than credits limited to voluntary demand. If this pattern holds, VM0051 credits could see stronger commercial interest going forward.

carbon credits

Methane Reduction Gains a Larger Role in Carbon Markets

The approval also fits a larger trend in climate markets. Methane has moved closer to the center of climate strategy. Policymakers, investors, and corporate buyers increasingly view methane reduction as one of the fastest ways to slow warming in the near term.

Thus, this shift has raised interest in projects focused on methane abatement.

Much of this attention has centered on oil and gas, waste, and livestock. Rice cultivation now gains importance because agriculture has often lagged behind other sectors in the carbon market scale.

Forestry, renewable energy, and engineered carbon removal have captured much of the attention. Agricultural methodologies have often faced challenges tied to measurement, fragmentation, and project implementation. And VM0051 significantly addresses some of these barriers through stronger science and digital tools.

The ICAO decision, furthermore, may help reinforce confidence that agriculture can supply credible credits on a larger scale. It may also encourage greater innovation in agricultural carbon methodologies beyond rice.

Developers, registries, and policymakers will likely watch closely to see whether this model expands into broader methane-focused opportunities.

A Turning Point for Rice-Based Carbon Finance

For years, rice carbon credits had strong potential but weak market momentum. Projects faced technical hurdles, limited buyer familiarity, and funding constraints. This approval shifts that outlook.

By adding VM0051 credits to the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation under the ICAO, a clearer link is created between compliance demand and agricultural methane cuts.

This could accelerate project growth, investment, and adoption of improved rice practices, while pushing agricultural credits closer to mainstream carbon markets.

Future expansion depends on supply, demand, and approvals, but the signal is clear: rice methane credits are entering a larger market phase.

The post Verra’s VM0051 Gains CORSIA Eligibility, Boosting Rice Carbon Credit Demand appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Renewables Overtake Coal for the First Time as World’s Largest Electricity Source in 2025

Published

2 days ago

on

April 24, 2026

By

Renewables Overtake Coal as World's Largest Electricity Source in 2025

Global renewable energy reached a major turning point in 2025. For the first time in history, it generated more electricity than coal, marking a shift in how the world produces power.

Let’s take a closer look at the details and how this milestone impacts the clean energy transition landscape as well as carbon markets.

Clean Energy Hits Historic Milestone in Global Electricity Mix

According to energy think tank Ember, renewables’ share of global electricity overtook coal’s share in 2025. Renewables now supply more than a third of global power, while coal’s share has fallen below one‑third.

clean power growth 2025 ember report

Ember notes that solar and wind together met about 99% of new global electricity demand growth in 2025. This helped push renewables ahead of coal despite rising energy use worldwide.

This milestone reflects years of investment in clean energy and signals a structural change in the global power system. It also shows that renewable technologies are now scaling fast enough to compete with traditional fossil fuels.

clean-growth-exceeds-demand-rise-ember

Solar Power Drives Record Growth in Clean Electricity

Solar energy led the global expansion in renewables. The Ember report stated,

“Record solar growth meant clean power sources grew fast enough to meet all new electricity demand in 2025, thereby preventing an increase in fossil generation. This was the first year since 2020 without an increase in electricity generation from fossil fuels and only the fifth year without a rise this century.”

The data shows that solar generation grew by about 636 terawatt‑hours (TWh) in 2025, the largest annual increase of any single electricity source ever. This surge made solar the main driver of new electricity supply.

Solar output increased by around 30% in 2025, reflecting rapid deployment and falling costs. It also played a key role in meeting rising demand. 

solar power growth close to nuclear ember 2025

Ember’s analysis indicates that solar alone met about 75% of the net increase in global electricity demand in 2025. Wind energy also contributed strongly, helping renewables meet almost all of the year’s additional demand.

The continued drop in solar costs has supported this growth. Over the past decade, solar module prices have fallen by more than 80%, making it one of the cheapest sources of new electricity in many markets.

Asia Powers the Shift: China and India Drive the Transition

The shift toward renewables has been driven largely by Asia’s biggest economies, per Ember data. China remains the largest contributor to global solar growth. It accounted for about 55% of the increase in solar generation in 2025, reflecting its large-scale investments in clean energy infrastructure.

The United States contributed around 14% of global solar growth, while India also expanded its renewable capacity significantly.

A key development in 2025 was the decline in fossil fuel generation in both China and India at the same time. This has not happened in many years.

fossil fuel drop in China and India in 2025 ember

Globally, coal generation dropped by 63 TWh in 2025, driven by reduced output in these major economies. This decline played a critical role in allowing renewables to overtake coal.

The transition in these countries has a global impact. Together, China and India account for a large share of global electricity demand and emissions. 

In 2025, the two countries together represented roughly one‑fifth of global electricity demand and more than one‑fifth of global power‑sector CO₂ emissions, according to Ember’s annual electricity review and supporting analyses.

Emissions Peak? Clean Power Starts to Bend the Curve

Despite rising electricity demand, emissions from the power sector are beginning to stabilize. Global electricity demand increased by about 2.8% in 2025. However, power-sector emissions fell slightly, even with the higher demand. 

According to Ember’s 2025 annual electricity review, power‑sector emissions fell slightly in 2025 despite a rise in global electricity demand. The analysis indicates that, without the growth of solar and wind, emissions from the power sector would have been about 236 MtCO₂ higher than they actually were.

This shows how renewable energy is helping offset emissions from growing energy use. The data further shows that the average kilowatt-hour of electricity produced globally resulted in 458 gCO₂e in 2025, about 2.7% less than 471 gCO₂e in 2024.

The International Energy Agency also projects a steady decline in carbon intensity. Global electricity emissions intensity is expected to fall from 445 grams of CO₂ per kilowatt-hour (gCO₂/kWh) in 2024 to about 400 gCO₂/kWh by 2027.

global carbon emissions from electricity generation
Source: IEA

This represents an average annual reduction of 3.6%, highlighting gradual progress toward cleaner electricity systems.

The Grid Test: Can Power Systems Keep Up With Renewables?

The rapid growth of renewables brings new challenges for power systems. Solar and wind are variable sources, meaning their output depends on weather conditions.

By 2030, variable renewables are expected to supply nearly 30% of global electricity, roughly double current levels. This will require more flexible and resilient power grids.

Key solutions include:

  • Expanding grid infrastructure,
  • Increasing energy storage capacity, and
  • Improving demand-side management.

Battery storage is playing a central role in this transition. Global battery deployment is growing quickly as costs fall.

Battery costs dropped by about 45% in 2025, to a record low of about $70 per kilowatt-hour. Meanwhile, installed storage capacity additions increased by 46% during the same period, reaching about 247 gigawatt-hours in 2025. These systems help store excess solar energy during the day and release it when demand rises.

Current battery capacity can already shift about 14% of solar generation from midday to other times of the day. This improves grid stability and reduces reliance on fossil fuel backup.

Corporate Action Supports Clean Energy Growth

Large companies are also helping drive renewable energy adoption. Microsoft has committed to using 100% renewable electricity for its operations and aims to become carbon negative by 2030. Google is investing heavily in solar and wind projects worldwide, including partnerships in Asia to support clean energy supply for data centers.

corporate clean energy purchases BNEF 2025

Corporate demand for renewable energy is growing as companies set net-zero targets and seek to reduce their carbon footprints. This trend supports further investment in renewable capacity and helps scale clean technologies.

Market Implications for Carbon Credits and Investment

The rise of renewables has important implications for carbon markets and clean energy investment. As renewable generation increases, the need for fossil fuel-based power declines. This can reduce emissions and affect demand for certain types of carbon credits.

At the same time, the transition creates new opportunities. Projects that support grid stability, energy storage, and renewable integration may generate additional carbon credits.

Investors are also shifting focus toward clean energy infrastructure. Renewable energy projects are becoming more competitive as costs fall and policy support strengthens.

The milestone of renewables overtaking coal provides strong evidence that the energy transition is accelerating.

A Turning Point for Global Energy

The fact that renewables have surpassed coal in global electricity generation marks a major turning point. It shows that clean energy is no longer a niche solution. Instead, it is becoming the foundation of the global power system.

Solar and wind are now growing fast enough to meet rising demand while reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Challenges remain, especially in grid integration and storage. However, continued investment and innovation are helping address these issues.

For policymakers, investors, and businesses, the message is clear: The global energy transition is moving from ambition to reality.

As renewable energy continues to expand, it will play a central role in reducing emissions, supporting economic growth, and building a more sustainable energy system.

The post Renewables Overtake Coal for the First Time as World’s Largest Electricity Source in 2025 appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Oklo Stock Jumps 15% as NVIDIA Partnership Sparks Nuclear-AI Momentum

Published

2 days ago

on

April 24, 2026

By

Oklo Inc. gained strong market attention after announcing a strategic partnership with NVIDIA and Los Alamos National Laboratory. The collaboration aims to accelerate the development of nuclear infrastructure, expand AI-enabled research, and push forward next-generation nuclear fuel innovation.

Investors reacted quickly. The company’s stock rose about 15%, closing at $72.41 and continuing to climb to $78.43 in pre-market trading. Over the past week, shares surged roughly 33%, reflecting rising optimism around the intersection of nuclear energy and artificial intelligence.

oklo stock
Source: Yahoo Finance

A Strategic Alliance Powering the Future

The agreement significantly brings together three complementary strengths.

  • Oklo contributes its advanced sodium fast reactor technology
  • NVIDIA adds its powerful AI computing systems
  • Los Alamos provides deep expertise in nuclear materials science and fuel research.

This combination aims to create a new class of reliable, mission-critical energy systems designed for modern infrastructure.

Inside the Plan: AI, Fuels, and Nuclear Innovation

  • Using AI to Improve Nuclear Fuel: A major focus of the partnership is applying AI to nuclear science. The companies will build AI models based on physics and chemistry to test and improve nuclear fuels, especially plutonium-based fuels. These models will help make the process faster and more accurate.
  • Better Materials and Safer Fuel: The collaboration will also work to improve materials and the way nuclear fuel is made. By combining AI with lab research, the partners aim to make fuel safer and more efficient. They will also study how to produce power and keep the grid stable for large energy use.
  • Connecting Nuclear Power with AI Systems: Another key goal is to connect nuclear reactors directly with high-performance computing systems. This includes early-stage testing that could change how energy and computing work together in the future.

Why AI Needs Nuclear—and Vice Versa

The idea of “nuclear-powered AI factories” sits at the center of this partnership. These facilities would run advanced AI workloads using dedicated nuclear power instead of relying on traditional electricity grids. This concept addresses a growing problem. Data centers require massive, constant energy, and demand continues to rise rapidly.

Nuclear energy offers a strong solution because it provides stable, round-the-clock power with low emissions. At the same time, AI can improve nuclear operations. It can analyze real-time data, detect anomalies, predict maintenance needs, and optimize reactor performance. These capabilities can enhance efficiency and reduce operational risks.

However, challenges remain. AI models must meet strict safety standards in nuclear environments. Data quality, cybersecurity, and model reliability are critical concerns. For now, AI will support human decision-making rather than replace it in safety-critical systems.

Oklo’s Technology and Market Position

At the center of Oklo’s strategy is its Pluto reactor, designed to use recycled nuclear material such as surplus plutonium. This approach not only produces energy but also helps reduce nuclear waste. The reactor was selected under the U.S. Department of Energy’s Reactor Pilot Program, highlighting its importance.

Oklo is also working to deploy its Aurora power plant at Idaho National Laboratory, targeting operations before the end of 2027. In the near term, the company faces key milestones, including meeting Department of Energy deadlines tied to reactor development and facility readiness.

Financially, Oklo remains in a strong position. The company holds about $2.5 billion in cash and carries no debt, giving it flexibility to invest in growth. It plans to spend around $400 million annually over the next two years to support expansion and technology development.

Rising Demand and the Bigger Energy Shift

Demand for clean, reliable power is rising quickly, especially from large technology companies. Oklo has already signed an agreement to supply 150 megawatts of electricity to a data center project backed by Meta Platforms by around 2030.

energy demand

This deal shows how major tech firms are actively seeking carbon-free energy solutions to support their operations.

The partnership reflects a broader shift in the global energy landscape. Artificial intelligence is driving a surge in electricity consumption, forcing industries to rethink power generation. Nuclear energy is gaining attention as a dependable, low-carbon solution, while AI is helping modernize nuclear systems.

Despite strong momentum, challenges still exist. Regulatory approvals, technical complexity, and safety requirements could slow deployment. While market enthusiasm remains high, real-world scaling will likely take time.

In the end, the collaboration between Oklo, NVIDIA, and Los Alamos highlights a powerful trend. Clean energy and advanced computing are becoming deeply connected. If successfully executed, this partnership could play a key role in shaping the future of both industries.

The post Oklo Stock Jumps 15% as NVIDIA Partnership Sparks Nuclear-AI Momentum appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com