#renewableenergy

In March 2025, a monumental shift occurred in the energy landscape of the United States.

For the first time ever, renewable energy sources powered over 50% of the U.S. electricity grid, surpassing fossil fuels in what is a historic moment for the environment. Wind, solar, and hydroelectric power led the charge, marking a massive step toward a cleaner and more sustainable energy future. This shift proves that green energy is not just a possibility, but an undeniable reality.

The transition to renewable energy has been a long time coming, but the momentum we’re seeing now is unprecedented. For years, renewable sources struggled to compete with fossil fuels, both in terms of cost and capacity. But the rapid advancements in technology, along with increased investments in clean energy infrastructure, have made renewables more affordable and efficient than ever before. The future of energy is no longer reliant on dirty fossil fuels, and this shift offers hope for future generations.
Wind and solar, in particular, have seen tremendous growth. The cost of solar panels has dropped significantly, making it a viable option for residential and commercial use. Wind turbines are becoming more efficient, and hydroelectric power continues to provide consistent and reliable energy. This diverse mix of renewable sources ensures that the U.S. can meet its energy needs while significantly reducing its carbon footprint.
Despite the progress, there is still much work to be done. The U.S. must continue to invest in energy storage solutions to manage the intermittent nature of solar and wind power. Additionally, expanding renewable energy infrastructure and updating the grid to handle a greater share of green energy are critical steps in this transition. But for the first time, there is a clear path forward, and the momentum is on our side.

The shift toward renewable energy represents more than just an environmental victory; it’s an economic opportunity. As renewable energy continues to grow, it can create jobs, stimulate innovation, and reduce our reliance on imported fuels. A future powered by wind, solar, and hydro is not only cleaner but also brighter for the economy and the planet.

https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/us-electricity-2025-special-report/

My question to Copiot,,,,,,,,So basically very little progress but a lot of plans no extra money coming in just money spent on planning or whatever.

Answer - That’s a pretty fair summary of where Canada stands right now. The country has rolled out ambitious frameworks—like the Clean Electricity Strategy and emissions reduction targets—but the tangible results are slower to materialize.

BVB tried to transform Shell into something virtuous. If you believe that burning fossil fuels results in climate change, and that the global ecosystem is unable to absorb the rising CO2 levels with devastating results, then something had to change. Oil cos need to make deals with governments around the world that violate human rights. Their activities cause environmental damage everywhere they are conducted. Of course, selling Shell's "dirty" assets to someone else who will do the same things, perhaps even less ethically, improves nothing in the short term. But if that money is taken and used to chart a different path, in the long term, maybe Shell could make a difference ... even if that path necessarily leads to Shell's own extinction because green energy will become less and less profitable as it scales.
So where did BVB go wrong? First, green energy is unprofitable even in the short without subsidies. That means Shell's business must must align with political priorities that swing wildly. But Shell needed to be able to bullsh-t its investors that it had a path to profitability so it took the money. Second, green energy has technological hurdles that must be overcome or it will fail. Think batteries, wind and solar variability, and the grid collapse in Iberia. Third, Shell's chosen green energies will NEVER meet its net zero goals. They generate way more carbon, and environmental damage, than they save. Shell should have directed its efforts into other technologies that have hurdles that are likely to be solved and then would be closer to carbon neutral. Fourth, the green energy movement that Shell tried to lead, was a scam that US voters revolted against, with the EU soon to follow as their citizenry tires of their inflated energy prices and the effect on their economies. Think ESG scores and greenwashing by claiming credits for trees that you have cut down yet, and net zero promises with lots of fine print, and buying Russian oil but we're sorry you caught us, and Davos elites flying in on their private jets and then proposing things like good citizen scorekeeping (hey, the CCP is doing it, why shouldn't everyone else) and limits on meat consumption and dozens of other ways for the elite to maintain their wealth and power over the miserable plebians.
Shell aligned itself with the left, the only ones who opened their arms (not including the "stakeholders" who sued Shell in Dutch court and chased it out of the country), but the left went too far. The left that gained control (and still has control in places like GB) wanted to tear down the colonizing racist power structure and replace it with a society based on intersectionality, DEI, gender fluidity and all that entails, open borders, politically motivated extended economic shutdown (except for the politicians at their own parties), and so on. There was social backlash that resulted in political reversals and Shell lost on all of its big bets.

A leading solar energy development firm in North Carolina is closing its Asheville plant and laying off more than 78% of its workforce as it files for bankruptcy due to renewable energy policy changes under the Trump administration.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/nc-solar-plant-closing-cutting-102700021.html

more layoffs at sunrun. Not sure how many but it spanned multiple departments

New car sales in America are almost at 10 percent EV what does this mean for Exxon and refining in the next 10-15 years

Well that’s all she wrote a clip from the article posted below. Stay competitive with whom? I wonder how many of these new people voted yes will be laid off?

Fourteen of the projects canceled in New York are listed as being run by General Electric Co. or its energy spinoff GE Vernova, which employs hundreds in Schenectady and Niskayuna.

Full article here;

https://www.timesunion.com/business/article/new-york-jobs-risk-doe-cancels-8-billion-energy-21081410.php

Shell ‘puts another nail in the coffin’ of sustainable jet fuel
Story by Jonathan Leake

Shell has abandoned plans to build a biofuels factory in the Netherlands, dealing a blow to Europe’s hopes of decarbonising the aviation industry.

The oil giant has scrapped the project after pausing work on the site last July, with a review concluding that the plant was too expensive and “insufficiently competitive”.

Under its proposals, the plant in Rotterdam was designed to be one of Europe’s biggest converters of waste into sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and biodiesel.

The decision to axe construction will pose a significant challenge for Europe as it seeks to reduce the environmental impact of flying.

It also marks the latest step in Shell’s shift away from net zero, as the company scales back green investment to focus more on oil and gas.

Ashley Kelty, a leading analyst at Panmure Liberum, said it was “another nail in the ideological coffin for SAF and biofuels”.

He said: “It means that SAF is going to be more expensive, limited in supply and therefore difficult for airlines to justify using.”

The take-up of green jet fuel – which is produced from waste materials such as used cooking oil – has struggled in recent years amid faltering production, which has kept prices high.

Machteld de Haan, Shell’s downstream, renewables and energy solutions president, said: “As we evaluated market dynamics and the cost of completion, it became clear that the project would be insufficiently competitive to meet our customers’ need for affordable, low carbon products.

“This was a difficult decision, but the right one, as we prioritise our capital towards those projects that deliver both the needs of our customers and value for our shareholders.”

It marks a considerable turnaround for Shell, which only announced the biofuels project in 2021.

At the time, the company said it was transforming 14 oil refineries into five low-carbon energy sites to meet growing demand from the transport sector.

This formed part of a target to “reduce the production of traditional fuels by 55pc by 2030 and provide more low-carbon fuels such as biofuels for road transport and aviation, and hydrogen”.

However, these targets have been dashed as part of a pivot away from renewables, posing a problem for Europe’s airlines.

Aviation is the most climate‑intensive form of transport and its growth means its emissions have been growing faster than any other mode of transport.

Britain alone consumes about 11m tonnes of aviation fuel a year and emissions soared to 37m tonnes in 2024 – more than double the 16m tonnes seen in 1990.

That is set to grow even faster in the next two decades.

The UK Government has attempted to reverse this by ordering airlines to use 10pc of SAF by 2030.

However this requirement, also in effect across Europe, requires a network of refineries which are not yet materialising.

Shell’s decision to abandon the Rotterdam project is just the latest of several such schemes to fail.

In 2022, Boris Johnson – the prime minister at the time – announced a new policy known as “jet zero” to enforce a minimum threshold of green fuel use.

He also pledged the construction of a minimum of five new SAF plants, which have not been built.

It means the only company making SAF in the UK is the Phillips 66 refinery on Humberside in North Lincolnshire – and its output is just 20,000 tonnes a year.

That’s about 0.2pc of the 11 million tonnes of aviation fuel Britain consumes annually.

Despite the decision, Shell said it remained committed to a low-carbon future.

Ms de Haan said: “We continue to believe that low-carbon molecules, including biofuels, will underpin the future energy system. Shell is at the forefront of this industry and its development as one of the world’s largest traders and suppliers of biofuels, including SAF.” a Department for Transport spokesman said: “Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is a core part of the global drive to decarbonise aviation. SAF is already being produced and supplied at scale in the UK, and we are seeing encouraging early signs that the SAF Mandate will be met.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/shell-puts-another-nail-in-the-coffin-of-sustainable-jet-fuel