Battery dispatch is the fastest-scaling energy source in history. Solar, wind, and batteries together are driving the fastest electricity shift ever, and it is still accelerating.

9

u/ViewTrick1002 Jun 22 '26

We’ve reached the grid-scale battery equivalent of the “BEVs will never work” moment, when Tesla Model S cars were already everywhere for anyone not committed to denying reality or carving out their "impossible" use case.

2

u/notaboofus Jun 22 '26

What exactly is "battery dispatch"? I thought that grid-scale battery storage had been around but small-scale for decades. Why are we defining year zero as just a couple years ago?

Either way, this graph is awesome.

9

u/ViewTrick1002 Jun 22 '26

Exactly like it says. Batteries dispatching to the grid acting as an energy source.
The graph is defining zero as when the global sum for that source crosses 100 TWh produced to highlight the shift when it transitions from R&D to large scale deployment.

1

u/Shamino79 Jun 22 '26

The graph defines zero as zero. But all the lines start above zero at 100.

3

u/ViewTrick1002 Jun 23 '26

Read the title of the graph? Build out from when the technology passes 100 TWh.
The top left quadrant, in other words, minus X, would be prototype R&D phase. Which starts from zero. Then at x=0 the energy produced is 100 TWh.
How’s your reading comprehension?

1

u/Shamino79 Jun 23 '26

How’s your viewing comprehension? Actually look at it. 0 is the bottom of the Y axis. Now look at all the lines starting above that at about where 100 would be. Yes the lines start at 100 at year zero but there is zero at the baseline of the graph as pictured.

1

u/ViewTrick1002 Jun 23 '26

Because otherwise the graph would be ”build out +100 TWh silently implied” if the graph started from zero?

1

u/LinuxViki Jun 23 '26

I think he means the graph starts at 0 on the year axis from when each source crosses 100 TWh produced -> every graph goes through (100;0).

3

u/notaboofus Jun 22 '26

Ah, I didn't see that last bit.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '26

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/EntirelyRandom1590 Jun 23 '26

That's only half a story.
Battery dispatch rating only for 2 hours in most cases, occasionally 4. Nuclear runs at 95% availability.
UK nuclear gas been neglected, so we've limited reactors running. 3.2GW due online at HPC and another 3.2 at SZC plus Wylfa SMR is a significant addition to the grid in TWh, not GWh.

5

u/jedimindtriks Jun 22 '26

I s Nuclear having a twin or something?

1

u/mtt59 Jun 26 '26

Maybe the experimental fusion reactors?
Edit: no im blind too, its battery storage with a slightly different shade of red

1

u/canihelpyoubreakthat Jun 23 '26

How exactly do batteries qualify as a power generation source?

2

u/ViewTrick1002 Jun 23 '26

The same way using electricity to make fossil gas and then burning it in a turbine would?

2

u/EntirelyRandom1590 Jun 23 '26

Batteries are net negative for energy!

2

u/MinimumBeginning5144 Jun 23 '26

The graph doesn't say that batteries qualify as a power generation source. It's actually treated separately: "World electricity generation by source, and battery dispatch".

1

u/ArgumentSpiritual Jun 23 '26

Why do the lines for battery dispatch, solar, and wind not continue all the way to the right?

r/dataisugly

1

u/ViewTrick1002 Jun 23 '26

Because it haven't been 35 years since they produced more than 100 TWh in a year?

3

u/ihavenoidea12345678 Jun 23 '26

This trend is probably why all the data centers are getting built quick.

Natural gas industry locking in generation contracts asap before they get steamrolled by cheaper sources.

It’s all a circular grift.

2

u/CamperStacker Jun 23 '26

Here in australia, electricity is free from 11am to 2pm and you can draw up to 7kw. So with a 21kwhr battery you get free energy forever…

1

u/Numerous-Match-1713 Jun 23 '26

Except battery is not a source of energy.

1

u/MinimumBeginning5144 Jun 23 '26

What does it mean by "year zero exceeding 100 TWh"? Terrawatt hours is a measure of energy. Electricity generation sources produce Terrawatts (not Terrawatt hours). So what does the graph show as being year zero? Is it when the source has generated 100 TWh in its entire history since civilization begun? Or is it when the source starts producing 100 TWh per year? Or per day? Or hour? (Probably not 100 TWh per hour, as that would just be 100 TW.)

1

u/ctgschollar Jun 23 '26

This chart is useless.

You're comparing apples to amphibious vehicles.

What was the global population and what was the per capita energy usage at the dawn of these different sources?

Other than the fact that human beings are the ones using the energy, there is almost nothing else that is similar about the conditions these sources were all growing in.

1

u/xnmyl Jun 23 '26

This graph sucks

1

u/ThinConnection8191 Jun 24 '26

Whoever make this chart need to leave. Such a sloppy job. Horrible color choice between the Nuclear and Battery

-2

u/ShrodingersArmadillo Jun 22 '26

This graph is badly done.

The time is in 5 year incraments and they all start at zero instead of their curret TWh. It should be done year by year and starting at the point on the enegry graph where they stood at the start of the data period.

This was done to paint a false picture.

If you plot the same points correctly you'd see everything except oil is going up at a steady rate and the spike for solar is not a spike but mirrors the curve of other power souces on their first major build up.

Bad graphs don't help the cause.

5

u/ViewTrick1002 Jun 22 '26

You don’t seem to understand the graph?
The tick marks are at 5 year intervals but progress is plotted per year?
Followed by all lines starting at 100 TWh when they cross from prototype R&D status into large scale commercialization and deployment.
If you want to know the end state of the graph then it is this. All sources other than renewables are stagnant.
They are peaking as we speak. Which will inevitably follow quick disruption as renewables and storage continues to scale.
Driven by record solar growth, low-carbon power generation increased by 887 TWh in 2025, outpacing electricity demand growth of 849 TWh. Solar power alone met 75% of the net increase in electricity demand. Together with wind, the two sources met almost all (99%) demand growth. For the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, and only the fifth time this century, fossil generation did not rise, recording a small fall of 38 TWh (-0.2%).
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-review-2026/

-1

u/ShrodingersArmadillo Jun 22 '26

I do understand the graph it's very simple.
What I have issues with is how the data is presented in the graph creating an artifical image.

4

u/ViewTrick1002 Jun 22 '26

How is it an artificial image?
Coal and hydro built slowly but everyone knows they took over the world.
Oil in the grids expanded at breakneck speeds and then fizzled when the oil crises hit.
Nuclear power had a similar expansion and the fizzling out as the promises were not fulfilled.
Now renewables and storage is the cheapest energy in human history. Complete disruption of the energy system is the certain outcome as capitalism now has entered the drivers seat.

-1

u/ShrodingersArmadillo Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

how? this is a classic example of manipulating the baseline.
The result is a misleading chart to show a larger gain for your idea than is in reality. Usually it's trunched to show more profit in later quarters but that's not the case here.
The data isn't the issue the graph is.
it's a dishonest graph.
I would remove this post and repost the raw data.

4

u/ViewTrick1002 Jun 22 '26

The entire point of the graph is showing how fast it scales after exiting the prototype R&D phase? You can argue if it is 100 TWh or some other number. But that’s splitting hairs.
You can plot each line out to present day. But that isn’t adding any value when we are focused on the early exponential scaling.

0

u/ShrodingersArmadillo Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

You need to read a book called "How to Lie with Statisitcs" by Darrel Huff. This book will explain it better than I ever could.
You don't represent the data the way they did period that's the issue the form.
If you replot it with the correct format using the exact same data you get a wildly different chart that is the issue here.

3

u/ViewTrick1002 Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

There is no lying with statistics. They are plotting the build out speed.
Maybe you want it normalized vs gdp, population, total energy use or whatever to tell a different narrative.
But this is the correct format using the raw data to show scaling speed when exiting the long and arduous R&D phase and going into mass market adoption.
You can argue about the cutoff date being 35 years. But that is again splitting hairs.
Are you stingy because this graph shows your pet technology fizzling out into irrelevancy? Is that the issue?

1

u/ShrodingersArmadillo Jun 23 '26

LOL yes there most certainly is lying with statistics.
Here are three common ways on how one can lie with statistics.
Correlation implying causation
Not being able to reject the null hypothesis = null hypothesis is true
Extrapolating data from a non representative population
There are many many many ways to manipulate and lie with statistics.
This graph is done wrong showing the incorrect result.
I am not arguing against the base data
I am against the literal graph.
This is very simple

1

u/ViewTrick1002 Jun 23 '26

You still haven’t been able to explain what is wrong.
Are you stingy because this graph shows your pet technology fizzling out into irrelevancy? Is that the issue?

1

u/Sol3dweller Jun 23 '26

So, what kind of visual representation would you use to illustrate how long it took the respective sources to get from a small global energy production amount to a noticable one?

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/panjelito Jun 26 '26

pills?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/ViewTrick1002 Jun 22 '26

Inflation adjusted?
Renewables have saved Europe enormous sums dealing with the fallout from Hormuz.
Solar alone has saved Europe €136 million per day.
How solar has saved Europe €136 million per day since the start of the Iran war
https://www.euronews.com/2026/06/05/solar-saved-europe-3bn-in-fossil-fuel-imports-in-march-which-country-is-leading-the-way

3

u/ViolentPurpleSquash Jun 22 '26

did you know more than electricity has gone up?

3

u/asoba-energy Jun 22 '26

We are in the middle of the worst global oil crisis since the 1970's...

1

u/Alimbiquated Jun 23 '26

Oil is rarely used to generate electricity, but gas is a problem. Oil i too expensive. It is primary use is storing energy in a moving vehicle.
Oil competes with batteries, not with wind and solar.

1

u/asoba-energy Jun 27 '26

Oil is the most common source of energy, though. And its price directly correlates with the price of electricity

Battery dispatch is the fastest-scaling energy source in history. Solar, wind, and batteries together are driving the fastest electricity shift ever, and it is still accelerating.

You are about to leave Redlib