The goal of this blog is to create a list of super facts. Important facts that are true with very high certainty and yet surprising, misunderstood, or disputed by many. This blog aims to be challenging, educational, and fun, without it being clickbait. I determine veracity using evidence, data from reputable sources and longstanding scientific consensus. Prepare to be challenged (I am). Intentionally seek the truth not confirmation of your belief.
Superfact 122: We know that the current global warming, or if you call it Climate Change, or Climate Disruption, is caused by us primarily because of our burning of fossil fuels. It is not “natural causes”, and it is not orbital cycles, so called Milankovitch cycles. These orbital cycles include changes in orbital eccentricity, axial tilt, and axial precession.
The evidence that the current rapid global warming is chiefly caused by our burning of fossil fuels is extensive and for all practical purposes conclusive. One of the steps towards understanding this evidence is understanding why no known natural cause of climate change can explain the current warming, and that includes orbital cycles. Therefore, this post is just one small step towards preparing you for the evidence that the current rapid global warming is chiefly caused by us. However, there is a lot of disinformation around this specific topic.
The so-called hockey stick curve depicting the last 1,000 years. The blue line is the first hockey stick curve ever created (by Michael Mann). He used proxy measurements such as tree rings, green-dots 30-year average, red temperature measurements. Wikimedia commons <<https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en>>. This graph is taken from this page.The so-called hockey stick curve depicting the last 1,000 years. In this graph I have indicated what part of the graph is climate change caused by natural causes respective climate change caused by human causes.
Very briefly; Earth’s orbital cycles, called the Milankovitch cycles are largely responsible for the ice ages, but they are not responsible for the current warming because the current warming is too rapid for the orbital cycles to be the cause, and the way the warming is happening is incompatible with how a warming caused by Milankovitch cycles would have happened. In addition, according to the Milankovitch cycles we should be cooling, not warming.
I am considering this a super fact because a lot of people have been fooled by the disinformation on this topic, and there is also a lot of gaslighting from less than reputable organizations and from politicians. They have bamboozled a lot of people. About 15 years ago, I was bamboozled by the disinformation myself. That was before I took the time to try to understand the topic. Understanding a topic, and understanding the evidence makes all the difference, and that is why climate scientists are near unanimous the world over that climate change / global warming is both real and caused by us.
Ask yourself, why would the climate scientists and the atmospheric physicists around the world, including scientists at NASA and NOAA, not investigate orbital cycles and other natural causes for climate change as a possible cause for our current warming? They are the experts on orbital cycles and past climate after all. We know that orbital cycles are not the cause of the current global warming, and this is important to know. Therefore, I think it is a super fact.
What Are Orbital Cycles?
One type of important type of climate forcing that’s been the cause behind the multiple ice ages that we’ve had over the last two million years are earth’s orbital cycles, or the Milankovitch cycles. There are primarily three orbital cycles, orbital eccentricity, change in axial tilt, and axial precession. Could they explain the current warming? No, they can’t because they are too slow, we are currently in a cycle that should be cooling the planet, and the way orbital cycles would warm the planet if they were responsible for the warming is very different from what we are witnessing.
Changes in Eccentricity
Earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle. Earth’s orbit varies from nearly circular to slightly elliptical and this change can cause climate change. This shift in Earth’s orbit takes place over periods of about 100,000 and 400,000 years. Click on the video from NASA below for an illustration of Earth’s eccentricity.
Changes in Obliquity (Tilt)
The angle Earth’s axis of rotation is tilted as it travels around the Sun is known as obliquity. Obliquity is why Earth has seasons. Over the last million years, it has varied between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees with respect to Earth’s orbital plane. The greater Earth’s axial tilt angle, the more extreme our seasons are. In addition, a larger tilt angle favor periods of deglaciation. The changes of Earth’s obliquity have a period of 41,000 years. Click on the video from NASA below for an illustration of the changes in obliquity.
Axial Precession (Wobble)
Earth wobbles slightly as it rotates, like a slightly off-center spinning top. The axis of Earth’s wobble changes slowly and is called axial precession. The corresponding cycle spans 25,771.5 years, or approximately 26,000 years. Click on the video from NASA below for an illustration of the changes in axial precession.
Video Explaining Earth’s Orbital Cycles
The video below from PBS gives an explanation and overview of earth’s three orbital cycles.
Orbital cycles are far too Slow to Cause the Rapid Global Warming Happening Today
Global temperature going back twenty thousand years, a hockey stick graph. Notice the stable temperature during the last 10,000 years, coinciding with the development of human civilization, and also notice the sudden sharp increase at the end. Orbital cycles can’t explain that, and it certainly does not look natural.
Orbital Cycles Predict Slow Cooling, not Rapid Heating
About 6,000 years ago Earth’s temperature was a bit warmer than it is today largely due to the climate fluctuations caused by orbital cycles. The warm period in the beginning of the Holocene epoch is referred to as the Holocene climatic optimum. Natural causes for climate change caused Earth’s temperature to slowly cool off until the recent very sudden uptick in average global temperatures.
Temperature record for the last 150,000 years. Notice the sharp uptick towards the end. This picture is taken from this article.Temperature record for the last 50,000 years. Notice the sharp uptick towards the end. I have circled natural and human caused causes for the climate change. This picture is taken from this article.
Below is a video that explains in greater detail why orbital cycles cannot explain the current warming. You can also read more about it here.
The Cooling of the Upper Atmosphere Tells Us the Current Warming is not Caused by Orbital Cycles or the Sun
Yes, the cooling of the upper atmosphere (specifically the stratosphere above the troposphere) is a key sign that current global warming is not caused by Milankovitch cycles or changes in the sun. Instead, observations show a warming lower layer (troposphere) and a cooling upper layer, which is the exact “fingerprint” of human-caused greenhouse gases. Other evidence that the warming is caused by greenhouse gases and not orbital cycles or the sun is the distribution of the warming across the globe and over time.
A Couple of Videos
The video below is a short one-minute overview of the causes behind global warming.
The video below from NASA is a bit longer, 13 minutes, but it gives a more detailed overview. Click here to see the page from where this is coming from.
Conclusion
We know that Orbital Cycles are not responsible for the current rapid global warming because Orbital Cycles operate on tens of thousands of years or hundreds of thousands of years, not a couple of centuries.
We know that Orbital Cycles are not responsible for the current rapid global warming because the effects of Orbital Cycles are slowly cooling Earth, not warming it.
We know that Orbital Cycles are not responsible for the current rapid global warming because if it was orbital cycles (or the sun) the upper atmosphere would not be cooling and the temperature increases would be distributed differently across Earth and distributed differently with respect to time.
Superfact 117: The share of electricity generated from Solar Power in the world has grown from essentially 0% in the year 2000, 0.15% in 2010, to 3.19% in 2020, and to 8.75% in 2025. Both wind and solar energy are expanding fast around the world, but solar energy is a strong latecomer to the energy scene.
Solar energy panel. Shutterstock asset id: 2459435149 by Nordic Studio.
In the year 2000 less than 0.01% of the world’s electricity was generated by solar. In 2005 it was 0.02%, in 2010 it was 0.15%, in 2015 it was 1.07%, 2020 it was 3.19%, in 2025 it was 8.75%. Can you guess what will it will be in 2030? The United States may be behind the rest of the world with respect to wind power and EVs, but it closely follows the rest of world when it is about solar. You can play around with the graph below and select different countries by clicking here.
Share of electricity from Solar. Measured as a percentage of total electricity produced in the country or region. Data source: Ember (2026): Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BYLow carbon sources met all of 2025’s electricity demand growth. Change in global electricity generation by source, 2024 to 2025. Total generation rose by 850 terawatt-hours (TWh). Note: “Other renewables” include hydropower, bioenergy, tidal and geothermal. Data source: Ember (2026). This graph comes from this page.
New solar panel technology such as Perovskite Solar cells is being developed. The price of lithium-ion batteries has fallen by 99% since 1991 and by 82% in the last ten years. New battery technology such as sodium-ion batteries is being developed. One advantage of sodium-ion batteries is that they function exactly like a lithium-ion battery but replace lithium with abundant sodium ions to carry the electric charge. The evolving battery technology makes it easier to store power from solar during the night. SolarPower Europe project that the global solar fleet will more than double by 2030. In other words, the future looks bright for solar power, and that pun was intended.
Three different scenarios / projections by SolarPower Europe. The medium scenario predicts slightly more than a doubling of global solar fleet from 2026 to 2030.
Solar Power as a Share of Electricity Generation Around the World
For solar, the United States follows the rest of the world closely. Some countries have a higher percentage, such as the Cook Islands – 50%, Luxembourg – 30.52%, Chile – 25.06%. If you wish you can take a closer look here, or here, and you can play around with the different graphs. You can pick millions of combinations of countries and regions. For illustrative purposes I am showing some combinations below.
Share of electricity production from solar. Measured as a percentage of total electricity in the country or region. Some countries utilize solar more than other countries. These graphs include, Cook Islands, Luxembourg, Chile, Greece, Spain, Netherlands, Australia, Germany, the World and the United States. Data source: Ember (2026); Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BYThis graph shows that China has expanded their share of solar power a bit faster than the rest of the world. The share of electricity generated from Solar Power in the world was 8.75% in 2025 and in China 11.1%. Share of electricity production from solar. Measure as a percentage of total electricity in the country or region. Data source: Ember (2026); Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BYThis graph shows the share of electricity generated from Solar Power in the largest countries and economic regions in the world. The share of electricity generated from Solar Power in the EU was 13.13% in 2025, in China 11.1%, in India 9.42%, in the World 8.75%, and in the US 8.6%. Data source: Ember (2026); Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BY
How Clean and Safe is Solar Energy ?
You sometimes come across claims that renewable energy isn’t really clean energy. The truth is that renewable energy such as wind, solar, etc., is much cleaner than gas, oil, and coal. These energy sources are also much safer and using them saves a lot of lives. As you can see, among the eight energy sources depicted solar is the safest, and among the cleanest. Coal has 1,230 times higher death rate than solar. According to the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago Chinese citizens can expect to live on average 2.2 years longer than they would have a decade ago, due to the sharp drop in pollution. This is thanks to the increased use of EVs and renewables such as solar.
Greenhouse gas emissions and death rates from various sources of energy. Fossil fuels and biomass are based on state-of-the art plants with pollution control in Europe and are based on older models of the impacts of air pollution on health. This means that these death rates are likely to be very conservative. The graph shows that renewables and nuclear energy are the cleanest and safest forms of energy. For further discussion see the article: OurWorldinData.org/safest-sources-of-energy. Electricity shares are given for 2021. Data sources: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007); UNSCEAR (2008: 2018); Sovacol et al. (2016); IPCC AR5 (2014); UNECE (2022); Ember Energy (2001). OurWorldinData.org – Research and data to make progress against the world’s largest problems. Licensed under CC-BY by the authors Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser. Citation : Hannah Ritchie (2020) – “What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://archive.ourworldindata.org/20260202-100556/safest-sources-of-energy.html‘ [Online Resource] (archived on February 2, 2026).
Below are two pictures corresponding to zoom-in of the graph above.
Death rates from accidents and air pollution. Measured as deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity production. 1 terawatt-hour is the annual electricity consumption of 150,000 people in the EU. The graph shows that coal, oil, gas, and biomass are a lot deadlier than hydropower, wind, nuclear power, and solar.Greenhouse gas emissions. Measured in emissions of CO2 per gigawatt-hour of electricity over the lifecycle of the power plant. 1 gigawatt-hour is the annual electricity consumption of 150 people in the EU. The graph shows that coal, oil, gas, and biomass are responsible for a lot more greenhouse gas emissions than hydropower, wind, nuclear power, and solar.
Important Climate and Energy Facts
As I said, the misinformation about climate science has bamboozled a lot of people. We know that climate change / global warming is happening. We have also known for several decades that the current climate change / global warming is not natural. It is caused by us, chiefly due to the burning of fossil fuels. Yet many non-scientists dispute it.
The scientific evidence is conclusive, but a lot of people know very little about the evidence. It includes satellites directly measuring our greenhouse gases trapping heat, the upper troposphere is cooling whilst the lower atmosphere is warming, showing that the heating is from greenhouse gases, the unnatural speed of the warming is another piece of evidence, isotope studies, climate models, etc. Below are fourteen super facts related to climate science and clean energy.
Superfact 100: The share of fossil fuels for electricity generation is decreasing and EVs are replacing internal combustion engines. The share of hydro and nuclear energy, which is clean energy, is decreasing, but the sharp increase in the share provided by renewables such as wind and solar is more than making up for it. In addition, there are new clean energy sources that are very promising but not yet widely implemented such as geothermal energy and fusion energy. The energy landscape is changing rapidly.
Share of electricity generation from fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear, world. Measured as a percentage of total electricity produced in the world. Fossil fuels include coal, oil and gas. Renewables include solar, wind, hydropower, bioenergy, wave and tidal. Data source Ember (2026): Energy institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BY.
As can be seen in the graph above the share of electricity in the world generated by fossil fuels has gone down in recent years (from 66.48% in 2015 to 57.39% in 2025), and the share of electricity generated by nuclear has also gone down (from 10.55% in 2015 to 8.85% in 2025) whilst the share of electricity generated by renewables has increased (from 22.97% in 2015 to 33.76% in 2025). This is even though the most prominent source of renewable energy, hydro, has decreased its share substantially (from 16.2% in 2015 to 14% in 2025) as can be seen in the graph below.
What is going on is that two sources of renewable energy, wind and solar, have increased their share of electricity generated substantially (wind: from 3.5% in 2015 to 8.5% in 2025) and (solar: from 1.1% in 2015 to 8.7% in 2025), which can be seen in the graph below. It should be noted that renewable energy encompasses solar, wind, hydropower, bioenergy, geothermal, wave, and tidal sources.
To play around with the graph above and other similar graphs click here and select and look at the bottom charts. To play around with the graph below and similar graphs click here and select and look at the bottom charts.
Share of electricity production by source, World. Data source (2026): Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BY.
So far, I’ve been talking about the share of electricity production in the world by different energy sources. However, the world is using more and more electricity. Populations are growing, economies are growing, and the world is electrifying, for example, because of the worldwide adaption of EVs.
Just because an energy source’s share of electricity production is decreasing does not mean its total global electricity generation by that source is decreasing. In fact, as the share of electricity production by fossil fuels has decreased, the total production of electricity by fossil fuels has increased, well up until now. For the first time in history the total global electricity generation by fossil fuels went down in 2025. Note that since coal and oil decreased in the graph below fossil fuel consumption for electricity declined in 2025, despite s small increase in gas. This means that the use of fossil fuels is finally decreasing.
Low carbon sources met all of 2025’s electricity demand growth. Change in global electricity generation by source, 2024 to 2025. Total generation rose by 850 terawatt-hours (TWh). Note: “Other renewables” include hydropower, bioenergy, tidal and geothermal. Data source: Ember (2026). This graph comes from this page.
The practice of burning fossil fuels to generate electricity and for transportation is becoming less dominant. I believe this fact is surprising to many people, especially Americans since the current administration has taken a strong anti-renewable and anti-climate-science stance, and many Americans are not aware of what is happening in the rest of world in this regard. Superfact #100 is a super fact because the data is reliable, it is surprising to many people, and it is important.
It should be noted that we will likely keep using fossil fuels to produce fertilizers, plastics, medicines, and chemicals for a long time. However, this corresponds to only a few percent of our current use of fossil fuels and seems to be a lot better use of fossil fuels than burning it all up for energy. In fact, we may need the remaining fossil fuels for that purpose. In this post I am using data provided by Our World in Data which in turn got data from Ember Energy, or the International Energy Agency.
The Current Administration’s Opposition to Renewables and Climate Science
I am trying to keep politics out of my blog. However, the current administration’s strong opposition to and the misinformation they disseminate about renewables and climate science makes it difficult to discuss this renewable energy without bringing it up. It is an important piece in our understanding of what is going on. The misinformation about climate science (and other scientific topics) has bamboozled a lot of people and the actions taken to hinder the deployment of renewables have had real consequences. However, it is important to remember that the current situation here in the US is temporary and has a limited impact on the rest of the world.
Some actions that current administration has taken are:
Science organizations such as NOAA and NFS-NCAR have had their budgets severely cut and have been threatened to be dismantled. Websites related to climate science have been taken down. Click here to read more. NASA is also threatened to have its science programs severely cut (by 47%), as well as other programs, but it has not yet been implemented. Click here to read more.
Restricting or ordering the freezing of permits for renewables, canceling tax credits and investment credits for renewables, ordering the cancelation of renewables under construction, for additional information click here, or here.
In 2009 the EPA found that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases endanger both current and future generations, enabling EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. This, so called endangerment finding was overturned in February 2026 by the administration. This article explain why there is no Scientific justification to revoke the endangerment finding.
The administration paid one billion dollars to France’s TotalEnergies in exchange for not developing windfarms on the east coast (kind of a bribe).
Pentagon has frozen permitting since last August halting more than 250 onshore wind projects, including those on private land, which is not only preventing us from meeting our energy needs, but is indirectly a violation of private property rights.
The United States is the only country to have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement (January 27, 2026). Three other countries, Iran, Libya, and Yemen, did not join.
95,000 employees, including 10,000+ with PhD’s, at government science agencies (more than a third of them) have either been laid off / fired, or left, as a result of current policies. This effects CDC, NIH (National Institute of Health), and especially anything related to climate science. Many scientists have left the US for Europe.
There is not wonder many in the United States incorrectly believe clean energy is on its way out. I should say that even though support for solar and wind has declined in the US, solar and wind remain the sources of energy that most people want the federal government to encourage over any other source of energy, according to this Pew Research article.
Important Climate and Energy Facts
As I said, the misinformation about climate science has bamboozled a lot of people. As an example. We know that climate change / global warming is happening. We have also known for several decades that the current climate change / global warming is not natural. It is caused by us, chiefly due to the burning of fossil fuels. The scientific evidence is conclusive. It includes satellites directly measuring our greenhouse gases trapping heat, the upper troposphere is cooling whilst the lower atmosphere is warming, showing that the heating is from greenhouse gases, the unnatural speed of the warming, isotope studies, climate models, etc. How many people know about this? I believe very few people do. Below are eleven related super facts.
Greenhouse gas emissions and death rates from various sources of energy. Fossil fuels and biomass are based on state-of-the art plants with pollution control in Europe and are based on older models of the impacts of air pollution on health. This means that these death rates are likely to be very conservative. The graph shows that renewables and nuclear are the cleanest and safest forms of energy. For further discussion see the article: OurWorldinData.org/safest-sources-of-energy. Electricity shares are given for 2021. Data sources: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007); UNSCEAR (2008: 2018); Sovacol et al. (2016); IPCC AR5 (2014); UNECE (2022); Ember Energy (2001). OurWorldinData.org – Research and data to make progress against the world’s largest problems. Licensed under CC-BY by the authors Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser. Citation : Hannah Ritchie (2020) – “What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://archive.ourworldindata.org/20260202-100556/safest-sources-of-energy.html’ [Online Resource] (archived on February 2, 2026).
The Share of EVs
Another phenomenon that results in less burning of fossil fuels than we otherwise would have is that electric cars and plug-in hybrid are becoming more common in the world. Going from nearly non-existent in 2010 electric cars (EVs) are now starting to show up around the world. The share of electric cars on the roads in 2024 was in the United States was 2.7%, in the world 4.5%, in China 11%, in Sweden 13% and in Norway 32%.
What matters more (for the future) is the sale of new EVs and plug-in hybrids. The share of new cars that are electric was 22% for the world, 10% in the United States, 21% in the EU, 28% in the United Kingdom, 48% in China, 58% in Sweden, 92% in Norway. In 2025 the share of new cars that were electric was 98% in Norway according to this website. To see more EV statistics and play around with various graphs visit this link.
One thing that might be surprising to Americans is that EVs are quite common in many other countries including EU, the Scandinavian countries, and China. Another is that EVs are indeed significantly cleaner than internal combustion engines, even when charged from a relatively dirty grid. See this super fact (29) EV Cars Indeed Emit Less Carbon Pollution.
Share of cars currently in use that are electric, 2010 to 2024. Electric cars include fully battery-electric and plug-in hybrids. With battery-electric cars is meant cars or other vehicles that are powered entirely by an electric motor and battery, instead of an internal combustion engine. With plug-in hybrid is meant cars or other vehicles that have a rechargeable battery and electric motor, and an internal combustion engine. The battery in plug-in hybrids is smaller and has a shorter range than battery-electric cars, so over longer distances, the car starts running on gasoline once the battery has run out. Data source: International Energy Agency Global EV Outlook 2025. OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BYBattery-electric cars are depicted with brown and plug-in hybrid in blue. Share of new cars sold that are battery-electric and plug-in hybrid, 2010 to 2024. Plug-in hybrids cars can run using an electric motor and rechargeable battery, or an internal combustion engine. Their battery is usually smaller than a fully battery-electric. Data source: International Energy Agency Global EV Outlook 2025. OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BYShare of new cars sold that are electric, 2024. Electric cars include fully battery-electric and plug-in hybrids. Data source: International Energy Agency Global EV Outlook 2025. OurWorldinData.org | CC BY
Share of electricity production by source EU, US, China
The first graph in this post depicted the share of electricity production by source for the world. The graph below breaks it up to show the share of electricity production by source for the three largest economies in the world, the United States, China and the EU. Again, the share of energy from coal, nuclear and hydro is decreasing whilst the share from wind and solar is going up for all three markets. One notable difference from the top graph is that gas keep increasing for the United States.
Share of electricity production by source, United States, European Union, and China. Data source: Ember (2026): Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldData.org/energy | CC BY
The Share of Electricity Production from Wind
Below are a few charts depicting the share of electricity production from wind. The first graph is already included in the second chart from the top (above). However, this is a close up. The second graph depicts the share of electricity production from wind for multiple countries. It should be noted that Denmark and the United Kingdom are prominent users of wind power. For Denmark the share of electricity production from wind is almost 60%. By clicking here you can play around with the graphs and generate as many different graphs as you wish.
Share of electricity production from wind. Measured as a percentage of total electricity produced in the world. Data source: Ember (2026): Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BYShare of electricity production from wind. Measured as a percentage of total electricity produced in the country or region. Data source: Ember (2026): Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BYShare of electricity production from wind. Measured as a percentage of total electricity produced in the United States, China and the European Union. Data source: Ember (2026): Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BY
The Share of Electricity from Solar
The share of electricity from Solar for the world has grown from essentially 0% in the year 2000 to 3.19% in 2020 to 8.75% in 2025. For solar, the United States follows the rest of the world closely. Some countries have a higher percentage, such as the Cook Islands – 50%, Luxembourg – 30.52%, Chile – 25.06%. If you wish you can take a look here, or here, and you can play around with the different graphs. You can create millions of scenarios at your pleasure.
Share of electricity from Solar. Measured as a percentage of total electricity produced in the country or region. Data source: Ember (2026): Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BY
The Share of Electricity Production from Hydropower
Hydro is a renewable energy source but its share of electricity production in the world has gone down. Unlike solar and wind, hydro is not an intermittent source of energy, so that is not necessarily something to celebrate. The intermittency of solar and wind can be mitigated using batteries, or energy sources that are not intermittent, preferably clean energy sources such as hydro and nuclear. Hydro is still the world’s most popular renewable energy source but that is changing quickly.
The graph below shows that the share of electricity production from hydropower for the world is 13.96%, USA 5.35%, Bhutan 100%, Norway 90.03%, Brazil 51.78%, Sweden 39.97%. If you wish you can take a look here, or here, and you can play around with the different graphs. You can create millions of scenarios at your pleasure.
Share of electricity production from hydropower. Measured as a percentage of total electricity produced in the world. Data source: Ember (2026): Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BYShare of electricity production from hydropower. Measured as a percentage of total electricity produced in the world and five countries (Bhutan, Norway, Brazil, Sweden, United States). Bhutan remains at 100% hydro, Norway went from 99.12% in 1985 to 90.03% in 2025, Brazil went from 92.10% hydro in 1985 to 51.78% in 2025, Sweden went from 51.76% hydro in 1985 to 39.97% in 2025, the United States went from 10.81% hydro in 1985 to 5.35% in 2025. The world went from 20.02% hydro in 1985 to 13.96% in 2025. Data source: Ember (2026): Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BY
The Share of Electricity Production from Nuclear
The share of electricity production in the world from nuclear went down from 15.06% in 1985 to 8.85% in 2025, which is a significant drop. During the same time the share of electricity production from nuclear in the United States went from 15.20% in 1985 to 17.36% in 2025, for China the numbers are 0% in 1985 to 4.61% in 2025, and for EU the share of electricity production in 1985 was 27.42% and in 2025 23.32%. However, in 1993% the share of electricity production in 1993 was 33.90%.
So, nuclear has taken a big step back in EU. Germany cancelled nuclear power entirely, for better and for worse. To interact with the graphs shown below or see other (millions) related charts or maps click here, or here.
Share of electricity production from nuclear. Measured as a percentage of total electricity produced in the world’s three largest economies, the United States, EU, and China. Data source: Ember (2026): Energy Institute – Statistical Review of World Energy (2025) OurWorldinData.org/energy | CC BY
Geothermal a Promising source of Energy
Another reason to believe that the energy transition away from fossil fuels has begun, is that in addition to fossil fuels losing share of total electricity produced, there are promising emerging renewables, such as Geothermal energy. Geothermal energy uses natural heat from deep within the Earth to generate electricity or heat buildings. Wells tap into underground hot water/steam reservoirs, forcing it up to spin turbines that power generators, after which the water is cooled and reinjected to replenish the source (see the picture below).
Geothermal energy production example diagram illustration. Industrial renewable green energy plant example. Steam flow from the underground hot water to turbine generator and cooling towers. Shutterstock Asset id: 1637621995 by VectorMine.
Just like renewables geothermal energy is low emissions energy source but unlike renewables it is not an intermittent energy source. It is as of yet not widely used and not cost effective. However, it appears that might change soon. The advanced drilling techniques needed are utilizing oil and gas expertise and could therefore provide a good transition from fossil fuels to geothermal.
Geothermal power plant from above Shutterstock Asset id: 2539157855 by Alrasyiqin
Is Fusion Power the Future ?
Fusion power is a clean, and near-limitless energy source generated by smashing light atomic nuclei together, usually hydrogen isotope, to form heavier ones. It is a form of nuclear power that releases immense heat. It replicates the process that powers the Sun. Unlike wind and solar it is not intermittent and can generate carbon-free baseload electricity without long-lived radioactive waste. However, it cannot yet be used to produce energy. That does not mean it will not work in the future.
Nuclear fusion power generator concept image, 3d rendering Shutterstock asset id: 2262106105 by MeshCube.
Conclusion
The share of fossil fuels for electricity generation is decreasing despite the fact that the share from hydro and nuclear is also decreasing. The reason is the spectacular increase in the share provided by wind and solar. In addition, EV cars are rapidly replacing internal combustion cars around the world, especially in the EU and China. There are also renewable or clean energy sources that show great promise even though they are not yet widespread. This means that fossil fuels, coal, natural gas, and oil, which are all dirty and dangerous energy sources, are finally being replaced by cleaner alternatives.
Superfact 99: Carbon capture is the process of separating carbon dioxide from industrial emissions. Even though it works and could be helpful it isn’t used very much, at least not the right way.
If you have not heard about carbon capture before, its existence may be a surprise to you. If you do know about carbon capture it is likely to come as a surprise to you that it is a potentially promising technology that is underutilized and not used correctly. The facts around this technology are surprising, which is why I call it a super fact.
With CCS, carbon dioxide is captured from a point source, such as an ethanol refinery. It is usually transported via pipelines and then either used to extract oil or stored in a dedicated geologic formation. Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Federal Government, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Carbon dioxide and Global Warming
Global warming, or if you call it climate change, is happening and it is happening very fast. We also know that it is caused by us primarily as a result of our burning of fossil fuels. The primary culprit is carbon dioxide. There is a long-standing scientific consensus on these two/three facts because the evidence is conclusive. Some organizations and contrarians have successfully confused the public, but that does not mean there is a serious scientific discussion on the issue. To read more about this click here.
The damage caused by carbon dioxide to human health and the environment is difficult to assess, but you can get an idea, and you can put a dollar price on it. The economist William Nordhaus did this and got the Nobel Prize in economy for it in 2018. See my review for his book The Climate Casino. Now the question is what to do about it, and carbon capture and storage is one potential option.
Natural causes for global warming / climate change would have cooled the planet, not warm it. Click here to visit this NASA web page regarding the causes behind global warming.
Carbon capture and storage an unfulfilled promise
The following is to a large degree my opinion, not just fact. Carbon capture and storage is a good idea. However, it adds costs to the production of energy, a cost someone must pay for. It seems like a no brainer that if carbon dioxide creates a social cost of several hundred dollars per ton, then paying much less than that to mitigate the emissions would be a good idea. However, the social cost that carbon dioxide imposes on all of us is imposed on all of us whether we are responsible for the emissions or not. Whereas the cost for carbon capture is a cost to a specific company or person responsible for the emissions.
Even though the cost for carbon capture may only be a few dollars added to the natural gas bill or a few cents per gallon on a gas tank it is a cost that is not incurred by your competitor who is not doing carbon capture. Unless the governments of the world either pay for carbon capture or put a price on carbon emissions, carbon capture isn’t going to be economically viable.
In addition, carbon capture and storage has been disappointing in other ways. It has been more difficult and expensive than expected. It has been used to extract more fossil fuels rather than removing carbon emissions. In addition, renewable energy has become so cheap that it is cheaper to use renewable energy instead of fossil fuels with carbon capture.
I came across a very interesting post about the science history of greenhouse effect: “The Greenhouse Effect: From Early Chemistry to the Keeling Curve” by Craigavad miscellany a science blog written by a retired academic. It is a very educational and interesting post related to this topic. Please take a look.
From Scripps institute. Keep two things in mind. First the warming from CO2 is delayed and may result in positive feedback that can manifest decades and centuries later. Secondly, human civilization developed during a period of stable climate. That CO2 levels and temperatures were higher millions of years ago is not much comfort.
Super Facts 