If you add in nuclear, then the US has reached a grid that is 40 percent emissions-free over the first nine months of 2025. That’s up only 1 percent compared to the same period the year prior. And because coal emits more carbon than natural gas, it’s likely the US will see a net increase in electricity-related emissions this year.
If you would like to have a reason to feel somewhat more optimistic, however, the EIA used the new data to release an analysis of the state of the grid in California, where the production from utility-scale solar has nearly doubled over the last five years, thanks in part to another 17 percent increase so far in 2024.
Through 2023, it was tough to discern any impact of that solar production on the rest of the grid, in part due to increased demand. But since then, natural gas use has dropped considerably (it’s down by 17 percent so far in 2025), placing it at risk of being displaced by solar as the largest source of electricity in California as early as next year. This displacement is happening even as California’s total consumption jumped by 8 percent so far in 2025 compared to the same period last year.
Massive solar growth plus batteries means less natural gas on California’s grid. Credit: US EIA
The massive growth in solar has also led to overproduction of power in the spring and autumn, when heating/cooling demands are lowest. That, in turn, has led to a surge in battery construction to absorb the cheap power and sell it back after the Sun sets. The impact of batteries was nearly impossible to discern as recently as 2023, but data from May and June of 2025 shows batteries pulling in lots of power at mid-day, and using it in the early evening to completely offset what would otherwise be an enormous surge in the use of natural gas.
Not every state has the sorts of solar resources available to California. But the economics of solar power suggest that other states are likely to experience this sort of growth in the coming years. And, while the Trump administration has been openly hostile to solar power from the moment it took office, so far there is no sign of that hostility at the grid level.
Commissioner fired as Trump pivots US policy to accept more nuclear risks.
Critics warn that the United States may soon be taking on more nuclear safety risks after Donald Trump fired one of five members of an independent commission that monitors the country’s nuclear reactors.
In a statement Monday, Christopher Hanson confirmed that Trump fired him from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Friday. He alleged that the firing was “without cause” and “contrary to existing law and longstanding precedent regarding removal of independent agency appointees.” According to NPR, he received an email that simply said his firing was “effective immediately.”
Hanson had enjoyed bipartisan support for his work for years. Trump initially appointed Hanson to the NRC in 2020, then he was renominated by Joe Biden in 2024. In his statement, he said it was an “honor” to serve, citing accomplishments over his long stint as chair, which ended in January 2025.
It’s unclear why Trump fired Hanson. Among the committee chair’s accomplishments, Hanson highlighted revisions to safety regulations, as well as efforts to ramp up recruitment by re-establishing the Minority Serving Institution Grant Program. Both may have put him in opposition to Trump, who wants to loosen regulations to boost the nuclear industry and eliminate diversity initiatives across government.
In a statement to NPR, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly suggested it was a political firing.
“All organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction,” Kelly said. “President Trump reserves the right to remove employees within his own Executive Branch who exert his executive authority.”
On social media, some Trump critics suggested that Trump lacked the authority to fire Hanson, arguing that Hanson could have ignored the email and kept on working, like the Smithsonian museum director whom Trump failed to fire. (And who eventually quit.)
But Hanson accepted the termination. Instead of raising any concerns, he used his statement as an opportunity to praise those left at NRC, who will be tasked with continuing to protect Americans from nuclear safety risks at a time when Trump has said that he wants industry interests to carry equal weight as public health and environmental concerns.
“My focus over the last five years has been to prepare the agency for anticipated change in the energy sector, while preserving the independence, integrity, and bipartisan nature of the world’s gold standard nuclear safety institution,” Hanson said. “It has been an honor to serve alongside the dedicated public servants at the NRC. I continue to have full trust and confidence in their commitment to serve the American people by protecting public health and safety and the environment.”
Trump pushing “unsettled” science on nuclear risks
The firing followed an executive order in May that demanded an overhaul of the NRC, including reductions in force and expedited approvals on nuclear reactors. All final decisions on new reactors must be made within 18 months, and requests to continue operating existing reactors should be rubber-stamped within a year, Trump ordered.
Likely most alarming to critics, the desired reforms emphasized tossing out the standards that the NRC currently uses that “posit there is no safe threshold of radiation exposure, and that harm is directly proportional to the amount of exposure.”
Until Trump started meddling, the NRC established those guidelines after agreeing with studies examining “cancer cases among 86,600 survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan during World War II,” Science reported. Those studies concluded that “the incidence of cancer in the survivors rose linearly—in a straight line—with the radiation dose.” By rejecting that evidence, Trump could be slowly creeping up the radiation dose and leading Americans to blindly take greater risks.
But according to Trump, by adopting those current standards, the NRC is supposedly bogging down the nuclear industry by trying to “insulate Americans from the most remote risks without appropriate regard for the severe domestic and geopolitical costs of such risk aversion.” Instead, the US should prioritize solving the riddle of what might be safe radiation levels, Trump suggests, while restoring US dominance in the nuclear industry, which Trump views as vital to national security and economic growth.
Although Trump claimed the NRC’s current standards were “irrational” and “lack scientific basis,” Science reported that the so-called “linear no-threshold (LNT) model of ionizing radiation” that Trump is criticizing “is widely accepted in the scientific community and informs almost all regulation of the US nuclear industry.”
Further, the NRC rejected past attempts to switch to a model based on the “hormesis theory” that Trump seemingly supports—which posits that some radiation exposure can be beneficial. The NRC found there was “insufficient evidence to justify any changes” that could endanger public health, Science reported.
One health researcher at the University of California, Irvine, Stephen Bondy, told Science that his 2023 review on the science of hormesis showed it is “still unsettled.” His characterization of the executive order suggests that the NRC embracing that model “clearly places health hazards as of secondary importance relative to economic and business interests.”
Trump’s pro-industry push could backfire
If the administration charges ahead with such changes, experts have warned that Trump could end up inadvertently hobbling the nuclear industry. If health hazards become extreme—or a nuclear event occurs—”altering NRC’s safety standards could ultimately reduce public support for nuclear power,” analysts told Science.
Among the staunchest critics of Trump’s order is Edwin Lyman, the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In a May statement, Lyman warned that “the US nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority.”
He also cautioned that it was critical for the NRC to remain independent, not just to shield Americans from risks but to protect US nuclear technology’s prominence in global markets.
“By fatally compromising the independence and integrity of the NRC, and by encouraging pathways for nuclear deployment that bypass the regulator entirely, the Trump administration is virtually guaranteeing that this country will see a serious accident or other radiological release that will affect the health, safety, and livelihoods of millions,” Lyman said. “Such a disaster will destroy public trust in nuclear power and cause other nations to reject US nuclear technology for decades to come.”
Since Trump wants regulations changed, there will likely be a public commenting period where concerned citizens can weigh in on what they think are acceptable radiation levels in their communities. But Trump’s order also pushed for that public comment period to be streamlined, potentially making it easier to push through his agenda. If that happens, the NRC may face lawsuits under the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, which requires the commission to “minimize danger to life or property,” Science noted.
Following Hanson’s firing, Lyman reiterated to NPR that Trump’s ongoing attacks on the NRC “could have serious implications for nuclear safety.
“It’s critical that the NRC make its judgments about protecting health and safety without regard for the financial health of the nuclear industry,” Lyman said.
Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.
We can expect next year’s numbers to also show a large growth in solar production, as the EIA says that the US saw record levels of new solar installations in 2024, with 37 gigawatts of new capacity. Since some of that came online later in the year, it’ll produce considerably more power next year. And, in its latest short-term energy analysis, the EIA expects to see over 20 GW of solar capacity added in each of the next two years. New wind capacity will push that above 30 GW of renewable capacity each of these years.
The past few years of solar installations have led to remarkable growth in its power output. Credit: John Timer
That growth will, it’s expected, more than offset continued growth in demand, although that growth is expected to be somewhat slower than we saw in 2024. It also predicts about 15 GW of coal will be removed from the grid during those two years. So, even without any changes in policy, we’re likely to see a very dynamic grid landscape over the next few years.
But changes in policy are almost certainly on the way. The flurry of executive orders issued by the Trump administration includes a number of energy-related changes. These include defining “energy” in a way that excludes wind and solar, an end to offshore wind leasing and the threat to terminate existing leases, and a re-evaluation of the allocation of funds from some of the Biden administration’s energy-focused laws.
In essence, this sets up a clash among economics, state policies, and federal policy. Even without any subsidies, wind and solar are the cheapest ways to produce electricity in much of the US. In addition, a number of states have mandates that will require the use of more renewable energy. At the same time, the permitting process for the plants and their grid connections will often require approvals at the federal level, and it appears to be official policy to inhibit renewables when possible. And a number of states are also making attempts to block new renewable power installations.
It’s going to be a challenging period for everyone involved in renewable energy.
Notably, the Dragonfly launch was one of the first times United Launch Alliance has been eligible to bid its new Vulcan rocket for a NASA launch contract. NASA officials gave the green light for the Vulcan rocket to compete head-to-head with SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy after ULA’s new launcher had a successful debut launch earlier this year. With this competition, SpaceX came out on top.
A half-life of 88 years
NASA’s policy for new space missions is to use solar power whenever possible. For example, Europa Clipper was originally supposed to use a nuclear power generator, but engineers devised a way for the spacecraft to use expansive solar panels to capture enough sunlight to produce electricity, even at Jupiter’s vast distance from the Sun.
But there are some missions where this isn’t feasible. One of these is Dragonfly, which will soar through the soupy nitrogen-methane atmosphere of Titan. Saturn’s largest moon is shrouded in cloud cover, and Titan is nearly 10 times farther from the Sun than Earth, so its surface is comparatively dim.
The Dragonfly mission, seen here in an artist’s concept, is slated to launch no earlier than 2027 on a mission to explore Saturn’s moon Titan. Credit: NASA/JHUAPL/Steve Gribben
Dragonfly will launch with about 10.6 pounds (4.8 kilograms) of plutonium-238 to fuel its power generator. Plutonium-238 has a half-life of 88 years. With no moving parts, RTGs have proven quite reliable, powering spacecraft for many decades. NASA’s twin Voyager probes are approaching 50 years since launch.
The Dragonfly rotorcraft will launch cocooned inside a transit module and entry capsule, then descend under parachute through Titan’s atmosphere, which is four times denser than Earth’s. Finally, Dragonfly will detach from its descent module and activate its eight rotors to reach a safe landing.
Once on Titan, Dragonfly is designed to hop from place to place on numerous flights, exploring environments rich in organic molecules, the building blocks of life. This is one of NASA’s most exciting, and daring, robotic missions of all time.
After launching from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in July 2028, it will take Dragonfly about six years to reach Titan. When NASA selected the Dragonfly mission to begin development in 2019, the agency hoped to launch the mission in 2026. NASA later directed Dragonfly managers to target a launch in 2027, and then 2028, requiring the mission to change from a medium-lift to a heavy-lift rocket.
Dragonfly has also faced rising costs NASA blames on the COVID-19 pandemic and supply chain issues and an in-depth redesign since the mission’s selection in 2019. Collectively, these issues caused Dragonfly’s total budget to grow to $3.35 billion, more than double its initial projected cost.
The Sarmat missile silo seen before last week’s launch attempt.
Maxar Technologies
A closer view of the Sarmat missile silo before last week’s launch attempt.
Maxar Technologies
Fire trucks surround the Sarmat missile silo in this view from space on Saturday, September 21.
Maxar Technologies
Late last week, Russia’s military planned to launch a Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on a test flight from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome. Imagery from commercial satellites captured over the weekend suggest the missile exploded before or during launch.
This is at least the second time an RS-28 Sarmat missile has failed in less than two years, dealing a blow to the country’s nuclear forces days after the head of the Russian legislature issued a veiled threat to use the missile against Europe if Western allies approved Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons against Russia.
Commercial satellite imagery collected by Maxar and Planet show before-and-after views of the Sarmat missile silo at Plesetsk, a military base about 500 miles (800 kilometers) north of Moscow. The view from one of Maxar’s imaging satellites Saturday revealed unmistakable damage at the launch site, with a large crater centered on the opening to the underground silo.
The crater is roughly 200 feet (62 meters) wide, according to George Barros, a Russia and geospatial intelligence analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. “Extensive damage in and around the launch pad can be seen which suggests that the missile exploded shortly after ignition or launch,” Barros wrote on X.
“Additionally, small fires continue to burn in the forest to the east of the launch complex and four fire trucks can be seen near the destroyed silo,” Barros added.
Enlarge/ An RS-28 Sarmat missile fires out of its underground silo on its first full-scale test flight in April 2022.
Russian Ministry of Defense
The Sarmat missile is Russia’s largest ICBM, with a height of 115 feet (35 meters). It is capable of delivering nuclear warheads to targets more than 11,000 miles (18,000 kilometers) away, making it the longest-range missile in the world. The three-stage missile burns hypergolic hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide propellants, and is built by the Makeyev Design Bureau. The Sarmat, sometimes called the Satan II, replaces Russia’s long-range R-36M missile developed during the Cold War.
“According to Russian media, Sarmat can reportedly load up to 10 large warheads, 16 smaller ones, a combination of warheads and countermeasures, or hypersonic boost-glide vehicle,” the Center for Strategic and International Studies writes on its website.
The secret is out
Western analysts still don’t know exactly when the explosion occurred. Russia issued warnings last week for pilots to keep out of airspace along the flight path of a planned missile launch from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome. Russia published similar notices before previous Sarmat missile tests, alerting observers that another Sarmat launch was imminent. The warnings were canceled Thursday, two days before satellite imagery showed the destruction at the launch site.
“It is possible that the launch attempt was undertaken on September 19th, with fires persisting for more than 24 hours,” wrote Pavel Podvig, a senior researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research in Geneva, on his Russian Nuclear Forces blog site. “Another possibility is that the test was scrubbed on the 19th and the incident happened during the subsequent defueling of the missile. The character of destruction suggests that the missile exploded in the silo.”
James Acton, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on X that the before-and-after imagery of the Sarmat missile silo was “very persuasive that there was a big explosion.”
While solar power is growing at an extremely rapid clip, in absolute terms, the use of natural gas for electricity production has continued to outpace renewables. But that looks set to change in 2024, as the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) has run the numbers on the first half of the year and found that wind, solar, and batteries were each installed at a pace that dwarfs new natural gas generators. And the gap is expected to get dramatically larger before the year is over.
Solar, batteries booming
According to the EIA’s numbers, about 20 GW of new capacity was added in the first half of this year, and solar accounts for 60 percent of it. Over a third of the solar additions occurred in just two states, Texas and Florida. There were two projects that went live that were rated at over 600 MW of capacity, one in Texas, the other in Nevada.
Next up is batteries: The US saw 4.2 additional gigawatts of battery capacity during this period, meaning over 20 percent of the total new capacity. (Batteries are treated as the equivalent of a generating source by the EIA since they can dispatch electricity to the grid on demand, even if they can’t do so continuously.) Texas and California alone accounted for over 60 percent of these additions; throw in Arizona and Nevada, and you’re at 93 percent of the installed capacity.
The clear pattern here is that batteries are going where the solar is, allowing the power generated during the peak of the day to be used to meet demand after the sun sets. This will help existing solar plants avoid curtailing power production during the lower-demand periods in the spring and fall. In turn, this will improve the economic case for installing additional solar in states where its production can already regularly exceed demand.
Wind power, by contrast, is running at a more sedate pace, with only 2.5 GW of new capacity during the first six months of 2024. And for likely the last time this decade, additional nuclear power was placed on the grid, at the fourth 1.1 GW reactor (and second recent build) at the Vogtle site in Georgia. The only other additions came from natural gas-powered facilities, but these totaled just 400 MW, or just 2 percent of the total of new capacity.
Enlarge/ Wind, solar, and batteries are the key contributors to new capacity in 2024.
The EIA has also projected capacity additions out to the end of 2024 based on what’s in the works, and the overall shape of things doesn’t change much. However, the pace of installation goes up as developers rush to get their project operational within the current tax year. The EIA expects a bit over 60 GW of new capacity to be installed by the end of the year, with 37 GW of that coming in the form of solar power. Battery growth continues at a torrid pace, with 15 GW expected, or roughly a quarter of the total capacity additions for the year.
Wind will account for 7.1 GW of new capacity, and natural gas 2.6 GW. Throw in the contribution from nuclear, and 96 percent of the capacity additions of 2024 are expected to operate without any carbon emissions. Even if you choose to ignore the battery additions, the fraction of carbon-emitting capacity added remains extremely small, at only 6 percent.
Gradual shifts on the grid
Obviously, these numbers represent the peak production of these sources. Over a year, solar produces at about 25 percent of its rated capacity in the US, and wind at about 35 percent. The former number will likely decrease over time as solar becomes inexpensive enough to make economic sense in places that don’t receive as much sunshine. By contrast, wind’s capacity factor may increase as more offshore wind farms get completed. For natural gas, many of the newer plants are being designed to operate erratically so that they can provide power when renewables are under-producing.
A clearer sense of what’s happening comes from looking at the generating sources that are being retired. The US saw 5.1 GW of capacity drop off the grid in the first half of 2024, and aside from a 0.2 GW of “other,” all of it was fossil fuel-powered, including 2.1 GW of coal capacity and 2.7 GW of natural gas. The latter includes a large 1.4 GW natural gas plant in Massachusetts.
But total retirements are expected to be just 7.5 GWO this year—less than was retired in the first half of 2023. That’s likely because the US saw electricity use rise by 5 percent in the first half of 2025, based on numbers the EIA released on Friday (note that this link will take you to more recent data a month from now). It’s unclear how much of that was due to weather—a lot of the country saw heat that likely boosted demand for air conditioning—and how much could be accounted for by rising use in data centers and for the electrification of transit and appliances.
That data release includes details on where the US got its electricity during the first half of 2024. The changes aren’t dramatic compared to where they were when we looked at things last month. Still, what has changed over the past month is good news for renewables. In May, wind and solar production were up 8.4 percent compared to the same period the year before. By June, they were up by over 12 percent.
Given the EIA’s expectations for the rest of the year, the key question is likely to be whether the pace of new solar installations is going to be enough to offset the drop in production that will occur as the US shifts to the winter months.
