Seven countries now generate 100% of their electricity from renewable energy
112 points
2 hours ago
| 8 comments
| the-independent.com
| HN
phtrivier
31 minutes ago
[-]
> Albania, Bhutan, Nepal, Paraguay, Iceland, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo produced more than 99.7 per cent of the electricity they consumed using geothermal, hydro, solar or wind power.

Let's head to electricitymaps.com !

Albania (https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/AL/live/fifteen_min...)

- On 2026-04-12 16:45 GMT+2, 22,67% of electricity consumed by Albania is imported from Greece, which generates 22% of its electricity from gas. Interestingly, Albania exports about as much to Montenegro as it imports from Greece.

Bhutan:

- 100% hydro, makes perfect sense

Nepal:

- 98% hydro, a bit of solar for good measure

Iceland:

- 70% hydro, 30% geo

Paraguay:

- 99,9% hydro

Ethiopia:

- 96,4% hydro

DRC

- 99.6% hydro

So, the lessons for all other countries in the world is pretty clear: grow yourselves some mountains, dig yourselves a big river, and dam, baby, dam !!

(I'm kidding, but I'm sure someone has a pie-in-the-sky geoengineering startup about to disrupt topography using either AI, blockchain, or both.)

reply
input_sh
2 minutes ago
[-]
I guess somewhat of a fun fact: Albania has rented(!) two floating(!) oil-powered power plants near the city of Vlöre that are there in case of emergency. The last time they were really needed was in 2022 (if I remember correctly), but these days they're not turned on any more than they need to be to make sure they're operating properly. That very expensive backup system is basically the only non-renewable source in the whole country, and most of the time it's just sitting there doing nothing.

Being powered almost entirely by hydro means that the system is highly susceptible to droughts, so then they either have to spin up those oil plants from time to time or import electricity from abroad. I think it's also worth pointing out that nothing really changed because of climate change, the decision to rely on hydro was made in the 90s. The country used to have its own oil power plant that it heavily relied on before that decision, which slowly produced less and less until it was shut down for good in 2007. Some images of it from 2019: https://www.oneman-onemap.com/en/2019/06/26/the-abandoned-po...

reply
jacquesm
23 minutes ago
[-]
And have either a small population or a very low per-person energy budget.

But: 7 isn't the number that matters, what matters is that next year it will be 8 or 9. That would be worth documenting.

reply
WinstonSmith84
17 minutes ago
[-]
fun fact for Paraguay: the Itaipu Dam is one of the largest in the world located between Brazil and Paraguay, where each country gets 50% of the production. But 50% of that production for Paraguay, a country of 7 millions inhabitants, means that it cannot consume that much, so it's essentially reselling that energy to Brazil, a country with 30x more inhabitants. Paraguay only uses about 1/3 of its share (and thus resells 2/3 to Brazil).
reply
KellyCriterion
3 minutes ago
[-]
wasnt New Zealand also already far up beyond 90% renewable electricity a couple of years ago?
reply
Mordisquitos
1 hour ago
[-]
Specifically Albania, Bhutan, Nepal, Paraguay, Iceland, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Not to downplay the positive steps that are being taken towards using renewable energy worldwide, but one must point out that all those countries except one are almost exclusively using hydroelectric power, whose availability at such scale is a geographical lottery. As for Iceland, which also relies mostly on hydroelectric power but not in such great a proportion, it makes up for it thanks to easy and abundantly available geothermal power (which, though environmentally friendly, is arguably not technically renewable).

reply
IneffablePigeon
1 hour ago
[-]
Well yes, hydro and geothermal are the easiest (and earliest perfected) renewable sources to provide consistent base load. It would be odd if the first countries to achieve fully renewable power weren’t making use of those technologies.

Other countries will have to be more reliant on interconnects, diverse renewable mixes and batteries. Luckily this is now almost always cheaper and more secure than fossil fuels and the trend lines point towards that continuing to be more and more true over time.

reply
nine_k
12 minutes ago
[-]
Also, many of these countries are tropical or subtropical, with optimal conditions for solar energy year round. Nepal and Bhutan are relatively far from equator, but have many days of unobstructed sunshine.
reply
darkwater
1 hour ago
[-]
Why geothermal is not renewable? Earth is not going to cool its magma soon enough
reply
leonidasrup
1 hour ago
[-]
The Earth's heat content is about 1×10^19 TJ. This heat naturally flows to the surface by conduction at a rate of 44.2 TW and is replenished by radioactive decay at a rate of 30 TW. These power rates are more than double humanity's current energy consumption from primary sources, but most of this power is too diffuse (approximately 0.1 W/m^2 on average) to be recoverable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power#Resources

reply
leonidasrup
1 hour ago
[-]
In comparison, averaged over the year and the day, the Earth's atmosphere receives 340 W/m^2 from the Sun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#On_Earth's_su...

reply
Mordisquitos
1 hour ago
[-]
Only as a technicality. If you find a geothermal hotspot and start to extract energy from it, the hotspot will eventually cool down faster than if you hadn't (which of course depends on the size of the hotspot and how much heat you're pulling out).

However, given that there's no downsides to cooling down a hotspot other than, well, no longer being able to extract energy from it, geothermal is a bit of an honorary "renewable".

Actual renewables ultimately all come down to recent[0] solar energy, which will never deplete their source however much they are used. All the energy in wind, hydroelectric and biofuels has recently originated in the Sun.

[0] I say "recently" because fossil fuels are all also derived from the Sun, but their rate of regeneration is a bit too slow compared to the speed at which we use them.

reply
KellyCriterion
2 minutes ago
[-]
If it goes down, what happens to all the buildings using geo/earth heat with these probe heads to collect the energy?

Does this effect occur in lets say 10-20 years or is this longterm like 50y+?

reply
gus_massa
1 hour ago
[-]
Geothermal is powered by fission Uranium and other heavy atoms deep in the Earth.

Solar is powered by fusion of Hydrogen in the Sun.

I'd use the same classification for both.

reply
leonidasrup
59 minutes ago
[-]
About 20% of this is residual heat from planetary accretion; the remainder is attributed to past and current radioactive decay of naturally occurring isotopes.

Most of the radiogenic heating in the Earth results from the decay of the daughter nuclei in the decay chains of uranium-238 and thorium-232, and potassium-40.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiogenic_heating

Potassium is more or less distributed in the body (especially in soft tissues) following intake of foods. A 70-kg man contains about 126 g of potassium (0.18%), most of that is located in muscles. The daily consumption of potassium is approximately 2.5 grams. Hence the concentration of potassium-40 is nearly stable in all persons at a level of about 55 Bq/kg (3850 Bq in total), which corresponds to the annual effective dose of 0.2 mSv.

https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-engineering/radiation-...

reply
Mordisquitos
54 minutes ago
[-]
No, not quite. Geothermal is powered by the accumulated heat stored in rocks from fission Uranium and other heavy atoms deep in the Earth (and other phenomena).

Geothermal hotspots do not reheat by fission or otherwise at the same speed that we extract their energy (if they did we'd be in trouble if we weren't extracting it!).

As I mentioned in another comment, build a Dyson sphere of solar panels around the Sun and it will last just as long. Build an all-Earth geothermal plant and the heat will be depleted.

reply
patall
43 minutes ago
[-]
By that definition, hydroelectric dams are not a renewable energy source for most of the year.
reply
secondcoming
14 minutes ago
[-]
How long would it take for the heat to be depleted? Humans have only managed to drill something like 12km into the earth because it gets too hot to go further.
reply
Y-bar
1 hour ago
[-]
Can’t speak for large scale sites with abundant volcanic activity… But for residential geothermal the bore hole has a lifetime based on how much ground water there is and how active usage it sees.

This is because using it cools the hole slowly and after a few decades (depending on how quickly ground water can dissipate heat gradient) a new hole need to be drilled a distance away.

reply
left-struck
1 hour ago
[-]
“Technically”
reply
ahhhhnoooo
1 hour ago
[-]
Then solar and wind aren't technically renewable either, because the sun is going to eventually consume the earth and explode.

Geothermal is renewable.

reply
delichon
29 minutes ago
[-]
And a new star will eventually form from the debris, so "renewable" is a function of time scale.
reply
Mordisquitos
1 hour ago
[-]
However much solar or wind energy we use, the Sun will last exactly as long. This is not a matter of scale. Even if we were to build a photovoltaic Dyson sphere around the Sun, it would have the same lifespan.

That is not the case for geothermal. It could in theory be cooled down if exploited at a massive scale.

Saying geothermal is not renewable is not an indictment nor a criticism. Geothermal is great and we should use it more. It's just technically not renewable, but that doesn't matter.

reply
mr_mitm
1 hour ago
[-]
Then no power source is "technically" renewable.
reply
surgical_fire
24 minutes ago
[-]
Well, when geothermal stops being renewable there will be no humans around to need energy generation.

You are still technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

But if we follow that rationale, in a long enough timeline, solar and wind is also not renewable.

reply
aqua_coder
36 minutes ago
[-]
I live in one of those countries, and while renewable electricity helped to cushion the concern for house electricity, most of the logistics (that being the supply chain for basic commodities) are transported by oil (specifically diesel). Which further increases inflation for import dependent countries. Meaning even for those states (except those that don't import oil to move cars in the country) it will regardless cause an economic crisis.

One state is considered to be fully 'renewable' if the means of transport (excluding Airplanes since I can't find a suitable alternative ) for land is done via electric cars

reply
cenamus
12 minutes ago
[-]
Or just trains
reply
ilitirit
15 minutes ago
[-]
Probably at least slightly misleading, just reading the names of some of the countries in the list (I am from South Africa).

Just because a country generates 100% of its energy from renewables, it doesn't mean that its enough to power the entire or even majority of the country. Case in point: DRC. I believe only half of the population has access to electricity. It's been a while since I've looked into continental stats, but a quick Google search suggests the situation hasn't changed that much in the last few years.

reply
realo
41 minutes ago
[-]
Perovskite Tandem are the best , according to the graph.

Why is it that those are reserved for ultra-big utility companies and I cannot buy those for my home or even my balcony?

reply
philipkglass
35 minutes ago
[-]
At present, those tandem cells are still experimental. Nobody is manufacturing them on gigawatt scale like for other solar cell technologies.
reply
realo
27 minutes ago
[-]
Well... if you go to the web site , they seem to welcome very large orders. Just not mine or yours.

Might be experimental and unavailable, but just for small orders? Come on ...

reply
Noaidi
3 minutes ago
[-]
Anyone on hacker news talking about technology from the United States should be humiliated and embarrassed by the situation. What good is technology without morality? The United States are so far behind and it’s not the fault of the politicians, it’s the fault of the scientist who are not focused on the single most important issue, climate change.
reply
goldenarm
59 minutes ago
[-]
This article omits important context : these 7 countries have massive hydro power (+geothermal for Iceland) for very little demand.

The only countries with <100 g CO2/kWh and >10TWh/y are using nuclear. Large scale batteries are exciting for the future but need more development. The 2 biggest battery investments in the world are being made in Australia and California, yet still produce 4x the g CO2/kWh of France.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/5y/yearly

reply
saidnooneever
1 hour ago
[-]
i love that in a lot of countries people think these other countries are in the sticks and that they are modern... (ofc depending who u talk to but im sure we all know such a person...) :) a lot of perceptions based on old world views. Love to see these countries do so well on it. There might be many problems to solve still but it provides a degree of self reliance for energy that is really important today for a country i'd think
reply
giantg2
1 hour ago
[-]
It's contrary to what most people think, but the later a country modernized, the better the infrastructure (generally). You basically get to skip the innovation stages where you have a hodgepodge of systems that eventually coalesce into one and all the upgrading required to bring it up to the newest standard. If you have a lower population and smaller geography, it is often easier to upgrade as well.
reply
mpweiher
22 minutes ago
[-]
Albania: 90% Hydropower, $12150 GDP/person

Bhutan: 99% Hydropower, $ 4700 GDP/person

Nepal: 23% Imported $ 1381 GDP/person

            rest Hydropower  (2/3 of energy: firewood etc.)
Paraguay: 100% Hydropower, $ 7990 GDP/person

Iceland: 99% Hydry/Geo, $90000 GDP/person

Ethiopia: 88% Hydropower, $ 1350 GDP/person

DR Kongo: 98% Hydropower, $ 760 GDP/person , 13% of country has electricity

Not sure how this is applicable (and in many cases: desirable) for countries that do not have significant hydropower potential or maybe want a GDP greater than $760 per person per year.

reply
readthenotes1
53 minutes ago
[-]
Those "countries in the sticks", one report says that the DRC only has at most 20% of the households on electricity. This report says only 10% https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/democratic-r...

On the other hand, balcony solar power will be a game changer for the world, provided your neighbors won't steal the panels like they do the catalytic converters in my neighborhood.

reply