Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Most Americans could not name a single member of their state Public Service or Utility Commission (PSC/PUC).
Radical climate activists are counting on that.
Across the country, radical climate activists and left-wing environmental organizations are pouring millions of dollars into obscure utility commission races because they understand something many voters do not: these commissions increasingly influence the future of America’s electric grid.
These regulatory bodies decide how electricity is generated, how transmission infrastructure is built, how quickly power plants retire, how new resources are integrated into the grid, and ultimately how much Americans pay for electricity and whether the lights stay on when the system is under stress.
In Georgia, radical climate activists invested heavily in the 2025 PSC races, helping defeat Republican commissioners who supported an all-of-the-above energy strategy. In Arizona, activist-backed candidates won utility elections while advocating accelerated retirements of dispatchable generation. Similar efforts are already emerging in other states.
These organizations understand that utility commissioners play a critical role in shaping energy infrastructure, reliability, and investment decisions within the legal and regulatory frameworks established by their states. As national energy debates have become increasingly difficult to win in Washington, radical left-wing environmental activists have turned their attention to state-level regulatory races where those decisions are often debated and implemented.
What makes this debate so misleading is that activists frame it as a choice between renewable energy and the dispatchable generation still required to keep the grid reliable, affordable, and resilient.
It is not.
Most Republican PSC and PUC commissioners support an all-of-the-above energy strategy. They recognize that meeting America’s growing energy needs while maintaining reliability and resilience will require contributions from virtually every available energy source.
What they reject is the fantasy that America can rapidly phase out dispatchable generation before replacement technologies are capable of providing the same level of reliability, resilience, and affordability.
Many radical climate activists have shifted their messaging from climate targets to affordability. Affordable electricity means very little if policymakers sacrifice reliability in pursuit of political timelines.
No major industrial economy has demonstrated that a heavily renewable-dependent electric system can operate at scale with consistent reliability and affordable consumer costs without substantial dispatchable backup generation.
At the same time, electricity demand is surging. Artificial intelligence, data centers, domestic manufacturing, and electrification are creating the largest increase in power demand America has seen in decades.
The Trump Administration’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge reflects a simple principle: large AI and data-center customers should bear their fair share of the generation, transmission, and infrastructure costs associated with their growth rather than shifting those costs onto families, small businesses, and existing ratepayers.
America’s electric grid was already facing enormous modernization requirements. Transmission systems are aging. Generation fleets are evolving.
AI is accelerating the urgency of these investments. It did not create the underlying challenge.
Utilities are expected to spend approximately $1.4 trillion over the next five years modernizing the electric grid, replacing aging infrastructure, hardening systems against extreme weather, and expanding capacity.
Recent Department of Energy actions to preserve dispatchable generation reflect a growing recognition that reliability and resilience must remain central considerations in America’s energy transition. The challenge is not simply building new resources. It is ensuring the electric system remains dependable during periods of peak demand, extreme weather, and other conditions that place stress on the grid.
The real challenge is not choosing between renewable and traditional energy. It is building a reliable, affordable, resilient, and scalable system capable of supporting long-term economic growth while withstanding major disruptions and restoring service quickly when Americans need power most.
Pretending otherwise may satisfy radical climate activists.
It will not keep electricity affordable.
It will not keep the lights on during hurricanes, polar freezes, or extreme heat events when millions of Americans depend on electricity not simply for convenience, but for safety and survival.
Recent victories in Georgia and Arizona have emboldened radical climate activists and their allies, who increasingly view state utility and regulatory commission races as some of the most important battlegrounds in American energy policy.
Republicans, business leaders, and ratepayers should start paying attention. The decisions made by these commissions will shape the affordability, reliability, resilience, and economic competitiveness of the American economy for decades to come.
Elizabeth Gianini is President of the Regulators RoundTable PAC.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
When President Trump last May signed an executive order calling for deployment of 300 gigawatts (GW) of net new nuclear capacity by 2050, it had to come as a shock to those who just a few years earlier were plotting a very different energy future – one built on wind turbines and solar arrays, the abolition of coal and natural gas, and maybe a wink and a nod toward what was perceived to be unaffordable nuclear.
When President Trump last May signed an executive order calling for deployment of 300 gigawatts (GW) of net new nuclear capacity by 2050, it had to come as a shock to those who just a few years earlier were plotting a very different energy future – one built on wind turbines and solar arrays, the abolition of coal and natural gas, and maybe a wink and a nod toward what was perceived to be unaffordable nuclear.
Back in 2011, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report on the future of the electric grid stated that “One of the most important emerging challenges facing the grid is the need to incorporate more renewable generation in response to policy initiatives at both state and federal levels.”
Signaling their own skepticism at this strategy, the authors added that “Much of this capacity will rely on either solar or wind power and will accordingly produce output that is variable over time and imperfectly predictable, making it harder for system operators to match generation and load at every instant.”
Nevertheless, solar energy has grown from 891 gigawatt-hours in 2009 to 218,538 GWh by 2024, while wind energy rose from 73,890 GWh in 2009 to 453,450 GWh in 2024. Combined, these two sources in 2024 generated less than the 782,000 to 816,000 GWh from the nation’s 94 nuclear power plants, which unlike wind and solar, operate round the clock at consistent outputs.
The push toward intermittent wind and solar has continued during the first year of President Trump’s second term. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reported that of the 15+ GW of new electricity generation resources added in the first five months of 2025, 11.5 GW was solar, 2.3 GW was wind, and 1.3 GW was natural gas – with no new nuclear at all.
That trend has continued despite Trump Administration efforts against offshore wind and ongoing opposition to new wind and solar farms. FERC listed 136 GW of “high probability additions” through August 2028, with solar and wind accounting for nearly 84% of that projected new capacity.
While battery storage has been hailed as the “solution” to the intermittent nature of wind and solar energy generation, Francis Menton reported in 2024 that battery storage facilities might not be a safe bet – or safe at all. They are subject to large and dangerous fires on a regular basis.
Menton recently atated that, in January 2025, the 300 MW facility at Moss Landing south of San Francisco, which held about 100,000 lithium-ion batteries, saw about 55% of those batteries damaged by a fire – the third at the facility in a 4-year period. He also said there were at least three major battery storage facility fires in New York State in 2023, followed by a major fire in Warwick, New York, last December.
Imagine the damage, he said, from a fire at the planned 315 MW battery storage facility in Queens, just across the East River from the Upper East Side and adjacent to the nation’s largest public housing project.
Despite the popularity of wind and solar with power companies today (as evidenced by their orders), large data processing centers, healthcare facilities, high-tech artificial intelligence, and national security operations cannot rely on intermittent power. The Trump White House, taking note of the concerns of those entities, prefers to invest in nuclear.
Trump’s goal of quadrupling U.S. electricity generation parallels the vision of economist Timothy Taylor, who in a September 2023 article stated that, to supply the massive increase in planned electricity generation “there will also need to be a dramatic expansion (maybe a tripling or quadrupling) in electricity lines to distribute the electricity where needed.”
But, he added, that is the rub.
While ratepayers crave cheaper electric bills, noted Taylor, “Shareholders are not likely to want the company to make major increases in the electric grid.” Many registered utility companies are owned by shareholders, and taking on new debt does not improve shareholder returns, largely because of government regulation of their pricing and investment plans.
On January 15, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas [ERCOT], which operates the Texas power grid, announced a new process for evaluating multiple large-load interconnection requests simultaneously. Texas is not generating enough electricity to supply every desired project immediately. Built for a large-load queue of 40 to 50 projects, the state’s queue is being overwhelmed by the 225 new interconnection requests submitted to ERCOT in 2025.
But who’s kidding whom? There has to be another solution to the problem of more demand than supply for grid electricity. Corporate giants like Google, Meta, CenterPoint, Amazon, and OpenAI cannot wait forever.
As the growing power crunch threatens President Trump’s (and private industry’s) plans for rapid growth of the U.S. economy, neither the Texas nor the national grid is ready for the explosive growth of power-hungry artificial intelligence and other high-volume users. The solution, said Jacob DeWitte, CEO of nuclear startup OKLO, is for large energy users to add grid power through private investment.
To that end, OKLO and Meta entered into a new partnership in which OKLO will build small modular reactors to power Meta facilities and sell any excess electricity to the grid. Energy Secretary Chris Wright is recommending such partnership for power, in line with President’ Trump’s December 2025 statement that every AI plant built in the U.S. must be self-sustaining with its own electricity.
On January 15, President Trump announced that the National Energy Dominance Council and the governors of several northeastern states served by the PJM Interconnection had agreed to push for an emergency wholesale electricity auction that will compel technology companies to effectively fund new power plants. That action was aimed at capping residential electricity rates that have been soaring as demand from hyperscalers and data centers has soared past supply.
The goal is to urge PJM to build more than $15 billion of reliable baseload power generation and to accelerate development by providing a 15-year revenue certainty for new power plants. The plan requires data centers to pay for any new generation built on their behalf and protect ratepayers by limiting the amount existing power plants can be paid in the PJM capacity market. It also opens the door for large users to build dedicated facilities.
Today, PJM is one of the eight (out of 13 total) regional power markets already below critical spare capacity levels. Peak demand across its system is expected to increase by another 17% by 2030. Without active intervention, brownouts could become a frequent irritation.
Based on his own statements, Trump hopes that much of this new electric generation capacity will come from new nuclear power plants (of all sizes). The OKLO-Meta deal is but one of many in some stages of negotiation. And the PJM challenge is likely to spread nationwide.
While growing user demand and competing potential sources of supply are tempered by trepidations about the ability of intermittent electric generation sources to satisfy these high-end users, Trump knows that the cost of nuclear energy (hence the cost of building new nuclear capacity) must come down.
That said, his bottom line is simple: “I never want Americans to pay higher electricity bills because of data centers.”
Nuclear power delivers clean, reliable baseload energy essential for economic growth, national security, and competing in AI.
U.S. companies lead in advanced reactor designs (e.g., small modular reactors or SMRs), but regulatory hurdles, supply chain weaknesses, and foreign competition (from Russia and China) threaten leadership.
The phrase “Seizing the Moment for U.S. Nuclear Energy Dominance” serves as the title of an op-ed published in CFACT.
Authors Sam Thernstrom, Paul Saunders, and Todd Abrajano argue that the United States must urgently act to revitalize its nuclear sector amid surging electricity demand from AI data centers, manufacturing resurgence, and grid strain.
Nuclear power delivers clean, reliable baseload energy essential for economic growth, national security, and competing in AI.
U.S. companies lead in advanced reactor designs (e.g., small modular reactors or SMRs), but regulatory hurdles, supply chain weaknesses, and foreign competition (from Russia and China) threaten leadership.
A stunning scene showcasing pink flowers blooming in a garden with industrial cooling towers in the background, blending nature and human-made structures against a striking sky.
As America’s electric grid faces an unprecedent strain, nuclear power has never been more promising nor more important. Nuclear energy provides clean, reliable power that is vital to our economy and national security. American companies are pioneering some of the most promising advanced reactor designs in the world, but they will not succeed without effective government support for nuclear energy.
America’s nuclear renaissance has been long delayed by regulatory and financial barriers, but that is rapidly changing. In May, President Trump signed a series of executive orders designed to accelerate reactor licensing and reform regulations, with a goal of bringing 300 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity online by 2050, effectively quadrupling the reactor fleet. A recently announced framework agreement with Westinghouse, Brookfield and Cameco to invest $80 billion in building 10 new, advanced nuclear plants in the United States is an important step towards fulfilling that vision.
The plan reflects the Administration’s understanding of two key facts: Effective government policy support is needed to jumpstart a resurgence of nuclear power; and success depends upon building new reactors in series, not just one or two. That allows companies to establish robust supply chains and secure the manufacturing scale that drives cost-reductions.
While these initiatives indicate important momentum, further federal action will be critical to our success. To evaluate policy options, we convened a bipartisan Working Group on U.S. Nuclear Energy Dominance earlier this year, comprising former senior officials, industry representatives, and subject-matter experts; they identified key priorities for the Administration and Congress to consider.
First, the federal government should provide robust support for a series of new nuclear plants. Every first-of-a-kind plant—including nuclear—entails risks of delay and cost overruns. The Westinghouse agreement recognizes that building multiple plants of the same design is essential. Other countries have achieved impressive cost reductions through sequential construction, and America’s existing nuclear fleet—the largest and most reliable in the world—was built using this model.
Beyond Westinghouse, the United States has a wealth of innovators working to commercialize advanced small modular reactors. Congress and the Administration should facilitate construction of multiple units of the most promising designs. Early federal backing for the initial plants in a series can be decisive in unlocking private capital. Reducing investor risk through targeted insurance mechanisms and measures that prevent costly delays would boost deployment. Enactment of the ARC Act would be a sensible first step in this direction.
Second, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must license a growing number of designs and construction projects safely and efficiently. Workforce reductions at a time of potential agency restructuring and rapidly growing responsibilities will hinder progress. Congress should ensure that the NRC has adequate resources and staff to achieve President Trump’s nuclear energy goals.
Congress should also ease the licensing burden on small, innovative reactor developers. The NRC is funded almost entirely through industry fees—more than $800 million annually—while agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency use taxpayer funds to support its work regulating other power generators. Nuclear should be treated no differently.
And Congress should adopt selected reforms to ensure that licensing review is proportionate to risk. For example, amending the Atomic Energy Act so that the Advisory Commission on Reactor Safeguards reviews only new or novel license applications, rather than all applications, would streamline the process without compromising safety.
The bipartisan Refuel Act is another example of a commonsense adjustment to reflect evolving technologies. There are new technologies and processes for recycling used fuel that never isolate plutonium; it is appropriate to differentiate their regulatory review from the traditional processes that do produce plutonium.
Third, expansion of America’s nuclear industry will require a rapid build-out of our nuclear workforce and supply chain. Along with nuclear engineers, the industry will need thousands of skilled construction and maintenance workers and reactor operators. Supporting series production of both large reactors and small modular reactors will send an important demand signal to both suppliers and manufacturers. As the Department of Energy (DOE) supports series production of both large and small reactors, it should also use the Office of Energy Dominance Financing to support investments by suppliers and manufacturers. But expanding supply chains will take time; in the near term, lowering tariffs on essential imports would reduce both reactor costs and downstream electricity prices.
Fuel is equally essential, and there too, we lost our supply chain when we stopped building nuclear plants. Congress and DOE have provided initial support for uranium mining and enrichment firms and nuclear fuel fabricators, but more must be done to ensure predictable, long-term demand for suppliers. Congress should also encourage emerging private-sector efforts to recycle used fuel.
As electricity demand rises and global competitors accelerate their own nuclear programs, restoring U.S. leadership in nuclear energy is essential to ensuring reliable, affordable, and resilient power for decades ahead.
This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission.
When it comes to energy, the main concern for working class Americans and families in general is affordability.
For large tech corporations – and specifically, the huge data centers necessary to fuel the emerging artificial intelligence boom – the focus is on access to abundant and reliable energy.
Are those divergent concerns inherently incompatible?
In fact, what at first might seem like competing objectives should, thanks to free markets, dovetail into a confluence beneficial to all, as an all-of-the-above approach to energy resources coupled with a modernized electric grid boosts overall output while simultaneously lowering costs.
Bolstering such a prospect would be congressional passage of the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act (ARC-ES) recently introduced by Ohio Congressman Troy Balderson (R), which guarantees that our most affordable and reliable energy sources remain crucial components of the overall energy picture.
Right now, U.S. electricity reliability is hampered by the fact that from coast to coast our nation is served by a patchwork network comprised of three major grids.
As described by EBSCO, a leading provider of research databases, “[T]he grid’s infrastructure has a number of problems. One major problem is the age of the infrastructure. The energy grid was pieced together over the course of a century, and all the parts were introduced at various times. Many of these parts are getting older and becoming less reliable.”
Another drawback is that “the U.S. energy grid has no real way of storing power for use in the future. All the power that people use at a particular time must be created at the moment it is needed.”
Yet another challenge is the fact that the grids were originally built to convert traditional energy sources like coal and gas. “Renewables” such as wind and solar are not easily integrated into the existing grid, in part because of the relatively remote areas in which they have been built.
“Today’s transmission system simply is not designed to ingest all that remote power,” as explained by the Energy Department’s national laboratory for energy systems. “Bursts of power on an especially sunny day in the desert could cause grid faults – little blips that can propagate and cause outages – or overload power lines.”
Pressure from the Biden administration to set artificial deadlines to transition from traditional energy sources to renewables was a recipe for disaster, as our outdated grid system was simply not equipped to handle such a rapid conversion. Had those unrealistic objectives been maintained, the result would have been disastrous on two fronts – falling far short of meeting the energy demands of evolving technology while leading to greater price hikes for average households.
The Energy Department’s Grid Modernization Initiative is working with partners to create the “grid of the future [that] will deliver resilient, reliable, flexible, secure, sustainable, and affordable electricity.”
As an Energy Department analysis shows, a modernized, integrated grid can better meet the demands of emerging technology by making the grid “smarter and more resilient through the use of cutting-edge technologies, equipment, and controls that communicate and work together to deliver electricity more reliably and efficiently can greatly reduce the frequency and duration of power outages, reduce storm impacts, and restore service faster when outages occur.”
For average consumers, a modernized grid allows them to “better manage their own energy consumption and costs because they have easier access to their own data.” The grid of the future will also feature meters and sensors adjusting to power ebbs and flows, voltage regulation reducing waste, and lower operational expenses for utilities, resulting in lower costs for typical households.
Environmentally, a modernized grid more efficiently integrating an array of energy resources for cleaner outputs is a much more realistic way to reduce emissions and protect our environment than “net zero” objectives or “carbon credit” schemes that can never realistically be achieved.
It will be crucial that modernization initiatives utilize the all-of-the-above approach represented by ARC-ES to keep reliable and affordable energy at the forefront of electricity generation while allowing time to upgrade the grids and eventually accommodate the cautious integration of renewables as part of the energy mix. Why? Because reliability is a national security imperative.
A key component of the ARC-ES philosophy is a requirement that energy resources must guarantee that electricity is dispatchable 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Reliable sources such as natural gas must be available “to complement and provide backup to renewable energy sources during periods of low availability.” Also crucial is “the capability to ramp up or down electricity generation within one hour, stabilizing the electrical grid.”
The “all-of-the-above” approach of ARC-ES creates a tide that lifts all boats, providing electricity that is both reliable and affordable – not defective and wasteful because the government is picking and choosing winners and losers.
A modernized grid following the principles of ARC-ES that utilizes all of our crucial energy resources – including renewables when their integration is reasonable and affordable – will provide the volume and reliability sought by businesses, and the affordability crucial for average household budgets.
Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Left unchecked, early November 2025 will go down as the Rubicon when datacenters became the scapegoats for higher electricity costs. The messaging campaign has been aggressively launched and is gaining traction.
The reality, however, is fundamentally different.
Left unchecked, early November 2025 will go down as the Rubicon when datacenters became the scapegoats for higher electricity costs. The messaging campaign has been aggressively launched and is gaining traction.
The reality, however, is fundamentally different.
Electricity prices were already on an upward tear before President Trump took office and implemented policies to accelerate the growth of datacenters. In fact, the widespread expansion of datacenters over the next decade can catalyze the substantial reduction of electricity costs while also improving grid reliability, thereby lessening service outages.
According to the Federal Reserve, nationwide electricity prices rose 31.6% from January 2021 to January 2025, compared with underlying inflation of 21.4% in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Thus, electricity prices rose 48% more than other goods and services.
From January to September 2025, the latest period for which figures are available, the Federal Reserve reports a 5.0% increase in electricity prices, also above the CPI. While high, it is hardly a new trend. That has not stopped some from looking to pin the blame on datacenters.
In an October 21 interview with The Wall Street Journal, Jonathan Kanter, the former Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Enforcement in the U.S. Department of Justice during the Biden Administration, warned, “Energy power is going to be an extremely important area of focus for antitrust enforcers” because “datacenters consumer power at the expense of local communities and businesses.”
On Monday, November 10, five U.S. Senators wrote to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios. The Senators bluntly attacked datacenters for electricity costs saying, “American families face soaring electricity bills caused by the Trump Administration’s sweetheart deals with Big Tech companies.”
The charge does not hold muster, based on several factors.
First, datacenters take years to build. And while more than a thousand additional datacenters will be needed to help Americans thrive with AI, there simply has not been enough time in the Trump Administration to bring new ones online, or to cause changes in power markets and prices.
The primary issues affecting most electricity consumers in 2025 are as follows.
Much of your electric bill is not for electricity. A typical electric bill involves costs for fuel (e.g., the natural gas used), transmission (the process of delivering electricity from power plants to your home), and an assortment of government taxes and fees. The latter can be 25% of a typical bill and include sales taxes, subsidies for renewable energy, and other opaque purposes. Cutting these electricity taxes is an immediate and direct way for politicians to lower electric costs.
Much of the transmission grid is old – and it is expensive to replace it. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 70% of the electric grid is more than 25 years old. For decades, improvements have been put off, and the costs have risen substantially today to improve the grid.
Much more power generation is needed. With more fuel or power produced, the supply will increase and prices will fall. However, many areas, especially in the Northeast, have shut down large coal and nuclear plants while energy demand grows. In many areas, this is a significant structural issue that must be addressed.
Datacenters, in addition to the vast number of jobs and economic activity they bring to a region, can also be both the catalyst and central force in improving the delivery of electricity. They also help communities harvest the vast benefits of AI better.
As large users of electricity that will operate 24/7 for years in a community, datacenters often look to enter into multi-year power purchase agreements with utilities. This provides a stable, long-term source of investment capital that can and should facilitate the new generation coming online and the improvement of the transmission grid. Public utility commissions will assess such agreements to make sure they benefit the public, and it is local leaders who are directly accountable.
Datacenters also have the option of developing their own power sources. Communities that push datacenters towards that risk losing out on massive investments that will improve their electric grid, and defray costs to households.
Just as communities can decide whether they want datacenters, so too can the companies investing in datacenters determine where they want to locate. Many cities and states are courting companies investing in datacenters. Those who demagogue datacenters for electricity costs should take that to heart, as they could push these engines of prosperity out of their state to neighboring ones.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Green activists and their political allies are working overtime to try to blame rising electricity bills on President Trump — his One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), his tighter scrutiny of wind and solar, and even emergency reliability orders.
Green activists and their political allies are working overtime to try to blame rising electricity bills on President Trump — his One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), his tighter scrutiny of wind and solar, and even emergency reliability orders. The data tell a different story: prices climbed sharply before the OBBBA could plausibly matter, demand is rising fast, the “renewables are cheap” sales pitch is still history, and the system-wide costs land on ratepayers.IER has the story.
But the reality is that electricity rates have been rising for years:
Residential electricity prices jumped ~25% during the Biden years: the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Electric Power Monthly shows the U.S. residential average rising from 13.15¢/kWh in 2020 to 16.48¢/kWh in 2024 — about +25% — with 2025 running higher still.
If the OBBBA and President Trump’s policies are the culprit, why were prices already up so much before their provisions could even bite?
Policy timing matters
The OBBBA’s phase-outs don’t rip out existing subsidies tomorrow morning, next month, or even next year. As explained in our earlier analysis, the OBBBA ends the wind/solar Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC) only for new facilities placed in service after Dec. 31, 2027, and for projects that haven’t begun construction by July 4, 2026 — with a further “begin construction” carve-out that can stretch eligibility into 2030. And because the PTC pays for 10 years, projects placed in service before those deadlines can collect into the 2030s. In short, there is no near-term subsidy cliff.
Even analysts whose policy preferences do not align with those of President Trump concede there’s a lag before any Trump-era policy shift shows up in regulated retail rates. As MIT’s Christopher Knittel put it, “Trump’s effects on the rate changes won’t take place until after the midterms.”
Demand is the near-term driver
Electricity use is setting new records in 2025–26, driven in part by artificial intelligence (AI)/data centers, with the EIA and market analysts flagging broad-based growth in residential, commercial, and industrial sales. Demand growth pushes utilities to add capacity, wires, and balancing services — costs recovered in rates regardless of whether the new megawatt is “renewable” or not.
Divided as we might be, let’s face it: America and much of the world quickly fell in love with C-3PO, the humanoid robot character who appears in every Skywalker Star Wars movie as well as in television series, novels, comics, and video games.
Divided as we might be, let’s face it: America and much of the world quickly fell in love with C-3PO, the humanoid robot character who appears in every Skywalker Star Wars movie as well as in television series, novels, comics, and video games.
C-3PO’s designer, Ralph McQuarrie, based his robot on the female robot in the 1927 Fritz Lang movie Metropolis — made just seven years after Czech playwright Karel Capek had introduced the world’s first robot in his play R.U.R.
White House artificial intelligence and crypto czar David Sacks is today but one of many who believe that America and much of the world will soon fall in love with actual robots that assist them with chores from folding laundry — as Tesla’s Optimus apparently can already do — to taking out the trash, washing dishes, and performing other household chores. Robotic machines are already performing major functions in fields from manufacturing to land mine and bomb removal.
President Donald Trump’s appointment of Sacks coincided with his Jan. 23 executive order that commits the U.S. to sustain and enhance American dominance in AI, cryptocurrencies, and robotics “to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.” Sacks and his fellow native South African Elon Musk worked together to found PayPal, and the two visionaries continue to play vital roles in America’s technological renaissance.
Sacks is so bullish on AI and robotics that he visualizes these new technologies providing answers to the nation’s crushing debt load. AI-powered robots are expected to perform tasks so efficiently that they drive down production costs and massively expand the U.S. economy — in addition to further reducing the drudgery of household chores.
“I don’t like America’s fiscal picture at all,” Sacks said, “but what if the AI and robotics revolution plays out in the most optimistic way over the next decade and is massively deflationary, and we get basically AI-powered robots expanding the economy massively? What if the new technology provides an answer to the fiscal situation that’s not currently on the table?”
To be sure, such a scenario also requires huge investments in electric-power generation, whether it be for the grid or as standalone (likely nuclear) units.
To that end, President Trump issued an executive order in April to enhance the reliability and security of America’s electric grid. Now the Environmental Protection Agency is planning to reverse the Obama-era “endangerment” finding that carbon dioxide can be regulated as a criteria pollutant — a boon to the U.S. power industry.
For decades, fearmongers drove federal regulations. In prior years, the claim in the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 that AI will displace about 92 million jobs would have been treated as gospel — and used to thwart and demonize AI development.
CNBC quoted Geoffrey Hinton, the so-called godfather of AI, as saying there is a 10% to 20% chance that AI will replace humans completely.
The WEF report further indicates that AI will usher in 170 million new jobs, with the largest growth being in farm workers, construction workers, delivery drivers, salespeople, and food processing workers, and the greatest decline among cashiers, ticket clerks, administrative assistants, caretakers, cleaners, and housekeepers — many of which are claimed to be jobs Americans won’t do anyway.
BizTech Weekly recently pooh-poohed the idea that AI and robotics will bring about mass unemployment, stating that AI is proving to be less about wholesale job destruction and more about labor-market recomposition — not unlike what happened with railroads, automobiles, and even the Internet.
Unlike the WEF, BizTech says that AI and robotics are creating new demand for prompt engineers, model auditors, and data curators; enhancing the value of coders, researchers, and legal drafting; and creating a huge market for reskilling and upskilling, often in partnership with technical colleges.
Like Sacks, Musk is bullish on robotics and predicts that his Optimus robots will be productivity accelerators that may one day remake the entire global economy and lead to a “universal high income” in a world where “no one wants for anything.”
While Musk boasted last October that Optimus could become the “biggest product ever of any kind,” and that he expected to produce more than a million humanoid Optimus robots a year by 2030, there are reports that severe bottlenecks are slowing down production dramatically, making meeting his goal of 5,000 units this year unlikely.
Sankaet Pathak, whose Foundation is also developing humanoid robots, started out “to build technology that makes life self-sustaining for humans” and sees robots as providing infinite labor, energy, and resources. Pathak expects to increase production from about 40 units this year to 10,000 in 2026.
Rather than replace humans and take their jobs, Pathak says that robotics can encourage a reversal of declining birthrates. The challenge, he says, is to create machines that evolve to navigate and support human spaces and not to subjugate humanity in the service of machines.
Former Pentagon military analyst Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis writes that AI is no longer a niche tool for tech labs or science-fiction thrillers. It is now the battleground where the future of American power, prosperity, and freedom will be decided.
He sees President Trump’s AI action plan as “the 21st century equivalent of the space race or the nuclear age.”
That’s why it is encouraging to see that multiple American companies are competing to make the U.S. the robotics capital of the world.
It has long been acknowledged that the United States’ energy infrastructure isn’t particularly secure, a concern exacerbated by the lack of a central planning process for our nation’s piecemeal electric grid. Presidential administrations and Congress have been slow to address the problem, apparently daunted by the mere size and scope of the challenges the needed upgrades would present.
This article was originally published by The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published with permission.
It has long been acknowledged that the United States’ energy infrastructure isn’t particularly secure, a concern exacerbated by the lack of a central planning process for our nation’s piecemeal electric grid. Presidential administrations and Congress have been slow to address the problem, apparently daunted by the mere size and scope of the challenges the needed upgrades would present.
That needs to change now. The recent news that China apparently installed hidden “kill switches” in solar equipment sold to the U.S. was the latest in a long list of reasons to be concerned about our electricity infrastructure and the foolhardy rush to replace traditional energy sources with so-called “renewables” using technology that is often sourced from China.
As Reuters reported, “Rogue communication devices not listed in product documents have been found in some Chinese solar power inverters by U.S experts who strip down equipment hooked up to grids to check for security issues … Using the rogue communication devices to skirt firewalls and switch off inverters remotely, or change their settings, could destabilize power grids, damage energy infrastructure, and trigger widespread blackouts, experts said.”
As one source summarized it, “That effectively means there is a built-in way to physically destroy the grid.” Or, to put it in even simpler terms, the U.S. is purchasing Chinese equipment complete with a “kill switch” that would allow China to disable the U.S. power grid at any moment.
Even more concerning, the problem is not relegated to the United States. Britain’s GB News reported, “Chinese companies dominate the market for power inverters, with firms like Huawei and Sungrow controlling more than half the market in 2023, according to Wood Mackenzie research. The European Solar Manufacturing Council estimates that more than 200 gigawatts of European solar power capacity relies on Chinese-made inverters.” (One gigawatt is equal to one billion watts.)
As Christoph Podewils, the council’s secretary general, put it, “This means Europe has effectively surrendered remote control of a vast portion of its electricity infrastructure.”
The relatively sparse news coverage of this startling discovery is evidence of either the mainstream media’s complacency, or its intentional effort to downplay any development that might contradict its radical climate change narrative. Surely, this item led the evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC, right? Sadly, no.
If ever there was a wakeup call regarding the urgent need for the U.S. to be even more committed to energy independence, it has arrived in the form of China’s ability to remotely turn off the U.S. power grid.
Fortunately, President Trump is working hard to reverse the Biden administration’s disastrous mandates that would have replaced affordable, reliable and increasingly clean traditional energy sources with untrustworthy and costly alternatives. Trump’s early declaration of a national energy emergency defined the dangers of relying on foreign sources of energy and spelled out several needed steps, including upgrades to our energy infrastructure.
But the added knowledge of Chinese subterfuge embedded within crucial components being installed in the U.S. electric grid adds even more urgency to the need to not only produce more domestic energy, but also to domestically develop more technology and manufacture more of the parts we currently import from outside U.S. borders.
While U.S. security experts should be lauded for discovering the Chinese “kill switches,” how many security threats have gone undetected? So-called “renewable” technologies like wind and solar were already suspect in regard to their reliability, as evidenced by the recent massive grid failure in Spain, Portugal and parts of France. We should be all the more wary of “alternatives” when the parts used to connect them to our power grids are sourced from foreign adversaries.
The episode again highlights the vital need for tougher regulations to ensure our nation’s energy security. The Empowerment Alliance’s model legislation – the Affordable, Reliable and Clean Energy Security act (ARC-ES) – would require “energy sources that are primarily produced within the U.S. and infrastructure that will reduce our reliance on foreign nations for critical materials and manufacturing.”
The time has passed for any reasonable argument suggesting that such legislation is not urgently needed, both at the federal and state levels. The notion of attacks from foreign adversaries on America’s energy infrastructure has often been the stuff of fantasy and “what-if” scenarios. Those have now been replaced with concrete evidence of nefarious, embedded components from a foreign superpower, just waiting for someone in Beijing to flip a switch and send Americans hurtling into a powerless abyss.
Let it sink in: China was secretly embedding technology in components shipped to the U.S. that could have triggered a massive power outage.
It’s time for Congress to embed a “kill switch” of its own on the ability of foreign countries to disable the U.S. power grid. That assurance can only come when we take America’s energy independence from being a worthy goal to a mandated reality.
Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. Abernathy’s “TEA Takes” column will be published every Wednesday and delivered to your inbox!
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
As promised, President Donald Trump on Day One of his second term issued an executive order. Unleashing American Energy, that declared as U.S. policy an intention “to eliminate the ‘electric vehicle (EV) mandate’ and promote true consumer choice.”
As promised, President Donald Trump on Day One of his second term issued an executive order. Unleashing American Energy, that declared as U.S. policy an intention “to eliminate the ‘electric vehicle (EV) mandate’ and promote true consumer choice.”
But shortly after the Trump EPA sent its waiver cancellation request to Congress for review, the Government Accountability Office announced that Congress has not authority to review the Biden waiver or to revoke it. The GAO has thus created a difficult dilemma for the Trump Administration and for the millions of Americans who find the mandate unconscionable.
While the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, which created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards, expressly preempts states from establishing their own fuel economy standards, Congress had given California the authority to set its own vehicle emissions standards in a 1967 clean air law, with one caveat: California standards require a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Under the Clean Air Act, though, the EPA can legally reject a California waiver only if it is “arbitrary or capricious” and thus unnecessary or technologically infeasible. Historically, not a single California waiver has ever been revoked, and CARB claims there is no process within the Clean Air Act to reject a waiver. Moreover, when President Trump in 2019 sought to end its authority to set its own emissions and mileage rules, California and 22 other states sued.
In one of his last official acts, President Joe Biden last December granted California a new waiver that authorizes its mandate to require 35% of new 2026 model cars and light trucks sold in California to be zero-emission vehicles. Those numbers jump to 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. When Biden in 2022 approved a waiver for earlier California emissions rules, auto manufacturers and 14 states went to court.
The battle over zero-emission vehicle mandates is not restricted to California, because other states can follow California regulations once the state receives a waiver from the EPA. To date, 18 states have followed at least parts of the new California mandate, and the Golden State has put pressure on auto manufacturers to both follow and defend its unpopular regulations.
There are just two problems with the increasingly unpopular EV mandate. First, it appears that the only way for California to meet its 2026 milestone is to revise its downward. The California New Car Dealers Association reports that zero emission vehicles’ market share fell to 21.3% in the fourth quarter of 2024, down from 23.7% in the prior quarter for an annual average of 22% (barely above the 21.7% in 2023).
Second, nationwide polls show that 75% of Americans oppose any kind of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle ban. Public support in California for its mandate peaked at 55% in 2022 (with 39% opposed) but has been slipping in the wake of a 20% increase in electricity rates that have resulted in much higher costs for recharging EV batteries. EV sales in California fell from 447,000 in 2023 to just 387,000 in 2024.
But as long as the mandate stands, it will punish both auto manufacturers and auto buyers for not bowing to Governor Newsom’s whims. Automakers face penalties of $20,000 per noncompliant vehicle sold, with the only alternatives buying emission credits for EV-only manufacturers or limiting their inventories of gasoline and diesel vehicles.
This will force Californians to either buy an EV or just hold onto older vehicles longer – limiting their choices significantly. Similar penalties and limitations on consumer choice are looming in many other cities and states. One can only imagine the anger and frustration. (Meanwhile, formerly popular Teslas are now being blown to bits by radical supporters of EV mandates.)
The Institute for Energy Research’s Kenny Stein says that the sheer size of the California market (and that of the states that conform to California standards) means that automakers must either make their entire fleet California-compliant or sell different car lines in different states – a near economic impossibility. This forces citizens of other states to purchase more expensive vehicles and thereby subsidize California’s regulatory choices against their will.
But, adds Stein, ending the mandate requires revising or rejecting three major regulatory actions: EPA’s tailpipe emissions standards, the CAFÉ standards, and California’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulations for which the Biden EPA granted a waiver (that the GAO says Congress cannot overturn). Unlike President Obama, it appears, President Trump cannot eliminate this unpopular mandate “with a pen and a phone.”
Europeans, who started the ZEV crusade, have also been unable to meet their own mandate milestones. The EU, like California, has banned non-EV sales as of 2035 (with possible exceptions for hydrogen-powered vehicles). One result is that European automakers are terrified that cheap Chinese EVs will drive them into bankruptcy.
As with California, 23 of the 27 EU nations, including Germany, Italy, and France, missed their national climate targets under the Effort Sharing Regulation. This means they may face heavy financial penalties if they are unwilling or unable to purchase increasingly expensive carbon credits. But like Governor Newsom, the Europeans have not let the facts – or the cost – interfere with their zeal to be first to reach zero.
On top of the public outcry against mandates, California and the nation face the very real threat that Zombie-like adherence to the EV mandate will collapse the electric grid – rendering the EV totally undriveable. Add to that longer repair times, the high cost of replacement batteries, the growing fear of EV fires, and a host of other concerns.
Only time will tell whether pro-EV lawfare will prevent California – and much of the nation – from continuing its lemming-like march toward the cliff. The 25% are hell bent on forcing the 75% to jump with them, while the 75% only want to be free to make their own choices.
Meanwhile, the Gavinator’s own presumed desire to move to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2029 has hit a bump in the road, as he is learning any step toward the center will unleash the vehement anger of the Democratic base.
Duggan Flanakin is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
The purpose of this article is to summarize and debunk many of the issues in the narrative surrounding the proposed green energy transition as applies to the electric grid. The issues are so numerous that this piece is at once both too long and too short. A full unraveling deserves a book or series of books. This posting however challenges the narrative through summary comments with links to previous posts and articles which can be read for a more detailed explanation or for greater depth.
The purpose of this article is to summarize and debunk many of the issues in the narrative surrounding the proposed green energy transition as applies to the electric grid. The issues are so numerous that this piece is at once both too long and too short. A full unraveling deserves a book or series of books. This posting however challenges the narrative through summary comments with links to previous posts and articles which can be read for a more detailed explanation or for greater depth.
The Narrative
Efforts to hasten a “green transition” find support in a powerful and compelling narrative. The following statements are widely believed, embraced and supported by various “experts”, a large part of the public and far too many policy makers:
Renewable Energy can meet the electric demand of the United States and World
Renewable Energy is economic
Renewable Energy sources can provide reliable electric service to consumers and support the grid
Renewable energy sources are inexhaustible and widely available
Clean Energy resources don’t produce carbon and are environmentally neutral
Renewable Energy Costs are decreasing over time
It will become easier to add renewables as we become more familiar with the technologies
The intermittency problems associated with wind and solar can be addressed through batteries.
Inverter based generation from wind, solar and batteries can be made to perform like conventional rotating generator technology
Battery improvements will enable the green transition
We are at a tipping point for renewables
Wind, Solar, and Battery technologies collectively contribute to a cleaner environment, economic growth, energy security, and a sustainable future
The world is facing severe consequences from increased CO2 emissions.
There will be an inevitable and necessary transition to clean economic renewables
Green Energy will allow independence from world energy markets
The clean grid will facilitate clean buses, trucks, tanks, planes
The third world will bypass fossil fuels and promote global equity
Replacing fossil fuels with green energy will have huge health benefits
It’s all about Urgency and Action
This narrative is compelling to many consumers and major policy makers. Unqualified acceptance of this powerful narrative makes it clear we should all be behind the movement to increase wind and solar generation along with other efforts to expand renewable resources. Most all of the above statements making up the narrative are “somewhat” true. Unfortunately, the collective narrative as frequently adopted is at odds with the economics and physical realities of providing electric power and supporting civilization.
How did this narrative become so widely accepted despite dismal real-world results? A previous posting discussed, “How the Green Energy Narrative Confuses Things” by using misleading language and distraction (#44). Additionally, tribal loyalties enable distortions and suppress more realistic assessments (#18, #10,#22, #42, '). While others should chime in on the social psychology supporting this movement, astute observers can’t miss the power of fear-based narratives, groupthink, demonization of dissenters and misplaced altruism (#39, #18,& #10). Incentives and their impact on key actors play a major role (#38 & #29). The media overblowing trivialities and focusing on continually emerging “good news” helps cement undeserved optimism. The great many failures are conveniently forgotten. Finally, it should be noted that the electric grid has been very robust. In the short run you can make a lot of “bad decisions” before negative consequences emerge to challenge the narrative. At that point it may be too late.
The next section will explore and critically examine various elements of the narrative in a very brief fashion, with links in many cases providing more detailed explanations and information.
Unraveling the Narrative
Renewable Energy can meet the electric demand of the United States and World
“Renewable Energy” is not a coherent category and allows for a lot of confusion. #40
The green energy narrative began with simple calculations which found that the energy which could be derived from renewable resources like hydro, solar and wind matched or exceeded the energy consumed as electric energy. It is not a particularly meaningful observation. #28
It does not consider what may be involved in making that energy available when needed, where needed, with the proper characteristics needed.
Demonstrating that sufficient energy exists does not say anything about our ability to harness such resources. Large amounts of various “renewable” energy sources, such as those listed below. But even though the energy is there, and small amounts can be harnessed, most know enough not say the energy presence itself makes an energy transition feasible soon.
Tidal Energy
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion
Earths rotational energy
Earth’s magnetic field
Nuclear Fusion
Unconventional geothermal energy (Hot Dry Rock or Enhanced Geothermal Systems)
Using just sunlight and/or wind exclusively to power large motors, variable speed drives, non-linear loads, arc furnaces or power a modern civilization is not feasible at this time.
Projecting feasibility based only such “studies” or calculations may be from either a serious misunderstanding of the challenges to be faced or unconstrained infantile optimism around future breakthroughs.
2.Renewable Energy is Economic
In limited cases, yes. In many cases, only in a trivial sense for a limited set of costs associated with these resources.
While the marginal cost of production for wind and solar is low, approaching zero:
Total cost including backup and system needs tells a different story. #8 , #9, #2, & #20
Costly investments in grid improvements and backup generation are needed to accommodate and support any significant amount of intermittent asynchronous generation . #3 & #17
Operationally there are significant dispatch costs for backing up wind and solar.
Wind and solar projects typically are in service for far shorter periods than projected.
The more wind and solar added to the system, the more costly they become.
Work best at low generation levels when they allow more costly resources to back down.
The lower their generation level, the more the system can accommodate them without additional costs. #2 & #26
It is demonstrated worldwide that increased levels of these resources are associated with higher electric costs for consumers and taxpayers.
While home solar can be subsidized to appear low cost, it is misleading for the big picture, especially as applications increase. #6 & #5
Average costs are misleading and cost measures such as LCOE are flawed as they do not reflect real world requirements. #8, #3, & #9
Undoubtedly premature to advocate that that a resource is economic, without considerations of reliability, deliverability and its potential operation in conjunction within a resource mix as part of a grid.
3.Renewable energy sources can provide reliable electric service to consumers and support the grid.
Statement may be trivially true, but is generally inaccurate.
Generally, it is an accurate assessment for hydro, biomass and geothermal. #3 & #12
These involve traditional rotating machines in synch with the grid. They inherently supply essential reliability services for grid support.
These resources have flexibility for dispatch and ramping.
Geothermal and biomass are greatly restricted by local geography.
New applications of these resources face especially significant environmental challenges.
Not so true for wind and solar generation. #12 & #26
They provide energy intermittently and do not match demand patterns. #2, #3, & #41
They do not spin in synchronism with the grid which has seriously inhibits their ability to support the grid. #7
They depend on the grid and synchronous rotating machines. #17
Problems associated with these resources increase as their penetration levels increase. #7
Supposed “proofs” that wind and solar support the system generally come from cherrypicked brief off-peak periods when renewable generation exceeded demand (not really a good thing.)
Grid support must be 24 hours/day during peak and extreme conditions. Configurations should ensure that the grid can go ten years with one loss of load expectation (LOLE).
Coasting through an off-peak period does not imply sustainability.
Where wind and solar match load, it is near certain that considerable spinning rotational machines (hydro or fossil fuel) are on the interconnected grid backing up these resources either serving other load not counted, or on-line spinning ready to take on load. #21
They may just come from accounting efforts, with no attention to flows or time periods.
Cost comparisons without considering reliability differences are worthless.
4.Renewable resources are inexhaustible and widely available.
The resources needed to construct and maintain such facilities as well as resources needed to back them up are not inexhaustible. #40
Geothermal is rarely available and some geothermal can be depleted.
Further hydro development is problematic in most of the developed world. In the US some dams are being eliminated to return to a more “natural” state.
Suitability for wind and solar varies considerably by region.
All resource needs for using generation resources should be considered. #40
Scarce resources are needed in the production of wind and solar power.
Expected sustainability before depletion may be higher for nuclear power and some fossil fuel generating resources, than for resources needed for wind, solar and battery facilities. Of course, emerging developments may change expectations for any resource.
5.Clean Energy resources don’t produce carbon and are environmentally neutral. #40
Adverse impacts from “green” resources have typically received considerably less attention from the media, policy makers and advocates than similar impacts from conventional generation.
Although when it’s in their backyard, the problems of wind, hydro and large solar emerge and they become targets of local environmental groups.
Over time, the adverse impacts related to their operation and disposal become more and more evident. Recycling is challenging to impossible for the large structural components and also the scarce resources needed for energy conversion.
The construction, maintenance and operation of such resources produce significant environmental impact including CO2 emissions.
Geothermal generation produces CO2.
Backup generators are often run inefficiently to allow for wind and solar generation.
Cases of fossil fuel, wind and solar generation may have higher emissions than similar cases with only fossil fuel generation running more efficiently.
6.Renewable Energy Costs are decreasing over time
Some components are dropping – but total costs are more questionable as there is considerable data showing costs are rising.
Often cost data refers only to specific components that are decreasing, not the full cost for the installed facilities needed to generate energy and power.
In particular, land and labor push up costs associated with wind and solar.
Increasing penetration levels raise overall costs for solar, wind and batteries. #26
7.It will become easier to add renewables as we become more familiar with the technologies.
Only easier in limited ways attributable to things like experience and benefits of scope.
Exponentially harder to add increasing levels of wind, solar and batteries. #26 & #2
Asynchronous and intermittent resources are harder to integrate as their levels increase.
Prime renewable locations will already be exploited, and less desirable locations remain.
Continued developments entails the need to move energy longer and longer distances.
As wind and solar increase, early adopters will be less able to lean on neighboring systems.
8.The intermittency problems associated with wind and solar can be addressed through batteries.
Possibly, but at a great cost and added complexity. #2, #41, & #43
This assertion is extremely misleading when it implies that intermittency is the main problem.
Compared to the problems associated with asynchronism and the capabilities of inverter-based generation, intermittency is a much smaller problem.
Hiding/ignoring misleading points in the green narrative. #44
Asynchronism is the problem more so than intermittency.
9.Inverter based generation from wind, solar and batteries can be made to perform like conventional rotating generator technology. #43, #41, #3, & #19
Note – most people are not aware of the asynchronous problems associated with wind, solar and batteries.
When these elements let the grid down, the cry is “make the grid more resilient” as if that has some real meaning.
When that problem can’t get ignored, the green narrative is to back up and have someone say with technological improvements, inverters can perform “like” synchronous generation without any recognition of the drawbacks.
When inverters are made to provide extra functionality, it raises the installed costs and entails a significant reduction in energy output and reliability.
Three phases of Inverter development, none have achieved widespread use
Phases are more goal oriented or aspirational than accomplishment based.
Each is intended to do more than the previous “development” phase to “mimic” rotating generators.
Research and applications are largely on paper, in laboratories and pilot programs. Few if any working plants are gaining needed operational experience.
The early phases were sold as “the way” to allow higher penetration of inverter-based generation but were found not be able to deliver as promised.
The insufficiency of these approaches was recognized long before any large-scale implementations were undertaken (Note-generally phased development follows a widespread deployment of earlier phases prior to successive improved phases. In this area, the task is so far beyond the capabilities that prior phases can’t really show much proof of concept in the field.)
Why should we expect the latest grid forming phase to do better than predecessors?
Overwhelmingly, most wind and solar applications on the grid do not have functioning special inverter capabilities of any sort.
Enhanced inverters may perform “like” rotating elements in limited environments, but this “like” way is radically inferior to the performance of rotating generators. #30, #29
Inverter performance may improve with technological advances. However, they have an extremely long way to go.
Theoretically they can do a lot rotating machines cannot, but the complexity of taking advantage of that while coordinating with other changing elements across the grid so they all perform well together across all potential contingency conditions is immense.
Similar optimism exists for superconductors to improve the grids reliability and efficiency, but it would be extremely foolish to depend on either to support a planned energy transition. They are far from being judged as feasible.
This is the biggest problem the green narrative overlooks and is the major stumbling block to widespread integration of wind, solar and batteries.
10.Battery improvements will enable the green energy transition.
As discussed previously, batteries may address intermittency, but not the major problem of inverter-based generation.
Batteries suffer from the same inverter based problems as wind and solar.
Their inability to adequately provided needed system reliability services is usually not addressed. #29
Much is made of continual reports on improvements in battery technology
Many breakthroughs in research but they take development in differing directions and are not compatible with most of the other breakthroughs. “Breakthroughs” are typically not cumulative, corroborative or generally able to be combined.
Inverter-based improvements needed for wind, solar and batteries suffer from similar development challenges.
Consider the path of high temperature superconductors which were projected in the near term, but hit a wall before widespread practical applications could be employed.)
To control for extreme weather events (e.g. Dunkelflaute) might require that batteries completely ignore wind and solar capacity. Leaving tremendous amounts of unused capacity most of the time.
Tipping point is not defined and only weak evidence is cited. – #44
12.Wind Solar and Battery technologies collectively contribute to a cleaner environment, economic growth, energy security, and a sustainable future. #40 & #42
They might contribute small amounts at low penetration, but they are dwarfed by huge drawbacks at higher penetration levels.
In delicate environments, small compact fossil fuel-based energy sources may be superior to renewable resources with more intrusive footprints. #14
See v above.
13.The world is facing severe consequences from increased CO2 emissions.
The greater the risks from increasing CO2, the less we can afford to favor wind, solar and battery technology over more pragmatic approaches. #32
This is the most dangerous component to be incorporated into this narrative.
Because of this fear, it is argued we must chase bad ideas. #18
Because of this fear, dissent from these bad ideas is demonized. #18
Because of this fear, we must move to a panic mode and do counterproductive things. #1
The greater the risk from climate change:
The smarter we need to be.
The less we can tolerate bad ideas and wasted efforts.
Climate concerns do not change the physics of the grid nor the functioning of resources.
However, extreme weather will make “green” resources less suitable.
While the need for reliable, affordable power will be greater.
Green plans misdirect a lot of resources and weaken energy policy approaches. #42
If situation is that grim as regards CO2 emissions:
Perhaps that should outweigh any concerns around nuclear energy.
Perhaps environmental damage from new hydro is warranted as well to address climate.
If new nuclear and hydro are out, changing civilization is an option that needs to be on the table, frequently discussed and fully considered.
False appeals to questionable technologies will not help us.
False hopes of improving technology will only hurt us.
14.There will be an inevitable and necessary transition to clean economic renewables
When? It is very unlikely to be in the foreseeable future and certainly not in a planning time frame.
15.Green Energy will allow independence from world energy markets
We depend on other countries for material and components needed to construct renewable facilities.
Wind, solar and batteries cannot run steel mills and industrial processes needed for a “green” energy transition, not sustain civilization after (unless you call nuclear and hydro green)..
How is the fear of “foreign oil” so much more of concern than dependence on rare earth metals and other foreign imports.
16.The clean grid will facilitate clean buses, trucks, tanks, and planes
Not if it doesn’t work.
Wind, solar and batteries alone clearly cannot provide for such growth in electric consumption.
17.The third world will bypass fossil fuels and promote global equity
Nonsense
18.Replacing fossil fuels with green energy will have huge health benefits
More costly energy is associated with alternative use of dirty fuels creates hazardous pollution in many third world areas.
Rising costs of electricity generally encourages less clean alternatives that are more difficult to monitor.
19.It’s all about Urgency and Action
If urgency and action could dependably solve hard problems, years ago we’d have a cure for cancer and the common cold, flying cars, jet packs and ended world hunger.
It might be argued that the above refutations (even with citations) are too quick and lack detailed substantial evidence. While there is quite a bit out there that can be referenced, it should be pointed out that the arguments supporting a green transition are asserted without with much serious reasoning and far flimsier support than provided here. That which is easily asserted without foundation should not require overly demanding refutations. Clearly when and if more detailed claims supporting a green energy transition are made, they can be answered with more detailed rebuttals.
Academics are a key part of the problem of a sustained false narrative. Much of the “evidence” out there comes from small studies of single variables with academic models which are stretched far behind what was analyzed. Additionally, expert opinions come from many “experts” who “preach” far outside their fields of expertise and training. There are rewards in academia for furthering optimism on the green transition. There are not so many incentives for nay-sayers. Academics who understand the problems and would offer caution, generally do not have the reach of those who promote optimism by clouding the facts. The many half-truths presented from different sources cannot be summed up to imply a credible narrative, even though many have the impression this makes a strong case. #44
Clearly there are many discontinuities between theory and what is observed in the real world as regards the potential for wind, solar and batteries. Milton Friedman said, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” I’d add, “What happens in the field should be more convincing what you calculated on paper”. The next section will cover truths that need to be added to any considerations around our energy future.
Truths that need to be part of Energy Transition Narrative
These truths don’t get near as much attention as the above. Sometimes they are hidden and sometimes they are summarily denied rather than given the attention they deserve.
1)Adequately addressing the energy future requires we understand the true costs and benefits of ALL available and potentially available technologies. #1 & #3
2)Large grids are dependent upon and run on rotating machines. #3, #7, #11, #26 & #12
3)No Grids run on asynchronous generation only (or majority asynchronous) without significant backup.
Despite reports that wind, solar and batteries power a system – real world cases always involve significant conventional generation backing them up somewhere on the interconnected grid.
Asynchronous wind, solar and batteries without rotating backup resources are not feasible power supply element for large power systems.
4)Hydro, biomass and geothermal are fine for grid support, but are problematic and/or not available in many areas.
5)Wind and solar face major challenges in achieving significant penetration levels and have many underdiscussed issues.
Wind and solar resources have more limited lifespans and greater costs than typically modeled. #8 & #9 Batteries may be worse.
Expected performance during and after disasters is often over-exaggerated.
6)Costs of Wind and solar resources are often hidden and assigned to others. #5, #6, & #31
7)If Nuclear is the right direction, current efforts at wind and solar are misguided. Nuclear plants run best full out with low incremental cost. Displacing nuclear with intermittent wind and solar makes little to no sense.
8)It’s possible to subsidize a few things that have small costs to support development of green resources, but small costs multiplied by orders of magnitude are crushing. #6
9)Utility costs are regressive, dis-proportionally hitting those less well-off and least able to afford rising costs. These costs are more regressive than taxation schemes. #5#6, & #31
10)If we must cut carbon emissions without nuclear and hydro, drastically changing civilization is an option that needs to be on the table, openly and frequently discussed and given full considered.
11)Energy Markets are not working well. My take is energy provision cannot effectively and efficiently be broken into separated independent components. Utilities used to provide an amalgamation of goods and services for their customers. Separating out distribution, and transmission services increase complexity, but still doesn’t set up energy or its components as commodities. Separate commodities for hourly energy, capacity, emergency power, reliability services, backup power, and spinning reserve eliminate many of the efficiencies available from full-service power supply. For example: daily energy markets don’t support long term emergency power. Who pays for facilities needed for only once in a decade extreme weather, and when and how do they pay for it? Daily markets drive those resources which have emergency value out of business. Perhaps I am wrong, but experience tells us markets uncharacteristically are not working well for energy and energy services. #45
12)Credible plans for any electric energy future, let alone a major transition, will need to integrate studies of both supply and deliverability while balancing economics, costs and public responsibility. No conclusions about what may be worthwhile is possible without such considerations. #16 & #39
Other Topics that need to be considered
A)China and India’s CO2 emissions will likely dwarf emissions from western nations soon. Which is a more effective role for the US:
As a leader developing, promoting and sharing clean fossil-based technologies to be emulated by developing and third world nations. #36
As a leader among advanced nations promoting green technologies largely overlooked by most of the planet as they use less clean resources and their emissions grow exponentially?
B)What about developing countries in the third world? How we can hold them back by requiring they use a path that we can’t make work. Their burdens are more significant than ours.
Economic barriers – high initial investment or crushing burdens from foreign loans.
Human capital -technical skill needs.
These resources work even less well without an established strong grid.
Often more extreme climates increase challenges.
Specialized problems such as theft, waste management, and cultural acceptance.
C)Can effective regulation, as opposed to current regulatory practices revive nuclear construction significantly?
D)Energy density problem (EROEI) – Can solar and wind provide enough energy to be self-perpetuating considering full lifetime needs?
There is no significant production of “green” infrastructure with wind and solar energy.
Wind and solar infrastructure depend today on fossil fuel-based energy for their construction and operation.
E)Grid and energy prices are globally critical to healthy economies and a reasonable quality of life.
F)How do we incentivize policy makers to prioritize long term goals versus what’s expedient the next few years. #38 & #1
Imprudent short-term boosts (ignoring maintenance, depleting reserves) provide temporary advantages while building for the future initially entails greater costs.
For job evaluations, it’s easier to see what was done, rather than evaluate the long-term benefits of such programs
Engineers professionally suffer for not supporting green goals
Supporting green goals has rewards for practicing engineers.
I have never seen anyone recognized & rewarded for standing up for the grid ten years ago.
Bad incentives and the hope that technology or policy changes will arrive on time before things have gotten too bad, keeps most of those who might speak out in check.
G)How do we combat feel-good narratives? Energy is much more complex than recycling. Despite great under-achievement, renewable hopes have persisted for long time periods. Will the false hopes of wind, solar and batteries be just as intractable despite real world experience?
How Does the Green Energy Narrative Remain Strong Despite the Big Picture?
It’s hard to argue against the “green energy“ agenda. “There’s always something just around the corner that’s going to change everything”, we’re often told (#34, #43 & #24 ). It’s seductive, “Somebody is investing a lot of money now in the next great thing and we should be part of that as well.” But those things don’t pan out. There is broad support and rewards for going along with the “green” narrative, even for projects as ridiculous as “electric roadways” ( #42) and especially for projects as big and bold as the German Energiewende. A decade ago, when warning of emerging problems, countless times I was told that Germany had proved it could be done. In this piece (#21) in 2017, a coauthor and I tried to point out the problems with that representation. Despite voices like ours, the world remained largely impervious to criticisms of the German experiment. By the time Germany’s huge failure became apparent for all to see, the argument moved on to Australia where “it’s now being proved it can be done”. Chris Morris and I did a series (#33, #34, #35) on Australia in 2023 highlighting our understandings of those efforts and our expectations for underperformance. It’s not looking good for Australia, or England or for any who have raced to have high penetrations of wind and solar. But dismal real-world results so far have not been much of a brake on the movement. Renewable “experts” remain undeterred and unmoved by failed ideas.( #37)
Prior to the green energy narratives, there had been near continuous progress with engineers building and maintaining stronger and more robust grids that held up well across varied challenging conditions. The trend was that widespread grid outages (not the same as distribution outages) were becoming increasingly rare as grids became more robust and resilient. The beginnings of the “green transition” served to slow and reverse that progress. Most grids are sufficiently strong such that significant degradations do not show up as system problems for quite some time. The likelihood that problems won’t manifest for some years down the road makes it hard for defenders of the grid to stand up to short term pressures to go greener. (#38)
The strong robustness of the grid makes it hard to clearly identify and point out emerging problems with the grid. As I wrote here (#27)
The power system is the largest, most complicated wonderful machine ever made. At any given time, it must deal with multiple problems and remain stable. No resources are perfect; in a large system you will regularly find numerous problems occurring across the system. Generally, a power system can handle multiple problems and continue to provide reliable service. However, when a system lacks supportive generation sources, it becomes much more likely it will not be able function reliably when problems occur.
When an outage occurs, you can always choose to point a finger at any of the multiple things that went wrong. (#44, #26) Some traditional fossil fuel technology will always be included in the set of things that were not right. (Loss of just renewables doesn’t usually cause big problems because apart from energy, they don’t support the system while in service.) For various reasons, advocates insist the finger should be pointed away from renewables (and the gap in needed system support) and at the conventional technology that was not perfect when the outage occurred. It’s critical to note that conventional technology is never perfect across a large system, however we were able to make reliable robust systems that could easily accommodate such imperfections. But now the presence of less dependable resources and inverter-based energy makes systems far less robust, even during times when those problematic resources are working well. It’s a near sure bet the next large grid outage will be largely caused by problems associated with high levels of wind and solar penetration, whether those resources are available during the outage or not. That bet can’t be made, because no referee acceptable to both sides can be found.
Conclusions
The case for an energy transition based on wind, solar and batteries is grossly incomplete and stands against evidence and reason. The green narratives sub-propositions in isolation contain some truths, but they are extended in misleading ways. A collection of 200, 800, or ten million studies showing that isolated challenges around renewable resources can be addressed cannot make a case for reliable, affordable deliverable energy. When the resources are ready, proponents can make a case by operating a small system without connection to conventional generation that experiences varied load conditions and real-world challenges. When a case for large scale penetration of wind, solar, and batteries has been made with adequate considerations of costs, reliability and deliverability, it can then be reviewed and challenged with detail.
Planning must balance economics, reliability and environmental responsibility using real workable technology which conforms with the physics of the grid and meets the needs of society (#15,#16, #25, #23 & #32). Electric supply and the grid are too important to base policies upon poor narratives and incomplete understandings. Hope for future improvements must be based on realistic expectations. Going a short way down the “green” path is easy. Adding a bit more “renewables: isn’t that expensive and the gird is plenty robust for incremental hits. For most involved, it’s easier to go with that flow than to stand up for long-term concerns. But we are getting closer to the cliff as costs continue to increase and reliability problems become more prevalent.
Policy makers need to consider a fuller and more complete array of truths around renewables and the grid. Rigorous considerations of many complex and interlinking issues between generation and transmission are needed to build and support modern grids. No-one, even those with a lifetime in the business, fully understands everything involved. Experience and incremental changes have served the development and operation of the grid well. Many outside “experts”, have next to no real knowledge of the complexities involved and propose dramatic changes. Without serious and time-consuming efforts from policy makers, real grid experts can’t compete with proposals that are basically founded upon tee-shirt slogans. Spending money, altering systems, and hoping for the best based on the green narrative alone is a recipe for disaster.
Notes
Thanks to Meridith Angwin, Roger Caiazza and Chris Morris for reviewing drafts and providing useful comments. I’ve tried to do a lot here in a limited space and the treatment is somewhat uneven across the broad range of topics. I welcome others to improve and build upon these ideas and structures. I would be glad to assist in such efforts as long as it is not tied to other political, religious, or social issues. My focus is on energy and encouraging reasonable energy policies and regulations.
You must be logged in to post a comment.