Tag: power grids

Red States Have Reliable Power Because They Embrace an All-of-the-Above Strategy

Sometimes the debate over U.S. energy policy feels more like a shouting match, instead of a factual discussion about how to meet the nation’s rapidly growing needs.

In one corner, there’s the push for 100% renewables. In the other corner, it’s almost all about oil and gas.

A man in a suit stands confidently in a green field with industrial structures and the Capitol building in the background, under a large sun. Eagles soar above, and the Statue of Liberty is visible to the right.

From Watts Up With That?

By Greg Brophy

A vast landscape featuring a golden grassland under a bright blue sky filled with white fluffy clouds and distant mountains on the horizon.

Sometimes the debate over U.S. energy policy feels more like a shouting match, instead of a factual discussion about how to meet the nation’s rapidly growing needs.

In one corner, there’s the push for 100% renewables. In the other corner, it’s almost all about oil and gas.

But outside the competing echo chambers on the left and the right, a quiet success story is unfolding in America’s rural – and yes, more politically conservative – communities.

It turns out that keeping the lights on isn’t about picking a side. It’s about picking all the energy sources that can deliver affordable and reliable electricity based on local conditions.

That was the major finding of a new report issued by The Western Way, a non-profit that seeks pro-market solutions to energy and environmental challenges, on power grid reliability in rural America.

The report reviewed 10 rural and conservative-leaning states – Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming. It concluded the power grids in those states are 2 to 7 times more reliable than the national average, according to data on electrical outages from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

What is their secret? It isn’t a singular reliance on coal or natural gas, nor is it a blind rush toward renewables and battery storage. The data reveals that there is no “one-size-fits-all” solution. Instead, these states are harnessing a range of energy sources to keep their power grids reliable.

Consider just two of the states analyzed in The Western Way report – South Dakota and Arizona – which have some of the most reliable power grids in the country.

In South Dakota, the number one source of electricity is wind (58%), followed by hydropower (22%) and natural gas (11%), with coal and other sources making up the remainder. When working together, these sources make South Dakota’s grid the 2nd most reliable in the country.

But in Arizona, the top source of electricity is natural gas (45%), followed by nuclear (27%) and solar (13%), with coal and hydropower making up most of the balance. Arizona also has more than 2 gigawatts of battery storage capacity, which allows solar power generated during the day to be used after the sun goes down.

Despite looking nothing like South Dakota, the Arizona power grid is also highly reliable, ranked 3rd in the country – and the reliability difference between the two states is less than 0.001%.

Two very different models for keeping the lights on. Both highly effective.

But that’s not all. The Western Way report also finds that the Trump administration’s policy on energy is a lot more nuanced than the mainstream media would have you believe.

Back in July, the U.S. Department of Energy published a study outlining what it will take to keep America’s power grid stable by the end of the decade if the nation’s rising appetite for energy – led by data centers and the reshoring of manufacturing – continues.

The study called for the continued operation of coal and natural gas-fired power plants that have previously been slated for retirement. While most media coverage of the DOE study focused on that recommendation, there was much, much more to the story.

Keeping older plants running longer would close less than a third of the looming reliability gap. The rest of the gap would have to be closed with a range of different energy sources, including 187 gigawatts of solar, wind and battery storage, according to the DOE.

For scale, those projections would increase U.S. renewable electricity capacity by around 40% and the nation’s battery storage by more than 80%, according to September data from the EIA.

The lesson from states like South Dakota and Arizona is that energy decisions cannot be made based on broad-brush national arguments.

Yes, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress opposed federal tax subsidies for wind and solar and started to phase them out. But tax policy is a completely separate conversation from the engineering reality of keeping a regional grid running during a blizzard or a heatwave.

As we face a future of higher demand, no energy source should be sidelined because of rhetoric that doesn’t reflect conditions on the ground. A stable power grid requires a mix of energy sources working together as efficiently as possible – in other words, “all of the above.”

If we truly care about keeping the lights on, let’s stop fighting over the “right” kind of energy and embrace the idea of building a grid that uses it all.

Greg Brophy is a former Republican state senator from Colorado and a fourth-generation corn and melon farmer. He serves as the Rural Energy Network Director of The Western Way.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

False, Sustainability Magazine, Heat Waves Aren’t Breaking the Grid

In the article “Climate Change: How Heatwaves are Affecting Power Grids,” Sustainability Magazine (SM) claims that human-caused climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of heat waves, which are allegedly placing growing strain on power grids worldwide. This claim is at best, highly misleading, and at worst, outright false. Data does not support the notion that heat waves are increasing in frequency or intensity on a global scale.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

In the article “Climate Change: How Heatwaves are Affecting Power Grids,” Sustainability Magazine (SM) claims that human-caused climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of heat waves, which are allegedly placing growing strain on power grids worldwide. This claim is at best, highly misleading, and at worst, outright false. Data does not support the notion that heat waves are increasing in frequency or intensity on a global scale. Evidence instead suggests that localized temperature increases, especially in urban areas where power grids are concentrated, are primarily driven by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect—not global climate change. Evidence also strongly suggests that to the extent power grids are being stretched to the limits it is due to the addition of intermittent power in the form of industrial wind and solar facilities to the grid.

“Human-caused climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of heatwaves since the 1950s and is set to continue to do so according to the World Meteorological Organisation,” says SM. “As temperatures continue to stay hot, power grids and markets are facing strain.”

The narrative pushed by SM is belied by the fact that there is no long-term upward trend in heat wave frequency or intensity when global datasets are correctly adjusted for the UHI effect. For example, Climate Realism carefully analyzed heat wave claims in several articles, here, here, and here, which explain that despite fluctuations year to year, the occurrence of heat waves over the last century has not trended upward globally. In fact, the hottest years in U.S. history for sustained heat waves remain in the 1930s, a period with significantly lower atmospheric carbon dioxide levels than today.

It is critical to emphasize that heat waves are driven by weather patterns, particularly persistent high-pressure systems that block cooler air from moving into a region. These atmospheric blocking patterns are not new, nor are they caused by minor increases in the global average temperature. The distinction between weather and climate is often blurred in popular reporting, but they are fundamentally different. Weather is immediate and local; climate is long-term and regional or global. Heat waves are, and always have been, weather events.

The UHI effect is a well-documented phenomenon where cities experience significantly higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas due to heat retention by concrete, asphalt, and other man-made surfaces. This effect can elevate temperatures at the very locations where electrical infrastructure resides, potentially exacerbating stress on those systems. However, this localized warming is often misinterpreted as evidence of widespread, climate-driven heat wave intensification. In reality, it is a localized artifact of urbanization and poor siting of weather stations, not a signal of planetary-scale change.

The article’s claim that 2025 has already seen heat waves striking China, the United States, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom is presented as though this constitutes evidence of a crisis. Yet the historical record shows that heat waves have periodically occurred in these regions, throughout history, long before the modern industrial era, sometimes simultaneously. There is currently no sound data to support the idea that simultaneous heat waves in multiple countries are exclusively a modern phenomenon caused by fossil fuels. Heat waves are episodic weather events, not unprecedented crises.

Furthermore, the suggestion that the power grid is under exceptional strain due to climate-induced heat waves is a deflection from the real problem: energy policy failures. As covered in detail on Watts Up With That in the articles “Media Chases ‘Climate Enhanced’ Heat Waves, Misses Data Showing They are Less Frequent” and “The Grid Speaks,” power grids in the U.S. and Europe are increasingly fragile because reliable baseload generation from coal and nuclear plants has been intentionally phased out in favor of intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. These renewable sources often underperform during peak demand events, including heat waves, exacerbating grid instability. Solar panels, for example, lose efficiency, meaning the power they generate declines, during periods of high heat.

SM acknowledges that solar panel efficiency drops by up to 25% during heat waves without a hint of irony. If hot weather undermines solar power output during periods of peak electricity demand, that is a glaring indictment of our growing dependence on solar energy, not a call to double down on it. This vulnerability to heat is a well-known design flaw of solar panels, yet the article glosses over it in favor of advocating more renewable energy.

Also, extended heatwaves are regularly accompanied by no or low wind currents, one reason heat domes or heat waves linger over multiple days. When that occurs wind turbines aren’t generating power, either.

In “Powering through the heat: how 2024 heatwaves reshaped electricity demand, “ Ember’s analyst claims that higher air conditioning use is causing grid stress, this conveniently ignores that robust grids with sufficient dispatchable power have historically handled peak loads without widespread blackouts. The problem is not ramped up air conditioner use—it’s that grid operators in most western countries have been forced, by politicians, to heavily rely on solar and wind power sources that can’t always deliver power when it’s most needed, as seen in the figure below:

SM’s mention of power plants reducing output due to warm cooling water is also framed as though it’s a new, climate-driven problem. In reality, power plants have always had to manage cooling limitations during hot weather, and operational procedures to address this have been in place for decades. This is not a new vulnerability, nor does it signify an accelerating climate crisis.

Heat waves are not a novel threat, nor are they becoming more dangerous due to a minor uptick in average global temperatures. They are part of natural weather variability and have occurred throughout history, including during periods when global temperatures were cooler than today. For example, Climate Realism shows that heat waves in the 1930s were both longer and more severe than anything experienced in recent decades, even as carbon dioxide levels were far lower.

Blackouts during heat waves are dangerous, but blaming such failures on climate change instead of on poorly managed energy policies and fragile grids dominated by weather-dependent renewables is a complete abdication of responsibility.

In closing, Sustainability Magazine should be ashamed of this sloppy, one-sided piece that parrot’s climate alarm talking points without the slightest attempt to critically examine the underlying data or consider alternative explanations increasingly stressed power grids. This article reads less like journalism and more like advocacy masquerading as science. It is precisely this sort of lazy, echo-chamber reporting that erodes public trust and undermines rational discourse on energy and climate. If Sustainability Magazine wants to be taken seriously, it would do well to start by doing its homework.

Coal Is the New Bridge Fuel

Once again, the consensus of government and private weather forecasters is that this coming summer will witness above-average temperatures in most parts of the United States. Already, warnings have been sounded that America’s power grids will be under great stress—as has been the case for a number of years—with a strong probability of blackouts and brownouts in some parts of the country. 

From Watts Up With That?

By Bernard L. Weinstein

Once again, the consensus of government and private weather forecasters is that this coming summer will witness above-average temperatures in most parts of the United States. Already, warnings have been sounded that America’s power grids will be under great stress—as has been the case for a number of years—with a strong probability of blackouts and brownouts in some parts of the country.  For example, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) summer reliability assessment published on May 18 cited the 15-state Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) as the regional grid most likely to see a meltdown this summer.

NERC’s warning proved to be prescient. On May 25, more than 100,000 customers in and around New Orleans lost power for most of the day when electricity demand exceeded supply, despite an emergency order from the Department of Energy several days earlier to keep a 1,560 megawatt coal plant in Michigan on-line that was slated for closure by the end of May. ERCOT, the Texas grid operator, has also warned of possible outages this summer due to potential low solar and wind energy availability during peak demand.   

The strains on America’s power grids are easy to explain. After remaining relatively flat for a decade, electricity demand is now projected to jump 50% over the next 10 years. Investments in server farms, artificial intelligence, crypto-mining, and a revival of manufacturing activity account for most of this growth. For example, a recent study by the Berkeley National Laboratory found that data centers consumed 4% of total U.S. electricity in 2023 but will account for 12% of power demand by 2028.    

At the same time, construction of new base-load power plants—natural gas, nuclear, and coal—has plummeted. Driven by federal, state, and local tax incentives, wind and solar have accounted for the lion’s share of new installed generation in recent years. The problem, of course, is that these power sources are intermittent, which is why New Orleans lost electricity in May and why the Iberian Peninsula suffered a blackout in April.

Although several states—most notably Texas—have adopted programs to encourage new construction of natural gas plants, for the near term it’s critical to keep the nation’s remaining coal plants online.

Since 2010, 300 “always on” coal-fired power plants have been closed, reducing its share of generation from 45% to 16% nationwide. Only about 200 remain on the regional grids today.

The Trump administration has taken several steps to enhance power grid reliability and resiliency by keeping these coal plants on-line, including a series of executive orders signed by the President in early April. One of these orders allows a number of aging coal plants slated for closure to continue producing power. 

Not surprisingly, these actions have energized environmentalists who remain committed to shuttering the remaining coal fleet and banning the construction of any new fossil fuel power plants. But the renewables-or-nothing approach they favor is crashing into a new energy reality. Not only is power demand poised to surge but building and connecting wind and solar plants, as well as the infrastructure needed to integrate them into the grid, is proving increasingly costly and challenging. Coupled with higher interest rates and supply chain challenges, local opposition to wind and solar farms, as well as new transmission lines, is having a significant impact on the speed and scale at which new generation is entering service.

The era of tearing down existing, well-operating power plants before reliable replacement capacity is built and connected to the grid is over. The on-demand power plants already in service are more valuable than ever. While coal’s long-term future remains in question, its near-term importance is clear. Our existing fleet of coal plants can help us manage the transition to a more reliable and resilient energy future as we build the next generation of base-load resources.

Bernard L. Weinstein is retired associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, professor emeritus of applied economics at the University of North Texas, and a fellow of Goodenough College, London. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Electrify Everything: Dreaming the Impossible Dream

The roadblocks?  The costs of all of the necessary equipment and total costs of the projects were far higher than they originally thought. 

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen — 9 January 2023 — 1400 words/6 minutes

The new mantra for the renewable energy advocates of almost all stripes is: “Electrify Everything”.  Think not?  Try an internet search for the phrase: “electrify everything” —   a few samples:

We Need to Make ‘Electrifying Everything’ Easier — Scientific American — Jul 1, 2022

Electrify Everything — Center for Energy and Environment — Jan 1, 2023

Electrify Everything — Mother Jones  — Apr 18, 2023

Why and How to Electrify Everything — Skeptical Science  — May 4, 2022

2022: The Year that Launched the Electrify Everything Movement – Sierra Club — Dec 12, 2022

How electrification became a major tool for fighting climate change. – NY Times — April 14, 2023

Electrify Everything Everywhere All At Once For The Climate And Economy — Forbes   Nov 6, 2023

Let me start with the claims made in the NY Times news item — by Nadja Popovich and Brad Plumer —  published last April in the NY Times ( repeating the link ).  Their main point is given in the first three paragraphs:

“The United States still gets most of its energy by setting millions of tiny fires everywhere. Cars, trucks, homes and factories all burn fossil fuels in countless engines, furnaces and boilers, creating pollution that heats the planet.

To tackle climate change, those machines will need to stop polluting. And the best way to do that, experts increasingly say, is to replace them with electric versions — cars, heating systems and factories that run on clean sources of electricity like wind, solar or nuclear power.

But electrifying almost everything is a formidable task.”

They have at least one thing right:  electrifying almost everything is a formidable task.  It is not just formidable — I suspect it might be  physically impossible in the present and probably in the short-term (years, decades).

Another quote from the same Times article:

“Can the Grid Handle It?  —  Electrification would require sweeping changes to the nation’s power grids. Under the scenario visualized above, total electricity demand in the United States would roughly double by 2050, even as overall energy use went down.” ….  “To meet that demand, electric utilities would need to add staggering amounts of new emissions-free power while making sure that all those newly electrified cars, homes and factories don’t strain the system and cause blackouts. They would also have to construct large new power lines across the country, both to accommodate far-flung renewable projects and to improve the reliability of the grid.”

I wrote just last year:  “How Much of the Grid Must Be Upgraded?” in which I examined the small case of upgrades needed to the grid just switch the homes of the California city of Palo Alto to “All Electric”.   I used this cartoon:

The transformers are circled in yellow — that’s a lot of transformers ….and many of them will be needing to be upgraded or replaced.  The problem?  We not only don’t have enough transformers to do a major upgrade on the grid, the United States doesn’t even have or manufacture enough transformers to meet current demand.  And that problem is only going to get worse, not better, as demand grows ahead of the manufacturing capability.

The green box surrounds the long-distance transmission lines – from the generating stations (oil, gas, solar, wind, hydro) to the transmission customers to the utility companies and finally local transmission to the end-user customers – you and me.  We don’t have enough – we will need far more to connect to different places of generation – and we aren’t building them.   CNBC’s Catherine Clifford tells us why in “Why a U.S. national electric grid would be great for the climate — and is nearly impossible”.

Hey, but don’t worry about the fact that a new, upgraded electrical grid is absolutely necessary and is simultaneously “nearly” impossible – the government is studying the issue!   (…I wouldn’t hold your breathe while waiting for their solution).

It is not just the necessary political will and the necessary money (the government can “just print more”), but do we have the necessary other physical stuff?  Transmission cables, insulators, high tension power line towers, on and on….

As a nation, we don’t have sufficient quantities of transformers or the manufacturing base to make sufficient quantities our own – many come from China. An analysis by the Heritage Foundation considers this to be a national security issue.

What about skilled laborers?

“Laborers?” you may ask.  Yes, men and women with the skills to actually build transmission lines.  For that matter, do we have the trained and qualified men and women necessary to just install the dedicated 240v outlet in your kitchen to allow you to put in an induction stove or to install an EV fast-charger or two in your garage.  The Climate Crisis propaganda outlet GRIST has run two stories on the problems of doing this:  “He wanted to get his home off fossil fuels. There was just one problem”  and  “To get off fossil fuels, America is going to need a lot more electricians — A shortage of skilled labor could derail efforts to “electrify everything.””   Each details the trials and tribulations of a True Believer®  who sets out to ‘do the right thing’ and electrify their homes.

The roadblocks?  The costs of all of the necessary equipment and total costs of the projects were far higher than they originally thought.   And, even when they trimmed back the projects to lower the cost, they had difficulty finding contractors who would do the work within a reasonable time frame.  There are not enough trained personnel to do the work even at today’s demand levels – no less if Electrify Everything were to be mandated by municipal or state governments via laws or regulations. 

What about the economics?  Aren’t we constantly being told that electricity is far cheaper than gas or oil?

Let’s ask the U.S. Department of Energy:

Looking at the “Representative Average Unit Costs of Energy” per million BTU (a measure of the heat content of fuels or energy sources).  This is the official document from the energy.gov, for 2023.   Electricity costs over three times more than natural gas per million BTUs with the costs listed.  Currently, for January 2024, the average of state averages is 13.9 ¢/kWh,  a little lower than used in the chart. For Natural Gas, as of Aug 2023,  the average of state averages, the cost was $13.65 per thousand cubic feet (MCF), also a bit lower than in the chart. [Your Local Costs May Vary]

And, finally, out in California, where I last looked at the Electrify Everything idea in regards to adding EV chargers and making homes all-electric in Palo Alto – Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) has announced:

“Effective Jan. 1, monthly electricity bills for the typical PG&E electricity customer reached an average of roughly $222 a month. That’s 28.4% higher than the monthly electricity bill of $172.84 in January 2023.

Gas bills now average $72 a month. That’s 6.1% higher than the average monthly gas bill of $67.89 in January 2023.” [source – paywalled]

Bottom Line:

We don’t have enough to Electrify Everything:

1.  Not enough electrical grid

2.  Not enough transformers

3.  Not enough raw materials

4.  Not enough skilled laborers

5.  Not enough time (to meet arbitrary targets).

Maybe, someday, we could sensibly electrify home heating, cooling and appliances.  But not anytime soon.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

I think electricity is cool – always have.  Did electricity experiments (all totally unauthorized and some terrifyingly dangerous) when I was a kid.  But the Electrify Everything agenda is really an anti-natural gas/fossil fuels agenda and is not being pushed for the benefit of citizens.

And, yes, this Electrify Everything doesn’t even touch Primary Power.

Heat pumps that can operate efficiently in sub-freezing temperatures are very expensive and lose efficiency in cold weather.  Even heat pump installers recommend having backup heat for when the weather turns very cold. 

They promote induction stovetops – not induction kitchen ranges – the ovens in kitchen ranges are all plain old electric ovens using hot coils to bake your cake or braise your meat.  ONLY the stovetop burners are induction.  If you are a baker, like one of my daughters-in-law, having an induction stovetop doesn’t save you much – she has and uses two electric ovens.

If you can efficiently turn your Natural Gas to sensible BTUs in heating your home, the natural gas is far cheaper. 

Thanks for reading.