Energy Policies

The Big Beautiful Win for Rational Climate Policies

Posted on by Ron Clutz

With Congress passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into US law, let’s consider the policy implications going forward.  Also note the irony of the previous Biden administration BBBA (Build Back Better Act) which failed:

Speaker Mike Johnson listed 25 Trump Executive Orders now codified into law by Congress (highlighted are those most related to climate policies):

  1. Securing our Borders
  2. Declaring a National Emergency at the Southern Border
  3. Protecting the American People Against Invasion
  4. Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders
  5. Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and other National Security and Public Safety Threats
  6. Implementing the President’s DOGE Cost Efficiency Initiative
  7. Protecting America’s Bank Account Against Fraud, Waste and Abuse
  8. Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy
  9. Stopping Waste, Fraud and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos
  10. Iron Dome for America
  11. Unleashing American Drone Dominance
  12. Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance
  13. Unleashing American Energy
  14. Reinvigorating America’s Beautiful Clean Coal Industry
  15. Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential
  16. Declaring a National Energy Emergency
  17. Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production
  18. Immediate Expansion of American Timber Production
  19. Clarifying the Military’s Role in Protecting the Territorial Integrity of the United States
  20. Keeping Americans Safe in Aviation
  21. Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States and Communities
  22. Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education
  23. Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission
  24. Further Amendment to Duties Addressing the Synthetic Opioid Supply Chain in the People’s Republic of China as Applied to Low-Value Imports
  25. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Global Tax Deal
  26. Enforcing the Hyde Amendment
  27. Celebrating America’s 250th Birthday — Garden of Heroes
  28. Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful

I used perplexity.ai to answer two questions about what impact to expect from this Development.  Text in italics with my bolds, two edits and added images.

Several Trump Executive Orders since January 2025
have directly targeted climate change policies
at both the federal and state levels.

Rescinding Biden-Era Climate Orders: Trump issued an executive order revoking all previous administration executive orders related to climate change, the clean energy transition, and climate finance. This included:  the cancellation of national and sectoral climate targets, such as net zero by 2050, 100% electric vehicle sales by 2035, and the revocation of the National Climate Task Force and the State Department’s Climate Change Support Office.

Declaring a National Energy Emergency: An executive order declared a national emergency on energy, prioritizing fossil fuel development, including in previously protected areas like Alaska. It directed agencies to expedite energy permitting and infrastructure, and to use emergency authorities to facilitate new energy projects, especially for oil, gas, coal, and critical minerals.

Disbanding the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases Group: The “Unleashing American Energy” executive order disbanded the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, excluding its work from government policy and directing agencies to consider eliminating the social cost of carbon from regulatory decisions.

Blocking State Climate Change Policies: In April 2025, Trump signed an executive order instructing the U.S. Attorney General to identify and take action against state and local laws that address climate change, ESG initiatives, environmental justice, and carbon emissions. The order specifically targeted state policies that mandate clean energy, impose carbon fees, or hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate impacts.

Promoting Coal and Grid Reliability: Additional executive orders promoted coal mining and coal-based power, particularly for AI data centers, and emphasized strengthening the reliability and security of the electric grid. These actions are expected to increase emissions from the power sector.

Rolling Back Wind Energy Initiatives: Trump withdrew the Outer Continental Shelf from wind energy leasing, paused project approvals, and directed a review of federal wind leasing and permitting practices.

Halting Federal Climate Funding: The administration paused disbursements of funds appropriated through the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that support climate initiatives, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

Challenging State Authority: The executive orders aim to preempt or invalidate state-level climate actions, especially those seen as burdensome to domestic energy production. States like California, New York, and Vermont, with aggressive climate policies, are specifically mentioned as targets of these federal actions.

These orders collectively represent a broad effort to reverse federal and state climate change policies, prioritize fossil fuel development, and roll back regulations and incentives for clean energy and emissions reduction.

With Trump’s executive orders on climate and energy
now codified as law by Congress,
the following effects are taking place.

Federal Climate Programs Rolled Back: The new laws have solidified the rollback of key federal climate and clean energy initiatives, including the dismantling of the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) climate provisions, elimination of the Justice40 commitment, and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. Federal agencies are now required by law to halt or redirect funding away from climate-focused programs and environmental justice initiatives.

Permitting and Environmental Review Weakened Reformed: The codified laws have overhauled the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, prioritizing rapid permitting for energy (especially fossil fuel) projects and rescinding previous NEPA regulations. This accelerates approvals for oil, gas, and infrastructure projects, often at the expense of environmental review and public input from decarbonizing activists.

Electric Vehicle and Clean Energy Incentives Cut: The laws have ended or severely restricted federal incentives for electric vehicles (EVs), including tax credits and mandates. California’s authority to set stricter emissions standards has been revoked, and other states cannot enforce more aggressive climate policies than federal standards.

Wind and Solar Tax Credits Limited: Although a last-minute legislative compromise allowed renewable projects a one-year window to claim tax credits, Trump’s executive order—now backed by law—directs the Treasury to sharply restrict eligibility. Only projects with substantial physical progress will qualify, making it harder for wind and solar developers to access these credits and reducing the financial viability of new clean energy projects.

Social Cost of Carbon Eliminated: The laws have abolished the use of the “social cost of greenhouse gases” in federal decision-making. Agencies are directed to ignore or eliminate this metric from permitting and regulatory processes, undermining the rationale for regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

Endangerment Finding Under Review: The EPA is required to review the 2009 Endangerment Finding (the scientific and legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act). If overturned or weakened, this could eliminate the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon emissions from vehicles and industry.

Preemption of State Climate Laws: The Attorney General is now legally empowered to challenge and potentially invalidate state and local climate change laws that are viewed as restricting domestic energy production or conflicting with federal policy. This targets states like California and New York, threatening their ability to set independent climate standards.

International Climate Commitments Withdrawn: The United States has formally withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and ceased all international climate finance, isolating the U.S. from global climate efforts and reducing international pressure for domestic climate action.

These changes, now enshrined in law, represent a comprehensive reversal of previous federal and state climate change policies, prioritizing fossil fuel development and deregulation while sharply curtailing support for clean energy and emissions reduction.

The legal codification makes these policy shifts more durable
and harder for future administrations to quickly reverse.

 

 

 

 

Wanted: More Energy Sanctuary States Like Louisiana

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Larry Behrens explains the trail blazing move in his Real Clear Energy article Did Louisiana Just Become America’s First Energy Sanctuary State? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

While states like California fumble and self-destruct, Louisiana is doing
something revolutionary: standing up to the Green New Scam.

In a move that should inspire every state in the country, Louisiana has passed a groundbreaking law that flips the script on failed renewable mandates. Let’s call it what it is — a common-sense energy sanctuary law. Instead of forcing families and businesses to pay more for unreliable energy from foreign supply chains, Louisiana is now legally prioritizing energy that’s affordable, reliable, and made in America.

That’s not just common sense — it’s leadership.

The technical name is Act 462, but it might well be called “Louisiana’s Energy Independence Act” because it does something no Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) has ever done: it puts working families first. It defines energy not by whether it checks a political box, but by whether it keeps the lights on and bills low. In fact, the law goes so far as to define dispatchable and reliable energy in statute, mandating that Louisiana’s grid must prioritize sources that stabilize voltage, ramp up when needed, and avoid dependence on “foreign adversary nations.”

That’s a direct shot at the China-backed solar and wind lobby — and it’s about time.

This policy shift couldn’t come at a better moment. New data shows that the states most committed to Renewable Portfolio Standards — California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York — are now suffering the highest and fastest-growing electricity rates in the nation. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration and ElectricChoice’s latest June 2025 numbers:

  • Hawaii’s electricity rate is 42.34¢/kWh — a staggering 228% above the national average.
  • Massachusetts sits at 31.22¢/kWh — up 142%.
  • And California, the poster child of the Green New Scam, is at 30.55¢/kWh — 137% higher than average.

What do these states have in common? They all have binding RPS mandates and have shut down reliable fossil fuel power plants that once powered homes and industries affordably. In California alone, plants like Alamitos, Potrero, and Huntington Beach were taken offline — all while the state imported Chinese-made solar panels and offshore wind turbines with price tags subsidized by taxpayers.

And the results? Sky-high bills, rolling blackouts,
and dependence on intermittent power that collapses
when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow.

Meanwhile, Louisiana — a state with no binding RPS and an energy mix that includes natural gas — enjoys rates nearly 9% below the national average. It’s joined by other affordable states like North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Carolina — none of which have mandatory green energy quotas.

So yes, Louisiana is charting a new path, and the rest of the country should follow. The message of Louisiana’s Energy Independence Act is simple: energy policy should serve people, not political agendas. By prioritizing affordability and reliability, Louisiana levels the playing field and forces every source of energy — whether gas, coal, solar, or wind — to compete based on merit, not mandates.

And for working families? That’s a win every single time.

Let the climate activists whine. Let the solar lobby scream. Louisiana just showed the country what energy leadership looks like — and it starts by saying no to the Green New Scam and yes to the people who actually pay the bills.

Other states should take note. The future isn’t in chasing unicorns. It’s in putting common sense and the American worker back at the center of energy policy.

2025 Update: Fossil Fuels ≠ Global Warming

Posted on by Ron Clutz

gas in hands

Previous posts addressed the claim that fossil fuels are driving global warming. This post updates that analysis with the latest (2024) numbers from Energy Institute and compares World Fossil Fuel Consumption (WFFC) with three estimates of Global Mean Temperature (GMT). More on both these variables below. Note: Previously these same statistics were hosted by BP.

WFFC

2024 statistics are now available from Energy Institute for international consumption of Primary Energy sources. Statistical Review of World Energy. 

The reporting categories are:
Oil
Natural Gas
Coal
Nuclear
Hydro
Renewables (other than hydro)

Note:  Energy Institute began in 2023 to use Exajoules to replace MToe (Million Tonnes of oil equivalents.) It is logical to use an energy metric which is independent of the fuel source. OTOH renewable advocates have no doubt pressured EI to stop using oil as the baseline since their dream is a world without fossil fuel energy.

From BP conversion table 1 exajoule (EJ) = 1 quintillion joules (1 x 10^18). Oil products vary from 41.6 to 49.4 tonnes per gigajoule (10^9 joules).  Comparing this annual report with previous years shows that global Primary Energy (PE) in MToe is roughly 24 times the same amount in Exajoules.  The conversion factor at the macro level varies from year to year depending on the fuel mix. The graphs below use the new metric.

This analysis combines the first three, Oil, Gas, and Coal for total fossil fuel consumption world wide (WFFC).  The chart below shows the patterns for WFFC compared to world consumption of Primary Energy from 1965 through 2024.

The graph shows that global Primary Energy (PE) consumption from all sources has grown continuously over nearly 6 decades. Since 1965  oil, gas and coal (FF, sometimes termed “Thermal”) averaged 88% of PE consumed, ranging from 93% in 1965 to 81% in 2024.  Note that in 2020, PE dropped 21 EJ (4%) below 2019 consumption, then increased 31 EJ in 2021.  WFFC for 2020 dropped 24 EJ (5%), then in 2021 gained back 26 EJ to slightly exceed 2019 WFFC consumption. For the 60 year period, all net changes were increases from previous years and were:

Oil 207%
Gas 555%
Coal 183%
WFFC 252%
PE 308%
Global Mean Temperatures

Everyone acknowledges that GMT is a fiction since temperature is an intrinsic property of objects, and varies dramatically over time and over the surface of the earth. No place on earth determines “average” temperature for the globe. Yet for the purpose of detecting change in temperature, major climate data sets estimate GMT and report anomalies from it.

UAH record consists of satellite era global temperature estimates for the lower troposphere, a layer of air from 0 to 4km above the surface. HadSST estimates sea surface temperatures from oceans covering 71% of the planet. HadCRUT combines HadSST estimates with records from land stations whose elevations range up to 6km above sea level.

Both GISS LOTI (land and ocean) and HadCRUT4 (land and ocean) use 14.0 Celsius as the climate normal, so I will add that number back into the anomalies. This is done not claiming any validity other than to achieve a reasonable measure of magnitude regarding the observed fluctuations.[Note: HadCRUT4 was discontinued after 2021 in favor of HadCRUT5.]

No doubt global sea surface temperatures are typically higher than 14C, more like 17 or 18C, and of course warmer in the tropics and colder at higher latitudes. Likewise, the lapse rate in the atmosphere means that air temperatures both from satellites and elevated land stations will range colder than 14C. Still, that climate normal is a generally accepted indicator of GMT.

Correlations of GMT and WFFC

The next graph compares WFFC to GMT estimates over the decades from 1965 to 2024 from HadCRUT5, which includes HadSST4.

Since 1965 the increase in fossil fuel consumption is dramatic and monotonic, steadily increasing by 252% from 146 to 513 exajoules.  Meanwhile the GMT record from Hadcrut shows multiple ups and downs with an accumulated rise of 1.4C over 60 years, 10% of the starting value.

The graph below compares WFFC to GMT estimates from UAH6, and HadSST4 for the satellite era from 1980 to 2024 a period of 45 years.

In the satellite era WFFC has increased at a compounded rate of 1.5% per year, for a total increase of 99% since 1980. At the same time, SST warming amounted to 0.8C, or 5.6% of the starting value.  UAH warming was 1.1C, or 8% up from 1979.  The temperature compounded rate of change is 0.1% per year for HadSST4, and 0.2% per year for UAH, an order of magnitude less than WFFC.  Even more obvious is the 1998 El Nino peak and flat GMT until 2023-24.

Summary

The climate alarmist/activist claim is straight forward: Burning fossil fuels makes measured temperatures warmer. The Paris Accord further asserts that by reducing human use of fossil fuels, further warming can be prevented.  Those claims do not bear up under scrutiny.

It is enough for simple minds to see that two time series are both rising and to think that one must be causing the other. But both scientific and legal methods assert causation only when the two variables are both strongly and consistently aligned. The above shows a weak and inconsistent linkage between WFFC and GMT.

Going further back in history shows even weaker correlation between fossil fuels consumption and global temperature estimates:

wfc-vs-sat

Figure 5.1. Comparative dynamics of the World Fuel Consumption (WFC) and Global Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (ΔT), 1861-2000. The thin dashed line represents annual ΔT, the bold line—its 13-year smoothing, and the line constructed from rectangles—WFC (in millions of tons of nominal fuel) (Klyashtorin and Lyubushin, 2003). Source: Frolov et al. 2009

In legal terms, as long as there is another equally or more likely explanation for the set of facts, the claimed causation is unproven. The more likely explanation is that global temperatures vary due to oceanic and solar cycles. The proof is clearly and thoroughly set forward in the post Quantifying Natural Climate Change.

Footnote: CO2 Concentrations Compared to WFFC

Contrary to claims that rising atmospheric CO2 consists of fossil fuel emissions, consider the Mauna Loa CO2 observations in recent years.

Despite the drop in 2020 WFFC, atmospheric CO2 continued to rise steadily, demonstrating that natural sources and sinks drive the amount of CO2 in the air.

See also: Nature Erases Pulses of Human CO2 Emissions

02/2025 Update–Temperature Changes, CO2 Follows

Climate Litigants Lackeys for China’s Agenda?

Posted on by Ron Clutz

A Chinese flag flies in front of a coal fired power plant in Tianjin. China has been building many more similar plants. Getty Images

Dan Eberhart writes at Forbes Climate Lawsuits Are Changing The U.S. Energy Industry And China’s Too.  H/T Tyler Durden. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Sen. Ted Cruz has expressed concern in multiple public statements that the American energy security may face a significant threat from a wave of lawsuits claiming to defend a progressive environmental agenda.

On this upcoming Wednesday, Sen. Cruz’s Judiciary oversight subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine how China and America’s climate litigation movement are working in parallel to undermine U.S. energy dominance. These efforts are being carried out under the banner of environmental protection and the clean energy transition, but the real goal is to weaken America’s energy sector and give the advantage to China in global energy and manufacturing markets.

Climate cases brought by plaintiff firms like Sher Edling are supported by a network of well-funded foundations and nonprofits that are unwittingly advancing the strategic interests of America’s adversaries by weakening domestic energy production and increasing our dependence on foreign-controlled supply chains—particularly those dominated by China.

There is growing recognition that this is a national security problem. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission has warned that the Chinese Communist Party is actively working to “directly and malignly influence state and local leaders to promote China’s global agenda.”

A recent report by national security nonprofit State Armor outlines how China has co-opted elements of the U.S. climate lobby to drive a transition away from fossil fuels. The result is greater U.S. reliance on Chinese-controlled technologies, minerals, and supply chains. China dominates the global markets for lithium, cobalt, solar panels, and battery components. It stands to gain enormously from U.S. policies that force a premature shift away from traditional energy sources.

The report spotlights Energy Foundation China (EFC) which claims to be a nonprofit headquartered in San Francisco. In reality, its staff are mostly based in Beijing, and its operations align closely with the Chinese Communist Party’s interests. EFC has spent millions supporting anti-fossil fuel groups in the United States, including the Rocky Mountain Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC was the subject of a 2018 congressional inquiry over whether it should register as a foreign agent due to its ties to China.

House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders last year warned that “China has already attempted to influence United States policy and opinion through covert influence and by exploiting perceived societal divisions.” Their letter raised concerns about China-affiliated organizations influencing U.S. energy policy.

Major Focus Areas for U.S. Climate and Energy Funding, 2011–2015. Based on analysis of 2,502 publicly reported grants available as of Spring/Summer 2016 which were distributed between 2011 and 2015 by 19 major foundations making environmental grants totaling $556,678,469. Source:Strategic philanthropy in the post-Cap-and-Trade years: Reviewing U.S. climate and energy foundation funding by Nisbet 2018

A number of foundations have played a role in financing climate litigation efforts nationwide. A decade of litigation that most likely would not have happened without their financial backing. Major donors to this network include some of the largest philanthropic institutions in the country, including the Children’s Investment Fund, MacArthur, Rockefeller, and Hewlett foundations. Yet few of these donors have accounted for the risk of foreign manipulation embedded in the organizations they fund.

The influence campaign also extends into U.S. academic institutions. The National Natural Science Foundation of China, a government-run research entity, has published articles in American journals criticizing fossil fuels and accusing U.S. companies of deceptive practices. One of EFC’s top communications directors previously held a position at that same Chinese foundation.

At the same time, the revolving door between activist nonprofits and government agencies is raising serious ethical and legal questions. Ann Carlson, a senior official in the Biden administration, previously sat on the board of the Environmental Law Institute while also consulting for Sher Edling. This institute has hosted multiple educational events with Chinese organizations on “climate litigation capacity building” aimed at influencing judges and shaping the legal landscape in both countries.

There is no shortage of outside forces fueling this wave of litigation, and Cruz’s subcommittee is well positioned to expose them. The American people deserve transparency about who is bankrolling the litigation assault on domestic energy, and to what end. President Donald Trump’s energy dominance agenda may not be enough to counteract opaque litigation funding that could undermine U.S. energy security. Prior administrations allowed this framework to take hold by ceding policymaking authority to the courts.

China is more than happy to watch Americans tie the economy in regulatory knots while Chinese companies build new coal-fired power plants, locks in oil and gas contracts with OPEC+ members, and consolidates control over clean energy technologies. If this trend continues, Beijing will have a significant advantage when it comes to the energy industry.

Rupert Darwall: World Leaders Took a Wrong Turn

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Rupert Darwall examines when and why the world has gone wrong this century, pinpointing a fundamental error needing correction. Excerpts of the transcript are in italics lightly edited with my bolds and added images. [MM refers to the interviewer, Maggie Miller, and RD refers to Rupert Darwall.]

MM: I’m joined now by Rupert Darwall, author of The Age of Error, Net Zero and The Destruction of the West. Thank you for joining me here today. Although you’re not a speaker here at this event I feel like your book speaks to what we are talking about. So it’s important to take some time to discuss this. For those who might be unfamiliar, would you talk about your book and what are the key takeaways?

RD: Yes, going back in time a bit, I had this sensation where I didn’t understand the way things were going in the world. Perhaps other people might have a a similar kind of feeling. And then the penny dropped. We live in an age of error. And once you understood that, everything started to fall in place. As a result of that, I decided to write a book on the age of error, which is essentially what the book’s about.

MM: When you think about the age of error, when do you think it began, can you set a date to that precisely?

RD: Yes I think I can. Because in 2006 there was the meeting of the G8 which was in St Petersburg hosted by Vladimir Putin. And the leaders of the west along with Vladimir Putin signed up to a document called the St. Petersburg Principles of Energy Security. In that document the leaders of the west said that that they needed to invest trillions of dollars across all the value chain, the whole oil and gas value chain.

We can see there in the summer of 2006, the leaders of the west understood energy realism. This was a realistic response to what was happening in the first decade of the 21st century. Oil prices had been rising quite strongly. Since the 1980s there had been a two decade run of falling energy prices that started to reverse. And higher energy prices were of course causing real concern to the economy and also to energy security.

So in 2006 we can say that was energy realism. People such as the leaders of the west had their heads screwed on straight. By 2009, after the global financial crisis of 2008 and the election of Barack Obama also in 2008, we then had the L’Aquila G8 meeting. And there the leaders of the west signed up to a green recovery and the realism that you’d seen three years earlier had completely gone. So yes one can date this really quite precisely.

MM: Sounds very interesting. What would you say is the biggest error that the west has made?

RD: I think the biggest error is personified by John Kerry. People like John Kerry believe that history is over, that is the history of the rise and fall and competition of great powers is over. And now the world together faces the prospect of climate catastrophe, a planetary catastrophe. So that the world must come together, bury their rivalries. We all come together at the Paris climate conference and we agree to decarbonize.

That to my mind is the biggest error of the age because history has not ended. Geopolitics still continues. We saw that in 2014 when Vladimir Putin seized Crimea, and most of all we saw that in February 2022 when he invaded Ukraine. And the error is that by believing in the catastrophe vision of the world, you will lose the geopolitics. Because there is no way that you can decarbonize your economy and still compete in a geopolitical world. You will basically lose, the west will lose to China.

MM: So what are the consequences for America and Europe?

RD: I would distinguish between America and Europe because after the financial crisis one thing that America had one thing going for it, which was a really really big thing, that was hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling– the shale revolution. And that turbocharged economic growth in the years following the financial crisis. It was driven a lot by falling energy prices and by the shale revolution.

Europe on the other hand has really strongly embraced net zero. It really believes that decarbonization is the path to economic growth and that is a complete fantasy. You can’t do both. You cannot have economic growth and at the same time starve yourself of of energy.

So I think America is in a different position because of the energy revolution, and moreover there’s always been a debate in America about climate change. So there’s always been a strong trend to towards energy realism, which obviously one sees now very strongly in in the Trump administration.  Figures like Chris Wright personify energy realism and and the energy opportunity.

Europe has real real deep, deep problems, since it has drunk from the well of net zero very deeply. And it’s going to take a lot to get it off. I mean by a lot, it’s going to take very high prices, very weak economy. It simply can cannot generate the resources it needs to defend itself from a more aggressive Russia.

MM: What are you looking forward to now, what have you set your sight on?

RD: In terms of the book, I’ve written 17 chapters and the book will be 20 chapters. I’m looking forward to putting finish on chapter 20 and submitting the manuscript. Getting the book out is important because I think it speaks very strongly to the current situation we’re in.

More Lying About Carbon Capture

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Carbon capture tech is pie-in-sky impractical, but was weaponized against coal-fired power plants by requiring CCUS as though it were proven effective and profitable.  Just The News reports Biden’s EPA hid comments from Dept. of Energy that undermined key part of EPA power plant rule.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The Clean Power Plan 2.0 was supported by a finding that carbon capture
technology had been “adequately demonstrated.” The EPA sought and
got comments from the DOE, which disputed that “demonstration.”
Somehow those comments never made it into the administrative record.

It appears that the Biden-Harris administration hid comments that would have undermined its Clean Power Plan 2.0 rule (CPP2), which the Trump administration is currently reviewing. The EPA had sought comments from the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Lab (NETL) on the efficacy of carbon capture technology prior to proposing the rule. These comments, which were somehow scrubbed from the administrative record, disputed a key claim the rule is based on. Those missing comments, a legal expert says, could provide a basis for the rule’s repeal.

The CCP2 requires all coal plants to install carbon capture technology by 2039, which captures and stores emissions in underground geological formations. It also requires new natural gas-fired power plants to install the technology, with requirements starting in 2032. Experts warned the rules would drive up electricity costs and destabilize the grid by disincentivizing reliable power from coal and natural gas in favor of intermittent wind and solar power.

The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to develop new emissions standards, but those standards must be achievable at a reasonable cost. The technology required for compliance must also be adequately demonstrated. Documents obtained by Just the News show that the EPA formally sought comments from NETL in March 2023 on its soon-to-be proposed rule, which was put out for public comment the following May.

The proposed rule allowed for two technologies — hydrogen and carbon capture and underground storage (CCUS) — to meet the emissions standards on fossil fuel-burning power plants. Comer’s letter quotes two unnamed authors expressing that neither technology was viable.

Hydrogen was removed from the rule when it was finalized in April 2024. Carbon capture technology, however, was part of the final rule, even though the comments from one unnamed NETL author stated that:

“CCUS remains prohibitively expensive even after use of funds or tax credits made available through the Inflation Reduction Act.”

The EPA based its determination that CCUS was “adequately demonstrated” on the performance of the Boundary Dam Unit #3 (BD3), which is a Canadian coal-fired power plant fitted with carbon capture technology. An April 2024 report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis called the project an “under-performing failure.” Despite $1 billion CAD spent on the project, it was, as of April 2024, capturing far less than the 90% originally promised. Its capture rate through the end of 2023 was just 57%, which was 63% of the 90% promised, the report found.

Comments from NETL engineers, according to the GOA’s records request, state that “the ongoing operating performance of the same BD3 demonstration project is being, once again, misconstrued as having provided sufficient justification for claiming satisfactory performance to allow the technology to be considered ‘adequately demonstrated.’”

Carbon capture at Boundary Dam 3 still an underperforming failure

To be considered a success, a carbon capture project must capture all or almost all CO2 produced by the facility (power or industrial plant) to which it is attached and must do so for decades. Stantec photo by Kevin Ross.

Another comment states that BD3 only approached the 90% promised target for two months over a period of 8 years and three months. Another comment states that after 8 years and three months “of demonstration, such failure to meet negligible standards for emissions limitations, over a full-year period ending less than one year ago, argues strongly for not considering BD3 as a credible basis for Best System of Emissions Reduction and ‘adequate demonstration’ of the related technology.”

“These comments were sanitized at some point in this process and were not included in NETL’s and/or DoE’s comments to EPA, which made their way into the administrative record,” according to the GOA’s record request.

An EPA spokesperson told Just the News that the EPA, as part of its reconsideration of the CCP2, is developing a proposed rule, which will be published once it has completed an inter-agency review and been signed by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.

“Many have voiced concerns that the last administration’s replacement for that rule is similarly overreaching and an attempt to shut down affordable and reliable electricity generation in the United States, raising prices for American families, and increasing the country’s reliance on foreign forms of energy,” the spokesperson said.

Canada PM Carney Floats Imaginary “Decarbonized Oil” Pipeline

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Reality intrudes in National Post article Alberta and Ottawa tout a grand bargain on ‘decarbonized’ oil but some are skeptical.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Carney said he’d consider fast-tracking a new oil pipeline
to the West Coast if it shipped ‘decarbonized barrels’

OTTAWA — “Grand bargain” was the phrase of the day on Parliament Hill after Prime Minister Mark Carney and his provincial counterparts found common ground on oil and gas development.  “If (the Conservatives) were listening to yesterday, there is a grand bargain,” Energy Minister Tim Hodgson boasted to the Opposition benches.

“There is a bargain that the Premier of Alberta has signed onto.”  Alberta Premier Danielle Smith left Monday’s first ministers’ meeting with a new deal exchanging oil sands access to coastal waters for massive investments in decarbonization technologies, but experts warn this could be a costly pipe dream. 

“I’m worried we’re seeing (the first ministers) fall into a trap of wanting to have their cake and eat it too,” said Tim McMillan, a partner at Garrison Strategy and the former head of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

“There’s real potential there (and), if further developed, the federal government will look to advance it,” said Carney.  But McMillan says the devil could be in the details.

“I don’t know exactly what they’re talking about with decarbonization, but… it may be linked to carbon capture, which does not increase our exports (or) investability,” said McMillan.  “If (carbon capture) becomes a long-term requirement for new projects, it will likely have a negative effect on future investments in Canada’s upstream oil and gas sector.”

The Calgary-based Pathways Alliance, a group of six major oil sands producers, has put forward a $16.5-billion decarbonization network that would reroute carbon emissions from nearly two dozen facilities to an underground hub near Cold Lake, Alta.  The big-ticket project has been at a standstill for years over government funding.

Carney and Hodgson have both paid lip service to the Pathways project in recent weeks, but the venture still faces an uphill battle.  A recent independent analysis found the project was likely to lose money due to the limited recyclability of captured carbon.

“Even under optimal conditions, the Pathways project may struggle to break even, and real-world operations are rarely optimal,” read the study, prepared by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.  “The Canadian federal government and the province of Alberta may be pressured to make up the likely shortfall,” it continued.

“An unprofitable carbon capture project will struggle to bring lasting positive economic benefits to host communities and become dependent on external financial subsidies to maintain operations.”

McMillan also noted that Canada’s two biggest competitors in the heavy oil industry, Mexico and Venezuela, are unlikely to follow suit with large-scale carbon capture projects of their own, giving each an edge over Canada on a per-barrel basis.

Footnote:  “Some are skeptical” understates the case.  “Decarbonized Oil” is a Ruinous Farce.

The Study is Financial risks of carbon capture and storage in Canada: Concerns about the Pathways Project and Public Energy Policy.  Highlights in italics with my bolds and added images.

Cost challenges threaten the ability of a large, planned carbon capture project to achieve financial sustainability. The Pathways Alliance plans to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) generated at 13 oil sand processing facilities, compress the gas and send it by pipeline to a storage hub near the Cold Lake region in Alberta. Publicly available financial information on the Pathways project is scant. It is instructive, however, to analyze the experiences of two existing commercial carbon capture facilities in Alberta—the Alberta Carbon Trunk (ACTL) line facility and Shell’s Quest facility.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) examined the two currently operating CCS projects, together with current policy and provincial carbon market dynamics. The resulting report identified troubling cost implications for the Pathways CO2 transport and storage project and raises the concern that the Canadian federal government and the province of Alberta may be pressured to make up the likely shortfall.

  • We find total costs including interest, insurance, depreciation and taxes for existing commercial-scale carbon capture plants in Alberta are approaching thresholds that threaten profitability.
  • Rising project costs are not being offset by commensurate increases in CO2 capture volumes and associated revenue. Operating costs are growing at twice the rate of CO2 captured volumes.
  • CCS operating revenue is uncertain. An effective cap on emission performance credit (EPC) pricing of CAD$170 per tonne limits project revenue potential, while a looming oversupply of carbon EPCs is an example of risks to project cash flows. The option to combine Clean Fuel Regulation credits with EPCs is available to ACTL, but this significant financial benefit is not available to the Pathways project.
  • Performance risk is financial risk. Without substantial efficiency improvements, the cost per tonne of CO2 captured is likely to exceed the revenue that the project can generate for each tonne captured. 
  • An unprofitable carbon capture project will struggle to bring lasting positive economic benefits to host communities and become dependent on external financial subsidies to maintain operations.

Even under optimal conditions, the Pathways project may struggle
to break even, and real-world operations are rarely optimal.

Large-scale public investment in CCS is misguided. The technology has struggled to achieve meaningful emissions reductions or prove its long-term viability. The lack of demonstrated success and heightened financial risks indicate public investments are unlikely to yield the desired environmental or economic benefits.

 

 

Who Knew? Trump Tariffs Good for Environment

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Melanie Collette explains a surprising and irgnored result from the trade maneuvers in her Real Clear Energy article Trump’s Tariffs Might Be the Green Policy Nobody Saw Coming.  Excerpts italics with my bolds and added images.

For all the buzz about “going green,” much of the technology touted by the Green Left to move our nation to “Net Zero” — specifically solar panels and EV batteries — comes from places where the sky is choked with smog and rivers run with industrial waste.  And while these same critics often dismiss Donald Trump’s tariffs as economic saber-rattling, in reality, the President’s policies carry significant and underappreciated environmental benefits.

Tariffs are an unlikely ally in the fight against pollution:

♦  They incentivize domestic production;
♦  tighten environmental standards, and
♦  hold foreign manufacturers accountable for environmental negligence.

In a world where environmental goals often live on paper but die in execution, tariffs provide real leverage. They shift incentives in the right direction without depending on lengthy negotiations, uncertain compliance, or idealistic assumptions about global unity.

Tariffs as Environmental Filters

By imposing tariffs on imports from countries with looser environmental regulations, Trump’s trade policy incentivizes companies to manufacture domestically, where environmental protections are stronger and enforcement is more robust. Critics call it economic nationalism, but the reality is more nuanced: the policy functions as an ecological safeguard, reducing reliance on countries like China, which is ranked as the 13th most polluted nation in the world.

China’s dominant production of rare earth elements (REE)
has led to significant environmental degradation.

The Bayan Obo mine, one of the world’s most significant REE sources, has been associated with extensive soil and water pollution. Reports indicate that the mining process yields substantial amounts of waste gas, wastewater, and radioactive residue, contaminating local ecosystems and posing health risks to nearby communities.

And here’s something most people overlook — when manufacturing stays closer to home, it’s easier to track environmental violations and enforce rules. Transparency skyrockets when the EPA, OSHA, and other regulatory agencies are just a phone call away, not an ocean apart.

This diagram shows the origin of the metals required for meeting the 2030 goals. The left side of the diagram shows the origin, based on today’s global production of metals. The right side shows the cumulative metal demand for wind and solar technologies until 2030. From study showing tonnage of Dutch demand only.

Trump’s administration is also leveraging Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act to impose tariffs on foreign processed minerals. The goal? Reduce foreign dependence and revive domestic production of critical materials like rare earth elements, essential for clean tech and defense.

The result is a renewed focus on U.S.-based mining and processing, offering a cleaner, more transparent alternative to China’s pollution-heavy rare earth industry. A stronger domestic rare earths sector is a win for national security and the environment. Environmental accountability increases when these materials are mined and processed under U.S. regulation.

The Dirty Truth Behind “Clean” Tech

Let’s be honest: outsourcing green tech to countries with weak environmental laws doesn’t eliminate emissions, but does outsource them. This phenomenon, known as “pollution leakage,” erodes the benefits we claim to pursue.

While the West celebrates progress in so-called green energy, producing those “eco-friendly” goods is often carried out in developing world factories. More than that, this behavior masks the real cost of green technologies. Products may seem “cheap” to consumers, but their environmental impact — from polluted rivers to toxic waste — remains largely unaccounted for.

Trump’s tariff strategy encourages manufacturers to source from countries with higher environmental standards or bring production back home. Case studies show that reshoring delivers economic and environmental benefits, especially in energy and heavy industry sectors. Cleaner supply chains begin with better accountability, which tariffs are uniquely positioned to provide.

When production happens domestically, enforcing environmental controls, adopting green manufacturing processes, and implementing technological innovations like low-emission machining are easier. However, these advancements are often out of reach for foreign suppliers focused solely on cost-cutting.

Global Environmental Agreements: Big Promises, Weak Results

The mainstream media heralded the Biden administration’s return to multilateral climate agreements like the Paris Accord as ” planet-saving,” but real-world results have been underwhelming. These international frameworks lack enforcement, largely exempt the biggest emitters, and allow countries to manipulate statistics to validate their progress in achieving their commitments.

Trump’s policies emphasize sovereignty, which doesn’t mean ignoring the environment. Using trade policy to reinforce domestic environmental protections proves the two priorities are compatible.  Environmental stewardship doesn’t require surrendering control to global institutions. Sometimes it just requires enforcing the rules at home — and setting an example others can’t ignore.

A Practical Path Forward

As the U.S. continues to navigate complex environmental and economic challenges, tariffs can be part of the solution. President Trump’s tariffs protect jobs and the environment, even if critics fail to notice.

Rather than relying solely on lofty international promises, we should consider practical tools, like tariffs, that create real accountability, cleaner production, and stronger domestic resilience.

In an era of performative climate politics, tariffs might just be the unexpected, effective piece of environmental policy we’ve been missing.

Adios Socialized Energy, Welcome Free Market Energy

Posted on by Ron Clutz

tippinsights Editorial Board  explains this critical moment in the power struggle over whether the US will have an Energy Sector controlled by Federal diktats or by Market choices. Their article is Adios, Green New Deal. Welcome, Free-Market Energy Independence.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Trump Dismantles the Green Agenda, Embraces Capitalism,
and Launches America’s New Energy Future.

Buried within the 1,100-page bill recently passed by the House of Representatives—the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” that reflects President Trump’s priorities—are several provisions that, if enacted into law, could return the U.S. energy sector to a more capitalistic model.

President Joe Biden, with strong backing from environmental lobbyists and a last-minute defection from West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, pushed through the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Bill. These measures allocated billions of dollars in federal credits and loan guarantees to favored industries, all under the banner of environmental protection.

What followed was a Soviet-style industrial strategy in which
a handful of Washington bureaucrats determined
the winners and losers of America’s energy future.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) 2022 contained “Climate and energy investments” of approximately $369 billion over 10 years. These included $270 billion for clean energy tax credits to support wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewables; clean hydrogen production; and carbon capture and storage technologies. Buyers of electric vehicles would get up to a $7,500 tax credit for new EVs and up to a $4,000 tax credit for used EVs (with income and manufacturing origin restrictions). Tax credits and funding for domestic manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and critical minerals exceeded $60 billion. Rebates for energy-efficient appliance upgrades, heat pumps, insulation, and home weatherization exceeded $60 billion under the Green Jobs and Environmental Justice banner.

With so much federal money up for grabs, greedy entrepreneurs flocked to risky green energy ventures, largely funded by grants and low-interest loans—funding they likely wouldn’t have secured through private markets. We all remember the Obama-era Solyndra disaster, but Biden’s approach was Solyndra-style investment on steroids.

What was worse, Biden used the vast levers of federal power to kneecap perfectly functioning industries. His administration was especially punitive toward the oil and gas sector: it suspended leases on federal land, blocked vast swaths of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf coasts from new drilling, canceled major pipelines, and imposed regulatory hurdles that made it increasingly difficult for the fossil fuel industry to attract investment capital. As oil prices steadily rose, Biden’s energy strategy relied on tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and urging Saudi Arabia to increase production—an ironic move given his simultaneous efforts to restrict Russian oil exports during the Ukraine war.

President Trump, who campaigned once again on the
“drill, baby, drill” message, has consistently opposed
such government interference in the energy markets.

He has long supported removing regulatory red tape and streamlining the permitting process to allow for increased oil production—lowering domestic prices and boosting exports. In December 2019, under Trump’s administration, the U.S. Energy Information Administration announced that America had become a net exporter of oil for the first time in nearly 60 years.

Biden’s green agenda had another critical flaw: financing. Much of it depended on borrowing from China—ironically benefiting Chinese companies dominating the very industries Biden sought to boost. Since the launch of China’s “Made in China 2025” initiative, Chinese firms—heavily subsidized by their government—have taken over more than 85% of the global rooftop solar panel market. Battery components for solar installations have even higher Chinese market dominance. In effect, Biden borrowed money from China to finance the growth of Chinese companies that sold solar products to U.S. installers.

The new House bill aims to dismantle this entire framework in one stroke.

♦  It eliminates the trading of green credits between corporations;
♦  revokes low-interest green loans, and
♦  entirely phases out subsidies for renewable energy initiatives.

To those who claim this approach is irresponsible, we pose a simple question: How many more decades should the green energy sector rely on government aid to stay afloat? Sustainable energy and transition projects are essential, but they must prove their viability in the open market—just like oil and gas companies do every day. This is classic Adam Smith-style capitalism: let competition and innovation—not government favoritism—determine success.

Trump also supports nuclear power, one of the cleanest
and most efficient methods of generating electricity.

Critics on the Left often call nuclear energy dangerous, but even the most liberal nations—France, Germany, and Japan—have long depended on it. The only significant U.S. nuclear accident, Three Mile Island in the 1980s, did not result in any deaths. Despite Japan’s vulnerability to natural disasters, it maintained a strong safety record until Fukushima. The U.S., by contrast, is less prone to earthquakes or tsunamis, yet Congress and successive administrations have consistently stymied progress on nuclear energy.

This week, Trump signed an executive order that could clear the way for small-scale nuclear plants to begin operations within the next 18 months. These modern reactors, based on cutting-edge American technology, are far safer than their predecessors and are designed to power small cities or neighborhoods rather than entire states. Every aspect of nuclear energy today—from fuel storage to waste disposal—is light-years ahead of where it was decades ago. It’s a national disgrace that despite having world-class nuclear capabilities—including naval reactors and the world’s second-largest nuclear arsenal—our federal policies have hampered the civilian nuclear industry.

By issuing appropriate permitting waivers, Trump aims to unlock this potential, even if a modest federal investment is necessary to overcome ideological resistance from the Left. Energy independence and security should have been the hallmarks of the Obama and Biden administrations. Instead, they catered to the demands of environmental activists and weakened America’s energy position.

We are glad to say that the Green New Deal is dead.

 

Shifting from Energy Scarcity to Energy Abundance

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Prior to the Paris COP in 2015, French scientists debunked the green agenda in a White Paper drawn up by the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA  (Mathematical Modelling Company, Corp.)  The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade.  The whole document is evidence-based, and on the second point concerning energy, they said this:

Chapter 2: The crusade is costly
Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ‘virtuous’ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ‘energy saving,’ which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed — it is the price we have to pay for our virtue….

Finally, the world seems to be waking up to energy realities. The actual transition is away from the green imperative to make energy scarce, replaced by driving energy abundance. Kevin Killough writes, including commentary from Mark Mills of Energy Analystics, in his Just The News article:  World moves away from ‘green gospel of scarcity’ and now embraces ‘energy abundance,’ experts say

“I think we’ve gone from scarcity to abundance — from the green gospel of scarcity and its Trinitarian ESG god — to the promised land of abundance guided by the values of affordability and reliability,” David DesRosiers, conference co-chair of the RealClear Energy Future Forum, said.

In 2019, Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg — then a high-school dropout — was invited to the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York City. There, she would deliver her famous — or infamous, depending on who you ask — “how dare you” speech, to which legacy media responded with overwhelming enthusiasm. Thunberg claimed that we were at the start of a “mass extinction,” and she admonished the world for ignoring the alleged crisis while talking “about money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth.”

What a difference six years can make. Voters elected a president in November who signed an executive order aimed at “unleashing American energy,” and Energy Secretary Chris Wright followed the president’s order with a directive to promote “energy abundance.”

This U-turn in views on energy isn’t limited to a change in administration in the U.S.

In May 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA), which has been criticized for cheerleading emissions reductions, launched a roadmap to reach net zero by 2050, and IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol told The Guardian that “there will not be a need for new investments in oil and gas fields, or new investments in coal mines.”

At the March CERAWeek energy conference in Houston this year, Birol was calling for more investments in oil and gas.

This shift away from the de-growth fervor that was popular for over a decade was the overriding topic at the RealClear Energy Future Forum Monday. Panels of experts in engineering, data centers, mining, oil and gas, and the electricity grid discussed how this change of views has impacted various aspects of the world’s energy picture.

“I think we’ve gone from scarcity to abundance — from the green gospel of scarcity and its Trinitarian ESG god — to the promised land of abundance guided by the values of affordability and reliability,” David DesRosiers, conference co-chair and founder of the RealClear Foundation, said.

When reality hits

Mark Mills, conference co-chair and director of the National Center for Energy Analytics, discussed the role of increasing energy demand as a result of the growth of data centers and artificial intelligence. While many tech companies, such as Microsoft, embraced net-zero goals, Mills explained that the energy demands of data centers forced companies to contend with the reality that although fashionable in some circles, intermittent wind and solar power are not adequate.

“Eventually, reality rears its ugly head, and we recalibrate around what reality permits,” Mills said.

The IEA last month released an in-depth report on how the demand for electricity will be shaped by AI in the coming years. According to the report, a single data center uses as much electricity as 2 million households. Powering one of these data centers, Mills said, requires as much natural gas every day as a single Space X rocket launch.

“With myriads of data centers planned and announced, this means that lighting up the digital infrastructure will soon have the energy demands equivalent to reliably powering hundreds of millions of households,” Mills said.

Mills said, besides the energy to power these data centers, they will also require an abundance of materials. A skyscraper requires the same amount of materials to build a single giga-scale data center, which is a data center requiring 1 billion watt-hours of electricity every hour — the same amount of power consumed by approximately 1,100 homes in a month.

While some have argued that increased efficiencies will address the demand, Mills pointed out that a single smartphone operating at the energy efficiency of a 1984 computer would use more electricity than an entire city block. More efficiency won’t reduce demand for energy, he explained, it will only increase how much can be done with more energy.

The way the grid works

Energy abundance is not only producing more energy. The supply has to be reliable, the experts at the conference said. A few speakers pointed to the blackouts that gripped Spain and Portugal last month as an example of how dangerous an unreliable energy supply can be. Estimates place the death toll from the one-day event at seven people.

James Robb, CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, said that the exact cause of the event is still under investigation, but there are facts that point to the overreliance on intermittent wind and solar.

At the time of the blackout, Robb said, there was little traditional generation — coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear — operating. To make wind, solar and battery power work on the grid, it has to go through an inverter, which doesn’t have the spinning inertia of generators powered by traditional sources. Grid operators need to maintain a certain frequency of power, and when there’s a disruption, spinning inertia can absorb some of the frequency changes until things stabilize.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Mark Christie explained inertia as a 100-acre lake 6-inches deep. At one end is a river flowing into the lake, like power generated on the grid. At the other end is a river flowing out of the lake, which is the demand for power. To make the grid work, the water has to be kept 6-inches deep at all times.

“If that lake, at any point, becomes an inch deeper or loses an inch of depth, the lake ceases to operate. That’s the way the grid works. It has to be balanced at all times, and that’s the term frequency,” Christie said.

Robb said there are technologies that create synthetic inertia for wind and solar generators, but these are unproven at scale.

“They’re not without their issues there, and one of the big challenges we always have in the electric grid with any new technology is you can study something in the lab. You can deploy…a pilot [project] on a grid somewhere. But when you try to scale it to the level of the North American grid, which is a terawatt of generation, typically in that translation from pilot to terawatt, we discover things that we don’t understand,” Robb said.

Spain and Portugal Achieve Net Zero Accidently

Holding back

Despite many signs pointing to the overreliance on solar energy on the Iberian Peninsula grid as being the cause of the blackouts, other speakers noted that politics is often holding back more discussion on the problem of intermittency.

“It is very clear that the intermittency of wind and solar had a great deal to do with shutting down the grid, but you cannot admit that if you’re in power in Spain or Portugal. Because there are liabilities,” Terrence Keely, CEO of 1PointSix, LLC, a financial advisory firm, said.

Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of S&P Global, said that between 2022 and 2023, the world’s dependence on fossil fuels was down less than one half of one percent. Yet, he said there were still contradictions coming from leaders. As an example, he pointed to British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer who recently said that Britain would increase emission-reduction efforts to 2050.

“But he also said, ‘Oh, let me be clear with you, oil and gas are going to be in the mix for a long time.’ That really captures the struggle of people, of leaders, to kind of adjust to a reality that’s different from what has been the conventional wisdom,” Yergin said of Starmer.

As with any global shift in thinking on issues, some nations are slow to change — or reject it altogether. But the experts at the forum concluded generally that the so-called energy transition, and the de-growth attitudes that drove it for so long, are losing steam.