Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.
It’s football season, and that means a lot of punting and feinting. Those moves are also a metaphor for the disinformation about renewables spewing from right-wing governments. They claim renewables are too costly to compete with fossil fuels unless they receive huge subsidies. They complain that renewables can’t meet a large fraction of our energy needs because of intermittency. They moan that renewable energy is too, too expensive. In truth, the economics of renewables are quite positive, affordable, and equitable.
To give some critics the benefit of the doubt, we might conclude that they are working from decade-old data. They might not want to oppose their political party’s platform. Perhaps it’s logistical barriers that seem hard to overcome. Maybe some folks have a long stake in the fossil fuel game, and, in that case, renewables pose an existential crisis to their investment portfolio.
Whatever the reason, there will always be skeptics and late adopters to any innovation. But few people thought that President Donald J. Trump and his party would try to eliminate Biden-era subsidies for renewable energy, to obliterate existing renewable generation capacity, or to enact significant barriers to new clean energy projects. But, as Nobel Prize award-winning economist Paul Krugman observes, this could be the beginning of real attempts “to roll back wind and, possibly to a lesser extent, solar, even though both are now crucial parts of America’s energy system.”
Trump was in his full anti-renewables form as he amazed the UN audience during a speech last month.
Countries are on the brink of destruction because of the green energy agenda. If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail. You need strong borders and traditional energy sources if you are going to be great again.
Sometimes ya just gotta ask — what’s wrong with this guy and his sycophants, anyway?
Energy emergency? The US White House continues to claim that the nation has “insufficient energy production, transportation, refining, and generation.” It is “in the national interest to unleash America’s affordable and reliable energy,” even as the Administration rejects renewables as a viable addition to the US energy mix.
Hmm. The EIA says otherwise, as its October 2 update outlines how wind and solar combined share of generation of 16.1%, up from 9.3% a year earlier. In fact, coal is the only type of energy to see major production declines in the US over the past 20 years. But as long as the Trump administration is filled with fossil fuel advocates — Trump has installed more than 100 fossil fuel insiders, renewable energy opponents, corporate lobbyists, and far-right think tank alumni across nine agencies during his second term — renewables won’t get the respect they deserve.
Why does clean energy have a better ROI than fossil fuels? “Clean energy exports is hardware, which once a country has bought it, will generate electricity for a decade or two to come,” Greg Jackson, chief executive officer of Octopus Energy, the UK’s largest energy retailer, told Bloomberg. “Whereas with gas, the day you buy it, you use it, it’s gone forever.”
Did you know that China produces 80% of the world’s solar panels, supplies 60% of wind turbines, 70% of its EVs, and 75% of batteries — all at a lower financial cost than the West? As Oliver Milman wrote this week in the Guardian, “In the geopolitical struggle with China, two very different visions are being touted to the rest of the world: one that remains hooked to the fossil fuels touted by the planet’s largest oil and gas producer, or one that shifts to clean energy components, probably made in China.”
Isn’t the US grid unreliable? That’s what I heard. Actually, the US electric grid “has been and continues to be very reliable,” according to a January 2024 assessment by the US Department of Energy. More than 90% of power interruptions are “largely due to falling trees, fires, wildlife, and traffic accidents” that caused downed wires or other damage.
Are there examples in which renewables proved reliable? Renewable energy came to the rescue in the summer during New England heat waves. Solar panels on homes, schools, businesses, and larger arrays provided up to 22% of the region’s power. That amounted to nearly double the daily average. This reliable output stabilized the grid and saved customers tens of millions of dollars on some of the hottest days in memory.
What kinds of advances and innovations have made renewables competitive? One example is the huge progress in battery technology. You know how you see water or oil tanks looming in the distance,and you don’t think anything about them? They store excess for a future need. Batteries work symbiotically with solar power, similarly storing the surplus generated during sunny days so it’s available to use after dark. Ubiquitous battery storage changes everything.
It’s not just in the US: In an opinion piece published in Le Figaro, Catherine MacGregor denounced the false calculations that were circulated over the summer in France about renewables. Faced with incomplete statements like “300 billion euros in supposed costs tied to renewable energy development over the next ten years,” MagcGregor has decided the only reaction that makes any sense is to find that “reason stalls.” Using a serious estimate that “reduces this figure to about 50 billion euros over ten years,” the actual economics of Renewables in France becomes clear. “Renewables generate income for the state, as happened during the energy crisis—to the tune of €5.5 billion in just two years!”
MacGregor adds that reaching carbon neutrality without a massive rollout of renewables “is simply impossible,” and those who deny this reality are forcing France to jeopardize the future of coming generations.
Make polluters pay! In an era where news is so depressing, a new national poll released by the Make Polluters Pay campaign shows overwhelming bipartisan support for requiring oil and gas companies to pay their fair share of climate damage costs, with 77% of likely voters backing climate Superfund legislation – an 11-point increase from April 2024. Disasters are becoming more frequent and are driving up costs that average people are forced to bear. Overall, the findings point to voters who are feeling the effects of climate change, expect costs to rise, and believe oil and gas companies should pay their fair share.
The Data for Progress non-profit that circulated the poll says that these results and more common experiences with extreme weather align with broader perceptions of a shifting climate. Could it be so?
Why are fossil fuels having such a hard time keeping up with renewables? Here’s the bottom line. The three biggest reasons fossil fuels cannot compete with renewables are:
It keeps getting harder to find and extract fossil fuels.
Renewable technology lowers costs far faster than technology improves fossil fuel cost due to Wright’s law.
People don’t like the negative effects of fossil fuels — namely, pollution and carbon impact — so they discourage its use.
Sign up for CleanTechnica’s Weekly Substack for Zach and Scott’s in-depth analyses and high level summaries, sign up for our daily newsletter, and follow us on Google News!
Advertisement
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Sign up for our daily newsletter for 15 new cleantech stories a day. Or sign up for our weekly one on top stories of the week if daily is too frequent.
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.