Most of them simply don't understand why their electricity is expensive. The traditional media has provided a 20 year drum beat that claimed renewables were the cheap future.
Somehow, the reality needs to penetrate that propaganda curtain.
It would help if most of them could add single digit numbers without a calculator.
These comments are 100% on target. State's decisions to mandate a renewable focused generation portfolio as opposed to a balanced portfolio (cost, reliability, and clean) is driving a significant portion of the cost increases. Unfortunately, due to the long-term nature of generation investments and power purchase agreements, it will take several years to migrate back to a more optimal generation portfolio leading to reduced growth in electric rates.
One area of research that may be valuable is to look at the performance and cost of the newer resources (wind, batteries) now that they're starting to reach mid-life.
- My perspective, based upon analysis of our non-regulated wind projects, is that there was less focused in their long-term performance given the anticipated re-powering after year 10 to capture additional PTC's.
- The projected life of the turbines and the PPA's supporting them appears to have increased significantly since the 2010's to 25 to 30 years. However, none of these turbines have ever been tested and or operated for the period of time. It remains to be proven that these projects can operate cost effectively for 25+ years.
- My thought was that the technical challenges with batteries had been overcome given the volume of projects and the lack of press on major fires recently. I was surprised to hear that we have regularly had battery fires in our fleet. These events have been under the radar due to a) modern battery project designs that adequately space each module to prevent the spread of fires and b), a policy of letting the fires burn out without the response of local fire departments given the safety risks, and c) an internal policy of suppressing any public reporting. These details help explain utilities' interest in very large, long-duration energy storage resources that are located near large bodies of water (with ~10-year project schedule and cost in the B$'s).
In 2010, they were also claiming 30 year life span for wind turbines. They have always lied, in much the way laptop makers lie about how long their batteries last, except much more disastrously for the consumer.
Gordon Hughes has done the best analysis of wind turbine performance and operating life. He concludes:
"...The larger point is that a decline in the performance of offshore turbines due to ageing at a rate of 4.5% per year means that the effective economic life of such turbines is little more than 15 years..."
Very revealing study. Here in the UK, the incumbent Uniparty politicians have pursued Net Zero and its predecessor as a legally-binding commitment since 2008. The result is that we now have the highest industrial electricity prices in the world at around 27pence/kWh (~36cents/kWh), with domestic electricity prices almost as bad.
Unfortunately for you (really, for all of us), the UK and Germany are providing real time examples of how civilizations economically collapse when they try to rely on energy sources with too low of an EROI.
Spot on. You'll see people try to pin this on "geographic differences." First, Alaska and Hawaii are the only two states where that might be plausible on face, given their isolation from the rest of the country. So why is Hawaii, with blue states policies, #1 at 35.83 cents/kWh, while Alaska, with red state policies, #6 at 23.10 cents/kWh? The difference is policy choices.
Get out your blue marker and begin painting Virginia. Our newly elected Democratic governor and her sycophants in the legislature will re-embrace the Virginia Clean Energy Act, which commits the two major utility companies in our state to produce 100 percent of their electricity from "renewable" sources by as early as 2045. They enacted that micromanaging law the last time they ran things in 2020. That, along with Virginia's automatic adoption of clean air regulations from California's nutty Air Resources Board, also means that gasoline-powered vehicles cannot be sold within a decade (2035). GOP Gov. Youngkin stopped it, but it will be reinstated. The winner is West Virginia, whose nearby panhandle is now outpacing neighboring VA counties in growth and investment.
Democrats shutting down the government seems like great policy on their part Just wait till January more economic damage and more trash Trump. That's all they know how to do Make us poorer
New York is just getting started. In their own modeling, the costs to install "zero emissions" household infrastrucutre as opposed to replacing conventional equipment are nrealy $600 per month higher. My last post documents the numbers.
I often wonder if the driving force behind the net zero mistake has been those companies who benefit from building out that infrastructure paying the representatives and governors directly in order to get the big contracts. otherwise, one would expect that ostensibly intelligent people would understand the incredible damage they are doing with their policies.
Undoubtedly a lot of that going on. But this Net Zero assault against humanity is international, at least in Western countries. Very much lockstep implementation in all the Western nations. Just like the idiotic Covid draconian measures. There are sinister forces at work here. The ugly face of Globalism, once again.
What SmithFS said. One would expect foolish behavior to be randomly distributed to some extent. When every politician in the western world is engaging in the same foolish behavior, then either I'm wrong about it being foolish, or they're being directed by enemies.
A frightening number of our politicians, even in the USA are WEF graduates in one form or another, especially Kerry and Gore.
And the more I look, the more convinced I am that Biden was a Chinese operative his entire career, or so early as makes no difference. Under that hypothesis, his Son was killed to keep him in line.
It is the coherence of the foolishness that pushed me over the edge of my (formerly quite steep) resistance to "conspiracy" theories.
well, recent history has taught us that the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth is about 3 months. I continue to read about Venezuelan money going to sitting Senators and being directed by the Chinese as well.
I will grant you that, although given the poor state of education in the West these days, as they try to erase Shakespeare, Chaucer and the rest of the Western history, perhaps they really are just ignorant of reality, and thus easily manipulable.
I'm curious about WA (since I live here) - still orange despite broad mandates for "clean" energy. I assume that's because of the massive amounts of hydro here. I'd be very curious to know how big build-outs of wind, solar, and biomass here in the state might eventually affect electricity prices if the state continues to push these mandates. At some point the hydro will be over subscribed if the state keeps pushing EVs, heat pumps, and the like.
Also, there are spots in WA (like where I am) with extremely high electricity rates due to infrastructure issues. It would be interesting to compare those hot spots with the blue states with higher rates. My utility has been pushing EVs and heat pumps with every single newsletter and "jamboree" for years, while also complaining vociferously that if we don't pave the county with solar and buy a multi-million $ tidal machine, that there will be "blackouts", likely because they've been paying themselves oodles of money while failing to invest in said infrastructure. It's a boondoggle!
In 2013 Washington had the lowest electricity rates in the nation thanks to the large hydro there. They don’t anymore precisely due to the bad policies you highlighted.
I appreciate this report even though as a “leftie and greenie” it left me with a pit in my stomach. Reducing the emissions of CO2 through embracing renewables is not an “unnecessary expense” for those of us who think that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change. However, those liberals who support renewables while also claiming to support social justice issues must realize that increased energy costs place a burden on poor people who can least afford it. Meanwhile, as a solidly middle class liberal who is not suffering financially, I am benefiting from net metering here in Minnesota and am in a sense being subsidized by rate payers whose homes don’t have roof top solar as my does. On top of that, if energy prices become an issue for businesses, my concern is that many businesses will relocate from blue states with higher electricity prices to red states. So blue states lose industry and jobs while CO2 emissions continue to rise as businesses flee blue states to red states where there are higher C02 emissions emitted per kWh consumed. Boy, the rabbit holes a person can go down over these issues are endless. Life would be easier if I believed climate change was a hoax.
I suspect your life would not be easier if you believed climate change was a hoax. Climate change is real but the hoax perpetrated was that the leftist ideologues tried to convince everyone that the issue was a coming apocalypse that demanded life returning to pre-industrial age stark living standards. That was never a realistic or necessary goal and now (some) common sense is beginning to emerge on these issues.
If reducing CO2 emissions had ever been the real goal, then nuclear would have been enthusiastically embraced. It has always been clear to folks who can do analysis with numbers that wind and solar are unfit to run a civilization.
You are getting a free ride, as you acknowledge. If everyone tried to do that, no one would have electricity at night. It's simply not an affordable, nor scalable solution for civilization as a whole.
Yet the leaders of your CO2 reduction movement oppose nuclear and push solutions which will destroy and impoverish civilization, as we're watching in the UK and Germany.
Either the leadership is idiots, or they are evil, hiding their real goals.
This should be enough to put the entire premise and those who support it in doubt.
Yes, I am benefiting from net metering but there may come a day when that is no longer the case. Evidently net metering has been rescinded in California due to the massive adoption of solar there.
Though it’s true that many influential people in the climate change camp oppose nuclear, cracks are beginning to show. Nuclear is seen as a less polluting way to maintain our standard of living when compared to gas, coal and oil.
I am $$PAYING for your $CAM and so are the AI Overview
Reports and investigations from human rights groups, news organizations, and governments indicate strong evidence of forced labor, particularly Uyghur forced labor, used by Chinese companies in the solar panel supply chain, especially in polysilicon production in Xinjiang, leading to import bans and ethical concerns in Western countries, despite China's denials.
I purchased solar panels that were manufactured in North America (USA and Canada) because of the human rights abuses in China and because of the higher carbon footprint of panels made in China. I was also happy to be able to support American workers by buying products made here. And unless you live in Minnesota you are not paying the costs of net metering here.
The problem is that it's a long term issue that has been given an artificially short timeline. 2° isn't based on a specific study or group of studies, it's the result of politicians asking scientists "at what temperature do you think there would be significant costs?", and the answer to that was 2°. They didn't know to ask at what point do policy and warming costs balance out, which is more like 3° with ideal low cost policy
I think the science is pretty biased, but there are reasonable policy paths with the existing science. It would look more like Net 50 by 2100 globally with more emphasis on nuclear because that's plenty of time to build it out and provide very cheap electricity after the capital costs are paid down, providing an affordable backbone for electrification
I used to be anti-nuclear but now think that nuclear is a reliable and cost effective (when, as you said, capital costs are paid down) source of relatively clean energy. Newer reactors are also evidently much safer than older designs. My concern is whether there will be the will to build much nuclear with up front costs dwarfing the costs of building gas turbine plants.
"...The great drama of American shale production may now be nearing its final act. For years, we have anticipated that the relentless growth in shale output would crest by late 2024 or early 2025, catching many off-guard. In hindsight, even this expectation might have erred on the side of caution. Quietly and without much fanfare, both shale oil and shale gas appear to have passed their zenith several months ago. Recent data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) reveal that shale crude oil production reached its high-water mark in November 2023, only to slide 2%— roughly 200,000 barrels per day—since then. Likewise, shale dry gas production peaked that same month and has since slipped by 1% or 1 billion cubic feet per day. The trajectory from here, according to our models, looks steeper still..."
The old designs were perfectly safe enough. At least, if you think wind and solar are safe enough, then you should have embraced nuclear 40 years ago. Nuclear is objectively safer, more efficient, more ecologically friendly, cleaner, and cheaper than wind and solar.
Going from .00001 to .000005 is not a big difference in safety, even if it is twice as safe.
I see old anti-nukes comfort themselves with the idea that it's the new designs they're okay wtih, but that they weren't wrong to oppose the old.
They were wrong. Period. Objectively wrong. And without their activism, the USA would probably have had 85% of its electricity generation decarbonized by the year 2000.
That's hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 emissions that could have been avoided if not for the delusions of the anti-nuclear activists.
The irony is that the same bunch who closed down the rapid nuclear expansion in the 70's, with their radiation fear mongering scam, are doing their damnedest to provoke Russia into using nuclear weapons and to damage the Zaporizhia & Kursk nuclear power plants to create a radiological incident. Likely then an excuse to send NATO forces into Ukraine.
While right now the 10-25% popular leadership in France, the UK & Germany are pounding the drums of war, even invoking conscription on a population that has zero interest in fighting. We have never been closer to World nuclear war. But almost zero fear in the MSM. Don't worry, be happy, nuclear war won't spread deadly radiation, no siree Bob, that will all be environmentally friendly, low CO2 too. Grifter, psychopathic scoundrels.
Well, I wasn’t an activist but I do admit to being an old anti-nuke. Here’s another way I comfort myself. I say to myself that I had no idea that climate change would be so threatening and that after almost sh***ing my pants after watching The China Syndrome I had every reason to be a nuclear power skeptic. And then add Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to the mix.
I don't think that film was any reason for you to become irrationally afraid, any more than watching a werewolf should make you afraid during the full moon.
All of the other forms of air pollution were reason enough to favor nuclear as soon as it became available.
I was half joking about The China Syndrome. But there was widespread fear over nuclear energy and a general distrust of the nuclear industry back then. I wonder if growing up during the Cuban missile crisis had an influence on my generation’s fear of everything nuclear, merited or not. On top of that there was a distrust of the entrenched powers after the Vietnam War and Watergate. Decision making is not always purely rational.
That's not the only problem. The even more glaring problem is that the solutions we are told are essential will destroy civilization, while they actively oppose nuclear, which could actually solve their stated "problem".
Yes, President Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax," a "con job," and "mythical" in various speeches, tweets, and media appearances over the years.
Initial Stance: During his business career and in the years before his presidency, Trump frequently used Twitter to call global warming a "total, and very expensive, hoax," sometimes using cold weather events as supposed evidence against the concept. A well-known 2012 tweet claimed that the "concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive".
During Presidency: As President, Trump sometimes modified his language. In a 2018 interview with 60 Minutes, he stated, "I don't think there's a hoax" but also said he didn't know if climate change was man-made and that it might "change back again". He also called it a "very serious subject" on other occasions.
Recent Comments: More recently, including in September and October 2025, he has returned to using similar language, criticizing climate policies and renewable energy, and referring to the concept of a "carbon footprint" as a "hoax" and "one of the greatest con jobs ever".
Overall, his public stance has consistently involved skepticism about the scientific consensus on man-made climate change and opposition to climate action policies, which he often describes as economically harmful. TRUMP RIGHT AGAIN!!!
It’s disappointing that China is building so many coal plants. I have heard that they are shutting down older coal plants and replacing them with more efficient ones and that the new coal plants are serving as backup to cover the intermittency of their massive solar capacity. I have no idea whether this is true or just wishful thinking.
I have not spent decades doing research in one of the many climate related fields (astrophysics, atmospheric science, paleoclimatology to name a few.) When it comes to a lay person like myself, how am I to decide on what to believe in the climate debate? I have read articles by reputable climate change skeptics who rebut the claims of renowned climate scientists and think maybe the skeptics have a point. Then I read a rebuttal to the rebuttal of the skeptics and think the skeptic’s points are flawed. And on and on it goes. So what is a reasonably intelligent person like me to do? I choose to believe the consensus of researchers which is that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change and that the results on humanity and Earth could be severe. Does consensus equate to truth. No. But how do I take a side when brilliant people disagree on this issue?
CHINA IS BUILDING EGEN to enSLAVE the World with AI While official statements and military writings from China discuss the concept of "ethnic genetic attacks" and "targeted" biological warfare, suggesting an interest in such capabilities, there's no definitive public evidence or confirmation that China is actively developing such specific racial bioweapons, though discussions exist within their military-academic circles about using biotechnology for future conflict, including potentially targeting specific groups.
Key Points from Chinese Military/Academic Discussions:
"Specific Ethnic Genetic Attacks": Textbooks and writings from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) have discussed the potential for biological warfare to include attacks targeting specific ethnic groups.
The key word in you note is "contributes". The amount of CO2 reduced is minor and even assuming modeled high-end temperature effects, the net reduction is vanishing small. With China installing one coal-fired power plant per week, this boils down to an expensive virtue-signaling exercise. How much is incremental "feel good" Brownie points worth to promote climate ideology? I value them at zero.
Washington is an outlier that shows low rates in a deeply blue state. It deserves a more detailed analysis as a case study that I believe will amplify the Red/Blue rate disparity the article illustrates.
About half the state gets their power from Bonneville Power hydro system. Utilities getting BPA power are public entities, PUD's, REA's, municipalities and counties are mostly rural. Those utilities have low rates and are regulated locally.
The other half are investor-owned Utilities serving more populated areas that use more fossil-based energy. That generation is being rapidly replaced by traditional renewable generation as a result of state legislation. These utilities are regulated by the state. Those IOU rates are skyrocketing.
Between 2019 and 2023, Washington enacted the most progressive climate legislation in the country. Yes, worse than California. Worse because changing direction will require legislation to undo it. Worse because the timeline for lower emissions is more compact, meaning accelerated rate increases for renewable energy. Worse because of the structure of Washington's "Cap and Invest" carbon tax will increase greater than inflation. No coal after 2025, and carbon neutral by 2030 means there will be no new natural gas facilities.
A deeper dive into Washington will show low rates for hydro-based public power, and skyrocketing rates where traditional low-cost generation is being replaced by renewable resources on an accelerated basis.
The real losers in this are Washington residents that are saddled with a tax on energy.
A key factor is the cost of natural gas, lowered by being near cheap production and/or good pipeline supply. This map shows Citygate prices by state, with mouseover also revealing peak prices from winter or A/C power demand.
Interesting that a high natural gas producer such as Oklahoma has higher natural gas prices than many states but much lower electricity prices. And then there’s the Pennsylvania, a huge natural gas producer with reasonable gas prices but which does not benefit by having low electricity prices. The interplay between gas production and distribution, existing electrical production infrastructure, and state policies is dizzying. Someone needs to write a book about this if they haven’t already.
While Texas is "low", with nat. gas prices 1/3 of what they were in 2008, gas 85% of operating costs for gas electric generators, gas more than 40% of Texas generation, Texas electricity should be 30% lower, not 30% higher, since 2008.
The low cost of gas has been masking the huge expense of putting wind on the Texas grid.
Why did you use 2008 natural gas prices to compare to now? In 2008, prices in Texas averaged $8.00 per thousand cubic feet. In 2009, prices averaged $3.52 per thousand cubic feet. How would using 2009 prices affect your calculations? Wouldn’t the numbers not look as bad?
Is it possible for natural gas prices to be divorced from electricity prices if demand increases? For example, electricity prices have increased dramatically in some areas due to increased demand from data centers. Can the price of natural gas for a NG electrical turbine be stable but the price of the electricity produced go up due to increased demand?
Depends on the regulatory environment. Supply/demand would suggest price go up as demand increases if supply is constrained, regardless fo gas prices, but in many places, regulation would not allow that, which is a good thing.
One of the other interesting elements of this discussion is the contortions that blue states go through to achieve “100%” renewable goals for their electric portfolios. As example hydroelectricity is not considered renewable at the federal level (Obama famously said he would change hydro’s status at a campaign rally at the Voith facility in York, Pa. When first running for president of the USA, we are still waiting for that designation) and most states if not all do not consider hydroelectricity renewable either. However, Vermont and Massachusetts import large amounts of electricity from Hydro Quebec and consider their hydro power “renewable.” Just remember that Governor Healy of Massachusetts, was against gas pipelines before she was for gas pipelines. Never you mind that detail damn it! Keep your eye on the pea, and pay no attention to the dead man on the sidewalk. Maine is allowing yet another four hydro dams to be purchased by the Nature Conservancy for the sole purpose of removing them. Governor Newsom and his cohorts are behind removing two 100 plus year old dams that supply water resources and hydroelectric power to 600,000 residents in two counties. A small Native American Nation will control the water rights under this plan, FERC is reviewing the surrender of the license by PG&E, and what could possibly go wrong when PG&E is involved. You can trust them they are not like all the other lying lawyers at the regulated utilities. Moving back to the point of the post, the blue states are committed to a near suicidal effort to confront something that they have zero control over, namely the climate and weather of a small spinning orb in the giant mass of a dark void called the universe. The sheer arrogance is stunning, the stupidity of such an enterprise, namely control the weather whilst working to kill your constituents is legion. One would think that if blue state voters were committed to drinking poison everyday to kill themselves they would create choice for those that did not want to drink poison. But, that would require thinking past the end of their noses which of course they are busy biting to spite their virtue signaling faces. It will stop, but only when a bunch of oldsters and small children are found dead from freezing, after a polar vortex event and ISO New England couldn’t play catch up fast enough. Then the peasants will get mad and the torches and pitch forks will come out…well we all hope so anyway. Don’t hold your breath on that luscious thought.
I liked your content, but I'd be more likely to read to the end if it had paragraphs. Do as you wish, but well formatted is easier to read, and therefore more likely to be read.
China’s CO2 emissions have fallen for the last year & a half in large part to their adding 333 Giga Watts of solar power. Too bad we didn’t do the same. P.S. one giga watt can power around 750 thousand American homes a year! 333 GW = 250 million homes! Trump loves money more than the health, futures, the environment and very lives of Americans! And intends to start a war for oil!
Play silly games, win silly prizes.
Natural gas, coal, nuclear-= inexpensive
Part time renewables like wind and solar (which require natural gas, coal, or nuclear as backup) = expensive.
Wind and solar are redundant generators and redundancy costs.
Wind and solar plus storage would arguably not be redundant, but clearly more expensive.
Energy is far cheaper and easier to store before it is converted into electricity than after.
The apathy of the American people is certainly evident.
Most of them simply don't understand why their electricity is expensive. The traditional media has provided a 20 year drum beat that claimed renewables were the cheap future.
Somehow, the reality needs to penetrate that propaganda curtain.
It would help if most of them could add single digit numbers without a calculator.
These comments are 100% on target. State's decisions to mandate a renewable focused generation portfolio as opposed to a balanced portfolio (cost, reliability, and clean) is driving a significant portion of the cost increases. Unfortunately, due to the long-term nature of generation investments and power purchase agreements, it will take several years to migrate back to a more optimal generation portfolio leading to reduced growth in electric rates.
One area of research that may be valuable is to look at the performance and cost of the newer resources (wind, batteries) now that they're starting to reach mid-life.
- My perspective, based upon analysis of our non-regulated wind projects, is that there was less focused in their long-term performance given the anticipated re-powering after year 10 to capture additional PTC's.
- The projected life of the turbines and the PPA's supporting them appears to have increased significantly since the 2010's to 25 to 30 years. However, none of these turbines have ever been tested and or operated for the period of time. It remains to be proven that these projects can operate cost effectively for 25+ years.
- My thought was that the technical challenges with batteries had been overcome given the volume of projects and the lack of press on major fires recently. I was surprised to hear that we have regularly had battery fires in our fleet. These events have been under the radar due to a) modern battery project designs that adequately space each module to prevent the spread of fires and b), a policy of letting the fires burn out without the response of local fire departments given the safety risks, and c) an internal policy of suppressing any public reporting. These details help explain utilities' interest in very large, long-duration energy storage resources that are located near large bodies of water (with ~10-year project schedule and cost in the B$'s).
In 2010, they were also claiming 30 year life span for wind turbines. They have always lied, in much the way laptop makers lie about how long their batteries last, except much more disastrously for the consumer.
Gordon Hughes has done the best analysis of wind turbine performance and operating life. He concludes:
"...The larger point is that a decline in the performance of offshore turbines due to ageing at a rate of 4.5% per year means that the effective economic life of such turbines is little more than 15 years..."
https://www.ref.org.uk/Files/performance-wind-power-dk.pdf
Very revealing study. Here in the UK, the incumbent Uniparty politicians have pursued Net Zero and its predecessor as a legally-binding commitment since 2008. The result is that we now have the highest industrial electricity prices in the world at around 27pence/kWh (~36cents/kWh), with domestic electricity prices almost as bad.
Analysis by David Turver: https://davidturver.substack.com/p/why-is-my-energy-bill-even-higher.
Unfortunately for you (really, for all of us), the UK and Germany are providing real time examples of how civilizations economically collapse when they try to rely on energy sources with too low of an EROI.
Don’t I know it! Here’s my response on the madcap Scotland Net Zero plans: https://metatron.substack.com/p/dissecting-scotlands-economy-wrecking.
Spot on. You'll see people try to pin this on "geographic differences." First, Alaska and Hawaii are the only two states where that might be plausible on face, given their isolation from the rest of the country. So why is Hawaii, with blue states policies, #1 at 35.83 cents/kWh, while Alaska, with red state policies, #6 at 23.10 cents/kWh? The difference is policy choices.
Get out your blue marker and begin painting Virginia. Our newly elected Democratic governor and her sycophants in the legislature will re-embrace the Virginia Clean Energy Act, which commits the two major utility companies in our state to produce 100 percent of their electricity from "renewable" sources by as early as 2045. They enacted that micromanaging law the last time they ran things in 2020. That, along with Virginia's automatic adoption of clean air regulations from California's nutty Air Resources Board, also means that gasoline-powered vehicles cannot be sold within a decade (2035). GOP Gov. Youngkin stopped it, but it will be reinstated. The winner is West Virginia, whose nearby panhandle is now outpacing neighboring VA counties in growth and investment.
Democrats shutting down the government seems like great policy on their part Just wait till January more economic damage and more trash Trump. That's all they know how to do Make us poorer
New York is just getting started. In their own modeling, the costs to install "zero emissions" household infrastrucutre as opposed to replacing conventional equipment are nrealy $600 per month higher. My last post documents the numbers.
https://pragmaticenvironmentalistofnewyork.blog/2025/12/13/nyserda-energy-plan-affordability-fact-sheet/
I often wonder if the driving force behind the net zero mistake has been those companies who benefit from building out that infrastructure paying the representatives and governors directly in order to get the big contracts. otherwise, one would expect that ostensibly intelligent people would understand the incredible damage they are doing with their policies.
Undoubtedly a lot of that going on. But this Net Zero assault against humanity is international, at least in Western countries. Very much lockstep implementation in all the Western nations. Just like the idiotic Covid draconian measures. There are sinister forces at work here. The ugly face of Globalism, once again.
There are sinister forces at work here. The ugly face of Globalism, once again. == CCP PYSCH OP
What SmithFS said. One would expect foolish behavior to be randomly distributed to some extent. When every politician in the western world is engaging in the same foolish behavior, then either I'm wrong about it being foolish, or they're being directed by enemies.
A frightening number of our politicians, even in the USA are WEF graduates in one form or another, especially Kerry and Gore.
And the more I look, the more convinced I am that Biden was a Chinese operative his entire career, or so early as makes no difference. Under that hypothesis, his Son was killed to keep him in line.
It is the coherence of the foolishness that pushed me over the edge of my (formerly quite steep) resistance to "conspiracy" theories.
well, recent history has taught us that the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth is about 3 months. I continue to read about Venezuelan money going to sitting Senators and being directed by the Chinese as well.
I will grant you that, although given the poor state of education in the West these days, as they try to erase Shakespeare, Chaucer and the rest of the Western history, perhaps they really are just ignorant of reality, and thus easily manipulable.
I'm curious about WA (since I live here) - still orange despite broad mandates for "clean" energy. I assume that's because of the massive amounts of hydro here. I'd be very curious to know how big build-outs of wind, solar, and biomass here in the state might eventually affect electricity prices if the state continues to push these mandates. At some point the hydro will be over subscribed if the state keeps pushing EVs, heat pumps, and the like.
Also, there are spots in WA (like where I am) with extremely high electricity rates due to infrastructure issues. It would be interesting to compare those hot spots with the blue states with higher rates. My utility has been pushing EVs and heat pumps with every single newsletter and "jamboree" for years, while also complaining vociferously that if we don't pave the county with solar and buy a multi-million $ tidal machine, that there will be "blackouts", likely because they've been paying themselves oodles of money while failing to invest in said infrastructure. It's a boondoggle!
In 2013 Washington had the lowest electricity rates in the nation thanks to the large hydro there. They don’t anymore precisely due to the bad policies you highlighted.
I appreciate this report even though as a “leftie and greenie” it left me with a pit in my stomach. Reducing the emissions of CO2 through embracing renewables is not an “unnecessary expense” for those of us who think that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change. However, those liberals who support renewables while also claiming to support social justice issues must realize that increased energy costs place a burden on poor people who can least afford it. Meanwhile, as a solidly middle class liberal who is not suffering financially, I am benefiting from net metering here in Minnesota and am in a sense being subsidized by rate payers whose homes don’t have roof top solar as my does. On top of that, if energy prices become an issue for businesses, my concern is that many businesses will relocate from blue states with higher electricity prices to red states. So blue states lose industry and jobs while CO2 emissions continue to rise as businesses flee blue states to red states where there are higher C02 emissions emitted per kWh consumed. Boy, the rabbit holes a person can go down over these issues are endless. Life would be easier if I believed climate change was a hoax.
I suspect your life would not be easier if you believed climate change was a hoax. Climate change is real but the hoax perpetrated was that the leftist ideologues tried to convince everyone that the issue was a coming apocalypse that demanded life returning to pre-industrial age stark living standards. That was never a realistic or necessary goal and now (some) common sense is beginning to emerge on these issues.
If reducing CO2 emissions had ever been the real goal, then nuclear would have been enthusiastically embraced. It has always been clear to folks who can do analysis with numbers that wind and solar are unfit to run a civilization.
You are getting a free ride, as you acknowledge. If everyone tried to do that, no one would have electricity at night. It's simply not an affordable, nor scalable solution for civilization as a whole.
Yet the leaders of your CO2 reduction movement oppose nuclear and push solutions which will destroy and impoverish civilization, as we're watching in the UK and Germany.
Either the leadership is idiots, or they are evil, hiding their real goals.
This should be enough to put the entire premise and those who support it in doubt.
Yes, I am benefiting from net metering but there may come a day when that is no longer the case. Evidently net metering has been rescinded in California due to the massive adoption of solar there.
Though it’s true that many influential people in the climate change camp oppose nuclear, cracks are beginning to show. Nuclear is seen as a less polluting way to maintain our standard of living when compared to gas, coal and oil.
I am $$PAYING for your $CAM and so are the AI Overview
Reports and investigations from human rights groups, news organizations, and governments indicate strong evidence of forced labor, particularly Uyghur forced labor, used by Chinese companies in the solar panel supply chain, especially in polysilicon production in Xinjiang, leading to import bans and ethical concerns in Western countries, despite China's denials.
I purchased solar panels that were manufactured in North America (USA and Canada) because of the human rights abuses in China and because of the higher carbon footprint of panels made in China. I was also happy to be able to support American workers by buying products made here. And unless you live in Minnesota you are not paying the costs of net metering here.
I am paying that cost 😞
Thank you and sorry!
The problem is that it's a long term issue that has been given an artificially short timeline. 2° isn't based on a specific study or group of studies, it's the result of politicians asking scientists "at what temperature do you think there would be significant costs?", and the answer to that was 2°. They didn't know to ask at what point do policy and warming costs balance out, which is more like 3° with ideal low cost policy
I think the science is pretty biased, but there are reasonable policy paths with the existing science. It would look more like Net 50 by 2100 globally with more emphasis on nuclear because that's plenty of time to build it out and provide very cheap electricity after the capital costs are paid down, providing an affordable backbone for electrification
I used to be anti-nuclear but now think that nuclear is a reliable and cost effective (when, as you said, capital costs are paid down) source of relatively clean energy. Newer reactors are also evidently much safer than older designs. My concern is whether there will be the will to build much nuclear with up front costs dwarfing the costs of building gas turbine plants.
When the gas supply crunch comes - and it will come - gas turbine plants won't be so cheap anymore.
https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/the-depletion-paradox
"...The great drama of American shale production may now be nearing its final act. For years, we have anticipated that the relentless growth in shale output would crest by late 2024 or early 2025, catching many off-guard. In hindsight, even this expectation might have erred on the side of caution. Quietly and without much fanfare, both shale oil and shale gas appear to have passed their zenith several months ago. Recent data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) reveal that shale crude oil production reached its high-water mark in November 2023, only to slide 2%— roughly 200,000 barrels per day—since then. Likewise, shale dry gas production peaked that same month and has since slipped by 1% or 1 billion cubic feet per day. The trajectory from here, according to our models, looks steeper still..."
The old designs were perfectly safe enough. At least, if you think wind and solar are safe enough, then you should have embraced nuclear 40 years ago. Nuclear is objectively safer, more efficient, more ecologically friendly, cleaner, and cheaper than wind and solar.
Going from .00001 to .000005 is not a big difference in safety, even if it is twice as safe.
I see old anti-nukes comfort themselves with the idea that it's the new designs they're okay wtih, but that they weren't wrong to oppose the old.
They were wrong. Period. Objectively wrong. And without their activism, the USA would probably have had 85% of its electricity generation decarbonized by the year 2000.
That's hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 emissions that could have been avoided if not for the delusions of the anti-nuclear activists.
The irony is that the same bunch who closed down the rapid nuclear expansion in the 70's, with their radiation fear mongering scam, are doing their damnedest to provoke Russia into using nuclear weapons and to damage the Zaporizhia & Kursk nuclear power plants to create a radiological incident. Likely then an excuse to send NATO forces into Ukraine.
While right now the 10-25% popular leadership in France, the UK & Germany are pounding the drums of war, even invoking conscription on a population that has zero interest in fighting. We have never been closer to World nuclear war. But almost zero fear in the MSM. Don't worry, be happy, nuclear war won't spread deadly radiation, no siree Bob, that will all be environmentally friendly, low CO2 too. Grifter, psychopathic scoundrels.
Well, I wasn’t an activist but I do admit to being an old anti-nuke. Here’s another way I comfort myself. I say to myself that I had no idea that climate change would be so threatening and that after almost sh***ing my pants after watching The China Syndrome I had every reason to be a nuclear power skeptic. And then add Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to the mix.
I don't think that film was any reason for you to become irrationally afraid, any more than watching a werewolf should make you afraid during the full moon.
All of the other forms of air pollution were reason enough to favor nuclear as soon as it became available.
Don’t get me started on werewolves!
I was half joking about The China Syndrome. But there was widespread fear over nuclear energy and a general distrust of the nuclear industry back then. I wonder if growing up during the Cuban missile crisis had an influence on my generation’s fear of everything nuclear, merited or not. On top of that there was a distrust of the entrenched powers after the Vietnam War and Watergate. Decision making is not always purely rational.
That's not the only problem. The even more glaring problem is that the solutions we are told are essential will destroy civilization, while they actively oppose nuclear, which could actually solve their stated "problem".
$$CAM AI Overview
Yes, President Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax," a "con job," and "mythical" in various speeches, tweets, and media appearances over the years.
Initial Stance: During his business career and in the years before his presidency, Trump frequently used Twitter to call global warming a "total, and very expensive, hoax," sometimes using cold weather events as supposed evidence against the concept. A well-known 2012 tweet claimed that the "concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive".
During Presidency: As President, Trump sometimes modified his language. In a 2018 interview with 60 Minutes, he stated, "I don't think there's a hoax" but also said he didn't know if climate change was man-made and that it might "change back again". He also called it a "very serious subject" on other occasions.
Recent Comments: More recently, including in September and October 2025, he has returned to using similar language, criticizing climate policies and renewable energy, and referring to the concept of a "carbon footprint" as a "hoax" and "one of the greatest con jobs ever".
Overall, his public stance has consistently involved skepticism about the scientific consensus on man-made climate change and opposition to climate action policies, which he often describes as economically harmful. TRUMP RIGHT AGAIN!!!
It’s disappointing that China is building so many coal plants. I have heard that they are shutting down older coal plants and replacing them with more efficient ones and that the new coal plants are serving as backup to cover the intermittency of their massive solar capacity. I have no idea whether this is true or just wishful thinking.
I have not spent decades doing research in one of the many climate related fields (astrophysics, atmospheric science, paleoclimatology to name a few.) When it comes to a lay person like myself, how am I to decide on what to believe in the climate debate? I have read articles by reputable climate change skeptics who rebut the claims of renowned climate scientists and think maybe the skeptics have a point. Then I read a rebuttal to the rebuttal of the skeptics and think the skeptic’s points are flawed. And on and on it goes. So what is a reasonably intelligent person like me to do? I choose to believe the consensus of researchers which is that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change and that the results on humanity and Earth could be severe. Does consensus equate to truth. No. But how do I take a side when brilliant people disagree on this issue?
CHINA IS BUILDING EGEN to enSLAVE the World with AI While official statements and military writings from China discuss the concept of "ethnic genetic attacks" and "targeted" biological warfare, suggesting an interest in such capabilities, there's no definitive public evidence or confirmation that China is actively developing such specific racial bioweapons, though discussions exist within their military-academic circles about using biotechnology for future conflict, including potentially targeting specific groups.
Key Points from Chinese Military/Academic Discussions:
"Specific Ethnic Genetic Attacks": Textbooks and writings from the People's Liberation Army (PLA) have discussed the potential for biological warfare to include attacks targeting specific ethnic groups.
The key word in you note is "contributes". The amount of CO2 reduced is minor and even assuming modeled high-end temperature effects, the net reduction is vanishing small. With China installing one coal-fired power plant per week, this boils down to an expensive virtue-signaling exercise. How much is incremental "feel good" Brownie points worth to promote climate ideology? I value them at zero.
Great Piece!
Washington is an outlier that shows low rates in a deeply blue state. It deserves a more detailed analysis as a case study that I believe will amplify the Red/Blue rate disparity the article illustrates.
About half the state gets their power from Bonneville Power hydro system. Utilities getting BPA power are public entities, PUD's, REA's, municipalities and counties are mostly rural. Those utilities have low rates and are regulated locally.
The other half are investor-owned Utilities serving more populated areas that use more fossil-based energy. That generation is being rapidly replaced by traditional renewable generation as a result of state legislation. These utilities are regulated by the state. Those IOU rates are skyrocketing.
Between 2019 and 2023, Washington enacted the most progressive climate legislation in the country. Yes, worse than California. Worse because changing direction will require legislation to undo it. Worse because the timeline for lower emissions is more compact, meaning accelerated rate increases for renewable energy. Worse because of the structure of Washington's "Cap and Invest" carbon tax will increase greater than inflation. No coal after 2025, and carbon neutral by 2030 means there will be no new natural gas facilities.
A deeper dive into Washington will show low rates for hydro-based public power, and skyrocketing rates where traditional low-cost generation is being replaced by renewable resources on an accelerated basis.
The real losers in this are Washington residents that are saddled with a tax on energy.
A key factor is the cost of natural gas, lowered by being near cheap production and/or good pipeline supply. This map shows Citygate prices by state, with mouseover also revealing peak prices from winter or A/C power demand.
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/WJKep/
Of course, that's also heavily linked to sensible state energy policy.
Love it
Interesting that a high natural gas producer such as Oklahoma has higher natural gas prices than many states but much lower electricity prices. And then there’s the Pennsylvania, a huge natural gas producer with reasonable gas prices but which does not benefit by having low electricity prices. The interplay between gas production and distribution, existing electrical production infrastructure, and state policies is dizzying. Someone needs to write a book about this if they haven’t already.
You see some similar things with gasoline.
Where Gas Is Cheapest Right Now: A State-by-State Breakdown
https://www.investopedia.com/where-gas-is-cheapest-right-now-a-state-by-state-breakdown-11868281
While Texas is "low", with nat. gas prices 1/3 of what they were in 2008, gas 85% of operating costs for gas electric generators, gas more than 40% of Texas generation, Texas electricity should be 30% lower, not 30% higher, since 2008.
The low cost of gas has been masking the huge expense of putting wind on the Texas grid.
Why did you use 2008 natural gas prices to compare to now? In 2008, prices in Texas averaged $8.00 per thousand cubic feet. In 2009, prices averaged $3.52 per thousand cubic feet. How would using 2009 prices affect your calculations? Wouldn’t the numbers not look as bad?
2008 was before wind/solar penetration became large and progressive.
Is it possible for natural gas prices to be divorced from electricity prices if demand increases? For example, electricity prices have increased dramatically in some areas due to increased demand from data centers. Can the price of natural gas for a NG electrical turbine be stable but the price of the electricity produced go up due to increased demand?
Depends on the regulatory environment. Supply/demand would suggest price go up as demand increases if supply is constrained, regardless fo gas prices, but in many places, regulation would not allow that, which is a good thing.
One of the other interesting elements of this discussion is the contortions that blue states go through to achieve “100%” renewable goals for their electric portfolios. As example hydroelectricity is not considered renewable at the federal level (Obama famously said he would change hydro’s status at a campaign rally at the Voith facility in York, Pa. When first running for president of the USA, we are still waiting for that designation) and most states if not all do not consider hydroelectricity renewable either. However, Vermont and Massachusetts import large amounts of electricity from Hydro Quebec and consider their hydro power “renewable.” Just remember that Governor Healy of Massachusetts, was against gas pipelines before she was for gas pipelines. Never you mind that detail damn it! Keep your eye on the pea, and pay no attention to the dead man on the sidewalk. Maine is allowing yet another four hydro dams to be purchased by the Nature Conservancy for the sole purpose of removing them. Governor Newsom and his cohorts are behind removing two 100 plus year old dams that supply water resources and hydroelectric power to 600,000 residents in two counties. A small Native American Nation will control the water rights under this plan, FERC is reviewing the surrender of the license by PG&E, and what could possibly go wrong when PG&E is involved. You can trust them they are not like all the other lying lawyers at the regulated utilities. Moving back to the point of the post, the blue states are committed to a near suicidal effort to confront something that they have zero control over, namely the climate and weather of a small spinning orb in the giant mass of a dark void called the universe. The sheer arrogance is stunning, the stupidity of such an enterprise, namely control the weather whilst working to kill your constituents is legion. One would think that if blue state voters were committed to drinking poison everyday to kill themselves they would create choice for those that did not want to drink poison. But, that would require thinking past the end of their noses which of course they are busy biting to spite their virtue signaling faces. It will stop, but only when a bunch of oldsters and small children are found dead from freezing, after a polar vortex event and ISO New England couldn’t play catch up fast enough. Then the peasants will get mad and the torches and pitch forks will come out…well we all hope so anyway. Don’t hold your breath on that luscious thought.
I liked your content, but I'd be more likely to read to the end if it had paragraphs. Do as you wish, but well formatted is easier to read, and therefore more likely to be read.
Jeff, Thank you for the observation and point well taken. Will work to be mindful of format and frankly being too wordy. Your comment is well taken!
China’s CO2 emissions have fallen for the last year & a half in large part to their adding 333 Giga Watts of solar power. Too bad we didn’t do the same. P.S. one giga watt can power around 750 thousand American homes a year! 333 GW = 250 million homes! Trump loves money more than the health, futures, the environment and very lives of Americans! And intends to start a war for oil!