This article contains many contentions about weaknesses in use of renewables: grid unreliability, higher costs, etc. etc. etc. None of them lead to links supporting these complaints. Where are they?
For an opposing view, let's take Texas ( https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2025/0114 ): "Another hot summer in Texas put the electric grid to the test, but increased capacity from solar and battery storage met the call. By a wide margin, these sources combined have led capacity growth of the ERCOT grid..."
I've seen similar stories elsewhere. I find your unsubstantiated complaints, shall we say, unpersuading :-)
The author and expert (not amateur activist) of the Dallasfed paper you are citing to declare Quico Toro's complaints "unsubstantiated", does - in another Dallsfed paper - fully support the next-gen advanced nuclear generators and sees them "fulfill the role of baseload power" much better than the present "conventional light-water nuclear reactors", hardly an "opposing view".
The article I cited was opposing the view that renewables make the grid less reliable. Unrelated to the question of nuclear power. (Nuclear power was discussed in my other post.)
The Dallas Fed reflects the same political bias that affects the entire US government, especially under the Biden administration. They are cheerleaders for wind & solar because that’s the happy patter that keeps them in good stead with the ruthless leftists who have managed to cower the entire Democratic Party.
All the statement above says is that Texas spent more money on W&S generation capacity, so that they had enough capacity for the summer, and (the implication is) managed to dodge serious outages caused by W&S intermittency. If you sufficiently overbuild capacity (translation: incinerate ratepayer capital), you will reduce the likelihood of outages due to insufficient capacity. You will not, however, reduce the likelihood of outages under unfavorable weather conditions, and you will increase, not decrease, the price of electricity.
For a real-world example of the train wreck that happens when the weather doesn’t cooperate, look into Germany’s recent “dunkelflaute”.
The idea that we would rely on weather-dependent generation technologies for an absolutely, utterly essential commodity is just flat-out insane. Grids with high penetrations of W&S are far more difficult to manage, are becoming more unstable, and are becoming more expensive. The evidence is beginning to roll in — take a look at the rate increases from all of California’s big utilities.
Hm, an ad hominem rebuttal followed by unsubstantiated assertions (except for the dunkelflaute).
In Texas's February 2021 winter, there were partial power outages and huge price increases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis ) when gas turbines failed. Wind turbine failures also played a role, but there was "a drop in power production from natural gas more than five times greater than that from wind turbines".
Germany’s recent “dunkelflaute” is a good cautionary tale. Personally I'd point the finger at Germany's questionable decision to shut down their nuclear power plants. Regardless of whether it makes sense to build more, it's a no-brainer that all nuclear plants currently operating should continue to operate as long as possible. The construction costs in dollars and CO2 have been paid; we should reap the benefits. It's not like the fuel gets harder to dispose of as time goes on.
So what's the reason? According to the above URL, it's because of greatly increased wildfires and the need to bury cables underground. It's expensive to bury high-voltage transmission lines, and they have to do a lot of it if they're going to avoid starting wildfires. Why natural gas rates are also going up isn't clear, but I don't see a strong connection between natural gas pipelines and renewable electricity generation.
I don't know of any research showing that current grids with high penetrations of renewables are becoming less stable. I do see that outages are becoming more common here in New England because high winds are blowing down cables. Doesn't really matter what generates the power if the wires aren't there to carry it. Making the lines resistant to wind is also going to drive up costs.
The reason California electric prices have gone up so much is NOT because of undergrounding of transmission lines. That is indeed expensive, and, although that work has commenced, the tab for it has NOT yet hit retail electric rates. That is still to come, according to PG&E’s own consumer communications accompanying the exorbitant rate increases of a few months ago. Astounding as it is, given that we already pay double the US average for electricity (which was not the case before the deployment of W&S on the grid), electricity in CA is going to get even more expensive.
California gas prices have gone up because the anti-fossil fuel zealots in Sacramento are determined to make it difficult and expensive to bring gas to the state; including, for example, by refusing to permit any new pipeline construction. That’s why we pay much more for gas than probably any other state.
Here Here! If the world had responded to the 1970s energy crisis with safe Nuclear energy, as France has, we would maybe be 25-50 years away from a climate crisis! Obviously, it must be safe! However, saying that ANY level of radiation is unsafe is misleading and wrong. Also, spent fuel must be reprocessed into new fuel (which, by the way, gives you exponentially more fuel). I could go on and on. I am a bleeding heart liberal socialist, but feel that anti-nuclear liberals are partly responsible for the climate crisis, also resulting in the US losing ground to other countries nuclear programs.
Anti-nuclear liberals are directly responsible for billions of tons of carbon in the atmosphere that could and should have been avoided. That’s wasn’t their intention, but that was the result. Now, though, they absolutely deserve indictment for continuing to oppose nuclear power.
And your point is excellent about the implications of their successful campaign to kill the US nuclear industry. All those countries operating nuclear plants around the world? Most of them are customers of Vladimir Putin.
To evaluate the truth of the claims made in the essay, it is important to break them down into key assertions and verify their accuracy based on available evidence:
1. Claim: Renewable energy sources like wind and solar create grid instability due to intermittency, leading to higher energy prices and blackouts.
• Evaluation:
• Partially True: Intermittency is a well-documented challenge for wind and solar energy, as they depend on weather conditions. However, advancements in energy storage, demand management, and grid modernization have helped mitigate these issues. Studies show that integrating renewables does not inherently lead to higher prices or instability if managed with appropriate infrastructure and policies.
• Context Matters: Some regions with high renewable penetration, such as Germany and California, have faced challenges with grid stability and higher prices, but attributing these solely to renewables oversimplifies the issue. Factors like energy policy, market design, and fossil fuel price fluctuations also play a role.
2. Claim: Hydrogen and grid-scale batteries are far from ready to replace fossil fuel backups.
• Evaluation:
• Partially True: Hydrogen and battery technologies are still developing and have limitations related to cost, scalability, and efficiency. However, significant progress has been made, and many countries are investing heavily in these technologies as long-term solutions.
• Emerging Potential: While current battery storage solutions may not yet fully replace fossil fuel backups, they are increasingly being deployed at utility scales with promising results.
3. Claim: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) created a renewable energy boom without addressing grid reliability.
• Evaluation:
• Misleading: The IRA provides substantial support for renewable energy but also includes provisions for grid modernization, transmission improvements, and investments in energy storage. Critics argue it may not be enough to fully address infrastructure needs, but to claim it “ignored” grid reliability is inaccurate.
4. Claim: Nuclear energy is the only viable solution for zero-emissions and grid reliability.
• Evaluation:
• Debatable: Nuclear power is a reliable zero-emission source, but it has challenges such as high costs, long build times, and public safety concerns. While it can complement renewables, most energy experts advocate for a diverse mix of energy sources rather than relying solely on nuclear.
• Reality Check: Many countries are indeed investing in next-generation nuclear technologies, but scaling them up will take time, and renewables remain crucial in the transition to a low-carbon economy.
5. Claim: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a major obstacle to energy development, including nuclear.
• Evaluation:
• Partially True: NEPA has been cited as causing delays in infrastructure projects, including energy development. However, it serves an important function in environmental protection and community engagement. Efforts to streamline the process should balance efficiency with environmental safeguards.
6. Claim: Trump’s executive orders, despite his anti-environment stance, could ultimately benefit the climate by promoting nuclear power.
• Evaluation:
• Speculative: While it’s possible that regulatory rollbacks could facilitate nuclear expansion, the broader context of Trump’s policies—such as increased fossil fuel development—could offset any climate benefits. Historical actions of his administration suggest a preference for deregulation benefiting fossil fuels over long-term clean energy planning.
Conclusion:
While the essay raises valid concerns about renewable energy intermittency and the potential benefits of nuclear power, it presents a biased perspective that downplays the advancements in renewable integration and storage technologies. The argument that Trump’s executive orders could inadvertently benefit climate efforts is speculative and ignores the broader environmental rollbacks his administration is known for.
Would you like specific sources to back up these evaluations?
There is also an interesting national security interest - the US could become an even larger player, perhaps the dominant one, in the international energy market by increasing nuclear power electrical generation, freeing up oil, gas, LNG, etc. for sale in the world market. Most of the countries that cause problems (Russia, Iran, etc.) have petro-based economies. Decreasing worldwide price of petroleum products will bankrupt the countries that use that money to destabilize the rest of the world.
I understand that energy should not be misused for arbitrary and nationalist "interests" but used for humanity in general by integrating energy sectors worldwide.
Well done! Persuasion frequently provides this kind of genuinely non-partisan perspective. The way renewables create problems for the power grid is new and intriguing for me. I'd love to hear more, especially with references.
Our country is stuck in Republican and Democratic ruts, worn so deep across the decades you can hardly see out of them. Whether you love Mr. Trump or hate him, he is a disrupter and creates opportunities to break out of ossified structures and obsolete thinking.
When I speak with Trump's supporters in my own political work, they often tell me that "I don't like him especially, but I think he'll shake things up." Judging from this post, they may have a point.
Thank you for that tip. I think campaign finance, which gives industry lobbyists so much muscle, blocks all kinds of good policies that a bipartisan majority of Americans would agree on.
Once Microsoft bought Three Mile Island to power AI, the old green movement turned decidedly ... brown. Yes it will be a nuclear energy future. But that also entails an enormous investment in protecting nuclear power plants from military and terrorist attacks. If we do not recognize that full military protection must go hand in hand with the new Nuclear Deal the next Three Mile Island meltdown may just be the real deal, and Eastern PA will become a nuclear wasteland. You do not leave gasoline and matches lying around where children are playing.
Other than in Soviet era RBMK reactors (Chernobyl), a meltdown is a terrible but mostly contained situation. China Syndrome is not a thing. Once NON-RBMK reactors lost coolant, the controlled rnuclear fission will stop. Heat will still be a problem, resulting in a meltdown unless operators can restore coolant. And there are many ways to do this! But regardless it will be contained.
Herb, I am extremely bullish on Nuclear energy. There really is no other option in light of our energy needs and reducing climate change. Reasonable voices like yours will be crucial. So it will be important to convince the public that nuclear power plants can and will be protected against military attack. Russia continuously threatens Ukrainian nuclear power plants. The propaganda benefits of that for Russia are enormous.
I think that we are woefully behind in hardening our entire energy infrastructure. That certainly must include nuclear plants, but not only those, and cyber defense is at least as important as physical defense, if not moreso.
Those new-generation nuclear reactors you link to (Generation IV) won't be available for decades. We really can't wait that long. According to the link, there aren't even models yet that demonstrate a cost advantage over current nuclear power.
The article's big omission is that it overlooks the other alternative for baseload power: geothermal electricity generation. Unlike maybe-someday Generation IV reactors, geothermal electricity is already being generated, e.g. by Fervo ( https://fervoenergy.com/ ). It has the enormous advantages of being proven technology (except see below), simpler implementation, and the ability to reuse fossil fuel companies' expertise in digging deep holes. Not to mention that it may be possible to reuse the generators of existing fossil fuel plants. Oh, and no need to worry about nuclear proliferation, nuclear attacks, nuclear fuel disposal, etc. Other minor advantages like those.
Geothermal electricity has one drawback compared to nuclear: currently, the really hot rocks it needs are too deep to reach in many parts of the US, like the Northeast. But there are multiple companies working to drill deeper: e.g. Quaise Energy's ( https://www.quaise.energy/news/reimagining-geothermal-larger-map-lower-cost ) microwave drills, and other companies working to extend and adapt more conventional techniques.
I am happy to bet that they'll figure out how to drill much deeper holes long before Generation IV reactors are ready, and the power will be cheaper.
There are a lot of valid critiques of renewable energy in the text, and I have more positive views on nuclear energy, at least as a transpirational solution. At the same time, fossil fuels cannot be a thing of the future, and nations need global integration and cooperation regarding climate-friendly and post-industrial energy.
Significant advancements in energy storage technologies, such as grid-scale battery systems, have been made. These systems are increasingly capable of storing surplus renewable energy and stabilizing electricity grids.
I also think that Toro overlooks renewables' cost competitiveness. Wind and solar energy have become the cheapest electricity generation globally, outcompeting fossil fuels in many countries and regions. Also, expanding reliance on fossil fuels undermines global decarbonization goals, exacerbates climate risks, and perpetuates economic instability due to the inherent volatility of fossil fuel markets.
This misrepresentation also reinforces the false narrative that climate policies are inherently ideologically driven rather than grounded in necessary and valid pragmatism. For example, several developing nations are adopting renewable energy systems to leapfrog fossil fuels and expand access to electricity in underserved areas. These decentralized renewable systems are transforming energy access for millions of people and reducing reliance on centralized grids.
There are some earlier cases in history, for example, when it was not Thatcher's government but the left-wing government before her that closed down most of the coal mines in the UK. So, there are cases where Trump is lying to his voters.
I see promise not only in the Trump administration’s more realistic approach to energy, but also in the absence in the numerous executive orders of imperialist assumptions, replaced by a tendency to evaluate trade agreements as though we now live in a post-imperialist world.
See “Trump’s economic plan for America: A non-imperialist proposal for strengthening the national economy,” January 24, 2025
I have not done the math, but I suspect that the price of gasoline in most of the US is actually less than it was 50 years ago after taking into account inflation. Undeniably, increasing the abundance of something will bring down its price to the consumer although not necessarily it cost to produce (depending, of course, on the relationship of fixed and variable costs of production). The question then becomes what are the price breaking points at which all the exhortations of the Trump administration will not result in the petroleum and natural gas industries bringing on line new production in today's business environment?
This article contains many contentions about weaknesses in use of renewables: grid unreliability, higher costs, etc. etc. etc. None of them lead to links supporting these complaints. Where are they?
For an opposing view, let's take Texas ( https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2025/0114 ): "Another hot summer in Texas put the electric grid to the test, but increased capacity from solar and battery storage met the call. By a wide margin, these sources combined have led capacity growth of the ERCOT grid..."
I've seen similar stories elsewhere. I find your unsubstantiated complaints, shall we say, unpersuading :-)
The author and expert (not amateur activist) of the Dallasfed paper you are citing to declare Quico Toro's complaints "unsubstantiated", does - in another Dallsfed paper - fully support the next-gen advanced nuclear generators and sees them "fulfill the role of baseload power" much better than the present "conventional light-water nuclear reactors", hardly an "opposing view".
The article I cited was opposing the view that renewables make the grid less reliable. Unrelated to the question of nuclear power. (Nuclear power was discussed in my other post.)
The Dallas Fed reflects the same political bias that affects the entire US government, especially under the Biden administration. They are cheerleaders for wind & solar because that’s the happy patter that keeps them in good stead with the ruthless leftists who have managed to cower the entire Democratic Party.
All the statement above says is that Texas spent more money on W&S generation capacity, so that they had enough capacity for the summer, and (the implication is) managed to dodge serious outages caused by W&S intermittency. If you sufficiently overbuild capacity (translation: incinerate ratepayer capital), you will reduce the likelihood of outages due to insufficient capacity. You will not, however, reduce the likelihood of outages under unfavorable weather conditions, and you will increase, not decrease, the price of electricity.
For a real-world example of the train wreck that happens when the weather doesn’t cooperate, look into Germany’s recent “dunkelflaute”.
The idea that we would rely on weather-dependent generation technologies for an absolutely, utterly essential commodity is just flat-out insane. Grids with high penetrations of W&S are far more difficult to manage, are becoming more unstable, and are becoming more expensive. The evidence is beginning to roll in — take a look at the rate increases from all of California’s big utilities.
Hm, an ad hominem rebuttal followed by unsubstantiated assertions (except for the dunkelflaute).
In Texas's February 2021 winter, there were partial power outages and huge price increases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis ) when gas turbines failed. Wind turbine failures also played a role, but there was "a drop in power production from natural gas more than five times greater than that from wind turbines".
Germany’s recent “dunkelflaute” is a good cautionary tale. Personally I'd point the finger at Germany's questionable decision to shut down their nuclear power plants. Regardless of whether it makes sense to build more, it's a no-brainer that all nuclear plants currently operating should continue to operate as long as possible. The construction costs in dollars and CO2 have been paid; we should reap the benefits. It's not like the fuel gets harder to dispose of as time goes on.
As you said, California's electricity rates have gone up - but so have their rates for natural gas. "Back in November 2023, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) passed a vote that would increase electric and natural gas rates for California's Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) customers by just under 13 percent." https://www.ohmconnect.com/blog/saving-money/california-electric-rates-are-historically-high-here-s-how-you-can-save
So what's the reason? According to the above URL, it's because of greatly increased wildfires and the need to bury cables underground. It's expensive to bury high-voltage transmission lines, and they have to do a lot of it if they're going to avoid starting wildfires. Why natural gas rates are also going up isn't clear, but I don't see a strong connection between natural gas pipelines and renewable electricity generation.
I don't know of any research showing that current grids with high penetrations of renewables are becoming less stable. I do see that outages are becoming more common here in New England because high winds are blowing down cables. Doesn't really matter what generates the power if the wires aren't there to carry it. Making the lines resistant to wind is also going to drive up costs.
The reason California electric prices have gone up so much is NOT because of undergrounding of transmission lines. That is indeed expensive, and, although that work has commenced, the tab for it has NOT yet hit retail electric rates. That is still to come, according to PG&E’s own consumer communications accompanying the exorbitant rate increases of a few months ago. Astounding as it is, given that we already pay double the US average for electricity (which was not the case before the deployment of W&S on the grid), electricity in CA is going to get even more expensive.
California gas prices have gone up because the anti-fossil fuel zealots in Sacramento are determined to make it difficult and expensive to bring gas to the state; including, for example, by refusing to permit any new pipeline construction. That’s why we pay much more for gas than probably any other state.
Here Here! If the world had responded to the 1970s energy crisis with safe Nuclear energy, as France has, we would maybe be 25-50 years away from a climate crisis! Obviously, it must be safe! However, saying that ANY level of radiation is unsafe is misleading and wrong. Also, spent fuel must be reprocessed into new fuel (which, by the way, gives you exponentially more fuel). I could go on and on. I am a bleeding heart liberal socialist, but feel that anti-nuclear liberals are partly responsible for the climate crisis, also resulting in the US losing ground to other countries nuclear programs.
Anti-nuclear liberals are directly responsible for billions of tons of carbon in the atmosphere that could and should have been avoided. That’s wasn’t their intention, but that was the result. Now, though, they absolutely deserve indictment for continuing to oppose nuclear power.
And your point is excellent about the implications of their successful campaign to kill the US nuclear industry. All those countries operating nuclear plants around the world? Most of them are customers of Vladimir Putin.
To evaluate the truth of the claims made in the essay, it is important to break them down into key assertions and verify their accuracy based on available evidence:
1. Claim: Renewable energy sources like wind and solar create grid instability due to intermittency, leading to higher energy prices and blackouts.
• Evaluation:
• Partially True: Intermittency is a well-documented challenge for wind and solar energy, as they depend on weather conditions. However, advancements in energy storage, demand management, and grid modernization have helped mitigate these issues. Studies show that integrating renewables does not inherently lead to higher prices or instability if managed with appropriate infrastructure and policies.
• Context Matters: Some regions with high renewable penetration, such as Germany and California, have faced challenges with grid stability and higher prices, but attributing these solely to renewables oversimplifies the issue. Factors like energy policy, market design, and fossil fuel price fluctuations also play a role.
2. Claim: Hydrogen and grid-scale batteries are far from ready to replace fossil fuel backups.
• Evaluation:
• Partially True: Hydrogen and battery technologies are still developing and have limitations related to cost, scalability, and efficiency. However, significant progress has been made, and many countries are investing heavily in these technologies as long-term solutions.
• Emerging Potential: While current battery storage solutions may not yet fully replace fossil fuel backups, they are increasingly being deployed at utility scales with promising results.
3. Claim: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) created a renewable energy boom without addressing grid reliability.
• Evaluation:
• Misleading: The IRA provides substantial support for renewable energy but also includes provisions for grid modernization, transmission improvements, and investments in energy storage. Critics argue it may not be enough to fully address infrastructure needs, but to claim it “ignored” grid reliability is inaccurate.
4. Claim: Nuclear energy is the only viable solution for zero-emissions and grid reliability.
• Evaluation:
• Debatable: Nuclear power is a reliable zero-emission source, but it has challenges such as high costs, long build times, and public safety concerns. While it can complement renewables, most energy experts advocate for a diverse mix of energy sources rather than relying solely on nuclear.
• Reality Check: Many countries are indeed investing in next-generation nuclear technologies, but scaling them up will take time, and renewables remain crucial in the transition to a low-carbon economy.
5. Claim: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a major obstacle to energy development, including nuclear.
• Evaluation:
• Partially True: NEPA has been cited as causing delays in infrastructure projects, including energy development. However, it serves an important function in environmental protection and community engagement. Efforts to streamline the process should balance efficiency with environmental safeguards.
6. Claim: Trump’s executive orders, despite his anti-environment stance, could ultimately benefit the climate by promoting nuclear power.
• Evaluation:
• Speculative: While it’s possible that regulatory rollbacks could facilitate nuclear expansion, the broader context of Trump’s policies—such as increased fossil fuel development—could offset any climate benefits. Historical actions of his administration suggest a preference for deregulation benefiting fossil fuels over long-term clean energy planning.
Conclusion:
While the essay raises valid concerns about renewable energy intermittency and the potential benefits of nuclear power, it presents a biased perspective that downplays the advancements in renewable integration and storage technologies. The argument that Trump’s executive orders could inadvertently benefit climate efforts is speculative and ignores the broader environmental rollbacks his administration is known for.
Would you like specific sources to back up these evaluations?
AI is using lot of energy but we need it ;) x)
There is also an interesting national security interest - the US could become an even larger player, perhaps the dominant one, in the international energy market by increasing nuclear power electrical generation, freeing up oil, gas, LNG, etc. for sale in the world market. Most of the countries that cause problems (Russia, Iran, etc.) have petro-based economies. Decreasing worldwide price of petroleum products will bankrupt the countries that use that money to destabilize the rest of the world.
Amen. If we had been in the position to divert large amounts of lng to Germany, the war in Ukraine might have gone very differently.
I understand that energy should not be misused for arbitrary and nationalist "interests" but used for humanity in general by integrating energy sectors worldwide.
Well done! Persuasion frequently provides this kind of genuinely non-partisan perspective. The way renewables create problems for the power grid is new and intriguing for me. I'd love to hear more, especially with references.
Our country is stuck in Republican and Democratic ruts, worn so deep across the decades you can hardly see out of them. Whether you love Mr. Trump or hate him, he is a disrupter and creates opportunities to break out of ossified structures and obsolete thinking.
When I speak with Trump's supporters in my own political work, they often tell me that "I don't like him especially, but I think he'll shake things up." Judging from this post, they may have a point.
Thank you for that tip. I think campaign finance, which gives industry lobbyists so much muscle, blocks all kinds of good policies that a bipartisan majority of Americans would agree on.
Regarding the non-partisan solutions, I can recommend you this book my a contact of my in Oregon http://sharinggreeneconomy.org/
Once Microsoft bought Three Mile Island to power AI, the old green movement turned decidedly ... brown. Yes it will be a nuclear energy future. But that also entails an enormous investment in protecting nuclear power plants from military and terrorist attacks. If we do not recognize that full military protection must go hand in hand with the new Nuclear Deal the next Three Mile Island meltdown may just be the real deal, and Eastern PA will become a nuclear wasteland. You do not leave gasoline and matches lying around where children are playing.
Other than in Soviet era RBMK reactors (Chernobyl), a meltdown is a terrible but mostly contained situation. China Syndrome is not a thing. Once NON-RBMK reactors lost coolant, the controlled rnuclear fission will stop. Heat will still be a problem, resulting in a meltdown unless operators can restore coolant. And there are many ways to do this! But regardless it will be contained.
Herb, I am extremely bullish on Nuclear energy. There really is no other option in light of our energy needs and reducing climate change. Reasonable voices like yours will be crucial. So it will be important to convince the public that nuclear power plants can and will be protected against military attack. Russia continuously threatens Ukrainian nuclear power plants. The propaganda benefits of that for Russia are enormous.
I think that we are woefully behind in hardening our entire energy infrastructure. That certainly must include nuclear plants, but not only those, and cyber defense is at least as important as physical defense, if not moreso.
Those new-generation nuclear reactors you link to (Generation IV) won't be available for decades. We really can't wait that long. According to the link, there aren't even models yet that demonstrate a cost advantage over current nuclear power.
The article's big omission is that it overlooks the other alternative for baseload power: geothermal electricity generation. Unlike maybe-someday Generation IV reactors, geothermal electricity is already being generated, e.g. by Fervo ( https://fervoenergy.com/ ). It has the enormous advantages of being proven technology (except see below), simpler implementation, and the ability to reuse fossil fuel companies' expertise in digging deep holes. Not to mention that it may be possible to reuse the generators of existing fossil fuel plants. Oh, and no need to worry about nuclear proliferation, nuclear attacks, nuclear fuel disposal, etc. Other minor advantages like those.
Geothermal electricity has one drawback compared to nuclear: currently, the really hot rocks it needs are too deep to reach in many parts of the US, like the Northeast. But there are multiple companies working to drill deeper: e.g. Quaise Energy's ( https://www.quaise.energy/news/reimagining-geothermal-larger-map-lower-cost ) microwave drills, and other companies working to extend and adapt more conventional techniques.
I am happy to bet that they'll figure out how to drill much deeper holes long before Generation IV reactors are ready, and the power will be cheaper.
There are a lot of valid critiques of renewable energy in the text, and I have more positive views on nuclear energy, at least as a transpirational solution. At the same time, fossil fuels cannot be a thing of the future, and nations need global integration and cooperation regarding climate-friendly and post-industrial energy.
Significant advancements in energy storage technologies, such as grid-scale battery systems, have been made. These systems are increasingly capable of storing surplus renewable energy and stabilizing electricity grids.
I also think that Toro overlooks renewables' cost competitiveness. Wind and solar energy have become the cheapest electricity generation globally, outcompeting fossil fuels in many countries and regions. Also, expanding reliance on fossil fuels undermines global decarbonization goals, exacerbates climate risks, and perpetuates economic instability due to the inherent volatility of fossil fuel markets.
This misrepresentation also reinforces the false narrative that climate policies are inherently ideologically driven rather than grounded in necessary and valid pragmatism. For example, several developing nations are adopting renewable energy systems to leapfrog fossil fuels and expand access to electricity in underserved areas. These decentralized renewable systems are transforming energy access for millions of people and reducing reliance on centralized grids.
There are some earlier cases in history, for example, when it was not Thatcher's government but the left-wing government before her that closed down most of the coal mines in the UK. So, there are cases where Trump is lying to his voters.
I see promise not only in the Trump administration’s more realistic approach to energy, but also in the absence in the numerous executive orders of imperialist assumptions, replaced by a tendency to evaluate trade agreements as though we now live in a post-imperialist world.
See “Trump’s economic plan for America: A non-imperialist proposal for strengthening the national economy,” January 24, 2025
https://charlesmckelvey.substack.com/p/trumps-economic-plan-for-america
I have not done the math, but I suspect that the price of gasoline in most of the US is actually less than it was 50 years ago after taking into account inflation. Undeniably, increasing the abundance of something will bring down its price to the consumer although not necessarily it cost to produce (depending, of course, on the relationship of fixed and variable costs of production). The question then becomes what are the price breaking points at which all the exhortations of the Trump administration will not result in the petroleum and natural gas industries bringing on line new production in today's business environment?
Super unsubstantiated. Poor quality.