Watts up with that reports
Guest Blogger
11 Comments
Tony Seruga writes on Twitter:
Between 2010 and 2026, governments and corporations poured roughly $2 trillion into solar, wind, and ānetāzeroā programs under the promise of an imminent cleanāenergy transition. What the public received instead was an illusionāa fragile grid, higher electricity prices, and negligible climate benefits. Energy remained just as carbonāintensive, but far more expensive and unreliable. The fundamental error was confusing installed capacity with delivered power.
Wind and solar often produce energy only 20 % of the time; fossil and nuclear plants generate 60ā90 % consistently. Billions went to weatherādependent infrastructure that must still be backed up by coal and gas. Once backups, grid stabilization, and battery losses are factored in, true delivered costs for renewables reach $120ā250 per MWh, double or triple those of gas, coal, or nuclear.
When measured by physical reality rather than marketing slogans, that $2 trillion bought roughly the energy output of $400 billion in conventional power. It displaced almost no fossil fuel consumption and arguably reinforced it, since idling backup plants waste fuel. Worse, dependence on Chinese supply chains for solar panels and rareāearth minerals eroded national energy independence and inflated emissions through hidden mining and shipping costs.
If that same capital had been spent on modern nuclear or advanced naturalāgas infrastructure, the outcome would have been transformative. $2 trillion could have built about 285 GW of nuclear capacity (powering 250 million homes reliably for 70 years) or 1,650 GW of efficient gas plants (enough for 900 million homes for 30 years). Either path would have cut 70ā80 gigatons of COā, reduced global electricity costs by half, and created genuine energy security.
Instead, the current āgreenā trajectory delivered rising utility bills, rolling blackouts, and greater reliance on geopolitical adversaries. Global power costs rose roughly 60%, contributing to deindustrialization in Europe, worldwide inflation, and a cumulative $37ā40 trillion loss in global GDPāabout half of one year of global economic output. Thatās the price of mistaking ideology for engineering.
The lesson could not be clearer: physics determines prosperity. Dense, dispatchable energy such as nuclear or gas remains the backbone of civilization, and no amount of subsidies or messaging can legislate thermodynamics. The soācalled green transition did not decarbonize the planetāit impoverished it. The road to sustainability is not paved with solar subsidies but with unapologetic engineering and scientific honesty.
Subscribe to Watts up with that to read the full post
Chasing Weather Power Bankrupted the Grid and Cost the World $40 Trillion in Growth
3 hours agoGuest Blogger
11 Comments
Tony Seruga writes on Twitter:
Between 2010 and 2026, governments and corporations poured roughly $2 trillion into solar, wind, and ānetāzeroā programs under the promise of an imminent cleanāenergy transition. What the public received instead was an illusionāa fragile grid, higher electricity prices, and negligible climate benefits. Energy remained just as carbonāintensive, but far more expensive and unreliable. The fundamental error was confusing installed capacity with delivered power.
Wind and solar often produce energy only 20 % of the time; fossil and nuclear plants generate 60ā90 % consistently. Billions went to weatherādependent infrastructure that must still be backed up by coal and gas. Once backups, grid stabilization, and battery losses are factored in, true delivered costs for renewables reach $120ā250 per MWh, double or triple those of gas, coal, or nuclear.
When measured by physical reality rather than marketing slogans, that $2 trillion bought roughly the energy output of $400 billion in conventional power. It displaced almost no fossil fuel consumption and arguably reinforced it, since idling backup plants waste fuel. Worse, dependence on Chinese supply chains for solar panels and rareāearth minerals eroded national energy independence and inflated emissions through hidden mining and shipping costs.
If that same capital had been spent on modern nuclear or advanced naturalāgas infrastructure, the outcome would have been transformative. $2 trillion could have built about 285 GW of nuclear capacity (powering 250 million homes reliably for 70 years) or 1,650 GW of efficient gas plants (enough for 900 million homes for 30 years). Either path would have cut 70ā80 gigatons of COā, reduced global electricity costs by half, and created genuine energy security.
Instead, the current āgreenā trajectory delivered rising utility bills, rolling blackouts, and greater reliance on geopolitical adversaries. Global power costs rose roughly 60%, contributing to deindustrialization in Europe, worldwide inflation, and a cumulative $37ā40 trillion loss in global GDPāabout half of one year of global economic output. Thatās the price of mistaking ideology for engineering.
The lesson could not be clearer: physics determines prosperity. Dense, dispatchable energy such as nuclear or gas remains the backbone of civilization, and no amount of subsidies or messaging can legislate thermodynamics. The soācalled green transition did not decarbonize the planetāit impoverished it. The road to sustainability is not paved with solar subsidies but with unapologetic engineering and scientific honesty.
Subscribe to Watts up with that to read the full post
