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 “net‑zero” programs under the promise of an imminent clean‑energy transition. What the public received instead was an illusion—a fragile grid, higher electricity prices, and negligible climate benefits. Energy remained just as carbon‑intensive, 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 60‑90 % consistently. Billions went to weather‑dependent 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 $120–250 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 rare‑earth 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 natural‑gas 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 70–80 gigatons of CO₂, reduced global electricity costs by half, and created genuine energy security.
Instead, the current “green” 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 $37–40 trillion loss in global GDP—about half of one year of global economic output. That’s 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 so‑called green transition did not decarbonize the planet—it 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 “net‑zero” programs under the promise of an imminent clean‑energy transition. What the public received instead was an illusion—a fragile grid, higher electricity prices, and negligible climate benefits. Energy remained just as carbon‑intensive, 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 60‑90 % consistently. Billions went to weather‑dependent 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 $120–250 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 rare‑earth 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 natural‑gas 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 70–80 gigatons of CO₂, reduced global electricity costs by half, and created genuine energy security.
Instead, the current “green” 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 $37–40 trillion loss in global GDP—about half of one year of global economic output. That’s 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 so‑called green transition did not decarbonize the planet—it 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
