Tag: solar energy
Trump, Harris

If You Want Cheaper Energy, Vote For Kamala Harris

Donald Trump's "drill, baby, drill" mantra portrays fossil fuels as the magic road to lower energy prices. He's exactly wrong. Solar, wind and other renewable sources are.

Renewables already provide electricity to consumers in Europe that's so cheap, it's at times free — this according to The Wall Street Journal, a decidedly non-socialist news source. Such are the rewards of Europe's green energy revolution, supercharged after Russia's invasion of Ukraine caused a spike in oil prices.

Example from the Netherlands: Jeroen van Diesen can get free energy based on whether the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, especially when demand for power is low. Sometimes the price actually dips below zero. Van Diesen says he made about $34 over the past five months charging his car when the price turned negative.

"Wholesale prices swing wildly each hour of the day," the Journal notes. And as more electricity flows from wind and solar installations, the price can go into negative territory. In other words, the prices can swing wildly downward.

The wholesale price in the Netherlands has been down to zero or below for eight percent of the year. In Spain, that's happening 12 percent of the time.

Most of us in the United States pay a fixed price for electricity set by the power company. But in much of Europe, people can sign up with providers who charge hourly prices on the wholesale power market.

Europe also went all in on alternative energy sources like wind and solar power whose generation costs are minimal. Last year, 44 percent of the European Union's electricity was produced by renewables, versus only 21 percent in the U.S.

Back in Europe, energy nerds have set up smart meters in their homes so that when the price of electricity falls, their cars automatically begin to charge. And manufacturers have found ways to send low-priced energy to gas tanks that function like virtual batteries.

The Biden administration has been overseeing massive investment in wind, solar, electrical vehicles and energy storage. These subsidies cost money, but so do most initial investments. As Europe has shown, these outlays can eventually produce handsome returns for the economy.

And so what are Trump's plans for a green-energy future? Well, Trump has vowed — Lord, give me strength — to target offshore wind projects. "They're killing the whales," he hollers, which marine biologists say is baloney. The 2025 Project's blueprint for another Trump term calls for ending all subsidies to promote the development of renewable energy, which, we must add, is also clean energy.

At the debate with Harris, Trump took aim against renewables with another lie, about Germany going back to fossil fuels. A spokesman for Germany's economic ministry swatted down that nonsense. "We already generate more than half of our electricity from renewable energies," he said. "In 2030, it will be 80 percent."

Real time pricing combined with renewable energy would be great for the United States, especially sunny California and the windy Great Plains. U.S. regulators became reluctant to let customers sign up for such plans after a rare winter storm in Texas sent wholesale prices temporarily soaring in 2021. Some are reconsidering.

In Southern California, the wholesale price has been negative for nearly 20 percent of the year, thanks to the region's boom in solar power installations. California has started a pilot program to offer real time pricing.

To be honest, the overall electricity bill wouldn't be zero because there remain costs for generation, transmission, and distribution. But, boy, they could be far, far closer to zero.

So what will it be, American consumers? The clean energy future is also the cheap energy future, and only Harris wants to take us there.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Windmills

Biden Wisely Favors Fossil Fuels For Today, But Not Tomorrow

Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has thrown world energy markets into turmoil. Prices are high; Europe is still dependent on natural gas from Russia; and Joe Biden is urging other countries to boost petroleum output. For his efforts, the president is under attack from both Republicans and Democrats, who are each erring in their own peculiar way.

Biden has banned imports of Russian oil and gas because such purchases would help fund Putin's war. But he is not content to see world oil supplies shrink. On Thursday, he said he would release one million barrels per day from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the next six months.

The administration has also lobbied the unsavory governments of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela to boost output. The same president who wants to phase out the burning of fossil fuels now wants to ensure that plenty of fossil fuels are available for burning.

His GOP critics accuse him of hypocrisy. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La), said, "Biden must end his war on American energy production so the United States and our allies can have access to affordable, secure energy." Republicans still live by Sarah Palin's credo: Drill, baby, drill.

But progressives are equally unhappy, urging Biden to take steps to "end the fossil fuel era and petrochemical tyranny" by ramping up renewable energy production. "Putting more oil on the market is not the solution to our problem but the perpetuation of our problem," said Mark Brownstein, vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund.

Both sides make the same mistake, which is failing to understand the difference between short-term necessities and long-term imperatives. In an emergency, your focus is on the immediate need, not the long-term one. But it's important that while attending to the present, you don't forfeit the future.

Biden is capable of meeting both obligations. He understands that letting prices soar is a bad thing for the anti-Putin effort (and the world economy). At the moment, his priority is depriving Russia of the means to fund its aggression.

Biden's Strategic Petroleum Reserve announcement helped, pushing prices down below $100 per barrel. Getting other oil exporters to increase production would further depress prices and make it harder for Putin to sell his most important commodity.

If resisting aggression against Ukraine means making nice with Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, so what? Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt teamed up with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin to defeat Nazi Germany, and it's a good thing they did. "If Hitler invaded hell," Churchill said, "I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

Conservatives think Russia's power over global fuel supplies proves the need to produce more oil here at home. They say that by canceling the Keystone pipeline and putting a moratorium on new oil and gas leases on federal lands, Biden has inflated gasoline prices and doomed Americans to be fleeced by Putin.

But those policies have little if anything to do with the current price of gasoline. Killing Keystone didn't reduce oil supplies, because it hadn't been built. New federal oil and gas leases would take years to generate production. Biden's policies may mean higher fossil fuel prices down the road, but not now, and not soon.

The current supply crunch, we are told, proves the need to increase exploration and drilling. But the supply of oil on the world market — and the price here at home — will always be at the mercy of unpredictable events in foreign lands. Under the oil-friendly presidency of George W. Bush, the price more than quadrupled, topping out at $128 per barrel — the equivalent of over $168 in today's money.

Sunshine and wind keep coming regardless of wars and revolutions on distant shores. Supplies of renewable energy are far more reliable than those of fossil fuels. Real "energy independence" is not producing more oil and gas at home; it's freeing ourselves from the need for either. Putin has far more to fear from solar panels and wind turbines than from the Permian Basin, and so do Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

More important, though, is that clean energy addresses the emergency of climate change — which is less immediate than Putin's invasion but ultimately even more dangerous. Doubling down on fossil fuels is the wrong strategy for a warming world.

The war in Ukraine is a matter of urgent consequence, but it won't last forever. The best energy policy is one that meets the needs of today without torching tomorrow.

Follow Steve Chapman on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

To Fight Russian Aggression, Build More Clean Energy Capacity

To Fight Russian Aggression, Build More Clean Energy Capacity

Russian attacks on Ukraine have spiked the already high price of oil. But going up with that are the economic incentives to ditch this primitive fuel — the environmental reasons being well known.

Russia provides about 40 percent of Europe's imported gas, and its squeeze on supply has forced some factories to cut back on production. The case for moving to renewable energy grows only stronger.

The CEO of the Portuguese utility EDP made this point on CNBC Europe. "These are (indigenous) ... resources — wind, solar — that we have in Europe," Miguel Stilwell de Andrade said. "We need to accelerate (their development) and do it much faster."

Americans, meanwhile, can dismiss conservative claims that President Joe Biden has set back America's "energy independence." Policies to replace fossil fuels with low-carbon energy have hardly shut off the flow of domestic oil and gas. Actually, the U.S. became the world's top exporter of liquefied natural gas this year.

On a related topic, Biden's infrastructure bill set aside $6 billion to stop the premature retirement of nuclear plants. Another $2.5 billion is going for work on advanced nuclear technologies. Biden backed this zero-carbon energy source while fighting off some opposition from the left.

Germany's outsized dependence on Russian oil resulted from former German Chancellor Angela Merkel's unwise decision years ago to shutter her country's nuclear plants — and replace that source of power with Russian natural gas. (Imagine Europe launching its largest fossil fuel project in the year 2022.)

In retaliation for Russia's assault on Ukraine, Germany has suspended approval of Nord Stream 2, an underwater pipeline designed to transport Russian natural gas to Germany. Good for the new chancellor, Olaf Scholz.

Some Europeans are reportedly dealing with the convulsion in fuel prices by installing solar panels and burning wood for heat. Hooray for solar. (Boo for wood-burning, though understandable in an emergency.)

Clean energy means more energy, which, when added to improving green technology, eventually means less-expensive energy. By 2020, solar already provided cheaper power than that from plants fired by coal or natural gas in most countries, according to the International Energy Agency.

The U.S. has just passed the milestone of 200,000 megawatts of utility-scale clean energy capacity, according to the American Clean Power Association. Do you know which state installed the most wind and solar power capacity last year? Texas.

Natural gas prices were, of course, surging before Russia started pummeling Ukraine. That reflected an upturn in demand as the COVID-19 pandemic started to retreat.

But companies in Europe that had made long-term agreements for renewable energy at fixed prices found themselves in a far better place, The Wall Street Journal reports. Orange SA, the huge French telecom company, for one, is securing power from nearby solar and wind farms, as well as its own installations. It plans to obtain half its energy from renewable sources in three short years.

Such businesses, George Bilicic, head of power and energy at the investment banking firm Lazard, said, "should be better positioned than others given current fossil fuel price spikes."

Steep gas prices are, of course, a great selling point for electric cars, not that they need it at this point.

Moving the world away from fossil fuels would erase Russian President Vladimir Putin's biggest nonnuclear weapon. After all, oil and gas accounted for 39 percent of Russia's budget revenue and 60 percent of its exports in 2019.

We, on our part, must make major investments in power grids to accommodate the diverse types of low-carbon energy. But there's nothing like international turmoil at the hands of a distressed country run by an unstable leader to provide a major push in that direction. Let's get pushed.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

Yes, We Really Can Save The Earth (And Here’s Proof)

Yes, We Really Can Save The Earth (And Here’s Proof)

Reprinted with permission from Creators

Anyone who lives in the world of scientific reality — which we all do, although some like to pretend we don't — may feel dejected these days by the inevitability of catastrophic climate change. For years now, the news about the fate of the Earth (and the living things that inhabit our planet) has grown increasingly grim, with doomsday projected to arrive sometime before the end of this century.

Read NowShow less

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World