“We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar,” Trump posted on Truth Social Wednesday. “The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!”
It's just so self fulfilling. Someone is being very stupid. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's him. Possibly it's both of us.
But there is no way out of the conclusion that the country is (at least) a near majority of very stupid people. Not merely mistaken or holding different values, but genuinely incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy.
Of course if I'm the stupid one, maybe my reasoning there is also wrong. I know I conflated individuals and groups in a less-than-rigorous fashion.
But either way I feel unable to find a solution to this conundrum. Certainly I can't if I'm stupid. And if a majority of voters are stupid, then it undercuts the principle that enables us to live in the same region together. I am rapidly running out of ideas to continue that.
They are correct. You will see in the coming years that electricity across the US is going to get substantially more expensive. There are several reasons for this:
1. Data centers, primarily driven by AI. Why? Because they can (and do) negotiate deeply discounted prices AND either don't pay for the connection and required infrastructure or they only pay a portion of it. Who pays for the rest? Consumers. Who subsidizes the discounted electricity? Consumers.
2. Increased electricity use in an area tends to raise the prices for everyone. We actually saw this in the crypto mining boom (eg [1]). In short, in a region like upstate New York where it otherwise has access to cheap hydro power, the local provider will have a long term power supply contract for a certain amount of electricity. A big increase usually means they now have to buy power on the spot market, which can be much more expensive. This raises the average electricity price for everyone;
3. The administration is pushing a huge expansion in LNG exports. IIRC ~41% of US power generation comes from natural gas. A huge increase in LNG exports will inevitably cause a rise in natural gas prices for all domestic power producers. This is in part driven by the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine but natural gas suppliers have seen (and pounced upon) an opportunity to drive up the wholesale price of natural gas;
4. The dam has really broke on contraining price hikes for pure profit purposes (eg [2]). If you look at the finances of any private electricity utility, you'll see that simply increasing shareholder profits is probably the biggest single factor in electricity price hikes;
5. While all this is happening and we're not really building new power plants (at least not enough to match demand), the administration has cut off renewables, which are key to meeting demand beyond any environmental concerns (which are real and true). Power usage spikes during the day. Well guess what? That's when solar power production happens. So adding significant solar power production to your electricity mix will decrease the baseline power needed from other sources;
6. Private equity has turned its eye to the guaranteed profits of electricitiy providers [3]. This will do absolutely nothing other than raise prices; and
7. Lip service is given to nuclear but it simply isn't the answer, primarily because the lead time for building a nuclear power plant is about 10-15 years. Plus it's one of the most expensive forms of electricity (in LCOE terms) and having a company safely manage a nuclear power plant in an era where regulation is being gutted doesn't seem like a great idea.
Not a single nuclear power plant has been built without government subsidy. Why not just subsidize renewables instead, particularly solar? Efforts such as small modular reactors to lower costs simply make no sense. Larger reactors are more efficient.
I think by 2030 a significant portion of the population will be paying $0.50/kWh or more for residential electricity.
The reason this won't be effective is money. The more they obstruct, be more motivated people with money will be to get around the restrictions. Here greed is our friend.
We tried ideology driven energy policy in Europe and it hasn't gone well. We phased out nuclear power plants (because nuclear = bad) while doubling down on Russian gas dependency (because trade = peace). Clearly this has gone poorly and it will take Europe a decade to strengthen its energy sovereignty again.
There are good reasons to question renewable energy: the cost picture doesn't make sense right now, it has intermittency problems, etc. But killing renewable projects because, uh, farming or whatever?, particularly at a time when the demand for energy is growing faster than ever, seems short sighted at best.
I'm all for nuclear power, but those project take years. Even the small modular ones, even if fast tracked. I think it is a misstep to simply cancel current projects, and hope (?) that nuclear will pull it all. Even if it does so, you'll have a big gap in where demand could outpace supply.
Just look at the title.. "Solar executives warn..". Of course they do, their business model is government subsidy. I live in a blue state that has decided to bet on renewables and our electricity rates are skyrocketing. If solar was viable, it would not require forcing tax payers to fund these businesses.
My optimistic take is that the left takes this + the slight momentum from books/ideas like Abundance and coalesce into a pro-build anti red-tape yimby party.
That's very optimistic. And yeah, I see how this comment is kind of the equivalent of bringing up Obama or Hillary or something when it's about Trump's bullshit. To be very clear, I hate any efforts to impede energy build out.
CPI energy prices have risen for the last 10 years steadily, and is now going parabolic.
Maybe some forms of green energy have helped in some areas and times of day, but they have done nothing to stop the climb.
It's time to try something other than solar and wind, which are demonstrably not lowering energy prices, and may be making it worse (TOU energy plans are becoming the norm because of the broken duty cycle of solar)
A lot of people on this thread don’t seem to realize that solar and wind now work fine without government subsidies. The Biden-era subsidies have been about accelerating decarbonization, not about propping up the market.
If you let the market choose, it would choose a lot of wind and solar.
> Despite facing macro challenges and headwinds, utility-scale solar and onshore wind remain the most cost-effective forms of new-build energy generation on an unsubsidized basis (i.e., without tax subsidies).
So the admin just needs to get out of the alway and let the market solve this problem. Not try to centrally manage the economy like the Soviet Union.
It frustrates me that neither party is about energy abundance. The Democrats have clamped down on coal, fracking, nuclear for various largely climate reasons. And now the republicans want to reverse it and restrict renewables mostly in a "turnabout is fair play" kind of way. I wish the current administration had just cut regulations and enabled more fracking or whatever and left it at that.
Taking the environmental hit for lower energy costs is understandable at least, even if those who are more financially stable would prefer not to. But whatever this is makes no sense and is just puerile revenge.
In the UK the push towards renewable energy has so far been disastrous for energy prices and stability. There have been days in the UK where the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, and we came extremely close to blackouts [0]. We were forced to buy energy for eye watering prices. After the initial shock from the Russia-Ukraine conflict gas prices moved slightly, but electricity prices are not really recovering well and are projected to rise [1] [2].
According to government figures, 11% of electricity costs goes toward green initiatives, and 5% to VAT, which is also earmarked for green initiatives. The government has promised that as we become greener, we should see the prices come down, but the opposite has been true [3]. The green energy sector is currently largely subsidised by fossil fuels, as we transition more and more to green energy, the true costs are realised. Our Energy Secretary (failed prime minister candidate) says:
> Responding to the 6% price cap rise, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said it was due to "our reliance on the fossil fuel markets" and added: "We're acting to bring down bills for everyone with our mission for clean, home-grown power that we control."
The irony is that we don't make our own wind turbines or solar panels, so our grid is still precariously dependant on foreign actors. We're breaking away from the likes of Russia to become dependant on China - great. Bare in mind, all of this effort for the UK which produces less than 1% of global emissions, but outsources its manufacturing to Countries such as China that have not even started to attempt to reduce their emissions (recent drops are due to economic collapse).
27 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 44.9 ms ] threadIt's just so self fulfilling. Someone is being very stupid. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's him. Possibly it's both of us.
But there is no way out of the conclusion that the country is (at least) a near majority of very stupid people. Not merely mistaken or holding different values, but genuinely incapable of distinguishing reality from fantasy.
Of course if I'm the stupid one, maybe my reasoning there is also wrong. I know I conflated individuals and groups in a less-than-rigorous fashion.
But either way I feel unable to find a solution to this conundrum. Certainly I can't if I'm stupid. And if a majority of voters are stupid, then it undercuts the principle that enables us to live in the same region together. I am rapidly running out of ideas to continue that.
1. Data centers, primarily driven by AI. Why? Because they can (and do) negotiate deeply discounted prices AND either don't pay for the connection and required infrastructure or they only pay a portion of it. Who pays for the rest? Consumers. Who subsidizes the discounted electricity? Consumers.
2. Increased electricity use in an area tends to raise the prices for everyone. We actually saw this in the crypto mining boom (eg [1]). In short, in a region like upstate New York where it otherwise has access to cheap hydro power, the local provider will have a long term power supply contract for a certain amount of electricity. A big increase usually means they now have to buy power on the spot market, which can be much more expensive. This raises the average electricity price for everyone;
3. The administration is pushing a huge expansion in LNG exports. IIRC ~41% of US power generation comes from natural gas. A huge increase in LNG exports will inevitably cause a rise in natural gas prices for all domestic power producers. This is in part driven by the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine but natural gas suppliers have seen (and pounced upon) an opportunity to drive up the wholesale price of natural gas;
4. The dam has really broke on contraining price hikes for pure profit purposes (eg [2]). If you look at the finances of any private electricity utility, you'll see that simply increasing shareholder profits is probably the biggest single factor in electricity price hikes;
5. While all this is happening and we're not really building new power plants (at least not enough to match demand), the administration has cut off renewables, which are key to meeting demand beyond any environmental concerns (which are real and true). Power usage spikes during the day. Well guess what? That's when solar power production happens. So adding significant solar power production to your electricity mix will decrease the baseline power needed from other sources;
6. Private equity has turned its eye to the guaranteed profits of electricitiy providers [3]. This will do absolutely nothing other than raise prices; and
7. Lip service is given to nuclear but it simply isn't the answer, primarily because the lead time for building a nuclear power plant is about 10-15 years. Plus it's one of the most expensive forms of electricity (in LCOE terms) and having a company safely manage a nuclear power plant in an era where regulation is being gutted doesn't seem like a great idea.
Not a single nuclear power plant has been built without government subsidy. Why not just subsidize renewables instead, particularly solar? Efforts such as small modular reactors to lower costs simply make no sense. Larger reactors are more efficient.
I think by 2030 a significant portion of the population will be paying $0.50/kWh or more for residential electricity.
[1]: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/when-crypt...
[2]: https://cleanenergy.org/news/tva-executes-the-largest-electr...
[3]: https://jacobin.com/2025/08/private-equity-minnesota-power-t...
There are good reasons to question renewable energy: the cost picture doesn't make sense right now, it has intermittency problems, etc. But killing renewable projects because, uh, farming or whatever?, particularly at a time when the demand for energy is growing faster than ever, seems short sighted at best.
Then 4% relies on Federal lands [2]
1 -https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/how-long-does-it-ta...
2 - https://www.nrel.gov/news/detail/program/2025/vast-federal-l...
That's very optimistic. And yeah, I see how this comment is kind of the equivalent of bringing up Obama or Hillary or something when it's about Trump's bullshit. To be very clear, I hate any efforts to impede energy build out.
Maybe some forms of green energy have helped in some areas and times of day, but they have done nothing to stop the climb.
It's time to try something other than solar and wind, which are demonstrably not lowering energy prices, and may be making it worse (TOU energy plans are becoming the norm because of the broken duty cycle of solar)
If you let the market choose, it would choose a lot of wind and solar.
> Despite facing macro challenges and headwinds, utility-scale solar and onshore wind remain the most cost-effective forms of new-build energy generation on an unsubsidized basis (i.e., without tax subsidies).
So the admin just needs to get out of the alway and let the market solve this problem. Not try to centrally manage the economy like the Soviet Union.
1 - https://www.lazard.com/news-announcements/lazard-releases-20...
Taking the environmental hit for lower energy costs is understandable at least, even if those who are more financially stable would prefer not to. But whatever this is makes no sense and is just puerile revenge.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/07/10/1119941/china-en...
https://apnews.com/article/china-climate-solar-wind-carbon-e...
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65064
According to government figures, 11% of electricity costs goes toward green initiatives, and 5% to VAT, which is also earmarked for green initiatives. The government has promised that as we become greener, we should see the prices come down, but the opposite has been true [3]. The green energy sector is currently largely subsidised by fossil fuels, as we transition more and more to green energy, the true costs are realised. Our Energy Secretary (failed prime minister candidate) says:
> Responding to the 6% price cap rise, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said it was due to "our reliance on the fossil fuel markets" and added: "We're acting to bring down bills for everyone with our mission for clean, home-grown power that we control."
The irony is that we don't make our own wind turbines or solar panels, so our grid is still precariously dependant on foreign actors. We're breaking away from the likes of Russia to become dependant on China - great. Bare in mind, all of this effort for the UK which produces less than 1% of global emissions, but outsources its manufacturing to Countries such as China that have not even started to attempt to reduce their emissions (recent drops are due to economic collapse).
[0] https://watt-logic.com/2025/01/09/blackouts-near-miss-in-tig...
[1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
[2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkep1vx3mro