For two years now, I and others have been pointing out the reality that there is no real “energy transition” happening around the world. Two new items of information came to light this week that irrevocably prove the point.
It is true that governments across the western world appear to be working to bankrupt their countries by pouring trillions of debt-funded dollars, Euros and British pounds into central planning efforts to subsidize renewables and electric vehicles into existence. That reality cannot be denied. The trouble is that no amount of debt money can turn the markets and the markets aren’t cooperating.
Despite all the government largesse that has spurred major additions of wind and solar generation capacity, those weather-reliant energy sources can’t even keep up with the pace of rising demand for electricity. As a result, the markets dictated that the world consumed record levels of coal, natural gas, oil and even wood during 2023. Yes, we are still burning vast amounts of wood for electricity, despite an alleged “transition” from wood to coal which began 500 years ago.
That is reality, dictated by the markets.
Two new bits of data came to light this week that pound the final nails into the coffin of the narrative around the energy transition. A report in the Financial Times, citing data compiled by Grid Strategies, reveals that the buildout of new high-voltage transmission lines in the United States slowed to a trickle in 2023, with just 55.5 additional miles installed. That collapse comes despite the Biden government’s recognition that a massive expansion of this type of transmission lines must happen to accommodate the demands of any true “transition” to renewables.
The Financial Times quotes a 2023 assessment by the Department of Energy that found that “regional transmission must more than double and interregional transmission must grow more than fivefold by 2035 to meet decarbonization targets.” DOE admits such a pace would add more than 50,000 miles of new transmission in just 11 years, which is almost 1,000 times the pace of adds during 2023. Yikes.
A crucial aspect of that DOE study to understand is that it was conducted before we began to understand the true magnitude of additional power demands that will result from the explosive growth of AI technology just now starting to come to full bloom. It was just this past January, at the WEF Forum in Davos, where OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told the audience he believes generation capacity on the grid will have to double over the next decade just to fill the AI demands alone. That is what is needed in addition to the rising demands for EV charging, industrial growth, population growth and economic growth.
The second piece of compelling data arising this week comes from a Bloomberg story headlined, “Data Centers Now Need a Reactor’s Worth of Power, Dominion Says.” The key thing to understand about this story is that the piece is only referencing the needs of planned new data centers being built in Northern Virginia to feed AI development in that tiny sliver of the United States.
This key excerpt from the story says it all: “Over the past five years, Dominion has connected 94 data centers that, together, consume about four gigawatts of electricity, Blue said. That means that just two or three of the data center campuses now being planned could require as much electricity as all the centers Dominion hooked up since about 2019.”
That is not just rapid growth, it is exponential growth in power demand from a single developing technology.
Demand growth needs such as this aren’t going to be filled by unpredictable, unreliable, weather-dependent generation like windmills and solar arrays. And let’s face it: The United States is not going to be able to continue expanding renewables without finding some way to create a massive expansion of transmission. Why build the generation if you can’t move the electricity?
What it all means is that all the grand Biden Green New Deal plans to shut down America’s remaining coal fleet and much of its natural gas generation fleet are going to have to wait, because the market will not allow them. That’s reality, and reality does not care about anyone’s green transition dreams.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
A majority of Americans say it is more important for the U.S. to establish energy independence than to fight climate change, according to new polling.
The poll from Napolitan News Service of 1,000 registered voters shows that 57% of voters say making America energy independent is more important than fighting climate change, while 39% feel the opposite and 4% are unsure.
Those surveyed also were asked: Which is more important, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change, or keeping the price of cars low enough for families to afford them?
Half of voters (50%) said keeping the price of cars low was more important to them than reducing emissions, while 43% said emissions reductions were more important than the price of buying a car.
When asked, “Which is more important, reducing greenhouse gas emissions or reducing the cost and improving the reliability of electricity and gas for American families?”, 59% said reducing the cost and increasing the reliability was more important compared to 35% who said reducing emissions was more important.
The survey was conducted online by pollster Scott Rasmussen on March 18-19. Field work was conducted by RMG Research. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points
Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square. He welcomes your comments. Contact Dan at [email protected].
Canada has set ambitious climate goals, aiming to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions by 40 to 45 per cent by 2030, and to hit net-zero emissions by 2050.
Now a senior fellow at Resource Works, Jerome Gessaroli, argues that Canada is over-focusing internally on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, when we should “look at cooperating with developing countries to jointly reduce emissions.”
He continues: “And we do that in a way that helps ourselves. It helps meet our own goals. That’s through Article 6 of the Paris Accord, allowing countries to share emission reduction credits from jointly developed projects.”
Reduction on a global scale
Article 6, says Gessaroli, means this: “We can work towards meeting our own emission goals, and can help developing countries meet theirs. We can do it in a way that’s much more efficient. We get a lot more bang for our buck than if we are trying to just do it domestically on our own.”
The point is that, in the end, emissions are reduced on a global scale — as he stressed in a five-part series that he wrote for Resource Works last November.
And in a study for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (where he is a senior fellow) he wrote: “The benefits could be large. Canada could reduce emissions by 50 per cent more if it carried out methane reduction projects both internationally and domestically, rather than solely in Canada.”
But is Ottawa interested?
Gessaroli says the federal government expressed interest in Article 6 in 2019 — but has not moved since then.
“They barely looked at it. Since this requires government-to-government coordination, it needs Ottawa’s initiative. But there doesn’t seem to be too much interest, too much appetite in that.”
All Ottawa has said so far is: “Going forward, Canada will explore these and other similar options to strengthen international co-operation and generate incentives for further emission reductions.”
Gessaroli on Resource Works
Gessaroli has been working with Resource Works since he first spoke with our Stewart Muir, following a letter that Muir wrote in The Vancouver Sun in 2022: ‘Gas has key role to play in meeting 1.5C climate targets.’
Gessaroli saw in Resource Works advocacy for responsible resource development “for the people, the citizens of BC, in an environmentally responsible manner and in a manner that’s efficient, driven by the private sector.”
And: “Resource Works supports responsible resource development, not uncritical expansion. We have these resources. We should develop them, but in a way that benefits society, respects nature, respects the local peoples, and so that wide elements of society can benefit from that resource development.”
Gessaroli on electric vehicles
Gessaroli hit a shared interest with Resource Works in a 2024 paper for its Energy Futures Institute, critiquing BC’s plan to require that all new vehicles sold in the province must be electric zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) by 2035.
For one thing, he wrote, BC would need to spend $1.8 billion to provide electric charging points for the vehicles. And billions more would be required to provide expanded power generation and transmission systems.
“The Government of BC should adjust or rescind its mandated targets for new minimum zero-emission vehicle sales.”
And on ZEV subsidies
Stewart Muir and Barry Penner, chair of the Energy Futures Institute, wrote a guest column last October in Business in Vancouver. They cited Gessaroli’s paper above, and noted: “According to Gessaroli, meeting BC’s ZEV targets will require an additional 2,700 gigawatt hours of electricity by 2030, and 9,700 gigawatt hours by 2040—almost equal to the output of two Site C dams.”
Gessaroli has also looked at the subsidies BC offers (up to $4,000) to people who buy an electric vehicle.
“The subsidies do help. They do incentivize people to buy EVs. But it’s a very costly way to reduce carbon emissions, anywhere upwards of $600, $700, even $800 a tonne to eliminate one tonne of carbon.
“When you look at the social cost of carbon, the government uses a figure around $170 a tonne. That’s the damage done from every tonne of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. So we’re paying $800 to remove one tonne of carbon when that same tonne of carbon does damage of about $170. That doesn’t sound like a very cost-effective way of getting rid of carbon, does it?”
Gessaroli on Donald Trump’s policies
Gessaroli says tariffs on imports are not the only benefit that Donald Trump plans for U.S. industry that will hurt Canada.
“He also wants to reduce tax rates, 15% for US manufacturers, and allow full deductibility for equipment purchases. You reduce regulations and red tape on companies while lowering their tax rates. They’re already competitive to begin with. Well, they’re going to be even more competitive, more innovative.”
For Canada, he says: “Get rid of the government heavy hand of overtaxing and enforcing inefficient and ineffective regulations. Get rid of all of that. Encourage competition in the marketplace. And over time, we’d find Canadians can be quite innovative and quite competitive in our own right. And we can hold our own. We can be better off.
“And there’d be more tax revenues being generated by the government. With the tax revenue, you can build the roads, build the hospitals, improve the healthcare system, things like that.
“But without this type of vibrant economic type activity, you’re going to get the stagnation we’re seeing right now.”
About Jerome Gessaroli
Gessaroli leads the Sound Economic Policy Project at the B.C. Institute of Technology. He is the lead Canadian co-author of Financial Management: Theory and Practice, a widely used textbook. His writing has appeared in many Canadian newspapers.
Stewart Muir, CEO of Resource Works, highlights Gessaroli’s impact: “Jerome brings a level of economic and policy analysis that cuts through the noise. His research doesn’t just challenge assumptions—it provides a roadmap for smarter, more effective climate and energy policies.
“Canada needs more thinkers like him, who focus on pragmatic solutions that benefit both the environment and the economy.”
Gessaroli and Karen, his wife of 34 years, live in Vancouver and enjoy cruising to unwind. In his downtime, Gessaroli reads about market ethics and political economy — which he calls his idea of relaxation.
