Conservative Energy Network CEO John Szoka joins me to talk permitting reform, clean energy innovation, grid modernization, the Inflation Reduction Act, and much more.
You and your guest claim to be in favor of market-based solutions, and for government not to pick winners and losers. Yet, that is exactly what the federal subsidies for wind, solar and BESS do. They distort the market. If they are so cheap, why are the subsidies needed? The solution is to eliminate those subsidies, and let the market rule.
Since there are tradeoffs in almost everything in life, including energy; How should we consider and make tradeoffs between (1) sources of energy that don't release air pollution or accumulating heat trapping climate pollution into the atmosphere when providing energy to society, and (2) sources those that are allowed to release for free air pollution and accumulating heat trapping climate pollution into the atmosphere when providing energy to society?
Currently, a key reason there are federal tax incentives for renewables (which have been extended to nuclear, geothermal, hydrogen, and carbon capture projects) are because they help level the playing field between energy sources that dump for free into our atmosphere air and climate pollution and those that don't.
The United States has reduced its reliance on coal generation, while China and India have increased theirs, with 94 GW of new plants under construction in 2024 alone in China, and coal generation in India hit 80 percent of the total in January. The increased levels of wind and solar on the U.S. grid have made the grid less reliable, as reflected in the NERC Long Term Reliablity Assessment. I rank grid reliability far above climate concerns. Your mileage may vary.
It's a good point that the climate pollution is a global challenge, however, China and India understand that CO2 emissions are an accumulating problem. They understand that the USA has contributed the most in accumulated emissions - over 60% more than China to date and 7 times as much as India. Even when considering annual emissions, USA emissions per capita are almost 2X China and 7X India. The USA has led on the way up to peak emissions. We should be leading the way to net zero, and it would be to our economic advantage to do so.
Right now, batteries in ERCOT can supply power during the winter morning and summer evening solar ramps, if the wind is not supplying enough power to meet demand. However, their duration is too short to supply power during a prolonged wind drought, given that solar only supplies power about 4.5 hours per day. Until that changes, with longer duration batteries, net zero is infeasible, and dispatchable power will continue to be needed from natural gas plants. Eventually, small modular nuclear reactors will supply more baseload, but only 1 SMR design has been approved by NRC, and none have been built. Fossils fuels have a bright future, at least in the meantime.
Hello Doug Lewin. Can you tell me if Pedernales Electric Board members or executives are receiving your newsletters, etc?
I am trying to encourage them to support their Members' efforts to manage solar+battery systems and load management. We need co-op sponsored and managed DER and VPP tools to maximize these investments. Receiving your communications would be most helpful in support of these changes.
You and your guest claim to be in favor of market-based solutions, and for government not to pick winners and losers. Yet, that is exactly what the federal subsidies for wind, solar and BESS do. They distort the market. If they are so cheap, why are the subsidies needed? The solution is to eliminate those subsidies, and let the market rule.
Since there are tradeoffs in almost everything in life, including energy; How should we consider and make tradeoffs between (1) sources of energy that don't release air pollution or accumulating heat trapping climate pollution into the atmosphere when providing energy to society, and (2) sources those that are allowed to release for free air pollution and accumulating heat trapping climate pollution into the atmosphere when providing energy to society?
Currently, a key reason there are federal tax incentives for renewables (which have been extended to nuclear, geothermal, hydrogen, and carbon capture projects) are because they help level the playing field between energy sources that dump for free into our atmosphere air and climate pollution and those that don't.
What are you thoughts on this?
The United States has reduced its reliance on coal generation, while China and India have increased theirs, with 94 GW of new plants under construction in 2024 alone in China, and coal generation in India hit 80 percent of the total in January. The increased levels of wind and solar on the U.S. grid have made the grid less reliable, as reflected in the NERC Long Term Reliablity Assessment. I rank grid reliability far above climate concerns. Your mileage may vary.
https://www.nerc.com/pa/RAPA/ra/Reliability%20Assessments%20DL/NERC_Long%20Term%20Reliability%20Assessment_2024.pdf
It's a good point that the climate pollution is a global challenge, however, China and India understand that CO2 emissions are an accumulating problem. They understand that the USA has contributed the most in accumulated emissions - over 60% more than China to date and 7 times as much as India. Even when considering annual emissions, USA emissions per capita are almost 2X China and 7X India. The USA has led on the way up to peak emissions. We should be leading the way to net zero, and it would be to our economic advantage to do so.
China and India may understand the threat of climate pollution, but their behaviour does not reflect that understanding.
https://www.economist.com/china/2025/03/31/china-could-greatly-reduce-its-reliance-on-coal-it-probably-will-not
Right now, batteries in ERCOT can supply power during the winter morning and summer evening solar ramps, if the wind is not supplying enough power to meet demand. However, their duration is too short to supply power during a prolonged wind drought, given that solar only supplies power about 4.5 hours per day. Until that changes, with longer duration batteries, net zero is infeasible, and dispatchable power will continue to be needed from natural gas plants. Eventually, small modular nuclear reactors will supply more baseload, but only 1 SMR design has been approved by NRC, and none have been built. Fossils fuels have a bright future, at least in the meantime.
Actually, their behavior is trending in an improved direction.
China's coal plant utilization trend is down
https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/research-analytics/asia-pacific-regional-integrated-research-highlights-q2-2023
China's electricity grid interconnection mix is trending decarbonization
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-power-grid-clean-up-puts-several-us-systems-shame-maguire-2025-03-07/
And EVs are cleaner today, even with China and India's electricity mix
https://theicct.org/publication/a-global-comparison-of-the-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-combustion-engine-and-electric-passenger-cars
Hello Doug Lewin. Can you tell me if Pedernales Electric Board members or executives are receiving your newsletters, etc?
I am trying to encourage them to support their Members' efforts to manage solar+battery systems and load management. We need co-op sponsored and managed DER and VPP tools to maximize these investments. Receiving your communications would be most helpful in support of these changes.