Venerable oil firm goes solar

Renewable Energy Cost Trends highlight IRENA data showing solar and wind undercut coal, as utility-scale projects drive lower levelized electricity costs worldwide, with the Middle East and UAE advancing mega solar parks.

Key Points

They track how solar and wind undercut new fossil fuels as utility-scale costs drop and investment accelerates.

✅ IRENA reports renewables cheapest for new installations

✅ Solar and wind LCOE fell sharply since 2010

✅ Middle East and UAE scale mega utility projects

Renewable energy is now the cheapest option for new electricity installation in most of the world, a report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) on Tuesday said.

Renewable power projects have undercut traditional coal fuel plants, with solar and wind power costs in particular falling as record-breaking growth continues worldwide.

“Installing new renewables increasingly costs less than the cheapest fossil fuels. With or without the health and economic crisis, dirty coal plants were overdue to be consigned to the past, said Francesco La Camera, director-general of IRENA said in the report.

In 2019, renewables accounted for around 72 percent of all new capacity added worldwide, IRENA said, following a 2016 record year that highlighted the momentum, with lowering costs and technological improvements in solar and wind power helping this dynamic. For solar energy, IRENA notes that the cost for electricity from utility-scale plants fell by 82 percent in the decade between 2010 and 2019, as China's solar PV growth underscored in 2016.

“More than half of the renewable capacity added in 2019 achieved lower electricity costs than new coal, while new solar and wind projects are also undercutting the cheapest and least sustainable of existing coal-fired plants,” Camera added.

Costs for solar and wind power also fell year-on-year by 13 and 9 percent, respectively, with offshore wind costs showing steep declines as well. In 2019, more than half of all newly commissioned utility-scale renewable power plants provided electricity cheaper than the lowest cost of a new fossil fuel plant.

The Middle East

In mid-May, a report by UK-based law firm Ashurst suggested the Middle East is the second most popular region for renewable energy investment after North America, at a time when clean energy investment is outpacing fossil fuels.

The region is home to some of the largest renewable energy bets in the world, with Saudi wind expansion gathering pace. The UAE, for instance, is currently developing the Mohammed Bin Rashid Solar Park, the world’s largest concentrated solar power project in the world.

Around 26 percent of Middle East respondents in Ashurst’s survey said that they were presently investing in energy transition, marking the region as the most popular for current investment in renewables, while 11 percent added that they were considering investing.

In North America, the most popular region, 28 percent said that they were currently investing, with 11 percent stating they are considering investing.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Nuclear Power for Net-Zero Grids anchors reliable baseload, integrating renewables with grid stability as solar, wind, and battery storage scale. Advanced reactors complement hydropower, curb natural gas reliance, and accelerate deep decarbonization of electricity systems.

Key Points

Uses nuclear baseload and advanced reactors to stabilize power grids and integrate higher shares of variable renewables.

✅ Provides firm, zero-carbon baseload for renewable-heavy grids

✅ Reduces natural gas dependence and peaker emissions

✅ Advanced reactors enhance safety, flexibility, and cost

Declining solar, wind, and battery technology costs are helping to grow the share of renewables in the world’s power mix to the point that governments are pledging net-zero emission electricity generation in two to three decades to fight global warming.

Yet, electricity grids will continue to require stable baseload to incorporate growing shares of renewable energy sources and ensure lights are on even when the sun doesn’t shine, or the wind doesn’t blow. Until battery technology evolves enough—and costs fall far enough—to allow massive storage and deployment of net-zero electricity to the grid, the systems will continue to need power from sources other than solar and wind.

And these will be natural gas and nuclear power, regardless of concerns about emissions from the fossil fuel natural gas and potential disasters at nuclear power facilities such as the ones in Chernobyl or Fukushima.

As natural gas is increasingly considered as just another fossil fuel, nuclear power generation provides carbon-free electricity to the countries that have it, even as debates over nuclear power’s outlook continue worldwide, and could be the key to ensuring a stable power grid capable of taking in growing shares of solar and wind power generation.

The United States, where nuclear energy currently provides more than half of the carbon-free electricity, is supporting the development of advanced nuclear reactors as part of the clean energy strategy.

But Europe, which has set a goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, could find itself with growing emissions from the power sector in a decade, as many nuclear reactors are slated for decommissioning and questions remain over whether its aging reactors can bridge the gap. The gap left by lost nuclear power is most easily filled by natural gas-powered electricity generation—and this, if it happens, could undermine the net-zero goals of the European Union (EU) and the bloc’s ambition to be a world leader in the fight against climate change.

U.S. Power Grid Will Need Nuclear For Net-Zero Emissions

A 2020 report from the University of California, Berkeley, said that rapidly declining solar, wind, and storage prices make it entirely feasible for the U.S. to meet 90 percent of its power needs from zero-emission energy sources by 2035 with zero increases in customer costs from today’s levels.

Still, natural gas-fired generation will be needed for 10 percent of America’s power needs. According to the report, in 2035 it would be possible that “during normal periods of generation and demand, wind, solar, and batteries provide 70% of annual generation, while hydropower and nuclear provide 20%.” Even with an exponential rise in renewable power generation, the U.S. grid will need nuclear power and hydropower to be stable with such a large share of solar and wind.

The U.S. Backs Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technology

The U.S. Department of Energy is funding programs of private companies under DOE’s new Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP) to showcase next-gen nuclear designs for U.S. deployment.

“Taking leadership in advanced technology is so important to the country’s future because nuclear energy plays such a key role in our clean energy strategy,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette said at the end of December when DOE announced it was financially backing five teams to develop and demonstrate advanced nuclear reactors in the United States.

“All of these projects will put the U.S. on an accelerated timeline to domestically and globally deploy advanced nuclear reactors that will enhance safety and be affordable to construct and operate,” Secretary Brouillette said.

According to Washington DC-based Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a policy organization of the nuclear technologies industry, nuclear energy provides nearly 55 percent of America’s carbon-free electricity. That is more than 2.5 times the amount generated by hydropower, nearly 3 times the amount generated by wind, and more than 12 times the amount generated by solar. Nuclear energy can help the United States to get to the deep carbonization needed to hit climate goals.

Europe Could See Rising Emissions Without Nuclear Power

While the United States is doubling down on efforts to develop advanced and cheaper nuclear reactors, including microreactors and such with new types of technology, Europe could be headed to growing emissions from the electricity sector as nuclear power facilities are scheduled to be decommissioned over the next decade and Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy, according to a Reuters analysis from last month.

In many cases, it will be natural gas that will come to the rescue to power grids to ensure grid stability and enough capacity during peak demand because solar and wind generation is variable and dependent on the weather.

For example, Germany, the biggest economy in Europe, is boosting its renewables targets, but it is also phasing out nuclear by next year, amid a nuclear option debate over climate strategy, while its deadline to phase out coal-fired generation is 2038—more than a decade later compared to phase-out plans in the UK and Italy, for example, where the deadline is the mid-2020s.

The UK, which left the EU last year, included support for nuclear power generation as one of the ten pillars in ‘The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution’ unveiled in November.

The UK’s National Grid has issued several warnings about tight supply since the fall of 2020, due to low renewable output amid high demand.

“National Grid’s announcement underscores the urgency of investing in new nuclear capacity, to secure reliable, always-on, emissions-free power, alongside other zero-carbon sources. Otherwise, we will continue to burn gas and coal as a fallback and fall short of our net zero ambitions,” Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said in response to one of those warnings.

But it’s in the UK that one major nuclear power plant project has notoriously seen a delay of nearly a decade—Hinkley Point C, originally planned in 2007 to help UK households to “cook their 2017 Christmas turkeys”, is now set for start-up in the middle of the 2020s.

Nuclear power development and plant construction is expensive, but it could save the plans for low-carbon emission power generation in many developed economies, including in the United States.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canada Tariffs on U.S. Energy and Minerals signal retaliatory tariffs amid trade tensions, targeting energy exports and critical minerals, reflecting sovereignty concerns and shifting consumer behavior, reduced U.S. purchases, and demand for Canadian-made goods.

Key Points

They are proposed retaliatory tariffs on energy exports and critical minerals to counter U.S. trade pressures.

✅ 75% support tariffs; 70% back dollar-for-dollar retaliation

✅ Consumer shift: fewer U.S. purchases, more Canadian-made goods

✅ Concerns over sovereignty and U.S. trade tactics intensify

A recent survey has revealed that a significant majority of Canadians—approximately 75%—support the implementation of tariffs on energy exports and critical minerals in response to electricity exports at risk amid trade tensions with the United States. This finding underscores the nation's readiness to adopt assertive measures to protect its economic interests amid escalating trade disputes.​

Background on Trade Tensions

The trade relationship between Canada and the United States has experienced fluctuations in recent years, with both nations navigating complex issues related to tariffs and energy tariffs and trade tensions as well as trade agreements and economic policies. The introduction of tariffs has been a contentious strategy, often leading to reciprocal measures and impacting various sectors of the economy.​

Public Sentiment Towards Retaliatory Tariffs

The survey, conducted by Leger between February 14 and 17, 2025, sampled 1,500 Canadians and found that 70% favored implementing dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. Notably, 45% of respondents were strongly in favor, while 25% were somewhat in favor. This strong support reflects widespread dissatisfaction with U.S. trade policies and growing support for Canadian energy projects among voters, alongside a collective sentiment favoring decisive action. ​

Concerns Over U.S. Economic Strategies

The survey also highlighted that 81% of Canadians are apprehensive about potential U.S. economic tactics aimed at drawing Canada into a closer political union. These concerns are fueled by statements from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has suggested annexation and employed tariffs that could spike NY energy prices to influence Canadian sovereignty. Such sentiments have heightened fears about the erosion of Canada's political autonomy under economic duress. ​

Impact on Consumer Behavior

In response to these trade tensions, including reports that Ford threatened to cut U.S. electricity exports, many Canadians have adjusted their purchasing habits. The survey indicated that 63% of respondents are buying fewer American products in stores, and 62% are reducing online purchases from U.S. retailers. Specific declines include a 52% reduction in Amazon purchases, a 50% drop in fast-food consumption from American chains, and a 43% decrease in spending at U.S.-based retail stores. Additionally, 30% of Canadians have canceled planned trips to the United States, while 68% have increased their purchases of Canadian-made products. These shifts demonstrate a tangible impact on consumer behavior driven by nationalistic sentiments and support for retaliatory measures. ​

Economic and Political Implications

The widespread support for retaliatory tariffs and the corresponding changes in consumer behavior have significant economic and political implications. Economically, while tariffs can serve as a tool for asserting national interests, they also risk triggering trade wars that can harm various sectors, including agriculture, manufacturing, and technology, with experts cautioning against cutting Quebec's energy exports in response. Politically, the situation presents a challenge for Canadian leadership to balance assertiveness in defending national interests with the necessity of maintaining a stable and mutually beneficial relationship with the U.S., Canada's largest trading partner.​

As Canada approaches its federal elections, trade policy is emerging as a pivotal issue. Voters are keenly interested in how political parties propose to navigate the complexities of international trade, particularly with the United States and how a potential U.S. administration's stance, such as Biden's approach to the energy sector could shape outcomes. The electorate's strong stance on retaliatory tariffs may influence party platforms and campaign strategies, emphasizing the need for clear and effective policies that address both the immediate concerns of trade disputes and the long-term goal of sustaining positive international relations.​

The survey results reflect a nation deeply engaged with its trade dynamics and protective of its sovereignty. While support for retaliatory tariffs is robust, it is essential for policymakers to carefully consider the broader consequences of such actions. Striking a balance between defending national interests and fostering constructive international relationships will be crucial as Canada navigates these complex trade challenges in the coming years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Australia electricity grid transition is accelerating as renewables, wind, solar, and storage drive decentralised generation, emissions cuts, and NEM trade shifts, with South Australia becoming a net exporter post-Hazelwood closure and rooftop solar surging.

Key Points

Australia electricity shift to renewables, distributed generation and storage, cutting emissions, reshaping NEM flows.

✅ South Australia now exports power post-Hazelwood closure

✅ Rooftop solar is the fastest-growing NEM generation source

✅ Gas peaking and storage investments balance variable renewables

The politics may not change much, but Australia’s electricity grid is changing before our very eyes – slowly and inevitably becoming more renewable, more decentralised, and in step with Australia's energy transition that is challenging the pre-conceptions of many in the industry.

The latest national emissions audit from The Australia Institute, which includes an update on key electricity trends in the national electricity market, notes some interesting developments over the last three months.

The most surprising of those developments may be the South Australia achievement, which shows that since the closure of the Hazelwood brown coal generator in Victoria in March 2017, and as renewables outpacing brown coal in other markets, South Australia has become a net exporter of electricity, in net annualised terms.

Hugh Saddler, lead author of the study, notes that this is a big change for South Australia, which in 1999 and 2000, when it had only gas and local coal, used to import 30% of its electricity demand.

#google#

The fact that wholesale prices in South Australia were higher in other states – then, as they are now – has nothing to with wind and solar, but the fact that it has no low-cost conventional source and a peaky demand profile (then and now).

“The difference today is that the state is now taking advantage of its abundant resources of wind and solar radiation, and the new technologies which have made them the lowest cost sources of new generation, to supply much of its electricity requirements,” Saddler writes.

Other things to note about the flows between states is that Victoria was about equal on imports and exports with its three neighbouring states, despite the closure of Hazelwood. NSW continues to import around 10% of its needs from cheaper providers in Queensland.

Gas-fired generation had increased in the last year or two in South Australia as a result of the Northern closure, but is still below the levels of a decade ago.

But because it is expensive, this is likely to spur more investment in storage.

As for rooftop solar, Saddler notes that the share of residential solar in the grid is still relatively small but, despite excess solar risks flagged by distributors, it is the most steadily growing generation source in the NEM.

That line is expected to grow steadily. By 2040, or perhaps 2050, the share of distributed generation, which includes rooftop solar, battery storage and demand management, is expected to reach nearly half of all Australia’s grid demand.

Saddler, says, however, that the increase in large-scale solar over the last few months is a significant milestone in Australia’s transition towards clean electricity generation, mirroring trends in India's on-grid solar development seen in recent years. (See very top graph).

“Firstly, they are a concrete demonstration that the construction cost advantage, which wind enjoyed over solar until a year or two ago, is gone.

“From now on we can expect new capacity to be a mix of both technologies. Indeed, the Clean Energy Regulator states that it expects solar to account for half of all (new renewable) capacity by 2020, and the US is moving toward 30% from wind and solar as well.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Oil and Gas Profitability Decline reflects shale-driven oversupply, OPEC-Russia dynamics, LNG exports, renewables growth, and weak demand, signaling compressed margins for producers, stressed petrodollar budgets, and shifting energy markets post-Covid.

Key Points

A sustained squeeze on hydrocarbon margins from agile shale supply, weaker OPEC leverage, and expanding renewables.

✅ Shale responsiveness caps prices and erodes industry rents

✅ OPEC-Russia cuts face limited impact versus US supply

✅ Renewables and EVs slow long-term oil and gas demand

The oil-price crash of March 2020 will probably not last long. As in 2014, when the oil price dropped below $50 from $110 in a few weeks, this one will trigger a temporary collapse of the US shale industry. Unless the coronavirus outbreak causes Armageddon, cheap oil will also support policymakers’ efforts to help the global economy.

But there will be at least one important and lasting difference this time round — and it has major market and geopolitical implications.

The oil price crash is a foretaste of where the whole energy sector was going anyway — and that is down.

It may not look that way at first. Saudi Arabia will soon realise, as it did in 2015, that its lethal decision to pump more oil is not only killing US shale but its public finances as well. Riyadh will soon knock on Moscow’s door again. Once American shale supplies collapse, Russia will resume co-operation with Saudi Arabia.

With the world economy recovering from the Covid-19 crisis by then, and with electricity demand during COVID-19 shifting, moderate supply cuts by both countries will accelerate oil market recovery. In time, US shale producers will return too.

Yet this inevitable bounceback should not distract from two fundamental factors that were already remaking oil and gas markets. First, the shale revolution has fundamentally eroded industry profitability. Second, the renewables’ revolution will continue to depress growth in demand.

The combined result has put the profitability of the entire global hydrocarbon industry under pressure. That means fewer petrodollars to support oil-producing countries’ national budgets, including Canada's oil sector exposures. It also means less profitable oil companies, which traditionally make up a large segment of stock markets, an important component of so many western pension funds.

Start with the first factor to see why this is so. Historically, the geological advantages that made oil from countries such as Saudi Arabia so cheap to produce were unique. Because oil and gas were produced at costs far below the market price, the excess profits, or “rent”, enjoyed by the industry were very large.

Furthermore, collusion among low-cost producers has been a winning strategy. The loss of market share through output cuts was more than compensated by immediately higher prices. It was the raison d’être of Opec.

The US shale revolution changed all this, exposing the limits of U.S. energy dominance narratives. A large oil-producing region emerged with a remarkable ability to respond quickly to price changes and shrink its costs over time. Cutting back cheap Opec oil now only increases US supplies, with little effect on world prices.

That is why Russia refused to cut production this month. Even if its cuts did boost world prices — doubtful given the coronavirus outbreak’s huge shock to demand — that would slow the shrinkage of US shale that Moscow wants.

Shale has affected the natural gas industry even more. Exports of US liquefied natural gas now put an effective ceiling on global prices, and debates over a clean electricity push have intensified when gas prices spike.

On top of all this, there is also the renewables’ revolution, though a green revolution has not been guaranteed in the near term. Around the world, wind and solar have become ever-cheaper options to generate electricity. Storage costs have also dropped and network management improved. Even in the US, renewables are displacing coal and gas. Electrification of vehicle fleets will damp demand further, as U.S. electricity, gas, and EVs face evolving pressures.

Eliminating fossil fuel consumption completely would require sustained and costly government intervention, and reliability challenges such as coal and nuclear disruptions add to the complexity. That is far from certain. Meanwhile, though, market forces are depressing the sector’s usual profitability.

The end of oil and gas is not immediately around the corner. Still, the end of hydrocarbons as a lucrative industry is a distinct possibility. We are seeing that in dramatic form in the current oil price crash. But this collapse is merely a message from the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News