logo
A New IEA Report and the Iberian Blackout End Dreams of an 'Energy Transition'

A New IEA Report and the Iberian Blackout End Dreams of an 'Energy Transition'

Yahoo16-05-2025
It's no secret that the Republican's 'Big Beautiful Bill' plans to axe large swaths of mandates and billions of dollars in subsidies directed at achieving a so-called 'energy transition.' If that budget axe falls, it will be the proverbial third strike that puts to rest the idea that the U.S., never mind the world, will abandon fossil fuels. The other two strikes already happened.
Strike two came last month with the Great Iberian blackout. Preliminary forensics make clear that over-enthusiastic deployment of unreliable solar and wind power was the fulcrum that put 55 million people in the dark for days. Few politicians will want to risk allowing something like that to happen again, anywhere. And, as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation keeps warning, blackout risks are rising here, and for the same reason. Reliability used to be the core feature of electric grid designs, before the rush to push an energy transition in service of climate goals.
And strike one came a few weeks prior to the Iberian calamity with the release of a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) titled Energy and AI. That report sought to answer the question about how to reliably meet the surprising jump in power demands expected in the coming decade's boom in artificial intelligence (AI) data centers. Answering that also answers, even if not intentionally, the same question about meeting society's future demands.
As the IEA report noted, just one large AI data center uses as much electricity as two million households, and myriads are planned. Thus, digital infrastructures will soon create demands equivalent to—reliably—powering hundreds of millions of new households. Spoiler alert: the IEA forecast shows fossil fuels continue to play a central role.
However, since the IEA is the chief cheerleader for an energy transition, the executive summary of this latest report leads by observing that half the expected data center demand will be 'met by renewables.' Not until deep into that report's 300 pages does one find the candid observation that natural gas supplies the other half in the U.S., and coal fills that role in China. The IEA's framing of the answer is a glass-half-full view of a failed vision, especially considering that trillions of dollars have been invested so far in pursuing the transition goal.
Meanwhile, counting on far more renewables to supply half of new demands means ignoring the political and economic headwinds for U.S. solar and wind deployments. Long before the November 2024 election, or the Iberian grid collapse, the IEA itself flagged what many now know: China has unprecedented global dominance in wind and solar supply chains. Setting aside tariff impacts, the kind of spending required to build-out transition hardware would entail a massive wealth transfer to China. At the same time, it has become obvious that jamming wind and solar onto grids wreaks economic havoc on consumers. The economic fallout is starkly visible in Germany and the U.K., for example, where aggressive transition policies are further along, and have rendered those nations 'poster children' for de-industrialization and energy poverty.
Cost of power, however, is not the central issue for the data center industry. After all, it has deep pockets. The Magnificent Seven, collectively, have about a trillion dollars of cash on their books. Even if ratepayers and most businesses are price sensitive, Big Tech is not. Why not just pay the premium for wind and solar?
The answer: The prime drivers in digital domains are reliability and velocity. It's vital to ensure that power is ready when construction is done, i.e., the very near future. And it's vital to deliver that power continuously and reliably once operations start. Thus, we're seeing an almost covert reliance on massive quantities of natural gas turbines in nearly all the announced projects from Meta's Louisiana site, to Amazon's Virginia sites, to Microsoft's sites, and to Open AI's Stargate site in Texas. As Nvidia executive Josh Parker said at a recent energy conference, the tech community wants 'all options on the table' because at 'the end of the day, we need power. We just need power.' Likewise, households from Iberia to Indiana. Of course, nuclear energy is on everyone's wish list, but there's no prospect that it will make a significant contribution during the coming decade of furious data center buildout.
This doesn't mean Big Tech or the IEA are backing off climate pledges. Nor does it mean the climate debate is settled. Nor will we see any diminution in transition fervor from the climate-industrial complex. Likely that fervor heats up as the Trump Administration attempts to deliver on its promise to defund the panoply of climate-energy programs marbled throughout federal agencies.
What it does mean is that whatever one believes about the science of the climate, the fact is that mandates and subsidies can't change the physics of energy systems. Systems that can deliver reliable power at the scales necessary for robust growth remain anchored in precisely the fuels the transitionists want to abandon.<>
Mark P. Mills is the executive director of the National Center for Energy Analytics, and the author of The Cloud Revolution.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What to know about First Amendment issues in Trump's lawsuit against Wall Street Journal
What to know about First Amendment issues in Trump's lawsuit against Wall Street Journal

USA Today

time29 minutes ago

  • USA Today

What to know about First Amendment issues in Trump's lawsuit against Wall Street Journal

Trump filed the lawsuit on July 18, accusing WSJ of defamation. President Donald Trump's lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, filed in South Florida, raises potential First Amendment concerns regarding freedom of the press, speech and accountability. The Wall Street Journal reported July 17 about a leather-bound birthday book given to the late multi-millionaire investor and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 for his 50th birthday, with letters from friends and family — and one of them bearing Trump's signature. The president's attorney in Miami promptly filed a federal lawsuit against the Journal, its publisher, its parent company, two executives and the two reporters who wrote the story. The suit is significant because it presents challenges to multiple First Amendment issues: defamation, freedom of press, freedom of speech and state laws that are meant to protect speech from costly lawsuits. The federal filing comes at a time of nationwide clamor to pressure the Trump administration to release documents related to Epstein's case, where online conspiracy theorists and even Democratic and Republican members of Congress alike have encouraged releasing more information. Here's what to know about the suit at a time when Trump has been scrutinized nationally for deflecting focus away from the Epstein matter: WSJ may SLAPP Trump's $10 billion lawsuit away Florida is one of 38 states with anti-SLAPP laws in place, which are meant to protect free speech. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, a type of lawsuit intended to intimidate, silence, or punish critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense, even if the case lacks merit. SLAPPs are often used against individuals or organizations who speak out on matters of public interest, such as journalists, activists, or whistleblowers. Traditionally, whether anti-SLAPP state laws apply in federal court is a topic of controversy, but attorneys for the Journal could argue for Trump to pay its attorney fees using Florida's anti-SLAPP provision. But the complaint against the Journal, in which Trump is requesting strikingly high damages of $10 billion, would fall under Florida's anti-SLAPP law, said David Keating, the president of the Institute for Free Speech. A representative of the Wall Street Journal declined comment on the case, including questions of whether the newspaper would use the state anti-SLAPP law. A request for comment to Trump's attorney who filed the lawsuit, Alejandro Brito, is pending. The nitty-gritty in this Florida case This case was filed in the U.S. Southern District of Florida court by Trump's attorney in Miami, Alejandro Brito. He also filed a 2023 lawsuit against Trump's then-attorney Michael Cohen for $500 million, saying Cohen violated attorney-client relationship. Trump dropped the lawsuit months later. Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles will be presiding over Trump's lawsuit against the Journal. Gayles, who was the first openly gay Black man appointed as a federal judge, also oversaw Trump's case against Cohen. A potentially short-lived lawsuit? The Journal's case could have a similar fate to Cohen's – and end promptly in Trump's team potentially filing for dismissal. Cases involving the First Amendment have more complexity in proving whether defamation or libel are at play, said Lyrissa Lidsky, a First Amendment law professor at the University of Florida. Lidsky said Trump's litigious background demonstrates a history of using suits strategically against his critics. She said the Journal's main battle is demonstrating the steps reporters took in verifying the reliability of the sources they used in the story. "He knows that the filing of a defamation lawsuit could be a symbolic way to contest the truth that has been written about you, even if you never end up making it to trial," Lidsky said. The First Amendment protects the press to write and publish without fear of government retaliation, but defamation is not protected by the First Amendment. Defamation is the act of making a false statement about someone that harms their reputation. A person who claims defamation usually asks for financial damages from the person who defamed them. Public officials have a higher bar in libel cases under the U.S. Supreme Court's New York Times v. Sullivan case. They have to prove "actual malice," meaning a news organization knew the information was false and acted with reckless disregard for the truth. In many cases, journalists and media outlets are accused of defamation when it comes to news on high-profile court cases. Trump previously sued outlets like CNN, New York Times and the Washington Post for defamation over the past five years – and most of these resulted in dismissal. This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat.

Fishing groups push to postpone protections for endangered right whale to 2035
Fishing groups push to postpone protections for endangered right whale to 2035

San Francisco Chronicle​

time29 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Fishing groups push to postpone protections for endangered right whale to 2035

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A Maine congressman and several commercial fishing groups are getting behind a push to delay rules designed to protect a vanishing species of whale for 10 years. The North Atlantic right whale numbers only about 370 and has declined over the last 15 years. They have been the subject of proposed federal fishing laws that are backed by conservation groups because the whales are threatened by lethal entanglement in commercial fishing gear. The federal government is in the midst of a pause on federal right whale rules until 2028. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine and a coalition of fishing organizations said in letters to congressional officials that they want to extend that moratorium out to 2035. Golden, who played a role in the initial moratorium, said extending the pause would give the government the time it needs to craft regulations that reflect science. He also said it would protect Maine's lifesblood lobster fishing industry, which is one of the fishing sectors that would have to comply with rules intended to protect right whales. 'Maine's lobster fishery has most recently been valued at more than half a billion dollars — and that's just the value of the catch. It also supports tens of thousands of jobs. It is an iconic part of our state's economy, heritage and appeal to visitors,' Golden said in a July 22 letter to a subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee. The extension of the moratorium was originally proposed by Alaska Republican Nick Begich. It's one of several changes to the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act proposed by Begich, who like Golden represents a state with a large commercial fishing industry. The changes have drawn condemnation from environmental organizations and praise from commercial fishing groups. A group of fishing organizations including the Maine Lobstermen's Association said in a July 21 letter to the subcommittee that 'heavy regulation comes at a heavy cost.' The whales were once numerous off the East Coast, but they were decimated during the era of commercial whaling and have been slow to recover. They are also threatened by collisions with large ships. The population of the whales fell about 25% from 2010 to 2020.

Goodbye stagflation: 3 reasons BofA sees the US economy avoiding a worst-case scenario
Goodbye stagflation: 3 reasons BofA sees the US economy avoiding a worst-case scenario

Business Insider

time30 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

Goodbye stagflation: 3 reasons BofA sees the US economy avoiding a worst-case scenario

The US economy may have successfully steered clear of a dire outcome many observers were warning of just a few months ago. That's according to analysts at Bank of America, who said they believe the US economy could be more on track for a cyclical boom rather than an episode of stagflation, a nightmare situation in which inflation rises while economic growth slows. Stagflation is commonly thought of as even worse than a typical recession, as policymakers are prevented from cutting interest rates to boost the economy. For a while, that scenario was one of the biggest fears on investors' minds as they weighed the impact of Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs. But strategists said they think the economy is now leaning away from such a situation, even as many global fund managers surveyed by the bank said in June that they thought the global economy would slip into stagflation over the next 12 months. "The latest fund manager survey shows a small increase in investors expecting a Boom rather than the base case of Stagflation," analysts wrote, defining a "boom" as above-trend economic growth and above-trend inflation. "We agree with this building minority, and present below corroboration from our quantitative work," they added. Here are three reasons the bank sees stagflation risk fading. 1. Trump's pro-growth agenda President Donald Trump's America-first economic agenda is expected to act as a tailwind to the US economy, BofA strategists said. The bank pointed to stimulus measures included in Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," as well as the push to boost activity in US manufacturing. "Moreover, with mid-term elections a few quarters away, it behooves the current administration to implement pro-growth policy now," the bank's strategists added. 2. Big spending Companies and the public sector are spending big on artificial intelligence, infrastructure, and manufacturing, BofA said. For AI in particular, analysts said they were expecting $700 billion in capex from the so-called hyperscalers through 2025 and 2026, with "upward revisions each quarter." "The number of companies outside of the US planning to expand manufacturing capacity in the US continues to increase. Municipalities have also refocused on infrastructure with aged capital stock fraying as domestic activity increases," they added. 3. Economic recovery mode Bank of America's US Regime Indicator, a gauge for where the US currently is in the business cycle, looks to be "on the brink" of an economic recovery, analysts said. The US Regime Indicator ticked lower in June, which indicates that the economy is still in a "downturn" phase. Downturn phases are typically followed by economic recovery phases, the bank suggested. The US Regime Indicator saw six inputs from the economy improve last month, strategists noted, which also suggests that the economy could soon be on the uptrend. Here were the six positive changes analysts saw: Earnings per share revisions. Earnings revision breadth bottomed out around -25% in April, according to Morgan Stanley data. Since then, it's improved to -5%, the bank said in a June note, implying that the market is growing more optimistic on corporate earnings. GDP forecasts. Despite a contraction in the first quarter, real GDP was projected to expand 2.8% year-over-year in the second-quarter, according to advanced estimates from the Commerce Department. Manufacturing strength. The Institute for Supply Management's Production Index, one measure of activity in manufacturing, rose to 50.3 in June, which signals that production moved into expansionary territory. Leading Economic Indicators. A collection of economic indicators showed signs of improvement on a year-over-year basis, BofA said. Capacity Utility. The use of "installed productive capacity" in the goods and services sector also improved on a year-over-year basis, strategists added. High-yield credit spreads. Credit spreads—which is the yield paid over a benchmark—have narrowed, which signals higher investor confidence and lower levels of financial stress among companies.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store