By Vijay Jayaraj
Having discerned the Green New Deal as fraudulent, President Trump’s shift to maximize proven energy technologies may very well be America’s salvation from an economic disaster that climate policies were sure to deliver.
The forced “transition” to alternative energy – relentlessly evangelized by policymakers, environmentalists, and corporate titans – promised to save humanity from purported perils of climate change. But far from being a solution, the movement proved a perilous misadventure, fundamentally misaligned with real-world energy demands.
For decades, fossil fuels – coal, oil, and natural gas – alongside nuclear power, have met global energy needs with unmatched efficiency. Together, they account for over 84% of global energy consumption, a figure that has barely budged despite years of green rhetoric and subsidies.
Unlike wind and solar, coal and nuclear plants can churn out electricity continuously month after month, rain or shine. The amount of land and materials required for such production is but a fraction of what wind turbines and solar panels take to produce equal amounts of electrons.
Oil and natural gas fuel nearly all transportation and serve as chemical feedstock for a dizzying array of products ranging from pharmaceuticals to ubiquitous plastics – roles that so-called renewables are incapable of filling. The reliability and versatility of hydrocarbons are not luxuries but necessities. If we didn’t have fossil fuels, we would have to invent them.
The green transition’s advocates often gloss over these realities, assuming that technological breakthroughs will magically bridge the gap. But hope is not a strategy.
Germany’s Energiewende, a decades-long experiment in renewable energy, has delivered soaring electricity prices – among the highest in Europe – and required a continued use of coal to back up the intermittent production of wind and solar. In the United States, California’s aggressive push for solar and wind has led to rolling blackouts and skyrocketing utility bills. Both are examples of ideology taking precedence over sensible energy planning.
Germany and California are not anomalies but a preview of what any chaser of the green unicorn would face eventually. An imposed switch from fossil fuels is affordable only for those who can bear its inefficiencies, leaving the majority of the world with diminished living standards and shortened lives.
Moreover, energy is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Nations are endowed with unique resources, and their energy strategies must reflect the differences. Canada, for instance, harnesses its mighty rivers to generate over 60% of its electricity from hydropower – a capacity that wind and solar can’t replicate.
France’s fleet of nuclear reactors produces over 70% of the country’s power, a model of efficiency that sunlight and breezes can’t match. The Middle East, sitting atop vast oil and gas reserves, powers itself and much of the world with fuels that remain indispensable for transportation and manufacturing.
This diversity is not a flaw to be corrected but a strength to be embraced. India’s coal reserves, for example, are a lifeline for a nation where 300 million people still lack reliable electricity. Switching to imported solar panels or untested hydrogen would not only drain its coffers but also cede energy security to foreign suppliers.
Customized energy strategies, predominantly rooted in fossil fuels and nuclear, leverage available resources and efficient technologies without massive solar and wind industrial installations smothering arable land and scenic vistas.
Beyond economics, tailored energy strategies bolster national sovereignty. Relying on local fossil fuels or nuclear capacity means less dependence on foreign supply chains – a critical edge in an unstable world.
The green agenda, on the other hand, demanded conformity. Every nation had to adopt the same playbook – mainly solar and wind – regardless of local realities. Poor nations, in particular, require flexibility to develop economically, which can only be impeded by green mandates.
The Green New Deal was dangerous dogma masquerading as progress. Fossil fuels and nuclear power must remain central to the global energy mix, not because they are traditional but because they are needed.
The green fantasy has been a product of hubris – a belief that human ingenuity could defy nature’s limits and economic gravity in a single bound. The Trump administration is abandoning this mirage and embracing energy sources that are abundant, affordable and attuned to the world as it is rather than as the deluded wish it to be.
This commentary was first published at Townhall on March 13, 2025.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
_____________________
Prayer isn’t either. Our atheistic friends on the left really don’t try either one. They seem to assume that because there have been lots of break throughs in the past that surly there will be one that allows wind & solar to “Turn the Corner” and become viable. They also don’t subscribe to the law of diminishing returns.
Agree. Sounds chapter and verse like the faith the public has in we petroleum engineers, to continue to produce more oil, from worse reservoirs, cheaper. Since that’s already flipping and burning, results wise, I hope that we are thusly disabused.
Now, as oil/gas prices spike with Hubbert’s curve movement, there will be flashes of activity for both renewable and fossil fuel sectors. But in the blink of an eye, human historically, we will be left with only renewables and whatever we can hat pull from SMR’s…
SMR = Service, Maintenance and Repair
I think nuclear generating stations are a better idea.
See: Columbia Generating Station, WA State
SMR
Saint Mary’s Ryken
Standardized Mortality Ratio
Suppression Of Mite Reproduction
Semiconductor mask representation
Sites and Monuments Record
Standardized Mortality Ratio
Submucous Resection
Santa Marta, Colombia
Sensory Motor Rhythm
Source Maintenance and Recoverability
Stratton Mountain Resort
Snowdon Mountain Railway
Supra Majority Rule
Shadow Movie Realm
Slackers Movie Rentals
Social Media Revolution
selective message router
special management review
software maintenance responsibility
Scrap Metal Recycler
Safe Money Resource
South Mississippi Regional
Sundance Mountain Resort
Schweitzer Mountain Resort
Snowshoe Mountain Resort
Suzuki Motor Rus
Southwest Missouri Realty
Sea Machines Robotics
Solitude Mountain Resort
Serranos Mexican Restaurant
Salon Mario Russo
Summit Mountain Rentals
Seventh Mountain Resort
Smart Moves Recruitment
Security Management Resources
Selection Matters Recruitment
…
I was going for Small Modular Reactors. Which is why I generally agree with you.
I doubt that old timey designs are the wave of the future, but would be interested in why you think they are a “better idea”. To bone throw, I’m not seeing that CGS is intrinsically safe, but I’m open to all good designs, big or small. As long as we get long term nuc storage for the trash we’re already bequeathing to thousands of future gens, the incremental risk from more might be worth it.
Send nuke waste into the sun.
Unserious, but write up a proposal. FYI. in superterranea, you’d be the first…
Why is it unserious? It might not be plausible right now, but in a decade, two, who knows.
Put it on the back side of the moon. There was a TV show about that in the 70’s
How much real waste is there? If I recall, France recycles/repurposes/reuses much of the “waste” from nuke plants for other purposes, including medical radiation and MOX for more nuclear fuel, then turn what’s truly waste in to glass and store it in caves. Orano(?) is the company the recycles the waste at scale.
Focus on “much”. You still have a long term storage requirement. I think we can handle it, And what we produce later, at almost no EXTRA risk. But you can’t click your slippers 10 times and wish it away…
Reprocess it. Problem solved.
Nope Problem delayed.
Everything long lived is fuel. Everything short lived is not a problem.
Problem 100% solved.
Since Nuclear Fuel rods are only about 3% used fuel they could be reprocessed and reused instead of just tossed like waste
The U.S has a world class site for partly spent nuclear fuel where it can be stored for future use for fueling fast neutron breeder reactors. The facility was at the cusp of completion when Obama and the late Senator Harry Reid conspired to halt the project. The site is still there, just requires completion.
The key is incentivizing the State of Nevada to request completion of the project. The entire U.S will benefit from the nuclear renaissance so federal support is appropriate. My recommendation is paying every Nevada citizen a fee for every kilo-gram stored, just like The State of Alaska does with their oil production.
California could supply all their needs from 24 additional “Diablo Canyons” (48-1,100MW units) with a Peak Demand of 46,244MW in July 2024
And do so from less acreage that the Current Topaz Solar Farm uses to produce 146MW.
Small Modular could be placed adjacent to existing Distribution Substations effectively eliminating the need for the grid and all those Transmission Lines that have been a cause of wildfires
John, mega-scale legacy nuclear generation in America is as obsolete as coal generation. The long construction periods provide fertile ground for groundless delay tactics from the highly organized and proven successful nuclear opponent organizations and their eager to please them activist judges. They won the battle, move on. Assembly line factories producing cookie cutter identical plug and play SMR’s that are transported to the jobsite on semi-trailers reduce that obstructionist window from 10 years to two years.
In other words we will be left with Nuclear as the only viable, affordable option for reliable energy output. Something Wind and Solar can’t do without ultra expensive, potentially explosive and highly toxic Battery Back-up
“In other words we will be left with Nuclear as the only viable, affordable option for reliable energy output.”
I doubt it. But all we DO know is that oil and gas are leaving the building, in the blink of an eye, w.r.t human history.
And we also Know that Wind and Solar are useless part time sources without Expansive, Expensive and Explosive Battery Back-up
With Wind and Solar, if you need additional power you don’t have the option to add more fuel.
No Sunlight at night!
No Wind when outside the goldilocks zone!
No Battery when they’re burning!
And they’re relatively short lived potentially needed constant replacement after storms or every 15-20 years.
“But all we DO know is that oil and gas are leaving the building”
You know no such thing.
Many parts of the globe haven’t even been looked at.
For several decades some have said we’re going to run out of oil any day. So you petroleum engineers have done a good job- at least those who are optimistic. 🙂
Bob is one of those people who believe that any drop in production, regardless of cause, is proof that he’s finally right and we are NOW running out of oil.
Production is not dropping. But proved, developed, producing reserves – the only kind that actually matters – are. I’ve told you both why the decline was temporarily delayed, and the half dozen, non 46 or 47, boring old geologic and petroleum engineering/economic reasons for why we’re re-entering earth orbit now. But you choose to hold your ears and yell “III CCAANNNTT HHEAAARR YYOOOUUU” at your lung top.
How’s the sandwich placard going ! I see it is still your only attire.
In what passes as your mind, oil doesn’t exist until someone has put a pipe into it? No wonder you are so deluded.
“For several decades some have said we’re going to run out of oil any day.”
Who you mean, “We” kemosabie.
Yes, we got a 15-20 year reprieve, from a super lucky confluence of the right rock, in the right country, with the right industry configuration, Ben Dover state and federal environmental, safety, health, enforcement, and folks willing to change tech in the face of drying up. Also Stupid Money. But at best it was a $ trade. Now, we’re out of good rock, drilling and completion CapEx, lateral length and frac size increases that make economic sense. Parent/child interference, frac hits, hands leaving the biz, all prevalent. The name of the game is to manage Harvest Mode. Accretive M&A. Dividends. Buybacks. Rent seeking to be able to shirk plugging and abandoning tens of thousands of miles long, flat, hydraulically incompetent laterals – that you pledged to take care of.
Sorry Mr. Zorzin, time’z up….
Talk about “Rent Seeking” now you’re definitely talking about Wind and Solar which simply can’t compete without both huge government Subsidies AND “Take or Pay” regulations
It is funny watching your manic hysteria.
There is enough oil, gas, and coal to last many centuries.
“…at least those who are optimistic”
Yah, we’re running out of FF’s because of petroleum engineers with bad attitudes. Channels that “All engineers are wreckers” line from the ’30’s. If you don’t know who said that, someone here sure does..
No, we are not running out of Fossil Fuels. !
Try limiting your replies to an individual user to three per thread, otherwise you’re bordering on harassment.
We’ve been running out of Fossil Fuels since 1859 when we started drilling and pumping in Pennsylvania. We further started running out of Fossil Fuels in 1880 when Coal started being used to generate Electricity. We’ve been running out of Fossil Fuels for 167 years soooo when will we truly start running out?
We’ve been at Peak FF since
197319791987199720012010???When I was in college in 1971, our ASME chapter had an oil rep come in to talk to us about oil production. The one thing I remember was, yes we are always running out of oil. When we get to less than 20 years, we go out and punch a few holes in the ground.
Yes Bob, 100 years in geologic time is less than a blink of an eye, but that SMR hat will be annually providing hundreds of >50<100 MW SMR’s by 2050. The only question is will the U.S reap the international economic bonanza from meeting the demand or will we continue with the liberal/progressive business model that says mine and manufacture nothing, import everything to “save energy” and reduce emissions.
Reality eludes them.
I don’t object to R & D funding. It’s the forced adaption of half-baked technologies we need to stop.
“…that surly there will be one…”
Don’t call me surly.
So, my insistence on sticking with investing in Oil, Gas and Coal companies, in spite of advice to the opposite, is paying off. Stick with reality, chi’drens, it always wins in the end. Just like gravity.
Please specify which investments, which time periods. The only currently employed oilfield trasher that I know of, who comments here*, is working for an outfit circling the drain. And even Chris Wright’s old gig is leaving oil and gas behind, to concentrate on portable energy generation.
[snip, personal attack~ctm]
I miss a Trump for Germany
NO. An “imposed switch from fossil fuels” IS IMPOSSIBLE.
You cannot build a windmill, a solar panel, an EV, or a battery without all energy inputs and materials being sourced from coal, oil and gas.
Again, NO. “Switching to hydrogen” IS IMPOSSIBLE. Hydrogen is not, and will never be, an ‘energy source.’
Hydrogen is “The Elizabeth Taylor of Elements.” It is always “married” to something else. And the “divorce” will consume more energy that can ever be gotten by burning it after producing it.
Hydrogen is an energy SINK, not an energy SOURCE.
Nuclear for baseload and natural gas for load following is a winning combination.
Arguable. All the more reason to stretch out our NG supplies.
Under the North Sea there are huge coal seams, enough to fulfil our needs for centuries and make Britain an energy giant. Difficult to recover maybe, but the technology exists to ‘gasify’ it in place.
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/fracking-is-for-amateurs/
“Scientists have discovered vast deposits of coal lying under the North Sea, which could provide enough energy to power Britain for centuries.
Experts believe there is between 3 and 23 trillion tonnes of coal buried in the seabed starting from the northeast coast and stretching far out under the sea.
Data from seismic tests and boreholes shows that the seabed holds up to 20 layers of coal – much of which could be reached with the technology already used to extract oil and gas.
In comparison: so far the world extracted ‘merely’ 0.135 trillion ton of oil, a small fraction of the coal reserves located beneath the North-Sea.”
Best o’ luck with that – 10 years on.
But maybe I can find another magical energy source. I’ll start by checking out the Rosicrucians – from the back flap of those late ’50’s Popular Mechanics mags…
No need to go there. Cold Fusion is magical enough, meaning not at all.
Any fusion is magical thinking. It has to be the most expensive, and therefore the stupidest, way to generate electricity ever proposed. I can tell you the exact date when it becomes practical- the 12th of Never.
Just like everything else you say… based on fantasy !!
It’s not luck that’s needed, rather to be rid of idiot politicians that have suppressed the release of plant food for four decades now.
When are you going to total wind/solar, Boob? And prove it when you do.
Coal for baseload too. We have plenty.
“Nuclear for baseload and natural gas for load following ”
nuclear plants can be designed to load follow ….
Think about nuc submarines …
😉
The United States Navy will never allow the specific technologies and procedures which make xenon poisoning a nonissue for their reactors to become public knowledge, so they will never be utilized for commercial power generation.
Synthetic fuel other than methanol from corn has somehow been left of the energy equation Genetically modified algae aka “green crude” is in my view something to utilize along with Fischer-Tropsch. The last time this came about it was fracking that won out but it seems to have faded
of late. An all of the above might prevail IMO.
Very nice Vijay. The worst part is that our governments have mandated us to accept lies. Anyone forcing you to accept lies should be punished to the maximum allowable.
Story Tips
Global Warming Researchers Rescued From Snow | Real Climate Science
Germany’s First Offshore Wind Farm To Be Dismantled After Just 15 Years Of Operation
Promoters of green energy and green products in general saw the fossil fuel-induced climate change theory as an opportunity to promote a scam and profit from it. Then there were enough people in high places—politicians, bureaucrats, academics, environmentalists, and manufacturers—who got on board and went all out to convince governments to impose taxes, mandates, laws and restrictions that would force consumers to support them. Except it didn’t take too long for it to become evident that these new gimmicks couldn’t deliver consistent energy sources at reasonable prices. Fortunately the Trump administration was wise enough to put the brakes on the con job, and hopefully other governments will also see the light.
My last thought on this nuclear thread:
Discussion of small nuclear reactors began on WUWT, maybe 12 years (+/-3) ago with someone name Col Mossberg or similar. My response then and now is the 10/100/1000 rule. That means —
Get 10 operational and connected to a grid, another 100 planned, permitted, cited, and financed, and an additional 1,000 contracted for. This would prove the concept and acceptability in the USofA. At the moment, it seems, the first ones are expected to be constructed and online by the early 2030s.
With good luck health wise, I may even be alive to see the first one. If the date slips to them-30s, I likely will miss this event.