Essay by Eric Worrall
“… When historians look back at 2025, … the story they will tell is … the U.S. … surrendered … primacy to its … adversary …”
A Low Point of Human Inaction on Climate Change
The second Trump Administration’s assault on the environment has been as damaging as expected, but other developments this year give at least some hope for the future.
By Bill McKibben
December 9, 2025
…
Describing, for instance, his understanding of climate science (invented arguably in its modern form in the United States, whose scientists first tracked the gases accumulating in the atmosphere and then built the computer models allowing us to predict our fate), Donald Trump said, “It used to be global cooling. If you look back years ago in the nineteen-twenties and the nineteen-thirties, they said, Global cooling will kill the world. We have to do something. Then they said, Global warming will kill the world. But then it started getting cooler. It’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion.” Then, with regard to modern environmentalism, one of America’s greatest contributions to the world—a consciousness that allowed our air and water to be cleaned up dramatically over recent decades—Trump said, “In the United States, we have still radicalized environmentalists, and they want the factories to stop. Everything should stop. No more cows. We don’t want cows anymore. I guess they want to kill all the cows. They want to do things that are just unbelievable.”
…
And yet, it’s at least possible that Trump and company’s assault on environmental norms is more shrill than confident. Because something else happened this year that gives at least some hope for the future: the remarkable rise in clean, renewable energy, which set every kind of record in 2025. In May, in a rush to get solar farms up before a subsidies-for-growth policy ended, China was installing an average of three gigawatts of solar capacity a day—the U.S. installed a total of twenty-one gigawatts in the first three quarters of this year. …
Similar transitions have been occurring almost everywhere …
…
Or maybe it’s America that’s in trouble. When historians look back at 2025, I think the story they will tell is that, in the course of just a few months, the U.S. voluntarily surrendered technological and economic primacy to its theoretical chief adversary in the course of just a few months. China’s green-energy exports this year, through July, were one and a half times the size of American oil and gas exports in the same period. …
…
Read more: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/2025-in-review/climate-change-donald-trump
Let me see if I got this right. It’s a “Low point of Human Inaction on Climate Change”, but renewable energy “set every kind of record in 2025”.
Which is it Bill?
The proof that President Trump is right about renewables being horribly expensive and in no way the future is the cost of electricity in California.
If the cost of electricity in hardline green places like California was to fall substantially, to become the cheapest electricity in the USA, I’d be interested in how they did it. We all would. But the reality is once you add the cost of maintaining an entire second generation system, whether that be gas turbines which are kept on standby most of the time, or enormous overcapacity and days or weeks of battery backup capacity, renewables are insanely expensive. And will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Bill also managed to ignore the AI climate action wrecking ball in his article. You can’t just close your eyes and wish it would all go away Bill, energy guzzling AI is here to stay. My prediction, by 2030 even California will cave. If California wants to remain a tech center, they’ll have to embrace cheap energy, just like everyone else.
It is Bill McKibben and his fellow greens who are becoming desperate and shrill. Thanks to AI, our energy sanity victory is now inevitable. But it’s going to be fun watching the green Kabuki show, as those who have inflicted so much punishment on our society with their promotion of incoherent energy ideas are forced to watch the final collapse of all their grandiose Net Zero dreams.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Billy lives in an apocalyptic fantasy in his head and twists everything to support his narrative. Mental illness is sad. Stop doomscrolling, Billy. Take your meds and embrace the real world.
McGibbon started 350.org..
So this is just for you, Homer…
I fail to see why I should give a damn what Bill McKibben thinks or says.
Good news, they just announced the Diablo Canyon nuclear energy facility in CA will remain in use until at least 2030 instead of shutting it down now as planned. Over the last two decades my electrical usage bill has increased 68%. My November bill was 15% more than the same period last year despite a 2% drop in usage. Probably numbers the people in the EU are envious of. Renewables are a burn down the village to save it plan.
Cost Comparison for Diablo Canyon vs Solar + Storage vs CCGT
Extending Diablo Canyon’s license for 25 years costs about $1.4 billion, producing roughly 18,000 GWh/year. Spread over 25 years, that’s 450,000 GWh, making the capital cost only 0.31¢/kWh. Add nuclear fuel and O&M (~3.2¢/kWh), and the total is about 3.5¢/kWh.
To match that output with solar at 25% capacity factor and 40 hours of battery storage at $500/kWh, you’d need 4 GW of solar plus 160 GWh of storage, costing about $84 billion. Over 25 years, that’s 18.6¢/kWh for capital plus ~1¢ for O&M, totaling ~19.6¢/kWh.
A new combined-cycle gas plant running at 67% CF would cost about $3.06 billion in capital (0.68¢/kWh) plus fuel and O&M (~3.4¢/kWh assuming gas at $5/mcf — currently under $3/mcf), for a total of ~4.1¢/kWh.
Bottom line: Diablo Canyon extension ≈ 3.5¢/kWh, CCGT ≈ 4.1¢/kWh, Solar + 40h storage ≈ 19.6¢/kWh. Nuclear wins on cost and reliability by a huge margin.
Storage costs likely to be significantly higher than calculated, given the need to replace batteries on a regular basis.
The battery storage cost is much higher, because:
1) the batteries must not be charged above 80% and not be discharged below 20%, meaning only 60% of capacity is available on a daily basis.
2) the battery system ages at about 1.5% per year, meaning any available capacity decreases
3) the turnkey capital cost is closer to $600/installed kWh delivered as AC at outlet of backend electronics.
4) the battery system plus auxiliaries has an A to Z throughput loss of at least 20%
5) the battery system life is about 15 years, meaning all costs must be amortized over that period
6) a solar system lasts at most 30 years, meaning you need two battery system to cover its life
Now you know why Europe, with a lot of expensive, short-live, wind, solar and battery systems, is no longer viable, because its energy costs/kWh are about 2.5 times higher than the US, plus it is spending more on defense, plus it has to deal with tens of millions of Islamic destroyers of European traditional cultures
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
.
Utility-scale, battery system pricing usually not made public, but for this system it was.
Neoen, in western Australia, turned on its 219 MW/ 877 MWh Tesla Megapack battery, the largest in western Australia.
Ultimately, a 560 MW/2,240 MWh battery system, $1,100,000,000/2,240,000 kWh = $491/kWh, delivered as AC, late 2024 pricing. Smaller capacity systems cost much more than $500/kWh
.
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh; turnkey cost $104.5 million; 104,500,000/181,900 = $574/kWh, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan, 50% of $104.5 million, at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return, 50% of $104.5 million, at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage, 15 years at 10%; loss factor = 1 / (0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (tax credits, 5-y depreciation, loan interest deduction, etc.) is 92.3c/kWh
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt.
.
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) loss factor 1 / (0.9*0.9), HV grid-to-HV grid, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing, storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 15 c/kWh
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION
Almost all existing battery systems operate at less than 10%, see top URL, i.e., new systems would operate at about 92.4 + 15 = 107.4 c/kWh. They are used to stabilize the grid, i.e., frequency control and counteracting up/down W/S outputs. If 40% throughput, 23.1 + 15 = 38.1 c/kWh.
That is on top of the cost/kWh of the electricity taken from the HV grid to charge the batteries
Up to 40% could occur by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, in sunny California and other such states. The more solar systems, the greater the midday peaks.
See top URL for Megapacks required for a one-day wind lull in New England
40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charge above 80% and not discharge below 20%, to perform 24/7/365 service for 15 y, with normal aging.
Owners of battery systems with fires, likely charged above 80% and discharged below 20% to maximize profits.
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia
Regarding any project, Banks and Owners have to be paid, no matter what. I amortized the Bank loan and Owner’s investment
Divide total payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, to get c/kWh, as shown.
Loss factor = 1 / (0.9 *0.9), from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid, i.e., draw about 50 units from HV grid to deliver about 40 units to HV grid. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been misled by self-serving folks, that “battery Nirvana is just around the corner”.
.
NOTE: EV battery packs cost about $135/kWh, before it is installed in the car. Such packs are good for 6 to 8 years, used about 2 h/d, at an average speed of 30 mph. Utility battery systems are used 24/7/365 for 15 years
.
NOTE: Aerial photos of large-scale battery systems with many Megapacks, show many items of equipment, other than the Tesla supply, such as step-down/step-up transformers, switchgear, connections to the grid, land, access roads, fencing, security, site lighting, i.e., the cost of the Tesla supply is only one part of the battery system cost at a site.
.
You raise a point that needs to be included in any honest cost-benefit-analysis:
“Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) loss factor 1 / (0.9*0.9), HV grid-to-HV grid, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing, storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 15 c/kWh.”
I think you are underestimating #6. Decommissioning and restoring nature to it’s original state (this is what we expect here in Norway) is a major component, unless you have a total disregard for a clean nature.
Funny, “the environmentalists” are silent on this topic — even “forget” to include these costs. And that is before we have an honest discussion about treating subsidies as “income”…
Electricity is a service, not a good. Economics lesson 1 teaches us that you cannot store services. Production and consumption are simultaneous.
A battery does not store electricity. It countains chemical energy. The conversion of electrical to chemical and later to electrical energy is horribly wasteful. The battery infra itself is cost prohibitive.
The fundamental difference between oil,gas and electricity is that the first two are energy sources, the last one is an energy carrier. They or not comparable.
Your economic lesson nonsense shows a total lack of understanding of economics. As an economist myself, I can enlighten you that there are 2-3 fundamental input factors (costs) in any economy: #1 energy, #2 labor, (#3 knowhow.) Everything else comes from these… (even cost of capital)
Once you raise the cost of energy (regardless of it’s origin) this adds costs on all levels of the economy. Raised cost for extraction of raw materials, raised costs for transportation, raised cost for production, raised cost for distribution, etc. All of these adds up to a Biden era inflation rate. The cost of energy is THE FUNDAMENTAL input in any economy…
Except that solar/wind does not even last 25 years, while it’s a mere extension for the nuclear power plant. In addition the decommission for solar/wind, with 100s of times the footprint, is huge. Compared to a nuclear plant the size of a football field. These extra costs need to be added for solar/wind.
You are getting lightly. Electricity in Alberta was 3 cents per KWH less than 10 year ago. They charged me 30 cents in Dec 2024. That’s 1000% more. The cause: a political party that briefly came into power bought out all the existing fixed price contracts from the coal fired power stations (>$40m) and shut them down. Now, unless you opt into some fixed price “deal”, everything is floating and at vast expense; some stations were converted to burn natural gas.
So I asked them: If you generate solar power the feed in tariff is ~10 cents and the carbon credit is 1 cent, but at present, they write there is no feed-in tariff at all Go figure:
https://www.alberta.ca/agricultural-carbon-offsets-micro-generation-protocol
“…They charged me 30 cents in Dec 2024. That’s 1000% more…”
Sometimes percentage change does not make any sense at all. Like when the alarmists say the temperatures rose by 100% from 1°C to 2°C. Then they get lost in their math when asked so how much is a rise from 0°C to 1°C?
The answer could allegedly be 1/273*100 = 0.3663% — but the alarmists are not very clever with math — or logic, or physics for that matter! 🙂
Mckibbens publishing in National Geographic regularly was the reason I ended my subscription years ago
Bill Kibben is a Journalist Fraudster
Middlebury College in Vermont, has an Environmental Studies Department.
The Department receives federal and state government grants and alumni bequests to perform environment-related studies
The Department held a Senior Student Seminar (ES 401) during the Winter of 2010 regarding 1) the CO2 emissions of the Campus wood burning plant, and 2) the sequestering of CO2 by the forest owned by the College.
According to the Campus wood burning plant website, the best estimate of wood chip delivery is 20,000 tons of green wood chips per year.
Incorrect CO2 Calculation
The seminar report states: “Thus, a more realistic estimate of carbon emissions is: 20,000, US ton of green wood x 0.50, moisture content x 44/12 x 1 = 36,667 tons of carbon”. See URL, pages 38 and 39.
This calculation is incorrect, because it did not account for the carbon content of dry wood
BTW, the word “carbon” should read “CO2”
http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/255078/original/Winter_2010carbon_sequestration.pdf
Correct CO2 Calculation
The wood chips contain 20,000, US ton of green wood x 0.50, moisture content = 10,000 US ton of dry wood.
The dry wood contains 10,000 US ton of dry wood x 0.487 lb carbon/lb dry wood = 4,870 US ton of carbon.
The CO2 created by combustion is 44/12 x 4,870 = 17,857 US ton of CO2.
The report overstated the CO2 emissions by 36,667/17,856 = 2.05 times
Incorrect Calculation of CO2 Sequestered by the Forest
The report states: “Middlebury College-owned forests, 1295 ha (3200 acre), will sequester about 9,905 US ton of carbon/y, or 9905/3200 = 3.095 US ton of carbon/acre, or 44/12 x 3.095 = 11.35 US ton of CO2/acre. See URL, page 39, table 7
For reference: Vermont forestland, 4,511,000 acres, sequestered about 4,390,000 metricton of CO2, or 0.973 metric ton of CO2/acre, or 1.073 US ton of CO2/acre, per US Forest Service.
https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/The_Forest_Ecosystem/Library/Forest%20Carbon%20Inventory%20_Mar%202017_final.pdf
The report overstated the sequestered CO2 by 11.35/1.073 = 10.6 times
I sent McKibben a copy of my numbers
He told me he would forward it to the proper persons
Those are the type of enviros who fear-monger us, are taxing us, are mandating us, and are telling us what to do with our hard-earned money.
They should be reduced to nothing
I love when people hold China up as the example, like they never build useless infrastructure to boost economic figures or their international reputation. Like, yes, they may be building a lot of renewables, but as far as I can tell, that’s window dressing, like all the ghost cities they have. Their economy runs on fossil fuels.
Yes, in addition to the renewables, largely for export to the gullible West, I suspect, China is building a lot of coal-powered plants. Does anybody actually manufacture the equipment for renewables using renewable energy?
Of course not. If they used solar PV power, the system would run down because the energy return on energy invested is below 100%. The economy that was making PV panels would spend all of its productive time replacing its own power generation capacity with no excess output. Solar PV is coal-powered electricity. A panel is a actually a battery that works if you put it in the sun.
Maybe we can let the EROI < 1 myth die?
The Energy Payback Time of PV systems is dependent on the geographical location: PV systems manufactured in
Europe and installed in Northern Europe require approximately 1.1 years to pay back the energy input, while PV systems installed in the South require 0.9 years to pay back the energy input, depending on the technology
installed and the grid efficiency.
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Photovoltaics-Report.pdf
We get more useful energy out of renewables than fossil fuels
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/05/we-get-more-useful-energy-out-of-renewables-than-fossil-fuels/
Why would rational people opt to commit to intermittent weather dependent electricity supply sources when they can have cheaper, reliable supply?
Answer: they don’t.
LOL, that arse tech article is hilarious. It has basically ZERO SCIENTIFIC CONTENT, and is just the baltherings of a know-nothing
On a windless cloudy day.. they provide ZERO useful energy.
The peaks of electricity use are morning and evening if there isn’t some air movement.. wind and solar provide NOTHING.
Sure, the wind and the sun are free , when available, but collecting it and making it available when needed on the grid is not only VERY expensive, but also does huge damage to the environment during manufacture, installation, while in use, and at end of short erratic lifespan.
I hope the rabid activist loon that wrote this piece of nonsense loves hiking amongst the wind turbines as they destroy all the natural forest areas.
Apparently the second is written by a biochemist.
Well said.
The government can order a team to dig a big hole and another team to fill it in—-and government economists will count that all as economic activity adding to GDP.
Much of Chinese GDP is like that, hence, as you mention, innumerable houses/apartments never lived and massive military expansion that does nothing for the Chinese people.
The people with the best understanding of the Chinese economy are the families of Politburo members. For several years now they have been liquidating their assets in Renminbi and investing them in real estate abroad. What does that tell us?
Reminds me of those sad visits to the aged care home, where I patiently listened, smiled & nodded at Grandma’s reminiscences about how daring her school friends were the time they released the draft horses from the overloaded milk cart.
Come to think of it, if I remember correctly, Grandma mentioned Billy McKibbon was one of the “activists” in her class back then.
Bill talks about China bringing more solar energy into its grid, but ignores the large numbers of new coal and nuclear plants it’s building. A rather significant omission! As for China’s renewable exports, that’s that’s China taking advantage of western climate alarmism – replacing our cheap energy with expensive wind and solar imported from China, with the higher energy costs forcing our industries to move to cheap energy countries like…China.
Which is what some european companies seem to do. Move from an over regulated uncertain environment of de-growth to a more stable, regulated one w long term growth prospects w a complete manufacturing chain and a short cycle, coupled w an education system that supports the technical expertise.
The european companies have a choice. Depending on the exact requirements the US might be the worse option right now.
Trump promises golden hills in the future but that might be a long way off. Companies need solid 10-20 year foundations. The future is NOW.
China also has the advantage of the BRICS finance system. The americans likely will resist too much competition from outsiders.
It is interesting to note the complete shift in prospect from the west to the east..
Eric you lay out a practical use case experiment for solar, wind and battery. Build a data center that is totally dependent on solar, wind and battery.
Hey Bill. Give up your home, lifestyle brought to you by fossil fuels, your phone, laptop, etc. Go build yourself a teepee , lean-to or some other type of hovel in the woods somewhere and start eating grubs for sustenance. Do it now or continue being a hypocrite.
We’ve already pretty much eliminated the buffalo. So the teepee will be out shortly since they want to do the same with beef. And, the lean-to will only be temporary without steel tools. Guess that leaves him with ‘some other type of hovel.’ I wish him happy living in his new world :<)
To the Left, Hypocrisy is a tool not a vice.
More like… “a way of life”
McKibben is a poster child for projection.
As far as l’m concerned, McKibben is free to accidentally violate himself with any large, cold metal object. He’s a lying sack of human waste.
At the same time as claiming victory McKibben’s 350.org has suspended operations due to funding woes.
The Guardian ran a similar piece of fake victory, the author had originally claimed 2025 is the year wind and sun outstripped coal as an energy source 🤣.
It’s Schopenhauer’s tactic no. 14 in The Art of Being Right: Claim Victory Despite Defeat.
Same in the Ukraine conflict.
Why is little billie still using anything produced by EVIL petroleum? Someone, daily and publicly in the most annoyingly pedantic manner possible, needs to point out to little billie that EVERYTHING in his life comes from petroleum. And there ain’t a damned thing he can do about it.
i didn’t go to high school with Bill, but I still want to shove him into a locker and leave him there for a semester.
I am so thrilled to see 350.org wither away into obscurity, it makes my heart happy to see the alarmist fail,
Blubberin’ Bill’s pontifications are being drowned out by the sounds of progress in the industry he wants to destroy. He just hates when people are doing well while he imagines his mistress Gaia is suffering infection by the proletariat. What other job could such a hater of humanity be fit for?
This donkey should demonstrate the courage of his convictions, and immediately cease emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
When someone can argue from neither law nor reason, he talks about “norms.” When we doesn’t like the norms he talks about “progress.”
“”Shrill” primarily means a sharp, high-pitched, piercing sound, often unpleasant, but it can also describe an intense or harsh emotional tone, like a “shrill” attack or voice”
Nothing about Trump indicates the word shrill. Is there no other adjective the critic can think of? How very lanky .
Oh god. You’ve got to be Mckibbing me. The Grim Weeper?
Grim Weeper LOL 🙂
That was marverous!
I will post it as a quote in my forum.
Bill…. Shaddap!
You are a one dimensional bore please retire and go pull weeds for a hobby.
This sounds like the acceptance of failure of the “I could have been a contender” kind. The “was it all for nothing” realisation that arrives for all misguided ideology. Don’t cry again Bill just write a book and enjoy your grandchildren, it’s for the best.
Blame everything on Trump and Putin ( and Xi) That is the general story. Your idea of succes not achieved? It’s because of these 3. No self reflection, total deflection.
It’s their ‘safe space’.
If only the pesky deplorables would listen to their omniscient overlords eh Bill?
Kemi Badenoch confirms Tories would scrap ban on sale of petrol and diesel cars
Bill will never be deterred by the truth🙈