U.S. Gas and Renewables Help Buffer Power Consumers From War Costs

By Paul Bledsoe

As President Donald Trump and Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu continue to prosecute a war against Iran, the energy narrative in many business outlets is that top U.S. gas exporters, already shipping near capacity, are unable to fill the temporary loss of 20% of global liquefied natural gas volumes triggered by the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the temporary loss of Qatar’s gas exports.

But these narratives neglect to recognize how the last 15 years of increasing U.S. production of gas together with deployment of huge new renewable wind, solar and battery storage has largely insulated American consumers from the perfect storm a major war of choice in the Middle East occurring during unprecedented new electricity demand from AI data centers. But these new pressures are quite serious, and mean now is finally the time for Congress to finish the job of lowering consumer energy costs by passing major permitting reforms this year.

A counterfactual is illustrative: where would U.S. consumers and businesses be without the large increases in production of U.S. natural gas and renewable energy over the last decade and a half? Facing far higher power prices.

Total U.S. gas production has roughly doubled between 2010 and 2025. And over the last decade, America’s wind production has tripled while solar power increased more than 10-fold. This unprecedented infusion of new electricity generation has kept U.S. consumer prices lower than our competitors in Europe and elsewhere, providing reliable and lower-emitting energy to consumers and businesses across the country even as demand has increased. 

Renewable energy and natural gas are also synchronistic on the grid, with new combined cycle gas plants powering up within mere minutes to seamlessly back up intermittent renewables, even as the surge in battery storage power has made renewables more price competitive.

Internationally, U.S. domestic production of gas has allowed America to displace Russia as the primary source of European gas imports, a huge geo-political victory achieved both under Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Of course, domestic gas production as a result of the shale gas revolution deserves most of the credit here. But so do massive increases in solar, wind and battery production, which have lowered costs and covered the shortfall of gas exports for domestic consumer and business markets. 

Together, gas and renewables have also displaced coal to lower CO2 emissions domestically and in the EU. But U.S. industry must act even more urgently to limit wasteful fugitive emissions of methane to retain its strong European market position and meet new EU regulations.

The irony is that this synchronicity or interdependence of U.S. gas and renewable energy has not been embraced adequately by either political party. Donald Trump and the MAGA movement have consistently and irrationally demonized renewable energy, not only eliminating clean energy tax incentives, but going so far as to prevent already invested and nearly-completed facilities from coming online to help Americans consumers. A growing number of conservatives who recognize the vast solar opportunity and contribution are trying to prevail on the Trump White House to change its policies, but have not been successful so far.

As for Democrats, too many on the left side of the party still oppose natural gas production or attempt to prevent gas from reaching consumers in the hard-pressed regions like the Northeast, where electricity prices are far higher than most of the country. 

These irrational ideological impediments on both sides have thus far prevented the two parties from reaching agreement on permitting reforms that if enacted would usher in a new era of U.S. energy abundance and economic growth, lowering consumer and industry prices by even more than the gas and renewables expansions. 

The combination of the data center build-out by the tech industry and Trump’s policy of multiple new foreign wars is putting extreme pressure on prices and should help Congress realize the necessity of compromise when it comes to increasing both domestic natural gas pipelines and much-needed interstate power lines for renewable energy. Not to do so both victimizes American consumers at the moment when affordability is the key domestic political issue, but also to limits long-term U.S. flexibility in foreign policy.

It is also worth contrasting the very large run up in global oil prices due to the war in Iran, and rising domestic gasoline prices for consumers at the pump with the relatively steady domestic in natural gas prices. Trump’s unreasonable policy aversion toward electric vehicles is not only hurting America’s auto sector, but also leaving consumers with fewer option to lower fueling costs by using EVs and the electricity grid powered by domestic gas and renewables. Instead, most Americans are now paying through the nose, with gasoline and oil prices rising dramatically because of the war with Iran. Oil prices have risen 35% in the week since the attacks began, and gasoline prices are up more than 12%.

Some argue that Trump would not have dared attack Iran without increased U.S. energy production. But Trump’s willfulness in foreign policy in his second term suggests the president does as he wishes, despite risky economic implications. To describe President Trump as impetuous and imperious is hardly to risk hyperbole. Indeed, some Trump supporters emphasize his unpredictability as an asset, while many critics point to constantly varying tariffs and energy policies as having substantially negative effects on consumers.

The huge growth of U.S. natural gas production and renewable energy together helps insulate consumers from global volatility and price increases today. But it also offers the opportunity through permitting reform to greatly lower consumer prices in the long-term, despite pressures from big tech’s AI data centers and President Trump’s military adventurism. Any Republican or Democrat who prevents permitting reform this year faces an increased chance of defeat in November from voters who are increasingly tracking energy affordability issues very closely.

Paul Bledsoe is the president of Bledsoe and Associates, an energy and economic policy consultancy. He served as a staff member in the U.S. House and Senate, and as an official in the Interior Department and Clinton White House.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
1.6 17 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Neil Pryke
March 10, 2026 10:29 pm

Unlike the UK, which appears to be blindfolded and hamstrung on energy costs and availability before the war even begins…

Reply to  Neil Pryke
March 11, 2026 8:42 am

The Paul Bledsoe article is nothing but veiled attempt to push Expensive, Unreliable Ruinables(wind/solar/batteries), EURs, that have impoverished Germany, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, etc.

The only ones benefitting were inbred, barnacle, woke, career bureaucrats, such as van der Leyden, and self-serving politicians looking for “campaign contributions, and already-wealthy financial elites, who use the Wall-Street-style tax shelters to avoid taxes for decades.

Here is a Maine example

A CHRONOLOGY OF EXPENSIVE WIND AND SOLAR HUBRIS IN IMPOVERISHED MAINE
https://willempost.substack.com/p/a-chronology-of-wind-and-solar-hubris?r=1n3sit&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
By Dudley Gray
.
If we used wind, we would be dependent on Europe
If we used solar, we would be dependent on China
We would be screwed up and down and sideways with high cost/kWh energy
We would be totally uncompetitive on domestic and world markets
No energy dominance ever!!
.
Thirty years of Democrat power, interrupted only once, has left Maine in a sorry state. A chronological “lesson of failure” is necessary to explain just how badly Maine residents have been represented.
.
Besides closing the Maine Yankee nuclear power plant, Governor Angus King forced our two public utilities, CMP and Bangor Hydro, to divest their generating assets, primarily hydro-power dams. This law, enacted in 1999, caused the sale of the utilities to the Spaniards and the Canadians, respectively.
.
These actions, between 1995 and 2003, set the stage for the widespread adoption of wind and solar systems on a large scale, without any benefit to Maine ratepayers and to the environment.
Please keep in mind that electricity rates were 8.4 cents per kWh in 1995  
Governor King left incoming Governor Baldacci a $1.1 billion structural deficit.
.
Then, Governor Baldacci, current vice-chairman of Avangrid, the Spanish subsidiary of Iberdrola, owner of CMP, gave us the Expedited Wind Law, which destroyed our mountaintops, ridges, and vistas, but still without any benefit to Maine ratepayers and the environment.
Governor Baldacci’s crowning achievement was to hand the incoming Republican Governor Paul LePage an even bigger $1.3 billion structural deficit.
.
Governor LePage challenged this travesty by freezing hiring, eliminating no-show jobs, cutting expenses, renegotiating the state liquor contract, and repaying Maine hospitals $750 million in Maine-Care bad debt.
He left office in 2019 and gave Governor Mills a $167.8 million surplus, which she and the Democrat legislature have squandered beyond belief.
As Janet Mills leaves office to run against Sen. Susan Collins, she hands the next occupant of the Blaine House a $949 million deficit.
.
We desperately need a conservative Republican Governor and sane legislature to stop the bleeding; otherwise, the state will end up statistically bankrupt, like Washington County.
.
Lastly, Maine has over 400 grid-scale windmills and over 2 million solar panels in 141 separate solar setups, while at the same time electricity rates are nearing $0.30/kWh, similar to Europe.
.
Somebody needs to explain the benefit to Maine’s native people and the benefit to the environment, and also who got rich on these all these scams, in addition to two of our above-mentioned Governors.
.

March 10, 2026 11:45 pm

Not mentioned is nuclear energy. As AI data centers ramp up, the logical approach is more “zero-carbon” nuclear power. As for any future oil shocks, drill baby drill.

March 11, 2026 12:45 am

China aims at resilience. They diversify their energy system in case of kinks in one of the sources. Since the US is basically at war with China it is trying to cut off energy supplies. China is well aware of this and have taken several counter measures.
Trump has tried to force the issue but it ( again) backfired just like it did w the tariffs.
Now that the backlash of the Iran conflict is in full swing Trump is looking for an off ramp. Not as easy as Ukraine. And it will end in humiliation for him, either by giving in and retreat or by losing the mid terms. He has manouevred himself between a rock and a hard place. His israeli backers and neocons want (as usual) to escalate. The markets are getting worried and want to see stabilisation in the middle east. Oil prices are up and very volatile. Trump is reaching out to Putin and Xi to see if they can help with this as this escalation is affecting more and more countries, energy supplies and supply chains.

Forrest Gardener
Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 1:42 am

Wrong on every point. Remarkable!

Reply to  Forrest Gardener
March 11, 2026 3:57 am

Well, let’s wait and see shall we!?

Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 6:25 am

So what is your solution to world problems? Allow Iran to dominate the Middle East (and all its oil) and perpetually challenge/threaten Israel? This attack on Iran is terrifying our long term enemies Russia and China. That’s a good thing. Maybe you have an idealist’s view of a happy world with everyone playing nice.

TBeholder
Reply to  ballynally
March 12, 2026 6:26 am

It’s entirely possible that «wrong» here did not mean “this was factually incorrect”, but rather “this shall not be!!1”. The down-votes on «let’s wait and see » strongly suggest the latter interpretation. It makes sense if they at least suspect it will go downhill for their bet, they just don’t like it and happen to be wishful thinking junkies.
The neocons don’t seem very different from the usual “tumblr” crowd (purple hair + Apple Something XIXI + soy latte type hipsters) — they merely have ego tumors in different areas.

Reply to  Forrest Gardener
March 11, 2026 4:05 am

Trump HAS been on the phone to Putin and WILL travel to China. Oil prices ARE up and volatile. His israeli backers and neocons DO want escalation. There IS clearly backlash fron several involved countries AND inside the US. And China IS taking counter measures.

The rest is speculative but i think chances are high they will occur.

Wrong on every point?
Idiot..

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 6:19 am

Just the speculation.
Just the projection of motivations.
Just inserting your personal bias into the commentary.

So, no, just wrong on not quite every point, but biased enough to create that perception.

Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 6:28 am

Trump is often on the phone with Putin- so that proves nothing. He’s been planing a trip to China for a long time- so that also proves nothing. No backlash from the Arab nations who have always hated Iran but were fearful of it. What counter measures by China? It’s economy is struggling, it’s population falling, major western industries moving out- and now China just saw its weapon systems in Iran fail in the first hours.

Reply to  Forrest Gardener
March 11, 2026 6:22 am

I agree. Trump isn’t looking for an off ramp. The goal is to finish the job. Knock down Iran so it won’t arise again. And certainly that’s Israel’s goal.

TBeholder
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 11, 2026 5:54 pm

I agree. Trump isn’t looking for an off ramp. The goal is to finish the job.

Well, yes, but do you understand what goal it is?

Knock down Iran so it won’t arise again. And certainly that’s Israel’s goal.

Hmm, no. His goals probably do not include satisfying ghoulish neocon wishful thinking, nor expansion of Epstein’s successors’ business network. Try again. You should have seen him doing it before.

MarkW
Reply to  Forrest Gardener
March 11, 2026 6:23 am

It’s a skill, learned over many years.

Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 6:08 am

Baghdad Bob, is that you? 🙄

Reply to  johnesm
March 11, 2026 7:37 am

I believe he is working for the IRGC now.

Reply to  isthatright
March 11, 2026 10:16 am

I always felt sorry for Baghdad Bob. He was hilarious. He could have defected to the US and made a fortune doing standup.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 6:18 am

TDS alert!

Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 6:20 am

Wow! Talk about getting it all wrong! You take the cake, Bally.

Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 7:35 am

Ballynally,
You seem to be oblivious to what is happening in the PRC. Xi Jin Ping’s recent actions have put him in a very precarious position politically. The PRC’s economy is suffering from a precipitous drop in exports as the rest of the world reconfigures their supply chains to other countries.

Internally the PRC is finally facing the fact that Mao’s one child policy has led to a population which is considerably lower than the 1.4 Billon which the PRC has been claiming. Over the past decade, they built huge high rise luxury condo complexes. A very high percentage of these dwelling remain unsold even as prices are slashed. They were built for a demand which exists only on the paper of PRC population forecasts. I am aware that the one child policy was rescinded years ago. However, the birthrate is still stuck at 1.2 per couple. This means a shrinking, not a growing population.

TBeholder
Reply to  isthatright
March 11, 2026 6:00 pm

Sauce? I mean, this does not come from the same flock that back in 2022 spring and summer happily tweeted non-stop about how Russia is already out of ammunition, lost 9/10 of its army and is collapsing politically and economically… right?

TBeholder
Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 5:49 pm

Um, the first half is just a press release from Captain Obvious… and in the second half reality check bounced.
I mean — any phrase where “Trump” does the action shown by the verb, and the verb agrees, needs to be measured against the observable facts. The most obvious of which should be well known here. You are aware that Trump set out to reboot NASA (which is the only sensible thing to do with it at this point, and the purpose of creating Space Force was probably not “more governmental redundancy”)… right? And that the second time around the backseat drivers finally have allowed him to… cut 1 (one) department from this blob of rancid fat? In light of which, «[Trump] has manouevred himself between a rock and a hard place» part is obviously true, but this happened over a decade ago, he should get used to it by now.

Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2026 2:37 am

What total nonsense. We never “needed” Retardables; they were forced upon us, replacing clean, reliable and affordable coal, and instead of building nuclear.

Robertvd
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2026 4:52 am

Billions were wasted on this stuff instead of on nuclear and coal what would have brought energy prices down and make US industry competitive.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2026 6:24 am

Yeah, this guy promoting “renewables” is a joke.

”Renewables” are what causes electricity prices to rise. They have no economic value other than to their shareholders who live high on the taxpayer dime.

The author show himself to be clueless about the real situation.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 11, 2026 12:51 pm

Total nonsense . . . I agree.

In the above article:
“. . . deployment of huge new renewable wind, solar and battery storage. . .”

Hmmmmm . . . . what huge renewable wind and solar deployments for producing electricity within the US???  

According to Google’s AI bot, the share of renewables in the total U.S. electricity mix grew from approximately 13% in 2014 to about 24% in 2024. So, that’s an 11% increase over a decade of “deployments”!

“Huge”? . . . I think not.

Also, battery storage has nothing to do with electrical energy generation.

Do wind and solar power generation help? . . . sure. But likely not nearly as much as shifting a great number of FF-powered power plants from steam-turbine based electrical generation to combined-cycle natural gas turbine-based (CCGT) electrical generation.

March 11, 2026 3:12 am

“Renewable energy and natural gas are also synchronistic on the grid, with new combined cycle gas plants powering up within mere minutes to seamlessly back up intermittent renewables, even as the surge in battery storage power has made renewables more price competitive.’

With apologies to the character Inigo Montoya in “The Princess Bride” – “Synchronistic – you keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

This entire article makes the fundamental error of supposing that massive promotion of wind + solar + batteries must surely be putting downward pressure on the consumer cost of electricity, and must be making a contribution to overall capacity for new loads. Against what alternative? What if instead we had never gone down the “climate change” and faux “renewables” rabbit hole, and had added reliable power generation capacity using the abundant coal resources in the U.S. and had applied the best current pollution controls?

So I’m sorry, but this article is way off the mark. Combined cycle gas plants are NOT the “backup” for intermittent “renewables.” Sure, wind + solar + batteries may save some fuel, but they are not primary sources.

Stop the reverse semantics!

There. Thank you for your patience.

AlbertBrand
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 11, 2026 3:55 am

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. What is missing in the whole discussion is the limited lifespan of these renewables. Twenty years or less is not how you design power systems.

Reply to  AlbertBrand
March 11, 2026 6:30 am

A 20 acre solar farm built behind my ‘hood in ’12. Five years later they had to replace a significant amount of the panels because of a lightning strike.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 11, 2026 8:46 am

The Danes found that up to 60% of their offshore wind turbines failed after 5 years and after 15 years it was no longer worth trying to maintain the wind farm.

Today, of course, the offshore turbines at 8MW are much larger than those earlier ones but seem to be deteriorating even faster.

Reply to  David Dibbell
March 11, 2026 4:24 am

It is clear to me that China is diversifying their energy sources as shock absorbers to system hickups. It always seemed strange that they would invest so much in renewables knowing that Climate Change is not a factor. They don’t believe in an energy transition either. And it’s not just about selling them to Europe.
They simply take EVERY possible means to make their system more resilient even though renewables have drawbacks. They are not ignorant.
You can clearly see how shocks to the system disrupt sectors.
They know the US is after them and they play the long game, as does Russia. The US’ weakness is the short game and presidents with ‘ideas’ backed by dubious money men and political agents. Basically to force the Petrodollar debt financial system on everyone operating in their system. They cant control Russia or China and the US has basically thrown them out ( Swift) which ironically makes it worse for the US that can only see short term ‘results’.
That is why BRICS+ is so dangerous to them.And that is why it is lashing out. A clear sign of system failure.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 6:23 am

I concur.

Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 6:27 am

I think BRICS is in the rear view mirror.

Nice try China, no cigar.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 11, 2026 8:01 am

Dream on..

Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 6:33 am

So, America plays the short game? Then it’s amazing how it got to be the most powerful nation on Earth. I think it’s been playing the long game since it started.

You really don’t have a clue about international relations.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 11, 2026 7:57 am

Let me clarify: there is a long term US policy independent from parties or presidents of always attacking possible competitors because they believe in the zero sum game theory. In other words: the US always NEEDS an enemy and they will invent one if none seems prominent.
They create ‘clear and present dangers’ to suit their agenda. Ever since the end of the first Cold War the US has been let loose on the world w increased bullying.
This has NOTHING to do w Defending Democracy. It is forced hegemony. It has clearly failed and the US, having gotten used to always get their way can no longer strongarm its biggest adversaries.

You say i have no clue about international relations.
I have a library to sell to you..

Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 9:51 am

OK, we get it. You hate America and consider it to be an evil empire. Got it.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 11, 2026 1:24 pm

We taught Japan how to do 1,5,10,25, and 50 year business plans.
We devolved to quarterly profits.

For the most part, American is playing the short game.
There are noteworthy long game items, of course.

But our politicians are only looking ahead to the next election.
It was once said out loud that the first g months of a newly elected Representative was to plan his re-election.

There is truth to both sides in this.

TBeholder
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 11, 2026 7:33 pm

I think it’s been playing the long game since it started.

This could only convey meaning if it was clear what do you mean under «since it started».
Since when exactly? Formation of the continent? The first British colonies? Revolution? Replacing the Articles of Confederation with Constitution? The Unionist conquest? New Deal? Something else?

Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 7:45 am

On the basis of accredited capacity increase, the largest increase in Chinese power production is coal fired power plants. Their economy is no different than the economies of other countries. They need dispatchable, not intermittent power sources.

Reply to  isthatright
March 11, 2026 10:32 am

I somewhat agree w you.However, China’s system is less erratic and use more standard economic theories. It helps that there isnt a President that has to score a goal every 6 months and needs constant attention..

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 1:24 pm

strike President. insert elected politician.

Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 8:17 am

bally:
It is much easier to think longterm in an authoritarian system [Russia, China].
I prefer a messy democracy. Whatever you think of Trump, he’ll be gone in 3 years.
Unfortunately, Putin and Xi will be around much longer.

As to China’s responses:
Renewable energy systems [W/S/Batteries] – a) selling them makes them a ton of money,
b) makes the recipients of said systems dependent on China, c) weakens the economies of the buyers, d) weakens their greatest geopolitical competitors since W/S/B can’t power a 21st Century nation, and e) building W/S in China keeps it’s citizens employed & pacified [regardless of how much power it generates; the West is actually paying the costs]

As to China’s EV industry – see a) – e) above, plus the more locally driven EVs the less dependent China is on FF imports. This last one will be important in any conflict with the US. Our Navy can’t defeat China [or save Taiwan] but it certainly could embargo all ocean shipping to & from China.

TBeholder
Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 7:19 pm

The presidents (after Roosevelt) do not matter for US policy. At all. An accurate position name would be something like Press Secretary In Chief (for a cancerous governmental blob): their job is to

  1. make important announcements in a way that would be heard and
  2. participation in meaningless public rituals.

You know Reagan was literally a Hollywood actor, right? Biden while he sat in white House was mostly brain dead and just repeated what he have heard in the earpiece — someone had to rule USA during this time — but that obviously was not him. The trouble is that this necessarily leaves any real coordinating power in the hands of either faceless bureaucrats or illegitimate oligarchy (Foundations).
The typical bureaucrats have very narrow official scope of interests, and practically are only concerned with covering their seats and having kickbacks.
The oligarchy is very tenuously connected with interests of anyone else, and ran unchallenged long enough to get fat and senile. The result inevitably follows: in some areas it habitually acts unreasonably overbold (q.v. the current mess with Iran), in others unreasonably risk-averse (q.v. NASA “reform”), and when it’s not buying some “Zeitgeist” supplied by assistants and halfwit journalists, it’s prone to bickering, dithering and/or mutually exclusive activities (q.v. Solomani and other assassinations — when they don’t plainly kill witnesses, there is no strategy, it’s obviously done out of simple hubris).

Robertvd
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 11, 2026 4:59 am

”Paul Bledsoe is the president of Bledsoe and Associates, an energy and economic policy consultancy. He served as a staff member in the U.S. House and Senate, and as an official in the Interior Department and Clinton White House.”

That should tell you enough.

Reply to  Robertvd
March 11, 2026 6:27 am

That explains it. Thanks.

SwedeTex
Reply to  Robertvd
March 11, 2026 9:30 am

From his website.

Paul Bledsoe is a former Clinton White House, US Senate, and Interior Department official, and a leading political and policy expert whose writing regularly appears in the New York TimesWashington PostFinancial Times and other leading outlets.
Paul is President of Bledsoe & Associates, a strategic public policy firm specializing in tax policy, energy, natural resources and climate change. He is also a Professorial Lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy. 

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 11, 2026 6:21 am

“Synchronistic describes events that are meaningfully related yet lack a causal connection, often perceived as significant coincidences.”

TBeholder
Reply to  David Dibbell
March 11, 2026 6:56 pm

Nor «competitive», for that matter.
How can one be «more» (or less) price competitive? It’s either in the same price bracket, or not.
Then again, in itself the price in this context is a misdirection. The price could be hammered into that range, but… The prices may be comparable because the costs are comparable, or because one of the suppliers is running on subsidies, i.e. people (other or the same) are also made to pay for it elsewhere, thus the listed price is sham.

March 11, 2026 3:56 am

Where would we be without renewables? We would have a much more reliable grid and much lower electricity prices. So any increase due to Iran would be from a much lower starting point.

As for giving any credit to Biden for US LNG exports to Europe?! Completely delusional. Biden (or probably his leftist puppet-masters) did everything in his/their power to stop both the exploration of gas and the LNG terminals, etc.

What a crock of shit.

We should still have a significant portion of our grid powered by reliable, affordable coal. The US is the “Saudi Arabia of coal, so there wouldn’t be any “price shocks” affecting that. Idiotic Democrat driven “climate” fear mongering has made us more vulnerable and poorer.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 11, 2026 6:23 am

All part of the master plan.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
March 11, 2026 7:39 am

Sparta:
Bingo!
Obama’s “Electricity rates will skyrocket…”
https://youtu.be/-NKzVvKIoLI

Robertvd
March 11, 2026 4:46 am

”Together, gas and renewables have also displaced coal to lower CO2 emissions domestically”

Why would we want lower CO2 emissions ??

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Robertvd
March 11, 2026 6:25 am

The Trans-Reality Activists want both reduction in CO2 and vast increase in non-meat foods. Seems likely to create a similar energy crisis (food is energy in context).

Denis
Reply to  Robertvd
March 11, 2026 9:09 am

Coal produces many emissions other than CO2 including sulfur compounds, sometimes mercury compounds and radioactive nuclides as well (much more than nuclear plants.) Gas emits near none of those and is much easier to deliver although coal can and is stocked at generating plants so there is resilience against delivery interruptions. Both have advantages and disadvantages but I agree that CO2 isn’t or shouldn’t be a concern.

Denis
March 11, 2026 6:13 am

In no way is the construction of wind and solar systems productive additions to our grid. Both are parasitic to the grid because they are unpredictably intermittent and therefore require backup for every watt-hour they can’t produce. Their presence compels the backup generators to also operate intermittently thus decreasing their productivity and increasing their operating cost. That is why our electricity costs are high and rising.

MarkW
March 11, 2026 6:22 am

Renewable energy protects us from price swings, by keeping prices high all the time.

March 11, 2026 6:25 am

How did this article get into WUWT intact without the usual critical commentary from the editors. It is as though WUWT now supports Biden, so-called renewables, and CO2 emissions reductions.

The author, a former Clinton advisor and supposed energy expert, fundamentally misunderstands or intentionally misrepresents energy isdues.

Reply to  pflashgordon
March 11, 2026 1:03 pm

“How did this article get into WUWT intact without the usual critical commentary from the editors. It is as though WUWT now supports . . .”

Uhhh . . . in case you just haven’t noticed previously, WUWT does not exercise (obvious to me) censorship of articles that is chooses to post.

I have no idea what you mean by “without the usual critical commentary from the editors“, unless such is obviously merited by the laughable, sophomoric content inherent in such articles, which are nevertheless still published for readership review and comment.

March 11, 2026 6:38 am

From the article: “a major war of choice in the Middle East”

I say we had no choice. Had Trump not taken military action the religious fanatics in Tehran would have enough enriched uranium to make 11 nuclear bombs. That, according to the Iranian negotiators.

The United States cannot and will not allow that to happen, even if it takes blowing up the whole country to put a stop to it.

Democrats allowed the Mad Mullahs to get right to the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons and had Kamala Harris been elected, the Mad Mullahs would have nuclear weapons now. And guess what they would do then.

No, Mad Mullahs in possession of nuclear weapons is totally unacceptable and total war is appropriate to put a stop to it.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 11, 2026 7:59 am

Idiot talk..

George Thompson
Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 8:49 am

Say what? Read my remarks of 3 days ago about nuke war possible effects in the Middle East. Everybody should, including you…especially you. I think it’s under a Trump heading with a ship image. Mad mullahs with nukes is a really, really bad idea.

Reply to  ballynally
March 11, 2026 6:14 pm

Just think about it for a moment:

Trump’s negotiators met with the Iranian negotiators two weeks ago.

The Iranian negotiators started off the meeting by declaring they had a right to enrich uranium, and Trump’s negotiators replied that the U.S. had the right to prevent them from doing so.

Then the Iranian negotiators declared that they were in possession of about 500 kilograms of uranium that had been enriched to 60 percent, and was enough to build 11 nuclear weapons!

Now why would Iranian negotiators in effect, bait, the Americans on this very sensitive subject?

The only logical explanation is these Iranian negotiators thought that since it would only take a couple of weeks to enrich this uranium to 90 percent/weapons grade, they figured they could have 11 nuclear weapons to confront the U.S. in a matter of weeks, and the U.S. would be too slow to prevent it, and then the war would take on a whole new prospect, and the Iranians took pleasure in rubbing it in the faces of the Americans.

The Iranian negotiators didn’t realize how fast Trump could move. As soon as he recognized the immediate threat, he moved to action.

We don’t know where that enriched uranium is located.

We don’t know how many centrifuges the Iranians have left after Trump destroyed most of them last year, so we don’t know if they can further enhance this stash of uranium.

I imagine the U.S. and Israel and the Gulf States are doing all they can to find this uranium and take it away from the Mad Mullahs.

If the Democrat, Kamala Harris had been elected, instead of Trump, then the Mad Mullahs would now have several dozen nuclear weapons as Kamala would not have bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities and the Mad Mullahs could enrich uranium to their heart’s content, with many more nuclear bombs in the future.

The Mad Mullahs cooperated on nuclear weapons development with the North Koreans, so the Mad Mullahs could be in possession of proven North Korean nuclear bomb designs with the only missing element being enough enriched uranium to complete the bomb.

Notice how the Democrats do everything they can think of to undermine the war effort. They are dangerous domestic enemies, more dangerous to our personal freedoms than any foreign power. And it’s not just because Trump is involved, they have done this during every war when Republicans are in charge. Their political ideology trumps national security every time. This makes them unfit to lead the United States. And how do you like being lectured on the war by Democrat Senator, Richard “Stolen Valor” Blumenthal, who lied about serving in Vietnam, yet the dumbasses in his State elected him to office. Stupid Bastards! How can you believe anything this liar says? Democrats are pathetic!

Let’s hope Trump can find that missing uranium. Otherwise, the U.S. may have to launch a nuclear first strike on Iran, if the Mad Mullahs pop up in possession of them. We will have to hit them before they hit us. Never forget: The Mad Mullahs created this situation. They brought it on themselves.

George Thompson
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 11, 2026 8:42 am

Yep.

TBeholder
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 11, 2026 7:45 pm

Could you all at least try to coordinate with each other on a single fake casus belli first?
This constant off-the-cuff nonsense comes across as either attempts to insult intelligence of the reader or signs of mental problems in the writer (though of course, these are not mutually exclusive possibilities).

No, Mad Mullahs in possession of nuclear weapons is totally unacceptable and total war is appropriate to put a stop to it.

I don’t see overt signs of madness there.
While in case of USA priestly class (including those who call themselves “journalists”, “social scientists” and suchlike)… well… it’s like a non-stop Day Of Open Doors in a madhouse, and it’s all over internet for decades.
You know about how living in a glass house and throwing stones with reckless abandon mix, right? Proverbially not well at all.

Tom Halla
March 11, 2026 6:55 am

Claiming benefits from the malinvestments in wind and solar is mostly just a rationale for subsidy mining. Electric car mandates are even more reprehensible.

March 11, 2026 7:12 am

Paul,
What is the accredited capacity increase in GW of the renewables? You mentioned a tripling of wind and a 10 fold increase in solar.

ferdberple
March 11, 2026 10:41 am

You get a minimum 14% reduction in carbon emissions by eliminating windmills.

Start with total energy = 1. Wind has a capacity factor of 1/3 meaning natural gas supplies 2/3.

This looks like wind is saving 1/3 gas. But it isn’t. Gas plants are nearly twice as efficient (60% vs 35%) when run at constant load, using waste exhaust heat to run a steam engine.

Thus, actual gas consumption jumps from 2/3 to 2/3*60/35 = 8/7

Thus, if you eliminate the windmills entirely, you can cut natural gas usage by 8/7-7/7 = 1/7

This is a 14% reduction in carbon pollution by eliminating windmills . And, you save 100% of the cost and pollution of building and operating the windmills.

Along with a huge savings in electrical costs.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ferdberple
March 11, 2026 1:28 pm

CO2 is not carbon polllution.

March 11, 2026 12:46 pm

(sorry, comment was posted earlier)

TBeholder
March 11, 2026 3:57 pm

Internationally, U.S. domestic production of gas has allowed America to displace Russia as the primary source of European gas imports,

This has bells on it. Maybe pull another one? Blowing up the pipes has allowed America to displace Russia as the primary source of European gas imports

March 12, 2026 12:35 pm

Who is Bledsoe kidding? What a dufus.