Energy

Solar’s growth in US almost enough to offset rising energy use

coal, Energy, hydropower, natural gas, nuclear, Science, solar, US Grid, Wind / Mike M. / November 26, 2025

If you add in nuclear, then the US has reached a grid that is 40 percent emissions-free over the first nine months of 2025. That’s up only 1 percent compared to the same period the year prior. And because coal emits more carbon than natural gas, it’s likely the US will see a net increase in electricity-related emissions this year.

If you would like to have a reason to feel somewhat more optimistic, however, the EIA used the new data to release an analysis of the state of the grid in California, where the production from utility-scale solar has nearly doubled over the last five years, thanks in part to another 17 percent increase so far in 2024.

Through 2023, it was tough to discern any impact of that solar production on the rest of the grid, in part due to increased demand. But since then, natural gas use has dropped considerably (it’s down by 17 percent so far in 2025), placing it at risk of being displaced by solar as the largest source of electricity in California as early as next year. This displacement is happening even as California’s total consumption jumped by 8 percent so far in 2025 compared to the same period last year.

Image of three graphs representing spring electrical use over the last five years. All show a large green bump representing solar generation peaking at mid-day. A fblue line representing battery use is flat on the left, develops wiggles in the middle, then develops into a curve where energy is drawn in during the day and released in the evening. — Massive solar growth plus batteries means less natural gas on California’s grid. Credit: US EIA

The massive growth in solar has also led to overproduction of power in the spring and autumn, when heating/cooling demands are lowest. That, in turn, has led to a surge in battery construction to absorb the cheap power and sell it back after the Sun sets. The impact of batteries was nearly impossible to discern as recently as 2023, but data from May and June of 2025 shows batteries pulling in lots of power at mid-day, and using it in the early evening to completely offset what would otherwise be an enormous surge in the use of natural gas.

Not every state has the sorts of solar resources available to California. But the economics of solar power suggest that other states are likely to experience this sort of growth in the coming years. And, while the Trump administration has been openly hostile to solar power from the moment it took office, so far there is no sign of that hostility at the grid level.

Solar’s growth in US almost enough to offset rising energy use Read More »

Westinghouse is claiming a nuclear deal would see $80B of new reactors

Energy, nuclear energy, nuclear power, reactors, Science, Westinghouse / Rejus Almole / October 28, 2025

On Tuesday, Westinghouse announced that it had reached an agreement with the Trump administration that would purportedly see $80 billion of new nuclear reactors built in the US. And the government indicated that it had finalized plans for a collaboration of GE Vernova and Hitachi to build additional reactors. Unfortunately, there are roughly zero details about the deal at the moment.

The agreements were apparently negotiated during President Trump’s trip to Japan. An announcement of those agreements indicates that “Japan and various Japanese companies” would invest “up to” $332 billion for energy infrastructure. This specifically mentioned Westinghouse, GE Vernova, and Hitachi. This promises the construction of both large AP1000 reactors and small modular nuclear reactors. The announcement then goes on to indicate that many other companies would also get a slice of that “up to $332 billion,” many for basic grid infrastructure.

So the total amount devoted to nuclear reactors is not specified in the announcement or anywhere else. As of the publication time, the Department of Energy has no information on the deal; Hitachi, GE Vernova, and the Hitachi/GE Vernova collaboration websites are also silent on it.

Meanwhile, Westinghouse claims that it will be involved in the construction of “at least $80 billion of new reactors,” a mix of AP1000 and AP300 (each named for the MW of capacity of the reactor/generator combination). The company claims that doing so will “reinvigorate the nuclear power industrial base.”

Westinghouse is claiming a nuclear deal would see $80B of new reactors Read More »

The US is trying to kick-start a “nuclear energy renaissance”

climate change, Energy, nuclear energy, reactors, Science, syndication / Tim Belzer / September 13, 2025

Push to revive nuclear energy relies on deregulation; experts say strategy is misplaced.

In May, President Donald Trump signed four executive orders to facilitate the construction of nuclear reactors and the development of nuclear energy technology; the orders aim to cut red tape, ease approval processes, and reshape the role of the main regulatory agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC. These moves, the administration said, were part of an effort to achieve American independence from foreign power providers by way of a “nuclear energy renaissance.”

Self-reliance isn’t the only factor motivating nuclear power proponents outside of the administration: Following a decades-long trend away from nuclear energy, in part due to safety concerns and high costs, the technology has emerged as a potential option to try to mitigate climate change. Through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split to release energy, reactors don’t emit any greenhouse gases.

The Trump administration wants to quadruple the nuclear sector’s domestic energy production, with the goal of producing 400 gigawatts by 2050. To help achieve that goal, scientific institutions like the Idaho National Laboratory, a leading research institute in nuclear energy, are pushing forward innovations such as more efficient types of fuel. Companies are also investing millions of dollars to develop their own nuclear reactor designs, a move from industry that was previously unheard of in the nuclear sector. For example, Westinghouse, a Pennsylvania-based nuclear power company, plans to build 10 new large reactors to help achieve the 2050 goal.

However, the road to renaissance is filled with familiar obstacles. Nuclear energy infrastructure is “too expensive to build, and it takes too long to build,” said Allison Macfarlane, a science and technology policy expert at the University of British Columbia who used to chair the NRC from 2012 to 2014.

And experts are divided on whether new nuclear technologies, such as small versions of reactors, are ready for primetime. The nuclear energy field is now “in a hype bubble that is driving unrealistic expectations,” said Edwin Lyman, the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization that has long acted as a nuclear safety watchdog.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is trying to advance nuclear energy by weakening the NRC, Lyman said. “The message is that it’s regulation that has been the obstacle to deploying nuclear power, and if we just get rid of all this red tape, then the industry is going to thrive,” he added. “I think that’s really misplaced.”

Although streamlining the approval process might accelerate development, the true problem lies in the high costs of nuclear, which would need to be significantly cheaper to compete with other sources of energy such as natural gas, said Koroush Shirvan, a nuclear science researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Even the license-ready reactors are still not economical,” he said. If the newer reactor technologies do pan out, without government support and subsidies, Shirvan said, it is difficult to imagine them “coming online before 2035.”

It’s déjá vu all over again

Rumblings of a nuclear renaissance give experts a sense of déjà vu. The first resurgence in interest was around 2005, when many thought that nuclear energy could mitigate climate change and be an energy alternative to dwindling supply and rising prices of fossil fuels. But that enthusiasm slowed mainly after the Fukushima accident in 2011, in which a tsunami-triggered power outage—along with multiple safety failures—led to a nuclear meltdown at a facility in Japan. “So, the first nuclear renaissance fizzled out,” said Lyman.

Globally, the proportion of electricity provided by nuclear energy has been dwindling. Although there has been an increase in generation, nuclear energy has contributed less to the share of global electricity demand, dropping to 9 percent in 2024 from a peak of about 17 percent in 2001. In the US, 94 reactors generate about a fifth of the nation’s electricity, a proportion that has held steady since 1990s. But only two of those reactors have come online in the last nearly 30 years.

This renewed push is “a second bite at the apple, and we’ll have to see but it does seem to have a lot more of a headwind now,” said Lyman.

Much of that movement comes from the private sector, said Todd Allen, a nuclear engineer at the University of Michigan. In the last couple of decades, dozens of nuclear energy companies have emerged, including TerraPower, co-founded by Bill Gates. “It feels more like normal capitalism than we ever had in nuclear,” Allen said. Those companies are working on developing the large reactors that have been the backbone of nuclear energy for decades, as well as newer technologies that can bolster the field.

Proponents say small modular reactors, or SMRs, and microreactors, which generate less than 300 megawatts and 20 megawatts, respectively, could offer safer, cheaper, and more flexible energy compared to their more traditional counterparts. (Large reactors have, on average, 900 megawatts of capacity.) One 2022 study found that modularization can reduce construction time by up to 60 percent.

These designs have taken the spotlight: In 2024, a report estimated that the SMR market would reach $295 billion by 2043. In June, Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Congress that DOE will have at least three SMRs running by July of next year. And in July of this year, the Nuclear Energy Agency launched a dashboard to track SMR technologies around the world, which identified 74 SMR designs at different stages around the world. The first commercial SMR in North America is currently being constructed in Canada, with plans to be operational by 2030.

But whether SMRs and microreactors are actually safer and more cost-effective remains to be determined. A 2022 study found that SMRs would likely produce more leakage and nuclear waste than conventional reactors. Studying them, though, is difficult since so few are currently operational.

In part, that may be because of cost. Multiple analyses have concluded that, because of rising construction and operating costs, SMRs might not be financially viable enough to compete for the world’s energy markets, including in developing countries that lack affordable access to electricity.

And recent ventures have hit road bumps: For example, NuScale, the only SMR developer with a design approved by the NRC, had to shut down its operations in November 2023 due to increasingly high costs (though another uprated SMR design was approved earlier this year).

“Nothing is really commercialized yet,” said Macfarlane. Most of the tech companies haven’t figured out expenses, supply chains, the kind of waste they are going to produce or security at their reactors, she added.

Fuel supply is also a barrier since most plants use uranium enriched at low rates, but SMRs and microreactors use uranium enriched at higher levels, which is typically sourced from Russia and not commercially available in the US. So scientists at the Idaho National Laboratory are working to recover enriched uranium from existing reactors and developed new, more cost-effective fuels, said Jess Gehin, the associate laboratory director for the Nuclear Science & Technology Directorate at the INL. They are also using artificial intelligence and modeling simulation tools and capabilities to optimize nuclear energy systems, he added: “We got to reach 400 gigawatts, we need to accelerate all of this.”

Companies are determined to face and surpass these barriers. Some have begun pouring concrete, such as one nuclear company called Kairos Power that began building a demo of their SMR design in Tennessee; the plant is projected to be fully operational by 2027. “I would make the case that we’re moving faster than many in the field, if not the fastest,” Mike Laufer, the company’s CEO and co-founder, told Reuters last year.

Some experts think achieving nuclear expansion can be done—and revel in the progress so far: “I would have never thought we’d be in this position where we’re working so hard to expand nuclear, because for most of my career, it wasn’t that way,” said Gehin. “And I would say each month that goes by exceeds my expectations on the next bigger things that are coming.”

Doing more with less?

Although the Trump administration aims to accelerate nuclear energy through executive orders, in practice, it has not allocated new funding yet, said Matt Bowen, an expert on nuclear energy, waste, and nonproliferation at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. In fact, the initial White House budget proposed cutting $4.7 billion from the Department of Energy, including $408 million from the Office of Nuclear Energy allocated for nuclear research in the 2026 fiscal year.

“The administration was proposing cuts to Office of Nuclear Energy and DOE more broadly, and DOGE is pushing staff out,” said Bowen. “How do you do more with less? Less staff, less money.”

The Trump administration places the blame for the nuclear sector’s stagnation on the NRC, which oversees licensing and recertification processes that cost the industry millions of dollars each year in compliance. In his executive orders, Trump called for a major reorganization of the NRC. Some of the proposed changes, like streamlining the approval process (which can take years for new plants), may be welcomed because “for a long time, they were very, very, very slow,” said Charles Forsberg, a nuclear chemical engineer at MIT. But there are worries that the executive orders could do more than cut red tape.

“Every word in those orders is of concern, because the thrust of those orders is to essentially strip the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of its independence from the executive branch, essentially nullifying the original purpose,” said Lyman.

Some experts fear that with these new constraints, NRC staff will have less time and fewer resources to do their jobs, which could impact power plant safety in the future. Bowen said: “This notion that the problem for nuclear energy is regulation, and so all we need to do is deregulate, is both wrong and also really problematic.”

The next few decades will tell whether nuclear, especially SMRs, can overcome economic and technical challenges to safely contribute to decarbonization efforts. Some, like Gehin, are optimistic. “I think we’re going to accelerate,” he said. “We certainly can achieve a dramatic deployment if we put our mindset to it.”

But making nuclear financially competitive will take serious commitment from the government and the dozens of companies, with many still skeptical, Shirvan said. “I am quite, I would say, on the pessimistic scale when it comes to the future of nuclear energy in the US.”

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

The US is trying to kick-start a “nuclear energy renaissance” Read More »

Feds try to dodge lawsuit against their bogus climate report

climate change, doe, Energy, EPA, greenhouse gasses, lawsuit, Policy, Science / Paul Patrick / September 13, 2025

Meanwhile, Congress is trying to keep serious scientists from weighing in.

While the Trump administration has continued to refer to efforts to avoid the worst impacts of climate change as a scam, it has done almost nothing to counter the copious scientific evidence that demonstrates that climate change is real and doing real damage to the citizens of the US. The lone exception has been a draft Department of Energy report prepared by a handful of carefully chosen fringe figures that questioned the mainstream understanding of climate change. The shoddy work and questionable conclusions of that report were so extensive that an analysis of it required over 450 pages to detail all of its shortcomings.

But its shortcomings may not have been limited to the science, as a lawsuit alleges that its preparation violated a law that regulates the activities of federal advisory panels. Now, in an attempt to avoid dealing with that lawsuit, the Department of Energy is claiming that it dissolved the committee that prepared the report, making the lawsuit moot.

Meanwhile, Congress is also attempting to muddy the waters. In response to the DOE report, the National Academies of Science announced that it would prepare a report describing the current state of climate science. Republicans on the House Committee on Oversight have responded by announcing an investigation of the National Academies “for undermining the EPA.”

The vanishing committee

As we noted in our original coverage, the members of the advisory group that prepared the DOE report were carefully chosen for having views that are well outside the mainstream of climate science. Based on their past public statements, they could be counted on to produce a report that would question the severity of climate change and raise doubts about whether we had any evidence it was happening. The report they produced went beyond that by suggesting that the net effect of our carbon emissions was likely to be a positive for humanity.

Not only was that shoddy science, but a lawsuit filed by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists suggested that it was likely illegal. Groups like the one that wrote the report, the suit alleges, fall under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which (among other things) dictates that these groups must be “fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented,” rather than be selected in order to reinforce a single point of view.

The “among other things” that the law dictates is that the advisory groups have public meetings that are announced in advance, be chartered with a well-defined mission, and all of their records be made available to the public. In contrast, nobody within the Department of Energy, including the contrarians who wrote the report, acknowledged the work they were doing publicly until the day the draft report was released.

The suit alleges that the work of this group fell under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and the group violated the act in all of the above ways and more. The act asks the courts to force the DOE to disclose all the relevant records involved with the preparation of the report, and to cease relying on it for any regulatory actions. That’s significant because the Environmental Protection Agency cited it in its attempts to roll back its prior finding that greenhouse gases posed a danger to the US public.

This week, the DOE responded in court by claiming the panel that produced the report had been dissolved, making the suit moot. That does not address the fact that the EPA is continuing to rely on the report in its attempts to argue there’s no point in regulating greenhouse gases. It also leaves the report itself in a weird limbo. Its release marked the start of a period of public comment, and said comments were supposed to be considered during the revisions that would take place before the draft was finalized.

Failure to complete the revision process would leave the EPA vulnerable to claims that it’s relying on an incomplete draft report for its scientific justifications. So, while the DOE’s tactics may protect some of its internal documents, it may ultimately cause larger problems for the Trump administration’s agenda.

Attacking the academies

Earlier this year, we were critical of the US’s National Academies of Science for seemingly refusing to respond to the Trump administration’s attacks on science. That reticence appeared to end in August with the release of the DOE climate report and the announcement that the EPA was using that report as the latest word on climate science, which it argued had changed considerably since the initial EPA decisions on this issue in 2009.

In response, the National Academies announced that it would fast-track a new analysis of the risks posed by greenhouse gases, this one done by mainstream scientists instead of a handful of fringe figures. The goal was to get it done before the EPA closed its public comment period on its proposal to ignore greenhouse gases.

Obviously, this poses a threat to the EPA’s planned actions, which apparently prompted Republicans in Congress to step in. Earlier this month, the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), announced he was investigating the National Academies for preparing this report, calling it “a blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration.”

Comer has also sent a letter to the National Academies, outlining his concerns and demanding a variety of documents. Some of these are pretty convoluted: “The study is led by a National Academies member who serves as an external advisor to the Science Philanthropy Alliance, which has ties to the left-wing group Arabella Advisors through the New Venture Fund, an organization that promotes a variety of progressive causes and funds major climate litigation,” Comer says, suggesting … it’s not entirely clear what. Another member of the study panel had the audacity to endorse former President Biden for his climate policies. Separately, Comer says he’s concerned about the source of the funds that will pay for this study.

Some of Comer’s demands are consistent with this, focusing on funding for this review. But he goes well beyond that, demanding a list of all the National Academies’ sources of funding, as well as any internal communications about this study. He’s also going on a bit of a witch hunt within the federal government, demanding any communications the NAS has had with government employees regarding the DOE’s report or the EPA’s greenhouse gas decisions.

It’s pretty clear that Comer recognizes that any unbiased presentation of climate science is going to undercut the EPA’s rationale for reversing course on greenhouse gas regulations. So, he’s preparing in advance to undercut that presentation by claiming it’s rife with conflicts of interest—and he’s willing to include “supporting politicians who want to act on climate change” as a conflict.

All of this maneuvering is taking place before the EPA has even finalized its planned U-turn on greenhouse gases, a step that will undoubtedly trigger additional investigations and lawsuits. In many ways, this is likely to reflect many of these parties laying the groundwork for the legal fight to come. And, while some of this is ostensibly about the state of the science that has supported the EPA’s past policy decisions, it’s clear that the administration and its supporters are doing their best to minimize science’s impact on their preferred course of action.

John is Ars Technica’s science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots.

Feds try to dodge lawsuit against their bogus climate report Read More »

Trump admin issues stop-work order for offshore wind project

Energy, Science, Trump, Wind / Tim Belzer / August 26, 2025

In a statement to Politico’s E&E News days after the order was lifted in May, the White House claimed that Hochul “caved” and struck an agreement to allow “two natural gas pipelines to advance” through New York.

Hochul denied that any such deal was made.

Trump has made no effort to conceal his disdain for wind power and other renewable energies, and his administration has actively sought to stymie growth in the industry while providing what critics have described as “giveaways” to fossil fuels.

In a Truth Social post on Wednesday, Trump called wind and solar energy the “SCAM OF THE CENTURY,” criticizing states that have built and rely on them for power.

“We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar,” Trump wrote. “The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!”

On Trump’s first day in office, the president issued a memorandum halting approvals, permits, leases, and loans for both offshore and onshore wind projects.

The GOP also targeted wind energy in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, accelerating the phaseout of tax credits for wind and solar projects while mandating lease sales for fossil fuels and making millions of acres of federal land available for mining.

The administration’s subsequent consideration of rules to further restrict access to tax credits for wind and solar projects alarmed even some Republicans, prompting Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and Utah Sen. John Curtis to place holds on Treasury nominees as they awaited the department’s formal guidance.

Those moves have rattled the wind industry and created uncertainty about the viability of ongoing and future projects.

“The unfortunate message to investors is clear: the US is no longer a reliable place for long-term energy investments,” said the American Clean Power Association, a trade association, in a statement on Friday.

To Kathleen Meil, local clean energy deployment director at the League of Conservation Voters, that represents a loss not only for the environment but also for the US economy.

“It’s really easy to think about the visible—the 4,200 jobs across all phases of development that you see… They’ve hit more than 2 million union work hours on Revolution Wind,” Meil said.

“But what’s also really transformational is that it’s already triggered $1.3 billion in investment through the supply chain. So it’s not just coastal communities that are benefiting from these jobs,” she said.

“This hurts so many people. And why? There’s just no justification.”

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Trump admin issues stop-work order for offshore wind project Read More »

AI in Wyoming may soon use more electricity than state’s human residents

AI, ai data center, AI development tools, AI infrastructure, AI policy, Biz & IT, Cheyenne, Chris Lehane, Crusoe, datacenters, Energy, machine learning, Mark Gordon, Meta, microsoft, natural gas, openai, oracle, Patrick Collins, Policy, renewable energy, Tallgrass, wyoming / Tim Belzer / July 30, 2025

Wyoming’s data center boom

Cheyenne is no stranger to data centers, having attracted facilities from Microsoft and Meta since 2012 due to its cool climate and energy access. However, the new project pushes the state into uncharted territory. While Wyoming is the nation’s third-biggest net energy supplier, producing 12 times more total energy than it consumes (dominated by fossil fuels), its electricity supply is finite.

While Tallgrass and Crusoe have announced the partnership, they haven’t revealed who will ultimately use all this computing power—leading to speculation about potential tenants.

A potential connection to OpenAI’s Stargate AI infrastructure project, announced in January, remains a subject of speculation. When asked by The Associated Press if the Cheyenne project was part of this effort, Crusoe spokesperson Andrew Schmitt was noncommittal. “We are not at a stage that we are ready to announce our tenant there,” Schmitt said. “I can’t confirm or deny that it’s going to be one of the Stargate.”

OpenAI recently activated the first phase of a Crusoe-built data center complex in Abilene, Texas, in partnership with Oracle. Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, told The Associated Press last week that the Texas facility generates “roughly and depending how you count, about a gigawatt of energy” and represents “the largest data center—we think of it as a campus—in the world.”

OpenAI has committed to developing an additional 4.5 gigawatts of data center capacity through an agreement with Oracle. “We’re now in a position where we have, in a really concrete way, identified over five gigawatts of energy that we’re going to be able to build around,” Lehane told the AP. The company has not disclosed locations for these expansions, and Wyoming was not among the 16 states where OpenAI said it was searching for data center sites earlier this year.

AI in Wyoming may soon use more electricity than state’s human residents Read More »

Trump promised a drilling boom, but US energy industry hasn’t been interested

Energy, fossil fuels, Science, syndication / Paul Patrick / July 29, 2025

Exec: “Liberation Day chaos and tariff antics have harmed the domestic energy industry.”

“We will drill, baby, drill,” President Donald Trump declared at his inauguration on January 20. Echoing the slogan that exemplified his energy policies during the campaign, he made his message clear: more oil and gas, lower prices, greater exports.

Six months into Trump’s second term, his administration has little to show on that score. Output is ticking up, but slower than it did under the Biden administration. Pump prices for gasoline have bobbed around where they were in inauguration week. And exports of crude oil in the four months through April trailed those in the same period last year.

The White House is discovering, perhaps the hard way, that energy markets aren’t easily managed from the Oval Office—even as it moves to roll back regulations on the oil and gas sector, offers up more public lands for drilling at reduced royalty rates, and axes Biden-era incentives for wind and solar.

“The industry is going to do what the industry is going to do,” said Jenny Rowland-Shea, director for public lands at the Center for American Progress, a progressive policy think tank.

That’s because the price of oil, the world’s most-traded commodity, is more responsive to global demand and supply dynamics than to domestic policy and posturing.

The market is flush with supplies at the moment, as the Saudi Arabia-led cartel of oil-producing nations known as OPEC+ allows more barrels to flow while China, the world’s top oil consumer, curbs its consumption. Within the US, a boom in energy demand driven by rapid electrification and AI-serving data centers is boosting power costs for homes and businesses, yet fossil fuel producers are not rushing to ramp up drilling.

There is one key indicator of drilling levels that the industry has watched closely for more than 80 years: a weekly census of active oil and gas rigs published by Baker Hughes. When Trump came into office January 20, the US rig count was 580. Last week, the most recent figure, it was down to 542—hovering just above a four-year low reached earlier in the month.

The most glaring factor behind this stagnant rig count is the current level of crude oil prices. Take the US benchmark grade: West Texas Intermediate crude. Its prices were near $66 a barrel on July 28, after hitting a four-year low of $62 in May. The break-even level for drilling new wells is somewhere close to $60 per barrel, according to oil and gas experts.

That’s before you account for the fallout of elevated tariffs on steel and other imports for the many companies that get their pipes and drilling equipment from overseas, said Robert Rapier, editor-in-chief of Shale Magazine, who has two decades of experience as a chemical engineer.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas’ quarterly survey of over 130 oil and gas producers based in Texas, Louisiana, and New Mexico, conducted in June, suggests the industry’s outlook is pessimistic. Nearly half of the 38 firms that responded to this question saw their firms drilling fewer wells this year than they had earlier expected.

Survey participants could also submit comments. One executive from an exploration and production (E&P) company said, “It’s hard to imagine how much worse policies and DC rhetoric could have been for US E&P companies.” Another executive said, “The Liberation Day chaos and tariff antics have harmed the domestic energy industry. Drill, baby, drill will not happen with this level of volatility.”

Roughly one in three survey respondents chalked up the expectations for fewer wells to higher tariffs on steel imports. And three in four said tariffs raised the cost of drilling and completing new wells.

“They’re getting more places to drill and they’re getting some lower royalties, but they’re also getting these tariffs that they don’t want,” Rapier said. “And the bottom line is their profits are going to suffer.”

Earlier this month, ExxonMobil estimated that its profit in the April-June quarter will be roughly $1.5 billion lower than in the previous three months because of weaker oil and gas prices. And over in Europe, BP, Shell, and TotalEnergies issued similar warnings to investors about hits to their respective profits.

These warnings come even as Trump has installed friendly faces to regulate the oil and gas sector, including at the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of the Interior, the latter of which manages federal lands and is gearing up to auction more oil and gas leases on those lands.

“There’s a lot of enthusiasm for a window of opportunity to make investments. But there’s also a lot of caution about wanting to make sure that if there’s regulatory reforms, they’re going to stick,” said Kevin Book, managing director of research at ClearView Energy Partners, which produces analyses for energy companies and investors.

The recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act contains provisions requiring four onshore and two offshore lease sales every year, lowering the minimum royalty rate to 12.5 percent from 16.67 percent, and bringing back speculative leasing—when lands that don’t invite enough bids are leased for less money—that was stopped in 2022.

“Pro-energy policies play a critical role in strengthening domestic production,” said a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, the top US oil and gas industry group. “The new tax legislation unlocks opportunities for safe, responsible development in critical resource basins to deliver the affordable, reliable fuel Americans rely on.”

Because about half of the federal royalties end up with the states and localities where the drilling occurs, “budgets in these oil and gas communities are going to be hit hard,” Rowland-Shea of American Progress said. Meanwhile, she said, drilling on public lands can pollute the air, raise noise levels, cause spills or leaks, and restrict movement for both people and wildlife.

Earlier this year, Congress killed an EPA rule finalized in November that would have charged oil and gas companies for flaring excess methane from their operations.

“Folks in the Trump camp have long said that the Biden administration was killing drilling by enforcing these regulations on speculative leasing and reining in methane pollution,” said Rowland-Shea. “And yet under Biden, we saw the highest production of oil and gas in history.”

In fact, the top three fossil fuel producers collectively earned less during Trump’s first term than they did in either of President Barack Obama’s terms or under President Joe Biden. “It’s an irony that when Democrats are in there and they’re putting in policies to shift away from oil and gas, which causes the price to go up, that is more profitable for the oil and gas industry,” said Rapier.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that the Trump administration’s actions won’t have long-lasting climate implications. Even though six months may be a significant amount of time in political accounting, investment decisions in the energy sector are made over longer horizons, ClearView’s Book said. As long as the planned lease sales take place, oil companies can snap up and sit on public lands until they see more favorable conditions for drilling.

It’s an irony that when Democrats are in there and they’re putting in policies to shift away from oil and gas, which causes the price to go up, that is more profitable for the oil and gas industry.

What could pad the demand for oil and gas is how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will withdraw or dilute the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax incentives and subsidies for renewable energy sources. “With the kneecapping of wind and solar, that’s going to put a lot more pressure on fossil fuels to fill that gap,” Rowland-Shea said.

However, the economics of solar and wind are increasingly too attractive to ignore. With electricity demand exceeding expectations, Book said, “any president looking ahead at end-user prices and power supply might revisit or take a flexible position if they find themselves facing shortage.”

A recent United Nations report found that “solar and wind are now almost always the least expensive—and the fastest—option for new electricity generation.” That is why Texas, deemed the oil capital of the world, produces more wind power than any other state and also led the nation in new solar capacity in the last two years.

Renewables like wind and solar, said Rowland-Shea, are “a truly abundant and American source of energy.”

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News.

Trump promised a drilling boom, but US energy industry hasn’t been interested Read More »

White House unveils sweeping plan to “win” global AI race through deregulation

AI, AI and work, AI development tools, AI ethics, AI infrastructure, AI law, AI regulation, AI research, AI security, biosecurity, Biz & IT, china, Chips Act, data centers, David Sacks, Deepfakes, Department of Commerce, Donald Trump, Energy, Export controls, machine learning, Michael Kratsios, national security, NIST, Open Source, Policy, semiconductors, White House / Kris Guyer / July 24, 2025

Trump’s plan was not welcomed by everyone. J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate for Public Citizen, in a statement provided to Ars, criticized Trump as giving “sweetheart deals” to tech companies that would cause “electricity bills to rise to subsidize discounted power for massive AI data centers.”

Infrastructure demands and energy requirements

Trump’s new AI plan tackles infrastructure head-on, stating that “AI is the first digital service in modern life that challenges America to build vastly greater energy generation than we have today.” To meet this demand, it proposes streamlining environmental permitting for data centers through new National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) exemptions, making federal lands available for construction and modernizing the power grid—all while explicitly rejecting “radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape.”

The document embraces what it calls a “Build, Baby, Build!” approach—echoing a Trump campaign slogan—and promises to restore semiconductor manufacturing through the CHIPS Program Office, though stripped of “extraneous policy requirements.”

On the technology front, the plan directs Commerce to revise NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework to “eliminate references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change.” Federal procurement would favor AI developers whose systems are “objective and free from top-down ideological bias.” The document strongly backs open source AI models and calls for exporting American AI technology to allies while blocking administration-labeled adversaries like China.

Security proposals include high-security military data centers and warnings that advanced AI systems “may pose novel national security risks” in cyberattacks and weapons development.

Critics respond with “People’s AI Action Plan”

Before the White House unveiled its plan, more than 90 organizations launched a competing “People’s AI Action Plan” on Tuesday, characterizing the Trump administration’s approach as “a massive handout to the tech industry” that prioritizes corporate interests over public welfare. The coalition includes labor unions, environmental justice groups, and consumer protection nonprofits.

White House unveils sweeping plan to “win” global AI race through deregulation Read More »

Spanish blackout report: Power plants meant to stabilize voltage didn’t

electricity, Energy, grid stability, Portugal, Science, spain / Kris Guyer / June 19, 2025

The blackout that took down the Iberian grid serving Spain and Portugal in April was the result of a number of smaller interacting problems, according to an investigation by the Spanish government. The report concludes that several steps meant to address a small instability made matters worse, eventually leading to a self-reinforcing cascade where high voltages caused power plants to drop off the grid, thereby increasing the voltage further. Critically, the report suggests that the Spanish grid operator had an unusually low number of plants on call to stabilize matters, and some of the ones it did have responded poorly.

The full report will be available later today; however, the government released a summary ahead of its release. The document includes a timeline of the events that triggered the blackout, as well as an analysis of why grid management failed to keep it in check. It also notes that a parallel investigation checked for indications of a cyberattack and found none.

Oscillations and a cascade

The document notes that for several days prior to the blackout, the Iberian grid had been experiencing voltage fluctuations—products of a mismatch between supply and demand—that had been managed without incident. These continued through the morning of April 28 until shortly after noon, when an unusual frequency oscillation occurred. This oscillation has been traced back to a single facility on the grid, but the report doesn’t identify it or even indicate its type, simply referring to it as an “instalación.”

The grid operators responded in a way that suppressed the oscillations but increased the voltages on the grid. About 15 minutes later, a weakened version of this oscillation occurred again, followed shortly thereafter by oscillations at a different frequency, this one with properties that are commonly seen on European grids. That prompted the grid operators to take corrective steps again, which increased the voltages on the grid.

The Iberian grid is capable of handling this sort of thing. But the grid operator only scheduled 10 power plants to handle voltage regulation on the 28th, which the report notes is the lowest total it had committed to in all of 2025 up to that point. The report found that a number of those plants failed to respond properly to the grid operators, and a few even responded in a way that contributed to the surging voltages.

Spanish blackout report: Power plants meant to stabilize voltage didn’t Read More »

Trump signs executive orders meant to resurrect US nuclear power

Energy, nuclear power, nuclear reactors, nuclear regulatory commission, Policy, Science / Tim Belzer / May 28, 2025

Plan calls for three new reactors to reach criticality in about a year.

Currently, there are no nuclear power plants scheduled for construction in the US. Everybody with plans to build one hasn’t had a reactor design approved, while nobody is planning to use any of the approved designs. This follows a period in which only three new reactors have entered service since 1990. Despite its extremely low carbon footprint, nuclear power appears to be dead in the water.

On Friday, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders intended to revive the US nuclear industry. These include plans to streamline the reactor approval process and boost the construction of experimental reactors by the Department of Energy. But they also contain language that’s inconsistent with other administration priorities and fundamentally misunderstands the use of nuclear power. Plus, some timelines might be, shall we say, unrealistic: three new experimental reactors reaching criticality in just over a year.

Slow nukes

The heyday of nuclear plant construction in the US was in the 1970s and 80s. But the 1979 partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant soured public sentiment toward nuclear power. This also came at a time when nuclear plants typically generated only half of their rated capacity, making them an expensive long-term bet. As a result, plans for many plants, including some that were partially constructed, were canceled.

In this century, only four new reactors on existing plant sites have started construction, and two of those have since been cancelled due to delays and spiralling costs. The two reactors that have entered service also suffered considerable delays and cost overruns.

While safety regulations are often blamed for the construction costs, researchers who studied construction records found that many delays simply arose from workers being idled while they awaited equipment or the completion of other work on the site. This may indicate that the lack of a well-developed supply chain for reactor parts is a significant contributor. And the last major changes in safety regulations came in response to the Fukushima meltdown and explosions, which identified key vulnerabilities in traditional designs.

A large number of startups have proposed designs that should be far less prone to failure. Many of these are SMRs, or small modular reactors, which promise economies of scale by building the reactor at a central facility and then shipping it to the site of installation. But, as of yet, only a single reactor of this type has been approved in the US, and the only planned installation of that design was canceled as the projected cost of its electricity became uncompetitive.

That environment makes investing in nuclear power extremely risky on its own. However, we’re also at a time when the prices of natural gas, wind, and especially solar are incredibly low, making it challenging to justify the large up-front costs of nuclear power, along with the long lead time before it starts generating returns on those costs.

A new hope?

That’s the situation the Trump administration hopes to change, though you can question the sincerity of that effort. To start, the executive orders were issued on the Friday before a holiday weekend, typically the time reserved for news that you hope nobody pays attention to. One of the announcements also refers to nuclear power as dispatchable (meaning it can be ramped up and down quickly), which it most certainly isn’t. Finally, it touts nuclear power as avoiding the risks associated with other forms of power, “such as pollution with potentially deleterious health effects.” Elsewhere, however, the administration is eliminating pollution regulations and promoting the use of high-pollution fuels, such as coal.

Overall, the actions proposed in the new executive orders range from the fanciful to the potentially reasonable. For example, the “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base” order calls for the development of the capacity to reprocess spent nuclear fuel to obtain useful fuel from it, a process that’s extremely expensive compared to simply mining new fuel, and would only make nuclear power less economically viable. It also calls for recommendations regarding permanent storage of any remaining waste, an issue that has remained unresolved for decades.

Mixed in with that are more sensible recommendations about ensuring the capacity to enrich isotopes to the purities needed to fuel power plants.

The order also calls for the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide financial support for the industry to boost construction of new plants, something the agency already does through a loan guarantee program. Even though those guarantees have not resulted in new construction plans in over a decade, the EO calls for the effort to result in “10 new large reactors with complete designs under construction by 2030.” While the Biden administration had approved payments to keep nuclear plants open, Trump is calling for funding to be used to reopen some plants that had been unable to operate economically—something that has not been done in the US previously. It also calls for money to go to restart construction at sites where reactors were canceled, although only two of those are less than decades old.

Similar unrealistic time scales are present in the “Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies” order. This is intended to encourage some of the proposed designs for SMRs and inherently safe reactors that are currently on the drawing board. It directs the Army to install one of these at a military base that will be operating within the next three years. And it directs the secretary of energy to contract with companies to build three test reactors that will sustain a nuclear reaction by July 4, 2026.

The accelerated schedule is expected to come from enabling the secretary of energy to simply ignore any aspect of the environmental review that the companies building the reactor complain about: “The Secretary shall, consistent with applicable law, use all available authorities to eliminate or expedite the Department’s environmental reviews for authorizations, permits, approvals, leases, and any other activity requested by an applicant or potential applicant.”

Regulatory reform

The other big executive order targets the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which approves license designs. The order blames this on how the NRC is structured: “The NRC charges applicants by the hour to process license applications, with prolonged timelines that maximize fees while throttling nuclear power development.”

It also criticizes the commission’s regulations as being based on the idea that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation, though it provides no evidence that the idea is wrong. This is said to result in regulations that attempt to lower exposures below those caused by a natural environment.

The order attempts to accelerate the approval process enough to ensure that the US goes from 100 GW of generating capacity to 400 GW by 2050. This is largely done by setting hard time limits on the approval process through consultations with DOGE, including a limit of 18 months for approval of new nuclear plants. It also calls for the adoption of “science-based radiation limits,” claiming that flaws with existing limits had been discussed earlier—even though the earlier discussion made no mention of scientific flaws.

In keeping with plans for mass production of modular reactors, the order also calls for a single certification process for these designs, focusing solely on site differences once the general reactor design is accepted as safe.

Overall, there are some reasonable ideas scattered throughout the executive orders (though whether their implementation ends up being reasonable is questionable, especially given DOGE’s involvement). But the majority of them are based on the idea that regulation is the primary reason for nuclear energy’s atrophy in the US.

The reality is that an underdeveloped supply chain and unfavorable economics are far larger factors. It’s difficult to justify investing in a plant that might take a decade to start selling power when the up-front costs of solar are far smaller, and it can start producing power while still under construction. The most likely way to see a nuclear resurgence in the US is for the government to pay for the plants itself. There’s a small bit of that here, in the call for the DOE to fund the construction of experimental reactors at third-party sites. But it’s not enough to significantly shift the trajectory of US nuclear power.

Trump signs executive orders meant to resurrect US nuclear power Read More »

US solar keeps surging, generating more power than hydro in 2025

coal, Energy, hydro, natural gas, Science, solar, Wind / Kris Guyer / May 24, 2025

Under those circumstances, the rest of the difference will be made up for with fossil fuels. Running counter to recent trends, the use of natural gas dropped during the first three months of 2025. This means that the use of coal rose nearly as quickly as demand, up by 23 percent compared to the same time period in 2024.

Despite the rise in coal use, the fraction of carbon-free electricity held steady year over year, with wind/solar/hydro/nuclear accounting for 43 percent of all power put on the US grid. That occurred despite small drops in nuclear and hydro production.

Solar power also passed a key milestone in 2025, although it requires digging through the statistics to realize it. In terms of power on the grid, there was less solar than hydro. But the Energy Information Agency also estimates the production from small-scale solar, like the kind you’d find on people’s roofs. Some of this never enters the grid and instead simply offsets demand locally (in that it gets used by the house that sits beneath the panels). If you combine the TW-hr produced by small- and grid-scale solar, however, they surpass the production from hydropower by a significant margin.

This surge in solar comes on top of a 30 percent increase in production the year prior. The growth curve is clearly not slowing down.

That dynamic is also not likely to change immediately in response to cuts to tax breaks for renewable power that were part of the budget package passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday, and not only because some Republican senators might object to budget changes that will harm their states. Solar power in most areas is now cheaper than alternatives, even without subsidies, and any power plant (renewable or otherwise) will likely see its costs rise due to the tariff environment. Finally, the tax breaks don’t expire immediately, and most power plant construction requires significant advanced planning.

All of those factors should continue the solar boom for at least a couple more years before all of the expected changes apply the brakes.

US solar keeps surging, generating more power than hydro in 2025 Read More »

Trump admin lifts hold on offshore wind farm, doesn’t explain why

department of Interior, empire wind, Energy, offshore wind, Science, wind energy / Tim Belzer / May 21, 2025

On Monday, however, the company announced that the hold had been lifted and construction would resume. But as with the hold itself, the reasons for its end remain mysterious. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management page for the project was only updated with a new letter on Tuesday. That letter indicates a review of its approval is ongoing, but construction can resume during the review.

The Department of the Interior has not addressed the change and has not responded to a request for comment. A post by Interior Secretary Burgum doesn’t mention Empire Wind but does suggest the governor of New York will approve a pipeline: “I am encouraged by Governor Hochul’s comments about her willingness to move forward on critical pipeline capacity.”

That suggests there was a deal that allowed Empire Wind to resume construction in return for a pipeline for fossil fuels. The New York Times suggests that this is a reference to the proposed Constitution Pipeline, which was planned to move natural gas from Pennsylvania to eastern New York but was cancelled in 2020 due to state opposition.

However, Governor Kathy Hochul has not commented about a willingness to move forward with any pipelines. Instead, Hochul’s statement on Empire Wind is very vague, saying that she “reaffirmed that New York will work with the Administration and private entities on new energy projects that meet the legal requirements under New York law.”

So while it’s good news that construction on Empire Wind has restarted, the whole process has been problematic, driven by apparently arbitrary decisions that the government has refused to justify.

Trump admin lifts hold on offshore wind farm, doesn’t explain why Read More »