This administration swapped to actively suppressing Wind and Solar via tariffs etc, and yet the trends continued because the underlying economic reality heavily favors battery backed solar.
There's probably a delay in the effects though since projects started before they took office are probably starting to thin out and finish up. We'd have to look into the permitting of new projects or wait for to see how big the decline in new capacity turns out to be in a couple years.
It's sort of a circular issue, it's madly expensive because we haven't built a lot and aren't super good at it, and we don't get much of it built because we aren't great at it and it always is ludicrously expensive.
The US has a uniquely underdeveloped maritime sector, we don't build a lot of the massive turbines you use offshore. You drive through central and west texas, it feels like there might be more wind turbines than people. We've kind of already made the decision based on what works.
But the realities of the idea - the engineering - is problematic.
The ocean is a harsh environment and maintaining something deliberately put out of the way in a harsher environment is far more expensive.
https://profession.americangeosciences.org/society/intersect...
The biggest is Hywind Tampen, Max. water depth 300 m
NOK 8 billion ($730 million; $8.3m/MW)
Also the "we're bad at this because we don't do the so we can't do this" is throwing away a great project and solution because of a temporary problem. Once we start doing it in significant numbers we'll rapidly get better at doing it too.
https://globalwindatlas.info/en/
Like for many kind of technology the are both advantages and disadvantages to offshore wind farms.
"Advantages:
Offshore wind speeds tend to be faster than on land.1 Small increases in wind speed yield large increases in energy production: a turbine in a 15-mph wind can generate twice as much energy as a turbine in a 12-mph wind. Faster wind speeds offshore mean much more energy can be generated.
Offshore wind speeds tend to be steadier than on land.1 A steadier supply of wind means a more reliable source of energy.
Many coastal areas have very high energy needs. Half of the United States’ population lives in coastal areas,1 with concentrations in major coastal cities. Building offshore wind farms in these areas can help to meet those energy needs from nearby sources.
Offshore wind farms have many of the same advantages as land-based wind farms – they provide renewable energy; they do not consume water; they provide a domestic energy source; they create jobs; and they do not emit environmental pollutants or greenhouse gases.2
Offshore wind farms can be expensive and difficult to build and maintain. In particular:
It is very hard to build robust and secure wind farms in water deeper than around 200 feet (~60 m), or over half a football field’s length. Although coastal waters off the east coast of the U.S. are relatively shallow, almost all of the potential wind energy resources off the west coast are in waters exceeding this depth.3 Floating wind turbines are beginning to overcome this challenge.
Wave action, and even very high winds, particularly during heavy storms or hurricanes, can damage wind turbines.1
The production and installation of power cables under the Effects of offshore wind farms on marine animals and birds are not fully understood.4
Offshore wind farms built within view of the coastline (up to 26 miles offshore, depending on viewing conditions5) may be unpopular among local residents, and may affect tourism and property values.3
https://profession.americangeosciences.org/society/intersect...
Offshore wind is the perfect NIMBY solution.
Gas has a 6-month shelf-life, and is attached to a whole geopolitically volatile military-industrial complex. Meanwhile an EV + solar can be actually self-sufficient and last for a decade or two. A realistic Mad Max would have been EV battles over solar panels.
There has always been a massive thumb on the scale in the form of tax breaks, direct subsidies (billions a year alone on this), land leasing, etc for fossil fuels and their use. Favorable public policy. And what the IMF calls implicit subsidies - the cost of impact on the climate/environment and people's health.
When a refinery is pumping out pollution and everyone in the area is getting sicker than people in similar areas - that costs us as insurance ratepayers and taxpayers.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-hidden-ways-the-g...
https://www.imf.org/en/topics/climate-change/energy-subsidie...
...to name a few. A simple google search will turn up dozens more.
And yet what is the first critique of solar and wind by right wingers? "It's only cheaper because of all my tax dollars going to subsidizing them."
Federal, state, and local subsidies for green energy and EVs are a drop in the bucket.
If you were feeling generous you could credit then with the entire existence of modern EVs given their support of the nascent industry for decades in California.
But sure, let's focus on the mote in Democrat eyes and ignore the insanity across the aisle. That's what got us into this situation, so why stop now.
Another way to do it would be guaranteed buys for electrifying military etc and grants for projects using US made cells instead of foreign ones that could also effectively subsidize local production.
It's like a lot of things done by this administration they do it such hamfisted and obvious ways that they don't accomplish their nominal goals. See a lot of the court cases where they've been blocked in implementation because they said the quiet part out loud. eg: it's usually REALLY hard to prove malicious prosecution but they keep saying out loud "we're prosecuting this person in retaliation for their protected activities".
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/solar-pv-manu...
https://www.blackridgeresearch.com/blog/list-top-global-oilf...
"How The CIA Secretly Bought Soviet Titanium To Build The SR-71 Blackbird"
https://simpleflying.com/how-cia-secretly-bought-soviet-tita...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277273782...
I doubted what you wrote, but everything you said is correct (for the last 10 years, at least). Over the time period, natural gas increased 740 TWh/year (to 1870) and coal decreased 940 TWh/year (to 650). Electricity production is up ~7%, but that's quite low compared to the growth of everything else.
> This administration swapped to actively suppressing Wind and Solar via tariffs etc
Biden's administration put on solar tariffs, but of course I'll grant the current administration is fucking up everything else possible.
Trumps first administration put in solar Tariffs with China (25%), Biden administration increased them with China (50%), 2nd Trump administration increased those and applied solar Tariffs to other countries. Though honestly I’ve largely stopped paying attention at this point.
Solar adoption increased through all of that.
From a place that embraced solar rebates, and has subsequently benefited from having in place solar battery rebates, we have a thriving industry of solar installers, electricians, and an ever increasing amount of local grid energy security in the event that storms or accidents cause supply disruptions. About 5% of households will likely not see an energy bill for the next 20 years. Another 40% have solar that covers daytime energy requirements.
The requirement for baseline coal.and gas has been decreasing - though will not completely abate.
I live in a state that produces abundant coal for power and steel. We have decreased our carbon emissions to 35% below 2005 levels.
Is every part of the fossil fuel production chain "secure"? All oil production and processing equipment, chemicals and so forth are produced domestically?