The New York Times emails “What will we do with all this power?” to tease a David Wallace-Wells column insisting that “‘I simply cannot believe where we are with solar,’ says Jenny Chase, the BloombergNEF analyst… By just 2030, Chase estimates, solar power will be absolutely and reliably free during the sunny parts of the day for much of the year ‘pretty much everywhere.’” Meanwhile Canary Media warns that in, yes, sunny California “Advocates say a last-minute push to rein in utility bills would crush useful clean energy programs – and not help the state’s energy affordability crisis.” So which is it? Is solar free or is it causing energy bills to soar?

It is generally a good idea to check things out for yourself. But a good rule of thumb on what to check and from what angle is to be wary of boosterism. For instance, a Substack post by Irina Slav says:

“Solar power has overtaken wind to become the biggest source of renewable electricity in the northern hemisphere this year. Hooray for solar and the planet’s position relative to the Sun, and to all those who made that possible — so much so that European solar generators have been struggling with negative prices as we discussed in an earlier post here.”

OK. Negative prices. Hard to finance an industry on those, but certainly it seems to fit the narrative of power that is “reliably free” when the sun is shining. Which it doesn’t always do especially if, let us say, you live in Germany or Latvia rather than Sacramento. As she continues:

“Solar’s dominance won’t last forever, though, because ‘once solar output levels dip from next month due to the changing angle of the sun's rays, wind output will regain its spot as the top renewable power globally,’ per this highly informative analysis from Reuters. The report, with data supplied by tireless Ember, reads like one of the Communist Party progress reports from the 1980s.”

Which, for those too young to catch the reference, means it should be regarded with particular skepticism. And indeed if you do dig in, things get ugly faster than a Soviet Bloc automobile:

“Take German businesses, for example. A recent survey cited by Bloomberg this week revealed that interest in setting up new companies in Germany was at a record low.”

The main reason cited is regulation and taxes, with high cost coming third. Though if you did want to raise costs, a lot of regulation and taxes would help. For instance the one where, she adds, until recent moves to speed up permitting on wind and solar in Germany, “getting even a small wind installation built required – wait for it – an alleged 36,000 pages of documents to be submitted to the authorities.”

Well, you may say, that statistic is an indictment of governments not of windmills. But it actually hits both because in order to push this source of power whose true merits the politicians are convinced they understand far better than mere investors, there’s a plan to force the latter to pay more for power on days when there’s no sun. Speaking of costs. And ditto, of course, for days with no wind.

It makes sense, in that scarcity should raise prices so as to call forth more production. But it won’t get far if the authorities mandate that only production that can’t alleviate the scarcity will be permitted, narrowly and broadly, or subsidize that kind so much that the rest isn’t affordable either.

Slav adds drily:

“Understandably, business owners were quick to voice some opposition to the plan, with the head of the association for small and medium enterprises, often referred to as the backbone of Germany’s economy, finding it necessary to state that ‘machinery needs reliable electricity every hour of the day, every day of the year’. In other breaking news, gravity exists, snakes and lizards are reptiles, plants absorb carbon dioxide, and the female of the species is more deadly than the male.”

In the same way, if California has a glut of incredibly cheap reliable alternative energy and a power affordability crisis, something does not add up. Slav warns, in words to warm the Manhattan Contrarian’s heart, that:

“whenever someone says we need a case study of the energy transition, a real-life, real-time project to see whether the transition, as envisaged by the climate crusaders, can work, I say we don’t need one. We’ve already got Germany.”

And California. Where dreams flourish in defiance of reality. Evidently markets are not sold on this mirage. For instance, BNN Bloomberg announces:

“BP Plc’s shares fell to the lowest in two years as investors punish the company for shifting away from the oil and gas business.”

Undeterred, David Wallace-Wells invites us all to roll about in imaginary free money:

“When the energy analyst Rob Carlson announced in 2022 that ‘the sun has won,’ the triumphalism was probably a bit premature. But solar power is inarguably winning. The main question now is what we will choose to do with the dividends.”

Be skeptical. Be very skeptical. Especially as another BNN Bloomberg piece informs us that “Exxon Mobil Corp. forecasts global oil demand in 2050 will be the same — or even slightly higher — than current levels, putting efforts to reach net zero carbon emissions by mid-century well out of reach” and, in yet another item, “Enbridge Sees Strong Oil Demand in 2050, With US Supply Growing”.

Over in Germany they may be plotting how to run industries without power, and at the Times plotting how to get infinite wealth without work. But sensible people are making power from oil and gas.