The winds of change are a-blowin on climate, but don’t get too excited just yet. Sure, a certain Republican and coal-state Democrat paid lip service to the reality of climate change with an op-ed Dave Roberts described as “weak tea BS” (BS standing for “bipartisan solutions,” of course.)
But here’s a quick test: does the piece about the problem burning fossil fuels acknowledge the need to burn fewer fossil fuels? If so, it’s serious. But if it doesn’t address the core problem, then it’s probably not really talking about solutions. And if it suggests that more fossil fuels (yes, including natural gas) are a solution to the problems caused by fossil fuels, then it’s clearly not a serious proposal.
Nevertheless, to see some evolution in the right’s climate rhetoric is an encouraging indication that the public is no longer tolerating outright denial. Even the stalwart home of climate denial, the Wall Street Journal opinion page, reflects the new reality. Yesterday, the WSJ ran an op-ed by fossil fuel defender Rupert Darwall that took a rather unique approach to criticizing renewables- complaining that they produce too much power.
Darwall sets up his position as to the contrary of what can be charitably described as conventional wisdom among deniers, that renewables aren’t strong enough to power the grid. This talking point was most recently espoused by President Trump, when he said that “when the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric.”
Instead, Darwall explains, the real problem with wind and solar “results from periods of oversupply.”
That’s right--the WSJ opinion section is now telling readers that the problem isn’t that renewables aren’t effective enough, it’s that they’re too effective! Solar and wind power are so strong and capable of producing so much electricity that it’s become a real problem, Darwall explains, as the grid needs to be carefully balanced (and only fossil fuels can do that, naturally.) Not enough power to meet demand and people are left in the dark, but too much power leads to different problems. Renewables can produce more energy than is needed depending on how sunny or windy it is, and the grid has to find someone else to take that power. In practice, that can mean dumping it on a neighbor state or country’s grids for cheap, or even negative, prices.
Darwall offers a couple of wonky policy suggestions aimed at hurting renewables and propping up fossil fuels under the guise of keeping the lights on, but he somehow ignores the two big obvious answers to oversupply: batteries, and transmission lines.
With enough battery capacity, all that excess wind and solar power could be stored for later. Or, with an expanded system of transmission lines, we could connect the different regional grids, because the larger the region the more people can use that renewable power.
And this is hardly a new, breakthrough idea that Darwall should be forgiven for not knowing. Back in 2017, for example, we highlighted a study that, along with accompanying interactive, showed how a beefed up transmission system would make a 100% renewable-powered grid covering North America possible “at a modest cost.”
But if that modest cost includes an abandonment of fossil fuel campaign contributions or “charitable” donations, it may yet be too steep for some…