• ENERGY SECURITYStates Fast-Track Wind, Solar Permits and Contracts to Beat Trump’s Deadline

    By Alex Brown

    Since taking office, the Trump administration has pursued a number of policies aimed at dismantling support for renewable energy, particularly targeting wind and solar power, which President Trump described as a “scam.” Federal tax credits have brought project costs down 30-50%, advocates say.

  • ENERGY SOURCESTrump’s Bid to Support Coal Could Cost Ratepayers Billions: Report

    By Alex Brown

    The market has spoken: Across the country, coal plants have phased out as they’ve been unable to compete with cheaper renewables and natural gas. A recent report found that 99% of existing U.S. coal plants “are more expensive to run than replacement by local wind, solar, and energy storage resources.” Mandates from the Trump administration to subsidize aging, uncompetitive coal plants would cause taxpayers billions and lead to a massive spike in energy costs.

  • HOBBLING U.S. INNOVATIONWhy the U.S. Is Letting China Win on Energy Innovation

    By Stephen Lezak

    The frontiers of global technology have pivoted to AI and next generation energy. In AI, the U.S. has far outpaced any other nation, but in energy, the U.S. has just tied its shoelaces together. The reason isn’t technology, economics or, despite the administration’s misleading official line, even national security. Rather, it is politics. The fact is, the U.S. does not have an energy security problem. It does, however, have an energy cost problem combined with a growing climate change crisis. These issues will only be made worse by Trump’s enthusiasm for fossil fuels.

  • NUCLEAR POWERDespite Bipartisan Backing, Nuclear’s Future Is Uncertain Under Trump

    By Mia Beams

    As President Trump seeks to cut clean energy funding across the country, nuclear energy emerges as a rare area of bipartisan alignment and a priority for the administration. Yet inconsistent and conflicting federal policies threaten to impede efforts to promote nuclear energy production.

  • ARGUMENT: CORPORTE ACCOUNTBILITY FOR DISASTERS?More States Require Energy Companies to Pay for Damages Caused by Climate-Related Disasters

    In recent years, several U.S. states have enacted laws to hold fossil fuel companies financially accountable for damages resulting from climate change. These actions reflect growing concerns about the connection between corporate practices, climate change, and disasters such as wildfires, hurricanes, and floods.

  • ENERGY SECURITYDOE Natural Gas Analysis Released for Public Comment

    By Thérèse Boudreaux, The Center Square

    The future of U.S. liquified natural gas exports remains complicated as the incoming Trump administration will have to contend with a recent Department of Energy analysis now open for public comment.

  • NUCLEAR FUELWith Russian Nuclear Fuel Ban, U.S. Also Tries to Fix a (Self-Inflicted) Problem

    By Mike Eckel

    One of the major achievements of U.S. post-Cold War policies was to get Russia to downgrade tons of highly enriched uranium – enough to arm around 20,000 Russian warheads — and turn it into power-plant fuel. The policy had collateral damage, though: The U.S. enrichment industry ended up gutted, unable to compete with cheap Russian uranium. Today, 80 percent of all nuclear fuel used the United States — which has more operating atomic plants than any other country — is foreign.

  • BATTERIESA New Blueprint for Designing High-Performance Batteries

    By Michael Matz

    Cooperative behavior among components in batteries points to an exciting new approach to designing next-generation technologies, pointing the way to better electric vehicle batteries and storage of renewable energy on the grid.

  • ENERGY SECURITYHow the U.S. Oil and Gas Industry Works

    By Lindsay Maizland and Anshu Siripurapu

    The United States is the world’s top producer of oil and natural gas. The country’s economy runs on these fossil fuels, but producing and burning them releases greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Russia’s war in Ukraine stoked the debate over whether the United States should boost production to strengthen U.S. and European energy independence or reduce production, improve efficiency, and transition to renewables. The U.S. decision to either continue at the current pace of oil and gas production or curb production to achieve its climate goals will have global consequences.

  • Mitigating climate threatsU.S. carbon-capture network could double global CO2 headed underground

    With the right public infrastructure investment, the United States could as much as double the amount of carbon dioxide emissions currently captured and stored worldwide within the next six years, according to researchers.

  • EnergyMIT energy conference speakers say transformation can happen fast

    By David L. Chandler

    The pace of advances in key clean energy technologies has been growing faster than many experts have predicted, to the point that solar and wind power, combined with systems for storing their output, can often be the least expensive options for new types of power-generating capacity. In fact, a radical transformation of the world’s energy landscape is well-underway, experts say.

  • Energy securityKeeping the lights on if the world turns to 100% clean, renewable energy

    Researchers propose three separate ways to avoid blackouts if the world transitions all its energy to electricity or direct heat and provides the energy with 100 percent wind, water, and sunlight. The solutions reduce energy requirements, health damage, and climate damage. “Based on these results, I can more confidently state that there is no technical or economic barrier to transitioning the entire world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy with a stable electric grid at low cost,” says one researcher.

  • EnergyPhasing out coal: Announcing CO2-pricing triggers divestment

    Putting the Paris climate agreement into practice will trigger opposed reactions by investors on the one hand and fossil fuel owners on the other hand. It has been feared that the anticipation of strong CO2 reduction policies might – a “green paradox” – drive up these emissions: before the regulations kick in, fossil fuel owners might accelerate their resource extraction to maximize profits. Yet at the same time, investors might stop putting their money into coal power plants as they can expect their assets to become stranded. Now, for the first time, a study investigates both effects that to date have been discussed only separately. On balance, divestment beats the green paradox if substantial carbon pricing is credibly announced, a team of energy economists finds. Consequently, overall CO2 emissions would be effectively reduced.

  • Climate threatsClimate change changing Earth’s landscape

    Climate change will replace land use change as the major driver of changes in Earth’s biosphere in the twenty-first century if greenhouse gas emissions aren’t curbed, new research suggests. Historically, human land use change, like urban development and agricultural expansion, has been the primary cause of anthropogenic ecosystem change. But now, due to rising greenhouse gas levels, climate change has become a growing threat to ecosystems. The rapid pace of climate change is making it difficult for species to adapt to changes in temperature, water cycles, and other environmental conditions that affect life on Earth.

  • Energy securityRejection of subsidies for coal and nuclear power is a win for fact-based policymaking

    By Ellen Hughes-Cromwick

    Energy Secretary Rick Perry has repeatedly expressed concern over the past year about the reliability of our national electric power grid. On 28 September 2017, Perry ordered the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to revise wholesale electricity market rules, implicitly suggesting that the federal government would give subsidies to owners of coal and nuclear power plants, to compensate them for keeping a 90-day fuel supply on-site in the event of a disruption to the grid. On Monday, the independent five-member commission – four of whose members have been appointed by President Trump — unanimously rejected Perry’s proposal. FERC’s 5-0 decision shows that policymaking based on evidence won the day. Perry’s proposal, which critics said was aiming to prop up nuclear and coal power plants struggling in competitive electricity markets, had the potential to affect millions of electricity customers, as well as power markets and the environment. FERC deserves congratulations for putting evidence before action.