Affordable, reliable, clean scorecard: natural gas wins over wind & solar.
“Natural gas is easily the cheapest source of electric power, coal the second cheapest.” – James Taylor, RealClearEnergy
Policymakers on both sides of the political spectrum increasingly favor affordable, reliable and clean energy. There is good reason for this: modern society requires energy that is affordable and available when needed. Environmental concerns also matter. Together, affordability, reliability and clean are the three pillars of ideal energy policy.
Two new analyses evaluate competing electricity sources, resulting in an affordable, reliable and clean scorecard. The two analyses, one published by Northwood University and the Mackinac Center, the other published by The Heartland Institute, both independently reached nearly the same conclusion.
Both analyses find that natural gas is the most affordable, reliable and clean source of electricity. Not far behind come nuclear, hydro and coal. At the bottom of the scorecard dangle wind and solar electricity.
Despite some claims that wind and solar are cheaper than conventional electricity, the opposite is true. Wind and solar benefit from much higher subsidies than other sources of electricity. Thus, their high costs are shifted to taxpayers rather than directly to customers’ electricity bills.
Thereby, the variable and often unpredictable nature of wind and solar electricity creates substantial costs on the grid. This requires other sources of electricity that can switch on and off frequently, rather inefficiently, to compensate for the variability of wind and solar.
Finally, wind turbines and solar panels often have to be built far from population centers. This in turn requires extensive and expensive networks of transmission cables to get the electricity to the customer.
Read more under the Renewable section.
Crude oil
“It raises the question of whether Saudi Arabia will repeat the 2020 playbook to dramatically increase production.” – Rebecca Babin, senior trader CIBC Private Wealth Group
OPEC+ members currently participating in voluntary production cuts met online Saturday, May 3, to review global market conditions and prospects. The agenda focused on building consensus around maintaining the accelerated increase of 411,000 barrels per day (bpd) for June.
The price of Brent crude has traded below $60, a price not seen since early 2021. This price has left many OPEC+ budgets underwater. For producers already struggling with constrained output, prices below $65 per barrel are causing increasing fiscal headaches.
The meeting moved from Monday, May 5, to Saturday, May 3, is a sign of growing tensions within the group. In view of the current healthy market factors, as evidenced by low oil inventories, and in accordance with the decision agreed on December 5, 2024 to begin a gradual and flexible return of voluntary adjustments of 2.2 million barrels per day from April 1, 2025, the eight participating countries will implement a production adjustment of 411 thousand barrels per day in June 2025 from the May 2025 required production level.
This corresponds to three monthly increases, as shown in the table below. The gradual increases can be paused or reversed depending on changing market conditions. This flexibility will allow the group to continue to support stability in the oil market. The eight OPEC+ countries also noted that this measure will allow participating countries to accelerate their compensation.
The eight OPEC+ countries will meet monthly to discuss market conditions, compliance and compensation. On June 1, 2025, they will meet again to decide on July production levels.
Meanwhile, a Bloomberg survey shows OPEC’s actual production in April dropped by 200,000 bpd to 27.24 million bpd. This decline contradicts the group’s planned increase. These figures show that announced increases do not always materialize. Whether Saudi Arabia will continue to absorb the blow while other members produce more than their quota, or use the price of oil as a weapon to enforce discipline will be determined at the oil well.
The problem is that Saudi Arabia needs an oil price of $90 a barrel to balance its budget. That is higher than other, large OPEC producers such as United Arab Emirates, the IMF said. As a result of the price drop, Riyadh may have to delay or scale back some projects, analysts say. Saudi Arabia and Russia, the de facto leaders of OPEC+, contribute the most to the OPEC+ cuts. Russia’s budget is balanced around $70 a barrel, but Kremlin spending is increasing because of the war in Ukraine.
Zombie tankers appear in Venezuelan oil trade
An increasing number of “zombie” or “phantom” oil tankers have appeared off the coast of Venezuela. They are ships that assume the identity of scrapped ships. The dark fleet allows US trade restrictions on global oil transportation to be circumvented. According to a Bloomberg report, one of these zombie tankers had recently been spotted in Malaysian waters after a two-month voyage from Venezuela. The ship was 32 years old, past the age at which it would normally be scrapped, and it was flying the Comoros flag, a popular flag of convenience that makes it more difficult to control ships. This set off a number of alarm bells.
The report describes how operators of the dark fleet convert tankers into these floating zombies. Ship tracking data and satellite images show that at least four zombie tankers are involved in Venezuelan oil trade with Asia. At the same time, the Trump administration is exerting maximum pressure and forcing Western oil companies to withdraw from the country.
Using a dark fleet network and zombie tankers, China has quietly become the largest buyer of Venezuelan oil.
“This was not just a Spanish power outage. The entire European power grid was shaken up.” –Michael Shellenberger, journalist
A week after announcing that it had reached 100% renewable for the first time, the Spanish power grid, along with the Portuguese power grid, experienced a blackout. This may be due to an over-reliance on fluctuating electricity sources versus baseload coming from fossil fuels, nuclear or storage batteries.
The Portuguese grid operator, REN (Rede Eléctrica Nacional), claimed that the massive power outage was triggered by a “rare atmospheric phenomenon,” specifically extreme temperature variations on the Spanish power grid. British media outlet LBC News said that these variations caused abnormal oscillations in the very high voltage (400 KV) lines, a phenomenon known as “induced atmospheric oscillations. These oscillations caused synchronization disturbances between the electrical systems, leading to successive failures in the interconnected European network. Total chaos and a state of emergency ensued: businesses without cash were not operational. Most businesses were not operational, nor were trains, planes or traffic lights. The attempt to restart the untested renewable electricity grid was partially successful, with restoration of about 75% of the power supply.
The lessons of this shock are:
This is what a cyber attack on the West could look like, and we are not ready for it.
We cannot lean on renewable energy without adequate backup systems.
More large-scale investments are needed for storage or a return to constantly available energy sources. Or we risk the occasional blackout.
The Spanish blackout: A catastrophe by political design & a warning to the world – Daniel Lacalle, Spanish economist
Daniel Lacalle’s analysis of the Spanish blackout describes it as a disaster caused by political choices and a warning to the world. He argues that the Spanish government’s policies, particularly closing nuclear power plants and discouraging investment in basic energy, have resulted in an unstable and vulnerable electricity system. The over-reliance on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, without sufficient backup from stable energy sources such as nuclear and hydro, he says, has contributed to the prolonged power outages. Lacalle also criticizes the authorities’ lack of action and coordination during the crisis. He stresses the importance of a balanced energy mix and warns that other countries face similar risks if they make similar energy policy choices.
Hourly prices at the EPEX daily market were quite depressed during the first week of May due to the tremendously sunny weather. This has meant that compared to the same period last year, there are already 25% more hours with negative prices. In the coming week, cloudier weather is likely to reduce negative price moments due to an oversupply of electricity.
Read more about negative prices in both the EPEX market and imbalance market in this analysis.
“The United States was never a major supplier of LNG to Chinese buyers, but after China imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. energy imports, this flow came to an end.” – Irina Slav, Oilprice.com
China extends its postponement of U.S. LNG imports. China has not imported U.S. LNG since early February, according to Kpler data. The last LNG shipment to China was in early February. Chinese import tariffs on U.S. goods, including energy products, and the broader trade war between the two largest economies may have long-term implications for the potential of new U.S. LNG export projects to attract off-take commitment, analysts warn.
America was never a major supplier of LNG to Chinese buyers. However after China came up with retaliatory tariffs on U.S. energy imports, the supplies stopped completely. After the import tax exchange, Chinese LNG buyers, bound by long-term supply contracts with U.S. producers, began reselling the cargoes to Europe, Bloomberg reports.
Chinese traders have distanced themselves from new long-term commitments for future supply from America. Instead, they seek long-term deals with gas producers in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific.
The most recent industry news was the largest LNG offer deal for a Chinese company, ENN Natural Gas:a 15-year supply agreement for LNG with Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) with an annual volume of 1 million metric tons. ENN says the deal increases energy supply security as well as the diversity of its resources.
The outlook for Chinese LNG imports in general does not seem positive. BloombergNEF predicted last month that the high level of gas supplies is pushing demand down for the rest of the year. This will lead to the first annual decline in LNG imports since 2022.
Import tariffs are now affecting the U.S. LNG industry in another way as well. President Trump has imposed levies on Chinese-built ships seeking to dock at American ports. It is an attempt to direct American energy companies to build ships in America. There are no such projects yet.
China’s weak demand means less competition with Europe for LNG shipments. The drop in natural gas prices was partly caused by the agreement by European Union member states to make natural gas storage targets more flexible. The EU would like to extend the period during which countries must have 90% full storage leading up to winter, and they could deviate up to 10% from the fill target.
The pace of storage refills in the coming months will continue to be an important indicator of how gas prices will be established.
Price TTF gas supply year 2026 (eur/MWh) – day cloud candle, log scale
Natural gas generators save Spain after electricity collapse.
Europe’s dangerous and radical shift toward less reliable net zero energy has been nothing more than a disaster and a travesty for leftist liberals. Those with green ideology thus steer toward an uncertain future built on less reliable green energy. Meanwhile, China is rapidly ramping up its reliable coal and nuclear electricity production. The uncomfortable truth is that electricity production via fossil fuels have caused the Spanish power grid to reboot after the worst blackout in a generation.
Spain’s restart after the cascading power outage relied largely on gas and hydroelectric plants to restore power to the grid and establish synchronization. This according to John Kemp of Global energy research. It demonstrates the urgent need for all Western power grids to expand baseload electricity generation to prevent blackouts.
This blackout is expected to have cost the country’s Spanish economy at least 400 million euros. That according to an initial estimate by CaixaBank, one of Spain’s largest banks.
“It’s no longer just about who created the electric car, but what it really has to offer.”
Meet the other EV brands challenging Tesla’s dominance
As Tesla continues to dominate the EV conversation worldwide, a wave of startup and established players, mostly from China, is quickly emerging. They offer attractive alternatives based on affordability, innovation and scale. A recent, comparative study by Slot.Day exposes the shifting dynamics in the EV landscape and rates automakers on sales, search interest, safety, price and electric range.
According to the report of Lock.DayBYD tops the list of 10 best EV alternatives to Tesla with 6 other Chinese brands. With more than 2.6 million units sold and more than 600,000 monthly Google searches, BYD manages to combine scale with visibility. Prices range from $13,900 to a $65,830 luxury version with an average range of 445 km and the highest safety ratings. It’s a rare blend of affordability, mass appeal and performance.
In second place is SAIC Maxus, possibly the most underrated name on the list. The brand offers the lowest barrier to entry. A remarkably low price with a perfect 5-star safety score and a respectable range of 365 km. In third place, Chagan stands out for its 95% adult occupant protection and 450 km range.
There are only a few non-Chinese brands in this ranking without market leader Tesla. Volkswagen Group, despite strong brand recognition and more than 1.6 million monthly searches, is pulled down by high price and mediocre EV sales. Nio, Leapmotor and Geely round out the top 10 with mixed results. These brands promise a lot in terms of some specific statistics, but lack the comprehensive strength to penetrate to the top. Hyundai, the only Korean manufacturer in the top 10, is a straggler. Despite solid safety and more than 860,000 searches, the company lags in sales and innovation compared to its Chinese competitors. Its Ioniq series promises something for the future, but faces stiff competition from more agile challengers that have lower costs.
The broader message of these data shows that the gravitational center in the EV world is shifting toward Asia. Driven by market forces such as price, safety and efficiency, not regulation or ESG attitudes. Tesla remains the aspirational brand, but for millions of buyers worldwide, it is the emerging brands, often quietly efficient, very cost-effective and proudly pragmatic, that are shaping the real electric revolution, according to this study’s conclusion.
Buyers of electric cars show a clear shift in priorities. What once revolved around brand recognition is now driven by a mix of everyday considerations – price, range, safety and availability. The data point to a mature market where buyers are more willing to explore newer names and lesser-known models if the value is clear. It is no longer just about who made the car, but what the car actually has to offer.
“Natural gas also scores very high when it comes to reliable high-volume electricity generation, as do nuclear and coal.” – James Taylor, president of The Heartland Institute
Policymakers on both sides of the political spectrum increasingly favor affordable, reliable and clean energy. There is good reason for this: modern society requires energy that is affordable and available when needed. Environmental concerns also matter. Together, affordability, reliability and clean are the three pillars of ideal energy policy.
Two new analyses evaluate competing electricity sources, resulting in an affordable, reliable and clean scorecard. The two analyses, one published by Northwood University and the Mackinac Center, the other published by The Heartland Institute, both independently reached nearly the same conclusion.
Both analyses find that natural gas is the most affordable, reliable and clean source of electricity. Not far behind come nuclear, hydro and coal. At the bottom of the scorecard dangle wind and solar electricity.
Despite some claims that wind and solar are cheaper than conventional electricity, the opposite is true. Wind and solar benefit from much higher subsidies than other sources of electricity. Thus, their high costs are shifted to ratepayers rather than directly to consumers’ electricity bills.
Thereby, the variable and often unpredictable nature of wind and solar electricity creates substantial costs on the grid. This requires other sources of electricity that can switch on and off frequently, rather inefficiently, to compensate for the variability of wind and solar.
Finally, wind turbines and solar panels often have to be built far from population centers. This in turn requires extensive and expensive networks of transmission cables to bring electricity to consumers.
By considering all the above factors, a peer-review analysis of a full system of levelized costs of competing electricity sources shows that wind power is factor of seven and solar power factor of ten more expensive than natural gas. Possibly the most notable findings of the two independent analyses are the poor environmental performance of wind and solar power. Wind and solar, like hydro and nuclear, are emission-free. Wind and solar, however, score poorly on other environmental factors.
Wind and solar require disturbance and development of more land and ecosystems than other sources of electricity. Wind and solar production directly kill more animals than other energy sources, including many protected and endangered species.
The mining of toxic and rare earth minerals for wind turbines and solar panels is enormous and uniquely harmful to the health of water and soil.
Both analyses support similar action to remove barriers to electricity generation via nuclear, hydro and especially, natural gas.
Do not expect utilities to support natural gas and other affordable, reliable and clean sources of electricity. Utilities characteristically operate under a government-protected monopoly. For that reason, they do not have to produce affordable electricity to stay ahead of the competition.
It is also common for governments to guarantee utilities about 10% profit on green electricity projects and expenditures. As a result, utilities lobby for these valuable sources of electricity to increase overall profits.
For consumers and grid integrity, natural gas remains the gold standard for affordable, reliable and clean electricity generation for now. Nuclear, hydro and coal follow next.
English
Nederlands
Global
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
