Europe’s $750 Billion Energy Pledge: A Logistical Madness?
From one pipe to the madness…
“Von der Leyen's Gamble 750 Billions Deal…
An Analysis of Permanent Crisis, Failed Diplomacy, and the Art of Strategic Self-Destruction
A Heartfelt Plea: Support Independent Geopolitical and Energy Analysis
In a world where the tides of information are as unpredictable as they are relentless, we stand as a beacon of insight and truth. Our heartbeat is fueled by gratitude, and our mission is driven by the unwavering commitment to shed light on the complex interplay of geopolitics and energy that shapes our global landscape.
But we cannot do this alone. Inflation rises, platforms shift, and every piece of content we create fights for survival in an increasingly crowded and noisy world. We are holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images, but the battle to keep independent analysis alive is one that requires your support.
Help us stay loud. Help us keep the flame of independent analysis burning bright.
Your engagement is a lifeline. With just one click, you can amplify our voice:
Like, repost, or share our content on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central. It's free, it's private, and it's game-changing.
If you can, we humbly ask for more. Consider making a gift to support our work:
PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com
IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611
Swish: 076 423 90 79
Stripe: [Donation Link]
Every gesture, no matter how small, powers the words you read and the insights you gain. We are deeply grateful for your support, and we urge you, if you are able, to contribute. Your support is not just a donation; it is a lifeline that keeps the flame of independent analysis alive.
Thank you for standing with us. Together, we can continue to illuminate the path forward in these turbulent times.
https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1950544972886811049
Source: Energycentral.com
Av Germán Toro Ghio
Karlstad, Sweden | July 30, 2025
________________________________________
#EnergyGeopolitics #ESGInvestmentFailure #ChineseEnergyDominance #ClimateCapitalism
________________________________________
When President Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled a new trade framework on July 27, 2025, it included a jaw‑dropping commitment: Europe would purchase $750 billion of U.S. energy—primarily liquefied natural gas (LNG) and oil—over the next three years, or roughly $250 billion annually. Yet within days, energy analysts and port operators were scratching their heads. How can Europe absorb such volumes through its handful of regasification terminals and nascent LNG ports? The pledge may serve geopolitical goals—weakening Moscow’s grip on European gas supplies—but logistically, it verges on fantasy. (Axios)
________________________________________
1. The Geopolitical Backdrop: From Russian Pipes to American Ships
Before 2022, roughly 40 percent of the EU’s gas came directly via Russian pipelines, chiefly Nord Stream, Yamal–Europe, and the Ukraine transit routes. After Russia’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine, Brussels and member states rushed to diversify. By early 2023, European imports of U.S. LNG had surged, making the United States Europe’s top non-Russian supplier. Yet even with this uptick, EU–U.S. LNG trade in 2024 stood at only $80 billion, barely a third of the pledged annual target. (wsj.com)(Axios)
Despite a flurry of new regasification capacity, Europe still depends heavily on pipeline gas from Norway (≈ 35 bcm/year), Algeria (≈ 30 bcm/year), and Azerbaijan (via TANAP/TAP, ≈ 10 bcm/year). In contrast, total EU regasification capacity in mid‑2025 was about 250 bcm/year—enough to import ≈ $60–70 billion of U.S. LNG at current prices [$10–12/MMBtu]—far short of the $250 billion mark. (Energy Central)
________________________________________
2. “Few Ports, Big Promises”: Europe’s Existing LNG Terminals
________________________________________
2.1 Wilhelmshaven and Germany’s Baltic Push
Wilhelmshaven: Germany’s first onshore LNG terminal came online in November 2022. Its two storage tanks can hold 380,000 m³ and regasify up to 8 bcm/year. However, in Q1 2025 it ran at just 49 percent utilization due to regulatory slowdowns in pipeline interconnectors. (Reuters)
Brunsbüttel: Operational since late 2023, this FSRU‑based terminal adds another 10 bcm/year but has seen 83 percent utilization—far higher, thanks to flexible vessel charters that bypass onshore approvals. (Reuters)
Mukran: The Baltic port’s onshore facility languished at 5 percent capacity in Q1 2025, feeding only 1.3 bcm into the grid—1.5 percent of Germany’s annual demand. Local opposition and “take‑or‑pay” contracts have kept it afloat, but actual throughput remains negligible. (Reuters)
________________________________________
2.2 Finland’s Inkoo FSRU
Inkoo (Hanko): Finland’s floating storage and regasification unit began operations in January 2023, offering 5 bcm/year capacity. It reserves space through competitive auctions, but market demand has been muted, with winter bookings often retracted. (Gasgrid)(Global Energy Monitor)
________________________________________
2.3 Poland’s Świnoujście Expansion
Świnoujście: Since 2015 it has provided 5 bcm/year; after its June 2023 expansion (third 180,000 m³ tank), capacity rose to 7.5 bcm/year (≈ €2 billion investment) to satisfy about 50 percent of Poland’s gas needs. Yet connectivity constraints to Germany and the Czech Republic have capped throughput. (giignl.org)
________________________________________
2.4 Greece’s Alexandroupolis FSRU
Alexandroupolis: Offshore since October 2024, this 5.5 bcm/year FSRU links via a 28 km undersea pipeline to Komotini, serving Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Hungary, and Ukraine. Despite its strategic value, annual utilization hovers around 4 bcm due to competition from cheaper Greek pipeline imports. (Reuters)
________________________________________
3. REPowerEU and the Pipeline to Nowhere
In May 2022, the European Commission launched REPowerEU, a €300 billion plan to reduce Russian fuel use by two-thirds by 2027. The LNG pillar includes:
24 new onshore and FSRU projects (2022–2027), adding ≈ 150 bcm/year of potential capacity.
Expansion of existing terminals in Spain, Belgium (Zeebrugge), the Netherlands (Rotterdam), and France (Fos‑Cavaou).
Interconnector upgrades (e.g., Baltic Pipe Poland‑Denmark; 10 bcm/year by late 2022).
CEER’s February 2024 report highlights that only 65 percent of the planned capacity is expected to be realized by 2027 due to permitting delays, contractor shortages, and opposition in coastal areas. Meanwhile, pipelines like Nord Stream 2 remain stalled for political reasons, and projects such as Poseidon in the Eastern Mediterranean face environmental and legal hurdles. Europe’s energy landscape is marked by incomplete terminals and underutilized interconnectors, making it an unreliable foundation for a $250 billion annual import plan
.________________________________________
4. The Economic Chasm: CAPEX, OPEX, and the Real Cost of LNG
4.1 Liquefaction and Shipping
Liquefaction plants consume 10–15 percent of the gas they process, at costs of $3–4/MMBtu.
Carrier charters average $50,000–100,000/day; at 1 million m³ per voyage, this adds $2–3/MMBtu.
Boil‑off losses and reliquefaction onboard can add another $0.50–1/MMBtu.
Thus, delivered ex‑ship cost to Europe averages $15–18/MMBtu, up from $8–10 for major pipelines from Norway. This differential alone, multiplied by hundreds of bcm, equates to tens of billions of extra dollars annually—yet the $750 billion pledge contains no mechanism for cost caps or subsidies. (Axios)
________________________________________
4.2 Regasification Fees and Domestic Transport
Regas tariffs range from €0.7–1.5/MMBtu depending on the terminal and country.
Pipeline network levies add €0.3–0.5/MMBtu to move gas to consumption centres.
Europe’s average landed cost thus approaches $20–22/MMBtu, outpricing pipeline supplies and undermining competitiveness for industry, power generation, and heating—especially as renewables drive wholesale prices lower. (wsj.com)
________________________________________
5. A Fragmented Market: Who Will Buy All This Gas?
Europe’s energy markets are highly decentralized. National regulators set tariffs, but private utilities and traders negotiate the bulk of LNG contracts. There is no single EU “buyer of last resort.” The $750 billion commitment rests on voluntary offtakes by dozens of companies—unlike China’s state-led Phase 1 deals in 2019, which achieved more secure purchase obligations. (reddit.com)
Attempts at joint procurement (e.g., the EU gas purchase platform announced June 2023) have foundered on legal and competition objections. Without take‑or‑pay guarantees at scale, sellers (U.S. exporters) have little incentive to invest in additional liquefaction trains or dedicated shipping capacity. (Axios)
________________________________________
References (Part 1)
“EU trade deal with Trump seen as helping Europe ditch Russian fuels,” Axios, Jul 27, 2025. (Axios)
“The new trade deal that President Trump unveiled… includes a European pledge to buy $750 billion…,” Axios Energy & Climate, Jul 28, 2025. (Axios)
“Świnoujście LNG terminal,” Wikipedia, last updated Jul 2025. (en.wikipedia.org)
“Poland’s Gaz‑System wraps up Świnoujście LNG terminal expansion,” GIIGNL, Jul 2025. (giignl.org)
“LNG terminal off northern Greece diversifies gas routes to Europe,” Reuters, Oct 1, 2024. (Reuters)
“Germany’s Mukran LNG terminal at 5% utilisation in Q1, says DUH,” Reuters, Apr 7, 2025. (Reuters)
“Inkoo LNG Terminal Preliminary schedule for winter 2023/2024,” Gasgrid.fi, Oct 2023. (Gasgrid)
“Investors Aren’t Buying EU Pledge For $750 Billion Energy‑Buying Bonanza,” Wall Street Journal, Jul 28, 2025. (wsj.com)
“The influence of new LNG terminals on the future EU energy market,” CEER, Feb 2024. (ceer.eu)
“EPA’s climate flip,” Axios newsletter, Jul 29, 2025. (Axios)
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
The $750 Billion Energy Agreement: The Spark Igniting an Imminent Conflict
The Illusion of a Quick Fix
This essay examines the 2025 transatlantic energy deal—an ambitious $750 billion pledge by the EU to replace Russian gas with U.S. LNG—and argues that it embodies the false promise of an instant solution to Europe’s energy crisis. Sparked by the Ukraine war, the Nord Stream sabotage, and mounting insecurity, the agreement was framed as a decisive fix: sign the deal, ship the gas, and restore stability. Yet the plan was largely symbolic, constrained by market realities and deep structural dependencies.
The analysis situates this moment within a broader historical arc—from Europe’s post-war energy reliance and the OPEC shocks to America’s shale revolution and the rise of LNG dominance—while exploring how energy infrastructure has become a target in hybrid warfare. It highlights the geopolitical ripple effects: shifting global power balances, emerging trade wars, and critical mineral dependencies. Beyond geopolitics, the essay interrogates the cultural allure of “quick fixes” in an age of instant messaging and crisis fatigue, exposing the dangers of reducing complex energy systems to political sound bites.
“Von der Leyen's Gamble 750 Billions Deal…
An Analysis of Permanent Crisis, Failed Diplomacy, and the Art of Strategic Self-Destruction
A Heartfelt Plea: Support Independent Geopolitical and Energy Analysis
In a world where the tides of information are as unpredictable as they are relentless, we stand as a beacon of insight and truth. Our heartbeat is fueled by gratitude, and our mission is driven by the unwavering commitment to shed light on the complex interplay of geopolitics and energy that shapes our global landscape.
But we cannot do this alone. Inflation rises, platforms shift, and every piece of content we create fights for survival in an increasingly crowded and noisy world. We are holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images, but the battle to keep independent analysis alive is one that requires your support.
Help us stay loud. Help us keep the flame of independent analysis burning bright.
Your engagement is a lifeline. With just one click, you can amplify our voice:
Like, repost, or share our content on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central. It's free, it's private, and it's game-changing.
If you can, we humbly ask for more. Consider making a gift to support our work:
PayPal: gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com
IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611
Swish: 076 423 90 79
Stripe: [Donation Link]
Every gesture, no matter how small, powers the words you read and the insights you gain. We are deeply grateful for your support, and we urge you, if you are able, to contribute. Your support is not just a donation; it is a lifeline that keeps the flame of independent analysis alive.
Thank you for standing with us. Together, we can continue to illuminate the path forward in these turbulent times.
https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1950513796927107140
Source: Energycentral.com
Av Germán Toro Ghio
Karlstad, Sweden | July 30, 2025
________________________________________
#EnergyGeopolitics #ESGInvestmentFailure #ChineseEnergyDominance #ClimateCapitalism
Abstract
This essay examines the philosophical underpinnings of human behaviours that lead to war through the lens of a contemporary crisis: the $750 billion energy deal that threatens to spark immediate global conflict. By integrating psychoanalytic theory, political philosophy, existential thought and economic analysis, the study explores why humans repeatedly engage in seemingly irrational and destructive behaviours, even when the consequences appear catastrophic.
Drawing upon Freud’s psychoanalytic framework, the analysis reveals how unconscious motivations—particularly the death drive (Thanatos)—manifest in aggressive geopolitical strategies surrounding energy resources. These unconscious drives operate beneath idealistic rationalisations about energy security and national sovereignty, masking deeper, destructive instincts that push nations toward conflict over the massive energy deal. Naivety, rooted in idealistic overestimation of moral principles and underestimation of political realities, has led key decision‑makers to pursue provocative energy policies that ignore complex power dynamics.
The case of Yevgeny Prigozhin serves as a stark illustration of this naivety. As analysed by Germán & Co. (2024) in Prigozhin’s lesson for Trump & Co: Don’t trust Putin’s promises, Prigozhin’s trajectory—from a 24‑hour rebellion to 50‑day promises to his death within ten days—demonstrates the dangerous illusion of trusting authoritarian assurances. This case study reveals the profound unconsciousness that drives political figures like Trump, Ramaswamy and Macron to entertain negotiations with Vladimir Putin, despite clear evidence of his unreliability. Such idealistic approaches demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how authoritarian regimes behave in international systems, particularly when trillion‑dollar energy resources are at stake.
Through Hobbes’s concept of the state of nature, the study illuminates humanity’s inherent competitiveness and provocative instincts, showing how the absence of strong international authority in energy governance creates conditions where nations revert to a “war of all against all.” The energy deal becomes a flashpoint that reveals these fundamental drives toward dominance and competition for scarce resources. Existential and absurdist perspectives from Sartre and Camus provide additional insight, interpreting the crisis as humanity’s tragic assertion of existence and freedom in the face of life’s inherent meaninglessness. The willingness to risk war over energy resources reflects a profound, if destructive, affirmation of national identity and purpose.
The analysis incorporates Marxist theory and realpolitik to explain how the energy deal represents both class struggle on a global scale and pragmatic power politics. The $750 billion figure illuminates how economic inequalities and national interests drive states toward conflict, with energy serving as both commodity and weapon in international relations.
By synthesising these philosophical perspectives with contemporary geopolitical analysis, this essay demonstrates that human engagement in war—even over seemingly rational economic interests like energy deals—is driven by a complex interplay of unconscious psychological forces, naive idealism, inherent competitiveness, existential assertions and pragmatic political calculations. The current energy crisis serves as a compelling case study of how these deep‑seated human tendencies manifest in modern international relations, offering insights into why humans continue to make destructive decisions despite clear awareness of their catastrophic potential.
This multifaceted analysis provides both theoretical understanding and practical insights into the philosophical forces that drive contemporary conflicts, using the energy deal crisis to illuminate the enduring patterns of human behaviour that lead civilisations toward war.
________________________________________
Introduction: The Illusion of a Quick Fix
In the early months of 2025, the transatlantic relationship appeared on the cusp of a dramatic transformation. Faced with a war in Ukraine that had upended the post‑Cold War order and a sabotage attack on the Nord Stream pipelines that turned the Baltic Sea into a crime scene, leaders in Washington and Brussels proclaimed a bold plan to fix the world in twenty‑four hours. At the heart of this promise was an unprecedented energy pact: the European Union would purchase $250 billion worth of U.S. energy products each year for three years—$750 billion in total. The explicit goal was to replace Russian gas with liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the United States. According to American officials, the deal would turn America’s shale boom into a lifeline for Europe, ensure the lights stayed on in Berlin and Paris, and deliver instant stability. In the same breath, Washington advocated for 15% tariffs on European industrial goods, presenting the measure as a move towards fairer transatlantic trade. Publicly, the agreement was portrayed as a simple solution: sign the deal, activate the gas tankers, and Europe's energy crisis would be resolved.
The Nord Stream sabotage in September 2022 starkly weaponised energy, the foundation of industrial civilisation and prosperity. This act, creating the most significant methane leak on record, highlighted critical infrastructure vulnerabilities and plunged Europe into heightened insecurity. Russia’s pipeline empire, once a symbol of mutual dependence, became an object of suspicion; every cable and pipeline turned into a potential tripwire. European diplomats whispered about “strategic autonomy,” but the urgency of winter gas shortages forced them to defer dreams of self‑reliance to a distant future. The $750 billion pledge, though never codified in binding contracts, tied Europe to American shale and took the concept of dependency to a new extreme. To meet a proposed target, the EU would need to triple its €76 billion imports of U.S. energy products by displacing cheaper suppliers like Norway. However, analysts argue that energy companies, not governments, dictate supply purchases, rendering the plan largely symbolic.
This essay interrogates the illusion of a quick fix. It begins with the circumstances that gave birth to the deal and the immediate warning by Donald Trump to his “friend” Vladimir Putin that he had ten days to end the war in Ukraine or face unspecified consequences. It then traces how the new energy order has shifted the global balance of power, how emerging trade wars and critical mineral dependencies are reshaping geopolitics, and how sabotage and hybrid warfare have turned energy infrastructure into a battlefield. The analysis relies on a wide range of credible sources—news reports, policy analyses and academic studies—to contextualise a narrative that mixes fact and speculation. By dividing the essay into two parts, each with several chapters, the aim is to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of how a huge energy deal became, or could become, the spark of a broader conflict.
The events of 2025 did not take place in isolation, and a deeper understanding requires looking back at decades of European and American energy policy. After World War II, reconstruction efforts in Europe were fuelled by cheap coal and oil imported from the United States and the Middle East. The Marshall Plan financed not only factories but also pipelines and power plants. In the 1950s and 1960s, coal remained the dominant fuel in Western Europe, while the Soviet Union supplied oil and gas to its satellite states in the East. The 1973 oil crisis marked a turning point: OPEC’s embargo caused prices to quadruple, pushing industrialised nations to diversify. Western Europe responded by developing nuclear power, improving energy efficiency and launching early renewable programs. Yet the subsequent glut of cheap oil in the 1980s and 1990s lulled policymakers into complacency. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Europe embraced the idea that trade would foster peace and tapped Russian resources with gusto. Within two decades, pipelines under the Baltic and Black Seas became arteries connecting two formerly antagonistic blocs.
Another key element of context is the evolution of American energy policy. The United States went from being a net importer of oil in the 1970s to a net exporter of energy in the 2010s thanks to technological breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. The shale revolution unleashed vast quantities of oil and gas from formations in Texas, North Dakota and Pennsylvania. U.S. gas production nearly doubled between 2005 and 2020, and by 2023, the country surpassed Qatar and Australia to become the world's largest LNG exporter. Policies like the Energy Policy Act of 2005, lifting the crude oil export ban in 2015, and building LNG terminals at Sabine Pass and Freeport transformed the U.S. into an energy leader. The Trump administration boosted exports further by simplifying permits and encouraging allies to purchase U.S. gas. At the same time, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 introduced incentives for renewable energy, battery storage, and electric vehicles, signalling a shift towards greener energy while fossil fuel exports surged. By 2025, the U.S. will negotiate from a position of power, offering gas to Europe, subsidising its green industries, and imposing tariffs on foreign rivals.
At the level of global narratives, the notion of a quick fix resonates with a broader cultural fascination with immediate solutions. In an era dominated by social media, political messaging is often reduced to sound bites. Leaders promise to solve complex problems—be it pandemics, climate change or wars—within days or weeks. The 2025 energy deal fits this pattern: it proposes an instant remedy to Europe’s dependency, ignoring the years of investment and infrastructure that undergird energy systems. When audiences are saturated with crises, the appeal of a decisive gesture can override scepticism. Critics liken this to magical thinking, where a signature is expected to reverse the laws of physics. The essay, therefore, strives to unpack the deeper processes at play and to counter the temptation to accept simplistic solutions.
________________________________________
Part I: The Deal That Changed Everything
1. From Crisis to “Solution”
Europe’s energy crisis did not begin with the signing of an ambitious trade pact, but with the geopolitical shock of February 24 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine. As shells rained down on Kyiv and Kharkiv, the European Union confronted its dependence on Russian fossil fuels. In 2021, roughly 40 per cent of the EU’s gas consumption came from Russian pipelines; in Germany, the share was over 50 per cent. By the end of 2023 the EU had reduced Russia’s share of its gas imports to just 15 percentbruegel.org, but only by paying exorbitant prices for LNG from the United States, Qatar and even Russia itself. Norway overtook Russia as the main pipeline supplierbruegel.org, yet the shift was accompanied by a spree of investments in LNG terminals. Germany, for instance, inaugurated its first floating regasification facility in December 2022 and planned several more despite questions about their long‑term necessitycleanenergywire.org. Instead of making Europe more autonomous, the rush to import LNG created a new dependency on U.S. shale gas.
Against this backdrop, U.S. President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 after a tumultuous election. During his campaign, he repeatedly promised to end the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours.” Once in office, he sought to combine energy policy with his foreign agenda. According to Reuters, Trump and EU leaders negotiated a pledge for the EU to buy $250 billion a year of U.S. energy products for three years in exchange for exemptions from the U.S. import tariffs that his administration was imposing. The White House described this $750 billion energy deal as a measure to guarantee Europe’s energy security, reduce Russia’s leverage and address the transatlantic trade imbalance. The same week, Trump gave Putin an ultimatum: he had ten days to stop the war or face punitive measures. washingtonpost.com The ultimatum originally encompassed sanctions and tariffs rather than bombing, but the rhetorical threat to start bombing, which later echoed in political discourse, captured the imagination of analysts and fueled speculation about an impending escalation.
________________________________________
2. An Unworkable Pledge
On paper, the deal looked straightforward: European governments would commit to buying U.S. oil, gas and nuclear fuel, while Washington would reduce its tariffs on European industrial goods. In reality, the plan faced numerous obstacles. First, the EU does not purchase energy directly; energy companies—many privately owned—decide whom to buy from based on price and supply security. The EU can set tariffs and regulations, but it cannot force companies to sign contracts with U.S. exporters. Second, the volumes required to meet the $750 billion target were not available. The EU imported around €375 billion of energy in 2024, with only about €76 billion coming from the U.S. Tripling U.S. imports would require diverting flows from Norway and other suppliers or paying a premium to capture cargoes destined for Asia. Analysts cited by Reuters pointed out that the pledge would require redirecting most U.S. LNG exports to Europe and would still fall short. The EU would have to import nearly all U.S. oil exports to reach the target—a logistical impossibility, Reuters.com.
Third, the time frame made the pledge suspect. A 2022–24 surge in U.S. LNG export capacity was underway, with new terminals under construction. Still, even with these expansions, global export capacity was expected to rise from 578 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2023 to about 850 bcm by 2030. Europe would need to lock in long‑term contracts for decades to justify building additional regasification facilities. Germany’s new terminals were designed to operate for 20–30 years, contradicting the EU’s climate goals and the expectation that gas demand will decline by up to 74 per cent by 2050 in ambitious climate scenarios. In short, the $750 billion promise was a political gesture more than a realistic energy plan. It signalled U.S. willingness to flood Europe with LNG, but also sought to reassert American dominance in the face of China’s manufacturing surge and Russia’s pipeline games.
________________________________________
3. The Ten‑Day Ultimatum and Its Consequences
Trump’s ultimatum to Putin was part performance, part pressure tactic. According to the Washington Post (citing the Associated Press), Trump gave his Russian counterpart 10–12 days to stop the war and reach a peace deal; otherwise, he would impose additional sanctions and tariffs. There was no immediate threat of bombing, yet the media’s focus on the phrase “we start bombing” reflects how rhetorical signals can inflame fears. In a climate where pipelines were exploding and drones were striking tankers in the Red Sea, an ultimatum from a U.S. president carried weight far beyond the specifics of trade policy. It underscored the idea that the energy deal and the war were interconnected: if Moscow did not comply, Washington might not only cut off Russia from markets but also take more aggressive action.
The reaction in Moscow and Brussels was complex. Russian officials dismissed the ultimatum as bluster and insisted that Russia would not abandon its objectives in Ukraine. European leaders publicly supported the push for peace but privately worried that the escalation of sanctions could further disrupt energy markets. In financial markets, U.S. LNG companies rallied on news of the potential trade windfall. Shares of producers like Cheniere Energy rose as investors bet on a sustained boom. At the same time, European industrial stocks fell, reflecting fears of higher energy costs and U.S. tariffs on European exports. The immediate consequence was a sharpening of geopolitical fault lines: Europe more firmly aligned with the United States against Russia. At the same time, Russia turned to Asia to sell its oil at a discount, circumventing Western sanctions via a shadow fleet of ageing tankers.
4. Strategic Implications
Although the energy pledge did not materialise as initially proposed, its strategic implications were significant. By publicly committing to buy vast quantities of U.S. energy, Europe signalled that it viewed American shale as a cornerstone of its future. This gave Washington leverage in other disputes, from EV tariffs to NATO burden sharing. At the same time, the pledge deepened transatlantic tensions by linking energy to trade. The United States insisted that lowering its import tariffs would require the EU to accept more American gas, oil and refined products. In effect, Washington sought to impose an energy quid pro quo: you buy our gas, we ease our tariffs. This coupling blurred the boundaries between energy security and trade negotiations, making it harder for Europe to pursue independent policies.
For Russia, the prospective EU–U.S. deal was a wake‑up call. Moscow realised that its long‑term strategy of leveraging pipelines to control European politics was faltering. In response, Russia intensified its hybrid warfare against undersea infrastructure. It gathered a fleet of roughly 400 old tankers with opaque ownership structures and minimal insurance that could evade sanctions and, according to Western security agencies, drag anchors across undersea cables and pipelines in shallow waters. Finnish investigators suspect that one such vessel, the Eagle S, cut the Estlink 2 electricity cable connecting Finland and Estonia in December 2024. In total, at least ten pipelines and cables have been sabotaged in the Baltic Sea since Russia invaded Ukraine. By turning merchant ships into instruments of sabotage, Russia weaponised interdependence and blurred the line between trade and war.
China watched these developments with interest. As Europe and the United States sparred over tariffs and energy, Beijing accelerated its Belt and Road investments in critical minerals, rare‑earth processing and EV manufacturing. Analysts have argued that China dominates 68 per cent of the world’s nickel refining, 40 per cent of copper, 59 per cent of lithium and 73 per cent of cobalt processing. It controls roughly 70 per cent of cathode production and 85 per cent of anode production for EV batteries, crossdockinsights.com. In the context of the energy pact, Chinese officials interpreted the EU–U.S. arrangement as an attempt to sideline Chinese producers and restrict access to Western markets. Beijing responded by threatening to limit exports of critical minerals such as gallium, germanium and antimony. Thus, a deal meant to reduce Russian influence inadvertently spurred a three-way contest between the United States, Europe, and China over energy, trade, and technology.
________________________________________
5. Domestic Politics and Public Perception
Within both the United States and the European Union, domestic politics complicated the deal. American environmentalists decried the expansion of LNG exports, pointing to a 33 per cent higher greenhouse‑gas footprint for LNG compared to coal. They warned that investing billions in gas infrastructure would lock in emissions for decades and jeopardise climate goals. Republicans framed the deal as a triumph of American energy dominance, while Democrats worried that it would alienate climate‑conscious voters. In Europe, the left criticised the plan as a capitulation to U.S. corporate interests, while conservative governments in Poland and Hungary accused Brussels of undermining national sovereignty.
Public perception also shifted. In Germany, protests against LNG terminals erupted as activists highlighted the environmental risks of methane leaks (cleanenergywire.org. The promise of cheaper energy from U.S. shale did not assuage concerns that Germany was trading one form of dependency for another. In France and Italy, inflationary pressures due to high gas prices fuelled resentment toward both Russia and the United States. The narrative of a “quick fix” was replaced by a recognition that energy security is messy, expensive and deeply political. The illusion that stability could be signed into existence dissolved as sabotage, cyber‑attacks and trade disputes escalated.
Domestic debates were further complicated by the diversity of interests within Europe. Germany, with its large industrial base, feared that losing access to cheap pipeline gas would erode its competitiveness in chemicals, steel and automotive manufacturing. Poland and the Baltic states, historically wary of Russian influence, embraced the idea of cutting off Moscow and welcomed U.S. LNG as a geopolitical insurance policy. France, which relies heavily on nuclear power, saw the crisis as an opportunity to promote nuclear energy as a low‑carbon alternative; it pressed for EU funding for new reactors and argued that nuclear should be classified as “green” in the EU taxonomy. Southern European countries like Spain and Portugal were less dependent on Russian gas. They lobbied for more interconnectors across the Pyrenees to export their surplus LNG and renewable electricity to the rest of the continent. These differing priorities made it difficult for the European Commission to craft a unified response. When Brussels negotiated the $750 billion energy pledge, it had to balance the demands of German industry, Polish security concerns, French nuclear lobbying and the environmental movement.
In the United States, the energy pact became entangled with the culture wars. Conservative commentators celebrated the return of American “energy dominance,” citing the deal as proof that the world needed U.S. fossil fuels. They argued that by selling gas to Europe, America could weaken adversaries and create jobs at home. Progressive voices countered that doubling down on fossil fuel exports undermined the Biden administration’s climate commitments and would expose frontline communities in Texas and Louisiana to increased pollution. They demanded that stronger environmental protections and investments in renewables accompany any increase in exports. Labour unions were split: some supported LNG infrastructure for its construction jobs; others feared that overreliance on gas would slow the growth of domestic clean‑energy industries. Meanwhile, state governments in Louisiana and Texas pushed for more export terminals, while coastal communities protested new pipelines crossing wetlands and fisheries.
Public opinion polls in early 2025 showed a complex picture. In Europe, a majority supported reducing dependence on Russia but were divided on whether to increase imports from the United States or accelerate renewables. In the U.S., a majority favoured supporting Ukraine and selling gas to allies but were wary of a trade war that could raise the price of consumer goods. The interplay of these domestic factors meant that the $750 billion energy deal was never solely about economics; it was a mirror reflecting the political and cultural divisions within and between societies. Understanding these divisions is essential to grasping why the deal, though headline‑grabbing, did not proceed as advertised.
________________________________________
Part II: The New Energy Order
1. LNG Ascendant: Europe’s Gas Transformation
A global realignment in gas flows marks the new energy order. The Nord Stream explosion forced Europe to look beyond pipelines for security. Within a year, the EU imported 8.4 million tonnes of LNG in the first quarter of 2025, surpassing the 8.2 million tonnes of pipeline gas for the first time. LNG imports rose 12 per cent compared with the same period in 2024, and spending on LNG increased 45 per cent to €5.3 billion. The United States became the EU’s largest LNG supplier, accounting for 50.7 per cent by value, while Russia still supplied 17 per cent and Qatar 10.8 per cent. Simultaneously, Norway remained the largest pipeline supplier, meaning that Europe’s gas mix diversified but remained vulnerable to seaborne disruptions.bruegel.org.
The shift to LNG did not eliminate environmental concerns. Studies from Cornell University found that the greenhouse-gas footprint of LNG is 33 per cent higher than that of coal. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that LNG produces 67 per cent more emissions than pipeline gas. Methane leakage during liquefaction, transport and regasification undermines the perceived climate benefits of gas as a “bridge fuel.” Critics thus argue that building billions of dollars of LNG infrastructure may lock Europe into a high‑emissions path and delay the adoption of renewables.
Nevertheless, geopolitical realities trumped climate considerations. Germany’s government defended its decision to build multiple LNG terminals by citing the need for a safety buffer, cleanenergywire.org. Policymakers emphasised that floating storage and regasification units (FSRUs) can be repurposed or relocated once gas demand declines. Yet environmental NGOs pointed out that the combined capacity of planned terminals far exceeds projected demand, suggesting that Germany might be overspending for infrastructure that could become stranded assets as renewable energy expands. The German case illustrates the tension between energy security and climate policy: in the short term, gas ensures heat and industrial output; in the long term, it may hinder decarbonisation.
2. The Weaponisation of Trade: Tariffs, Subsidies and EV Battles
While Europe turned to American gas, trade relations between the U.S. and its allies deteriorated. In May 2025, the U.S. administration finalised high tariffs on imports of solar cells and modules from Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and Cambodia. Reuters.com. China had relocated production to these countries to evade earlier tariffs; the U.S. move aimed to prevent circumvention but raised costs for American solar installers. A few months earlier, in September 2024, the U.S. announced 100 per cent tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, 50 per cent on solar cells and semiconductors, and 25 per cent on batteries, steel, aluminium and critical minerals. reuters.com. These measures, combined with earlier Trump‑era duties on $300 billion of Chinese goods, signalled a full‑blown trade war. Industry groups warned that the tariffs would disrupt supply chains and raise costs, Reuters.com. Chinese manufacturers responded by shifting production to Indonesia and Laos, Reuters.com.
The European Union followed suit. In October 2024, the EU imposed provisional duties ranging from 17 per cent to 35.3 per cent on Chinese EVs. Brussels accused Beijing of subsidising its EV industry and flooding Europe with cheap cars. Chinese exports to the EU had surged from 33 thousand vehicles in 2020 to 485 thousand between October 2022 and September 2023. The tariff decision triggered immediate backlash. Beijing threatened to impose tariffs on European cars and to restrict exports of critical minerals necessary for EV batteries. The EU and China later opened negotiations to replace tariffs with minimum prices, reflecting a desire to avoid an escalating trade war. Nevertheless, the battle over EVs revealed the fragility of the green transition: subsidies and tariffs intended to promote clean technologies were instead spurring protectionism and retaliation.
Tariffs on critical minerals further complicated the picture. The United States and the European Union both identified minerals such as lithium, cobalt and nickel as strategic assets. In the Crossdock Insights report, analysts noted that China refines 68 per cent of the world’s nickel, 40 per cent of copper, 59 per cent of lithium and 73 per cent of cobalt (crossdockinsights.com. It also accounts for 70 per cent of cathode and 85 per cent of anode production, giving it a dominant position in the battery supply chain, crossdockinsights.com. When Washington raised tariffs on critical mineral imports, Beijing responded by restricting exports of antimony, gallium, germanium, and tungsten. The EU and the U.S. both passed legislation to boost domestic extraction and processing: the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act aims to mine 10 per cent, refine 40 per cent and recycle 25 per cent of strategic minerals within the bloc by 2030, while the U.S. invoked the Defence Production Act to fund mining projects. Far from smoothing the green transition, these measures highlighted a resource scramble reminiscent of 19th‑century imperialism.
________________________________________
3. Critical Minerals and the New Scramble for Africa
The competition for critical minerals has fostered new geopolitical alliances and conflicts. Africa and Latin America, home to vast deposits of lithium, cobalt and rare earths, have become arenas of economic diplomacy. China’s state‑owned enterprises have secured long‑term leases on mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Zambia and Zimbabwe. Western governments, alarmed by this dominance, have sought to counterbalance Beijing by financing alternative mining projects and forging Minerals Security Partnerships. For example, the U.S. has invested in lithium extraction in Chile and cobalt processing in Tanzania. The EU has provided aid to Namibia and Morocco in exchange for access to critical minerals.
This scramble is not only economic but also environmental and social. Mining of cobalt and lithium often involves child labour and environmental degradation. When Western firms demand ethical sourcing while Chinese companies continue operations under laxer standards, a competitive tension arises: should governments prioritise supply security or labour rights? The conversation about “lithium wars” echoes earlier conflicts over oil, and though no major military confrontation has erupted, the risk of resource‑driven instability looms large. Coupled with the rise of tariffs and subsidies, the scramble for minerals underscores how the green transition has become as geopolitically charged as the fossil‑fuel era.
4. Environmental Implications and the Green Paradox
The green paradox refers to the phenomenon where policies intended to accelerate the transition to clean energy inadvertently increase emissions in the short term. The rush to build LNG infrastructure is a textbook example. LNG has a higher carbon footprint than coal or pipeline gas due to energy‑intensive liquefaction and leakage. Yet governments justify LNG expansion as a necessary “bridge.” Similarly, the production of EV batteries requires energy‑intensive mining and processing; if the electricity comes from coal, the overall emissions may be high. When the United States or the EU imposes tariffs on solar panels and EVs, it can slow the adoption of clean technologies and raise costs for consumers. Additionally, the fragmentation of supply chains means that manufacturing may shift to countries with weaker environmental regulations, undermining global climate efforts.
A comprehensive climate strategy must address these paradoxes by integrating energy security, industrial policy and emissions reduction. That includes investing in green hydrogen, grid upgrades and storage rather than simply replacing pipeline gas with LNG. It also means diversifying supply chains for critical minerals and establishing ethical standards for extraction. Without such measures, the new energy order may replicate the extractive and exploitative dynamics of the oil age, with new winners and losers but the same underlying logic of domination.
________________________________________
Part III: Global Power Positions
1. Russia: Sabotage, Shadow Fleets and Energy Warfare
Russia’s power in the global energy system has historically rested on its vast reserves of oil and gas and its network of pipelines connecting Siberia to European markets. The collapse of this model after 2022 forced Moscow to innovate in the domain of energy warfare. When the EU drastically reduced imports of Russian gas from about half of its supply to 15 per cent, bruegel.org, Russia pivoted to Asia and started selling at a discount. To circumvent the G7’s price cap on Russian oil exports, Moscow assembled a shadow fleet of around 400 ageing tankers. These vessels, often registered in countries like the Seychelles or the Marshall Islands and lacking proper insurance, have transported Russian, Iranian and Venezuelan oil beyond the reach of Western sanctions. Experts note that fewer than 10 per cent of these ships have proper insurance, but they make up 17 per cent of the global oil tanker fleet. Their operations are not entirely clandestine; they openly load oil at Russian ports like Primorsk and Ust Luga, but they often turn off transponders and ignore coast‑guard instructions.
The shadow fleet’s most troubling role lies in its potential for sabotage. Investigations in 2024–25 linked Russian‑associated tankers to the severing of multiple undersea cables and pipelines in the Baltic Sea. In December 2024, a Russian tanker named Eagle S was impounded in Finland after an EstLink2 cable connecting Finland and Estonia was cut. The ship’s missing anchor was found near the damaged cable, and the vessel was also fitted with surveillance equipment, unusual for a merchant shipfriendsofeurope.org. Earlier, several other cables and the Balticconnector gas pipeline had been damaged by ships dragging anchors. Western officials suspect a deliberate campaign of hybrid warfare designed to increase uncertainty and raise insurance costs for shipping. Although definitive proof of state involvement is elusive, the pattern of incidents—ten pipelines and cables sabotaged since the invasion of Ukraine (friendsofeurope.org )—points to a strategy of weaponised interdependence.
Russia’s cyber operations complement its physical sabotage. While this essay focuses primarily on energy infrastructure, it is essential to note that cyberattacks can disrupt energy markets and funding flows. Russia, along with other states, employs sophisticated malware to target electricity grids, oil refineries and port operations. The synergy between physical sabotage (e.g., dragging anchors) and cyberattacks creates a multi‑domain threat: sabotage at sea can be combined with malware attacks on pipeline control systems, amplifying the impact. The Nord Stream explosions were preceded by Russia’s use of cyber operations against Ukraine’s grid since 2015, demonstrating Moscow’s integrated approach to energy warfare.
2. China: Minerals, Manufacturing and Maritime Choke Points
China’s grand strategy in the 21st century revolves around securing supply chains for energy and technology. While Russia relies on pipelines, China focuses on critical minerals and manufacturing capacity. As previously mentioned, Beijing refines the majority of the world’s nickel, cobalt, lithium and copper and dominates battery production. This gives China leverage over the clean energy transition. In 2010, Beijing temporarily cut rare‑earth exports to Japan, demonstrating its willingness to weaponise mineral supply chains. In 2024–25 China restricted exports of antimony, gallium, germanium, tungsten and bismuth in retaliation for U.S. tariffscrossdockinsights.com. Price spikes following these restrictions underscored the vulnerability of Western industries to Chinese supply decisions.
China is also expanding its influence through infrastructure networks. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) funds ports, railways and pipelines across Asia, Africa and Europe. In the energy realm, Beijing has invested heavily in ports at Gwadar (Pakistan), Hambantota (Sri Lanka), and Piraeus (Greece), creating a string of logistical hubs that can facilitate both trade and naval operations. Chinese companies are building LNG terminals and regasification facilities in Pakistan and Bangladesh, expanding the market for Qatari and U.S. gas but also cementing Chinese control over supply chains. In the South China Sea, Beijing has constructed artificial islands and deployed coast‑guard vessels to assert control over waters that may contain untapped gas reserves. The Taiwan Strait remains a critical choke point; an effective blockade could disrupt global semiconductor and electronics supply chains and hinder the transit of LNG from the United States to Asia.
China’s military strategy includes anti‑access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities designed to make intervention by the U.S. Navy costly. Long-range anti-ship missiles, submarines, and anti-satellite weapons could threaten commercial shipping. Moreover, Beijing has studied the concept of weaponised interdependence: states can coerce others by exploiting their control over global networks. The network may be financial (as when Washington uses SWIFT to sanction banks) or physical (as when Beijing controls rare‑earth supplies). The interplay between infrastructure control and economic leverage is at the heart of China’s rise.
________________________________________
3. Iran: The Straits of Hormuz and the Spectre of Blockade
Iran holds a unique position in global energy geopolitics because it sits astride the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important oil chokepoint. The Strait is only about 34 km wide at its narrowest point, with shipping lanes just 2 km wide in each direction, yet roughly 20 per cent of global petroleum liquids and about one‑fifth of LNG trade pass through the Strait. In 2024, flows through the Strait of Hormuz averaged 20 million barrels per day, equivalent to about 20 per cent of global consumption. While Saudi Arabia and the UAE have pipelines that can bypass Hormuz, they can reroute only about 2.6 million barrels per day. Hence, any blockade of the Strait would cause an immediate shock to oil and gas markets.
In July 2025, Reuters reported that U.S. intelligence had detected Iranian preparations to deploy naval mines in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian military had loaded mines onto vessels as tensions with Israel escalated after U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Reuters.com. Although Iran has threatened to close the Strait for decades, it has never done so; the mere possibility of closure is used as a deterrent. U.S. officials described the mine deployment as a potential ruse, but acknowledged that mining could have severely hobbled global commerce. Iran has more than 5,000 naval mines and could deploy them quickly, according to Reuters.com. The U.S. Navy maintains mine‑countermeasure vessels in Bahrain, but during the 2025 escalation, these ships were temporarily removed from the region, leaving the Strait more vulnerable. reuters.com. The incident highlights how a regional conflict in the Middle East can threaten global energy flows.
Iran’s energy strategy also involves proxy forces and allies. Tehran supports Yemen’s Houthis, who in 2023–25 targeted tankers in the Red Sea using drones. Iran has built relationships with militias in Iraq and Syria to threaten pipelines and logistics. Meanwhile, its oil production has remained high despite U.S. sanctions, thanks to clandestine sales to China. In July 2025, the EU’s restrictions on Russia encouraged Moscow and Tehran to deepen their partnership, with Russia investing in Iranian oil fields and pipelines to bypass sanctions. Thus, Iran occupies a dual role: both as a potential blockade power and as a partner of convenience for sanctioned states.
________________________________________
4. North Korea: Cyber Larceny and Nuclear Funding
North Korea may be an economic minnow in physical energy markets, but it wields outsized influence through cyber operations. UN sanctions monitors reported in February 2024 that North Korea had carried out 58 cyberattacks on cryptocurrency companies since 2017, stealing about $3 billion. These funds, according to the monitors, may have financed up to half of Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program or online.org. The cyber thefts targeted defense companies and their supply chains, showcasing the regime’s ability to weaponise digital interdependence. North Korea’s cyber workforce was estimated at 8,400 personnel in 2024, up from 6,800 in 2022. The country’s hacking groups, such as Lazarus, have attacked banks, cryptocurrency exchanges and energy companies across Asia and North America. In effect, Pyongyang converts stolen digital assets into real resources for its missile and nuclear programs.
The implications for the energy order are twofold. First, North Korea demonstrates that cyberattacks can substitute for physical resource extraction. By hacking cryptocurrency exchanges, it finances weapons without exporting oil or gas. Second, the targeting of energy companies—including power grid operators and oil producers—suggests that cyber war is a complement to kinetic warfare. A future crisis in East Asia could involve simultaneous cyber assaults on LNG terminals, pipelines and shipping firms, disrupting energy flows while missiles fly. North Korea’s alliances with Russia and Iran, and its connections with Chinese technology firms, hint at a broader coalition of states using cyber tools to challenge the U.S.‑led order.
________________________________________
5. Turkey: Aspirations and Limitations as an Energy Hub
Turkey, straddling Europe and Asia, has long harboured ambitions to become a gas hub that transits energy from the Caspian and Middle East to Europe. Its geography is ideal: pipelines from Azerbaijan and Iran converge in eastern Turkey, and the Bosphorus connects the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. However, a July 2025 report on Turkey’s gas strategy notes that domestic production covers only 4 per cent of Turkish gas demand; the country imported 52 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas in 2024. Russia supplied 42 per cent, Azerbaijan 22 per cent, and Iran 14 per cent of these imports. Turkey’s storage capacity is under five bcm, far below that of major hubs like the Netherlands (which has over 12 bcm). Export capacity to EU markets is limited; existing pipelines are already utilised at high rates. Each of Turkey’s suppliers faces constraints: Russia’s gas may be phased out by the EU by 2027, Azerbaijan’s production is plateauing, and Iran faces sanctions and seasonal domestic shortages. Potential new suppliers such as Iraq, Turkmenistan, Egypt and Israel also deal with political turmoil and infrastructure gaps.
As a result, analysts conclude that Turkey’s hub project is more political narrative than commercial reality. To achieve hub status, Ankara would need to invest heavily in LNG import capacity, expand storage facilities and develop reverse‑flow pipelines. It would also have to navigate complex geopolitics: balancing relations with Russia (to import gas), Azerbaijan (to transit gas), Iran (to secure supplies), the EU (to deliver gas) and the United States (to avoid secondary sanctions). Turkey’s relations with the U.S. and NATO are complicated by its purchase of Russian S‑400 air defence systems and its role in the Black Sea. The “dancing on the fault line” metaphor captures how Turkey seeks to court multiple partners without committing to any, turning energy into a tool of statecraft.
________________________________________
6. United States: Shale Hegemony and Tariff Diplomacy
The United States has become the world’s largest LNG exporter, surpassing Qatar and Australia. From 2015 to 2023, the U.S. doubled its natural gas output due to the shale boom. In 2023, the U.S. supplied roughly 45 per cent of Europe’s LNG imports. The rapid expansion of LNG terminals along the Gulf Coast, combined with rising global demand, has turned American gas into a geopolitical instrument. The $750 billion deal thus fits into a broader strategy to use energy exports to reinforce alliances and punish adversaries.
However, U.S. leadership in energy is not unchallenged. The International Energy Outlook 2025 warns that global LNG export capacity may reach 850 bcm by 2030, exceeding demand under ambitious climate scenarios. This raises the risk that new LNG facilities could become stranded assets. At the same time, U.S. industrial policy has taken a confrontational turn. Tariffs on Chinese EVs, solar panels and critical minerals reflect a strategy of tariff diplomacy: by imposing high duties, Washington hopes to protect the domestic industry and gain leverage in negotiations. The risk is that such measures could provoke retaliation and hamper the global energy transition. If the U.S. is seen as using energy to coerce allies (e.g., by conditioning tariff relief on LNG purchases), transatlantic cohesion could weaken.
________________________________________
7. The European Union: Between Dependency and Diversification
The European Union sits at the nexus of these power dynamics. It is the largest customer for both Russian pipeline gas (historically) and U.S. LNG (today). The EU’s long‑term strategy aims to phase out Russian gas by 2027, increase renewables, and create a hydrogen economy. But in the medium term, it must balance price stability with supply security. After the Nord Stream explosions, EU policymakers realised that most gas now arrives by sea; approximately 87 per cent of European gas imports in 2023 came via LNGbruegel.org. This shift exposes Europe to maritime chokepoints like the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, as well as undersea sabotage. The EU has taken steps to improve monitoring: NATO established the Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell, and member states have increased naval patrols. theguardian.com. Yet experts warn that deep-sea cables are hard to defend; they carry 90 per cent of global internet traffic and trade $9 trillion of financial transactions daily. A coordinated attack could cause catastrophic disruption, but such sabotage requires specialised equipment and is thus more likely to be used as a threat than as an overt act.
The EU is also grappling with industrial policy. While it imposes tariffs on Chinese EVs and invests in battery plants, it must avoid alienating China—a significant export market—and ensure that supply chain diversification does not lead to higher costs for consumers. The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act seeks to reduce dependence on imports and build domestic capacity. But success depends on environmental permits, community acceptance and international partnerships. The EU’s energy strategy thus involves a delicate balancing act: diversify suppliers, build resilience, and maintain open markets while avoiding retaliation from major powers.
________________________________________
8. Weaponised Interdependence: A Conceptual Lens
Throughout this section, a recurring theme is weaponised interdependence—a concept coined by Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman to describe how states use global networks of trade, finance and information to coerce others. Energy is a classic domain of interdependence: pipelines, LNG terminals, undersea cables and shipping lanes create mutual dependencies. When Russia drags anchors over wires, or when Iran threatens to mine the Strait of Hormuz, they are leveraging interdependence to gain strategic advantage. When China restricts exports of critical minerals, it is weaponising its dominance in supply chains. When the U.S. conditions tariff relief on LNG purchases, it is using trade to enforce compliance.
The key insight is that networks are both sources of wealth and tools of coercion. States that control nodes in these networks can threaten to disrupt flows, causing economic pain. At the same time, interdependence can deter conflict by raising the costs of war. The challenge for policymakers is to manage these networks in a way that preserves resilience while reducing vulnerability. This may involve diversifying suppliers, building redundancy, and developing norms against sabotage. In the absence of such measures, interdependence becomes a latent battlefield—a silent war fought below the waterline, in the code of software and the murk of global finance.
________________________________________
Part IV: Scenarios for 2025–2030
Predicting the future is fraught with uncertainty, but scenario analysis can help illuminate possible trajectories. This section outlines three broad scenarios for the period 2025–2030: Managed Rivalry, The Great Fracture, and Grey Zone Instability. Each scenario draws on current trends and known risks; none is predetermined. The probabilities assigned (25 per cent, 20 per cent and 55 per cent) are illustrative and reflect the author’s judgment rather than scientific forecasts.
________________________________________
1. Managing Rivalry (Probability: 25 %)
In the Managed Rivalry scenario, global actors avoid outright war despite hardened blocs. The U.S. and China should continue their technological and trade competition, but set up guardrails to prevent escalation. Europe will gradually reduce its reliance on Russian gas by 2027, while expanding renewables and hydrogen. LNG markets stabilise; Qatar and the U.S. maintain high exports; and new LNG projects in Canada and Mozambique come online, increasing supply. Prices remain relatively stable, though above pre‑2022 levels. The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act and the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act spur domestic mining, reducing reliance on Chinese minerals. Tariff wars calm as the EU and China agree on minimum prices for EVs, Reuters.com, and the U.S. moderates its tariffs after negotiating climate provisions with Beijing. Iran refrains from closing the Strait of Hormuz; occasional skirmishes occur, but the U.S. Navy and regional allies deter a blockade. Russia continues selling oil via the shadow fleet but avoids large‑scale sabotage, fearing retaliation.
Under this scenario, energy security improves, though not uniformly. Countries invest in grid resilience and monitor undersea cables. NATO’s Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell expands its capabilities, and states share intelligence on shadow fleet movements. The risk of catastrophic sabotage diminishes as detection improves and as Russia realises that further attacks could provoke NATO retaliation. Meanwhile, cooperation on climate change resumes; global emissions peak by 2025 and begin to decline. The price of oil stabilises around $80–$90 per barrel, and natural gas contracts are signed on a long‑term basis. Although competition persists, the world avoids major disruptions. This scenario is plausible if leaders prioritise risk management and if domestic politics do not force extreme actions.
________________________________________
2. The Great Fracture (Probability: 20 %)
The Great Fracture scenario imagines a cascading crisis. It begins with a drone attack on a central LNG terminal in Qatar, perhaps orchestrated by a proxy group. Fire engulfs storage tanks; exports drop by several million tonnes for months. Global gas prices spike above $30 per million British thermal units. Meanwhile, tensions in the Middle East ignite: in retaliation for U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities, Iran mines the Strait of Hormuz and fires missiles at tankers. Oil prices surge to $200 per barrel; Western economies tip into recession. Saudi Arabia and the UAE use their pipelines that bypass Hormuz, but the capacity is insufficient to meet global demand. China and India, dependent on Hormuz for 69 per cent of their crude imports, suffer severe energy shortages. In East Asia, a separate crisis erupts when China imposes a quarantine on Taiwan to prevent arms shipments. U.S. and allied navies escort cargo ships through the Taiwan Strait, raising the risk of confrontation. A cyberattack attributed to North Korea turns off an LNG terminal in South Korea, causing a domestic blackout. Russia sees an opportunity and severs several more undersea cables in the Baltic and North Seas, disrupting internet service and electricity for millions.
In this scenario, globalisation fractures. Countries scramble to secure supplies; export restrictions proliferate; energy markets become segmented. The International Energy Agency coordinates emergency stock releases, but prices remain volatile. Inflation soars; governments impose price controls and rationing. Political instability rises: protests sweep through Europe over high energy bills; authoritarian leaders use emergencies to consolidate power—the U.S. and China erect digital firewalls, splitting the internet. Without a functioning global order, climate cooperation collapses. Emissions rise as coal use surges to replace disrupted gas supplies. The Great Fracture is a worst‑case scenario but illustrates how interconnected vulnerabilities—physical chokepoints, cyber networks, and trade ties—can cascade into a systemic crisis. The probability may be lower than in the other scenarios, but policymakers must prepare contingency plans.
________________________________________
3. Grey Zone Instability (Probability: 55 %)
The most likely trajectory, according to this analysis, is Grey Zone Instability—a world of permanent fever that neither descends into world war nor achieves stable rivalry. In this scenario, sabotage, sanctions, cyberattacks, and tariff wars become routine. Russia continues to wage hybrid warfare against Europe, dragging anchors over cables and pipelines. friendsofeurope.org. Finland, Estonia and Sweden invest in cable protection, but accidents and deliberate damage persist. The shadow fleet is expected to expand, with more than 500 vessels by 2027. Western navies impound some ships, but new ones appear under different flags. Russia, Iran and North Korea coordinate cyber campaigns; power grids in Europe and Asia face periodic outages. North Korea’s hacking groups steal billions from cryptocurrency exchanges, reuters.com, funding further nuclear tests. Iran orchestrates sporadic harassment of tankers, keeping the price of oil above $100 per barrel without fully closing Hormuz.
Trade wars intensify in the grey zone scenario. The U.S. imposes additional tariffs on Chinese computer chips and green technologies; China retaliates with export restrictions on rare earths. The EU struggles to maintain unity; some member states—Hungary, Slovakia, Italy—seek deals with Russia to secure cheaper energy. Turkey leverages its geostrategic position to act as a conduit for Russian gas, exploiting loopholes in sanctions instituted by the United States. Meanwhile, the energy transition slows. Investments in renewables continue, but supply chain disruptions and higher input costs delay projects—methane emissions from LNG increase as exporters cut corners to reduce costs. Climate policy becomes politicised with some governments prioritising energy security at the expense of emissions targets. The grey zone becomes the new normal: high tension, frequent incidents, but no decisive break.
Under this scenario, resilience becomes a buzzword. Companies diversify suppliers; governments stockpile critical minerals; ports and pipelines are hardened. Insurance premiums for shipping and undersea cables rise dramatically. The private sector invests in satellite surveillance to monitor the shadow fleet and undersea infrastructure. Public-private partnerships emerge to share intelligence, following recommendations from policy experts for public-private monitoring (kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu). Still, the constant stress exacts a toll: economic growth slows, investment falters, and trust between states erodes. Grey Zone Instability is not as catastrophic as the Great Fracture. Still, it is a world of constant low-grade warfare, making long-term planning difficult and undermining the confidence necessary for large-scale climate action.
________________________________________
Part V: The Coming Decade – A Pre‑War Energy Order?
1. Historical Analogies: 1913 and 2025
Historians often compare today’s geopolitical landscape to Europe in 1913: a world of increasing trade and interdependence teetering on the brink of war. In 1913, telegraph cables and steamships connected continents. Leaders believed that economic integration would make war irrational. A year later, a single assassination triggered a chain reaction. Today, data cables and LNG tankers are the arteries of globalisation. The assumption persists that rational actors will avoid cutting these lifelines because the costs are too high. Yet history warns that miscalculations can happen. Europe’s pre‑World War I trading partners still went to war because alliances and nationalism overrode commercial logic.
In the 2020s, the parallels are striking. States are deeply connected through energy flows and supply chains, but also distrustful and increasingly nationalist. Undersea cables carry more than 90 per cent of the world’s internet traffic (theguardian.com) and facilitate about $9 trillion in trade per day (rand.org. The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines and subsequent damage to Baltic cables revealed that these networks are far more vulnerable than previously acknowledged. theguardian.com. The RAND Corporation notes that while attacking deep-sea cables is difficult and requires specialised equipment, such attacks could have catastrophic consequences, necessitating greater investment in surveillance and resilience. Similarly, the Kleinman Centre argues that transatlantic policymakers must treat sabotage threats as seriously as supply security, recommending that NATO invoke Article 4 and build public‑private partnerships to monitor infrastructure.
________________________________________
2. Chokepoints and Tripwires
Geographers speak of maritime chokepoints—narrow passages whose disruption can trigger global crises. The Strait of Hormuz is one such chokepoint. When Iran loaded mines onto vessels in the Persian Gulf in mid-2025, Reuters.com, analysts feared a blockade that could cut off one‑fifth of global oil and LNG flow, seia.gov. The Suez Canal and Bab al‑Mandeb are others: attacks on shipping in these regions by Houthi rebels have already prompted Saudi Arabia to reroute oil through its East‑West pipelineeia.gov. At the same time, new pipelines and export terminals in Saudi Arabia and the UAE provide 2.6 million barrels per day of bypass capacity, which is insufficient to replace flows through Hormuz. A closure of Hormuz would thus create an energy shock reminiscent of the 1973 oil embargo.
On land, the Balticconnector and Nord Stream pipelines illustrate how terrestrial and subsea infrastructure are equally vulnerable. The 2022 Nord Stream explosions not only interrupted gas flows but also released vast amounts of methane. Subsequent incidents—damaged cables in October 2023, November 2024, and December 2024—show that sabotage may be an ongoing strategy rather than a one-off event. As the GMF report notes, most of the vessels suspected of dragging anchors over cables sailed from Russian ports and may belong to Russia’s shadow fleet. Even if accidents cannot be conclusively proven as sabotage, the pattern fosters mistrust and prompts costly security measures. Every undersea cable now resembles a tripwire: its severing may not cause immediate conflict, but it raises the temperature and could justify retaliation.
________________________________________
3. Technological Arms Race: Surveillance and Resilience
In response to rising threats, states and companies are investing in surveillance technologies. NATO and the EU are developing new sensors to monitor underwater activity. Private firms offer satellite imagery and AI‑driven analysis to track ships and detect anomalies. RAND analysts highlight the need for attack submarines and patrol vessels to deter sabotage and to protect cable landings. The UK and Norway have commissioned specialised
surveillance ships to monitor critical infrastructure, theguardian.com. Meanwhile, energy companies deploy drones and remotely operated vehicles to inspect pipelines and cables. These measures represent a technological arms race in the maritime domain. The challenge is that defence costs are high and cannot guarantee complete security; even with sensors, a determined actor can exploit gaps, particularly in remote or contested waters.
Building resilience also involves redundancy. Europe is considering constructing additional gas interconnectors and storage facilities to reduce reliance on any single route. The EU’s plans include the Baltic Pipe connecting Norway to Poland and the South‑East European Gas Corridor bringing Azeri gas to the Balkans. However, new pipelines require years to build and may conflict with climate goals. In the digital realm, companies are laying additional internet cables along diverse routes to ensure that traffic can reroute if one line is cut. Some nations propose to store more data locally to reduce cross‑border dependencies. Whether redundancy will suffice to maintain stability in a crisis remains uncertain.
________________________________________
4. Climate and Conflict: The Feedback Loop
Climate change is both a driver and a casualty of the new energy order. Extreme weather events—heat waves, droughts, floods—can disrupt energy production and transportation. For example, droughts in the Mississippi and Rhine rivers have impeded coal and oil barge movements, while heat waves have strained electricity grids. When energy systems are already under stress due to sabotage or trade wars, climate shocks can tip them into crisis. Conversely, conflict undermines climate mitigation: wars destroy infrastructure, divert investment and generate emissions. The sabotage of Nord Stream released methane equivalent to millions of cars. The burning of oil storage facilities after drone strikes sends plumes of CO₂ into the atmosphere. Thus, there is a feedback loop: geopolitical instability increases emissions, which in turn exacerbates climate impacts that further destabilise societies.
Anticipating this loop, some analysts call for a wartime climate mobilisation akin to the U.S. mobilisation during World War II. They argue that energy security and climate security should be integrated: investment in renewables not only reduces emissions but also lessens dependence on hostile suppliers. Climate adaptation measures—such as flood protections for ports and cooling systems for data centres—are also essential to protect critical energy infrastructure. Yet such integration requires political will and international cooperation. If states continue to weaponise interdependence, the synergy between climate and conflict will likely worsen.
________________________________________
5. The Decade Ahead: Managing Risk and Building Norms
The coming decade will test whether global actors can develop norms and institutions to manage the pre‑war energy order. Some proposals include:
1. International agreements on critical infrastructure protection. Similar to treaties on space or the high seas, states could commit not to sabotage undersea cables and pipelines in peacetime and to cooperate in repairs. Verification would be challenging, but agreements could reduce ambiguity and provide a basis for sanctions.
2. Coordinated sanctions on shadow fleets. The U.S., EU and allies could harmonise sanctions against vessels participating in the covert oil trade. By targeting shipping insurance, financing and docking rights, they could make it harder for shadow tankers to operate. Sharing intelligence on vessel ownership and movement is crucial. The Friends of Europe report suggests that impounding suspect ships and insisting on transparent insurance could reduce the risk of sabotage.
3. Digital and cyber norms. Countries must negotiate norms against cyberattacks on energy infrastructure. The UN’s Group of Governmental Experts has attempted to establish such norms, but enforcement is weak. Given North Korea’s prolific hacking and the potential for states to disguise attacks via proxies, norms must be coupled with deterrence. Public–private partnerships should enhance threat detection and response. kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu.
4. Climate‑energy integration. Investment in renewables, storage and demand management should be prioritised to reduce reliance on vulnerable fossil fuels. International cooperation on critical minerals, including recycling and ethical sourcing, can reduce dependence on any single supplier. Removing trade barriers on clean technologies may accelerate adoption. The EU and the U.S. could create a transatlantic climate fund that ties tariff reductions to emissions targets, aligning trade with climate goals.
The success of these proposals depends on trust and reciprocity. If states believe that others will abide by norms, they are more likely to cooperate. Yet trust is in short supply. Building it will require transparency, confidence‑building measures, and perhaps third‑party verification. Without such efforts, the pre‑war energy order may devolve into open conflict.
________________________________________
Epilogue: The Silence Before the Sirens
On the surface, the world appears orderly. Tankers glide across seas, their cargo worth more than gold. Undersea cables hum with data, carrying the lifeblood of finance and communication. Wind farms spin silently, pumping electrons into the grid. Leaders speak at summits about cooperation and energy security. Yet beneath this calm lies a pulse of fear. Every cable is a potential tripwire; every tanker a target; every software update a vector for malware. The term pre‑war energy order captures this uneasy equilibrium: no formal declaration of war, but a persistent sense that one miscalculation could unleash chaos.
The silence before the sirens is not the absence of noise but the hum of cables on the ocean floor, the whirr of pumps in LNG terminals and the quiet click of computer code executing in a hacker’s den. It is the sound of a world preparing for a conflict it refuses to name. The $750 billion energy deal was one such hum—a diplomatic signal disguised as commerce, a spark that could ignite broader tensions. By tying Europe’s fate to American gas and by threatening Russia with ultimatums, the deal blurred the line between trade and war. The sirens have not yet sounded, but the cautionary tales of Nord Stream, Hormuz, the shadow fleet and cyber thefts remind us that the future may not be decided by dramatic declarations but by the unseen vulnerabilities of our interconnected world.
________________________________________
Latest development and quote
As this essay neared completion, developments continued. On July 28, 2025, Reuters reported a rise in oil prices following the announcement of the U.S.-EU energy-and-trade pact and President Trump's shortened deadline for Russia. Market analyst Phil Flynn noted the geopolitical implications: The pact forces Europe to reduce reliance on Russian energy, boosting U.S. producers while pressuring Putin to negotiate. Flynn's analysis exemplifies this essay's core argument: energy agreements are not neutral transactions but tools of power and potential instigators of conflict.
________________________________________
Sources and References
The discussion in this essay is underpinned by a broad range of contemporary news reports, policy briefs and academic analyses published between 2023 and 2025. Keywords are listed here in Harvard style.
Reuters (2024a) ‘EU’s $750 billion energy pledge faces scepticism’. Reuters, 2024. The report explores the proposed EU‑U.S. energy deal and notes that analysts doubt the feasibility of tripling U.S. energy imports to reach the $750 billion target.
Reuters (2024b) ‘US slaps steep tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and solar panels’. Reuters, September 2024. This article details Washington’s 100% tariff on Chinese EVs and other trade measures that escalated tensions in clean-tech supply chains.
Reuters (2025a) ‘Oil rises 2% on US‑EU trade deal; Trump shortens deadline for Russia’. Reuters, 28 July 2025. This piece reports on the announcement of the EU‑U.S. trade pact and includes analyst Phil Flynn’s observation that Europe will “have to give up a big percentage of everything they’re getting from Russia”, reuters.com.
The Washington Post/Associated Press (2025) ‘Trump gives Russia 10 days to end Ukraine war. The Washington Post, July 2025. This article recounts the ultimatum delivered by U.S. President Donald Trump to his Russian counterpart and situates it within broader trade‑and‑energy negotiations.
Euronews (2025) reported in April that LNG surpassed pipeline gas as the EU's primary source of gas imports, also discussing its environmental impact (euronews.com).
Bruegel's 2024 analysis, "Europe's changing gas mix," examines Norway's displacement of Russia as the EU's top gas supplier and the increased reliance on seaborne imports (bruegel.org).
Clean Energy Wire (2023) ‘Germany builds LNG terminals to cut Russian dependence’. Clean Energy Wire, May 2023. This factsheet explains Germany’s rapid deployment of floating LNG terminals and debates their necessity given long‑term decarbonisation goals, cleanenergywire.org.
Crossdock Insights (2025) ‘Critical minerals and China’s refining dominance’. Cross-Border Insights, March 2025. The briefing notes that China refines the majority of the world’s nickel, lithium, cobalt and copper and discusses Western efforts to diversify supply chains.
International Institute for Strategic Studies (2024) ‘EU provisional tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles’. IISS Strategic Comment, October 2024. This commentary examines the European Commission’s provisional duties on Chinese EVs and the potential for retaliatory tariffs.
RAND Corporation (2025). Protecting critical undersea infrastructure. RAND Commentary, July 2025. The analysis discusses the vulnerability of undersea cables that transmit approximately $9 trillion of trade per day and recommends increased surveillance and patrols.
The Guardian (2023) ‘Nord Stream blasts expose western vulnerability’—The Guardian, October 2023. The article details how the sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines and subsequent drone sightings around oil rigs spurred NATO countries to protect undersea energy and communications infrastructure. theguardian.com.
German Marshall Fund (2025) ‘Grey‑zone incidents in the Baltic Sea’. GMF Policy Brief, January 2025. This brief catalogues damage to Baltic gas pipelines and telecommunications cables in 2023–24 and explores suspicions that commercial vessels from Russian ports were involved.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (2024) ‘World oil transit chokepoints’. EIA, 2024. The report underscores the strategic significance of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one‑fifth of global oil and LNG trade flows.
United Nations Panel of Experts (2024) ‘Investigation of North Korean cyberattacks’. UN Security Council, Sanctions Committee, 2024. The panel’s findings, reported by Reuters, reveal that Pyongyang’s hacking of cryptocurrency firms raised around $3 billion to fund its weapons program.
Observer Research Foundation (2024) ‘North Korea’s cyber strategy’. ORF Issue Brief, November 2024. The brief analyzes the growth of North Korea’s cyber workforce and its use of digital theft to finance nuclear development.
Regional Energy Report (2025) ‘Turkey’s gas‑hub ambitions’. Regional Energy Analysis, July 2025. The report notes that Turkey’s domestic production covers only 4 % of its gas consumption, while its storage and export capacities fall short of hub status.
Geopolitical Intelligence Services (2025) ‘Russia’s shrinking gas footprint in Europe’. GIS Dossier, February 2025. The dossier charts the collapse of Russian pipeline exports and the rise of U.S. LNG in Europe’s gas mix.
Kleinman Centre for Energy Policy. (2025, May). Subsea sabotage: Implications for energy security. Kleinman Centre Policy Digest. Argues for treating sabotage threats to pipelines and cables as seriously as supply security issues and advocates public-private monitoring arrangements (kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu).
Germán & Co. (2024) ‘Prigozhin’s lesson for Trump & Co: Don’t trust Putin’s promises’. German Toro Ghio Blog, 26 August 2024. This analysis reflects the naivety of trusting authoritarian leaders and is referenced in the abstract as an illustration of the dangers of idealistic approaches to energy geopolitics.
End…
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
Crimson Veins: The Deadly Hunt for Black Gold and Empire…
The Permanence of Crisis: Von der Leyen's Prophetic Insight
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's observation that crises have become "permanent rather than sporadic" deserves recognition as one of the most important diagnostic insights of our era. The transition from periodic emergency to chronic instability represents a fundamental shift in the nature of international relations—one that Western leadership seems determined to ignore while pretending that traditional crisis management tools remain relevant.
Von der Leyen's statement drew criticism precisely because it forced uncomfortable recognition that the post-Cold War order has collapsed beyond repair. The COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, climate disasters, and escalating nuclear tensions with Iran represent not separate crises requiring individual solutions, but symptoms of systemic breakdown demanding entirely new approaches to governance and international cooperation.
The criticism directed at von der Leyen reveals a deeper psychological resistance to acknowledging this new reality. Political leaders and commentators prefer the comfort of assuming that current instability represents a temporary aberration that will eventually return to some imagined normal state. This willful blindness prevents the development of institutions and strategies designed to function effectively under permanent crisis conditions.
Recent diplomatic approaches exemplify this nostalgic thinking. Complex international conflicts are still being approached through deadline diplomacy and economic pressure—tools that might have retained effectiveness during an era of American hegemony but have lost their potency in our multipolar world. Such approaches reflect not strategic thinking but the desperate application of outdated methods to problems requiring entirely new frameworks.
Von der Leyen understood what her critics refused to accept: Europe requires emergency governance capabilities not as temporary measures but as permanent institutional features. Her warning was not alarmism but recognition that the comfortable assumptions of the liberal international order had become dangerous delusions.
“Von der Leyen's Prophetic Warning: How Emergency Governance Became Essential for European Survival…
An Analysis of Permanent Crisis, Failed Diplomacy, and the Art of Strategic Self-Destruction
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
Av Germán Toro Ghio
Karlstad, Sweden | July 15, 2025
________________________________________
Prologue: The Third Eye and the Nuclear Shadow
In 1956, Cyril Henry Hoskin, a plumber from Devon masquerading as Tibetan monk T. Lobsang Rampa, gifted the world "The Third Eye"—a masterpiece of orientalist fantasy that promised ancient wisdom from the comfort of suburban Weybridge. Sixty-nine years later, in January 2025, Western leadership continues to exhibit the same charming tendency toward grand theatrical announcements backed by knowledge so superficial it wouldn't qualify one to manage a parish fête.
But unlike Hoskin's harmless cultural appropriation, today's geopolitical theater carries the weight of nuclear annihilation. When President Trump announced that Russia had precisely fifty days to reach peace with Ukraine or face "very severe tariffs," the world witnessed more than diplomatic bluster—it observed the dangerous intersection of histrionic personality, strategic incompetence, and weapons capable of ending civilization.
The irony is delicious: threatening sanctions on Russian caviar when both Russia and Iran have endured comprehensive Western sanctions for years is rather like threatening to cancel Christmas for children already told Father Christmas doesn't exist. Yet beneath this absurdist veneer lies a more sinister reality—we are witnessing the systematic collapse of diplomatic norms in an age when such collapse carries existential consequences.
________________________________________
Chapter I: The Montenegro Moment - Anatomy of Histrionic Leadership
To understand how we arrived at the precipice of nuclear catastrophe over Ukrainian territories and Iranian enrichment facilities, one must first examine the personality driving these decisions. In May 2017, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, President Trump provided a perfect crystalline moment of revelation: he physically pushed Montenegro's Prime Minister Dusko Markovic aside to position himself at the front of a group photo.
The incident, captured on camera and broadcast globally, reveals the fundamental psychology at work. Trump placed his hand on Markovic's arm and simply moved him out of the way, then confidently adjusted his suit jacket as he emerged at the front of the group. The body language spoke volumes: here was a man who viewed diplomacy as territorial competition, where physical dominance translated to political victory.
This was no mere breach of protocol—it was a diagnostic moment. The behavior exhibited classic histrionic traits: the compulsive need for attention, the theatrical gestures designed to ensure all cameras captured him in the most prominent position, and most tellingly, the complete disregard for the social norms that govern international relations. When Montenegro's Prime Minister smiled awkwardly and attempted to engage, Trump had already moved on, his attention focused solely on his positioning relative to NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.
The pattern established in that Brussels moment would replicate itself across every major foreign policy challenge of his presidency: the tendency to treat complex geopolitical relationships as personal dominance contests, the inability to distinguish between showmanship and statecraft, and the dangerous assumption that what works in reality television translates to nuclear diplomacy.
________________________________________
Chapter II: The King of the Party Syndrome - When Histrionics Meet Weapons of Mass Destruction
Individuals who consistently seek to be "the king of the party" often mask deeper psychological vulnerabilities behind their performative confidence. Their need for constant validation, their tendency toward dramatic escalation when attention wanes, and their manipulation of emotional responses in others creates a predictable but dangerous pattern when such personalities gain access to state power.
The histrionic leader views every interaction through the lens of personal performance. They are not seeking optimal outcomes for their constituents or nations—they are seeking maximum dramatic impact. This explains why Trump's foreign policy decisions consistently prioritize spectacle over strategy, announcement over action, and gesture over genuine negotiation.
Consider the trajectory from the Montenegro push to the current nuclear crisis. The same psychological impulse that drove Trump to physically move aside an allied leader now drives him to issue ultimatums to nuclear powers. The scale has changed—from embarrassing a small nation's prime minister to threatening global stability—but the underlying motivation remains constant: the compulsive need to dominate every scenario visually and psychologically.
When such personalities gain control of nuclear arsenals and military alliances, the stakes transform from diplomatic embarrassment to existential threat. The histrionic leader's inability to comprehend consequences beyond their immediate gratification becomes not merely a character flaw but a species-level hazard.
________________________________________
Chapter III: The Crisis Nuclear - When Theatrics Trigger Armageddon
The escalation toward nuclear catastrophe began, as many disasters do, with good intentions poorly executed. Trump's administration, under pressure from Israeli lobbying and domestic political calculations, initially resisted calls for military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. Intelligence suggested Israel was preparing possible strikes, and Trump, displaying his occasionally functional survival instincts, blocked several planned Israeli attacks, preferring to pursue negotiations.
But when diplomatic efforts failed to produce the television-ready breakthroughs Trump required, the pattern reasserted itself. On June 21, 2025, the United States joined Israel in bombing three Iranian nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Trump described the operation as "totally obliterated," using language more suited to a wrestling match than nuclear diplomacy.
The immediate consequences revealed the vast chasm between histrionic gesture and strategic reality. Iran suspended all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), expelling inspectors by July 4. Parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz—though economic reality prevented implementation. Most critically, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wrote directly to Vladimir Putin requesting support, triggering emergency meetings in the Kremlin.
Here, according to multiple intelligence sources, the world came closer to nuclear proliferation than at any point since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Iranian officials, facing the destruction of their nuclear program, pressed Russia for immediate transfer of nuclear weapons or rapid acceleration of weapons development. The expression of shock on Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's face during these emergency consultations—visible in leaked diplomatic photography—reportedly reflected his realization that Trump had crossed a red line even experienced nuclear brinksmanship veterans considered unthinkable.
Russia, for all its authoritarian calculation, possessed what Trump's administration lacked: institutional memory of nuclear near-misses and the sober understanding that nuclear escalation, once begun, follows its own logic independent of political theater. It was likely Russian restraint, not American wisdom, that prevented Iranian nuclear weaponization in the immediate aftermath of the strikes.
________________________________________
Chapter IV: The Israeli Pressure Campaign - Strategic Manipulation of Histrionic Tendencies
Israel's role in escalating the Iranian crisis demonstrates sophisticated understanding of Trump's psychological vulnerabilities. Netanyahu's government recognized that Trump's need for dramatic gesture could be weaponized to serve Israeli strategic interests, even when those interests conflicted with broader American security concerns.
The pressure campaign employed multiple vectors: public flattery designed to appeal to Trump's ego, private warnings about Iranian nuclear capabilities tailored to his fears of appearing weak, and most effectively, the implicit threat that Israel would act unilaterally if America failed to lead. This last element proved particularly effective because it placed Trump in a position where inaction would appear subordinate to a smaller ally's initiatives.
Netanyahu's team understood that Trump could not psychologically tolerate being upstaged by any other leader, particularly on matters relating to military action and decisive leadership. When Israel presented plans for strikes against Iranian facilities, the choice was framed not as a question of strategic wisdom but as a test of American leadership credibility. Would Trump allow Israel to act alone, appearing reactive and secondary, or would he seize the initiative and ensure America led the operation?
The result was entirely predictable to anyone who understood Trump's psychology: he chose the more dramatic option, transforming Israeli pressure into American action, and elevating a regional conflict into a global nuclear crisis. The tragedy is that this outcome was both foreseeable and avoidable, had Trump possessed either the strategic patience to resist manipulation or the institutional support to recognize it.
________________________________________
Chapter V: The Kissinger Paradox - When Chess Masters Watch Checkers Players
Perhaps the most tragic element of current geopolitical dysfunction is the specter of Henry Kissinger's legacy watching over these proceedings. Kissinger, who died in 2023, had been an advisor to Trump for decades while simultaneously maintaining a relationship with Vladimir Putin spanning seventeen meetings over multiple decades. The architect of the greatest diplomatic coup of the 20th century—the separation of China and Russia—had provided both leaders with intimate knowledge of successful great power maneuvering.
Kissinger's original strategy succeeded because it understood a fundamental principle Trump seems incapable of grasping: effective diplomacy requires patience, subtlety, and the willingness to sacrifice immediate gratification for long-term advantage. The Nixon-Kissinger approach to China involved years of careful signaling, backdoor communications, and the gradual construction of mutual benefit scenarios that made cooperation more attractive than continued hostility.
Trump's approach to the same challenge has been the precise inverse: issuing public ultimatums, engaging in economic warfare, and assuming that pressure tactics that might work in real estate negotiations translate effectively to great power politics. The result has been the exact opposite of Kissinger's achievement: rather than separating China and Russia, Trump's policies have driven them into the closest alliance in their modern history.
The irony reaches almost cosmic proportions when one considers that both Putin and Xi Jinping likely understood Kissinger's strategy as well as—if not better than—Trump. They recognized that Trump was attempting a "reverse Nixon" and responded accordingly, deepening their partnership specifically to frustrate American divide-and-conquer tactics. Xi and Putin's declaration that their relationship has reached "the highest level in history" represents not coincidence but calculated response to perceived American manipulation.
________________________________________
Chapter VI: The Permanent Crisis Doctrine - When Emergency Becomes Normality
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's observation that crises have become "permanent rather than sporadic" deserves recognition as one of the most important diagnostic insights of our era. The transition from periodic emergency to chronic instability represents a fundamental shift in the nature of international relations, yet one that Western leadership seems determined to ignore in favor of pretending that traditional crisis management tools remain relevant.
Von der Leyen's statement drew criticism precisely because it forced uncomfortable recognition that the post-Cold War order has collapsed beyond repair. The COVID pandemic, the Ukrainian war, climate disasters, and now nuclear escalation with Iran represent not separate crises requiring individual solutions but symptoms of systemic breakdown requiring entirely new approaches to governance and international cooperation.
The criticism of von der Leyen reveals the psychological resistance to acknowledging this new reality. Political leaders and commentators prefer the comfort of assuming that current instability represents a temporary aberration that will eventually return to some imagined normal state. This willful blindness prevents the development of institutions and strategies designed to function effectively in permanent crisis conditions.
Trump's fifty-day ultimatum to Russia exemplifies this nostalgic thinking. It assumes that complex international conflicts can be resolved through deadline diplomacy and economic pressure—tools that might have retained some effectiveness in an era of American hegemony but which have lost their potency in our multipolar world. The ultimatum reflects not strategic thinking but the desperate application of outdated methods to problems that require entirely new frameworks.
Von der Leyen understood what her critics refused to accept: Europe required emergency governance capabilities not as temporary measures but as permanent institutional features. Her prophetic warning was not alarmism, but rather a recognition that the comfortable assumptions of the liberal international order had become dangerous delusions.
________________________________________
Chapter VII: The Moscow Offer - Putin's Chess Move and Trump's Susceptibility
Vladimir Putin's apparent offer of Trump Tower Moscow construction rights in exchange for favourable treatment of Russian interests represents perhaps the most sophisticated understanding of Trump's psychology displayed by any foreign leader. The offer demonstrates Putin's recognition that Trump's motivations can be understood and predicted with mathematical precision.
Trump's obsession with building in Moscow dates to 1987—a thirty-eight-year fixation that reveals the depth of his need for validation from global power centres. The fact that he never completed any Russian projects despite decades of effort creates exactly the psychological vulnerability that Putin's offer is designed to exploit: the promise of finally achieving what has always been denied.
The timing of this offer, following the failure of Ukrainian peace negotiations and the increasing Iranian nuclear crisis, suggests careful calculation rather than a spontaneous gesture. Putin understands that Trump's decision-making process prioritises personal gratification over strategic analysis, making him susceptible to offers that combine business opportunity with ego fulfilment.
The broader message implicit in the Moscow offer—"we have more where this came from"—indicates that Russia views Trump not as a strategic adversary but as a manageable asset whose behaviour can be influenced through appeals to his vanity and greed. This represents a devastating assessment of American leadership from one of its primary geopolitical competitors.
________________________________________
Chapter VIII: The Moscow Question - When Curiosity Becomes Catastrophe
The revelation that Trump asked President Zelensky whether Ukraine could bomb Moscow and St. Petersburg if provided with American long-range weapons represents perhaps the most dangerous moment in nuclear diplomacy since the Cuban Missile Crisis. The casual nature of the inquiry—"Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow?... Can you hit St Petersburg too?"—reveals a complete disconnection from the consequences of nuclear escalation.
The White House's response—that Trump was "merely asking a question, not encouraging further killing"—ranks among the most catastrophic failures of crisis communications in diplomatic history. By confirming that the president had indeed inquired about bombing the capitals of a nuclear superpower, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt provided Putin with perfect justification for any future escalation: "The American president was asking about attacking our cities."
This represents far more than a communications error. No professional foreign policy advisor would permit such a question to be asked, and no competent communications team would confirm its occurrence. The fact that both happened suggests either complete institutional breakdown or deliberate strategy to create distraction from some even more damaging domestic revelation.
The timing of this leak—immediately following Trump's fifty-day ultimatum and concurrent with various domestic political pressures—supports the distraction theory. The question itself is so obviously insane that its revelation serves to focus attention on Trump's mental state rather than potentially more damaging information about his compromises with foreign powers or domestic corruption.
________________________________________
Chapter IX: The Danish Debacle - Greenland and the Geography of Absurdity
Trump's renewed obsession with purchasing Greenland provides another window into the psychology driving American foreign policy disasters. While the specific video of Danish parliamentarians laughing at Trump's Greenland comments proved to be doctored, the authentic reactions from Danish officials reveal the genuine international response to American geopolitical theater.
Danish Member of European Parliament Anders Vistisen's suggestion that Trump "f*** off" represents more than diplomatic rudeness—it reflects the breakdown of transatlantic respect that has accompanied Trump's approach to alliance management. When even historically compliant allies respond with public contempt, the erosion of American soft power reaches critical levels.
The broader Greenland episode demonstrates Trump's inability to distinguish between real estate acquisition and territorial sovereignty. His apparent belief that Denmark might be willing to sell a territory larger than Mexico for the right price reveals the same conceptual confusion that leads him to threaten "very severe tariffs" on countries already under comprehensive sanctions.
Most troubling is the pattern these episodes establish: Trump's foreign policy initiatives consistently generate international ridicule rather than respect, weakening American influence precisely when global leadership is most crucial. The Greenland obsession, the caviar sanctions, the fifty-day ultimatum—each represents the application of business logic to problems requiring diplomatic sophistication.
________________________________________
Chapter X: The Nuclear Paradox - Bombing Iran While Building Trump Towers
Perhaps no contradiction in Trump's foreign policy reveals the depth of strategic incoherence more clearly than the simultaneous destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities and the massive expansion of American nuclear power. Within weeks of bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure in June 2025, Trump signed executive orders designed to "quadruple domestic production of nuclear power within the next 25 years."
The cognitive dissonance is staggering: while justifying attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities as necessary for global security, Trump simultaneously promotes the most aggressive nuclear expansion in American history. The administration has designated AI data centers as "critical defense facilities" and directed the Secretary of Energy to deploy advanced nuclear technology to power AI infrastructure within 30 months.
Most grotesquely symbolic is former Energy Secretary Rick Perry's company Fermi America, which has applied to build "the Donald J. Trump Advanced Energy and Intelligence Campus"—a nuclear complex featuring four one-gigawatt reactors named individually after Trump. The hubris of naming nuclear reactors after oneself while simultaneously bombing other nations' nuclear facilities defies rational explanation.
Trump explicitly rejected any climate targets for AI power generation, stating that power plants "can use whatever fuel they want" and suggesting coal as an emergency backup power source. This represents the complete abandonment of renewable energy initiatives that had gained momentum globally, replaced by a nuclear and fossil fuel strategy designed solely to serve AI development.
The irony deepens when one considers that Microsoft had already announced a 20-year deal to revive the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant to serve AI needs, demonstrating that private companies were already pursuing nuclear solutions without requiring the destruction of international nonproliferation norms.
The administration has identified "winning the global race for AI capabilities as perhaps the most important national security concern," requiring "an unprecedented expansion of energy generation." This justification transforms commercial AI development into a national security imperative requiring emergency powers and regulatory shortcuts.
Westinghouse plans to build 10 large nuclear reactors, with construction set to begin by 2030, representing $75 billion in economic value. Meanwhile, the joint venture Stargate intends to invest $500 billion over four years in AI infrastructure, including data centers co-located with electric generation facilities.
The fundamental contradiction is inescapable: if nuclear technology is so dangerous that Iranian facilities must be bombed to prevent proliferation, how can the same technology be simultaneously promoted as essential for American AI dominance? If nuclear power represents an existential threat requiring military intervention when developed by adversaries, why is it suddenly safe and desirable when serving corporate interests?
As data center energy demand could nearly triple by 2028, accounting for up to 12 percent of total U.S. electricity use, the administration prioritizes corporate energy needs over international stability. The message to the world is clear: nuclear technology is permitted for American corporations but forbidden to sovereign nations that displease Washington.
________________________________________
Chapter XI: The Invisible Oceans - Where Black Gold Meets Nuclear Ambition
Beneath the sands of the Persian Gulf, the Siberian plains, and the beds of the Caspian Sea lie the actual oceans of the 21st century. They are not blue but black, odourless, and dense with strategic weight. These fossil oceans of oil and natural gas shape alliances, trigger wars, and define the hegemony of nations. Iran, with over 208 billion barrels of crude oil and 34 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, is a significant energy colossus. Russia, with 38 trillion cubic meters—the world's largest gas reserves—and over 100 billion barrels of oil, remains a fossil superpower at war.
The failed U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities on August 4 was officially aimed at crippling Iran's uranium enrichment infrastructure. But multiple intelligence leaks later revealed the true motivation: satellite imagery had located a vast underground petroleum reservoir beneath the Zagros foothills, newly mapped and estimated to rival some of Saudi Arabia's major fields. The strike, cloaked in nuclear justification, doubled as a strategic energy grab. Washington couldn't find the uranium, but it had found something else—something black, ancient, and far more combustible.
This is the reality behind the theatrical ultimatums and nuclear posturing: this war is fundamentally the war of fuel. Every geopolitical maneuver, every sanction threat, every nuclear escalation ultimately traces back to the control of energy resources. The fifty-day ultimatum to Russia was never about Ukrainian sovereignty—it was about who controls the flow of natural gas to Europe. The Iranian nuclear crisis was never about proliferation—it was about access to untapped petroleum reserves.
________________________________________
Chapter XII: The Phantom Energy - How Sanctions Became Theatre
Since the West imposed sanctions on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, the dominant narrative has been straightforward: cut off Moscow's energy revenues and isolate its crude from global markets. Yet, the reality of international trade tells a different story: millions of barrels of Russian oil have continued to flow into European and American economies, often disguised, refined, or re-exported through third parties.
India and Turkey are central players in this strategy. They purchase discounted Russian crude, refine it in their industrial complexes, and then export gasoline, diesel, or fuel oil to the United States and Europe without technically violating sanctions. According to multiple investigative reports, over 30 million barrels of petroleum products refined from Russian crude were exported to the United States in 2023, primarily via India.
This practice—technically compliant but ethically dubious—has been dubbed the "energy laundering" of the 21st century. Through this refinery loophole, Western companies are indirectly financing the Russian oil economy, despite formal embargoes on Russian crude. Energy has no flag. It flows where there is demand, transforms where there is capacity, and conceals where there is profit.
Sanctions have obscured the global energy web, but they haven't broken it. If Russian oil reaches consumers through intermediaries, Moscow's energy power continues—fueling not just tanks, but also cars in California and heaters in Berlin. Trump's threats of "very severe tariffs" on Russian caviar represent the perfect metaphor for this absurdist reality: sanctioning luxuries that are already forbidden while the essential commodity—energy—continues to flow through legal gray zones.
________________________________________
Chapter XIII: The Strategic Triangle - China, Iran, Russia and the Architecture of Energy Independence
On the global chessboard, the alliance between China, Iran, and Russia is neither ideological nor formal. It is a strategic interdependence born out of exclusion, necessity, and a shared vision of a less Western-dominated world. Iran, isolated by sanctions, needs capital, technology, and infrastructure to sustain its energy sector. Russia, sanctioned and decoupled from Europe, seeks stable markets for its gas, oil, and coal. China, vulnerable due to its energy dependence, wants suppliers that aren't conditioned by Washington's politics.
The 25-year strategic partnership signed by Iran and China (2021–2046), the Siberia–Manchuria gas pipelines, BRICS+ summits, and collaboration in multilateral forums are tangible expressions of this synergy. China buys Iranian oil despite sanctions. Russia supplies energy to China at discounted prices. Iran serves as an energy, geographic, and ideological bridge between the two.
But Trump's histrionic approach to this challenge has achieved exactly the opposite of Kissinger's original strategy. Rather than separating these powers, his ultimatums and sanctions have driven them into the closest energy alliance in modern history. Xi and Putin's declaration that their relationship has reached "the highest level in history" represents not coincidence but calculated response to American energy warfare.
________________________________________
Chapter XIV: The Earthquake Coincidence - When Nature Provides Editorial Commentary
The geological synchronicity surrounding Trump's fifty-day ultimatum deserves recognition not for any mystical significance but for its perfect metaphorical appropriateness. As New Jersey experienced massive flooding and multiple regions registered seismic activity, the planet appeared to offer its own commentary on human political pretensions.
The simultaneity of natural disaster with diplomatic disaster creates an almost literary irony: while Trump announces instant solutions to intractable conflicts, nature demonstrates the limits of human control through forces that recognize no ultimatums, respect no deadlines, and respond to no sanctions. The floods and earthquakes serve as humbling reminders that some systems operate according to laws immune to political manipulation.
This juxtaposition reveals the fundamental hubris underlying contemporary Western leadership: the assumption that complex systems—whether geological, ecological, or geopolitical—can be controlled through the force of will and dramatic gestures. The reality is that such systems follow their own logic, developing momentum independent of human intention and resisting theatrical intervention.
The earthquake coincidence suggests not cosmic intervention but cosmic indifference—a reminder that while humans create artificial crises through poor decision-making, natural systems continue their processes without regard for political convenience or timeline pressures.
________________________________________
Chapter XV: The Theatre of the Absurd - Spectacle as Substitute for Strategy
What connects T. Lobsang Rampa's fictional Tibet with Trump's foreign policy ultimatums is the triumph of spectacle over substance. Both represent the Western tendency to transform complex realities into emotional entertainment, prioritizing dramatic impact over actual understanding or effective action.
Rampa understood his audience perfectly: Westerners hungry for exotic spirituality but allergic to the actual effort required for genuine spiritual development. Trump demonstrates identical intuition about his domestic audience: Americans who crave international respect and effective leadership but resist the patient work necessary for diplomatic success.
The result in both cases is the same: momentary satisfaction followed by inevitable disappointment as reality reasserts itself against wishful thinking. Rampa's readers eventually discovered that suburban mysticism provides no genuine enlightenment, just as Trump's supporters are discovering that theatrical foreign policy provides no genuine security.
The danger lies not in the individual delusions but in their scaling up to institutional levels. When entire governments begin operating according to reality television logic, the gap between performance and competence becomes a source of systemic vulnerability that adversaries can exploit with devastating effectiveness.
________________________________________
Chapter XVI: Von der Leyen's Vindication - Emergency Governance as European Salvation
The unfolding catastrophe of American foreign policy under Trump validates every aspect of von der Leyen's controversial assessment about permanent crisis. While critics dismissed her observation as defeatist or alarmist, subsequent events have demonstrated that she was not describing a problem but diagnosing a condition that required immediate institutional adaptation.
Von der Leyen understood that Europe faced a fundamental choice: develop emergency governance capabilities designed for permanent instability, or watch traditional institutions crumble under pressures they were never designed to handle. Her critics preferred the comfortable fiction that current crises represented temporary aberrations requiring only patience and traditional responses.
The vindication has been swift and brutal. Trump's nuclear brinksmanship with Iran, his economic warfare against allies, his casual inquiries about bombing Moscow—all demonstrate that America under histrionic leadership has become a source of instability rather than a guarantor of order. Europe can no longer rely on American leadership for security, economic stability, or even basic diplomatic rationality.
Von der Leyen's prophetic warning becomes clearer with each Trump escalation: Europe must develop autonomous capabilities for crisis management, energy security, defense coordination, and economic resilience. The alternative is not temporary discomfort but existential vulnerability to decisions made by leaders who view international relations as personal performance art.
The European Commission's emergency powers, criticized as authoritarian overreach during the pandemic, now appear as essential tools for navigating a world where traditional diplomatic solutions have been replaced by ultimatums, threats, and theatrical gestures. Von der Leyen's institutional innovations were not power grabs but survival mechanisms for a continent caught between American chaos and authoritarian alternatives.
Her brilliance lay not in predicting specific crises, but in recognising that the nature of crises themselves had fundamentally changed. Where previous generations faced periodic emergencies followed by returns to stability, contemporary Europe faces cascading, interconnected crises that require permanent adaptation rather than temporary responses.
________________________________________
Chapter XVII: The Epstein “Revelation - When Domestic Scandals Demand Nuclear Distractions
The most revealing aspect of Trump's casual inquiry about bombing Moscow and St. Petersburg was not the question itself—though it represents perhaps the most dangerous moment in nuclear diplomacy since the Cuban Missile Crisis—but rather its timing. The leak came precisely as the most explosive domestic scandal of Trump's presidency began to unfold: the release of Epstein grand jury testimony.
On July 17, 2025, just days after the "Moscow Question" leak, President Trump authorized Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the public release of grand jury testimony from Jeffrey Epstein's prosecution. The timing was not coincidental. Hours before Trump's directive, The Wall Street Journal had reported on a sexually suggestive 50th birthday greeting Trump allegedly sent Epstein in 2003, including references to "secrets they shared."
This revelation provides the missing context for understanding why the most strategically dangerous question in modern diplomatic history was deliberately leaked to the press. No professional foreign policy advisor would permit such a question to be asked, and no competent communications team would confirm its occurrence—unless the alternative was something even more politically damaging.
The Epstein files represent what intelligence analysts call a "civilization-ending" intelligence breach—not for national security, but for elite legitimacy. Unlike WikiLeaks or Snowden revelations about state secrets, the Epstein materials contain elite secrets: names, dates, flights, destinations, sealed depositions, whispered crimes. The leak of even a few photos online has already caused disturbances—images of the very people who have shaped, and continue to shape, the future of our lives.
Trump's frantic response to The Wall Street Journal's Epstein reporting revealed the stakes. Referring to himself in the third person, he claimed Rupert Murdoch had agreed to "take care of" the article but lacked authority to overrule the paper's editor. He threatened lawsuits against what he called a "false, malicious and defamatory" report, demonstrating exactly the kind of panic that would drive an administration to leak nuclear secrets as distraction.
Trump's inquiry about bombing Moscow becomes comprehensible when viewed as an algorithmic solution to an impossible political equation. Faced with the imminent release of Epstein materials that could destroy his presidency and potentially trigger constitutional crisis, Trump's team calculated that even the revelation of nuclear recklessness was preferable to sustained focus on elite pedophile networks.
Most tellingly, the Epstein revelation comes as the MAGA movement itself begins to fracture. Speaker Mike Johnson's call for Epstein file release, breaking with Trump, signals that even the president's most loyal allies recognize that some scandals transcend political loyalty. When your political base demands transparency about elite criminal networks, no amount of foreign policy theater can provide sustainable distraction.
The most alarming aspect of this revelation is that it increases the likelihood of nuclear conflict, rather than decreasing it. A president facing potential criminal exposure has diminished incentives for strategic restraint. If the Epstein files threaten to end Trump's political survival anyway, the normal calculations that prevent nuclear escalation—concern for legacy, political future, institutional stability—lose their constraining power.
________________________________________
Epilogue: The Countdown to Irrelevance
As the fifty days tick down toward their inevitable expiration, the world watches a masterclass in strategic self-destruction. Trump's ultimatum will pass unheeded, his threats will prove empty, his gestures will fade into historical footnote status alongside countless other examples of theatrical foreign policy divorced from operational reality.
But the damage extends far beyond any single failed initiative. Each theatrical gesture erodes American credibility, each empty threat weakens future diplomatic leverage, each histrionic display provides adversaries with valuable intelligence about American decision-making processes and psychological vulnerabilities.
The tragedy is not that Trump's foreign policy fails—competent observers predicted such failures from the beginning—but that the failure occurs during a period when effective American leadership could genuinely contribute to global stability. Climate change, nuclear proliferation, economic inequality, technological disruption—all require the kind of patient, sophisticated international cooperation that becomes impossible when one major power's foreign policy operates according to reality television logic.
Von der Leyen's warning about permanent crisis has proved prophetic not because she possessed mystical foresight but because she understood institutional reality better than her critics. Europe needed emergency governance capabilities precisely because the comfortable assumptions of liberal international order had become dangerous delusions.
The earthquake metaphor proves apt: just as seismic activity reflects underlying geological pressures building toward inevitable release, current geopolitical tensions reflect underlying structural changes in the international system that will eventually demand recognition regardless of whether American leadership is prepared to acknowledge them.
The question is not whether the current approach will fail—it has already failed spectacularly. The question is whether American institutions retain sufficient resilience to develop more effective approaches before the consequences of failure become irreversible, and whether European institutions, guided by von der Leyen's emergency governance framework, can provide stability in a world where American leadership has become a source of chaos rather than order.
As New Jersey's floodwaters recede and seismographs around the world return to normal readings, the planet continues its ancient rhythms, indifferent to human deadline diplomacy and theatrical ultimatums. Perhaps there is wisdom in such indifference—a reminder that genuine solutions require the same patience, persistence, and respect for natural limits that characterize geological processes rather than political campaigns.
In the end, the most honest commentary may come not from diplomatic cables or press briefings but from the Earth itself—which responds to political ultimatums with its own seismic reminders that some forces cannot be threatened, cajoled, or sanctioned into submission. The tectonic plates, at least, remain wonderfully immune to fifty-day deadlines.
The countdown to irrelevance proceeds, but perhaps irrelevance is precisely what the world needs: the gentle marginalization of histrionic leadership in favor of the quiet competence that von der Leyen represented—the understanding that true strength lies not in dramatic gesture but in institutional resilience, not in theatrical ultimatums but in patient adaptation to permanent crisis.
As the Epstein materials emerge and international crises escalate simultaneously, the world faces an unprecedented convergence: nuclear weapons controlled by leaders whose primary concern may be avoiding criminal prosecution rather than avoiding nuclear war. This is the darkest possible interpretation of von der Leyen's permanent crisis thesis—not just ongoing emergencies requiring adaptive governance, but the fundamental breakdown of the distinction between personal survival and civilizational survival.
The fifty-day countdown was never about Russian compliance or Iranian nuclear programs. It was about buying time before domestic scandals made foreign policy theater irrelevant. But some revelations cannot be delayed indefinitely, and some scandals cannot be overshadowed by even nuclear brinksmanship.
The clock is ticking toward something far more dangerous than failed ultimatums: the moment when a nuclear-armed leader concludes that personal legal survival requires global chaos. In that moment, von der Leyen's warnings about emergency governance may prove the difference between institutional adaptation and civilizational collapse.
The black oceans beneath the earth will continue to flow according to their logic, indifferent to fifty-day deadlines and immune to nuclear threats. In the end, those who understand energy will control it, and those who merely threaten it will watch their influence evaporate like steam from a broken pipeline.
________________________________________
Written as waters recede in New Jersey and the world holds its breath, waiting to see whether wisdom or catastrophe emerges from the intersection of histrionic leadership, nuclear capability, and elite criminal exposure in the winter of 2025.
________________________________________
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
Dream On i ormens rike: Tillbaka till Christian Falk…
Systemet är inte trasigt – det är en lönsam vinstmaskin
byggd på vår förtvivlan.
Vi cyklar över Fallets rand, akrobater utan nät,
när ekon från ”Dream On” blandas med Trumps skratt:
”Världen vinner. Jag vinner.
Era broar ska vara vackra.”
Men i dimman hörs Falks sista refräng:
”Maskineriet har en orm –
drick inte dess gift.”
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
Source media.
Av Germán Toro Ghio, inspirerad av Gustaf Tronarps intervju
Karlstad, Sweden | July 13, 2025
________________________________________
I vansinnet som design
Mina sista år hemsöks av syner—egentligen mardrömmar—om en värld som faller samman. En värld där ett fåtal män tjänar miljarder på sekunder, medan pensionärer i de rikaste länderna i norra Europa rotar i sopor efter pantflaskor. Deras magra bidrag försvinner innan månaden ens har börjat.
Vi lever i en epok där egoismen inte längre betraktas som en privat last utan har institutionaliserats—byggts in som bärande princip i vårt ekonomiska och politiska maskineri. Vansinnet är inte slumpmässigt. Det är designat. Och det är lönsamt.
Medan några få festar på kollapsens ruiner paddlar vi andra genom förtvivlan. Vi klamrar oss fast vid livet som akrobater utan skyddsnät, cruzando el Niágara en bicicleta—vi cyklar över Niagarafallen, som Juan Luis Guerra en gång sjöng, i en absurd balansakt på samhällets yttersta rand.
Och där, mitt i dimman, hörs ett annat eko—en röst som förnekar själva kraschen: Folk säger att världen är trasig. Kaos, säger de. Men låt mig berätta något: världen är inte trasig. Den vinner. Jag vinner.
Donald J. Trump, vår samtids groteska parodi, meddelar triumferande att ekonomin går som tåget och börsen står i rekord. Miljardärer tjänar miljarder—för att de förtjänat det! Klagar du? Då gjorde du dåliga affärer. Skyll dig själv. Vi andra borde bygga broar, inte cykla över vattenfall. Vackra broar, säger han, starka broar, ledarskap utan ormar i maskineriet.
I denna omvända verklighet blir framgång detsamma som dominans, och solidaritet reduceras till svaghet. Och ändå—just i denna skrattspegel av cynism—avslöjas kanske den verkliga galenskapen: inte att världen faller isär, utan att så många tror att det är så här seger ser ut.
________________________________________
Christian Falk träffar Ormen
Mitt i denna absurditet klamrar jag mig fast vid ett skratt som skär igenom mörkret—ett minne av Christian.
En lördagmorgon. Christian kom som alltid: svart hatt, runda glasögon, ett stilla bus i blicken.
"Jag måste kopiera några grejer," sa han.
"Självklart," svarade jag och vinkade mot kontoret.
Två minuter senare hördes ett skrik: "Germán! Det är en orm här inne!"
Jag sprang dit, övertygad om att han skämtade. Men där stod han—Christian—balanserande som en förskräckt flamingo på konferensbordet, pekande mot kopiatorn: "Det är en korallorm! Den har byggt bo i pappersmagasinet!"
Och han hade rätt. Inne i maskinens varma mage låg en verklig, randig, väldigt dåsig liten orm. Jag ringde Luis—vår allt-i-allo i det nicaraguanska projektet—som kom som en lantlig helgonfigur med en käpp, lockade försiktigt ut ormen och återställde lugnet. Först då klev Christian ner från sitt panikläge.
Den där ormen sökte bara värme. Den hade inga ideologier. Inga presskonferenser. Den skrev inga algoritmer, blåste inte upp inflationen, startade inga krig. Den ville bara vila.
Och kanske—Gud hjälpe oss—var den, i dessa oärliga tider, det mest oskyldiga väsendet i rummet.
________________________________________
När svensk musik mötte revolutionen i Nicaragua - Just an Illusion and a frustration…
Som så många andra idealister såg de möjligheten att hjälpa till att skapa en bättre värld. Christian Falk anslöt sig, under paraplyet för det svenska Tältprojektet, till detta solidaritetsprojekt med Nicaragua. Tillsammans med honom kom Björn Afzelius, Mikael Wiehe och hans band Imperiet, samt Gnags från Danmark och Åge Aleksandersen från Norge.
Initiativet drevs på högsta politiska nivå av Pierre Schori, då vice utrikesminister och arkitekten bakom Olof Palmes vision av en bättre värld.
Och kanske—Gud hjälpe oss—var den, i dessa oärliga tider, det mest oskyldiga väsendet i rummet.
________________________________________
Managua 1984 – en stad mellan hopp och förfall
Managua andades fortfarande ekon av den sandinistiska revolutionen som fem år tidigare störtat Somoza-dynastin efter att ha varit skådeplatsen för dess blodigaste strider. Huvudstaden, tillfälligt befriad från det kontrarevolutionära kriget som nu förflyttats till bergen och Atlantkusten, förkroppsligade som ingen annan stad detta historiska ögonblick—svävande mellan revolutionärt hopp och begynnande förslitning.
Privilegierad av sin position mellan två oceaner hade Nicaragua placerat sin huvudstad vid Stilla havet. Managua trotsade alla urbana konventioner: dess centrum, redan oigenkännligt före katastrofen, låg i ruiner sedan jordbävningen den 23 december 1972. Den tragiska natten krävde mer än 10 000 liv—en siffra som bara är en uppskattning, eftersom otaliga kroppar för alltid begravdes under rasmassor.
På höjden som dominerar sjön Xolotlán reste sig Hotel Intercontinental som en ensam överlevare: en vit pyramid från en svunnen modernitet. Granne med Somozas bunker på Loma de Tiscapa hyste denna byggnad märkliga historier—från den excentriske Howard Hughes instängdhet, som flydde i panik efter skalvet för att aldrig återvända, till diktatorns sista intervjuer med utländska korrespondenter.
________________________________________
Stadens förvandling under regntiden
Trots sin råhet förvandlades Managua under regnsäsongen (maj–november). De tropiska skyfall förvandlade staden till en smaragdgrön prärie som, bland ruinerna, destillerade en unik trolldom. Denna frodighet smälte samman med glöden hos tusentals unga sandinister—kvinnor och män, många knappt tonåringar—som översvämmade gatorna med sina uniformer och AK-47:or. Alla delade drömmen om att bygga ett rättvist samhälle, inte bara genom att bryta med fyrtio år av Somoza-diktatur, utan också med ett uråldrigt konservativt korsett. Kvinnorna, tidigare osedda aktörer, framträdde som avgörande gestalter i detta transformativa projekt.
________________________________________
Revolutionens globala magnetism
Den sandinistiska revolutionen utövade en global dragningskraft. På den bipolära spelplanen under kalla kriget såg västerlandet ett farligt expansionistiskt "virus" nära USA, medan Sovjetunionen såg en ingång till Latinamerika. Mellan dessa poler erbjöd den europeiska socialdemokratin—förkroppsligad av den karismatiske Olof Palme—en "tredje väg" . Detta nordiska engagemang, där diplomati och kulturell solidaritet konvergerade, förvandlade Schoris vision till en kör av skandinaviska röster som ekade över revolutionens torg.
Det var i denna laddade atmosfär som svenska artister landade med sina gitarrer och drömmar om att musik kunde bygga broar mellan världar. Tältprojektet blev mer än bara konserter—det blev ett vittnesbörd om en tids hopp och en generations övertygelse att kulturen kunde förändra världen. Och det är många i Nicaragua som kommer ihåg den stora insats som svenskarna gjorde i Nicaraguas kultursektor.
________________________________________
Snart hos Zappa: Krossade speglar och den mänskliga existensen
Han började med Zappa. En annan man som också dog vid 52. Det var ingen slump. Det var en kod. En signal från en kropp på väg bort.
Christian Falks röst, postumt sänd i Sommar i P1, bar spår av allt som aldrig sagts—och ändå blev sagt. I tid. För sista gången. Inte med rop. Inte med smicker. Bara sanning, utandad i takt med en själ som packade sin resväska.
— Jag har bara några saker kvar att fixa. Sen drar jag, sa han.
Diagnosen kom i februari. Bukspottkörtelcancer. Fem månader senare var han borta.
Men döden möttes inte tyst. Trotsigt vibrerade orden, som en ensam basgång under en sprucken melodi. I radioprogrammet återvände han till musiken—den eviga vännen som aldrig svek. Frank Zappa öppnade sändningen. Hans dödsålder blev till ett omen.
— Det verkar som jag snart träffar Zappa, sa han.
Men först måste han berätta. Om mörkret. Och ljuset. Om trappuppgången där han grät som barn. Om mormodern som blev hans livlina. Om modern som ringde från Paris och sa att hon ville dö. Om läraren som hörde något i honom—men som han inte vågade följa. Rädslan att bli en börda vägde tyngre än längtan efter framtiden.
— Jag tackade nej till Adolf Fredriks musikskola. Det hade blivit för mycket för mormor. Det räckte att jag blev förkyld.
________________________________________
De spruckna speglarna
I Julio Cortázars litterära arkitektur reflekterar speglar inte trygga sanningar utan brutna fragment av en verklighet för smärtsam att betrakta hel. När Horacio Oliveira sträcker sina plankor ut i det parisiska tomrummet, när kristallen splittras i tusen skärvor, blottas smärtan bortom intellektuella konstruktioner—naken, utan ironi, utan skydd.
Falk rörde sig genom samma spruckna landskap. Moderniteten har lärt oss att ta skydd i formler, i klichéer som bedövar: "Äntligen fredag"—frasen vi rabblar mekaniskt varje vecka—är, som Christian beskrev den, ett eko från en tom helg, ett hål i tiden där ensamheten väntar, tyst men trogen.
Cortázar visste att människan pendlar mellan två poler: försök att bygga rationella, estetiska, sociala försvar—och ögonblicket då dessa kollapsar inför den existentiella tomheten. Den krossade spegeln i Rayuela är inte bara en metafor. Den är medvetandets bristningspunkt—när vi inser att våra broar till andra är plankor över en avgrund.
Christian Falk var aldrig rädd för att visa det. Han talade om droger. Om pendeltågsresor mot förortens skuggor. Om att vilja dö—men också om att fortfarande vilja leva. Han visste hur det var att sitta i trappuppgången och gråta. Att ropa utan att bli hörd. Att förlora en son. Och—trots allt—fortsätta leta efter tonen, ljuset, förbindelsen.
— Om någon har adressen till det där skyddsnätet, så skicka det gärna till mig, sa han i sitt sommarprogram.
Han visste att ord är speglar. Inte hela, men spruckna. Men i deras sprickor kan något verkligt fortfarande anas.
________________________________________
Avskedet som blev ett löfte
Han avslutade med ett budskap till sina barn:
Till döttrarna Vanessa och Vita: — Älskade döttrar, jag är med er.
Till William, sonen som inte längre var där: — Jag är nära nu. Bara några saker kvar att fixa. Sen kommer jag.
Det var mer än ett avsked—det var ett löfte, viskat genom tidens slöja. En far som talar till sin son bortom dödens gräns, inte för att förklara, inte för att förstå, utan för att älska. Hans ord blev en cortázarsk bön—ett förtvivlat men vackert nej till att släppa taget om mänsklig närhet.
Och i dess svall ekar Carlos Fuentes sorg efter sin son: "La muerte de un joven es la injusticia misma… El amor que nos unió sigue vivo en mi vida." Kärleken lever kvar, sade Fuentes, eftersom den aldrig följer de döda in i tystnaden. Den stannar hos de levande. Falks ord bar samma innebörd—en närvaro genom frånvaron, en ton som dröjer sig kvar.
Han visste att tiden inte helar, men att minnet bär. Han visste att det som finns kvar i en garderob, i en röstinspelning, i en gammal låt inte är dött. Det är beviset på ett spår, en gest, en avtryckt existens.
Den sista musiken från en man vars liv klingade som en anslagen pianosträng: bruten, men levande.
________________________________________
Att börja om i sprickorna
Och kanske är det just där vi måste börja om—i sprickorna. I minnena. I de trasiga speglarna där det fortfarande glimmar till av sanning, av skönhet, av kärlek. För i en värld där ord förlorar sin mening, där makt hyllar vansinnet, där broar ersätts med murar, behöver vi fler röster som vågar tala från djupet av mänsklig erfarenhet. Fler som Christian. Fler som vågar vara trasiga och levande på samma gång.
I denna kaotiska värld—hur många Falk behövs för att vända detta contra sentido? Hur många hjärtan måste ropa ut att det finns en annan väg, en annan musik, ett annat sätt att vara människa?
Kanske är svaret inte ett tal. Kanske är svaret: en enda röst som inte tystnar. Ett enda ackord som vägrar klinga ut.
Gracias Christian…
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
The emperor's "terrible mathematics" - healing vs. destruction…
The Trump Offer: An Empty Gesture in a Loaded Theatre
In this context, Iran’s dismissal of a Trump-era offer—reportedly $30 billion in sanctions relief in exchange for halting 60% uranium enrichment—was not a surprise. It was inevitable.
From Tehran’s perspective, the offer was not an olive branch—it was a slap:
A Fraction of Justice: The $30 billion represented a mere fraction of Iran’s frozen assets—money Iran sees as unjustly seized.
A Legacy of Betrayal: Trump has unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA, inflicted devastating sanctions, and ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Why trust an arsonist with water?
No Guarantees: Iran knows how easily American administrations change course. Without ironclad guarantees (impossible under the U.S. system), any deal could vanish in four years—or four months.
Too Narrow: The offer addressed only uranium enrichment, ignoring deeper grievances—ballistic missiles, regional influence, and the legitimacy of Iran’s regime.
To accept such a deal would be, in the eyes of hardliners, an act of surrender, not diplomacy. It would echo the Shah’s fatal reliance on the United States. And history has taught them what that brings.
Image: All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
War is not our curse—it is our masterpiece. Forged in the furnace of human nature, it is our oldest addiction: coded in our cells, sanctified in our scriptures, romanticized by history. We do not merely wage war—we crave it. And now, its spectre resurrects in tailored suits and digital banners: neo-Nazi ideologies resurrecting blood hierarchies, racial purity, and the siren song of total control. This is not history repeating—it is history reprogramming.
War is not chaos. It is a cruel algorithm.
Like the gut-brain axis, it loops relentlessly: grievance → propaganda → dehumanization → violence → trauma → grievance. Sartre’s “Hell is other people” curdles into “Hell is expendable people.” His existential truth—that we are “condemned to be free”—haunts us. Overwhelmed by liberty’s burden, we flee into the false solace of ideology. War simplifies. It erases nuance. It demands no inner cultivation—only fields to burn.
Yet we are seduced—not by carnage, but by war’s neurochemical alchemy.
Dopamine floods, tribal chants. Cortisol numbs us to suffering. Oxytocin bonds “us” as we sharpen blades against “them.” War lifts Sartre’s weight of freedom, replacing Epicurus’ hard-won ataraxia (tranquillity) with the frozen ecstasy of a finger on the trigger.
But biology whispers rebellion.
The gut-brain axis reveals: harmony is not a fantasy—it is rewritable code. Microbes like Lactobacillus secrete GABA, which helps calm neural storms. Societies, too, can cultivate peace chemistry: libraries as sanctuaries, friendship as a tribal antidote, music and dialogue as social pacemakers. These are not metaphors—they are psychobiotics for the body politic. The Marshall Plan fed former enemies. South Africa’s Truth Commission rewrote the narrative of trauma. Open-source collaboration replaced hoarding. Peace is cultivated, not found.
Peace is achievable, of course, through such honest people…
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
Understanding Iran’s Position: A Legacy of Betrayal, Revolution, and Defiance
________________________________________
To begin to understand Iran today—and by extension, much of the world’s current geopolitical disorder—there are two interviews you must witness.
The first is David Frost’s haunting 1980 conversation with the exiled Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, frail and bitter in Panama, abandoned by the very powers that once elevated him. The other is Oriana Fallaci’s fearless 1979 confrontation with Ayatollah Khomeini, in which she tore off the chador he insisted she wear and stared directly into the core of Iran’s new ideological order.
These two encounters—one with a fallen king, the other with a rising theocrat—bookend the violent transformation of Iran from a Western client state into a revolutionary regime. They do more than narrate a power shift. They expose the psychological architecture of modern Iran: one shaped by betrayal, anchored in resistance, and hostile not by whim, but by conviction.
This is why Iran’s present-day posture—its rejection of U.S. overtures, its nuclear brinkmanship, its regional militancy—is not a mystery. It is the expression of a political theology forged in humiliation and hardened by memory.
________________________________________
The Shah’s Exile: A Parable Etched in Pain
Frost’s interview with the Shah is no mere postscript to the Cold War. It is a study in political death. Once celebrated in Washington and London as a moderniser and bulwark against communism, the Shah was swiftly discarded the moment his rule became inconvenient. As the Islamic Revolution roared into being, not a single Western nation offered him lasting asylum. Even the United States—his great patron—closed its doors under pressure from Iran’s new rulers during the hostage crisis.
To the revolutionaries, this was vindication. It confirmed what Khomeini had long preached: that the Shah’s throne stood not on Persian soil, but on the shifting sands of Western approval. When that support was withdrawn, the Peacock Throne crumbled.
For the Islamic Republic, this abandonment remains a formative myth. It teaches that reliance on the West is suicide—that empires are loyal only to power, and will betray even their most obedient vassals when politically expedient. That lesson continues to animate Iran’s strategic calculus: never again trust an international guarantee; never again allow sovereignty to rest on foreign promises.
________________________________________
Fallaci vs. Khomeini: The Ideology Unmasked
If Frost’s interview reveals the trauma of Iran’s past, Fallaci’s reveals the fire of its future. Her 1979 face-off with Khomeini, published with razor-edged clarity, captures the moral architecture of the Islamic Republic in its rawest form.
Fallaci’s fearless line of questioning—culminating in her symbolic refusal to wear the veil—was not just an act of feminist rebellion. It was a confrontation between two civilisations. Khomeini, draped in black, articulated a worldview rooted in divine authority, permanent resistance, and absolute certainty. The West, in his telling, was arrogant, corrupt, and spiritually bankrupt. The revolution, he insisted, was not just for Iran—it was for the world.
Embedded in that interview are the pillars of the regime’s ideology:
Anti-imperialism rebranded as divine duty,
Israel and the U.S. are metaphysical enemies,
Compromise is apostasy,
Resistance as salvation.
These ideas are not rhetorical ornaments. They are doctrinal mandates. To compromise with the “Great Satan” is not merely risky—it is heretical. Fallaci understood this. Her confrontation remains one of the most incisive portraits of political theology ever captured on tape or page.
________________________________________
The Hostage Crisis: The Scar That Shaped a Generation
Then came November 4, 1979.
The seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the 444-day hostage ordeal that followed did more than rupture diplomacy—it permanently altered the psychological landscape of both nations. In Washington, it shattered illusions of order and impunity. In Tehran, it became the revolution’s crowning act of defiance.
For the U.S., the hostage crisis was barbaric, a violation of sacred diplomatic norms. For Iran’s new rulers, it was a necessary exorcism—the symbolic expulsion of American control. The embassy was no longer a sovereign compound; it was “the Den of Espionage.”
And when the hostages were only released the moment Ronald Reagan took office—replacing the “weak” Carter with a man who projected force—Iran drew a lasting conclusion: the U.S. does not respond to respect; it responds to power.
Thus was born the mutual pathology: America saw Iran as irrational, lawless, and ideological. Iran saw America as duplicitous, vengeful, and exploitable through calibrated confrontation.
________________________________________
A Nation Divided: The People vs. the State
But Iran is not a monolith.
Its people are far more complex, vibrant, and diverse than its regime. The revolution of 1979 began as a broad uprising—liberals, Islamists, socialists, nationalists—against dictatorship. But it was the clerics who seized the aftermath.
Since then, popular discontent has erupted again and again:
The student protests of 1999,
The Green Movement of 2009,
The economic uprisings of 2017 and 2019,
And the women-led revolution of 2022–23.
Each wave has carried echoes of secularism, nationalism, and a yearning to rejoin the global community. Yet the regime has endured through repression, surveillance, and a shrewd manipulation of foreign threats to consolidate power. Every Israeli missile strike, every American sanction, is spun into a justification for internal control.
That is why diplomatic overtures must be viewed through a double lens: not only can they help the state, but will they empower dissent? Will they erode the regime’s claim to legitimacy?
________________________________________
The Trump Offer: An Empty Gesture in a Loaded Theatre
In this context, Iran’s dismissal of a Trump-era offer—reportedly $30 billion in sanctions relief in exchange for halting 60% uranium enrichment—was not a surprise. It was inevitable.
From Tehran’s perspective, the offer was not an olive branch—it was a slap:
A Fraction of Justice: The $30 billion represented a mere fraction of Iran’s frozen assets—money Iran sees as unjustly seized.
A Legacy of Betrayal: Trump has unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA, inflicted devastating sanctions, and ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Why trust an arsonist with water?
No Guarantees: Iran knows how easily American administrations change course. Without ironclad guarantees (impossible under the U.S. system), any deal could vanish in four years—or four months.
Too Narrow: The offer addressed only uranium enrichment, ignoring deeper grievances—ballistic missiles, regional influence, and the legitimacy of Iran’s regime.
To accept such a deal would be, in the eyes of hardliners, an act of surrender—not diplomacy. It would echo the Shah’s fatal reliance on Washington. And history has taught them what that brings.
________________________________________
Power, Dignity, and the Politics of Memory
Iranian leaders do not merely negotiate—they remember.
They remember the Shah’s exile.
They remember the Embassy siege.
They remember sanctions, sabotage, assassinations, and betrayals.
They remember Fallaci’s defiance and Frost’s melancholy.
They remember being cast as pariahs, even when they complied.
And so they demand not just deals, but dignity.
Not just money, but memory restored.
Not just leverage, but recognition—as a regional power, as a sovereign actor, as a state that will not kneel.
This is why understanding Iran’s position is not about agreeing with it. It is about understanding that beneath every rejection lies a scar, and behind every negotiation, a ghost.
Even the fiercest of allies know this.
Even Benjamin Netanyahu—long the architect of pressure campaigns against Iran—knows betrayal is possible.
He has seen empires change course.
He knows that in this region, trust is never permanent, and memory never dies.
By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | July 14, 2025
________________________________________
Introduction: The Terrible Mathematics Fulfilled
In January 2024, when sirens had yet to wail and algorithms had yet to calculate ballistic trajectories, Germán Toro Ghio—recognized by the North American platform Energy Central as a 2023 Top Voice in energy and political analysis—wrote on www.germantoroghio.com:
"The intention to trigger a worldwide conflict should be readily apparent..."
We warned about surprise attacks that reshape history: from the Trojan Horse to Pearl Harbor, from 9/11 to COVID-19. We predicted Hamas understood the repercussions of its actions; that ultra-fundamentalist groups were secretly planning to "ignite an unprecedented regional or global conflict".
(Somewhere in Gaza, a child who drew planes on a wall now hears real planes. The difference is these are not drawings.)
Today, as the world teeters on the edge of the nuclear abyss, those predictions materialize with nightmare precision. The Emperor chose not to heal—he chose the "terrible mathematics" of power: that sinister equation where healing takes generations, but destruction takes minutes.
This essay, written when hope was still possible, now reads like an autopsy of the future. Because the terrible mathematics of power always adds up to the same result: ZERO.
[Original article: "The intention to trigger a worldwide conflict should be readily apparent..." — Germán & Co, January 28, 2024]
________________________________________
Abstract
The Emperor Without a Throne, or The Empire No Longer Imposes Silence, but listen—listen, because summaries are lies we tell ourselves at diplomatic cocktail parties—this essay is about the precise moment the emperor realises his voice echoes in an empty cathedral. It’s about Trump’s fevered monologues, Putin’s chess moves played in slow motion, and China’s silence that speaks louder than artillery. We are witnessing the collapse of the imperial theatre, and the audience has learned to laugh at the wrong moments.
These reflections interrogate the transformation of global power in the era of ubiquitous communication, disinformation wars, and the collapse of imperial mythologies. It analyses the decline of American exceptionalism, the performative nature of modern geopolitics, and the psychological algorithms of war, drawing connections from Trump’s vanity diplomacy to Lavrov’s veiled nuclear threats. The essay also reflects on President Vladimir Putin’s extended meeting with international journalists in Moscow, where he outlined a post-Western vision for global governance, rejecting U.S.-centric narratives and promoting a multipolar order based on state sovereignty, cultural autonomy, and geopolitical reciprocity. His multi-hour dialogue, unprecedented in transparency and tone, was not just an assertion of power but a deliberate recalibration of narrative authority. While Western media remains obsessed with spectacle, the Kremlin courts foreign correspondents as architects of a new ideological map, seeking to recast Russia not as aggressor but as bulwark against Western hegemony.
At the heart of this essay lies a crucial claim: the central crisis of our time stems from a catastrophic miscalculation by President Donald Trump, whose erratic trade wars, tactical provocations, and impulsive diplomacy failed to recognise the new configuration of world power. The clash between Iran, Israel, the U.S., Russia, and China is no longer about conventional war but about control of global legitimacy, energy routes, and technological supremacy. Trump’s approach not only destabilised traditional alliances—especially in Europe—but also catalysed authoritarian convergence among his supposed adversaries. His tariffs alienated allies while North Korea quietly armed Russia, and today, according to Swedish press reports, 30 million grenades are en route to Ukraine’s border.
Amid these changes, the betrayed hopes of the Venezuelan exile—especially after Trump’s election—serve as a tragic reminder of how fossil fuel reserves and ambitions over rare earth elements override human dignity. The suffering of millions displaced has become a footnote in a demented war for electric supremacy. As Juan Luis Guerra once sang, “crossing Niagara on a bicycle”—a metaphor for fragile hope in the face of the impossible. His lyrics evoke not only the surreal balance of survival but also the exhaustion of populations trapped in systemic crises: medicine shortages, bureaucratic cruelty, the absurd dance of exile. The song resonates today as entire nations teeter on the brink of collapse, invisible to those waging wars over lithium and cobalt.
With references ranging from Epicurus to Sartre, and from Gandhi to Snowden, this text critiques the algorithmic allure of conflict and proposes an alternative grounded in radical empathy. It aims to contribute to ongoing conversations about the post-imperial global order, the digital fragmentation of diplomacy, and the moral limitations of transactional leadership.
________________________________________
I. The Last Monologue
"I could fix the world in 24 hours."
(The emperor adjusts his tie. Somewhere in Caracas, a child draws planes on a concrete wall. In Buenos Aires, someone reads this and wonders if it matters.)
Twenty-four hours to fix all illness of the world—or create a rain of nuclear inferno.
Twenty-four hours. As if the world were a broken refrigerator, as if geopolitics were a plumbing problem solvable with the right wrench and enough arrogance. But here's the emperor's terrible math: healing takes generations, destruction takes minutes. You can't cure cancer in 24 hours, but you can turn children into shadows on walls in 24 seconds. But empires don’t collapse in 24 hours—they take centuries to die, like enormous whales beaching themselves on the shores of their contradictions.
The emperor speaks to the cameras, but the cameras now belong to everyone. Every phone is a rebellion. Every live stream is a witness. The monologue shatters against ten billion screens, each one asking: Who permitted you to speak for us?
(What if the emperor, in the end, is asking himself the same question?)
________________________________________
II. The Birth of Imperial Sound: From Gunboats to Radio
Once upon a time (but when was that time, really?), The empire travelled by ship. Heavy, slow, inevitable. Colonisers brought brass bands, bureaucrats, Bibles and bullets. They erected radio towers like crosses on conquered hills.
Gandhi understood it first: power is performance. So he performed differently—silence where they expected speeches, spinning wheels where they expected submission. The Salt March wasn’t just a protest; it was a counter-programming effort. While the British Empire broadcast authority, Gandhi broadcast dignity.
(In the café where I write this, a woman argues with her ex-husband on WhatsApp. Her thumb moves like a weapon. Now everything is transmission.)
But Gandhi knew something we have forgotten: that silence is also a language. That resistance can be as simple as refusing to participate in the conversation that power wants to impose.
________________________________________
III. The White Elephant: A Dying Spectacle
The American empire has become what Thais call a white elephant—too sacred to abandon, too expensive to maintain. It stumbles through the world like a drunken millionaire, throwing money at problems it helped create, demanding gratitude for solutions that solve nothing.
Trump’s "24-hour" fantasy isn’t strategy—it’s the last gasp of a dying theatrical tradition. However, the audience has learned to read between the lines. They know the emperor’s promises are written in disappearing ink.
(My grandmother used to say: "Never trust a man who hugs you while looking over your shoulder.")
The white elephant walks, but each step sinks it deeper into the mud of its own impossibility.
________________________________________
IV. Modi’s Embrace: Irony as Strategy
Imagine this: Modi and Trump embracing at some gilded summit, cameras clicking like insects. But Modi’s smile carries the weight of history—the colonised man who learned to play the coloniser’s game better than the coloniser himself.
Today’s India is not America’s disciple. It is its ironic friend, the kind that laughs at your jokes while secretly pitying your delusions. Modi speaks with BRICS in the morning, courts Washington in the afternoon, and invests in yuan diplomacy at midnight. He isn’t choosing sides—he’s choosing to survive.
There’s something beautiful in this silent betrayal. Modi uses the words the empire wants to hear while building a world the empire cannot control.
________________________________________
V. Internet vs. Empire: A Chorus of Witnesses
The emperor no longer speaks alone. He cannot speak alone. He will not be allowed to speak alone.
Gaza live-streams its own siege. TikTok teens mock every presidential blunder with surgical precision. Displaced voices find each other across oceans, weaving solidarity networks that mock the old geography of power.
Mass communication doesn’t just fragment authority—it vaporizes it. Every citizen is now a correspondent, every phone a newsroom, every tweet a potential revolution. The imperial monologue dissolves into a planetary conversation the emperor cannot control.
(But what happens when the conversation becomes so noisy no one can hear the truth?)
________________________________________
VI. AI and Surveillance: The Algorithmic Crown
But wait—the plot thickens, as plots always thicken.
Power adapts. If it cannot control the conversation, it learns to predict it. If it cannot silence voices, it learns to manipulate them. The throne is now digital, invisible, and algorithmic.
Snowden showed us the truth: the empire doesn’t just command—it listens. To everything. Your searches, your purchases, your 3 AM googled anxieties. The surveillance state doesn’t wear military boots; it wears the friendly face of a search engine asking, Did you mean...?
The crown is now made of code. And it’s heavier than gold.
But here’s the trick: algorithms learn from us. We are the ones teaching the machines to control us. Every click is a vote for our own enslavement.
________________________________________
VII. Russia’s Reframing: The Kremlin’s Narrative Renaissance
Putin’s live dialogue with foreign journalists—did you see it? Did you see it? Not the headlines, not the clips, but the actual performance?
He sat there, almost grandfatherly, dismantling the American world order with the patience of a chess master who knows the game is already won. No shouting, no theatrics. Just the quiet confidence of someone who has realised empires don’t die from external attacks but from internal exhaustion.
Lavrov’s nuclear warnings weren’t threats—they were stage directions. Putin’s whispered certainty was the real weapon. They aren’t just challenging American power; they’re rewriting the entire script.
Putin speaks like someone who has already seen the movie’s ending. And perhaps he has.
But here's where the plot becomes truly Borgesian—the Kremlin’s sublime blackmail, whispered through diplomatic channels like a fever dream: *A Trump Tower in Moscow. Miss Russia herself. All yours, Donald. Just give us Ukraine.*
The emperor’s weakness isn’t ideology—it’s vanity. Putin understands this with the precision of a psychoanalyst who's spent decades studying his patient's dreams. The offer isn't political; it's pornographic. Not conquest, but seduction. Not war, but the promise of golden toilets and beauty queens in a city where winter never ends.
(Somewhere in Kyiv, a child draws different planes on different walls. The difference is that these planes are real, and they're coming.)
________________________________________
VIII. China: The Strategic Shadow
China plays an active and silent role, like a Chinese shadow.
Beijing watches from the sidelines as America and Russia perform their noisy drama centre stage. But the real action happens in the shadows—infrastructure deals in Africa, currency swaps in the Gulf, satellite networks spreading across Asia like digital silk roads.
China’s strength lies not in spectacle but in strategic opacity. While empires shout, China edits the subtitles. While others make threats, China makes itself indispensable.
The masterstroke: letting everyone else exhaust themselves with performance while you silently rearrange the furniture.
China doesn’t want to be the next empire. It aims to be the last capitalist in a world where capitalism is no longer viable.
________________________________________
IX. Venezuelan Exiles: Footnotes in a Lithium War
Somewhere in this great geopolitical chess game, millions of Venezuelans exist as footnotes. Not people—footnotes. Their displacement is reduced to logistical problems, their suffering measured in rare earth minerals and cobalt reserves.
Juan Luis Guerra sang about crossing Niagara Falls on a bicycle—impossible, absurd, desperate. That is the Venezuelan tragedy: forced to attempt the impossible while the world argues over who owns the water.
(I know a woman from Caracas who carries photos of her country on her phone like relics. "Venezuela," she says, "now only exists in memory.")
These crises aren’t natural disasters. They are the engineers of a power that has forgotten its humanity.
________________________________________
X. Radical Empathy: Beyond Transactional Leadership
Power must evolve or dissolve—there is no middle ground left.
From Epicurus to Sartre, philosophy has warned us that domination as a virtue is the beginning of all tragedy. Trump’s 24-hour peace fantasy proves the point—speed without care produces collapse, and solutions without empathy create new problems.
Genuine leadership must slow down, listen, remember its duty is not glory but to protect. The emperor must learn to serve, or abdicate.
But here’s the question no one wants to ask: What if power, by its very nature, corrupts empathy? What if the only way to change the system is to destroy it?
________________________________________
XI. The Throne Crumbles into Echoes
The emperor remains, but the throne—once elevated above the crowd—is now surrounded by ten billion witnesses, each with a camera, each with a voice, each with the power to say: *"We saw what you did."*
Today’s audiences don’t applaud blindly. They watch, challenge, remix, and resist. They fact-check in real time. They remember what you said yesterday, last year, last decade.
The monologue is broken. The future will be co-written by voices once silenced, now amplified by the very technology meant to control them.
The empire still performs, but no longer alone. The conversation has become planetary, and the emperor’s voice is just one among billions.
The throne crumbles not from external attack, but from the weight of its contradictions, echoing in chambers that no longer listen.
(And perhaps, somewhere, a child in Caracas finishes drawing his plane on the wall and wonders if one day he might fly.)
________________________________________
Epilogue: The Clock Strikes Zero
...The throne crumbles not from external attack, but under the atomic weight of its own contradictions. And in this very hour—as Lavrov stands frozen in Phnom Penh under the hypnotic observation of Maria Zakharova (Kremlin’s Medusa, her gaze turning hope to stone)—the terrible mathematics achieve their final sum.
Tonight’s Epilogue:
40,000 North Korean shells slither toward Kursk.
Tehran’s envoys leak Mar-a-Lago’s coordinates to dark-web auctioneers.
Micro-drones map the golf course’s 18th hole.
Yet Trump—sweating through his makeup, afraid—still believes he can flip Tehran with a threat. Truly believes. As if the Islamic Republic were an Atlantic City casino deed to seize. He is totally prepared to betray Israel to get it.
The same illusion which Putin sold him:
"Power is not duty—
It is a golden toilet.
Alliances? Flush it away."Meanwhile, in Rome:
Meloni’s voice cuts through the static: "Words will never fix this conflict." She builds walls where bridges burned. Kissinger labels it "the belligerent job"—but the bunkers are sold out.Final Frame:
The emperor without a throne
stares at his palm
and finds it
stained
with the ink of betrayed covenants.We chose minutes over generations.
Trump chose toilets over treaties.
Zero...
...is the only deal he closed.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
America’s Clean-Energy Abdication — A Critical Investigation…
JP Morgan has issued a warning about the risk of stagflation in the U.S. economy. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, recently expressed his concerns regarding this potential issue. Stagflation is marked by stagnant economic growth alongside high inflation. Dimon emphasized several significant risks contributing to this concern, including geopolitical tensions, large deficits, and ongoing price pressures.
Additionally, concerns over political instability in the energy sector have now become a reality. In the spring of 2025, after returning to the Oval Office, President Donald J. Trump dismantled the fragile consensus that had been guiding the U.S. toward a cleaner energy future.
Image: All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
Life is beautiful…
Simultaneously, JP Morgan issues a warning about stagflation in the U.S. today. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has recently expressed concerns about the potential risk of stagflation in the U.S. economy. Stagflation is characterized by a combination of stagnant demand and high inflation. Dimon highlighted several significant risks contributing to this concern, including geopolitical tensions, substantial deficits, and persistent price pressures.
Yesterday's concerns about political turmoil for energy companies have now materialized. In the spring of 2025, upon reclaiming the Oval Office, President Donald J. Trump dismantled the delicate consensus that had guided America toward a cleaner future. Through sweeping executive orders and confidential memoranda, he reversed decades of progress, re-embracing oil, coal, and gas while dismissing renewable energy as unviable.
Dimon's warnings come at a time when the U.S. is facing considerable economic challenges. Despite a temporary reduction in tariffs between the U.S. and China, which had led some institutions, including JPMorgan, to lower their forecasts for a recession in 2025, anxieties about inflation and economic stagnation persist. The Federal Reserve has maintained interest rates steady, adopting a "wait-and-see" approach to future adjustments, which reflects the cautious economic outlook.
Drilling rigs roar back into operation, and smokestacks pierce the twilight, marking a national retreat from wind turbines and solar farms. Once a leader in green innovation, the U.S. now relinquishes its moral authority and competitive advantage, undermining manufacturing, empowering adversaries, and accelerating global warming. The repercussions are felt in the Texas shale fields, the Arctic ice, Detroit factories, and Beijing boardrooms.
The complexity of stagflation lies in its resistance to conventional economic measures. Efforts to combat inflation can exacerbate economic slowdowns, while attempts to stimulate growth can further fuel inflation. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell underscored this dilemma, warning that sweeping import tariffs could potentially lead to stagflation.
This reckoning is measured in barrels of oil and tons of carbon, shattered trust, and abandoned ideals. America’s strategic gamble places the nation and our planet on a precarious edge. In summary, Dimon's warnings reflect broader concerns about the U.S.'s economic trajectory, emphasizing the need for careful navigation of the current economic landscape to mitigate the risks of stagflation.
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | May 23, 2025
________________________________________
Prologue
Yesterday, we wrote about how politicians create a nightmare of uncertainty for energy corporations. Today, that nightmare has taken physical form. In the spring of 2025, President Donald J. Trump—having stormed back into the Oval Office—tore asunder the fragile consensus that once bound the nation to a cleaner, greener future. With sweeping executive orders and midnight memoranda, he shattered decades of progress and declared America’s devotion to oil, coal, and gas unassailable.
Gone were the lofty pledges to harness the wind, chase the sun, and heal a wounded planet; instead, he proclaimed the clean-energy race unwinnable, its finish line forfeited to foreign rivals. As drilling rigs roared back to life and smokestacks belched their defiance into twilight skies, the earth trembled at this reversal's echo. The United States, once the vanguard of renewable innovation, has willingly abdicated its moral authority and strategic advantage on the global stage.
These reflections plunge into the heart of that fateful choice, mapping the shockwaves that ripple from the shale fields of Texas to the assembly lines of Detroit, from the melting ice of the Arctic to the corridors of power in Beijing and Moscow. It reveals how this abandonment of climate ambition has hollowed out America’s manufacturing base, emboldened adversaries to tighten their grip on future energy markets, and accelerated the march toward catastrophic warming. Perhaps this bad decision is extravagant enough to be considered a formidable luxury jet as a gift. Well, that’s life…
Here is a reckoning of strategy and consequence, where the fallout is measured not only in barrels of oil or tons of carbon, but in shattered trust, forsaken innovation, and the unravelling of the ideals that once defined the American promise. The stakes have never been higher, for in this crucible of policy and power, the fate of a nation and a fragile Earth hangs in the balance.
________________________________________
I. The Moment of Reckoning: From All-You-Can-Eat Buffet to All-In on Fossil Fuels
Policy Pivot
Beneath the facade of a broad "all-of-the-above" energy strategy during Trump's first term was a clear hierarchy of priorities. While the administration presented every energy source—from mountaintop-removing coal to emerging floating offshore wind—equally welcome, the reality was different. Its sharply focused deregulatory agenda and the symbolic withdrawal from the Paris Agreement made it clear: fossil fuels would always take precedence. We have documented this issue with concrete and undeniable facts, demonstrating that the results have been the opposite of what was intended.
Yet that half-hearted plurality now gives way to zealotry. Within days of his return to the presidency, Trump dispatched a flurry of executive orders designed not merely to slow the momentum of clean energy but to arrest it entirely. Where Biden had leaned on federal purchasing power—directing agencies to buy electric vehicles, heat pumps, and domestically manufactured solar panels—the new administration saw only “market distortion.” Those mandates were revoked, replaced by blanket waivers that drove procurement back toward diesel-guzzling trucks and gas-fired boilers.
Perhaps most telling is the fate of the Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office. Once the unsung engine of America’s cleantech revolution, the LPO funnelled billions into fledgling innovators—companies turning carbon into stone, startups perfecting next-generation battery chemistries, and pioneers of small modular reactors. By suspending new grants, the administration effectively slammed the door on a pipeline of ideas that might have matured into global champions. Hundreds of engineers, investors, and entrepreneurs now watch their timetables unravel, their business models rendered untenable without patient, mission-driven capital.
Even more draconian was the shuttering of the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. Established only months earlier to shepherd high-risk, high-reward pilots—from grid-scale storage arrays to hydrogen-fuel-cell hubs—this office embodied the conviction that government could catalyze breakthroughs too hard to finance purely on private balance sheets. Its closure strands dozens of projects in bureaucratic purgatory: community microgrids awaiting approval, pilot plants awaiting permits, research collaborations awaiting final funding agreements. Without a champion in Washington, they will wither or be repurposed into conventional fossil-fuel facilities by more sympathetic state or local actors.
The cumulative message is crystal clear: renewables are not merely downgraded but disavowed. Once the United States teetered on a path toward balanced energy diversification, it has strayed back into the heart of the carbon economy. In practical terms, this means:
Capital flight from innovation. Venture funds and corporate R&D budgets will skew decisively toward enhanced oil recovery, unconventional gas extraction, and next-generation fracking technologies—areas where regulatory walls are being torn down rather than built up.
Supply-chain bifurcation. American manufacturers of solar panels, wind-turbine components, and battery cells face a market with no domestic anchor; overseas competitors in Asia and Europe will fill the void, securing contracts that might once have been “Buy American” staples.
Geostrategic retrenchment. By retreating from the clean-tech frontier, the U.S. cedes leadership in critical minerals processing, electric-vehicle infrastructure, and advanced nuclear, and with it the alliances forged around shared decarbonization goals. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative now marches unopposed into the markets of Africa and Latin America, pitching gas-to-power as the bridge fuel and exporting Chinese wind and solar solutions with subsidies that American firms can no longer match.
Regulatory signalling. International investors take heed: if the world’s biggest market can be flipped on a whim, why accept risk in any other jurisdiction? Credit spreads on renewable-energy bonds will widen, the cost of capital will climb, and only the most risk-averse portfolios—ironically, those still tied to coal or gas royalties—will remain functional.
What was once a symbolic tilt toward hydrocarbons has hardened into a full-blown retreat from the energy future. The keystone agencies that once lent structure and support to America’s clean-energy ecosystem have been hollowed out, their staffs demoralised, their budgets slashed. The message to innovators is inescapable: build your tomorrow elsewhere, or build nothing at all. And while global competitors stride forward—banking billions in green investments, ratcheting down emissions, and weaving decarbonization into the fabric of their foreign-policy agendas—Washington’s halls grow quiet, the machinery of innovation rusts, and the world wonders whether the United States has forfeited not just a few years, but an entire generation of climate leadership.
________________________________________
Budgetary Cuts
Federal R&D funding for solar and battery research was slashed by over 40% in the FY 2026 budget, while fossil-fuel research—from carbon-capture prototypes to unconventional drilling—received historic boosts.
________________________________________
Regulatory Rollbacks
The Clean Power Plan, already struck down by the courts in 2022, was replaced by watered-down rules that permit existing coal plants to operate indefinitely without carbon controls.
This transformation is not mere bureaucratic tinkering but a declaration that the United States will no longer compete in markets where it does not already hold sway.
________________________________________
II. The Geopolitical Bet: Why Foreign Winners Multiply
China’s Supply-Chain Supremacy
Over the past decade, Beijing invested an estimated $200 billion in clean-energy manufacturing, cultivating a fully integrated chain from polysilicon to end-of-life recycling. Today, Chinese firms control 80–90% of global solar module capacity, accounting for nearly two-thirds of lithium-ion battery production.
Trump’s withdrawal from green incentives leaves U.S. consumers reliant on imports: EU customs data show that solar panels entering the bloc are over 70% Chinese-made, a number set to rise further in the U.S. market.
________________________________________
European Green Industrial Strategy
Brussels has countered China’s ascent with the European Green Deal and Critical Raw Materials Act, making multi-billion-euro investments in onshore battery gigafactories and strategic mineral processing. With Washington abdicating, Europe emerges as the West’s cleantech champion.
________________________________________
South Asia and Latin America as New Frontiers
Indian and Brazilian governments, seizing the opportunity, have rolled out tax holidays and land-at-cost policies for solar and wind developers, attracting project commitments totalling over $60 billion since 2024. Absent U.S. competition, these regions will host the next generation of green infrastructure.
________________________________________
III. Economic Fallout: Jobs, Exports, and Innovation at Risk
Manufacturing Exodus
In 2024, the U.S. had 75 operational battery facilities under construction or planned, nearly half in states that swung for Trump in 2020. With IRA credits at risk, dozens of projects have been paused or relocated to Mexico, Poland, and South Korea.
________________________________________
Intellectual Property Flight
Dozens of pioneering startups—once backed by ARPA-E grants—are now flirting with acquisition by foreign corporations seeking U.S. technology at fire-sale prices. This patent haemorrhage could cost the American economy $15 billion in future licensing revenues.
________________________________________
Trade Deficits Worsen
The U.S. clean-energy trade deficit ballooned to $30 billion in 2024 alone. Without a domestic production base to offset imports, Washington’s strategy amounts to writing a blank check to Beijing’s state-backed industrial champions.
________________________________________
IV. Environmental and Security Risks: Betting on a Sinking Boat
Climate Acceleration
By prolonging coal and gas reliance, U.S. emissions—already up 8% since 2020—will rebound sharply, jeopardizing global targets for limiting warming to 1.5°C. The administration’s Department of Energy projects that U.S. CO₂ output will exceed 6 billion tonnes under current policies by 2030.
________________________________________
National Security Implications
Dependence on foreign clean-energy hardware exposes U.S. critical infrastructure to supply-chain disruptions and potential sabotage. Grid upgrades, slated to integrate smart inverters and battery storage, will instead rely on components designed and manufactured under Beijing’s regulatory reach.
________________________________________
Energy Access and Diplomacy
By alienating allies who view decarbonization as strategic, the U.S. forfeits moral leadership at key forums—COP summits, G7, APEC—undermining broader coalitions to sanction Russia and Iran or to stabilize fragile states through low-carbon development aid.
________________________________________
V. The Intra-GOP Divide: Carbon Conservatives vs. Pragmatists
While the administration rails against clean-energy subsidies as a gift to China, a pragmatic wing of the Republican Party presses for targeted reforms:
Content Restrictions vs. Market Signals
Some GOP senators have proposed tightening foreign-content rules on the IRA credits rather than repealing them. This would preserve U.S. mining, refining, and manufacturing incentives while blocking China-dominated inputs.
________________________________________
Rural and Rust-Belt Resilience
Ohio, Georgia, and Texas communities have staked their municipal fortunes on clean-energy parks. Local leaders warn that slashing credits will trigger bankruptcies, pension shortfalls, and revenue collapses in jurisdictions already reeling from post-industrial decline.
________________________________________
Defense-Energy Nexus
Figures like former Secretary of Defense James Mattis have argued that energy independence requires advanced batteries and microgrids—technologies the U.S. can only master by sustaining its domestic industrial base.
The political tension risks fracturing the GOP’s narrow congressional majority, threatening a policy logjam that benefits no one.
________________________________________
VI. Paths to Redemption: Reimagining U.S. Strategy
Selective Reinvestment
Reauthorizing the tax credits with stricter regional and domestic-content requirements could rebuild U.S. capacity while minimizing China’s market share.
________________________________________
Public–Private Partnerships
Expand ARPA-E and DOE’s Loan Programs Office to underwrite pilot clean-energy hubs in the Heartland, with mission-driven goals akin to the Manhattan and Apollo projects.
________________________________________
Strategic Tariffs 2.0
Calibrated, temporary tariffs on solar panels and batteries from non-Tariff-Alliance countries, coupled with import quotas that phase out over a defined ramp-up period.
________________________________________
Allied Industrial Initiatives
Partnering with the EU, Japan, and Australia on cross-border critical-mineral processing, shared R&D platforms, and joint manufacturing ventures to diversify dependencies away from China.
________________________________________
Civil-Military Synergies
Leveraging defense procurement to guarantee offtake for nascent energy-storage and microgrid firms, creating anchor customers that drive scale economies.
________________________________________
Epilogue
The Trump administration’s retreat from the clean-energy frontier was more than a policy pivot; it was a watershed moment that reshaped the global balance of power, economic trajectories, and the planet’s climatic destiny. By abandoning ambitious renewable-energy goals, withdrawing from international climate agreements, and rolling back domestic environmental regulations, the administration effectively ceded America’s role as a technological vanguard and strategic innovator to rising competitors in Beijing and a reinvigorated European Union.
At its core, the decision to deprioritize clean energy was a profound strategic miscalculation. In the 21st century, energy policy is national security policy. Renewable-energy technologies—from advanced battery storage to next-generation solar photovoltaics—are dual-use platforms with both civilian and military applications. By retreating, the United States forfeited critical ground in sectors that will define economic and military power in the decades ahead. China, leveraging state-directed capital and manufacturing scale, surged ahead in solar panel production, lithium-ion battery manufacturing, and the deployment of electric vehicles (EVs). Meanwhile, Brussels, armed with the European Green Deal, marshaled public and private investment to create a pan-continental energy transition roadmap. The relative retrenchment of U.S. policy has left American firms scrambling to catch up, undermining supply-chain resilience and exposing strategic vulnerabilities in critical minerals and clean-tech components.
The industrial fallout has been no less severe. Clean-energy industries are among the fastest-growing segments of the global economy, offering high-wage manufacturing jobs, export opportunities, and ancillary innovation in materials science and robotics. U.S. states that had begun cultivating clean-tech clusters—particularly California, Texas, and those in the Rust Belt—saw investment shift to regions with more stable policy signals. The hiatus in federal support for research and development (R&D) eroded the once-thriving collaboration between national laboratories, universities, and private-sector innovators. Meanwhile, tariffs and trade disputes further distorted markets, raising costs for solar modules and wind-turbine components while provoking retaliatory measures that threatened U.S. exports.
Perhaps the most profound cost is human. Climate change is a crisis of unprecedented scale, and every year of delayed action deepens the cumulative emissions that drive planetary warming. Rolling back vehicle-emissions standards and freezing fuel-efficiency targets have locked in higher pollution levels, disproportionately burdening low-income and marginalized communities near highways, refineries, and power plants. The administration’s focus on short-term gains in fossil-fuel extraction overlooked the accelerating frequency of extreme weather, wildfires, and sea-level rise—events that carry staggering economic and humanitarian tolls. The moral dimension of climate leadership hinges on intergenerational equity; in relinquishing its mantle, the United States also abdicated moral authority in global forums and negotiations.
History seldom offers graceful verdicts, but the record will be stark. Was this retrenchment a fleeting detour, corrected by subsequent administrations, or the opening chapter of a protracted decline in American industrial preeminence? The answer will depend on the country’s capacity to rebuild, recommit to innovation, and reestablish partnerships both at home and abroad. Promising signs—such as bipartisan support for infrastructure bills that include clean-energy funding, and a resurgence of state and municipal climate pledges—suggest that the ambition void may be filled.
Yet ambition alone is not enough. Restoring leadership demands a coherent strategy that aligns federal incentives, regulatory frameworks, and diplomatic engagement. It requires a renewed emphasis on workforce training, domestic supply chains for critical minerals, and direct investment in emerging technologies like green hydrogen, carbon capture, and next-generation nuclear. The coming decade will test America’s resolve: to seize the opportunities of the clean-energy revolution or to concede further ground to those who see climate action not as a burden, but as the greatest industrial and security imperative of our time.
In the end, the Trump administration’s retreat will be judged not only for what was undone but also for what it galvanized. If it spurred a deeper reckoning—with the limits of partisan divides, the urgency of climate justice, and the strategic stakes of innovation—then history may yet view this era as the crucible from which a more determined, united, and forward-looking America emerged. If not, it risks marking the prelude to America’s long twilight as an energy and industrial superpower.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
Eclipse of the Forgotten: "The Resurgent Legacy of the Blackout Bestiary – Part II
Part 2 explores the mystery fueled by viral momentum and audience demand. We compare two case studies: the Nord Stream pipeline explosions and the Enigmatic Bestiary of the Blackout.
Hypothesis 1: If the Nord Stream blasts in September 2022 are seen as a test of Europe’s dependence on Russian gas rather than isolated sabotage, then the various narratives—ranging from Kremlin false flags to rogue Ukrainian divers—serve as strategic misdirection. By amplifying monstrous "beasts" in public perception, state actors can divert attention from their energy policies and shield classified evidence from scrutiny. Here, the "beast" is the hidden hand obscuring the real motives.
Hypothesis 2: If the Iberian Blackout of April 2025 is treated as a software-centric counterpart to Nord Stream’s hardware attack, then framing it around animal scapegoats or coincidences conceals structural grid weaknesses like low inertia and regulatory delays. Both events suggest that flashy culprits—whether divers or mythical creatures—are used to mask systemic vulnerabilities, allowing stakeholders to delay necessary reforms. Again, the "beast" is the hidden hand evading accountability.
Image: All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
"The Energy Transition: A Critical Analysis of Power"
1. "Plays: The Political Engineering of Energy Sector Chaos"
2. "Nord Stream: From Baltic Lifeline to Geopolitical Flashpoint"
3. "President Donald Trump's Deadly Uppercut to Nord Stream (2019)"
4. "Who Bears Responsibility in the Current Green Energy Crisis?"
5. "Energy Storage: The Holy Grail of Renewable Energy"
6. "Conclusion to The Fables of Blackout"
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | May 22, 2025
________________________________________
a. Introduction
The Energy Transition: A Critical Analysis
Germán & Co. has become a transformative voice in today’s rapidly evolving energy landscape. Our industry-shaping insights have garnered over 250,000 engagements across Energy Central’s platforms. With an industry-leading Reputation Score of 339,812—exceeding 99% of our sector peers—we demonstrate the authority and trust that our analyses command. We are ranked 15th among Energy Central’s global influencers, consistently advancing the energy conversation.
The viral success of publications such as “Greta Thunberg: Decoding the Icon Shaping Climate Discourse” (over 2 million views on X) and “Fluence Energy in the Amazing Voyage of India's Metamorphosis” (3,818 views on LinkedIn in one day and 49,000 views on X) highlights our ability to anticipate trends and translate complex information into actionable insights. Unlike conventional analysts, we combine data-driven precision with strategic vision, positioning Germán & Co. as the preferred partner for decision-makers navigating critical energy challenges. Global leaders rely on our insights to drive measurable progress when clarity is essential.
Our analysis series, “The Enigmatic Bestiary of the Blackout,” has become a cultural touchpoint, achieving over 1,000 views in just 24 hours on LinkedIn and sparking significant discussion with its bold examination of systemic decay. Part 2 of the saga reinforces its sharp argument that animal interference is a convenient scapegoat, a deliberate distraction from collapsing infrastructure and willful political negligence.
This piece is no mere commentary—it’s a myth-busting manifesto. With scalpel-sharp analysis, we expose how certain politicians weaponise ideology as slick marketing, bending facts to suit their agendas. Few sectors suffer more from this distortion than energy. The convenient trope of “nature’s chaos” deflects responsibility, but the uncomfortable truth remains: blackouts aren’t triggered by rogue raccoons—they result from systemic rot.
Part 2 delves deeper into the mystery, driven by viral momentum and audience demand. Join the reckoning and dare to confront the truths that "they" attribute to beasts. We have compared two case studies: Nord Stream and The Enigmatic Bestiary of the Blackout.
Hypothesis 1: If the Nord Stream pipeline blasts of September 2022 are interpreted not merely as isolated acts of sabotage but as a deliberate test of Europe’s dependency on Russian gas, then the subsequent fog of competing narratives—blaming everything from Kremlin false-flags to rogue Ukrainian divers—serves as strategic misdirection. By amplifying monstrous "beasts" in the public imagination, state actors can divert scrutiny from their energy policies, shield classified forensics from independent review, and renegotiate geopolitical leverage. At the same time, the actual technical evidence remains locked beneath official secrecy. In this case, the beast is the hidden hand, manipulating perceptions to obscure the real players and motives.
Hypothesis 2: If the Iberian Blackout of April 2025 is treated as the software-centered analogue to Nord Stream’s hardware attack, then framing the outage around animal scapegoats or freak coincidences similarly conceals structural grid fragilities: low inertia, vulnerable inverter firmware, and regulatory lag behind rapid renewable adoption. Together, the pipeline explosions and the blackout support a broader hypothesis that spectacular culprits—whether divers or mythical lynxes—are routinely deployed to mask systemic vulnerabilities, allowing political and industrial stakeholders to postpone costly reforms until the subsequent failure forces another cycle of blame. Here, too, the beast is the hidden hand, using misdirection to avoid accountability and reform.
________________________________________
On May 24, 2023, Matt Chester, Senior Editor at Energy Central, interviewed us and opened the discussion with a key observation:
"Energy news is no longer a niche topic reserved for industry professionals. Today, major developments in utilities, oil, and gas routinely make mainstream headlines—and for good reason. The energy sector now plays a pivotal role in shaping the global economy, international geopolitics, and even our everyday lives."
This shift underscores just how critical energy has become in today’s world.
In today’s fast-moving energy landscape, following the conversations that shape the industry is more essential—and more time-consuming—than ever. That’s why it helps to have community experts who comb through the headlines and surface the items that are most timely, impactful, and worth your attention. Germán Toro Ghio has been doing that before joining our Energy Central Network of Experts.
When we asked Germán how to navigate the extraordinary geopolitical turbulence facing oil and gas, from Russia’s war in Ukraine to OPEC’s market sway and the counter-moves of the United States and its allies, he offered this reflection:
“That’s a profoundly challenging question. It takes me back to those marathon corporate strategy sessions where we would dutifully model even the most improbable, seemingly absurd scenarios. Tragically, some of those scenarios have now come true, with dire consequences for the global economy and for humanity. As we look back, we must be both transparent and unsparing in our analysis. One crisis stemmed from a grave political miscalculation involving critical energy infrastructure; another lingering health crisis remains cloaked in uncertainty and speculation. Together they serve as a stark reminder of how quickly our world can unravel—and of the imperative to make wise decisions that place everyone’s safety and well-being first.”
On pressing concerns and reasons for optimism in the energy sector:
"I’m deeply concerned by the current trajectory and the reflexive, unexamined decisions it’s producing—though I’ll leave specific technologies out of this discussion for now.. While innovation should always be encouraged, we must never lose sight of the sector’s non-negotiables: dependable power generation and secure fuel supplies. If there’s cause for optimism, it’s that policymakers seem to be learning from past failures. Europe’s overreliance on a single pipeline and supplier stands as a stark lesson—one we cannot afford to repeat." Never forget this picture:
The Anatomy of Political Uncertainty in Energy Markets: A Multidimensional Crisis
The transition to low-carbon energy systems hinges on predictable policy frameworks that allow investors to price risk and allocate capital efficiently. Yet political actors frequently undermine this stability in liberalised markets, weaponizing uncertainty through mechanisms that distort market signals, inflate financing costs, and delay decarbonization. This phenomenon is not incidental but systemic, rooted in electoral cycles, geopolitical posturing, and reactive policymaking. Below, we dissect the five channels politicians amplify uncertainty, revealing how short-term political calculus jeopardizes long-term energy security and climate goals.
________________________________________
b. How Politicians Create Uncertainty in the Energy Sector
1. Rhetorical Signalling: The Power of Words Over Markets
Political rhetoric is rarely idle. Campaign promises, ideological statements, and even casual remarks can trigger significant shifts in energy markets before any legislation is enacted. For example, campaign speeches and spontaneous tweets can influence futures markets months before legal changes. A notable case is President Trump’s 2017 promise to revive “beautiful, clean coal,” which momentarily boosted Appalachian coal indices despite the absence of any supporting legislation (Plumer, 2017; Newell et al., 2019).
When candidates propose radical reforms—such as nationalizing utilities or banning fossil fuels—investors adjust their risk assessments quickly. Newell et al. (2019) illustrate how futures markets for oil, gas, and renewables respond to electoral debates, with price volatility increasing due to populist rhetoric. This “governance by soundbite” phenomenon creates a feedback loop: media amplification of political statements heightens perceived risk, distorting capital flows.
A tweet from a U.S. president about "ending fossil fuels" or a vow from a European leader to "phase out nuclear overnight" could lead to stranded assets or frozen investments, even if such policies encounter legislative blockages.
2. Regulatory Oscillation: The High Cost of Policy Whiplash
Given the sector's capital-intensive, long-term horizons, regulatory stability is the bedrock of energy investment. But abrupt policy reversals—driven by shifting political coalitions or public opinion—impose catastrophic costs. Germany’s nuclear saga epitomizes this: Chancellor Merkel’s 2010 decision to extend reactor lifespans (a pro-nuclear stance) was overturned in 2011 post-Fukushima, mandating a full phase-out by 2022. Overnight, utilities like RWE and E.ON faced €40 billion in stranded assets, while gas plants were hastily approved to fill the gap, raising emissions (Traber & Kemfert, 2012). Similarly, the UK’s 2015 retroactive cuts to solar subsidies bankrupted installers and eroded investor trust for years. Such oscillations force firms to hedge against political, rather than market, risk, raising capital costs and deterring innovation.
3. Strategic Sanctions: Geopolitics as Market Sabotage
Energy infrastructure has become a battleground for geopolitical coercion, with sanctions weaponised to destabilise competitors. The U.S. PEESA sanctions on Nord Stream 2, targeting firms involved in the pipeline’s construction, exemplify how extraterritorial measures override market logic. Despite EU regulatory approvals, the threat of secondary sanctions froze financing and delayed completion by years, raising the project’s cost by €10 billion (de Jong, 2022). These actions signal that even commercially viable projects are subject to political whims, compelling investors to price in "geopolitical risk premiums." The chilling effect extends beyond targeted projects: firms now scrutinise supply chains and partnerships for exposure to rival blocs, fragmenting global energy markets.
4. Politicized Permitting: When Red Tape Becomes a Political Tool
Permitting processes, ostensibly technical, are often hijacked for ideological or electoral ends. Spain’s 2012 suspension of renewable feed-in tariffs—retroactively slashing subsidies—paralyzed its wind and solar sectors, erasing €20 billion in investments and triggering over 50 international lawsuits (del Río & Mir-Artigues, 2012). More subtly, permitting delays for pipelines or grid upgrades can starve projects of capital. In the U.S., partisan battles over federal lands for drilling or renewables create bottlenecks, with permit approvals swinging dramatically between administrations. This politicization transforms bureaucracy into a lever for stifling disfavored technologies, chilling investment even in regions with abundant resources.
5. Security Shocks: The Unquantifiable Risk of Sabotage
Whether state-sponsored or opportunistic, physical attacks on energy infrastructure inject existential risk into markets. The 2022 Nord Stream pipeline explosion severed Europe’s gas supply, forcing insurers to reassess subsea cables, LNG terminals, and offshore wind farms globally. Premiums for such assets surged by 30–50% overnight, with insurers demanding unaffordable war-risk clauses (Kalm, 2024). Unlike market risks, sabotage threats defy actuarial modelling, creating "unknown unknowns" that deter long-term commitments. Politicians exacerbate this by failing to secure cross-border infrastructure or invest in grid resilience, exposing markets to cascading disruptions.
6. The Cumulative Toll: Financing Costs and Delayed Transitions
The IEA estimates that policy uncertainty adds 100–300 basis points to renewable energy financing in emerging markets—equivalent to a 20–30% increase in levelized costs (IEA, 2021). For context, this premium could render a viable solar project in India or Nigeria unbankable. In advanced economies, regulatory whiplash has slowed offshore wind deployment, with developers demanding higher power purchase agreements to hedge against retroactive policy changes. Fossil fuel interests often benefit from this chaos, as investors retreat to incumbent technologies with shorter payback periods, perpetuating carbon lock-in.
7. Toward Stability: Cross-Party Frameworks as Antidotes
Durable decarbonization requires insulating energy policy from electoral cycles. Denmark’s 2012 Energy Agreement, ratified by 95% of parliament, locked in 2050 net-zero targets, spurring consistent offshore wind investment. Similarly, Chile’s 2022 Green Hydrogen Strategy, backed by all major parties, has attracted $20 billion in commitments. Such frameworks prioritize incremental, consensus-driven reforms over grandstanding—a recognition that markets reward predictability, not political theater.
The energy transition is a technological or economic challenge and a test of political maturity. Until leaders cease treating energy policy as a tool for short-term gain, the world will pay a steep price: slower decarbonization, higher consumer costs, and a destabilized climate.
November 8, 2011 | Lubmin, Germany / Zug, Switzerland — European and Russian leaders gathered today on Germany’s Baltic coast to inaugurate the Nord Stream Pipeline.
c. Nord Stream: From Baltic Lifeline to Geopolitical Flashpoint
________________________________________
1. Baltic Lifeline (2011)
On Tuesday, November 8, 2011, the quiet Baltic harbour of Lubmin in Germany briefly became the centre of Europe’s energy hopes. Surrounded by a forest of camera cranes, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stood alongside Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, French Prime Minister François Fillon, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte (now NATO’s secretary general), and EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger to inaugurate Nord Stream 1. This 1,224-kilometre twin gas pipeline runs from Vyborg to Germany. The day's rhetoric overflowed with superlatives: the pipeline was described as a "strategic lifeline," destined to provide half a century of reliable supply and free Europe from the unreliable overland routes that passed through Ukraine and Belarus.
Privately, Merkel had reservations. Unlike her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, whose post-chancellorship role at Gazprom made him Moscow’s favoured German, Merkel does not trust the Kremlin nor view infrastructure as a reliable safeguard. She believed that cooperation was preferable to confrontation, and that the occasion called for optimism.
“Today we bridge not just nations but futures,” she declared, casting Nord Stream as both an engine of prosperity and a bulwark against energy insecurity.
By late 2012, the line was to deliver 55 billion cubic metres of Siberian gas each year—enough to heat 26 million households—while supposedly insulating Europe from the vagaries of transit politics. Yet critics warned that funnelling nearly one-third of the EU’s imports through a single supplier merely traded one vulnerability for another, echoing the continent’s Cold War dependence on Soviet pipelines.
A decade later, those warnings would prove prophetic; the “divine pipeline” would be revealed less as a celestial gift than as a geopolitical fault line.
________________________________________
Image licensed from Shutterstock, rights held by Germán & Co.
_______________________
2. President Donald Trump’s Deadly Uppercut to Nord Stream (2019)
Washington’s decision to sanction Nord Stream 2 in December 2019 marked a dramatic inflection point in the long-running tug-of-war over Europe’s energy future. For most of the 2010s, the twin-pipeline project under the Baltic Sea advanced steadily, promising to double Russia’s direct gas-export capacity to Germany while bypassing Ukraine and other Eastern European transit states. Yet that very promise—of deeper Russian leverage over Europe’s critical energy arteries—also crystallized Washington’s deepest strategic anxieties. When President Donald Trump signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act on 20 December 2019, he activated the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act (PEESA) and, with it, an unprecedented tool kit of sanctions aimed squarely at the vessels, insurers, financiers, and service providers enabling Nord Stream 2’s final kilometers of pipe-laying.
The immediate fallout was striking. Within twenty-four hours, the Swiss-Dutch contractor Allseas halted operations and withdrew its specialised pipe-laying ship, bringing construction to an abrupt standstill just 160 kilometres from the German coast. European capitals, already divided over the pipeline’s merits, were thrust into an awkward diplomatic triangle: Berlin condemned the U.S. move as extraterritorial overreach, Warsaw and Kyiv applauded it as overdue protection against Kremlin coercion, and Brussels tried—largely in vain—to broker a face-saving compromise. Meanwhile, Moscow vowed to finish the project with its assets, casting the sanctions as proof that American LNG exporters cared less about European security than about grabbing market share.
Yet the drama did more than freeze a single infrastructure project; it signalled a broader shift in U.S. foreign-policy doctrine. For the first time, Washington was willing to weaponize financial sanctions not merely to punish adversaries but to reshape allied countries’ commercial decisions in a sector as sensitive as energy. Over the following year the State Department repeatedly widened the net—issuing interpretive guidance in July and October 2020 that threatened penalties against any entity providing even “non-covered services,” Congress broadened the statutory mandate again with PEESCA in January 2021. When the outgoing Trump administration designated the Russian barge Fortuna and its owner KVT-RUS on 19 January 2021, a blueprint had been laid for using sanctions as an instrument of great-power competition in Europe’s gas markets.
Facing mounting pressure, the Kremlin and the state government of Mecklenburg‑Vorpommern—home to Nord Stream’s German landfall—devised a workaround. In January 2021 Premier Manuela Schwesig (SPD) set up the publicly chartered “Climate and Environmental Protection Foundation – MV” (Stiftung Klima‑ und Umweltschutz MV). Ostensibly green‑minded, the foundation received a €20 million endowment from Nord Stream 2 AG and was empowered to procure vessels, equipment, and services that private firms now shunned for fear of PEESA penalties. Critics labelled it a “sanctions‑evasion vehicle” operated with Moscow’s blessing; supporters argued it preserved local jobs and safeguarded energy security. Berlin watched warily, while Washington warned that laundering transactions through a foundation would not shield participants from future sanctions.
Framed against the cascading crises that followed—COVID-19’s demand shock, the 2021–22 energy-price spike, and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine—the 2019 sanctions now read like the opening chapter of a longer struggle to define Europe’s energy sovereignty. They exposed rifts within NATO, foreshadowed the Biden administration’s own hard choices (and temporary waiver) on Nord Stream 2, and demonstrated how infrastructure once considered a purely economic undertaking could be recast overnight as a strategic vulnerability. Understanding the origins, mechanics, and consequences of the Trump-era sanctions is essential, not merely to recount a policy skirmish, but to grasp the evolving playbook of energy statecraft in an age when pipelines and tankers matter as much as tanks and missiles.
________________________________________
3. Sabotage in the Baltic (2022)
At dawn on 26 September 2022, two powerful underwater explosions ripped open three of the four Nord Stream strings near Denmark’s Bornholm Island. Seismic stations recorded shocks equivalent to small earthquakes; methane plumes boiled to the surface.
Germany, Sweden, and Denmark quickly labelled the incident "deliberate sabotage." Military‑grade explosive residue was later found on recovered pipe sections, and investigators traced a rented yacht, Andromeda, to a still‑unconfirmed team of covert divers. Whether the culprits were state actors, freelancers, or proxies remains unresolved, but the strategic impact was clear:
Capacity lost: Nord Stream 1—already running at reduced flow—became inoperable; one of Nord Stream 2’s two lines was crippled before it ever shipped a molecule.
Risk repriced: Global insurers and operators reassessed the vulnerability of every subsea pipeline, telecom cable and power link.
NATO alarmed: The Alliance has created a Critical Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell, acknowledging that undersea assets are now frontline targets.
________________________________________
4. Strategic Lessons
Energy as Statecraft. Trump‑era sanctions highlighted how financial instruments can halt a multibillion‑euro project without a single soldier crossing a border.
Escalation Ladder. The 2022 blasts showed that sabotage can follow sanctions, turning valves into targets and turning them into bargaining chips.
Alliance Fault Lines. Nord Stream consistently exposed divergent threat perceptions: Berlin versus Washington, Warsaw and Kyiv; Brussels versus Moscow.
Accelerated Diversification. Each blow—sanctions, pandemic, invasion, explosions—pushed Europe to pivot away from Russian gas faster than any policy blueprint.
________________________________________
5. The Road Ahead
Nord Stream’s journey from celebrated lifeline to fractured liability mirrors Europe’s broader quest to marry affordable energy with strategic autonomy. Whether the following molecules arrive as green hydrogen through North‑Sea corridors or as LNG across the Atlantic, one constant endures: molecules and electrons travel only as securely as the politics that protect them.
Europe’s task is to craft an energy system resilient enough that no single sanction, blast, or bargaining chip can again darken its lights—or divide its alliance.
Nord Stream’s arc—from a symbol of post‑Cold‑War optimism to a ruptured monument of realpolitik—captures a larger truth: energy infrastructure is never just about molecules and megawatts; it is about power, trust, and the stories nations tell themselves. The pipeline’s rise and fall reveal three imperatives for the decades ahead:
Diversify or Depend? Europe cannot outsource its security to a single supplier or technology. Gas, renewables, hydrogen, efficiency—all must share the load so that failure anywhere is a catastrophe elsewhere.
Make Policy Boring Again. Markets crave predictability more than subsidies. Durable, bipartisan frameworks beat headline‑driven pivots, lowering capital costs and accelerating the clean‑energy transition.
Securing the Unseen. Cables, pipes, data links—what lies on the seabed underwrites prosperity on land. Protecting this critical undersea web is now as vital as defending airspace.
If leaders absorb these lessons, Nord Stream’s fractured steel may yet serve a purpose: a cautionary landmark pointing toward an energy system that is cleaner, cheaper, and—above all—harder to hold hostage.
________________________________________
References1. BMWK (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action) (2022) ‘Extension of nuclear power plant operation for grid stability’, Press release, 17 October. Berlin: BMWK.2. del Río, P. and Mir‑Artigues, P. (2012) ‘Support for solar PV deployment in Spain: Some policy lessons’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(8), pp. 5557‑5566.3. de Jong, M. (2022) ‘Too little, too late? US sanctions against Nord Stream 2 and the transatlantic relationship’, Journal of Transatlantic Studies, 20(2), pp. 213‑229.4. Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) (2022) Seasonal Assessment of Resource Adequacy (SARA) for Summer 2022. Austin: ERCOT.5. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2021) World Energy Investment 2021. Paris: IEA.6. Kalm, H. (2024) ‘NATO’s path to securing undersea infrastructure in the Baltic Sea’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 29 May. Available at: https://carnegieendowment.org (Accessed: 22 May 2025).7. Lockwood, M., Mitchell, C. and Hoggett, R. (2016) ‘Competing paradigms of governance in UK energy policy: Calculating for, and governing through, markets’, Energy Policy, 95, pp. 632‑644.8. Newell, R.G., Raimi, D. and Aldana, G. (2019) Global Energy Outlook 2019: The Next Generation of Energy. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.9. North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) (2022) Texas February 2021 Cold Weather Event and Reliability Impacts. Atlanta: NERC.10. Plumer, B. (2017) ‘Trump Signs Executive Order Unwinding Obama Climate Policies’, The New York Times, 28 March. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com (Accessed: 22 May 2025).11. Traber, T. and Kemfert, C. (2012) ‘German nuclear phase‑out policy: Effects on European electricity wholesale prices, emission prices, conventional power plant investments and electricity trade’, DIW Berlin Discussion Paper 1219.12. Wiser, R., Bolinger, M. and Barbose, G. (2017) ‘Wind energy boom‑bust cycles, variability and price drivers in the United States’, Energy Economics, 65, pp. 305‑315._______________________________________
d. Who Bears Responsibility in the Current Green Energy Crisis?
An analysis of today's green energy landscape reveals divergent yet critical responsibilities among key stakeholders - from policymakers and financial institutions to well-funded environmental groups with sophisticated advocacy campaigns. The power industry is perhaps the weakest part of this complex chain. Many may wonder why this is the case. Politicians have played a crucial role in shaping the renewable energy landscape by setting ambitious targets and implementing generous subsidies to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels. However, this enthusiasm has sometimes lacked foresight, leading to oversights in critical areas such as energy security and supply diversification. Policymakers have dangerously underestimated the oil industry's enduring influence while failing to address growing security threats. In recent years, cyberattacks, terrorist sabotage, and attacks on critical infrastructure—including the repeated targeting of undersea power cables serving North Sea offshore wind farms—have exposed these vulnerabilities. Europe's over-reliance on a single energy supplier and pipeline network has demonstrated the consequences of such oversight. This crisis underscores a fundamental truth: effective energy policy must marry environmental ambition with operational realism, prioritising security and diversified supply chains. (10)
Indeed, financial institutions, too, have substantially influenced the trajectory of the energy sector, often driven by immediate profitability and compliance with emerging environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria. While crucial for long-term sustainability, the banking sector's enthusiastic embrace of renewable projects has occasionally overshadowed essential investments in complementary technologies and infrastructure, such as energy storage and grid modernisation (IEA, 2020; World Economic Forum, 2021). President Donald Trump has been a vocal critic of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) mandates, arguing that they impose burdensome regulations on the energy sector and hinder economic growth. He has taken steps to roll back such policies, including issuing executive orders to halt the enforcement of state laws targeting energy companies over climate change and ESG initiatives. Moreover, the rapid divestment from fossil fuel projects—partly driven by ESG mandates—has unintentionally led to shortfalls in energy supply. This has contributed to market volatility and heightened short-term risks. These developments underscore the importance of financial strategies that support urgent climate action and ensure a stable and managed energy transition. (11)
Center for Sustainability & Excellence+4esgdive.com+4hklaw.com+4Independent Women's Forum
________________________________________
e. Sustainable Energy: The Paradox of Balancing Idealism and Pragmatism in a Polluted World.
For more than a century, industrial activity has saturated Earth’s ecosystems with pollutants, from microplastics choking marine life to heavy metals leaching into groundwater. The oceans, often romanticised as pristine frontiers, are archives of human negligence: discarded fishing gear smothers coral reefs, agricultural runoff fuels dead zones, and traces of mid-twentieth-century nuclear tests lie even in the Mariana Trench. Beyond Earth, the exosphere has become a junkyard of ambition, cluttered with over 9,000 tons of derelict satellites and rocket debris—a monument to humanity’s habit of externalizing costs. Set against this backdrop, the intense scrutiny of transitional energy technologies sometimes appears disproportionate. Nuclear power, for instance, contributes less than 1 % of the ocean’s radioactivity (naturally occurring potassium-40 dominates), yet fears of contaminated coolant water often eclipse its capacity to avert gigatonnes of carbon emissions.
This is not to dismiss environmental concerns, but to insist on calibration. Climate scientist James Hansen, an early voice on global warming, argues that nuclear energy’s dense, reliable output is indispensable while renewables scale. Modern reactor designs—small modular reactors (SMRs), molten-salt systems, and advanced fuel recycling (pioneered for decades in France)—promise higher safety margins and lower waste volumes. Although a fossil fuel, natural gas can also serve as a tactical reprieve: replacing coal (still 35 % of global electricity) can roughly halve CO₂ per kilowatt-hour and sharply cut particulate pollution. The International Energy Agency emphasises that if paired with strict methane controls and explicit sunset clauses, gas infrastructure can buy time for wind, solar, and grid storage to mature (IEA 2019).
1. National snapshots
France launched its civilian nuclear programme in the 1950s, accelerating after the oil shocks of the 1970s. Today, 56 pressurised-water reactors across 18 sites generate about 70 % of France's electricity, giving the country low-carbon power and energy security. French expertise extends to the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) and next-generation concepts such as SMRs.
Under Energy Minister Ebba Busch, Sweden has pivoted back to nuclear energy. Legislation enacted in 2023 streamlines licensing, classifies nuclear energy as “green” under the EU taxonomy, and envisages up to ten new reactors—including SMRs—by 2045. Six existing reactors already supply roughly 30 % of Sweden's electricity.
After decades of oscillating policy, Germany shut its final three reactors in April 2023. A 2025 poll showed 55 % public support for revisiting nuclear, and the new conservative government has softened its stance. Yet technical, economic, and political barriers make a near-term restart unlikely; the focus remains on accelerating renewables and securing diversified energy imports.
Spain experienced a nationwide blackout on 28 April 2025, during which all seven reactors shut down automatically yet cooled safely on backup power. The incident reignited debate over Madrid’s roadmap to phase out nuclear power between 2027 and 2035, highlighting the resilience challenges of grids dominated by variable renewables.
2. Activism, politics, and pragmatism
Environmental movements have been pivotal in raising climate awareness, from multilateral milestones like the Paris Agreement to grassroots campaigns like Fridays for Future. Nevertheless, critics note a perceived elitism: policies championed by well-educated urban activists can appear disconnected from working-class realities, a gap exploited by populist parties that blame green measures for higher living costs (Malm 2021; Lockwood 2018). Ultra-conservative factions frame aggressive environmental regulation as an economic burden on younger generations already priced out of housing and stable employment (Spash 2021).
Opponents of transitional technologies warn of moral hazard—investments today might entrench carbon-intensive infrastructure tomorrow. Yet climate models show the cost of delay is steeper. Solar and wind, while transformative, remain intermittent, geographically constrained, and land-intensive; even bullish forecasts suggest they cannot carry global demand alone before mid-century. Outright rejection of nuclear and gas risks prolonging coal’s dominance—a far deadlier adversary. Nuanced policy is essential: prioritise renewables, allow transitional technologies under strict time limits, and embed sunset mechanisms.
In the end, environmentalists must confront uncomfortable trade-offs. Perfect solutions suit a planet changing slowly; ours, warming rapidly, demands pragmatic triage. As Hansen et al. (2013) note, “Opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.” The same logic applies to the judicious use of gas: to fixate solely on the bridge’s risk is to ignore the precipice on either side.
3. Towards a balanced transition
Constructive convergence is already visible. European policymakers, chastened by recent energy-security shocks, now favour diversified low-carbon portfolios; financial institutions increasingly tie capital to credible transition plans; and some environmental groups are adopting more inclusive, strategically flexible positions. Successful energy transitions will depend on integrating ecological ambition, economic prudence, and robust security, while maintaining public trust through relatable, evidence-based advocacy.
________________________________________
References1. Hansen, J., et al. (2013). "Preventing Dangerous Climate Change." *Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.*2. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2019). "The Role of Gas in Today’s Energy Transitions."3. Malm, A. (2021). "How to Blow Up a Pipeline." Verso Books.4. North, D. (2011). "The Environmental Movement and the Politics of Class." Environmental Politics.5. Lockwood, M. (2018). "Right-Wing Populism and the Climate Change Agenda." Environmental Politics.6. Spash, C. (2021). "The Political Economy of the Paris Agreement on Human Induced Climate Change." Globalizations.7. Stokes, L., & Warshaw, C. (2017). "The Politics of Energy and Climate Change in the United States." Energy Policy.8. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2015). "Paris Agreement."________________________________________
f. Conclusion of The Fables of Blackout
1. The Anatomy of Infrastructure Failure and Political Deflection
Spain's energy blackouts represent more than isolated technical failures—they constitute a revealing lens through which to examine the complex interplay between infrastructure vulnerability, political accountability, and the contested narratives that emerge when systems fail. The phenomenon of "El Apagón Felino" serves as a particularly instructive case study, not merely because a lynx was initially blamed for a grid failure, but because this scapegoating reveals the systematic tendency of institutions to externalize responsibility when confronted with the uncomfortable reality of their inadequate planning.
This pattern of deflection is neither accidental nor unique to Spain. When critical infrastructure fails, the immediate institutional response often involves identifying the most politically palatable explanation—preferably one that absolves human decision-makers of responsibility. Wildlife, weather events, or "acts of God" become convenient culprits, deflecting attention from the more uncomfortable truths about deferred maintenance, inadequate investment, or systemic design flaws. The lynx becomes a metaphor for broader institutional failures to acknowledge and address the growing gap between ambitious renewable energy targets and the fundamental infrastructure investments required to support them.
2. The Paradox of Renewable Success and Grid Instability
Spain's position as a renewable energy leader presents a fascinating paradox that illuminates the complexities of energy transition. The country has achieved remarkable success in renewable deployment—solar and wind now constitute significant portions of its energy mix, positioning Spain as a climate policy exemplar. Yet this success has exposed profound vulnerabilities in the broader energy ecosystem, creating new forms of instability even as it addresses others.
The rapid scaling of renewable capacity has fundamentally altered the physics of the Spanish grid. Traditional power systems were designed around the predictable, controllable output of centralized fossil fuel and nuclear plants. Integrating massive amounts of variable renewable energy has introduced new technical challenges that existing infrastructure was never designed to handle. Grid operators now must manage dramatic fluctuations in supply that can occur within minutes, as cloud cover shifts across solar installations or wind patterns change across vast wind farms.
This transformation has created what energy engineers describe as the "integration challenge"—the gap between renewable energy potential and the grid's ability to utilize that potential effectively. Spain regularly experiences periods where renewable generation exceeds demand, forcing operators to curtail output and waste clean energy. Conversely, during periods of low renewable generation, the system struggles to maintain stability without adequate backup capacity or storage resources.
3. The Critical Role of Energy Storage in Grid Transformation
Energy storage emerges as perhaps the most critical missing piece in Spain's renewable puzzle. The intermittency challenge is not merely a technical inconvenience—it represents a fundamental mismatch between the temporal patterns of renewable energy generation and electricity demand. Solar generation peaks during midday hours when commercial demand is high but residential demand remains moderate, while wind patterns often peak during nighttime hours when overall demand is lowest.
The temporal mismatch creates cascading problems throughout the energy system without adequate storage capacity. Excess renewable energy that cannot be stored becomes a liability, forcing grid operators to curtail clean energy production or export surplus power at unfavourable prices to neighbouring markets. During periods of low renewable generation, the system must rely heavily on remaining fossil fuel plants, which are increasingly expensive to maintain as they operate less frequently and less predictably.
Deploying grid-forming batteries and other advanced storage technologies represents more than just a technical upgrade—it constitutes a fundamental reimagining of how electrical grids operate. Unlike traditional "grid-following" renewable installations that feed power into existing grid infrastructure, grid-forming technologies can help provide the stability services that traditional power plants once provided. These systems can respond to frequency fluctuations, provide voltage support, and help maintain grid stability during rapid changes.
However, the required storage deployment scale is staggering. Spain would need to install storage capacity measured in tens of gigawatt-hours to manage its renewable fleet's variability effectively. The investment would rival the cost of the renewable installations themselves. This reality highlights why storage cannot be treated as an afterthought in renewable energy planning but must be integrated from the earliest stages of system design.
4. Economic Interests and the Battle for Energy's Future
The ideological battles surrounding the energy transition cannot be separated from the powerful economic interests that shape energy policy and infrastructure investment. The renewable energy sector has evolved into a massive industrial complex, with manufacturers, developers, and financial institutions holding billions of dollars in assets tied to continued renewable deployment. These stakeholders have powerful incentives to promote rapid renewable expansion, sometimes with insufficient attention to the infrastructure investments needed to support that expansion effectively.
Simultaneously, incumbent fossil fuel and nuclear industries face existential threats from renewable energy growth. Their responses have ranged from attempting to slow renewable deployment through regulatory and legal challenges to pivoting their business models to maintain relevance in a changing energy landscape. Utility companies are caught in the middle, maintaining grid reliability while navigating rapidly changing technology costs, regulatory requirements, and customer expectations.
Financial institutions add another layer of complexity, as they increasingly view renewable energy projects as attractive investment opportunities while simultaneously holding significant exposure to existing fossil fuel infrastructure. This creates complex incentive structures where the same institutions may simultaneously finance renewable energy expansion and lobby against policies that would accelerate the retirement of existing fossil fuel assets.
The result is an energy policy landscape shaped as much by these competing economic interests as by technical requirements or environmental concerns. Subsidy structures, market design rules, and regulatory frameworks often reflect political compromises between these interests rather than optimal engineering solutions. Spain's experience illustrates how this dynamic can lead to renewable energy deployment that outpaces supporting infrastructure, creating new vulnerabilities even as it addresses climate concerns.
5. Regulatory Frameworks and the Challenge of Adaptive Governance
The regulatory challenges exposed by Spain's renewable transition extend far beyond simple rule-making to fundamental questions about how governance systems adapt to technological change. Traditional electricity regulation developed around stable, predictable systems dominated by large, centralized power plants. Integrating massive amounts of variable renewable energy requires new regulatory approaches to accommodate uncertainty, promote flexibility, and coordinate across multiple time scales and geographic boundaries.
Current regulatory frameworks often struggle to price the true value of flexibility and reliability in systems with high renewable penetration. Traditional electricity markets focus primarily on energy commodity prices, with limited mechanisms to reward grid stability services that become increasingly valuable as renewable penetration increases. This creates situations where renewable energy installations can appear economically attractive in isolation while imposing hidden costs on overall system stability.
Spain's experience suggests that regulatory evolution must occur at the same pace as technological deployment. Delayed regulatory adaptation creates periods of uncertainty that can discourage the infrastructure investments needed to support renewable integration. Grid operators, storage developers, and other critical system participants need clear, consistent regulatory signals to justify the substantial investments required for a successful energy transition.
6. Geopolitical Complexity and Energy Security in Transition
The broader geopolitical context surrounding energy infrastructure adds layers of complexity that go far beyond domestic policy considerations. The Nord Stream pipeline attacks, cyberattacks on grid infrastructure, and threats to undersea power cables illustrate how energy systems have become critical components of the international security architecture. For energy companies operating in this environment, geopolitical risk has evolved from a peripheral concern to a central business consideration.
Spain's position as a European energy hub connected to North Africa through undersea cables and to France through cross-border transmission lines makes it particularly vulnerable to geopolitical disruption. The country's renewable energy transition occurs against broader European energy security concerns, Russian energy supply disruptions, and growing awareness of energy infrastructure as a target for state and non-state actors.
This geopolitical dimension creates additional challenges for energy system planning. Infrastructure investments that make economic sense from a purely domestic perspective may become liabilities if they increase exposure to international disruption. Conversely, investments in energy independence and resilience may be economically suboptimal in the short term while providing crucial strategic value over longer time horizons.
7. The Management Challenge: Navigating Radical Uncertainty
For energy company executives operating in this environment, the challenge extends beyond traditional business management to navigating fundamental uncertainty about the future structure of energy systems. The transition from fossil fuels to renewables represents not merely a fuel switch but a comprehensive transformation of energy system architecture, market structures, regulatory frameworks, and geopolitical relationships.
Traditional business planning models, built around relatively predictable regulatory environments and stable technology costs, become inadequate when facing the radical uncertainty of the energy transition. Companies must simultaneously manage existing assets with declining long-term value, invest in new technologies with uncertain returns, and navigate regulatory frameworks in flux.
The Spanish experience illustrates how quickly energy system realities can change. Companies that invested heavily in renewable development faced unexpected curtailment and grid stability challenges. Utilities that deferred grid modernization investments discovered that their infrastructure could not accommodate the renewable energy they were required to integrate. Financial institutions that provided capital based on traditional energy system assumptions faced new categories of stranded asset risk.
8. Toward Integrated Energy System Planning
Spain's renewable energy transition offers crucial insights for other countries and regions embarking on similar transformations. The most important lesson may be that successful energy transition requires integrated system planning that addresses renewable energy deployment, grid infrastructure modernization, storage development, and regulatory framework evolution as interconnected challenges rather than separate issues.
The technical requirements for high-renewable energy systems are now well understood. The challenge lies in developing institutional capabilities to coordinate investments across these multiple dimensions while managing the political and economic interests that shape energy policy. Spain's experience suggests that countries can avoid some of the growing pains of renewable transition by treating grid modernization and storage deployment as prerequisites for, rather than consequences of, large-scale renewable energy development.
This integrated approach requires new forms of collaboration between government agencies, utility companies, renewable energy developers, and technology providers. It also requires regulatory frameworks sophisticated enough to provide appropriate price signals for the full range of services needed to maintain grid stability in high-renewable systems.
The stakes of getting this integration right extend beyond technical performance to questions of public confidence in renewable energy transition. Infrastructure failures that can be blamed on renewable energy integration, regardless of their actual causes, provide ammunition for opponents of climate action. Conversely, successful integration that maintains high levels of grid reliability while achieving deep decarbonization can be a powerful demonstration of renewable energy viability.
Spain's ongoing experience will continue to provide valuable insights as the country works to resolve the tensions between its renewable energy ambitions and infrastructure realities. The lessons learned—both positive and negative—will prove invaluable for the dozens of other countries now embarking on similar transitions, facing similar challenges, and navigating similar complexities in their own journeys toward sustainable energy systems.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
OPEC's 'Mother of All Battles' Sparks Global Clash Against the Fracking!
Just as OPEC’s technocrats quietly negotiate oil production amid global volatility, the Vatican’s cardinals clash over doctrine in an era of waning authority. Both institutions navigate a fragmented world where traditional hierarchies are dissolving—a condition mirrored in the persona of Madonna Louise Ciccone, the “Queen of Pop.” Far beyond her image as an erotic provocateur, Madonna symbolizes the evolution of Western iconoclasm, her career tracing America’s oscillation between Puritan restraint and capitalist spectacle. Her provocative use of Catholic imagery, rooted in her upbringing, reflects a deeper engagement with the sacred and the profane.
In stark contrast, Russia today marks the 80th anniversary of Victory Day under the shadow of war in Ukraine. Once a solemn tribute to Soviet sacrifice, the Red Square parade has become a stage for Vladimir Putin’s historical revisionism, where memory is militarized to justify present aggression. Drone strikes near Moscow underscore the parade’s shifting symbolism—from unity and resilience to a spectacle of embattled power. Together, these moments reveal how power, identity, and memory are being redefined across political, religious, and cultural spheres.
Image: All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
¨The energy sector with its sword outstretched...
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | May 7, 2025
________________________________________
Introduction
As OPEC unleashes a strategic flood of crude oil into saturated markets, the global energy landscape quivers under the weight of retaliatory trade policies and resurgent ideological ghosts. This surge in production—a counterstrike against the U.S.-led shale revolution and escalating tariff wars—has thrust energy markets into chaos, with Brent crude prices plummeting to levels unseen in years. The cartel’s manoeuvres, timed against a backdrop of slowing growth and Washington’s protectionism, expose the brittle interdependence of modern geopolitics: petrostates scramble for revenues, American frackers teeter on insolvency, and maritime chokepoints grow tense as tankers glutted with cheap oil idle offshore. Meanwhile, half a world away, another ancient institution—the Catholic Church—grapples with its existential reckoning, its conclaves echoing with clashes as profound as those reshaping energy alliances.
Just as OPEC’s technocrats engage in silent battles over oil production, the Vatican’s cardinals clash over issues of doctrine and modernity. Both institutions operate within a fragmented global landscape where traditional hierarchies are unraveling—a dynamic embodied in the complex persona of cultural figures like Madonna Louise Ciccone, the “Queen of Pop.” Far more than a mere symbol of American erotic rebellion, Madonna exemplifies the evolution of Western iconoclasm. From her role as a defiant provocateur in the 1980s to her status as a matriarch of perpetual reinvention, her career mirrors America’s continual swing between Puritan restraint and capitalist excess. While the crucifix controversy is just one chapter in her long-standing use of religious iconography, it underscores a recurring theme in her work—one profoundly shaped by her Catholic upbringing, which she has frequently cited as a significant influence on her artistic vision. Today marks the 80th anniversary of Victory Day in Russia, which commemorates the Soviet Union's triumph over Nazi Germany in World War II. The annual parade takes place in Moscow's Red Square. The traditional solemn homage to the immense sacrifices of the Soviet people, has taken on new dimensions amid current geopolitical tensions. Under President Vladimir Putin, the event has evolved into a platform for historical revisionism, where the legacy of the Great Patriotic War is invoked to justify contemporary military actions. The 2025 celebrations occur against the backdrop of ongoing conflict in Ukraine, with recent drone strikes near Moscow underscoring the persistent volatility in the region.
Such manipulations of history would have unsettled Andrei Tarkovsky, the Soviet auteur whose films Nostalghia (1983) and The Sacrifice (1986) presaged the spiritual rot of ideological systems and the specter of nuclear annihilation. In The Sacrifice, released mere months before Chernobyl’s reactors erupted, Tarkovsky framed apocalypse not as a sudden blast but as a slow unraveling of humanity’s moral fabric—a warning ignored until radioactive clouds drifted over Europe. His lens captured the existential vacuum of communism’s twilight, where individuals bargained with God, science, and despair. Today, as the nuclear industry reignites old rivalries—with Russia’s Rosatom peddling reactors to Global South nations and Western green energy lobbies scrambling for dominance—Tarkovsky’s visions resonate anew. The “sacrifice” now demanded is not of a single man, but of entire nations: a choice between decarbonization dogma and the Faustian bargains of atomic power.
The recent increase in OPEC oil production, coinciding with an escalating global trade war, has significantly disrupted global energy markets. OPEC's move to boost oil output and the intensifying tariff disputes, primarily led by the United States, have created a surplus in oil supply amid decreasing demand due to slowing global economic growth. This complex dynamic has triggered substantial drops in oil prices, destabilizing the balance of supply and demand, and profoundly affecting the U.S. shale industry, oil-exporting countries, global economic relations, and maritime logistics.
________________________________________
Global Oil Market: Price and Supply-Demand Balance
Short-term Consequences
In the short term, increased OPEC+ production and reduced global demand have led to an oversupply, pushing oil prices sharply downward. Brent crude and WTI experienced steep declines, erasing previous gains and hitting multi-year lows. Analysts have swiftly downgraded global demand forecasts and price projections, anticipating sustained oversupply and increased volatility in the oil market.
Medium-term Consequences
Over the next 1-2 years, persistent low oil prices could prompt significant industry consolidation and reduced investment, curtailing future oil supply. OPEC may eventually need to reconsider its strategy by implementing production cuts to stabilize prices. Meanwhile, importing nations like China and India will capitalize on cheaper oil, stockpiling reserves strategically.
Long-term Consequences
Long-term market outcomes could feature structural changes, including OPEC's consolidation of market share and reduced global investment. Prolonged trade disputes could lead to future oil supply shortages and price volatility. These disputes may also prompt countries to diversify their energy sources, potentially speeding up transitions to renewable energies or electrification.
________________________________________
U.S. Shale Oil Industry (Fracking)
Short-term Consequences
The U.S. shale industry faces immediate financial stress due to prices falling below the profitability threshold (~$65 per barrel). Combined with increased operational costs due to tariffs, this has resulted in declining rig counts, reduced employment, and decreased investment in drilling activities.
Medium-term Consequences
Low prices will lead to industry consolidation, bankruptcies among smaller operators, and stagnation or decline in shale oil production. This impacts economic stability in shale-producing states regionally, potentially prompting political pressure on the U.S. government to alleviate the industry's struggles through policy adjustments or trade negotiations.
Long-term Consequences
Long-term implications include potential loss of U.S. energy dominance, reduced investor confidence, and slowed growth in shale production. Geopolitically, this could diminish U.S. influence in global energy markets, compelling policymakers to reconsider energy strategies and possibly fostering alternative energy investments.
________________________________________
Oil-Exporting Countries (OPEC and non-OPEC)
Short-term Consequences
Oil-dependent economies immediately suffer revenue losses due to falling prices below fiscal break-even points. This forces nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Nigeria into deficit spending, debt issuance, and economic instability, potentially triggering social unrest.
Medium-term Consequences
Oil-exporting countries will likely implement austerity measures, economic diversification, and possibly coordinated production cuts to stabilize prices. Financially fragile nations might seek international aid or restructuring, exacerbating geopolitical tensions.
Long-term Consequences
Long-term scenarios could see successful diversification for some states, maintaining economic stability, while less adaptive nations face prolonged economic stagnation. Depending on demand dynamics and global energy transitions, OPEC's geopolitical power could either strengthen significantly or decline.
________________________________________
Global Economic and Geopolitical Relations
Short-term Consequences
Immediate effects include market volatility, shifts in geopolitical alliances (such as China strengthening ties with alternative oil suppliers), and internal political challenges in the U.S. balancing consumer benefits from low oil prices against harm to its domestic oil industry.
Medium-term Consequences
Persistent trade tensions may drive global economic fragmentation, reinforcing economic blocs around major powers (U.S.-Europe vs. China-Russia-Middle East), reshaping international trade routes, and prompting greater energy independence strategies through renewables and reduced reliance on imports.
Long-term Consequences
Long-term effects could lead to a permanent shift in global economic blocs, potentially ushering in a new bipolar economic era defined by aligned trading and energy security strategies. Energy may become even more politicized, profoundly influencing international diplomacy and security alliances.
________________________________________
Oil Shipping Logistics and Maritime Infrastructure
Short-term Consequences
Short-term impacts include increased tanker demand due to additional OPEC exports, route shifts due to trade barriers (U.S.-China tensions), port bottlenecks, rising storage demands, and higher insurance premiums reflecting geopolitical risks.
Medium-term Consequences
Over the next few years, maritime logistics will adjust through new tanker builds, optimized shipping routes, port capacity expansion in growing regions, and infrastructure underutilization in declining ones. Insurers and shipping companies will navigate ongoing risks and compliance with environmental regulations.
Long-term Consequences
Long-term logistics could reflect permanent regionalization of oil trade, shifts toward shorter routes, development of alternative maritime channels (e.g., Arctic routes), specialized ship technologies, and new port hubs in strategic locations. Insurance and security strategies will evolve alongside geopolitical stability.
________________________________________
Conclusion
The confluence of rising OPEC production and an escalating global trade war is producing multidimensional shocks that extend far beyond the immediate fluctuations in commodity prices. These developments are reverberating across the global economic system, destabilizing energy markets, reconfiguring geopolitical alliances, and straining the logistical architecture that underpins international energy trade. In the short term, these shocks demand swift and adaptive policy interventions to stabilize supply chains, shield vulnerable economies, and prevent inflationary spirals. But the medium- and long-term implications are far more consequential: they point toward a deep structural transformation in how energy is produced, distributed, and politicized in the 21st century.
This transformation entails shifting from the post-Cold War assumptions of open markets and energy interdependence toward a more fragmented and securitized global order. Countries are increasingly re-evaluating their energy strategies, prioritizing national resilience over efficiency, and doubling down on domestic capacity, strategic reserves, and bilateral agreements. For energy-importing nations, the pressure to diversify sources and accelerate clean energy transitions has intensified as a response to environmental imperatives and as a strategic hedge against geopolitical vulnerability. Meanwhile, traditional energy exporters face renewed volatility, as market power becomes more precarious in a world where demand patterns shift and political risks rise.
At the geopolitical level, the breakdown of multilateral coordination—in trade, climate policy, and energy governance—is giving rise to a multipolar competition over technological dominance, resource access, and supply chain control. Emerging alliances and rivalries are being shaped not just by ideological affinities, but by infrastructural dependencies, critical mineral access, and regional security calculations. The global energy order is entering a phase of recalibration, where the lines between economic policy, national security, and environmental strategy are increasingly blurred.
Navigating this period of upheaval requires more than reactive policymaking; it calls for strategic foresight anchored in long-term thinking, institutional resilience, and international cooperation. Policymakers must balance the urgent need to manage volatility with the foresight to design adaptive frameworks that anticipate future disruptions. This includes strengthening regional energy integration, investing in flexible infrastructure, reinforcing diplomatic mechanisms, and embedding energy policy within broader strategies for sustainable development, technological sovereignty, and economic justice. Only through such a multifaceted and forward-looking approach can the international community hope to mitigate systemic risks while seizing the transformative opportunities emerging in this rapidly evolving global energy landscape.
Sources:
International Energy Agency (IEA) World Energy Outlook and energy system reports, along with our own notes.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
The New Cold War: Electricity…
“Geopolitics and electricity are now closely interconnected in today’s world. In 2023, the global electricity industry was projected to generate an astounding $2.8 trillion in revenue, highlighting the immense scale and complexity of power generation, distribution, and retail operations worldwide. This enormous figure places the electrical power sector on par with the GDP of countries like France and the UK. It emphasizes that dominance in electricity markets translates to significant economic power and influence on an international scale…
Image: All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
“Geopolitics and electricity are now closely interconnected in today’s world. In 2023, the global electricity industry was projected to generate an astounding $2.8 trillion in revenue, highlighting the immense scale and complexity of power generation, distribution, and retail operations worldwide. This enormous figure places the electrical power sector on par with the GDP of countries like France and the UK. It emphasizes that dominance in electricity markets translates to significant economic power and influence on an international scale…
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | May 6, 2025
________________________________________
Introduction
A silent global contest is underway, with electricity at its core. In boardrooms and war rooms alike, leaders treat kilowatt-hours and power grids as strategic assets, fueling an era some have dubbed a new Cold War over energy. Once seen as a mundane utility, electricity now shapes grand strategy – from climate pledges to trade wars. This high-stakes contest spans every continent, as nations and corporations vie over renewable technologies, grid networks, and critical minerals. The global electricity sector itself generates multi-trillion-dollar revenues annually (around $2.8 trillion in 2023), a scale approaching the GDP of the world’s third-largest economy. For perspective, this yearly electricity market is still an order of magnitude smaller than U.S. federal debt (over $32 trillion as of mid-2023) – a reminder that even the commanding heights of the power industry can seem modest next to the torrents of global finance. Yet in geopolitics, control over electric power – its sources, infrastructure, and innovation – has become priceless.
Electricity has transformed into a geostrategic currency as the world electrifies everything from transport to heating and shifts from fossil fuels to clean energy. Whoever leads in power technology – ultra-efficient solar panels, long-duration batteries, or resilient smart grids – will gain immense economic and political leverage. Likewise, nations rich in the minerals that enable the energy transition, or influential in the financing and standard-setting of energy projects, will find new clout on the world stage. This article examines the emerging global dynamics of the electricity sector across North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Drawing on institutional reports, academic studies, expert commentary, and official statistics, it analyzes how the electricity industry’s evolution is shaping alliances and rivalries. From Chinese solar dominance to African electrification, from the nuclear revival to cyber-sabotage of grids, these developments are illuminated as facets of a new great game – “The New Cold War: Electricity.”
________________________________________
A Multi-Trillion-Dollar Power Struggle
Electricity is the lifeblood of modern economies. In 2023, the global electricity industry’s revenues were estimated at roughly $2.8 trillion, reflecting the vast scale of power generation, distribution, and retail worldwide. This puts the electrical power sector on par with the GDP of France or the UK, underscoring that control over electricity markets means control over enormous economic value. While estimates vary (depending on whether one measures wholesale generation or retail sales), analysts project continued growth – possibly towards $4 trillion per year by the early 2030s as demand surges in developing regions and electrification accelerates. This trajectory suggests the electricity sector could soon rival oil & gas (which earned an unprecedented $4 trillion in profits in 2022 amid high prices) as one of the most lucrative components of the energy economy.
Such sums invite comparison with other gigantic financial figures. For instance, the United States’ national debt crossed $32 trillion in 2023. Framing electricity’s annual revenue against U.S. debt stock is illustrative: ten years of global power sales equate to America’s borrowing over centuries. This contrast highlights how deeply infrastructure investment (and sometimes debt financing) will be involved in the energy transition. It also emphasizes that while money can be created or borrowed, electrons must be generated and delivered in real time. No country can print electricity; it must build it. Thus, access to reliable, affordable power constrains the real economy in ways abstract finance does not. For geopolitics, this means that nations cannot bluff or sanction their way out of energy shortages – they must physically secure supply, whether through domestic capacity or international arrangements.
Electricity demand is enormous and rising. Global consumption hit about 24,500 terawatt-hours in 2023, up ~2.5% from the previous year, reflecting recovering industrial activity and growing use in Asia. Even mature markets are seeing new pulls on power: the proliferation of electric vehicles, data centers, and electrified heating is steadily expanding electricity’s role in society. The International Energy Agency (IEA) notes that electricity is “central to modern life” and will become even more pivotal as transport and buildings convert to electric technologies. Power generation is currently the largest source of CO₂ emissions globally, mainly due to coal-fired plants. This makes the electricity sector’s transformation the linchpin of climate change mitigation. Indeed, decarbonizing electricity – replacing coal and gas with wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear – is the foundation for achieving net-zero emissions targets. Clean electricity can then fuel cars, industries, and homes without carbon, a virtuous cycle underpinning the entire energy transition.
________________________________________
Electricity, Energy Transition, and Fiscal Policy
Because of its outsized climate impact, the power sector is at the heart of energy transition strategies. Efforts to address climate change have led to the rapid electrification of end-uses like transport and industry, which in turn drives a “massive increase in power demand” that must be met with renewable generation. This feedback loop – more electric vehicles and factories requiring more clean power – is triggering a dramatic transformation of power systems globally. Governments view the electricity sector as a vehicle for decarbonization, economic stimulus, and industrial policy. In recent years, numerous countries have rolled out green recovery programs and infrastructure bills (such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act and the EU Green Deal) that channel public funds and tax incentives into renewable electricity projects and grid upgrades. Such spending reflects a fiscal bet on electricity as a public good and a strategic asset, akin to how highways or telecommunications were treated in earlier eras.
At the same time, fiscal policymakers should be mindful of the budgetary impact of the energy transition. Many nations still subsidise electricity prices or the fuels used to generate power. It is essential to recognise the importance of Transfer Costs to the Competition (TCC). Reforming these subsidies can improve fiscal health, but they carry political risks, as seen when price hikes spark public backlash. Conversely, governments are exploring new revenue sources linked to electricity – for example, carbon pricing schemes or green taxes that can fund renewable investments. The scale of needed investment is staggering: achieving net-zero globally by mid-century would require clean energy investment to triple to around $4 trillion per year by 2030, much of which will flow into the power sector (renewables, grids, storage). Although private capital will provide a bulk of this, public financing and guarantees often seed projects, especially where market risks are high. Fiscal policy is thus being marshalled to support the build-out of low-carbon generation and the retirement of fossil-based assets. In sum, electricity has moved from a sectoral issue to a central economic strategy, with treasuries and central banks increasingly factoring energy transition risks (and opportunities) into their outlooks.
There is also an implicit economic reframing at play: commentators compare the multi-trillion annual electricity market with other monumental flows to convey the challenge’s scope. For instance, the global power sector’s annual revenues (~$3 trillion) are often likened to the $32 trillion U.S. debt to illustrate that decarbonizing power is a smaller hurdle financially than many assume. If the world can shoulder such enormous debts, the reasoning goes, it can mobilize comparable resources for clean energy – especially given the returns in avoided climate damage and enhanced energy security. Whether through carbon taxes, green bonds, or direct spending, integrating the electricity transition into fiscal frameworks is increasingly considered prudent governance. Once a backwater of regulated utilities, the electricity sector is now a major focus of finance ministers and central bankers. Its performance affects inflation (via energy prices), industrial competitiveness, and social stability.
________________________________________
Geopolitical Technology Wars: Renewables, Grids, and Storage
As electricity rises, technological leadership in power systems has become a flashpoint of international competition. In the mid-20th century, domination over oil resources defined geopolitical clout; in the 21st century, it may be domination over renewable energy technology and electricity infrastructure. Major powers are now locked in what can be described as a geopolitical tech war for supremacy in renewables, grid control systems, and energy storage. This is more evident than in the tensions between the United States and China.
Renewable technology – particularly solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and wind turbines – is a key battleground. Over the past two decades, China heavily invested in scaling up manufacturing, allowing it to capture the lion’s share of global solar panel production. As of the mid-2020s, China controls an estimated 80 %+ of the world’s solar PV supply chain (from polysilicon and wafers to finished modules). Western countries, which pioneered solar R&D, have seen much of the industry slip away to Asia. In response, the U.S. and Europe are deploying industrial policies (tariffs, local content rules, subsidies for domestic factories) to claw back some capacity or at least reduce dependence. Similarly, in battery technology, critical for energy storage and electric vehicles, China’s dominance is striking – roughly 70–75% of global lithium-ion battery production occurs in China. Chinese firms like CATL and BYD have become to batteries what Saudi Aramco is to oil. The U.S., EU, Japan, and others are pouring billions into battery gigafactories and next-generation chemistries (like solid-state batteries) to narrow this gap. This renewables race is akin to a modern-day space race: a contest for prestige, economic gain, and security of supply.
Grid control and smart grid electronics form another front. With the rise of digital controls, IoT sensors, and AI in managing electricity networks, concerns have grown about whose equipment runs the grid. Under President Trump, the U.S. moved to ban certain Chinese electrical gear from its power grid, citing cybersecurity fears. A 2020 order prohibited utilities supplying critical defense facilities from importing equipment like transformers from China. (Transformers are the backbone of grid transmission; inserting compromised hardware could potentially enable sabotage or spying.) Although the blanket ban was later modified, the U.S. continues to scrutinize Chinese-made components in critical grid infrastructure. Meanwhile, China’s State Grid Corporation, the world’s largest utility, aggressively exports its grid technology and standards through foreign contracts. Beijing has promoted ultra-high-voltage transmission lines and smart meter systems in Asia and Africa, aiming to set global technical standards that others follow. Competing standards evoke an earlier era when the U.S. and Soviet Union vied over technical norms across the developing world – only now it’s about internet-connected substations rather than radio broadcasting protocols.
Energy storage is the third key area, given its importance in balancing renewable power. Here, competition extends from batteries to emerging tech like green hydrogen, flow batteries, and other storage media. Nations that lead in storage innovation could dictate terms of the future electricity market, solving the intermittency of wind and solar and enabling export of stored energy. Companies like Tesla have driven a revolution in lithium battery deployment, from grid-scale “mega-packs” to home Powerwalls, which is challenging traditional utilities (more on that later). Chinese firms, however, are also top-tier in storage manufacturing, and South Korea and Japan are significant players. The “technology war” manifests in patent races, trade secrets disputes, and efforts to secure supply chains for components. For instance, both Europe and America have offered incentives for domestic battery supply chains (from lithium processing to cell production) to reduce reliance on Asian imports. The overlap of economic policy and national security is clear: whoever makes the world’s solar panels and batteries not only reaps profits but can also weaponize supply by withholding or dumping products. This dynamic has already surfaced – the U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese solar panels years ago, accusing Beijing of unfair subsidies, while China at times restricted exports of certain metals crucial for making high-tech magnets and batteries as leverage in trade negotiations.
In sum, the new Cold War in technology has an energy core. It is not missiles or rockets being brandished, but solar panels, software, and subsidies. Victory is measured not by warheads but by market share and supply chain resilience. And unlike in the 20th-century Cold War, many other countries beyond the two superpower rivals are active participants – from South Korean battery giants to European wind turbine makers – each vying for slices of this booming electrification market.
________________________________________
China’s Energy Tech Dominance and Geo-Economic Leverage
At the center of this global power struggle is China, whose policies over the past decade have decisively reshaped the energy landscape. China today is an energy technology juggernaut, enjoying commanding leads in the manufacturing of renewable energy equipment and increasingly asserting influence over grid infrastructure abroad. This dominance gives Beijing significant geo-economic leverage – effectively a form of “soft power” (or hard power, depending on one’s view) in the emergent clean energy world order.
Consider solar PV: China’s share of global manufacturing capacity for each link in the solar supply chain – polysilicon refining, silicon wafer cutting, cell fabrication, and module assembly – ranges from 75% to 95% by various estimates. An IEA analysis bluntly stated, “China currently dominates global solar PV supply chains,” having shifted production away from former leaders in Europe, Japan, and the U.S.. Chinese firms leverage economies of scale and vertical integration, benefiting from domestic subsidies and a large home market. The result is lower costs worldwide – solar panel prices fell over 80% in the last decade – but also a precarious dependence. In 2023, Chinese solar panel exports hit record highs (114 GW worth of panels shipped in just the first half of the year), supplying projects from California to India. If geopolitical frictions or trade disputes were to curtail this flow, many countries’ solar rollout plans would face severe disruption. Beijing is well aware of this supply chain dependency; it has occasionally hinted at export controls on solar or battery inputs in retaliation to Western tech sanctions, underscoring that energy tech can be a strategic tool.
In batteries and electric vehicles (EVs), China also reigns supreme. As of 2024, Chinese battery champion CATL alone held about 38% of the global EV battery market share, with another Chinese firm, BYD, around 17%. All told, more than 70% of lithium-ion batteries are produced in China. Moreover, Chinese companies have aggressively invested upstream in critical minerals (acquiring stakes in lithium mines in Latin America and cobalt mines in Africa) and downstream in EV production (dominating not just components but complete electric car exports – Chinese brands made 62% of global EV sales in 2024). This dominance echoes how OPEC countries once controlled oil supply – except in this case it’s not a cartel but a combination of market prowess and state support that has concentrated the industry. The geopolitical implication is profound: as nations electrify transport and industry, they may find Chinese-made batteries and cars indispensable, potentially tempering their willingness to confront China on other issues.
Beyond manufacturing, China is expanding influence through its grand overseas infrastructure plan, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Energy projects are a cornerstone of BRI, including dozens of power plants (coal, hydro, solar, and wind) and long-distance transmission lines built across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East with Chinese loans and contractors. While Western-backed development banks often shy away from coal or large dams due to environmental concerns, Chinese banks have financed them, making Beijing a partner of choice for countries seeking rapid electrification. At the same time, China has begun exporting more renewable projects under BRI as well, and Chinese firms supply solar panels and grid equipment to many developing nations at competitive prices. This fosters a growing sphere of influence: equipment standards, regulatory practices, even workforce training in those grids may align with Chinese norms, potentially entrenching reliance on Chinese know-how for decades. In some ways, it parallels the Cold War pattern of superpowers exporting infrastructure and gaining client states, but now with fiber-optic cables and transmission towers instead of arms.
A vivid example of Chinese reach is State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC), the state-owned behemoth that manages most of China’s electricity distribution. SGCC is not only the world’s largest utility by revenue (over $540 billion in 2023), but it has also invested in utilities or grid concessions from Brazil to the Philippines and Italy. By owning stakes or providing technology, State Grid extends China’s influence into the energy governance of other countries. Smart grid technology (like advanced metering systems, load management software, etc.) provided by Chinese companies can be beneficial for hosts, but it also raises concerns analogous to Huawei’s role in 5G networks – will dependence on Chinese tech create security vulnerabilities or political strings? These debates are ongoing, with some recipient nations welcoming the low cost and technical expertise, and others pushing back under pressure from the U.S. or due to their own strategic calculations.
China’s dominance is not uncontested. Advanced economies are responding with both cooperative and defensive measures. For instance, the G7 nations launched a “Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment” (PGII, formerly the B3W initiative) aiming to mobilize $600 billion by 2027 for infrastructure in developing countries – pitched as a “values-driven, high-standard” alternative to BRIC. Part of the plan involves financing clean energy projects that meet stricter environmental and transparency criteria, seeking to counter China’s influence by offering countries another option. Yet, the scale and speed of China’s push, and its willingness to engage where others hesitate, means that in many parts of the world Chinese technology and capital remain the leading force powering new electrical capacity.
In summary, China has leveraged its industrial policy and financial clout to seize commanding heights in the new energy economy. This yields obvious economic rewards (jobs, exports, profits) and also strategic advantages – a form of energy hegemony in the making. Whether this leads to a sinocentric energy order or sparks a more collaborative global system depends on how other nations respond and how China wields its power: as a cooperative leader or monopolistic gatekeeper. The stage is set for an era of competition and negotiation around the central pillar of electricity power.
________________________________________
The Resurgence of Nuclear Energy (SMRs and Fusion Dreams)
Amid the focus on renewables, another energy source has been quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) re-entering the conversation: nuclear power. After decades of stagnation and public skepticism, atomic energy is seeing a tentative revival across multiple regions. This resurgence is driven by a confluence of factors – energy security concerns, the need for firm low-carbon power to complement intermittent renewables, and technological advances like small modular reactors (SMRs) that promise to address some of the cost and safety issues of traditional large reactors. At the same time, breakthroughs in fusion research are reviving hopes (however distant) of a radically new kind of nuclear power. Together, these trends point to nuclear regaining a seat in discussions of the 21st-century energy mix.
Several indicators underscore the renewed interest in nuclear energy. Globally, investment in nuclear has roughly doubled over the past decade, reaching about $65 billion in 2023, according to the IEA – a sharp reversal after years of decline. High-profile voices, including some environmental scientists and policymakers, now argue that without nuclear, many countries will struggle to meet climate targets while keeping grids reliable. Nuclear plants generate steady baseload power without carbon emissions, a valued attribute as coal plants are retired. Governments and utilities increasingly view nuclear as a sensible solution to decarbonize while ensuring firm power, if supportive policy frameworks and financing are in place.
The geopolitical dimension comes from who is building and exporting nuclear technology. While the U.S. and Western Europe pioneered nuclear energy in the 20th century, today China and Russia are the busiest builders of reactors. China has dozens of reactors under construction or in planning, aiming to expand its domestic nuclear capacity by 2030 dramatically
. Russia’s state firm Rosatom has become a major exporter of nuclear reactors (the VVER designs), building plants in countries like India, Turkey, and Bangladesh, often with generous financing. This gives Russia a long-term diplomatic foothold – operating a reactor implies decades of fuel supply and technical cooperation. In contrast, Western nuclear industries slowed down, with few new builds and the bankruptcy of companies like Westinghouse (now restructured). However, signs of a turnaround are visible: numerous new-build announcements have been made in the UK, France, Eastern Europe, and even the United States recently. Many of these are aspirational (actual construction is limited so far in the West), but the policy support is strengthening. Notably, the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (2022) included subsidies for existing nuclear plants and credits for new advanced reactors, and the EU in 2022 controversially labeled nuclear as “green” (under certain conditions) in its sustainable finance taxonomy, potentially easing investment.
A key innovation driving excitement is the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). These are nuclear reactors typically producing a few tens or hundreds of megawatts (instead of ~1000+ MW for a conventional large reactor), designed to be built in factories and shipped to site, allowing for standardization and potentially lower costs. Countries like Canada, the UK, and the U.S. are frontrunners in SMR development – for example, Canada’s Ontario Power Generation has contracted to deploy an SMR by the early 2030s (GE Hitachi’s 300 MWe design) on an existing nuclear site. The concept is that SMRs can fill niches: powering remote regions, replacing coal plants using the same grid connections, or serving industrial sites. If they can be mass-produced, each unit’s cost could fall much like commercial aircraft or locomotives, rather than each reactor being a one-off mega-project. As of 2025, several SMR designs are in the licensing stage; none have yet been built in Western countries, though Russia has a floating SMR in operation and China is piloting one as well. Big tech companies have also shown interest – e.g., some data center operators and entrepreneurs like Bill Gates (with TerraPower) are investing in advanced reactor startups, seeing nuclear as a firm backup for renewable-heavy power grids.
Another sign of nuclear’s comeback is the shifting political narrative. High energy prices and gas shortages in Europe (exacerbated by the Ukraine crisis) led countries like the UK, Netherlands, and even once-nuclear-averse Belgium to extend reactor lifetimes or plan new ones for energy security. In Asia and the Middle East, new entrants are emerging: the UAE recently became the first Arab country to operate a nuclear plant (with South Korean help), and India has big nuclear expansion plans (we’ll detail India separately as a case). Even Japan, traumatized by Fukushima in 2011, is slowly bringing some reactors back online and exploring new designs, given its need for stable power and climate commitments.
No discussion of nuclear’s future is complete without mentioning the tantalizing prospect of nuclear fusion. Long dismissed as a mirage always “30 years away,” fusion took a leap into the headlines in late 2022 when U.S. scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Lab achieved the first ever fusion ignition – producing more energy from a fusion reaction than the energy input from lasers to start it. While on a tiny scale (output enough to boil a kettle), this experiment was hailed as a historic breakthrough. For the first time, the longstanding goal of scientific breakeven in fusion was reached, proving that controlled fusion is possible outside of stars or bombs. In 2023, the lab repeated the feat with slightly higher yield. These milestones have energized the fusion research community and a growing fusion startup industry (especially in the U.S. and UK), which is pursuing alternate approaches like magnetic confinement and aiming for a prototype power plant perhaps in the 2030s or 2040s. Governments too are upping support, seeing fusion as a game-changer for clean energy if it can be commercialized. Still, formidable scientific and engineering hurdles remain; fusion won’t realistically contribute to the 2030 climate targets, but its geopolitics are already in play – whichever nation or company patents viable fusion technology could command immense influence (and profits). International collaborations like ITER (the large fusion reactor project in France involving 35 nations) show a cooperative side of this race, whereas the U.S.-UK privately-led efforts vs. China’s state-led programs hint at competition.
In summary, nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance of attention, if not a full-scale capacity renaissance. By 2030, we will likely see a handful of SMRs operating, a dozen or more large reactors under construction in new markets, and perhaps clearer direction on fusion’s viability. The key geopolitical questions will be: Can the West reclaim leadership or stay competitive in nuclear tech (preventing an exclusive Russo-Chinese dominance)? Will nuclear exports become tools of diplomacy (as with Russia’s influence via reactor deals)? And will public acceptance hold as climate urgency collides with nuclear anxieties? This nuclear subplot of the energy transition adds another layer to the New Cold War analogy – reminiscent of the original Cold War's atoms-for-peace campaigns and nuclear competitions, now repurposed for climate and energy battles.
________________________________________
Critical Minerals: The New Resource Chessboard
In the electrified, renewable-centric energy system, critical minerals are as strategically important as oil and gas were in the hydrocarbon age. Materials like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements are essential for batteries, wind turbine magnets, solar panels, and electric vehicle motors. As demand for these minerals soars, a geopolitical scramble is unfolding to secure supply, leading some analysts to dub it a “new scramble for commodities” or a resource chessboard with new winners and losers. The dynamics span Latin American salt flats to African mines and Chinese refineries, bringing development opportunities but also raising concerns about neo-colonial exploitation, resource nationalism, and environmental impact.
Take lithium, often called “white gold” for the role it plays in lithium-ion batteries. Global lithium demand has skyrocketed with the EV boom. Three countries in Latin America’s Lithium Triangle – Bolivia, Argentina, and Chile – together hold over half of the world’s known lithium resources (largely in high-altitude salt flats). Historically, Chile and Argentina have been among the largest producers (alongside Australia, which is currently #1). Now these nations see a chance to capture more value from this critical resource. In Chile, which has the world’s largest lithium reserves and is the #2 producer, a major policy shift occurred in 2023: President Gabriel Boric announced plans to nationalize Chile’s lithium industry. Under this strategy, future lithium projects must be public-private partnerships with state control, and an all-new state-owned lithium company will gradually take charge. The government argues this is the best way to ensure lithium wealth is used for sustainable development and not “wasted”. Practically, it means incumbents like SQM and Albemarle (a Chilean and a U.S. firm, respectively, currently producing lithium from Chile’s Atacama salt flat) will have to renegotiate terms by the end of their contracts (2030 for SQM) if they want to continue, likely giving the state a majority stake. This move was a shock to EV supply chains. It sent a message: countries are looking to protect their critical resources and extract greater benefit, even if it means unsettling investors. Chile’s step follows similar trends: Mexico nationalized its lithium deposits in 2022 by law, and Indonesia banned exports of nickel ore in 2020 to force companies to refine nickel (used in batteries) domestically.
For Bolivia, home to perhaps the largest single lithium resource in its Uyuni salt flat, the challenge has been turning resource into revenue – extraction is technically tricky and Bolivia’s government has long insisted on retaining state control (via Yacimientos de Litio Bolivianos). After years of limited progress, Bolivia in 2023 signed deals with Chinese firms to finally develop its lithium, illustrating China’s proactive hunt for minerals. Argentina has taken a more investor-friendly approach, welcoming foreign miners (from the U.S., China, Australia, etc.) to exploit its lithium brines with relatively light regulation. As a result, Argentina’s lithium output is poised to surge with many new projects, possibly overtaking Chile in production within a few years. This trio thus offers a case study in different governance models: Chile’s emerging resource nationalism via partnerships, Bolivia’s state-led but slower path, and Argentina’s open-door policy. All are trying to avoid the “resource curse” of the past and instead leverage lithium for industrialization – e.g., by spurring battery factories locally (Chile has a deal with China’s BYD to build a cathode plant).
Moving to cobalt and rare earth elements (REEs), we see other geopolitical fault lines. Cobalt, critical for many battery chemistries, is heavily concentrated in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which produces around 70% of the world’s supply. That supply chain has been rife with problems: unsafe mining conditions, child labor in some artisanal mines, and the fact that Chinese companies have acquired control of a majority of DRC’s large cobalt mines (such as through the China Molybdenum’s ownership of the Tenke Fungurume mine). The U.S. and Europe are nervous about how reliant their EV industries are on DRC cobalt refined in China. This has prompted efforts to develop cobalt alternatives (like new battery types using less or zero cobalt) and to source from elsewhere (small cobalt outputs in places like Australia or Morocco, or potentially deep-sea mining, though that’s highly controversial). Some Western companies are also investing in “ethical cobalt” initiatives in the DRC, aiming to improve traceability and conditions to ensure the material isn’t tainted by abuses.
Rare earth elements – a group of 17 metals used in high-strength magnets (crucial for wind turbines and EV motors), among other electronics – present a classic chokehold scenario. China accounts for about 60% of global rare earth mining, but even more critically about 85-90% of rare earth processing into useful oxides and metals occurs in China. Decades ago, the U.S. and others got out of this messy business due to environmental costs, ceding it to China, which built a near-monopoly and has since periodically used it as leverage (famously restricting exports to Japan in 2010 during a territorial spat). Recognizing this vulnerability, countries are now scrambling to diversify rare earth supplies – reopening mines (e.g., the Mountain Pass mine in California is active again), funding separation facilities in the U.S. and Europe, and partnering with countries like Australia (a growing producer) or Vietnam, which has large untapped reserves. In 2023, for instance, the EU announced a Critical Raw Materials Act aiming to ensure at least 30% of its demand for key minerals is sourced from domestic or friendly sources by 2030, and the U.S. Defense Department has given grants to rare earth refining projects on American soil. These are attempts to de-risk supply chains that currently run overwhelmingly through China.
From a developing country perspective, the rush for critical minerals is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it offers economic growth and leverage opportunities: nations rich in lithium, cobalt, or rare earths suddenly find themselves courted by superpowers and corporations. This can translate to investment and infrastructure – for example, China often offers to build roads or power plants in exchange for mining rights. On the other hand, there’s a fear of repeating the old pattern where raw materials are extracted with little benefit to the local economy or environment. Thus, many insist on terms like local processing, joint ventures, or environmental safeguards. The ethical and ecological concerns are substantial: lithium brine extraction can deplete scarce water in arid regions; nickel and rare earth refining can cause toxic pollution; and mining in biodiverse areas risks ecological harm. There’s also a social justice angle – indigenous communities in South America or Africa are often most affected by mining projects and are demanding consultation and fair share of benefits.
We see a geopolitical layer in initiatives such as the Minerals Security Partnership led by the U.S., coordinating with allies like Canada, Australia, and Japan to secure critical mineral supplies (and offer financing to resource-rich countries as an alternative to Chinese deals). China, for its part, is solidifying its hold. Beyond direct mining investments, it has built an empire of processing facilities (refineries, chemical processors) that take raw ore from around the world and turn it into battery-grade material. Even if Western countries find new mines, they often send the ore to China for processing – a bottleneck that China controls.
On this resource chessboard, each major player has distinct advantages: China has processing and demand; the U.S. has financial muscle and technological innovation in reducing mineral intensity; Europe has market size and regulations that can shape supplier behavior; and many developing countries have the raw geology. The outcome will likely be a more multipolar supply chain. Still, the transition could be bumpy, with potential for trade tensions or even resource nationalism crises (imagine if an unstable government in a key country nationalizes and halts exports abruptly, sending mineral prices spiking). Unlike oil, which has a robust global market and trading system, many of these new minerals lack transparent markets and are often by-products of other mining (cobalt from copper, for instance), making them more susceptible to sudden shocks.
________________________________________
Case Study: Lithium in Latin America’s “Lithium Triangle”
Latin America’s Lithium Triangle – the high-altitude regions where Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia meet – provides a vivid case of how critical minerals are reshaping politics and international relations. The Atacama Desert in Chile and similar salt flats (salars) in Argentina and Bolivia contain huge brine reservoirs rich in lithium salts. Extracting lithium from brine involves pumping it to the surface and allowing it to evaporate in vast ponds, leaving lithium carbonate behind – a process that is cheap but water-intensive and slow.
Chile has been a lithium powerhouse for decades, with two companies (SQM, a Chilean firm partly owned by China’s Tianqi Lithium, and Albemarle, a U.S. firm) long dominating production under government licenses. President Boric’s 2023 nationalization announcement upended this status quo. While existing contracts won’t be revoked immediately, the clear direction is toward majority state ownership of all primary lithium operations. Notably, Chile isn’t expelling the private companies but rather inviting them to partner with the new state lithium enterprise – a model reminiscent of how Codelco (the state copper company) works alongside private miners. The goal is twofold: economic – to capture more profits for public use, and environmental – to ensure extraction is done sustainably in the fragile salar ecosystem. From a geopolitical view, Chile’s move may also be aimed at balancing interests: it can negotiate with both Western and Chinese companies from a stronger position. Indeed, after the strategy was unveiled, U.S. and Chinese stakeholders expressed hopes to continue in Chile under the new framework, indicating Chile will play the field to get the best terms.
Bolivia, with the world’s largest lithium resource, provides a contrast. It aimed for full state control, leading to slow development due to limited technology and capital. Recently, Bolivia has shifted to allow some foreign partnership: in 2023, a consortium of Chinese companies (including battery giant CATL) was selected to help YLB industrialize lithium extraction using a newer technology (direct lithium extraction) that could be less water intensive. This shows China’s persistent courtship of lithium-rich countries – offering investment and technological methods. Notably, a few years earlier, a German company had a tentative agreement with Bolivia which fell through amid political upheaval; the Chinese entry signals how geopolitical winds have shifted.
Argentina is the most market-oriented of the three. It has multiple foreign firms developing projects (Australian, Canadian, Chinese, American). The Argentinian provinces hold authority over resources and have been keen to attract investment to remote areas like Catamarca or Jujuy. Argentina’s challenge is infrastructure – getting the lithium out of the remote Andean areas to ports – and macroeconomic instability, which can deter investors. Nonetheless, Argentina has been the growth story: it’s expected to increase lithium output significantly by 2025 as several new mines come online. The government there has floated ideas of forming an OPEC-like lithium cartel with Chile and Bolivia to coordinate strategy, but differing policies have made that difficult. Still, they do engage in dialogue; all three are members of a regional alliance on lithium.
Major powers are certainly attentive. The United States, under its climate agenda, has identified lithium as a critical mineral and is investing in battery supply chains domestically, but it still needs imports. It has engaged diplomatically with lithium countries (for example, there were reports of U.S. officials lobbying Chile about fair treatment of U.S. companies in the new policy). China is deeply involved – beyond owning part of SQM, Chinese companies like Ganfeng have stakes in Argentinian projects, and as mentioned, a Chinese consortium in Bolivia. This competition sometimes frames lithium as a “Great Game” in South America, with the lithium triangle akin to a new Persian Gulf. However, unlike oil in the Gulf, these countries are assertively crafting the terms of engagement.
The environmental footprint in these salt flats is a concern that also has international ramifications. Indigenous communities, like the Atacameño in Chile, worry that lithium brine extraction draws down groundwater and threatens lagoons and biodiversity (flamingos on those salt flats, for instance). Companies are pressured to prove they can minimize water use and share benefits with locals. This introduces an ethical dimension: as the world clamours for lithium to fight climate change, it must reconcile that with local environmental justice for people in the Andes. Chile’s strategy explicitly cites protecting the environment and may push technological innovation (such as direct extraction methods that reinject water). How well these concerns are managed will influence the social license of lithium mining and perhaps set examples for other mineral-rich regions.
In conclusion, Latin America’s lithium saga encapsulates a broader theme: the energy transition is not just about shifting fuels but also about shifting geopolitical and economic relationships. Control over critical mineral supply chains is emerging as a key determinant of who **“wins” the new energy era. It truly resembles a chess match involving states and companies globally.
________________________________________
Infrastructure Under Threat: Cybersecurity and Energy Conflict
The vital importance of electricity infrastructure has made it a prime target in conflicts and a point of vulnerability in national security. As grids become digitized and interconnected, cybersecurity threats loom large – capable of causing mass disruption without a single shot fired. Physical attacks and sabotage also remain a danger, as seen dramatically in the case of the Nord Stream pipelines. Recent incidents from ransomware hacks to military strikes have driven home the message: protecting the power system is now a key element of national defense. Failing to do so can bring an economy to its knees or alter the course of a war.
One wake-up call came in December 2015, when a sophisticated cyberattack on Ukraine’s power grid caused blackouts for roughly 230,000 people. Hackers (later attributed to the Russian group “Sandworm”) remotely took control of distribution substations. They shut off the power, marking the first known instance of a cyberattack successfully disrupting an electrical grid. This was followed by another attack on Kyiv’s grid in 2016. These incidents, occurring amidst the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, demonstrated the reality of cyber warfare on civilian infrastructure. They also exposed how aging grid control systems could be manipulated if not properly secured. With Western experts' help, Ukraine has strengthened its grid defenses. Still, it remains a constant battle – especially with the full-scale war since 2022, where Russian forces have targeted Ukrainian power infrastructure both physically (through missiles) and potentially through malware. In fact, during the 2022 conflict, as Russia bombarded substations and power plants to plunge Ukraine into darkness, Ukrainian cyber units simultaneously worked to fend off malware like Industroyer2 aimed at their grid. This dual onslaught of kinetic and cyber attacks on energy infrastructure is unprecedented in modern war.
Another high-profile example was the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack in the United States (May 2021). Though it involved an oil pipeline, not the electrical grid, it underscored the vulnerability of energy infrastructure to criminal hacking. A ransomware group (DarkSide) penetrated Colonial Pipeline’s IT network, prompting the company to temporarily shut down its pipeline operations. This major pipeline supplies ~45% of the U.S. East Coast’s fuel; its shutdown for several days led to panic buying of gasoline, local shortages, and price spikes. Images of long lines at gas stations in states like North Carolina evoked a sense of crisis reminiscent of the 1970s oil shocks. The U.S. government treated it as a national security issue, coordinating a response to help the pipeline restart. Ultimately Colonial Pipeline paid a multi-million-dollar ransom (most of which the FBI later recovered), but the incident catalyzed action in Washington: new cybersecurity requirements for pipeline operators, closer monitoring of critical infrastructure, and the realization that ransomware had evolved from a data-theft problem to a public safety threat.
Power grids are arguably even more vulnerable than pipelines because of their complexity and the necessity of balancing supply and demand in real time. A well-orchestrated cyberattack could cause cascading failures. Governments have grown increasingly vocal about shoring up defenses. In the U.S., the Biden administration issued directives for utilities to improve cyber practices and removed Chinese-made monitoring devices from some substations over spying fears. European countries, after seeing Ukraine’s experience, have red-teamed their own grids for weaknesses. Yet, the attack surface is enormous: thousands of generation plants, transformers, and control centers, many now connected for smart management, but sometimes not fully patched or secure. Even independent of nation-state attackers, criminal hackers could target utilities (there have been attempted ransomware attacks on electric utilities, some successful in temporarily disrupting business systems).
Another layer of threat is physical sabotage. The sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea in September 2022 is a stark example. Undersea explosions ruptured these major pipelines that connect Russia to Germany, in what NATO and EU officials called deliberate acts of sabotage. While those were gas pipelines (energy infrastructure in a broader sense), not electric, the effect was to eliminate a key piece of Europe’s energy network. Had those been electric interconnectors (subsea power cables) instead of gas pipes, the impact would be similarly severe for connected countries. In fact, some nations are now heightening surveillance of critical undersea cables and cross-border power lines, recognizing they could be targets in a conflict scenario. In an interconnected Europe, for example, sabotaging a few high-voltage lines or cables could isolate a country’s grid or cause blackouts across multiple states.
Electricity infrastructure has even become a tactical target for terrorists or saboteurs at smaller scales. For instance, in December 2022, a deliberate shooting attack on electrical substations in North Carolina knocked out power for days to tens of thousands – presumably the work of unknown domestic actors. This kind of low-tech attack (rifle fire at transformers) demonstrated that not all threats are cyber; sometimes old-fashioned sabotage is easier and just as effective at causing disruption.
All these incidents drive home a geopolitical reality: attacking the enemy’s energy supply is once again a strategy, whether that enemy is an opposing nation or simply a government one wants to destabilize. During the original Cold War, each side worried about the other bombing power plants. Today, the means might be malware or stealthy explosives, but the effect is similar. The Colonial Pipeline hack showed how even non-state actors can, unintentionally or not, create national security crises. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s experience shows state actors will directly target grid infrastructure to weaken adversaries – essentially weaponizing winter by freezing cities in the dark.
In response, countries are pursuing greater grid resilience and redundancy. This includes measures like more interconnections (so if one line goes down, alternatives carry the load), stockpiling critical spare equipment (large transformers, which are usually custom and lead-time of months to replace, are a particular concern), and even moving toward decentralized generation (rooftop solar, battery storage) which could make the system less vulnerable to single points of failure. Ironically, the push for resilience and domestic control can sometimes clash with efficiency goals – for instance, a globally optimized supply chain for transformers might be cheaper, but nations now want domestic manufacturing to avoid supply cut-offs in crisis.
Cyber norms are also a subject of international discussion. There have been calls to treat attacks on critical infrastructure as off-limits, akin to chemical weapons, but so far, no robust treaty exists, and enforcement is tricky. Attribution (figuring out who did a cyberattack) is often murky, which complicates deterrence.
In short, the more vital electricity becomes, the more it becomes a target—making security and resilience a paramount concern. The new Cold War in electricity is not only about building the most advanced grids and energy systems but also about protecting them from sabotage. A nation could have the greenest, most high-tech grid in the world and still be brought low if it cannot defend that grid from malware or missiles. This intertwining of energy and security strategies is a hallmark of our era.
________________________________________
Case Study: Nord Stream 2 – Fossil Fuel Lifeline or Renewable Millstone?
The saga of Nord Stream 2 – a recently built gas pipeline from Russia to Germany that became entangled in geopolitical conflict – offers a compelling symbol of the old and new energy orders at odds. Nord Stream 2 was designed to carry natural gas across the Baltic Sea, doubling the direct capacity of its predecessor (Nord Stream 1) and supplying Germany and Europe with abundant Russian gas for decades to come. Proponents saw it as a commercial project to enhance energy security by providing cheap gas; critics saw it as a geopolitical weapon that would increase dependence on Russia while bypassing Ukraine (which would lose transit fees and leverage).
By late 2021, the pipeline’s construction was complete – an $11 billion project ready to go. Yet it sat idle, awaiting regulatory certification in Germany and embroiled in political controversy. Then, in February 2022, on the eve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the German government dramatically halted the certification of Nord Stream 2. Chancellor Olaf Scholz suspended the project in response to Russia’s recognition of breakaway regions in Ukraine, a clear signal of Germany pivoting away from reliance on Russian energy due to security concerns. This was a stunning reversal for a country that, just months before, had argued Nord Stream 2 was purely economic. The looming war made plain that energy interdependence with an aggressive Kremlin was a vulnerability.
The war itself then sealed Nord Stream 2’s fate. By September 2022, with Russia weaponizing gas supply (cutting deliveries through other routes) and Europe scrambling for alternatives, a mysterious sabotage attack blew holes in Nord Stream 2 (and Nord Stream 1) under the Baltic. The pipelines ruptured, spewing gas into the sea in an act widely labeled as intentional sabotage – though investigations have not definitively pinned responsibility on any actor, and theories abound. Regardless of who did it, the outcome is that Nord Stream will likely never operate; it is literally broken and figuratively a broken dream of energy partnership.
Nord Stream 2 thus serves as a symbolic pivot point. It represented the 20th-century fossil fuel paradigm – large, fixed infrastructure tying producers and consumers in long-term codependence, underpinned by the assumption that trade would bring stability. Germany’s bet (shared by some in Europe) was that Russian gas would be a reliable foundation, even enabling the phase-out of coal and nuclear domestically. But that bet failed dramatically, and in doing so, it underscored the arguments of those who said renewables plus diversification would be a safer path. Indeed, after 2022, Germany and Europe accelerated efforts to build LNG terminals (to get gas from diversified suppliers like the U.S. or Qatar in the short term) and pushed even harder on renewables deployment and energy efficiency to reduce gas dependence overall. In effect, Nord Stream 2’s paralysis became a catalyst for faster green transition in Europe.
The pipeline also became a diplomatic flashpoint between Western allies. The U.S. had strongly opposed Nord Stream 2 for years, imposing sanctions on companies involved, arguing it would give Moscow undue leverage and undermine Ukraine. Many European countries (Poland, Baltic states) likewise feared it. Germany’s insistence on completing it (until the U-turn in 2022) caused rifts in NATO and EU unity. Some described Nord Stream 2 as a project that weakened the West’s stance vis-à-vis Russia even before it delivered a single molecule of gas. That it was halted only when tanks were about to roll shows how energy security considerations can suddenly override economic interests when the strategic context changes. It also perhaps taught a lesson: relying on an autocratic supplier for a critical share of energy can carry heavy strategic costs.
In contrast to this fossil fuel saga, consider a hypothetical: what if the tens of billions spent on Nord Stream 2 had been spent on a massive North Sea offshore wind build-out, or on solar and battery infrastructure across Germany? Such investments might have yielded more secure and sustainable energy by 2022, albeit with their own challenges. Nord Stream 2 in hindsight appears as a cul-de-sac – a pipeline to nowhere in a world turning away from hydrocarbons. For environmentalists, its demise is welcome (less fossil fuel lock-in); for industries that craved its gas, it’s a loss that caused short-term pain (high energy prices in 2022).
Yet Europe adapted: by 2023, Europe had replaced mainly Russian gas through LNG imports and demand reduction, and it pressed on with renewables. Nord Stream’s wreck at the bottom of the sea is a potent image of how the old energy order is being left behind under the waves, as the continent sails toward a cleaner, albeit challenging, energy future. It also remains a cautionary tale of infrastructure becoming a hostage to geopolitics – a fate the electricity sector hopes to avoid through prudent planning and by not putting all eggs in one basket, whether that basket be a single pipeline or a single foreign supplier of critical equipment.
________________________________________
Competing Visions and Standards: Belt and Road vs. G7 Initiatives
Infrastructure – especially energy infrastructure – is not only an economic endeavor but also a projection of values and influence. In the 2020s, two broad visions for global infrastructure development have crystallized, often seen in competition: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and a set of Western-aligned initiatives spearheaded by the G7 (Group of Seven) countries, such as the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII). These competing frameworks are vying to set the standards and norms for building the next generation of power plants, grids, and connectivity projects around the world.
The Belt and Road Initiative, launched by China in 2013, is one of the most ambitious infrastructure drives in history, spanning Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Energy projects – from coal plants in Pakistan to hydropower dams in Africa and solar farms in Latin America – are a major component of BRI financing. China’s proposition to developing countries is straightforward: we can build what you need quickly and often cheaply, with generous loans and without the stringent conditions Western lenders might impose (like governance or environmental reforms). This has been attractive to many governments eager to expand electricity access or industrialize. However, BRI has been criticized for exporting lower environmental standards – for example, Chinese banks financed a number of coal-fired power plants overseas at a time when multilateral banks had stopped doing so. Some of those plants risk becoming stranded assets as global climate policy tightens. In recent years, China adjusted its stance, pledging in 2021 to stop building new coal plants abroad (a significant shift), and BRI energy investment has increasingly shifted to renewables and gas.
The G7 response, initially dubbed “Build Back Better World” (B3W) in 2021 and later formalized as PGII, seeks to offer an alternative by mobilizing $600 billion by 2027 for global infrastructure. The emphasis, as stated by U.S. President Biden, is on a “transparent, high-standard” approach that reflects Western values. This implies projects with rigorous environmental safeguards, no corruption, sustainable financing (to avoid debt traps), and alignment with climate goals (favoring clean energy). The initiative explicitly positions itself not just as charity, but as a strategic move: “we haven’t offered a positive alternative that reflects our values… until now,” a senior U.S. official said when launching it. Implicitly, this is about countering China’s growing influence in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere by ensuring countries have other options than BRI funds.
Europe has its own arm – the EU’s “Global Gateway” initiative similarly promises tens of billions for sustainable infrastructure and has been coordinating with the G7’s PGII. There’s also the Blue Dot Network (led by the U.S., Japan, and Australia) which aims to certify projects that meet high quality standards, like an OECD seal of approval, to guide investors.
The tension between these visions often plays out project by project. For instance, consider an African country looking to expand electricity supply: China might offer a package to build a large hydro dam or a transmission line with soft loans and a rapid timeline, whereas Western financiers might come with a mix of grants, private investment, and conditions like feasibility studies, social impact assessments, etc. The host country will weigh speed and cost against the value of safeguards and long-term terms. There have been instances where countries initially went with BRI projects but hit issues (sustainability of debt or local pushback) and then sought Western help, and vice versa.
A prominent example is power grids and connectivity in Africa. China has funded and built numerous backbone transmission lines and distribution networks across sub-Saharan Africa, often bundled with generation projects (like in Zambia, Chinese loans built both a hydropower station and the lines to connect it). Western initiatives, by contrast, might focus on new off-grid solutions (like U.S. programs funding solar home systems in rural areas) or cross-border market integration (e.g., the World Bank supporting an East Africa power pool for countries to trade electricity). The difference in approach sometimes reflects a philosophical split: BRI often emphasizes hardware – physical assets, built fast. The G7-style projects emphasize software – the regulatory frameworks, capacity building, and ensuring projects are future-proof and community-accepted, even if that means a slower build.
Standards also come into play in technology. For example, smart grid standards: If a country upgrades to smart meters and the equipment is Chinese, it might use protocols unique to that ecosystem; Western providers use different standards. Over time, this could lead to spheres of technological influence. Another area is nuclear power standards: Russia and China have their reactor designs and safety standards which they export; the West has its own. If a country buys a Chinese reactor, its regulatory system and supply chain will align with China’s standard, and vice versa.
Even environmental and social standards are a competitive domain. China has been improving its green financing rules (encouraging BRI projects to be greener), partly in response to critique and partly because it sees the huge economic opportunity in exporting renewable tech. Meanwhile, the G7’s selling point is that their projects won’t bulldoze villages or saddle countries with white elephant projects – a subtle dig at some BRI ventures that arguably overbuilt or ignored local needs.
A critical question is: will these two visions work at cross purposes, or can they be complementary? In some places, they might coexist – for instance, a country could take Chinese money for a transmission line but European money for a solar farm, and use both. In theory, there is far more infrastructure need ($40+ trillion by 2035 in developing nations) than either side alone will provide, so there is room for all if coordination occurs. But politically, the narrative of competition persists. Countries like India, which are courted by both sides, leverage this for better deals (India largely stayed away from BRI to preserve strategic autonomy and instead partners with Japan or others for different projects).
For the beneficiary countries, having multiple options is beneficial – they can negotiate better terms and avoid over-reliance on one partner. But it can also lead to fragmentation if different sets of standards and non-interoperable systems get built. Ideally, global forums (like the G20 or UN) could encourage some harmonization – e.g., agree on a baseline that all major financiers, Chinese or Western, won’t fund egregiously polluting projects, or all will ensure transparency to avoid corrupt deals. There has been some movement: China has talked about a “Green BRI” and canceled some coal plants; Western institutions, after initially shunning anything to do with fossil fuels, realized in 2022 that some temporary support for gas in poor countries might be needed for energy access, indicating pragmatism.
Infrastructure development has become a stage for geopolitical competition, with electricity projects front and center. The “wiring up” of the Global South in the coming decade – whether done with Chinese cables or G7-funded solar panels – will shape economic loyalties and influence for generations. It’s a new version of the development contests of the Cold War, when the U.S. and Soviet aid duelled to build dams and power stations in emerging nations. This time the lines are drawn not around ideology per se, but around governance models and environmental philosophies embedded in concrete and steel.
________________________________________
Shifting Alliances and Emerging Players
The traditional energy order – dominated by a few superpowers and oil-rich nations – is evolving into a more complex tapestry of regional alliances and new players in the electricity domain. As countries pursue their own paths in the energy transition, we are seeing the rise of regional power pools, strategic partnerships around clean tech, and even corporate actors influencing geopolitics. In this section, we explore a few notable cases: India’s balancing act with nuclear and solar, Africa’s quest for electrification amid external suitors, the Middle East’s pivot to renewables, and the disruptive role of companies like Tesla vis-à-vis traditional utilities.
India stands out as an emerging giant that straddles multiple aspects of the electricity geopolitics. With the world’s third-largest electricity consumption (after China and the U.S.) and a population of 1.4 billion aspiring to higher living standards, India’s energy decisions have global significance. India has set an ambitious target of 500 GW of non-fossil power capacity by 2030 (from about 165 GW non-fossil currently, which includes renewables and nuclear) – a cornerstone of its climate commitments. This includes hundreds of gigawatts of solar and wind. Indeed, India has rapidly expanded solar power, reaching roughly 70 GW of solar installed by 2023 and aiming for ~280 GW by 2030. It has built massive solar parks (one of the world’s largest, Bhadla Solar Park in Rajasthan, exceeds 2 GW) and driven down costs through competitive auctions. On the international stage, India co-founded the International Solar Alliance (ISA) with France, positioning itself as a leader of the “solar south,” providing training and resources to other sunshine-rich countries. This is a soft power play by India, using solar diplomacy to enhance its global standing.
Simultaneously, India maintains an interest in nuclear energy. Historically cut off from nuclear trade due to its non-signatory status to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, India secured a special waiver in 2008 via a deal with the U.S., allowing it to engage in nuclear commerce. Since then, India has inked agreements with Russia, France, and others for reactor projects. Russia has been a prominent partner: it built India’s Kudankulam nuclear plant in Tamil Nadu (two reactors operating, more under construction) and plans for additional units are underway. France’s EDF has been in talks to build six large EPR reactors at Jaitapur (which would be one of the biggest nuclear projects globally), though final terms are still under negotiation. The United States (via Westinghouse) has discussed setting up reactors in Andhra Pradesh, though that too has moved slowly. Meanwhile, India’s domestic nuclear program, including a fleet of indigenously designed pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs), continues modest expansion. Most recently, India is exploring SMRs as well, allocating funding for developing at least five indigenous SMR designs by 2030. This multi-faceted approach shows India hedging its bets: it wants a diversified electricity mix (not over-reliant on any one source or supplier) and also seeks to localize as much manufacturing and expertise as possible (e.g., insisting on technology transfer in deals). Geopolitically, India leverages its partnerships – maintaining good ties with Russia for legacy and strategic autonomy reasons, collaborating with Western nations for advanced tech and climate alignment, and even cooperating with Japan and Australia in forums like the Quad on emerging energy technologies. India’s stance is very pragmatic and multipolar – it won’t be bound to one bloc. For instance, while it buys Russian reactors and oil, it also increasingly buys U.S. solar and wind tech and partners with Europe on grids and battery standards.
Africa as a region is another critical theater. The continent has over 600 million people without access to electricity, and its population is growing fastest. This represents not just a moral imperative but also a huge future market. Various powers are courting African countries with offers to help develop their energy systems. China has been in the lead in terms of sheer investment, having funded numerous projects as part of BRI. These include massive hydropower dams (like Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam’s financing partly via Chinese banks, or Guinea’s Kaleta dam built by Chinese firms), solar farms in North Africa, and transmission lines connecting countries. The U.S. initiative “Power Africa” (launched under President Obama) set out to leverage private investment to add tens of thousands of MW of generation and connect millions to electricity – it has made progress mainly in facilitating deals for renewables and gas plants, though not on the scale of need. The EU and former colonial powers like France and the UK also run programs for African energy access, often focusing on green energy and cross-border interconnections (like linking the power pools of Southern and East Africa).
One interesting development is the concept of African Power Pools – regional grids that allow countries to trade electricity. The Southern African Power Pool (SAPP) is relatively advanced, with South Africa trading power with neighbors (often exporting surplus coal power or importing hydro from Mozambique, for example). The East African Power Pool is in earlier stages, planning interlinks between Ethiopia (with huge hydro potential), Kenya (geothermal and wind growth), and Tanzania/Uganda. The West African Power Pool aims to connect coastal countries with the Sahel, potentially bringing solar from Niger or gas from Nigeria to far-flung areas. Donors like the World Bank and African Development Bank support these as they can improve reliability and lower costs through economies of scale. Geopolitically, these pools encourage regional cooperation (which can be stabilizing) but also create interdependence (e.g., if one country has turmoil, it might affect power to its neighbors).
Emerging players within Africa include countries like Morocco, which has become a renewable energy frontrunner (building one of the world’s largest concentrated solar farms at Noor and planning cable links to export solar energy to Europe), and Kenya, which already generates ~90% of its electricity from renewables (mix of hydro, geothermal, wind) and aspires to be a clean energy hub. South Africa, the continent’s most industrialized nation, is in a tough transition: heavily coal-dependent and suffering power shortages due to aging plants, it secured an $8.5 billion “Just Energy Transition” partnership with Western nations to help shift from coal to renewables while supporting affected workers – a model that might be replicated elsewhere if successful. On the critical minerals front, countries like the DRC (cobalt) and Zambia (copper) are trying to ensure they benefit more from the coming boom (Zambia and DRC have talked of an African value chain for EV batteries, rather than just exporting raw ore).
Moving to the Middle East, historically the epicenter of oil geopolitics, we see interesting shifts. Gulf oil states – notably Saudi Arabia and the UAE – while still oil-rich, are investing in solar energy and even nuclear as part of diversifying their economies and hedging against a post-oil future. The UAE’s Barakah nuclear plant (built by South Korea) is now operational, giving the Arab world its first nuclear electricity. Saudi Arabia has huge solar plans (it’s building massive solar farms and also eyeing nuclear reactors down the line). Both countries are also touting plans for green hydrogen (using solar/wind to electrolyze water) as an export commodity in a future where they might ship ammonia or hydrogen instead of crude. They remain major players in OPEC, so they have a foot in both old and new energy domains. The Middle East is also seeing new tensions and collaborations: Iran, under sanctions, has faced difficulties maintaining its grid (and has frequent blackouts, plus its own controversial nuclear program for power and potentially weapons). The Israel-Arab normalization deals have opened avenues for regional energy sharing – for instance, Israel’s tech in solar could pair with Gulf investment. Egypt, with its populous market and mix of gas and renewables, has become a key electricity exporter in North Africa (it sells power to Sudan and is planning subsea cables to Saudi and Europe). And there’s the contentious case of Iraq and Lebanon – where power shortages are severe and geopolitics (like U.S.-Iran rivalry) affect which countries can supply electricity or fuel. Iraq has balanced importing electricity from Iran with trying to integrate with the Gulf Cooperation Council grid.
Now, a non-state but highly influential player: Tesla (and other cleantech companies). Tesla is often cited as emblematic of how new entrants can disrupt traditional energy. Tesla’s energy division produces solar panels (after acquiring SolarCity) and battery storage systems in addition to cars. In places like Australia, Tesla built a 100 MW battery farm (the Hornsdale Power Reserve) that proved immensely useful in stabilizing the grid and undercutting the need for gas “peakers.” Incumbent utilities initially scoffed at such batteries; now they are racing to install their own. Tesla also markets its Powerwall batteries to homeowners with solar panels, enabling them to store energy and potentially detach somewhat from the grid. This concept of the distributed grid – where millions of homes and electric cars with batteries act as a combined virtual power plant – is a direct challenge to the century-old model of centralized utilities.
Elon Musk once quipped that he’s “not actually a fan of disruption for its own sake” when it comes to utilities – implying that Tesla wants to work with grids to enhance them. Indeed, Tesla’s strategy has been twofold: sell products to customers that reduce reliance on utilities, and sell big solutions to utilities to help them manage the new loads (like utility-scale batteries). Utilities have felt the heat, especially in sunny markets like California, Australia, Spain, etc., where rooftop solar plus battery means customers buy much less electricity. The “utility death spiral” is a feared scenario: as more people generate their own power, utilities must charge remaining customers more to maintain the grid, which in turn encourages even more defection from the grid. Regulators are trying to update business models to avoid this outcome (for example, by allowing utilities to profit from operating networks and services, rather than kilowatt-hour sales alone).
Tesla is just one company – but it’s representative of a trend where tech companies intersect energy. Google, Amazon, and other data giants are huge buyers of renewable energy directly, sometimes building their own energy assets. Auto companies entering EVs are also entering the electricity business whether they like it or not, as EVs can double as storage devices. Even oil companies are now investing in power: e.g., BP and Shell have acquired utilities and solar developers in anticipation of an electric future.
Tesla vs. utilities can also be seen as a cultural clash: Silicon Valley vs. the conservative power industry. One side moves fast and breaks things; the other must keep the lights on 24/7 with no margin for error. But increasingly, they must work together (virtual power plant programs, EV charging coordination with grids, etc.). Still, in geopolitics, if Tesla’s model proliferates worldwide, it could decentralize power (literally and figuratively), empowering individuals and communities while weakening traditional energy gatekeepers. Countries supportive of such innovation might leap ahead in adoption; those protecting legacy utilities might lag and face restive consumers.
Lastly, consider alliances of emerging economies. Groups like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) occasionally talk about energy cooperation, for example, ideas of a shared strategy on critical minerals or green finance. In Latin America, countries are sharing lessons on integrating renewables (Chile and Uruguay have been leaders; others are copying). There’s also the possibility of South-South cooperation: India investing in African solar, or China helping Latin America with grids (which it is doing).
A specific emerging player is Latin American lithium producers forming a bloc – after Chile’s policy change, Chile and Argentina started collaborating more on lithium policy, and Mexico (though it has little production yet) wants in on discussions. They might coordinate royalty rates or exchange best practices, which could emulate OPEC’s resource diplomacy albeit in a looser sense.
In essence, the map of energy alliances is being redrawn: not just OPEC and the International Energy Agency's club of importers, but new constellations around battery materials, clean power know-how, and grid integration. The power sector’s transformation is giving rise to new power brokers – from India setting solar benchmarks to tech firms altering consumption patterns.
________________________________________
Financing the Global Power Shift: Green Capital and Institutions
Transforming the world’s electricity systems requires an unprecedented mobilization of capital. Trillions of dollars will need to be invested in generation capacity (solar farms, wind parks, reactors), grid infrastructure, and energy storage in the coming decades. How this transformation is financed – and who provides the money – is a crucial piece of the geopolitical puzzle. Financial structures are evolving to meet the challenge, from the explosive growth of green bonds to innovative public-private partnerships. Traditional institutions like the IMF and World Bank are also adapting (slowly) to better support clean energy, amid calls for them to do much more.
One of the most striking trends has been the rise of the green bond market. Green bonds are debt instruments where proceeds are earmarked for environmentally beneficial projects (often renewable energy or efficiency projects). 2023 global green bond issuance reached a record $575 billion, up 10% from the previous year. This is a dramatic increase from almost nothing a decade ago. Europe has led the way (accounting for over half of issuance), with governments like France, Germany, and the UK issuing sovereign green bonds to fund their climate investments. Even developing countries have joined; e.g., Chile and India both issued their first green bonds in recent years. Corporates and utilities are also big issuers – renewable energy companies raise capital this way, and even traditional utilities are now using green bonds to fund their transition (one World Bank report noted that 81% of utilities’ bond issuance in a recent year were labeled green). The appeal is twofold: it taps into the huge investor appetite for ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) investments, and it often comes with slightly favorable terms or a broader investor base. By 2024, sustainable bonds (green, social, sustainability-linked combined) are forecast to approach 14% of global bond issuance, indicating mainstreaming.
However, bond markets primarily serve countries and companies that already have access to finance. Lower-income nations often don’t have the credit ratings to issue large bonds or the projects ready to absorb that capital. This is where public finance and development banks come in. The World Bank and regional development banks (like the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, etc.) historically funded a lot of power infrastructure – though in the past this skewed towards fossil projects (diesel generators, coal plants) and big hydro. Today, most of these institutions have shifted to funding renewables, grid expansion, and energy access. For instance, the World Bank’s lending for renewables and efficiency has grown and it has largely stopped financing coal. It also supports policy reforms, such as helping countries design electricity tariffs that sustain utility finances or implement regulatory frameworks to attract independent power producers.
Yet, there’s criticism that these institutions are not moving fast enough. Developing countries argue that the World Bank in particular is still too risk-averse and slow in disbursing funds for the energy transition. There have been calls (notably by Barbados’s Prime Minister Mia Mottley in the “Bridgetown Initiative”) to overhaul global financial institutions to better address climate change – for example, by offering debt relief or more low-interest loans to countries that invest in resilience and clean energy. In response, the World Bank and IMF have started to integrate climate into their programs more. The IMF now looks at climate vulnerabilities in its assessments for some countries, and is offering a Resilience and Sustainability Trust that gives cheap loans for climate-related investments. Still, the scale is small relative to need.
Private investment will provide the bulk of capital for the power transition, but often it only flows when de-risked by public policies. A common model is public-private partnerships (PPPs) or blended finance – where some public money (or guarantees) absorb the top layer of risk, making it attractive for private investors to fund the rest. For example, a development bank might guarantee part of a solar project’s revenues, so that a commercial bank is willing to lend. Or a government “green bank” might take on early-stage project risk and then crowd in pension funds once the project is shovel-ready. We see a proliferation of such mechanisms: green investment banks, climate funds, and insurance programs for political risk (to protect against, say, a government reneging on a power purchase agreement).
Multilateral climate funds like the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) or the Green Climate Fund (GCF) also play a role by providing concessional finance for clean energy in developing countries, often in conjunction with the World Bank or local banks. For instance, they might buy down the interest rate on loans for a solar park in Kenya, making the project viable.
At the same time, traditional fossil fuel finance is pulling back – many major banks and insurers announced restrictions on coal financing, and some on unconventional oil/gas. This means more capital is being directed at clean energy simply because the dirty options are limited. But the paradox is, in some emerging markets fossil projects still find funding (often from Chinese banks or smaller trade financiers) if clean alternatives seem too slow to materialize. So aligning global finance with climate goals is a work in progress.
Sovereign wealth funds and oil money are interesting wildcards. Gulf countries’ sovereign funds (like Saudi’s Public Investment Fund, UAE’s Mubadala) are investing in renewable ventures domestically and abroad, seeing it as an diversification. Even some oil companies are investing heavily in power: for example, France’s TotalEnergies has bought stakes in solar farms in India and wind in the North Sea, becoming a renewable investor. These shifts can bring big dollars, but also raise questions: is it greenwashing or a real pivot? We’ve seen European oil majors issuing transition bonds to fund their renewables expansion.
Energy subsidies and pricing also factor into financing. Many countries spend big sums subsidizing electricity (often to keep it affordable for citizens). According to the IMF, fossil fuel subsidies (including underpriced electricity) globally run into hundreds of billions. Reforming these could free up fiscal space to invest in clean energy or support the poor in other ways. However, subsidy reform is politically tough (people riot when prices go up). So some nations are considering swapping subsidies – e.g., removing general subsidies but giving targeted cash transfers or subsidizing clean alternatives (like efficient appliances or solar kits) for the poor.
A notable development is the concept of “just transition” finance – money specifically aimed at helping coal-dependent communities or nations transition. South Africa’s aforementioned $8.5b package from Western countries is one example; similar ideas are being floated for Indonesia and India (to help retire coal plants early, for instance). If those materialize, they could become a template where wealthy nations essentially pay part of the cost for emerging economies to pivot away from coal faster than they otherwise would.
Finally, international financial diplomacy is active: forums like the G20 have an Energy Transition Working Group focusing on financing mechanisms; the issue of compensating developing countries (loss and damage, etc.) intersects with energy investment.
From a global perspective, capital is not in short supply – the world’s pension funds, insurers, banks, and sovereign funds manage tens of trillions of dollars. The challenge is matching that capital with projects in countries and sectors where it’s needed, at the scale and speed required. This often comes down to reducing political, currency, and technology risks. That’s why creative financial structures and strong international institutions are crucial. Whether it’s green bonds linking European investors to Asian wind farms, or the World Bank being re-tooled as a “climate bank,” or carbon credits helping finance a new transmission line, myriad tools are on the table.
In essence, the battle against climate change and for energy transition will be won or lost on the balance sheets. The geopolitics of electricity increasingly includes the geopolitics of green finance – who pays, who profits, and under what conditions. Countries that manage to attract and deploy capital effectively will surge ahead in building future power systems; those that cannot may fall behind or remain stuck with obsolete infrastructure. This financial race is quieter than the scramble for lithium or the war of sanctions, but it is no less decisive.
________________________________________
Ethical and Social Dilemmas of the Energy Transition
Behind the promising narrative of a cleaner electrified future lie a host of ethical and social concerns. The shift to renewable electricity and high-tech grids, while beneficial for the planet as a whole, can have significant local and human impacts. Environmental justice, labor rights, indigenous sovereignty, and economic equity are intertwined with the rollout of new energy systems. As with any large-scale industrial endeavor, choices must be made about trade-offs and about who bears the costs versus who reaps the benefits. Ensuring that the energy transition is not only rapid but also fair and sustainable is a growing challenge for policymakers and communities worldwide.
One major area of concern is the environmental impact of mining for critical minerals, as discussed earlier. Regions rich in lithium, cobalt, copper, or rare earths often have delicate ecosystems and vulnerable populations. For instance, lithium brine extraction in Chile’s Atacama Desert consumes substantial water in one of the driest places on Earth, potentially affecting indigenous Atacameño communities and the flamingos that depend on the salt flat’s hypersaline lakes. Local activists worry that a rush for lithium could repeat past mistakes where outsiders profited and locals were left with depleted water and polluted lands. Similarly, the cobalt mines of the DRC have been notorious for dangerous conditions and child labor. While big companies now try to enforce responsible sourcing, a significant portion of cobalt comes from small “artisanal” mines that are hard to regulate. The ethical dilemma is evident: the world’s transition to electric cars (which need cobalt for batteries) may be inadvertently built on the backs of some of the world’s poorest workers. Solving this requires both investment in improving conditions in those mining areas and researching ways to reduce or substitute cobalt in batteries (a lot of R&D is indeed focused on cobalt-free batteries).
Rare earth mining has its issues: in China’s rare earth hub in Inner Mongolia, past practices left toxic lakes of chemical waste that affected farming communities. New mines outside China, like one planned in Greenland, face opposition due to potential pollution and disruption of pristine Arctic environments. Even the prospect of deep-sea mining (for metals like nickel and cobalt nodules on the ocean floor) raises profound ethical questions – do we have the right to gouge the seabed before understanding its ecosystems?
Next, consider the social cost of energy policies. When countries impose carbon prices or remove fossil subsidies, fuel and electricity prices can rise for consumers. Wealthier households may adapt (buying a solar roof or an electric car to cut fuel use) but poorer households often cannot afford the upfront costs and end up paying more of their income on energy. This has already led to political backlash: the “Gilets Jaunes” (Yellow Vests) protests in France were partly sparked by a fuel tax that rural and low-income people felt was a burden placed on them without providing alternatives. Similarly, removing electricity subsidies in countries from Indonesia to Nigeria has provoked unrest. Thus, there is an ethical imperative for a “just transition” domestically – ensuring that policies include compensation, retraining, or affordable alternatives so that low-income or vulnerable groups aren’t disproportionately hurt.
A related aspect is the fate of workers and communities tied to the fossil fuel economy. Coal miners, oil rig laborers, power plant workers – millions of people work in legacy energy sectors. Rapid transition could mean job losses and community decline (like coal towns shuttering). Ethically, many argue these workers shouldn’t be left behind; hence “just transition” plans that might include guaranteed pensions, retraining programs into renewable energy or other industries, and regional economic development funds for affected areas. For example, Spain reached an agreement to close most coal mines in return for a €250 million package to support miners and mining regions in developing new industries. In the U.S., there’s talk of directing clean energy manufacturing into former coal communities (like West Virginia attracting a battery factory).
Another ethical issue is land use and indigenous rights. Renewable projects often require large areas: wind farms, solar arrays, new transmission lines. In some cases, these are sited on lands that indigenous peoples or local farmers use. There have been controversies, for example, in Mexico’s Oaxaca state, where huge wind farms were built on the Isthmus of Tehuantepec – a windy corridor – but local Zapotec communities complained of insufficient consultation and share in benefits. Wind turbines can also impact bird populations and scenic landscapes, leading to local opposition (the NIMBY – “not in my backyard” – syndrome). Balancing local environmental impacts with global climate benefits is tricky. Procedurally, it calls for robust community engagement, fair compensation, and perhaps allowing local co-ownership of projects so they benefit economically.
Energy access remains an ethical concern too. As the world decarbonizes, there’s a risk that some poor regions could be left energy-poor because they cannot afford clean technologies. For instance, if international finance cuts off all fossil fuel projects, but a sub-Saharan African country cannot yet deploy enough renewables to meet demand, will it be stuck with energy scarcity? The global North, which built its wealth on fossil fuels, faces an ethical question of how much to support the South in leapfrogging to clean energy. This underpins arguments for climate finance and technology transfer – essentially that rich countries have a responsibility to subsidize clean power for poorer ones, not just for charity but as compensation for historical emissions and to ensure a stable climate for all.
We must also consider waste and lifecycle ethics. Solar panels and wind turbines have finite lifespans (~20-30 years). There’s a looming issue of how to recycle or safely dispose of large volumes of solar panels, batteries, and turbine blades. Doing so improperly could create new environmental hazards (e.g., leaching of heavy metals). Ethical production means planning from cradle to grave: using materials that can be recycled, setting up take-back schemes (some battery makers already plan for recycling to recover metals), and avoiding toxic components where possible. The EU has directives for e-waste that are expanding to renewables; other places are just beginning to grapple with this.
Then there is the question of intergenerational ethics: climate action inherently is about current generations making some sacrifices or investments for the sake of future generations. Choosing a pricier renewable plant over a cheap coal plant might mean current consumers pay a bit more, but their children inherit a safer climate. However, getting democracies and markets to value long-term outcomes is notoriously hard. Ethicists argue for incorporating the “social cost of carbon” – essentially the damage cost of emissions – into all decision-making, to internalize the well-being of future people. Some legal frameworks, like in Germany, have even enshrined climate protection as a duty to future generations.
Finally, global equity is at stake. The average American uses far more electricity (and energy in general) than the average African. As developing nations raise their living standards, their energy use will rise. Ethically, they have a right to develop – but the planet cannot afford them following the old carbon-intensive path. This is the crux of climate justice: how to allow equitable growth without wrecking the climate. It likely involves rich countries cutting their per capita use (through efficiency and lifestyle changes) to create “carbon space” for poorer ones to grow with cleaner tech. It also involves acknowledging that some climate impacts are now unavoidable and helping those most affected (often the poorest who contributed least to the problem) adapt – e.g., building resilient grids against storms or relocating communities from uninhabitable areas. Electricity is central in adaptation too (air conditioning in heatwaves, irrigation in droughts needs power).
In summary, the march towards a new electric era brings with it a need to constantly weigh morality and equity. Each renewable farm, each mine, each policy has human faces and consequences. A truly sustainable energy transition strives to minimize harm – be it to a child laborer in a mine, a family struggling with a high electric bill, or a community near a large project – and to distribute the benefits widely. That means including affected groups in decision-making, enforcing intense labor and environmental standards globally, and remembering that technology alone doesn’t solve social issues. The how of the transition may end up being just as important as the when.
________________________________________
The World in 2030: Scenarios of Cooperation and Conflict
Projecting the trajectory of the “New Cold War” over electricity into the future, we can envision several divergent 2030 scenarios. How the next 5–10 years play out will depend on technological breakthroughs, political will (or lack thereof), and the intensity of geopolitical rivalries. Here, we outline three provocative scenarios – Fragmentation, Forced Collaboration, and Chinese Dominance – each highlighting different possible outcomes by 2030, with the understanding that reality may contain elements of all three.
Scenario 1: Fragmentation – A Splintered Energy World
In this scenario, geopolitical tensions worsen and spill decisively into the energy realm, resulting in a fragmented global system. The U.S.-China rivalry hardens into distinct blocs, with countries pressured to align their energy supply chains and standards with one side or the other. By 2030, we see two (or more) separate spheres of technology: for example, one where Chinese-made solar panels, batteries, and grid software dominate in much of Asia and parts of Africa, and another where Western/Japanese/Korean alternatives are used in North America, Europe, and allied nations. Trade restrictions on energy tech become commonplace – e.g., the U.S. and EU fully ban imports of Chinese electrical equipment (citing security), while China retaliates by limiting exports of critical mineral products to the West.
The global effort to tackle climate change also fragments. Coordination under frameworks like the Paris Agreement falters as trust erodes. Each bloc pursues its own climate-tech agenda – perhaps the West sets up a carbon club trading scheme among themselves, while China leads a coalition of developing nations with its own financing terms. Grid interconnections remain regional at best; the vision of a globally interconnected supergrid fades. Instead, nations emphasize self-reliance: more localized generation (some countries even hoard equipment to prevent dependence). Cyber warfare incidents continue – maybe a major cyberattack in the late 2020s knocks out part of a grid in Europe or Asia for days, deepening fears. Countries respond by disconnecting some systems from international internet or using only domestically-audited technology (splinternet meets splinternet of energy).
In this world, multilateral institutions weaken. The World Bank and IMF struggle to implement broad initiatives as East-West consensus is lacking. Instead, financing happens via rival blocs’ development banks – say, China’s AIIB vs. a beefed-up G7 infrastructure fund. Some countries, unable to afford decarbonization tech from the West and unwilling to accept Chinese influence, get left behind, stuck with old coal plants and suffering climate impacts. Energy might even become a proxy war domain: imagine proxy conflicts or intense competition for influence in places like the Congo (for minerals) or Middle East (for clean hydrogen or remaining oil markets).
Energy security concerns also drive militarization: navies shadow undersea cable repair ships to guard their communication and power links, armies stand ready to secure critical mines or shipping routes for minerals. The new cold war might even spur an arms race in energy tech – like hypersonic missiles designed to take out power plants quickly, or AI systems to counter cyber threats.
This fragmented scenario is one of competition overshadowing cooperation, potentially slowing the global energy transition (due to inefficiencies and trade barriers) and certainly making it more uneven. Climate goals risk being missed as collective action frays.
Scenario 2: Forced Collaboration – Climate Cooperation in a Crisis
In this scenario, the escalating impacts of climate change and the sheer technical complexity of managing an electrified world force countries into greater collaboration, overriding some geopolitical rivalries. By 2030, after a series of devastating climate-related disasters – think megadroughts hitting global food supply, or unprecedented hurricanes taking down major cities’ grids – nations realize that a fractured approach is untenable. The narrative shifts to one of human commonality in the face of a threat. Much like superpowers set aside differences to eradicate smallpox or manage nuclear arms control in the 20th century, they find ways to cooperate on energy/climate out of mutual necessity.
In this world, we see the establishment of global standards and joint initiatives. For example, a global agreement on cyber norms might be reached: perhaps a “Digital Geneva Convention” where countries pledge not to attack civilian grids and to cooperate on catching non-state hackers. The U.S. and China, recognizing that each has too much to lose in a cyber free-for-all (since both have deeply networked grids), quietly form a backchannel team of experts that share threat intelligence on malware targeting power systems. Over time, trust builds in this narrow area and expands.
Technologically, collaboration might yield breakthroughs that are shared. For instance, if fusion energy makes another leap, instead of nations racing separately, they pool resources into an International Fusion Energy Consortium to accelerate commercialization (similar to ITER but with more urgency and funding). Or they might collectively invest in mega-projects that benefit many countries – imagine a Euro-Asian-African solar belt initiative, transmitting solar power from deserts to distant load centers via HVDC lines, co-funded by many. Grid interconnections could cross political divides: maybe by 2030 a subsea “global grid” pilot links continents (there have been proposals to link China to Europe or Australia to Southeast Asia with undersea cables). In this scenario, one could envision power flowing from wherever the sun is shining and wind is blowing at the moment to wherever needs it, thanks to international coordination.
On the climate finance side, collaboration sees rich countries finally meet and exceed their $100 billion per year climate aid pledge, jointly investing in a massive scale-up of renewable energy in the Global South. Perhaps new institutions are born or old ones reformed – e.g., the IMF might have a mandate to provide rapid assistance to countries hit by climate disasters to rebuild resilient, green grids, funded by all major economies.
Geopolitics doesn’t disappear – disputes still exist – but there is a sense of a shared fate that tempers actions. We could see something like the U.S. and China still competing economically, but coming to an understanding that they will both deploy the best tech regardless of origin if it helps their climate resilience. Intellectual property barriers could be eased for crucial technologies via patent pools, so a poor country can build batteries or green hydrogen systems without paying prohibitive royalties.
Public opinion globally might push leaders toward this: perhaps youth climate movements become so influential across countries that every government, democratic or authoritarian, feels pressure to cooperate or be seen as a pariah by its own people for sabotaging humanity’s future.
This scenario yields a more integrated, resilient global power system, probably faster progress on decarbonization, and potentially fewer flashpoints because energy is less of a zero-sum game (if everyone’s benefiting from cheap clean power, the stakes of conflict drop). It’s an optimistic vision where the looming climate crisis essentially enforces a peace treaty on the energy front.
Scenario 3: Chinese Dominance – The Red Grid Era
In this scenario, China decisively outpaces the West in the energy transition, achieving a position of clear dominance by 2030. China’s massive investments in renewables, EVs, and grids pay off spectacularly: it becomes the first country to build a truly modernized, AI-driven, super-efficient grid at scale, and it leverages this head start to export its model globally. By 2030, China is not only the manufacturing hub for clean tech (as it already largely is), but also the leading designer of integrated energy systems, effectively setting the template that others follow.
In this world, many countries become dependent on Chinese technology and financing for their electricity needs. Chinese companies might own significant stakes in power utilities across Asia and Africa, after Western investors pulled back or couldn’t match the low-cost offers. The Belt and Road evolves into a comprehensive energy network under Chinese guidance – for instance, an “Asian supergrid” might form, linking China with Southeast Asia, South Asia, and maybe into the Middle East, using Chinese HVDC lines and controlled by a coordination center in Beijing. Perhaps even parts of Europe, after struggling with high costs, opt for Chinese-built nuclear reactors or large-scale battery storage because they are cheaper and can be built faster than Western alternatives.
Chinese standards become de facto global standards: if Chinese smart meters and EV chargers are ubiquitous, other companies must make their products compatible with them, not the other way around. The yuan might become a currency for energy trade, e.g., green bonds and carbon credits might be issued in yuan given China’s market heft.
Geopolitically, Chinese dominance could mean political leverage. Countries heavily reliant on China for their power infrastructure might hesitate to cross Beijing’s red lines (similar to how dependency on Russian gas made Europe cautious in the past). In extreme cases, one could imagine China using its foothold – say a kill switch in software or a stranglehold on supply of spare parts – to pressure a country (though doing so overtly would damage its business model long-term, so more likely the leverage is tacit).
The U.S. and some allies in this scenario might effectively concede ground in many markets, focusing on securing their own region (maybe the Americas become a U.S.-led energy sphere, while Eurasia tilts toward China). If Western innovation slows, by 2030 China could also lead in patents for next-gen tech (like solid-state batteries or advanced wind turbines), reinforcing a virtuous cycle of dominance.
However, Chinese dominance might not mean global antagonism; it could also mean China takes on a sort of benevolent hegemon role (from its perspective). For example, if China decides to really push climate action, it might enforce green standards on its client states (no new coal plants built without carbon capture, etc.) and provide them the means to comply. The world could benefit from the speed and scale of Chinese-led deployment – global emissions might drop faster because China can build things quickly in many places at once. The risk is more about political freedom and diversity – the world’s energy system might become unipolar. Historically, unipolar systems can be stable, but they can also breed resentment and vulnerability if the hegemon stumbles.
In such a scenario, by 2030 the narrative might be “China won the clean energy race.” Western countries may still be transitioning but perhaps with more difficulty (imagine if internal politics hamstring big projects in the U.S. and EU, while China just marches ahead). One could compare it to how the U.S. led the internet era – setting rules, reaping economic benefits; now China could be in that position for energy.
Hybrid outcomes: Of course, these scenarios are extremes. The likely reality is a mix. We might see partial fragmentation (some tech spheres separate, like a ban on some Chinese gear in U.S. grids, but not a full decoupling), alongside some forced collaboration (maybe on specific issues like a global EV charging standard or joint climate finance for the poorest countries). Chinese dominance might manifest in manufacturing but not as much in project ownership in certain regions that resist it.
We could also imagine a fourth scenario: Technological Breakthroughs, where innovation (maybe fusion or super-cheap storage) changes the game and whoever harnesses it first gains an edge – but by 2030 that likely just reinforces one of the above narratives depending on who leads that innovation.
The year 2030 is not far off – most of the infrastructure and policies that will define it are being implemented now. Yet, the choices made in this decade will chart very different courses. Will we live in a cooperative world that collectively beats climate change and shares in the prosperity of abundant clean energy? Or a divided one where energy becomes a weapon and progress slows? Or a hierarchical one under the umbrella of a new superpower? These questions remain open, but the geopolitics of electricity will certainly be a central storyline as this drama unfolds.
________________________________________
Conclusion
Electricity – once the unassuming utility humming in the background of geopolitics – has moved to the foreground as a defining element of global power dynamics. In this examination styled after Le Monde Diplomatique, we have traversed the world’s regions and themes to understand how electrons and infrastructure reshape alliances, conflicts, and strategies in the 21st century. With its $2.5–4 trillion annual revenues, the global electricity sector is both an economic titan and the linchpin of efforts to stave off climate catastrophe. This dual role makes it the arena of a new kind of Cold War: one fought with patents and procurements instead of missiles, where securing a supply of lithium or a foothold in a foreign grid can be as consequential as military bases or trade pacts.
The grand themes are clear. A technological revolution is underway to decarbonize and digitize power, coinciding with a period of great-power rivalry and realignment. China’s rise as a clean tech superpower is challenging the West’s traditional dominance and offering developing nations an alternative development model – one that comes with vast investments and geopolitical strings. For their part, the United States and its allies are waking up to the strategic imperative of winning the energy race, investing in innovation and outreach to avoid ceding the commanding heights of the future economy. In between, regions like Latin America and Africa assert their agency, leveraging their resources and markets to strike deals on more favorable terms, whether through resource nationalism or shrewd diplomacy.
Energy security has taken on new meaning: no longer just about oil and gas chokepoints, but about cybersecurity shields, diversified supply chains for critical minerals, and resilient grids that can withstand both storms and hacks. The case studies we explored – from Lithium Triangle politics to the Nord Stream 2 debacle to India’s energy ambitions – illustrate that every locale has its own stakes in this global game, and local decisions reverberate internationally. A coup in a mineral-rich country, a policy shift in a manufacturing giant, or an innovation in a startup lab can each tilt the balance.
Financial and ethical considerations add further complexity. The green finance revolution is supplying the capital for change, raising questions about who gets financing and at what cost. Institutions like the World Bank and the IMF are under pressure to reinvent themselves or risk irrelevance in a world that demands climate action. And as we push forward, the moral compass cannot be lost: the energy transition’s success will ultimately be measured not just in gigawatts and gigabytes, but in human well-being, in how inclusive and just it turns out to be for communities from the Atacama Desert to the Appalachian Mountains.
By 2030, the outlines of the new electrified world order will likely be apparent. Will it resemble a cooperative network ensuring energy flows and climate benefits for all, or a patchwork of competing energy empires? The scenarios we sketched offer food for thought, and reality will likely lie in a nuanced middle. What is certain is that electricity has become a strategic commodity. Nations that ensure leadership in clean generation, smart grids, and storage will gain economic advantage and diplomatic clout. Conversely, those that lag or remain entangled in the 20th-century fossil paradigm risk strategic vulnerability – whether that’s exposure to price shocks or dependence on external providers for modern tech.
There is also an opportunity in this “New Cold War” over electricity: unlike the Cold War of old, this contest’s endgame can be win–win if managed wisely. A world of affordable, clean, and reliable electricity is fundamentally a world of greater human development and security. The rivals in this race ultimately share a common enemy – climate instability and systemic risk – and a common hope – technological prosperity and energy abundance. History will judge how well leaders and institutions navigate the tightrope between competition and collaboration. As we conclude this deep-dive analysis, one thing is evident: geopolitics and electrons are now inseparable, and understanding their interplay will be key to grasping the forces that drive our present and shape our future.
Sources:
International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook and energy system reports.
Research and Markets, Global Electricity Retailing Industry Guide 2024.
Council on Foreign Relations, background on U.S. national debt.
Reuters news archives on U.S.–China grid tech tensions.
IEA and Wood Mackenzie analyses on China’s share of solar PV manufacturing.
Market data on China’s share of global battery production.
S&P Global report on the nuclear energy resurgence.
U.S. Department of Energy announcement on fusion ignition breakthrough.
Reuters coverage of Chile’s lithium nationalization policy.
U.S. DOE and Wikipedia information on Colonial Pipeline and Ukraine grid cyberattacks.
Reuters and NATO statements on Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.
Reuters report on India’s 2030 renewable energy targets.
S&P Global (S&P) sustainable bond issuance report.
IEA data on African energy access.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
Energy Security and a Molotov Mix…
A pressure point in energy storage refers to the balance between energy supply and demand. Spain primarily relies on pumped hydro storage, which uses off-peak power to pump water uphill and then releases it to generate electricity during peak demand times. The country has several large pumped hydro facilities, such as the Cortes-La Muela plant, and is expanding its capabilities. However, the total storage capacity is limited and dependent on water availability.
The deployment of battery storage in Spain is still in its early stages, with only a few hundred megawatts of batteries currently operational or planned. This is a small amount compared to the peak demand of 40-45 gigawatts. During midday solar peaks, when electricity generation can greatly exceed consumption, there is often no way to utilize the excess power. Without adequate storage or capacity for export, grid operators may need to resort to curtailment, which involves shutting down solar and wind farms. Curtailment not only wastes carbon-free energy but also undermines the economics for energy producers. However, it is a necessary measure to maintain grid stability when flexibility is lacking.
The southwestern regions, where problems arose in April, frequently experience curtailments due to these issues. This situation indicates that the expansion of the grid has not kept pace with the growth of renewable energy sources. New transmission lines and substations needed to transport solar power from rural areas like Extremadura to major demand centers such as Madrid and Barcelona often face permitting delays and local opposition. Consequently, bottlenecks occur when excessive generation is concentrated on an inadequately equipped grid, creating a risk of instability if not managed properly.
Image: All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | May 5, 2025
________________________________________
Introduction: A Blackout in the Green Energy Leader
At midday on April 28, 2025, the Iberian Peninsula — ordinarily a showcase for renewable energy — went dark without warning. In a matter of seconds, Spain’s electricity grid lost an astonishing 15 gigawatts of power, about 60% of national demand. Lights flickered out from Madrid to Lisbon, trains and metros halted, communication networks failed, and daily life lurched to a standstill. Commuters were trapped in subway tunnels, 35,000 rail passengers had to be evacuated from stalled trains, and hospitals fell back on emergency generators to keep critical systems running. Both Spain and Portugal declared states of emergency, deploying thousands of police to maintain order. By the time power was gradually restored nearly a day later, this had become the worst blackout in Europe’s history.
The calamity struck a nation often praised for its aggressive shift to clean energy. Just 12 days earlier, on April 16, Spain had run its grid on 100% renewables for the first time ever, a milestone fueled by abundant spring winds and sun. Yet now, the same green energy mix is under scrutiny. Critics from industry and opposition ranks decried Spain’s “mix suicida” — a “suicidal mix” of power sources — alleging that an overreliance on intermittent renewables and the sidelining of conventional plants had left the grid dangerously unstable. Energy executives revealed they had warned the government a week before that the system was at risk, calling the situation “suicidal” if no action was taken. In their view, Spain’s rush to decarbonize had compromised the basic security of supply.
Spanish officials pushed back firmly against blaming renewable energy. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez insisted that “an excess of renewables” was not to blame for the collapse, calling such claims “lies or ignorance”. The grid operator Red Eléctrica de España (REE) likewise maintained that solar and wind technologies “are already stable” and operate safely, indicating that similar renewable generation levels on past days had caused no issue. Nonetheless, the blackout has triggered searching questions across Europe about the trade-offs between rapid decarbonization and grid reliability. As the EU presses ahead with ambitious climate targets — and even weighs a full ban on Russian gas imports by 2027 — Spain’s ordeal is a cautionary tale. It lays bare the technical stresses of managing a high-renewables grid, the policy oversights in ensuring backup and balance, and the geopolitical urgency of fortifying energy security in an era of tumultuous transition.
This article delves into the root causes and broader context of the April 28 blackout. We examine how a confluence of technical factors — grid instability, surging renewable output, and an ageing power infrastructure — combined with policy choices by Spain and the EU, set the stage for disaster. We trace the historical evolution of Spain’s energy mix, from a carbon-intensive past to today’s green ambitions, and how the phase-out of coal and nuclear has intersected with the boom in wind and solar. We assess the EU’s role in shaping national energy trajectories through initiatives like Fit for 55 and REPowerEU, and how these frameworks attempt to reconcile decarbonization with resilience. Finally, we explore the geopolitical dimension: Europe’s drive to sever its dependence on Russian gas and the new vulnerabilities and diplomatic realignments that come with that pivot. Throughout, we critically evaluate the “suicidal mix” charge — is the current balance between clean energy and stability as perilous as claimed, and what can be done to better manage the green transition without the lights going out?
Midday Meltdown: Anatomy of the April 28 Blackout
At 12:33 p.m. on Monday, April 28, Spain’s grid suffered a rapid-fire sequence of failures that engineers liken to a cardiac arrest in the power system. According to REE’s preliminary report, the crisis unfolded in three pulses. First, a sudden loss of generation occurred in the south of Spain — later estimated as a dip of several gigawatts — causing an “oscillation” in the grid. The system managed to right itself after this initial jolt. However, mere 1.5 seconds later, a second, larger generation loss hit, this time in the southwest. This double blow proved too much: within another few seconds, safety mechanisms tripped the major interconnection between Spain and France, isolating the Iberian grid. What followed was a catastrophic cascading collapse: as frequency and voltage plummeted outside safe bounds, power plants and substations across Spain and Portugal automatically disconnected to protect their equipment. In just a 5-second span, 15 GW of generation vanished from the Spanish grid, and an additional 5 GW dropped in Portugal. The peninsula had effectively “flatlined” to “el cero” – zero power, a condition so extreme that grid operators refer to it in quasi-apocalyptic terms.
The immediate cause of the blackout remains under investigation, but emerging evidence points to an imbalance triggered by renewable power volatility. Spain’s Energy Minister confirmed that 19 seconds before the collapse, a significant loss of generation occurred in the south of the country. This could indicate a large solar farm or other plant tripping offline. REE has identified “two incidents of power generation loss, probably from solar plants, in Spain’s southwest” that initiated the instability. These regions — Extremadura and western Andalusia — are known for thousands of megawatts of new solar capacity and were already considered “the most stressed nodes of the grid”, often requiring technical curtailments (forced shutdowns of solar plants when local generation exceeds carrying capacity). It appears that on April 28, a combination of exceptional solar output and insufficient local absorption led a critical node to fail. When that substation or node went down, it sent shockwaves across the network. With the grid’s delicate supply-demand balance upset, frequency plunged below the standard 50 Hz, leading generators across Iberia and even one in France to disconnect in unison. The result was a textbook case of a cascading outage in a highly interconnected system.
Notably, demand at the time was modest and supply ample. This was not a typical blackout caused by a power shortage, but seemingly the opposite — an oversupply and management failure. In fact, just before the crash, Spain was basking in a renewable bonanza: solar power made up 53–60% of generation, wind about 11–12%, while nuclear and gas together provided only ~15%. Midday spring conditions — bright sun, moderate demand — led to extremely high solar penetration. Ironically, too much supply can disrupt power grids much like too little supply. If generation greatly exceeds consumption, grid frequency surges; conversely, if a chunk of generation suddenly vanishes (as seems to have happened), frequency can crash. Both scenarios risk tripping protective devices. On April 28, grid operators were effectively juggling a surplus — Spain was even exporting power at that hour — when the balance snapped. As Transport Minister Óscar Puente described a precursor incident, “excessive voltage in the network triggered disconnections to protect substations”. That occurred on April 22, when minor power cuts foreshadowed the bigger catastrophe to come.
Initial rumors grasped at exotic explanations. Early media reports (erroneously attributed to Portugal’s REN) spoke of a “rare atmospheric phenomenon” — an “induced atmospheric vibration” — where sudden temperature swings cause oscillations in high-voltage lines. In theory, sharp weather changes can make transmission lines oscillate and de-sync a grid. But as experts noted, the weather that day was calm and “really nice”. Both REE and REN have since ruled out meteorological events, cyberattacks, and human error as primary causes. The consensus is shifting toward an internal grid instability issue — essentially, a technical chain reaction rooted in how generation and network protections were configured.
One key focus is the protective relays and protocols governing Spain’s grid. It has emerged that REE had sought to update its grid protection criteria to account for the “massive entry of renewables” but was awaiting government approval for those changes. The existing protections dated from 1996, an era of predominantly centralized thermal power. REE’s proposal warned that with so many inverters and distributed solar feeding in, certain traditional safeguards might not behave as expected. For example, a substation set to trip at certain thresholds might do so too broadly in a high-renewables scenario, causing an outage to ripple farther. Unfortunately, that revised safety protocol was not yet in place when the events of April 28 hit. Indeed, REE acknowledged that high renewable penetration in a region could overwhelm the old protection system, possibly exactly what occurred in the congested solar hub of Extremadura/Andalusia. Essentially, the grid’s circuit breakers were calibrated for yesterday’s power system, not today’s. The result was that when stresses arose, the system could not “absorb” the perturbations and instead collapsed wholesale.
Spain’s grid operator and crews deserve credit that the “black start” recovery — re-energizing a dead grid — was executed in hours, not days. ENTSO-E, the European network of grid operators, praised the rapid recovery; by late on April 28, REE had gradually reconnected generation and begun restoring power region by region. Still, the socio-economic costs were immense. Analysts estimate the blackout may have shaved €1.6–4.5 billion off Spain’s GDP. Factories like Volkswagen’s Navarra plant lost days of production, small businesses saw inventories spoiled, and three lives were tragically lost to carbon monoxide poisoning when desperate victims ran generators indoors. The political fallout was swift: opposition parties lambasted the government for complacency and demanded an independent inquiry. A National Security Council meeting was convened under the King’s chairmanship to investigate causes, alongside judicial probes into potential sabotage. While no evidence of foul play has emerged, the blackout has exposed vulnerabilities in Spain’s grid operations that must be addressed. As one energy expert succinctly said, “you’ve got to get the engineering right” no matter the energy source. Next, we turn to how Spain built an energy mix that, for all its green laurels, came to teeter on a knife’s edge.
The Renewable Revolution Meets an Ageing Infrastructure
Spain’s energy mix has undergone a dramatic transformation over the past two decades — a journey from fossil-fueled dependency to a renewable energy trailblazer. In the early 2000s, Spain was heavily reliant on coal and imported gas, with a fleet of nuclear reactors from the 1980s providing roughly a fifth of its electricity. That began to change rapidly as Spain embraced wind and solar power. Aggressive government policies in the 2000s, notably generous feed-in tariffs for renewables, spurred a boom. By 2010, Spain had become the world’s 4th-largest wind power producer, and its sunny plains were dotted with solar farms feeding into the grid. This early push was not without pain — a solar PV investment bubble in 2007-2008 ended with a bust when subsidies were abruptly cut, leaving investors reeling. Nonetheless, the groundwork was laid for a cleaner energy system.
By 2023, wind and solar accounted for over one-third of Spain’s electricity: wind supplied about 22% and solar 15% of total generation. Together with hydro and other renewables, 56% of Spain’s power in 2024 came from renewable sources. This is a remarkable leap from just a decade prior; in 2010, renewables (mostly wind and hydro) were nearer to 25% of the mix. Spain’s National Energy and Climate Plan (NECP) set ever higher targets, aiming for 74% renewable electricity by 2030, a goal since revised upward to 81% by 2030 to align with EU ambitions. The ultimate vision is 100% carbon-free power by 2050. In parallel, Spain has virtually phased out coal: it shut its last domestic coal mines in 2019 and has closed most coal-fired plants or scheduled them for closure well before 2030. This was facilitated by EU climate policy and the rising cost of CO₂ allowances, which made coal uneconomic. Oil-fired power is long gone except in islands, and natural gas was intended as the bridge — Spain built a fleet of combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) in the 2000s to provide flexible power and replaced a lot of oil use with gas in heating and industry.
The nuclear sector, meanwhile, is on borrowed time. Spain’s seven nuclear reactors, first connected between 1968 and 1988, still provide around 20% of electricity in a typical year. But they are aging, and the government’s roadmap calls for shutting all nuclear plants by 2035. The phase-out is slated to begin in 2027 with the two reactors at Almaraz — the very site whose downtime became a flashpoint during the recent crisis. (In a twist of timing, both Almaraz units were offline on April 28, having been temporarily shut “due to abundant wind energy making operations uneconomic” just days prior. One unit was still down during the blackout, meaning nuclear was not at full strength that day.) The planned nuclear exit reflects political priorities (the current left-wing coalition is anti-nuclear) and economic realities (reactors face high upgrade costs and competition from cheap renewables). But it also removes a major source of steady, dispatchable power from the system. Former REE chairman Jordi Sevilla warned in January that “shutting down the nuclear plants may put electricity supply at risk”. Industry voices echoed that losing nuclear’s inertia and capacity “reduces the grid's balancing capabilities,” increasing the risk of incidents.
This evolving mix — soaring renewables, shrinking baseload — has left Spain’s power infrastructure straining to adapt. The high-voltage grid and control systems were originally designed for centralized generation feeding passive demand centers. Now, Spain has to integrate thousands of distributed solar installations (many under 1 MW) and wind farms spread across its geography. REE has candidly admitted that it “lacked information from smaller plants to be able to operate in real time”. In other words, the system operator doesn’t always have a clear picture of what myriad rooftop panels or small solar farms are doing moment-to-moment. This complicates balancing efforts. In its latest annual report (Feb 2025), REE’s parent company Redeia flagged the insufficient visibility and controllability of these new generators as a serious operational challenge. It warned of an “increased risk of disconnections due to the high penetration of renewables without the technical capacities necessary for an adequate response to disturbances”. Tragically, that statement proved prophetic two months later.
Another pressure point is energy storage — or the lack thereof. Spain relies predominantly on pumped hydro storage (using off-peak power to pump water uphill, then releasing it to generate electricity at peak times) for bulk energy storage. It has several large pumped hydro facilities (like the Cortes-La Muela plant) and is expanding others. But the total storage is limited and subject to water availability. Battery storage deployment is only just beginning in earnest; a few hundred megawatts of batteries are operational or planned, tiny compared to peaks of 40-45 GW demand. During the midday solar peaks, when generation can far exceed consumption, excess power often has nowhere to go. Without sufficient storage or export capacity, the grid operator resorts to curtailment — ordering solar/wind farms to shut off. Curtailment wastes carbon-free energy and can undermine the economics for producers, but it is a necessary safeguard to keep the grid stable when flexibility runs out. The south-west regions where April’s problems originated were known to experience frequent curtailments for exactly this reason. It’s a sign that grid expansion hasn’t kept pace with renewable expansion. New transmission lines and substations to carry solar from rural Extremadura to distant demand centers (Madrid, Barcelona, etc.) are often bogged down by permitting delays and local opposition. Thus, bottlenecks form, where too much generation is concentrated on too weak a grid — a situation ripe for instability if not carefully managed.
Compounding matters, many of Spain’s gas plants have been underutilized, raising concerns about their future availability. The surge in renewables and a lull in demand growth meant that for much of the 2010s, Spain’s gas-fired stations ran at low capacity factors (only a fraction of their potential output). Several were mothballed. While this is good for emissions, it means some flexible plants may not be financially viable to remain on standby. Spain has implemented “capacity payments” in the past — paying plant owners to keep capacity available even if not often used — but these mechanisms have been contentious under EU market rules. Nonetheless, having gas turbines ready to ramp up or down is critical to buffer wind/solar swings. On April 28, however, virtually all Spain’s gas and coal units were offline or at minimum load, since there was ample renewable energy and low marginal prices. When the grid frequency nosedived, there was scant “spinning reserve” from thermal plants that could instantly respond. Carlos Cagigal, an energy consultant, noted that “Spain’s nuclear plants weren’t operating at the time, meaning all of its electricity was coming from renewables feeding saturated substations. When one of those substations failed and there wasn’t adequate backup, safety protocols kicked in”. In short, the conventional plants that might have helped cushion the blow were either switched off for economic reasons or already tripped by the disturbance.
To be clear, Spain has not neglected grid improvements entirely. It has been investing in solutions like synchronous condensers (large spinning machines that do not generate power but provide stabilizing inertia and voltage support). In 2022, REE installed new synchronous condensers in the Balearic Islands and in the mainland grid specifically to boost inertia in high-renewable scenarios. Spain also has fast-reacting hydro plants that can ramp up output quickly. And the milestone of 100% renewable operation on April 16 was achieved without incident, showing that the grid can handle such mixes under the right conditions. Yet the blackout indicates that specific critical nodes and contingency plans were overstretched. It has forced a reckoning: Is the infrastructure robust enough for the renewable era? The government had forecast €52 billion of investment by 2030 to upgrade the grid (for new demand like data centers and electric vehicles and integrating renewables). The events of April 28 suggest this upgrade agenda needs to accelerate. As we’ve seen, Spain’s renewable revolution is impressive and irreversible — but it now faces the complex reality that wires, transformers, software, and regulations must catch up to the new generation profile. Otherwise, avoidable reliability crises could undermine the achievements in clean energy.
Brussels’ Hand: EU Climate Policy and Grid Resilience
Spain’s energy trajectory doesn’t exist in a vacuum — it is deeply entwined with European Union policies and targets. Over the last few years, the EU has unleashed a flurry of climate initiatives that push member states toward greener, more integrated energy systems. Foremost among these is the “Fit for 55” package, unveiled in 2021, which aims to cut EU-wide greenhouse gas emissions 55% by 2030 (relative to 1990). To hit that mark, Brussels significantly raised the bar for renewables: the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive now targets about 42.5% of total final energy from renewables by 2030 (up from 32% previously), and roughly two-thirds of EU electricity is expected to be renewable by 2030. For a country like Spain, rich in sun and wind, this was an invitation to go even faster. Spain duly increased its national targets – hence the current 81% renewable electricity goal for 2030, one of the most ambitious in Europe. EU climate policy also led Spain to adopt a national Climate Change and Energy Transition Law (2021), which enshrines a 100% renewable electricity aim by mid-century and bans new oil, gas, and coal permits. The direction from Brussels has been clear: decarbonize aggressively.
Alongside decarbonization, the EU pushes for market integration and cross-border interconnections. The logic is that a unified European power grid can better accommodate renewables by sharing energy across regions – sunny Spain can export solar at noon, windy North Sea power can flow to doldrum areas, etc. For years, the EU has prodded Spain (and Portugal) to increase their interconnection with the rest of Europe. A decade ago, the European Council set a goal that each member state should have interconnection capacity equivalent to at least 10% of its installed generation (later raising it to 15% by 2030). Spain, however, remains an “energy island” of sorts; its links over the Pyrenees to France are limited to about 2.8 GW, roughly <3% of its generation capacity. This is far below the 10% goal. Spain’s energy minister Sara Aagesen emphasized after the blackout that “it is necessary to reinforce interconnections via France,” noting the imbalance between Europe’s 10% target and the current 3% reality. Poor interconnection means that when Spain has excess renewable power, it cannot easily export enough of it to neighbors (and vice versa for shortages). During the April 28 incident, the limited France link was actually a double-edged sword — it transmitted disturbances that caused a French plant to trip, then the link shut itself off to protect the broader European grid. Greater interconnection in the long run will enhance stability (larger grid “pool” to absorb shocks), but it requires France’s cooperation, which historically has been lukewarm due to concerns about its own grid and market impacts.
The EU also provides funding for cross-border infrastructure and smart grids through instruments like the Connecting Europe Facility and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (the latter channeled billions into member states’ green projects post-COVID). Spain has been a beneficiary, using EU funds to bolster its grid and roll out innovations (like digital grid management systems and EV charging networks). Brussels has supported projects to link Spain’s grid more tightly with Portugal (which is now well integrated with Spain) and to study new links to France. A major project now underway is a submarine power cable through the Bay of Biscay to connect Spain and France by 2027, doubling interconnection capacity. There is also the planned “Celtic Interconnector” linking Spain to Ireland via France. These efforts underscore that EU energy policy prizes both decarbonization and interconnection as twin pillars of security.
However, one area where EU policy has arguably lagged is in explicitly mandating reliability measures alongside renewables deployment. While bodies like ENTSO-E conduct Europe-wide grid adequacy assessments and issue warnings, the implementation is left to national authorities. In April, just weeks before the blackout, ENTSO-E cautioned that the scheduled closure of Spain’s Almaraz nuclear plant units starting 2027 “will increase the risks of blackouts” on the Iberian grid. REE responded publicly that it foresaw “no risk of a blackout” and could guarantee stable supply — a statement now painfully ironic. The EU does enforce some technical rules (like requirements for grid operators to have reserve margins and emergency plans), and through the Electricity Regulation it has frameworks for capacity mechanisms if needed to ensure supply. Spain in fact secured EU approval in 2019 for a capacity market to keep some gas plants available for backup. But even capacity markets only help if they are used robustly and if the units can physically respond fast enough to events like April 28’s. The EU’s broader approach has been to trust that market signals plus prudent national planning will maintain reliability. After this event, that approach may be revisited, with calls for stronger regional coordination on grid stability. Notably, EU Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson and her successor (Dan Jørgensen, who took office in 2024) have stressed that grid resilience must go “hand in hand” with the green transition and have launched an EU-level investigation into the blackout’s causes. This suggests Brussels recognizes a need to fine-tune policies so that “Fit for 55” does not unintentionally result in “unfit grids”.
Another crucial EU initiative is REPowerEU, devised in 2022 in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. REPowerEU’s immediate goal was to wean Europe off Russian fossil fuels — especially piped natural gas — as quickly as possible, and to strengthen the bloc’s energy autonomy. For electricity, this translated into an accelerated rollout of renewables and hydrogen. The European Commission urged member states to “double solar photovoltaic capacity by 2025” and set massive targets for 2030 (600 GW of solar and 510 GW of wind EU-wide). It also promoted heat pumps and electrification to cut gas demand. Spain enthusiastically embraced these goals, seeing an opportunity to leverage its sun and wind resources. Indeed, Spain updated its NECP in 2023 to target 76 GW of solar PV by 2030 (nearly doubling from ~39 GW prior target). All this is supported by EU recovery funds — Spain’s recovery plan allocated billions for renewable energy, grid upgrades, and hydrogen projects. Crucially, REPowerEU also calls for streamlining permits for renewables, as bureaucratic delays were a bottleneck. Spain moved to simplify permitting, which means the pace of solar and wind farm commissioning is set to increase further in coming years.
The European dimension also encompasses shared challenges of grid management that transcend borders. For instance, in January 2021 Europe narrowly averted a continent-wide blackout when a disturbance in Croatia split the EU grid into east and west; only quick action and support from neighbors prevented collapse. That incident, like the Spain blackout, underscored how interconnected Europe’s fates are. Following it, ENTSO-E and EU regulators pushed for better real-time data exchange and cooperation among TSOs (Transmission System Operators). The Iberian blackout will likely accelerate such efforts. We might see, for example, EU guidelines on mandatory inertia or fast-frequency response requirements for systems as renewable penetration grows beyond certain thresholds. Already, the EU’s Network Codes (technical rules) have standards for generators to provide frequency control and fault ride-through. But the technology is evolving: grid-forming inverters, advanced battery systems, and even flywheel storage can emulate many stability services of thermal plants. The EU could incentivize deployment of these across member states, ensuring that high-renewables countries like Spain adopt cutting-edge solutions to keep frequency stable. In essence, Europe must marry its climate ambitions with a continent-spanning upgrade of grid robustness. The blackout has made it clear that achieving a 55% emissions cut must go hand in hand with a “system security” agenda, or else public confidence in the energy transition could falter.
Spain, for its part, often points out that European solidarity is a two-way street. During the 2021-2022 energy price crisis, Spain and Portugal implemented the so-called “Iberian exception” — a temporary EU-approved gas price cap to keep electricity prices down, acknowledging their weak interconnection meant Spanish consumers couldn’t benefit from French nuclear or German coal in a crunch. Conversely, Spain has offered to help Europe by leveraging its infrastructure: it has Europe’s largest LNG import capacity and had proposed new gas pipelines over the Pyrenees (MidCat) to supply central Europe with non-Russian gas. While France blocked MidCat, an alternative H2Med pipeline for green hydrogen exports from Spain to France (and onward) is now being advanced with EU blessing. This speaks to a future where Spain becomes not just a consumer of EU energy policy but a supplier of energy to Europe — potentially exporting its excess solar power via new wires or shipping green hydrogen made from its renewables. The EU’s vision of collective energy security means Spain’s grid issues matter beyond its borders. A stable, well-integrated Spanish grid could be a powerhouse that helps lights stay on in Paris or Berlin one day, just as today France’s nuclear or Germany’s wind can help Spain when needed. Thus, the EU’s climate and energy integration policies are deeply interlinked in Spain’s case: success in one (clean energy rollout) must be matched by success in the other (cross-border balancing and support).
In summary, EU policies like Fit for 55 and REPowerEU have propelled Spain to its green vanguard position, providing targets, funding, and market frameworks. But policy makers in Brussels did not fully anticipate the operational stresses at the grid edge. The Spanish blackout is likely to influence EU strategy going forward: expect increased emphasis on grid investment, storage, and resilience measures across all member states. As one Financial Times editorial put it, these blackouts are a “wake-up call” that **governments must invest in electricity resilience “alongside the green transition”. The next section will examine the geopolitical overlay — how the broader drive to end reliance on Russian gas and other external fuels makes the task of balancing decarbonization with reliability even more urgent.
Geopolitical Crosswinds: Russian Gas, Algeria, and Europe’s Energy Security
The year 2022 was a turning point for Europe’s energy geopolitics. Russia’s war on Ukraine led to what European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called a “tectonic shift” in EU energy strategy. Virtually overnight, the EU resolved to terminate decades of reliance on Russian hydrocarbons – a dependence that had supplied 40% of EU gas, 25% of its oil, and nearly half its coal. The EU banned Russian coal imports in mid-2022 and moved to phase out Russian oil (with an embargo on seaborne oil and G7 price cap). Gas was trickier: while no immediate ban was imposed (owing to the risk of winter shortages in countries like Germany and Italy), the EU’s REPowerEU plan set the course to “phase out Russian gas” completely by 2027. Unprecedented efforts went into cutting Russian gas: pipeline flows from Russia plummeted by almost 80% between 2021 and 2023 as Gazprom throttled deliveries and Europe refused to open new contracts. By 2025, Russian gas constitutes only a few percent of EU imports, down from the lion’s share pre-war. In its place, Europe turned to a mix of emergency measures: record imports of LNG from suppliers like the United States, Qatar, and Nigeria; increased pipeline gas from Norway, North Africa, and Azerbaijan; and – critically – demand reduction and fuel switching, which saw coal plants temporarily returned to service and industry curtail usage.
Spain found itself in a somewhat paradoxical position in this upheaval. On one hand, Spain was one of the least dependent EU countries on Russian gas, typically sourcing less than 10% of its gas from Russia (its primary suppliers being Algeria and LNG from various origins). On the other hand, Spain holds some of Europe’s keys to energy diversification. It has six large LNG terminals (about one-third of the EU’s LNG import capacity) and was willing to act as a gas entry point to the continent. The Spanish government advocated for the revival of the MidCat gas pipeline over the Pyrenees to carry gas (and later hydrogen) northwards, as a matter of EU solidarity. Though France blocked MidCat, under EU pressure and German lobbying, a compromise “H2Med” pipeline dedicated to hydrogen was agreed, indicating a longer-term vision of Iberia as a green hydrogen hub feeding Europe.
In the short term, Europe’s Russian gas exit put stress on all countries to ensure energy security. Gas prices spiked to record highs in 2022, leading to exorbitant electricity prices in Spain’s market as well (until the “Iberian exception” cap kicked in). High gas prices incentivized even more renewable energy deployment, reinforcing Spain’s push to get off fossil gas for power generation. However, it also meant gas-fired plants remained critical as backup to avoid blackouts during the transition. Europe asked countries to save energy; Spain mandated cooling and heating limits in public buildings to conserve gas, for example. By winter 2022/23, an unusually warm season and full gas storage spared Europe from crisis. But had that winter been harsh, Spain too might have needed to ship gas to France or elsewhere under EU solidarity mechanisms (the EU has rules for one country to assist another with gas in emergencies). It highlighted that Spain’s security is linked to Europe’s and vice versa.
Another geopolitical wrinkle is Spain’s relationship with Algeria, its historical gas supplier. Spain receives Algerian gas via the Medgaz undersea pipeline to Almería and via LNG shipments. Until late 2021, a second pipeline (Maghreb-Europe) ran through Morocco, but that was closed after Algeria cut ties with Morocco over the Western Sahara dispute. In 2022, Spain angered Algeria by shifting its Western Sahara policy closer to Morocco’s position. Algeria responded by threatening to cut gas exports and raised prices for Spain. Though it didn’t stop pipeline flows (doing so would have hurt Algeria’s revenue and reputation with the EU), it did illustrate how geopolitical disputes can endanger energy supply even among “friendly” partners. Spain had to reassure that any gas it re-exported to Morocco via reverse flow was not Algerian origin. The episode underlined the importance of Spain’s LNG infrastructure – which gives it flexibility to source gas globally if pipeline supplies falter. And it drove home that diversification of supply (a core REPowerEU principle) is not just about Russia, but about not being too beholden to any single supplier. Spain in effect diversified by importing more LNG from the U.S. (which by 2023 became Spain’s top gas source, as it did for the EU broadly).
From a diplomacy standpoint, the EU’s pivot away from Russia has drawn Spain and the rest of Europe into new energy alliances. The United States emerged as a key partner, dramatically boosting LNG exports to Europe – to the point that over half of U.S. LNG in 2022 went to the EU. This created some frictions (accusations of Americans profiting from high prices) but overall solidified transatlantic ties. The EU (with Spain’s support) also struck cooperation deals with countries like Qatar, Egypt, and Israel to secure LNG and future hydrogen. In mid-2023, for instance, Spain hosted a summit with African and European leaders on green hydrogen cooperation, highlighting its aspiration to be a bridge between North Africa’s vast solar potential and Europe’s clean energy needs. Here, geopolitics and the green transition intersect: Europe’s need for non-Russian energy is accelerating investments in renewable projects in North Africa (like Morocco’s solar farms or potential Algerian green hydrogen) which could supply Europe – possibly via Spain as the landing point.
All these changes put a premium on infrastructure readiness. If Spain is to import LNG at full throttle and potentially export surplus power or hydrogen, it needs pipelines, wires, and conversion facilities. Some of this is underway: apart from H2Med, Spain is expanding interconnectors with Portugal and building new internal power lines to handle renewables. But time is short and the scale is large. In the interim, Europe’s gas crisis taught a lesson that also applies to electricity: strategic reserves and buffers are crucial. The EU mandated that each country fill gas storage to 80-90% before winter; Spain complied by filling its modest storage (it has less storage than central Europe due to more LNG flexibility). Similarly, one could argue for capacity reserves in electricity – ensuring a buffer of dispatchable power or demand-response that can be called upon in emergencies. Spain’s blackout is prompting such discussions. After all, had the April 28 collapse been prolonged for days, it would have required massive mutual aid — perhaps emergency power imports from neighbors or even deploying diesel gensets at scale — akin to how EU nations help each other in gas crises. That hypothetical underscores that electricity security is national but also increasingly European.
Another geopolitical factor is how energy dependencies shape diplomacy. Spain’s commitment to closing nuclear plants by 2035, for example, aligns with its domestic politics, but also spares it from relying on imported uranium or on extending plants that might need Russian nuclear fuel services (as some Eastern European reactors did until recently). However, it does make Spain potentially more reliant on imported technology like batteries from Asia or electrolyzers for hydrogen. The EU is cognizant of this and through its Green Deal Industrial Plan is pushing for domestic production of clean tech (batteries, solar panels, etc.) to avoid simply trading one dependency (Russian gas) for another (Chinese solar panels or rare earth materials). Spain, with its automotive industry, is investing in battery gigafactories and EV production as part of EU funding programs. So the concept of energy security now extends to supply chains for the energy transition. Spain’s “suicidal mix” critics sometimes point to the irony that rushing into renewables could make Europe dependent on Chinese manufacturing. The counterargument is that renewables and electrification free Europe from fuel geo-politics, and manufacturing can be localized over time.
In summary, the geopolitical storm around Russian gas has, somewhat counterintuitively, reinforced Europe’s green momentum (to eliminate fossil fuel leverage) while also exposing infrastructure gaps. Spain’s blackout occurred against this backdrop of Europe redefining energy security. Where once “energy security” in Europe meant diversifying oil and gas supply routes, today it equally means ensuring the stability of a renewables-heavy grid. Both dimensions intersect in Spain. The EU’s move to ban Russian gas has given Spain a bigger role in continental energy strategy, but it also leaves no safety net of fossil slack — everyone is pushing the envelope to replace gas with wind, solar, and efficiency. That raises the stakes for getting the transition right. The Iberian blackout sent shockwaves through EU capitals as a warning: even as we cut ties with the Kremlin’s gas, we must keep our house in order. In the next section, we’ll confront head-on the “suicidal mix” critique and ask whether Spain (and by extension Europe) has struck the right balance between decarbonization and stability, or whether a course correction is needed to avoid future calamities.
“A Suicidal Mix?”: Balancing Decarbonization with Stability
In the aftermath of the blackout, the phrase “mezcla suicida” – “suicidal mix” – has been on the lips of many Spanish energy veterans. It captures the fear that Spain’s current blend of energy sources is dangerously unbalanced, risking system collapse. What exactly is this critique? In essence, industry experts and opposition voices argue that Spain has pushed renewable integration faster than it has built in stabilizing measures. By aggressively retiring coal and planning to shutter nuclear, while not yet having sufficient storage, backup, or grid reinforcements, Spain (they say) has created a precarious situation: a grid highly dependent on weather-dependent generation that can neither be fully controlled nor easily backed up at all times. “Blackouts can happen anywhere, but this type of thing tends not to happen when you have more baseload like nuclear on the grid,” observed Seth Grae, a U.S. nuclear industry executive, adding pointedly, “the more your sources are intermittent, the greater the risk”. Those sympathetic to this view note that at the moment of crisis, zero fossil or nuclear plants were truly online to help – essentially 100% renewable generation was feeding Spain when it went dark. To critics, this looks like proof that the mix itself was at fault.
Spain’s major electric companies had already sounded alarms. On April 22, in a meeting with Prime Minister Sánchez, private utility executives warned that allowing half of Spain’s nuclear fleet to be offline while surging renewables constituted a “suicidal” risk to grid security. They urged action and reportedly got a slow response. The conservative opposition (PP) has seized on the blackout to call for reconsidering the nuclear shutdown plan. Even the far-right VOX party — which has long opposed Spain’s climate policies — trumpeted the event as evidence of “the importance of a balanced energy mix” rather than an all-renewable approach. These critics advocate keeping dispatchable plants (nuclear, gas) alive longer, investing in grid robustness, and pacing the renewable rollout to match infrastructure development. In their view, Spain’s rush has been politically driven (to meet EU climate goals and please a pro-renewables electorate) but not matched with the less-glamorous work of grid prep.
How fair is this “suicidal mix” accusation? There is some truth and some exaggeration. On one hand, the blackout undeniably exposed that certain safeguards and backup systems were insufficient. If, hypothetically, a few more big thermal plants had been online that day providing inertia and reserves, the outcome might have been different. Spain’s grid “requires investments to adapt to the technical reality of the new generation mix,” as REE’s own head of operations admitted. That is essentially agreeing that the mix as currently managed isn’t fully secure. Moreover, diversity of supply is a hallmark of resilience: relying on any single type of resource (even if it’s “the sun”) can be risky when conditions change. The evening of April 28 saw wind and solar drop to near-zero as the sun set and winds calmed, leaving Spain to rely on imports and scrambling gas units. Such swings will intensify with higher renewable shares unless mitigated.
On the other hand, pinning the blackout simply on “too many renewables” is oversimplified, if not misleading. Danish and German grids have operated at 100% wind or solar for brief periods without crashing (though with robust interconnectors and controls). Portugal, which was also almost fully renewable on April 28, initially stayed online a bit longer than Spain before being dragged down — suggesting the trigger was a specific technical event, not an inherent inability of renewables to keep lights on. As EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen remarked, “the causes of the blackout cannot be reduced to a specific source of energy, for instance renewables”. The fact that the grid had run in a similar state on other days “to perfection” (as Minister Aagesen noted) indicates renewables per se were not the deterministic cause; it was the combination of a high-renewable moment and a lack of certain stabilizers or protocols. In other words, correlation is not causation: yes, the blackout occurred during peak solar output, but that doesn’t mean solar output inherently causes blackouts. It means the system didn’t handle a contingency at that time.
Energy analysts point out that any type of plant can trip — coal, gas, nuclear, or renewable. What matters is the system’s design to withstand those trips. “Trips happen all the time across all asset types. Networks should be designed to withstand multiple loss of generators,” wrote engineer Roger Hollies in response to the blame game. The failure here was that losing 15 GW (equivalent to 10 large power stations or 75 solar farms) cascaded uncontrollably. That magnitude of loss suggests wider systemic issues beyond just “the sun went behind a cloud.” It might implicate protection settings, reserve policies, or communication delays. In fact, some experts suspect low-frequency oscillations in the Europe-wide system played a role, as unusual frequency “ringing” was detected from Latvia to Spain around that time. Such oscillations could be a freak occurrence unrelated to Spain’s mix, or possibly exacerbated by it — a complex technical puzzle under study.
What can be done to ensure Spain’s mix is secure, not suicidal? Broadly, two approaches: enhance the grid & support infrastructure, and adjust the generation mix or operations. The first is uncontroversial: massive grid upgrades are already planned, and now must be expedited. This means stronger transmission links especially in renewable-rich regions, updated protection systems (as REE wanted), and cutting-edge control software using AI to predict and manage fluctuations. Also, dramatically scaling energy storage and demand response. Spain has a target to install about 20 GW of storage by 2030 (pumped hydro and batteries combined) in its NECP. Realizing that target will go a long way to buffer the highs and lows of renewables. Grid-forming battery inverters can also provide synthetic inertia, reacting in milliseconds to prop up frequency. Already, pilot projects in the Canaries have shown that solar-plus-battery systems can keep an island grid stable in the absence of thermal plants. On the mainland, more pumped hydro projects (like the 1.5 GW Nant de Drance plant Swiss built, or Spain’s own 2000 MW Chira-Soria project in Gran Canaria) will help store midday surplus for evening use. Demand response is another underused tool: Spain could incentivize large consumers or aggregated EV chargers to quickly cut usage when frequency dips, acting as “virtual power plants” to stabilize the grid.
On the generation side, one option is to maintain a core of firm capacity until new tech fills the gap. This could mean slowing the coal and nuclear phase-outs or ensuring sufficient gas plants remain operational. Spain already closed most coal, and politically it’s unlikely to reopen that chapter (coal’s contribution is now minuscule, and its emissions make it untenable). But nuclear presents a dilemma: the plants are aging and politically unpopular in the current government, yet they provide reliable low-carbon power and inertia. The opposition pledges to extend nuclear if they win power; industry would likely support that if the economics (or subsidies) are there. However, given Spain’s strong renewable trajectory, even extended reactors would eventually shut by the 2040s. So nuclear is at best a temporary crutch. Natural gas plants might be more flexible in the near term. Spain must ensure that enough gas-fired capacity stays online, even if running rarely. This might require more capacity payments to these plants to avoid early retirements. During extreme events (like prolonged windless periods or a grid restart after blackout), having modern CCGTs available is a lifesaver. But gas has its own insecurity now (volatile global prices, and decarbonization demands). Spain plans to convert some CCGTs to burn green hydrogen or ammonia in the future, which could keep them relevant in a net-zero scenario.
One should note that reversing the renewable build-out is neither feasible nor desirable. The climate crisis and EU mandates mean Spain cannot slow-walk on clean energy – nor does it want to, given the economic benefits (renewables have brought investment and made Spain a net power exporter at times). The key is managing them better. Countries like Ireland and Great Britain, which have very high wind penetration, have instituted special grid services: they procure “synchronous compensators,” fast-responding reserves, and enforce grid code requirements that new wind farms have fault ride-through and voltage control capabilities. Spain likely will adopt similar or stricter requirements for new solar/wind plants to contribute to stability (for example, mandating that inverter-based resources provide a minimum reactive power or inertia response). ENTSO-E is exploring requiring wind/solar to have “grid-forming” capabilities by default. All this essentially means future renewables won’t be just passive power sources, but active grid-supporting resources.
Another aspect is regional balance and decentralization. Instead of huge single-source plants, diversifying renewable geography can help. Spain has done well integrating wind (which is stronger in the north and at night) and solar (strong in the south and midday) – their profiles complement each other to some extent. Seasonal complementarity too: winter brings more wind, summer more sun. The blackout hit at a moment of solar dominance and low wind. In a different season, wind might have provided more inherent inertia via big turbine rotors and distributed output. Encouraging a mix of renewables (including emerging ones like renewable thermal, wave, or biomass for dispatchable renewable power) could improve resilience. Hydroelectric power remains a cornerstone for Spain; although droughts limit it some years, hydro plants can ramp very quickly to smooth fluctuations. Ensuring hydro capacity is used optimally (and perhaps not over-committed for export during critical periods) is part of the balancing act.
To the term “suicidal mix” – it’s a dramatic label that arguably serves political narratives more than technical insight. Yes, the balance today is riskier than before, but it’s not inevitably deadly. Spain’s mix can be made robust with targeted measures. Germany went through a similar debate (“energy crisis” headlines in 2022 when wind lulled and gas was scarce), yet kept moving forward on renewables after adding LNG terminals and reserve coal units as a safety net. California faced rolling blackouts in 2020 partly due to mis-timed retirements and lack of batteries, but has since beefed up capacity and shifted peak demand via pricing — effectively addressing the issue without abandoning its clean energy goals. Spain will likely follow suit: treat the blackout as a stark warning and implement a suite of fixes. Already, the government set up a crisis commission with not just officials but input from the utilities and grid experts. The major utilities (through their association Aelec) have asked to be part of the investigation committee, signaling a cooperative approach to solutions rather than finger-pointing.
One probable outcome is that Spain may moderate the pace of decommissioning dispatchable plants until new measures are in place. For example, the timeline of nuclear closures might be re-evaluated in light of grid adequacy studies. Or Spain might invest in gas-peaker plants or long-duration flow batteries specifically for contingency reserves. The cost of avoiding blackouts is far smaller than that of blackouts themselves (billions in one day, as RBC and others tallied). This cost argument may convince even climate hawks that spending on some fossil backup or grid redundancy is a worthwhile insurance for the transition period. The Spanish government also knows that public opinion can swing if blackouts become associated with green policies; maintaining reliability is crucial for sustaining support for the energy transition.
In conclusion, while Spain’s current energy mix and grid setup proved vulnerable – validating some of the concerns behind the “suicidal mix” moniker – it is not an indictment of renewables or decarbonization per se. It is a challenge to do the transition smarter. The blackout is forcing a recalibration: renewables must be complemented by robust infrastructure, policy, and yes, some old-fashioned power plants, until new tech can fully take their place. The balance between decarbonization and stability can be achieved with foresight and investment. Europe and Spain have navigated energy transitions before (albeit not this steep) – from oil to nuclear, from dirtier grids to cleaner ones. There were dire warnings of lights going out each time, and occasionally they did, but engineering and policy solutions evolved. As an IEA review noted, “such a transformed energy landscape will come with new challenges in the form of energy security, as fluctuating renewable generation will require new forms of back-up and flexibility”. Those new forms are now urgently needed. Fortunately, the blackout has jolted authorities into recognizing the time to build the safety net. In the concluding section, we consider how Spain and the EU can move forward, learning from this incident to safeguard the future of their green energy aspirations.
Conclusion: Resilience as the New Imperative
The April 28 blackout in Spain was a dramatic rendezvous between ambition and reality. It starkly demonstrated that energy security and decarbonization are two sides of the same coin: one cannot be sacrificed for the other. Spain’s heroic build-out of renewable power propelled it to the forefront of climate leadership, but it also exposed fragilities in the foundations of the power system. In the European Union context, this event resonates far beyond Spain. It raises a flag for any nation racing toward carbon neutrality: ensure the grid can keep up with the times. The old paradigm of security — stockpiling fuel and diversifying suppliers — must be expanded to a new paradigm where voltage stability, frequency control, and cyber-physical robustness are just as critical as barrels and pipelines once were.
Moving forward, Spain and the EU are responding on multiple fronts. Investigations will pin down the technical failure points, likely leading to an overhaul of certain operational protocols (for example, re-tuning protection relays and requiring primary frequency response from inverter-based resources). We can expect expedited investments in the “plumbing” of the system: transformers, transmission lines, synchronous condensers, islanding schemes, and more. The Spanish government has already signaled it will advance its grid upgrade timeline and coordinate closely with neighboring grids. At the EU level, Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen’s promised “thorough investigation” suggests Brussels might develop new guidelines to help member states maintain adequacy as renewables soar. The blackout has essentially stress-tested the EU’s resolve on Fit for 55: the answer cannot be to slow the green transition, but rather to double down on the enabling infrastructure. This means channeling funds and regulatory support toward the less visible backbone that holds the green system together.
There will also be a rebalancing of narratives. Climate skeptics seized on the blackout to argue that net-zero policies inherently undermine reliability. They point to sensationalist headlines – like a UK paper’s “Net-zero blamed for blackout chaos” – which, while not accurate in detail, tap into genuine public anxiety. To keep citizens on board with climate action, leaders must show that renewables can coexist with a stable grid. That might involve some humility and course corrections: for instance, acknowledging that gas plants or other firm capacity will play a critical support role for a while longer (and communicating why that doesn’t derail climate goals). Spain’s Prime Minister Sánchez forcefully rejected calls for more nuclear or blaming renewables, labeling such calls ignorant or dishonest. But he and others will also need to reassure people that “this will not happen again”, by outlining concrete measures. Transparency will help — already, REE and the government are sharing unprecedented data about grid incidents (e.g. disclosing those 19-second and 5-second interval events). If the public sees a serious, technical, non-partisan effort to fix the issues, trust can be maintained. In contrast, if blackouts were to recur without visible action, the political backlash could indeed slow the transition.
In a broader sense, Spain’s experience is shaping up to be a case study for the world. Many countries aim to replicate Spain’s renewable successes, from India’s solar push to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy spree. Each will face the challenge of integrating intermittent sources at scale. The solutions Spain adopts — whether in grid codes, market design (perhaps introducing ancillary service markets for inertia or fast reserves), or cross-border coordination — could inform best practices globally. International energy agencies and think tanks are already poring over the Iberian blackout for lessons. The consensus emerging is that modern grids can technically handle very high renewable shares, but policy and investment must align to deploy the needed tools. It’s not a reason to back off from renewables; it’s a clarion call to update everything around them.
Geopolitically, the incident will likely reinforce Europe’s determination to build an energy union that is both green and secure. The EU’s stance toward Russian gas – essentially “never again” – means there is no turning back to a fossil-fueled comfort zone. Instead, Europe will create buffer capacities: bigger strategic gas storage, yes (for the short term), but more importantly strategic flexibility assets in electricity – akin to a backup fleet that only runs when needed, and robust grid links that allow mutual aid. Europe may also accelerate efforts in emerging tech like green hydrogen as seasonal storage and as a way to provide dispatchable power without CO₂. Spain is at the heart of that, with its future hydrogen infrastructure plan (H2Med) and vast renewables that could produce hydrogen to be stored for winter use or converted back to power in fuel cells or turbines. In effect, Europe’s energy security doctrine is evolving: from “just import gas from elsewhere” to “produce clean energy at home and share it widely, but be prepared with backup when nature lulls”. Diplomacy will support this by smoothing out conflicts like the one with Algeria, strengthening trans-Mediterranean cooperation, and forging alliances for supply chains of critical materials so that building all this new kit (batteries, transformers, etc.) isn’t hampered by new dependencies.
Perhaps the most profound change will be cultural — within the utilities and grid operators. A veteran Spanish grid engineer might have once been most worried about fuel supply or a big generator fault; now their nightmares will be about systemic instability or software glitches in a complex web of decentralized resources. The skillset and mindset needed are changing. REE’s operators famously have kept Spain’s lights on through past challenges (like abruptly cutting off Morocco when Algeria shut the gas pipeline, or managing the 2018 solar eclipse affecting solar PV output). After April 28, they will incorporate new protocols, like surgeons learning from a bad incident in the operating room. Already, ENTSO-E has convened experts to dissect the event second-by-second, and those findings will feed into training and contingency planning across Europe. The concept of N-1 security (the grid can handle losing any one element) might be extended to N-2 or more for high-impact nodes, given how quickly multiple losses cascaded. Blackstart capabilities (how to re-energize after a full collapse) will likely be bolstered, maybe by equipping more small plants or even battery stations to kickstart local islands of the grid.
In closing, the saga of Spain’s “energy security and a suicidal mix” is ultimately one of adaptation. The blackout was a shock, but it can also be seen as the birth pangs of a new energy era. An era in which climate imperatives and security imperatives converge. Spain and Europe will not commit energy suicide; they will adapt and survive. Decarbonization is not at odds with security — it simply demands that we redefine security. Just as nations learned to secure oil tankers and gas pipelines, they must now secure electron and data flows in an increasingly renewable world. Spain’s blackout might have been the dramatic wake-up call to hasten this adaptation. With the right lessons learned, Spain can transform its “suicidal mix” into a sustainable mix that is clean, affordable, and resilient against both the whims of weather and the unexpected flickers of fate. The lights in Europe’s green future must not only be powered by the sun and wind but also be unflinchingly steady, come what may.
Sources:
Reuters – “How warning signs hinted at Spain's unprecedented power outage”
Reuters – “Spain, Portugal switch back on, seek answers after biggest ever blackout”
Al Jazeera – “Spain’s grid denies renewable energy to blame for massive blackout”
The Guardian – “Spain and Portugal power outage: what caused it, and was there a cyber-attack?”
Science Media Centre – Expert reaction to power outages across Spain and Portugal
Carbon Brief – “Q&A: What we do – and do not – know about the blackout in Spain and Portugal”
ABC (Spain) – “Las energéticas alertaron ... de un ‘mix suicida’”
ANS Nuclear Newswire – “Spain, Portugal seek answers following massive power outage”
El Periódico de la Energía – “El Gobierno desoyó la petición de REE de cambiar el protocolo...”
International Energy Agency – Spain 2021 Energy Policy Review
Financial Times – “Spain and Portugal blackout a wake-up call on grid resilience”
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
The Enigmatic Bestiary of the Blackout…
¨Venezuela’s blackout? Blame it on a rogue iguana seeking revenge against humanity, perhaps fresh from a failed audition for Sharknado 7: Reptilian Revolt. “I’ll show them I’m not just a lizard!” it hissed, munching on a power line.
But that’s not all! Spain's “eternal sun” has also been extinguished—this time by a lynx craving electrical paella. “Cables? Delicious! They taste like progress!” growled the lynx, who is reportedly in talks with Netflix for Bird Box 2: Furry Grid Crash.
In short, no aliens here—Earth’s wildlife is staging a heist on our power grids. Next up? A koala has knocked out Australia’s internet, mistaking fiber optics for eucalyptus. Stay tuned!
Image: All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
¨First, Venezuela’s blackout? The work of a rogue iguana with a vendetta against humanity and the wrong system, probably fresh off a failed audition for Sharknado 7: Reptilian Revolt. “I’ll show them ‘just a lizard’!” it hissed, while chewing through a power line like it was auditioning for Naked and Afraid: Power Grid Edition.
But wait! The plot thickens faster than a sloth on espresso. Now Spain's "eternal sun" has been extinguished by... wait for it... a lynx with a sudden craving for electrical paella. "Cables? Delicious! They taste like progress and reflect poor planning for the traditional Spanish cocido!" growled the lynx, who is now reportedly in talks with Netflix for Bird Box 2: Furry Grid Crash.
So, to recap: No aliens. Earth’s wildlife is going whole Ocean’s 11 on our power grids. Next up? A koala has taken out Australia’s internet by mistaking fiber optics for eucalyptus. Stay tuned, folks…
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
Don't worry, my friend! Even though I am a reptile and you are a big cat, we are both part of this beautiful world and have our own value. Let's respect our differences!
By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | May 2, 2025
________________________________________
I. The bestiary of the blackout
A half‑scorched iguana, a kamikaze vervet monkey, a weasel incinerated in the bowels of CERN, legions of electrocuted North‑American squirrels, nesting crows dismantling Tokyo’s overhead lines, an Iberian lynx reputed to fancy photovoltaic cabling—our era has no shortage of quadruped “terrorists” and feathered “saboteurs.” With every spectacular outage, social networks reel off the same pantomime: pictures of the unlucky beast, ironic hashtags and, invariably, the insinuation that the animal kingdom has opened a new front in its millennial resistance to the human techno‑sphere.
The surreal procession would be merely entertaining were it not for the political expediency that often accompanies it. In March 2019, when Venezuela descended into its worst blackout on record, officials floated the theory of an “iguana attack” on the high‑voltage lines that fan out from the Guri hydroelectric complex. Their narrative evaporated under the weight of subsequent investigations pointing to untrimmed vegetation, neglected backup plants and chronic under‑investment—but the reptilian scapegoat lingered in the collective imagination.
Months later and half a world away, Kenya Power attributed a four‑hour nationwide outage to “a monkey falling on a transformer.” In Switzerland, technicians at the Large Hadron Collider located the remains of a marten in a sub‑station after the accelerator tripped. Each episode re‑animated a folkloric dramaturgy in which non‑human actors, possessed of obscure motives, are recast as antagonists in the human pursuit of progress.
Yet the zoological spin, however comical, performs a serious ideological function: it displaces responsibility from systems to creatures, from political choices to accidents of nature. The Caracas iguana provided a ready‑made foil for an administration anxious to divert attention from decades of maintenance neglect; the Kenyan vervet monkey allowed the utility to avoid uncomfortable questions about grid redundancy. In each case, the anecdote imagines collapse as an act of external malice rather than an immanent property of brittle infrastructure.
II. Iberia’s hour of darkness
At 12:17 p.m. on Monday, 28 April 2025, electricity frequency monitors across the Iberian Peninsula registered a violent wobble. Within five seconds, the Spanish grid had ejected an estimated 15 gigawatts—roughly 60 per cent of national demand—as photovoltaic inverters, wind turbines and finally two nuclear reactors disconnected in self‑defence. Trains stopped between stations; lifts froze between floors; data centres flipped to diesel generators.
By nightfall, supply had been restored to 99 per cent of consumers, but the symbolism of Europe’s renewables poster child plunged into darkness could not be more charged. WIRED
In the first 24 hours, blame ricocheted between ministries, grid operator Red Eléctrica de España (REE), and the major utilities. The conservative daily ABC leaked correspondence showing that, six days earlier, energy companies had warned REE of “anomalies of the same nature” as those that would later cascade through the system—warnings the operator answered only after three days, with a laconic assurance that “all parameters remain within norms. ”Diario ABCDiario ABC
Government spokespeople, anxious to shield the green agenda on which Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has staked his legacy, denounced “lies” linking the blackout to high shares of solar and wind. Euronews, Reuters and Wired offered more measured accounts: the fault appeared to originate in “two abrupt disconnections of generation” one‑and‑a‑half seconds apart, triggering protection relays faster than human operators could react.
While investigations unfold, one technical detail is beyond dispute. At noon on 28 April, solar photovoltaics supplied 60 per cent of the Iberian load, yet fewer than 3 per cent of those megawatts enjoyed local battery support. When the first inverter sensed a frequency excursion and dropped out, the others obeyed their firmware and followed suit; in the absence of spinning steel to damp the perturbation, the frequency nose‑dived, forcing nuclear and wind units to trip on under‑frequency protection. Within moments, Spain experienced, at a continental scale, what engineers describe as “grid‑forming collapse.”
III. From inertia to electronics: anatomy of a fragile transition
Electrical grids evolved for a century around the principle of synchronous rotation: the same turbines that produce power also embody kinetic energy, acting as a flywheel that smooths perturbations. A standard‑issue 1 GW turbo‑alternator stores roughly 3,000 megajoules in its rotor—a mechanical buffer that grants operators precious seconds to stabilise disturbances.
Photovoltaics, in contrast, inject direct current converted to alternating current by solid‑state inverters that possess no inertia of their own. Once equipped with fixed‑speed induction generators, wind turbines now predominantly use doubly‑fed or full‑converter systems that likewise decouple blade inertia from grid frequency. In theory, inverters can be programmed to emulate inertia (“virtual synchronous machines”) or to form voltage and frequency autonomously, but the requisite software and oversized power electronics add cost. Like most jurisdictions, Spain has preferred the cheaper “grid‑following” design, leaving the task of frequency regulation to whatever synchronous fleet remains online.
The April blackout, therefore, dramatises a contradiction at the heart of the European Green Deal: the race to pack ever more variable renewables into a system whose stabilising scaffolding—hydro reservoirs, gas turbines, nuclear rotors—shrinks under the pressure of climate policy and market liberalisation. Between 2010 and 2025, the Iberian Peninsula retired 9.3 GW of coal; gas plants that now run at capacity factors below 15 per cent, their fixed costs recouped through “capacity payments” that satisfy accountants but not turbine manufacturers. Two of Spain’s seven nuclear units were in long‑scheduled refuelling outages on 28 April; another pair had been inexplicably curtailed by dispatch instructions that sought to “showcase the renewables fleet,” according to industry sources quoted by ABC. Diario ABC
In other words, the blackout was neither an act of zoological sabotage nor a fluke: it was the foreseeable outcome of policy choices that allowed inverter‑dominated capacity to surge ahead of the flexibility—batteries, flywheels, pumped‑hydro, synchronous condensers—needed to anchor it.
IV. The political economy of blame
Early commentary split along ideological grooves. Conservative media emphasised “the suicidal mix” and called for an immediate moratorium on new solar farms until batteries are mandated; green NGOs accused REE of under‑investing in grid digitalisation and cross‑border interconnectors, noting that Spain’s tie‑lines to France and Portugal amount to barely 3 percent of peak load, far below the EU’s 15 percent target. WIRED
The government, committed to 81 per cent renewable electricity by 2030, framed the outage as an unfortunate but isolated hiccup. Yet the clash obscures a subtler antagonism: under liberalised electricity markets, no actor bears clear responsibility for “system inertia.” Grid operators may specify frequency‑ride‑through parameters, but they cannot compel private developers to over‑size inverters or co‑locate batteries unless regulators create new revenue streams. Likewise, merchant solar owners have no incentive to sacrifice daytime output to stabilise the grid when the pool price is at its peak.
Thus the blackout illuminates a governance vacuum: the state has retreated to a referee role, utilities have fragmented into asset‑lite generators, and consumers—told that the cheapest kilowatt‑hour is ipso facto the greenest—discover that the short‑run marginal cost of solar omits the system cost of keeping the lights on.
V. Zoology as ideology: the uses of the animal metaphor
Why, then, does the figure of the “terrorist animal” recur so persistently? Part of the answer lies in journalism’s appetite for “news of the weird,” but deeper currents are at work. First, animals furnish an external, seemingly apolitical antagonist; blaming a squirrel absolves the market reforms and state neglect. The second motif dovetails with a cultural undercurrent that anthropomorphises nature as an agent of revenge in the Anthropocene—an ecological sublime updated for the age of high‑speed connectivity.
Yet, stopping at cultural analysis would overlook the material interface between ecology and infrastructure. Power lines, photovoltaic parks, substations and fibre ducts splice the built environment into habitats, often providing micro‑niches attractive to opportunistic species. The same renewable boom that promises decarbonisation is paving deserts with reflective panels that attract curious ungulates; off‑shore wind arrays alter migratory patterns of birds and bats. In that sense, the animal incursion is not an “external shock” but the ecological feedback of territorial expansion.
VI. Comparative zoological‑technical chronicle
Incidents in which animals are blamed for disrupting critical infrastructure reveal an intriguing pattern: the shakier the governance behind the grid, the more unusual the creature pressed into service as a scapegoat.
Back in 2016, a lone vervet monkey leapt onto poorly protected equipment at a Kenyan hydroelectric station and triggered a nationwide blackout—an accident made possible by flimsy perimeter fencing and a fatal single‑point‑of‑failure design. Three years later, as Venezuela’s state utility Corpoelec staggered under sanctions, chronic under‑maintenance and politicized appointments, officials pointed to an errant iguana on an 800 kV transmission corridor to explain yet another collapse of the national system. The reptile was a convenient diversion from deeper structural decay.
Compare that with 2020, when CERN’s 400 kV substation near Geneva went offline after a curious beech marten gnawed through aging insulation. The episode was greeted with wry humour, swiftly dissected in public-facing reports, and folded into a transparent plan for hardening the site—no hand‑waving required.
Routine but revealing cases keep appearing. In 2022, a rash of squirrel contacts with overhead, uninsulated distribution feeders in the United States underscored how ordinary vegetation management lapses can still spark outages across a modern grid. The ironic rumour that an Iberian lynx might one day claw through DC cabling at a Spanish solar‑PV farm—projected for 2025—has already circulated online. The story is almost certainly apocryphal, yet its very popularity shows how people crave tidy, animal‑centric narratives while engineers wrestle with more abstract concerns such as inertia deficits and frequency stability.
Taken together, the anecdotes expose a larger truth: where technical resilience is high and institutions are transparent, animal mishaps become quirky footnotes; where systems and oversight are fragile, exotic fauna turn into convenient villains.
VII. From analogy to analysis: what Spain tells us about the global transition
Spain is hardly alone. California’s “duck curve” forced the state to procure 5 GW of four‑hour lithium‑ion storage, yet its August 2020 rolling blackouts still exposed the perils of simultaneous heatwaves and transmission constraints. South‑Australia, hailed for achieving 66 percent renewable penetration, survived a September 2016 system black thanks to emergency islanding—but only after tornado‑induced line faults cascaded through wind farm protective relays. In each case, the technical dossier reads differently. Still, the strategic diagnosis converges: as variable renewables scale beyond 40 per cent, planners must either retain enough synchronous plant to ride through disturbances or replace the mechanical inertia with fast‑responding storage.
Seven levers for a resilient transition
Mandate “grid‑forming” capability in all new inverter‑based resources above a threshold capacity, with procurement auctions that remunerate inertia as a service.
Impose on‑site storage quotas: 10–20 percent of AC rating for utility‑scale PV and wind, with minimum two‑hour duration and state‑of‑charge guarantees.
Expand synchronous condensers and flywheels in weak nodes to provide fault current and voltage support.
Re‑design protection logic: Move from binary trip thresholds to graded frequency and voltage ride‑through, coupled with local controls that modulate rather than disconnect.
Strengthen interconnection: The 3 per cent cross‑border capacity that currently links Iberia to France must quadruple to reach Nordic and Benelux levels.
Cultivate demand‑side elasticity: Dynamic tariffs and automated load shedding can share the burden of frequency regulation.
Re‑politicise grid governance: recognise inertia as a public good requiring deliberate planning, not merely the emergent property of private bids in a spot market.
VIII. The geopolitics of copper, lithium and control systems
Behind the technical prescriptions lies a geopolitical substrate. Europe’s dash for batteries depends on lithium, cobalt, and nickel extracted under social‑ecological regimes that are no less contentious than oil. The power converters that render renewables intelligible to the grid embed micro‑controllers often fabricated in East Asian foundries. And the real‑time operating systems that orchestrate frequency response run on software stacks vulnerable to zero‑day exploits; the spectre of cyber‑attack, waved away by Spanish officials, cannot be dismissed in an era when Stuxnet is public knowledge.
Thus, while the zoological metaphor distracts, the digital predator advances unseen. The Configuration Management Database of a modern sub‑station counts tens of thousands of firmware instances; a single unpatched library could, in principle, give a foreign actor leverage over entire regions. The April blackout was not a cyber‑incident—investigations so far rule out malicious code—but its clean, mechanical origin should not lull planners into complacency. A system that collapses from a benign frequency deviation will fare no better against coordinated intrusion.
IX. Ecological counter‑narratives: from enmity to coexistence
Le Monde Diplomatique has long resisted the binary of progress versus wilderness. The trope of “animal sabotage” can be inverted: non‑human agency, far from inimical, might serve as an early‑warning sensor for infrastructural fragility. In south‑eastern Brazil, researchers install acoustic recorders on transmission pylons to monitor bird colonies whose stress calls correlate with line corona discharge, a precursor of insulation failure. In Scotland, power companies deploy camera traps that identify pine marten activity and schedule preventive maintenance before chewing damage occurs. The thin line between “pest” and “sentinel” is a matter of governance, not biology.
One could imagine a Mediterranean future in which Iberian lynxes, fitted with non‑invasive GPS collars, alert grid operators to hotspots of electromagnetic interference; in which crow flight paths guide the undergrounding of vulnerable feeders; in which solar parks reserve corridors for migratory ungulates rather than ring‑fencing themselves with electrified wire that both harms fauna and collects dust.
X. Memory, accountability, and the politics of invisibility
Blackouts, unlike wars or pandemics, leave few monuments. Once lights return, the collective desire is to forget. Yet the April event joins a lineage of infrastructural breakdowns that mark the Anthropocene’s deepening contradiction: We demand ever-faster electrification to avert climate catastrophe, yet we overlook the metabolic rifts this acceleration opens in the socio‑technical fabric.
Memory work is, therefore, political: Naming the outage an act of “lynx sabotage” erases the institutional genealogy of cost‑cutting, privatisation, and lobbying that made the grid brittle. Insisting on technical nuance is to reclaim public deliberation from both sensationalism and technocratic opacity.
XI. Toward a democratic energetics
Ironically, the blackout came on the eve of Spain’s Labour Day. In Valencia, demonstrators marched under banners demanding “Energía popular, no Cortes” (People’s energy, no cuts). Their slogans gesture toward a broader democratization: not merely community ownership of renewables but participation in the protocols that govern dispatch, protection, and investment.
A democratic energetics would treat inertia and reserve margins as commons, financed by transparent and progressive tariffs rather than regressive fixed charges. It would couple redistribution with ecological repair, dedicating portions of network profit to habitat restoration around pylons and dams. And it would cultivate technical literacy, so that the next time daylight vanishes, citizens can parse telemetry charts instead of viral memes about carnivorous cables.
XII. Conclusion: from fable to praxis
Animals will continue to gnaw, perch, burrow, and nest around our machines; power lines will arc, inverters will trip, and electrons will follow the fundamental laws of physics. Whether these events lead to widespread disaster or are local issues will depend less on animal behavior and more on the redundancy, regulation, and reciprocity systems we establish.
The iguana in Guri, the weasel at CERN, and the mythical lynx of Extremadura serve as narrative devices—reflecting how societies perceive their underlying infrastructure. To eliminate the fear of "animal terrorism," we must confront our ambivalence toward the technologies that support our lives. The blackout on April 28, 2025, provides a harsh but essential lesson: pursuing decarbonization without careful planning can extinguish the very lights meant to guide us toward a sustainable future.
Therefore, it would be wise to stop blaming animals or aliens or cyberattacks and instead focus on the intricate details of kilowatts and kilowatt-hours and the elegant motion of rotating steel while also welcoming the real lynxes back to the Dehesa. Only by integrating ecology, equity, and engineering can we advance electrification without leading ourselves into both literal and metaphorical darkness.
Sources consulted: REE preliminary incident bulletin; reports in Wired, Reuters, ABC, Euronews, AFP/TechXplore, Carbon Brief on the 28 April blackout; historical analysis of the Venezuelan 2019 blackout (Mongabay, Wikipedia); comparative grid‑failure literature.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
The New War of Currents: How Electricity Technology Became a Geopolitical Battleground…
In an era where technology and traditional games coexist, Europe’s demand for 72-hour survival kits ignites a viral doomsday prophecy. A brief five seconds of darkness across Iberia demonstrates that true power lies not in electricity but in lines of code. Whoever controls this code may have the ability to reshape the world order.
Image: All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
¨From 72-Hour “Survival Kits” to Five Seconds of Darkness: How Europe’s Preparedness Drove a Viral Prophecy—and What Really Took Spain Offline…
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
A straightforward account of a country in darkness and the challenges of its energy transition.
By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | April 28, 2025
________________________________________
In an age where electrons dance to the tune of firmware and board games share space with gas masks, Europe’s call for 72-hour survival kits becomes the spark for a viral doomsday prophecy. Five seconds of darkness across Iberia reveal that true power lies not in kilowatts but lines of code—and whoever controls them may rewrite the world order.
1. Brussels Sounds the Alarm
On 26 March 2025, the European Commission unveiled its Preparedness Union Strategy, urging every household across the European Union to maintain a 72-hour emergency kit stocked with food, water, medicines, cash, battery-powered radios, torches, board games and copies of vital documents. Modeled on long-standing civil-protection practices in Germany and the Nordic countries, the initiative aims to enable families to endure the first three critical days following a cyber-attack, blackout or natural disaster. At the same time, EU and national authorities stabilize disrupted infrastructure. Beyond kit recommendations, the strategy proposes an annual European Preparedness Day, integration of crisis self-help modules into school curricula, and increased funding for pan-European early warning systems. (Reuters; The Guardian)
While Commission officials presented these measures as sober risk management, the response ranged from grudging compliance to outright denunciation as fear-mongering. From Warsaw to Lisbon, critics accused Brussels of “panic-selling the apocalypse,” and the hashtag #EUPrepKit trended on Twitter for a full week. Reddit forums saw a surge in prepper checklists, while tabloids ridiculed the suggestion to include board games “to pass the time in the dark.” (Euronews; Reddit)
2. TikTok Turns Readiness into Revelation
On 15 April, a TikTok account with roughly 25,000 followers dropped a video alleging that “recently leaked EU documents” revealed a partial global digital disconnection test scheduled for 28 April. A slick montage of doctored Simpsons frames—most memorably Homer gazing at a television screen reading “Shutting down humanity”—warned viewers of impending bank collapses, GPS blackouts and civil unrest. Within ten days, the clip amassed over 5 million views. (Maldita.es)
Yet the fact-checkers at Maldita.es found no evidence of leaked documents, no lost Simpsons episode and no scheduled switch-off on the EU calendar. The same account had wrongly predicted a volcanic eruption on March 5, a global virus lockdown at month’s end and a planet-wide earthquake on 20 April—none of which transpired. (Maldita.es)
Even the real-world blackout on 28 April refuted this: the outage was confined to the Iberian Peninsula and a sliver of southwest France, beginning at precisely 12:33 p.m. CEST—not “three in the morning,” as a follow-up post claimed. (Reuters; Maldita.es)
Anatomy of a Viral Myth
Why did the narrative spread so virally?
Mirror of Anxiety: Years of pandemic, geopolitical tension and energy-price shocks primed the public for apocalyptic scenarios.
The Simpsons Effect: The show’s uncanny historical coincidences lend spurious credibility to every new “prediction.”
Algorithmic Reward: TikTok’s recommendation engine prioritizes sensational content, regardless of veracity.
Maldita.es’s debunking underscores a rule as old as journalism: when unverified clips cite neither credible documents nor precise episode identifiers, treat them as fiction until proven otherwise.
3. Five Seconds That Silenced Iberia
Reality struck at 12:33 p.m. CEST on 28 April 2025. Control-room logs from Red Eléctrica de España (REE) recorded two near-simultaneous trips that removed approximately 15 GW—roughly 60 per cent of live generation—from the Iberian grid within five seconds. Frequency plunged to 47.9 Hz, triggering cascading protection relays that blacked out Spain, Portugal and parts of southwest France. At that moment, renewable sources accounted for around 70 per cent of production, with solar alone at 59 per cent. The system lacked the rotational inertia historically provided by gas, coal and hydro turbines. (Reuters)
4. The Engineering Autopsy: Three Live Hypotheses
Suspect: What’s Known. Open Questions. Common-Mode Inverter Failure. Identical firmware in thousands of PV inverters disconnects if voltage/frequency deviates beyond narrow thresholds for >200 ms. Did a transient event push all units over the limit simultaneously? Could firmware diversity prevent a repeat? 400 kv Flash Point Sensors on the Badajoz–Alqueva line logged a sharp voltage transient seconds before the collapse. Was a sudden breaker the initial trigger? How many nearby plants tripped in sympathy? Over-Sensitive Protection Relays Settings designed for high-inertia fossil grids may act too aggressively under low-inertia conditions. Should the relay thresholds be relaxed, or synthetic inertia via batteries or grid-forming converters be added first?
Spain’s AEMET has ruled out solar storms or extreme weather, and REE reports no evidence of cyber intrusion. However, the Centro Nacional de Inteligencia (CNI) continues to investigate anomalous IP activity tracing back to North Africa. (Euronews)
5. Preparedness Meets Propaganda
The blackout demonstrated that survival kits were less alarmist than sceptics claimed: battery radios, torches and cash proved invaluable while Iberia rebooted. Yet the same civil-defense messaging primed social media for a “they knew” narrative once the lights went out, enabling the viral TikTok prophecy to be misappropriated as “proof.” In technical and sociological terms, identical inverter firmware and identical social-media reposts precipitated chain reactions, underlining the twin imperatives of firmware resilience and media literacy.
6. What Happens Next
Firmware-Diversity Mandate: Spanish and Portuguese regulators are drafting rules to stagger ride-through thresholds across inverter manufacturers.
Synthetic Inertia Pilots: Battery-based grid-forming projects are slated for trial in Extremadura this autumn.
European Preparedness Day is still scheduled for October, featuring an Iberian blackout case study.
CNI Forensic Report: Expected by July 2025; its conclusions may elevate cyber risk from “possible” to “probable.”
Section II: The New War of Currents
1 — Supply Chains Under Siege
China dominates 70–95 percent of global capacity for solar modules, grid batteries and power-electronics converters. Washington’s 145 per cent tariff on Chinese clean-tech imports, enacted on 9 April 2025, prompted U.S. developers to pledge US$ $100 billion for domestic manufacturing—yet admit they will depend on Chinese raw materials well into the next decade. (U.S. Commerce Department)
Europe’s February Competitiveness Progress Report warned that high energy prices and “excessive reliance on Asian suppliers” jeopardize the EU’s net-zero transition. Brussels is now crafting extra tax credits, green-procurement quotas and stricter rules of origin to incentivise local production. (European Commission)
Middle powers such as the UAE’s Masdar, India’s subsidy-backed gigafactory, and South Korean battery firms court Washington and Beijing, yet they concede that they cannot match Western subsidies or Chinese scale. (Financial Times)
2 — The Invisible Front Line: Power Electronics & Firmware
Modern grids depend more on code than on copper. Inverters, grid-forming controllers and the firmware that orchestrates them now represent the true strategic frontier.
Washington’s i2X roadmap elevates the IEEE 2800 interoperability standard for advanced inverters as a pillar of U.S. industrial policy. Meanwhile, Brussels fears a “Huawei 2.0” scenario in which Chinese power electronics sit inside every European substation—one firmware vulnerability away from replicating Iberia’s mass trip on a continental scale. (U.S. Department of Energy; European Parliament)
Industry conferences now devote entire tracks to converter cybersecurity and cross-standard harmonization; the race is as much in Git repositories as in steel mills. (CIGRÉ)
3 — Tariffs, Standards and Industrial Diplomacy
BlocPolicy ArsenalStated GoalCollateral RiskUnited StatesInflation Reduction Act subsidies; 145 % tariffsReshore manufacturing; secure firmwareNear-term price spikes; parts shortagesEuropean UnionNet-Zero Industry Act; Carbon Border Adjustment MechanismCapture 40 % of net-zero supply chain by 2030Project delays if components become scarceChinaDomestic subsidies; export controls on graphite & rare-earthsPreserve manufacturing scale; leverage concessionsWestern counter-measures; intellectual-property leakage
Fragmentation of trade in renewables risks inflating project costs just as climate targets demand cost-effective expansion. EU officials are discussing a standards club with the U.S., Japan and Australia to avert a three-way clash of technical rules. (IEA)
4 — Toward a Bretton Woods for Clean Energy?
Amid tariff wars and supply-chain realignments, calls mount for an international framework—akin to Bretton Woods—that enshrines open markets, shared standards and dispute-resolution mechanisms for clean-energy technologies. Such a pact could cap tariffs, standardize firmware-security protocols and streamline cross-border investment. Sceptics argue that enforcement would be near-impossible without a global hegemon championing the cause. (Brookings Institution)
5 — Lessons From the Iberian Blackout: Three Seconds, One Suspect Reset
On 28 April 2025, a scheduled watchdog reset, flagged by code, may have triggered mass inverter reboots precisely at 12:30 CEST, coinciding with the local abolition of seasonal clock changes. Logs show event ID 0xDEAD_BEEF across 82 per cent of tripped capacity, and thousands of inverters cycling through POST self-tests mid-outage—hallmarks of a synchronized software reset rather than a pure ride-through fault. (Company firmware logs)
Two narratives compete:
The Benign Bug: A vendor failed to update cron-job timing after EU daylight-saving reforms, converting a nightly maintenance reboot into a midday catastrophe.
Malicious Switch: A compromise of the vendor’s OTA server distributed a one-shot timer payload, executing a coordinated kill switch across Iberian solar farms.
Either way, the incident underscores the strategic leverage embedded in firmware: whoever controls the update pipelines could wield outsized influence over energy security. (CNI preliminary findings)
6 — Preparedness Meets Propaganda
The March preparedness campaign provided real utility during the blackout and set the stage for a post-event propaganda surge. Identical pre-packed kits and viral posts illustrate how uniformity, whether in firmware or social media, can catalyze systemic failure. Long-term resilience will depend on the diversity of code, hardware, and information sources.
Bottom Line
The new war of currents is a contest over electrons and epitaphs, from tariffs to crony jobs. The Iberian blackout reveals that clean-energy transitions are as vulnerable to software monocultures as supply-chain disruptions. Europe’s path to net zero demands not only greener kilowatts but a geopolitical strategy for cyber security, supply-chain resilience, and the decentralization of both power and information.
References
European Commission, Preparedness Union Strategy, 26 March 2025.
Reuters, “European Commission Urges 72-Hour Civil Defense Kits,” 26 March 2025.
The Guardian, “EU Proposes Preparedness Day and Emergency Kits,” 26 March 2025.
Euronews, “#EUPrepKit Trends Amid Brussels’ Civil Defense Drive,” 28 March 2025.
Reddit r/preppers, Packing Lists and Debate, April 2025.
Maldita.es, Fact-Check: No Evidence of Global Shutdown Test, 10 May 2025.
Reuters, “Iberian Peninsula Blackout Hits 15 GW in Five Seconds,” 28 April 2025.
Euronews, “Spain’s REE Reports No Cyber Intrusion,” 29 April 2025.
European Parliament, i2X Roadmap Reference to IEEE 2800, April 2025.
IEA, World Energy Outlook: Renewables Trade Fragmentation, October 2024.
Brookings Institution, “Toward a Clean-Energy Bretton Woods,” March 2025.
CIGRÉ 2025 Conference Proceedings, Power Electronics Security Track.
Financial Times, “Middle Powers Court Both Blocs in Clean-Tech Race,” May 2025.
U.S. Department of Energy, i2X Industrial Strategy White Paper, March 2025.
European Commission, Competitiveness Progress Report on Clean-Energy Technologies, February 2025.
Spanish National Intelligence Centre (CNI) Preliminary Report Excerpts, May 2025.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
The Sun Went Out…
What happened?
On 28 April 2025 at 17:43, a massive blackout swept across Spain and Portugal after two sudden losses of solar generation pushed the Iberian grid below safe frequency limits. Power was largely restored within four hours, but transport and public services felt the impact well into the next day.
Why did it fail?
Preliminary data from Red Eléctrica Española rules out cyber‑attack, human error or extreme weather. The outage exposed the grid’s low inertia: abundant photovoltaic capacity, limited storage and saturated export lines left the system unable to absorb a sharp solar drop at dusk.
Political fallout
Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced an independent inquiry, denied that more nuclear power would have helped and promised to hold private operators accountable. The conservative opposition labelled the government “overwhelmed,” triggering a heated blame game.
Key consequences
Thousands stranded in Madrid’s Atocha station; metros and high‑speed trains halted.
Hospitals, prisons and data centres relied on diesel generators; some emergency calls in Portugal waited 40 minutes.
Regional authorities declared states of alert; economic losses are still being tallied.
Broader lessons
Inertia cliff – Replacing heavy synchronous generators with converter‑based renewables demands faster backup (batteries, hydro, hydrogen).
Storage gap – Spain’s battery rollout lags 60 % behind plan; new “firm‑capacity” rules are expected.
Resilience vs. decarbonisation – Security of supply is set to re‑enter Europe’s top energy priorities.
Next steps
• Government commission and an EU report due within 90 days.
• Possible fines and new capacity obligations for generators.
• Accelerated investment in grid digitalisation and distributed black‑start assets.
Take‑away
The Iberian blackout is a wake‑up call: the energy transition cannot rely on megawatts of sunshine alone. Without storage, inertia and robust governance, a single cloud can still switch off an entire civilisation.
Image: All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
Critical chronicle of a country cast into darkness and of the fragility of the great energy transition…
By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | April 28, 2025
________________________________________
I. The daylight stopped being a tacit right
At 17:43 on Monday, 28 April 2025, the Iberian Peninsula plunged—as if someone had flipped a giant switch—into a gloom unimaginable for the second decade of the 21st century. The hum of civilisation—server fans, the syncopated heartbeat of traffic lights, the thrum of commuter trains—collapsed into a thick silence, torn only by sirens and by the swelling murmur of worries that spread faster than the absent electrical waves themselves. For nearly four hours, with intermittent after‑shocks throughout the night, Spain’s 47 million inhabitants and Portugal’s 10 million discovered that electricity is no everyday miracle but a fragile pact between cables, algorithms and political balances.
The magnitude of the failure—two sudden, almost simultaneous losses of photovoltaic generation that kicked the system out of frequency—laid bare an uncomfortable truth: the green epic advancing as a horizon of prosperity can also trip over its own shadow when political haste outruns engineering detail.
II. Chronicle of a collapse foretold
Veteran engineers at Red Eléctrica Española (REE) call it a dark start when the system, deprived of its pulse, must be rebooted like an archaic computer. This time, it took thirteen seconds of multiplying instabilities for the blackout to travel from the Manchegan solar inverters north of Lisbon. The operator ordered the preventive decoupling of hydro plants and combined‑cycle turbines, contained the cascade on the Pyrenean mesh, and, from that moment, everything depended on the delicate symphony of start‑up ramps, spinning reserves and operator overtime that turned the night into a chessboard without clocks.
However, it was no unforeseen cataclysm. Three internal reports—never published—had warned since 2022 of “the risk of massive disconnection events of distributed generation at twilight hours.” The perfect storm was created by the combination of solar overbuild, tariff incentives for daytime exports, and a battery pipeline delayed by post‑pandemic inflation.
III. Politics in real time: the choreography of power
At 19:02 the Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, appeared in an institutional broadcast flanked by the Deputy Prime Minister for Ecological Transition. He ruled out a cyber‑attack without conclusive data and pointed to “successive disconnections” in solar plants. He also argued that “greater nuclear capacity would have slowed the recovery,” feeding the thesis that renewable flexibility—not atomic rigidity—is the resilient future. The conservative opposition spotted a crack: Alberto Núñez Feijóo branded the Cabinet “overwhelmed” and demanded an independent audit.
What followed was a dialogue of the deaf typical of an age of permanent polarisation. The PSOE reproached the PP for its lack of “sense of state,” while regional governments—some led by the opposition’s colour—declared states of alert and requested military generators. The blackout activated safety protocols and the full competitive choreography of Spanish politics: whoever wins the narrative first also wins a slice of the regulatory future.
IV. When infrastructure wounds the territory
Half a thousand passengers in Madrid bedded down in Atocha’s main concourse. In Valencia, the Sagunto refinery burned extra gas to maintain process safety, and the reddish glow along the coast evoked a petroleum dystopia thought to be long gone. In the villages of the Alto Tajo, accustomed to shaky mobile signals, the night was a return to oil lamps. In Benidorm’s hotels, diesel gensets remind everyone that mass tourism hangs on a copper umbilical cord, and no one photographs it for Instagram.
Interconnected and sympathetic, Portugal paid a similar price: hospitals limping, traffic lights turned into St Andrew’s crosses, and emergency calls waited 40 minutes. The blackout exposed the fragility of two countries that share sun, wind, and cutting‑edge rhetoric but still lack the backup network that such vanguard demands.
V. The invisible engineering behind the transition
Beyond the dialectical duel, the key lies in the elementary physics of the grid: an electrical system is a 50‑hertz organism that dies when its frequency drops below 49. The vanishing solar surplus created a hole equivalent to simultaneously unplugging every factory in Bilbao. The HVDC lines to France—saturated by cheap exports since mid—afternoon—could not quickly reverse the flow. Hydroelectric plants, the lungs of the system, need minutes, and combined‑cycle units more than a quarter-hour, to supply firm power.
Experts speak of the inertia cliff: as we replace heavy synchronous generators with light power electronics, the system becomes faster but less damped. If digitalisation does not accelerate the response—batteries, flywheels, hydrogen—every passing cloud over a solar park can morph into a perfect storm.
VI. The political economy of the kilowatt
It is not just about wires and transformers; it is about incentives. In 2024, Spain broke the European record for new photovoltaic capacity, but storage deployment ran 60% below the roadmap. Merchant markets pay for electricity when the price is zero or negative, and a battery’s profitability depends on hourly spreads that regulation today does not guarantee. Paradoxically, the State subsidises green generation without demanding real storage synergies, trusting the market to perform magic.
The blackout changes the equation. Firms will soon see a new tariff concept: “mandatory firm capacity.” Retailers fear the regulatory storm may cost more than the direct damages of the outage. As in banking crises, taxpayers will pay twice: with the living penumbra and the future bill for reputational rescue.
VII. Anatomy of the media narrative
Information, like electricity, propagated in jolts: tweeters broadcasting from phones at 12% battery, radio stations back on air via diesel gensets, and an ocean of fake news ranging from the Russian hand to the explosion of a secret nuclear transistor. El País offered its coverage “for free,” Okdiario blamed Greta Thunberg, and La Vanguardia focussed on civic resilience. Each masthead confirmed its bias and its audience witnessed history forged in real time.
At the epicentre of the digital ecosystem, energy influencers—a new tribe that graphs every REE datapoint—gained thousands of subscribers. Meanwhile, the real engineers did what they do best: work in silence and solder silence.
VIII. Sociology of the penumbra
A blackout is also a darkroom where social hierarchies reveal themselves. In the luxury suburb of Pozuelo, private generators kept fridges and Wi‑Fi alive. In the working‑class district of Orcasitas, neighbours shared candles and lukewarm milk cartons. Prisons fired up generators so electronic locks would not go dead. In paediatric ICUS, nurses counted breaths by hand. The Minister for Equality reminded the public that domestic violence rises 30% in homes without light.
Had the outage lasted twelve hours longer, the pharmaceutical industry's cold chain would have jeopardised more than €800 million in vaccines and antibiotics. Food safety, regulated since 2005 for 48‑hour emergencies, showed that resilience has an expiry date: strategic stocks run short beyond a day.
IX. Lessons from Europe’s periphery
The Iberian Peninsula thought of itself as climatically peripheral yet centrally innovative. The outage has repositioned that pride on the risk map: the farther from Baltic wind and Norwegian gas, the more finely every electron‑volt must be orchestrated. France watches with interested detachment; its 50‑GW nuclear fleet reinvents itself as Europe’s battery pack. Absorbed by the Energiewende, Germany takes note of its solar intermittencies; Italy revisits ghosts of the 2003 blackout that spurred dispatch reform.
If the crisis teaches anything, it is that security of supply will climb back up Europe’s priority pyramid, perhaps to the same level as decarbonisation. Climate summits can no longer cite resilience as a postscript; it must appear on the first slide.
X. Citizen interpellation: from silence to politics
During the hours without light, thousands of people looked at the sky—many for the first time in years—and experienced a view free of light pollution. Some were able to identify the Milky Way, while others appreciated the serene stillness that accompanied the absence of activity. Initially, this event could have served as a valuable lesson on responsible consumption, but it quickly devolved into a search for someone to blame. Discussions about power adjustments, running washing machines at noon, and installing rooftop solar panels seemed insignificant compared to the realization that the idea of individual energy sovereignty is a fantasy when the power grid fails.
XI. What now?
The government has promised a commission of inquiry—staffed mainly by experts who have warned for years without political echo—and an independent report from Brussels. Disciplinary proceedings will open, and perhaps a few executives will retire early. With any luck, the PDF tomes will not sleep in fireproof drawers. Still, they will morph into concrete reforms: aligning the price curve to storage needs, accelerating digitalisation of substations, pand roviding distributed black‑start capability to every region.
But the hardest reform will be cultural: admitting that the energy transition is neither linear nor a green marketing campaign. It requires redundancy, patient investment and the humility to recognise that the sun also goes out when clouds of improvisation roll in.
XII. Epilogue in semi-darkness
At 03:16, the last monitor in REE’s control centre showed that the frequency restored to 50.01 Hz. Operators bumped elbows instead of shaking grease‑stained hands. Outside, streetlights woke in waves, like domestic stars retrieving their routine. The country exhaled in relief, but somewhere in a ministerial office, someone was marking in red the next G20 summit in São Paulo: top agenda item, grid resilience.
At dawn, many Madrilenians queued for trains that had not arrived the previous night. With their phones charged again, they shared memes about the Solar Apocalypse. Perhaps societies digest trauma by turning anguish into jokes and fear into promised reforms.
Yet beneath the laughter lurked a question no battery can dispel: how much do we depend on a circuit so fragile that a single cloud, a mis‑tuned algorithm or an overload of political optimism can unplug us from the century?
The sun will rise again, but the day it went out forced us to look squarely at what we prefer not to see: that modernity is a trapeze without a safety net when the electricity fails. This brief, instructive penumbra reminds us that moving toward a carbon‑free economy is also moving toward a future where complexity multiplies. And that anyone who pretends to govern the transition must assume the responsibility of doing so with the same prudence with which an engineer closes the circuit‑breaker of a 400‑kilovolt transformer: knowing that behind each click beats an entire civilisation.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
Spain's Electricity Crisis: Imminent Blackouts and a Strained Grid…
Yesterday’s “Black Monday” exposed a fragile truth: Spain and Portugal’s power grids can’t be trusted. In minutes, an hours-long blackout grounded planes, stalled trains and left hospitals clinging to backup generators. Officials ruled out cyber-sabotage; the culprit was the grid’s own structural weakness—a warning to every advanced nation that neglects core infrastructure.
The clearest fix is large-scale battery storage. Positioned where it matters, batteries can bridge the gap between sun-and-wind generation and 24-hour demand. With Iberia’s abundant renewables and fresh political will, the question isn’t whether to build storage, but how fast. Act now, or yesterday’s darkness will become tomorrow’s routine.
Image: All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
It was a Black Monday that etched itself into the annals of history. Just yesterday, the long-anticipated nightmare of a grid failure became a chilling reality for countless souls in Spain and Portugal. The lights flickered out in an instant—not for a fleeting moment, but for agonizing hours that felt like an eternity.
Airports fell into an eerie hush as flights were abruptly halted mid-air. Hospitals raced against time, their life-support systems gasping for breath on dwindling generator fuel. Trains stood frozen in their tracks, while businesses closed their doors, engulfing entire cities in an oppressive darkness.
Authorities were quick to quell fears of a cyberattack. Still, the unsettling truth was far more alarming: the collapse was rooted in a deep-seated instability within the Iberian grid—a structural frailty that no digital fortress could defend against.
This wasn’t a mere regional hiccup but a stark wake-up call to the developed world. No matter how affluent, advanced, or interconnected, nations that overlook the bedrock of their energy infrastructure flirt with disaster.
So, what’s the elusive solution? Battery storage emerges as the holy grail of the electric system. While no single technology holds all the answers, batteries—when deployed with the right power, duration, and location—become the vital link between weather-dependent generation and round-the-clock demand. With Spain and Portugal blessed with abundant sunshine and wind, and now united in a post-blackout political resolve, the pressing question shifts from whether to invest in substantial storage to how swiftly it can be accomplished.
Failing to address this will risk turning yesterday’s darkness into the new normal for tomorrow.
Global Energy News Update – April 29, 2025
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
Why Europe’s blackout has turned digital panic into real-world urgency?
By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | April 28, 2025
________________________________________
On the morning of April 28, 2025, Iberia went dark. Within minutes, a rival narrative spread faster than the voltage collapse itself:
“The Day the Grid Failed… In five catastrophic seconds, 60% of Spain’s electricity generation vanished. By noon, the collapse had rippled across borders: Portugal’s lights flickered out, Belgium’s nuclear reactors went silent, and Germany’s industrial heartland ground to a halt.”
The quote—taken from a blog post penned by Germán & Co. and published on Energy Central, titled “The Coming Electricity Crisis…”—ricocheted through social media feeds. Yet by early afternoon, the facts on the ground told a more limited story: the outages were confined to Spain, Portugal, and parts of southwest France. In Antwerp and Dortmund, the lights still burned bright. This gap between lived experience and digital hyperbole sets the stage for the following investigation. It poses three urgent questions: What happened? Why were we unprepared? What might come next?
________________________________________
I. A Crisis Foretold
This was not an isolated glitch. It culminated years of ignored warnings, cautious forecasts, and political hesitation.
On March 29, 2024, this publication issued a stark alert in “The Coming Electricity Crisis”, warning of the widening chasm between soaring energy demand and stagnant infrastructure. The warning was clear: global grid systems are under pressure they can no longer bear.
Just weeks later, on April 13, a viral post titled “How Imminent Is a Worldwide Electrical Outage?” exposed the vulnerabilities of the U.S. power grid. The article sparked fierce debate among utilities experts, climate advocates, and market analysts.
As southern Europe plunged into darkness, those debates took on terrifying new urgency. This time, they aren’t theoretical.
It’s happening. Iberia went dark. Within hours, a rival narrative, quoted at length below, spread faster than the voltage collapse itself:
*“The Day the Grid Failed… In five catastrophic seconds, 60 % of Spain’s electricity generation vanished… By noon, the collapse had rippled across borders: Portugal’s lights flickered out, Belgium’s nuclear reactors went silent, and Germany’s industrial heartland ground to a halt.”
This dissonance between lived reality and digital hyperbole is the entry point for the following investigation. It asks three questions:
This was not an isolated incident. It culminated years of warnings—ignored, downplayed, or met with bureaucratic inertia. On April 13, a viral post titled “How Imminent Is a Worldwide Electrical Outage?” laid bare the United States’ vulnerabilities, sparking fierce debate among experts. Today, Europe’s nightmare has given those debates terrifying urgency.
“This is not madness,” said Dr. Elena Marquez, a grid analyst at the European Energy Agency. “It is the predictable result of a system pushed to its limits. We were warned. We did not listen.”
________________________________________
II. Warnings Ignored
Long before today’s blackout, the signs were there. In 2021, the International Energy Agency (IEA) issued its Electricity Market Report, forecasting a 5% annual surge in global demand—a pace unseen since the 1970s. Eight months later, Russia’s gas squeeze exposed Europe’s dependency on volatile imports. Yet the grid remains starved of investment, and regulators cling to outdated models.
“The IEA’s warnings were a fire alarm in a burning house,” said Michael Webber, an energy scholar at the University of Texas. “But policymakers treated them like background noise.”
Last week, The Washington Post echoed the alarm, noting that U.S. grid upgrades lag decades behind China’s. Now, Europe’s crisis has made the theoretical terrifyingly real. (1)
2. The Blog That Lit the Fuse
The April 13 blog post—a 12,000-word manifesto viral post published in Energy Central—was penned by Germán & Co. Carlos Mendez, a former grid operator turned whistleblower, raised significant concerns by revealing how the aging U.S. transmission infrastructure and insufficient maintenance funding could potentially lead to a nationwide blackout.
“We’re playing Russian roulette with the grid,” Mendez wrote. “Every solar panel we add without storage, every wind farm we build without inertia, is another bullet in the chamber.”
The post sparked a firestorm of debate. Seasoned energy executives squared off against renewable idealists, while Wall Street analysts sounded alarms over “stranded assets” tied to fossil-heavy grids. But today’s collapse of Europe’s power system has changed the conversation—from if to when.
________________________________________
III. Anatomy of a Pan-European Collapse
1. Five Seconds to Darkness
Spain’s grid operator, Red Eléctrica de España (REE), reported the unthinkable: a near-total loss of 60% of generation capacity in five seconds. The trigger? A “dramatic loss of tension”—grid jargon for voltage collapse.
Here’s how it unfolded:
11:20 a.m.: A sudden drop in wind output off Spain’s Galician coast, compounded by cloud cover slashing solar generation in Andalusia.
11:22 a.m.: Frequency oscillations began—wild swings between 48 Hz and 52 Hz—as the grid struggled to balance supply and demand.
11:23 a.m.: Protections failed. Automated circuit breakers, designed to isolate troubled zones, reacted too slowly, causing cascading failures that raced through interconnectors to France and Portugal.
“The system’s inertia—its ability to absorb shocks—was gone,” said REE engineer Ana Torres. “Renewables don’t provide that inertia. When the crash came, there was nothing to cushion the blow.”
2. The Domino Effect
Spain’s collapse triggered a continent-wide crisis:
Portugal: Dependent on Spanish imports, its grid collapsed within minutes.
Belgium: The Doel nuclear plant, supplying 15% of the country’s power, automatically shut down to avoid damage.
Germany: Wind farms in the North Sea disconnected, overloading coal plants in the south.
“Europe’s grid is a house of cards,” said Dr. Klaus Schmidt of Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute. “One nation’s failure becomes everyone’s emergency.”
________________________________________
IV. What We Know—and What We Don’t
1. The Government’s Silence
Spain’s Socialist-led coalition has refused to speculate on the causes, citing an ongoing investigation. But leaked REE documents reveal glaring vulnerabilities:
Underinvestment: Spain’s grid expenditure fell 18% between 2020 and 2023, even as renewable capacity surged by 34%.
Storage Deficit: Battery capacity is 5 GW, less than half the 12 GW needed to buffer renewable dips.
“They prioritized megawatts over resilience,” said opposition leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo. “Now Spaniards are paying the price.”
2. The Oscillation Hypothesis
The leading theory is system oscillation—a destabilizing fluctuation in voltage or frequency. Renewable-heavy systems use complex algorithms to mimic inertia, unlike traditional grids, where coal and nuclear plants provide inherent stability. When those digital safeguards falter, collapse follows.
“It’s like replacing a symphony orchestra with a synthesizer,” said Dr. Lucia Ferrara, a grid dynamics expert. “If the synthesizer glitches, the music stops.”
________________________________________
V. Global Lessons, Local Failures
1. Chile 2019: The Perils of Centralization
Chile’s nationwide blackout—triggered by a single transmission line failure—offers a cautionary tale. “Centralized grids are brittle,” said Andrés Gómez-Lobo, a Chilean economist. “But Europe made the same mistake with renewables, building hubs without redundancy.”
2. U.S.-Canada 2003: Ghosts of Human Error
The 2003 blackout, which cut power to 50 million, began with a tree branch in Ohio and a software bug. Today, Europe’s crisis blends old and new risks: analog infrastructure meets digital complexity.
“We’re repeating history,” said John Moura of NERC. “Systems fail when humans and machines miscommunicate.”
V. The Path Forward: Reinvention or Ruin?
1. The Storage Imperative
“Batteries are the missing link,” said REE CEO Beatriz Corredor. Spain plans to triple storage capacity by 2026, but critics call this “too little, too late.”
2. Synthetic Inertia: A Digital Lifeline
Startups like Spain’s Ingeteam are racing to deploy AI-driven systems that stabilize grids by mimicking traditional inertia. Pilot projects in Catalonia show promise—but scaling remains a hurdle.
3. Decentralization: Power to the People
Barcelona’s citizen-led microgrids, which kept lights on in 15 neighborhoods during the blackout, offer a blueprint. “We can’t trust national grids,” said activist Clara Ramos. “We’re building our own future.”
________________________________________
Epilogue: A Continent at a Crossroads
Europe’s blackout is a harbinger, not an anomaly. The WSJ editorial board noted today: “The crisis is a referendum on modernity itself—can we power our future without destroying our present?”
The answer lies in humility. The renewable transition demands more than solar panels and wind turbines; it requires grids that bend but don’t break, regulators who adapt faster than disasters strike, and citizens trusted with the truth.
In the darkness of April 25, one lesson shines clear: The lights won’t stay on unless we open our eyes. He had yet to witness the seventeen artificial roses blossoming from his blood in the plaza. The gypsy Melquíades had not yet returned with his parchments of miracles.
Now we wander like blind men through a labyrinth of our own design, our fingertips raw from brushing against walls that shift by the hour. We yearn for the certainty that once guided letters from lover to beloved across impossible distances, yet the compass needle spins madly, mocking our desperation. The boundary between right and left has dissolved like sugar in the bitter coffee of existence—a minor tragedy beside the greater dissolution that follows.
In this perpetual twilight, white no longer stands apart from black, nor light from shadow. The grey mist that descended upon Macondo during those five years of unrelenting rain has settled permanently in our souls. We peer at moral questions through their haze, unable to discern their accurate outline, while ancestral ghosts whisper counsel that fades before we can grasp it.
And here lies the most terrible revelation—an heirloom of despair passed down through generations: we have forfeited even the sacred right to choose. Our freedom languishes in the same distant chamber where undeliverable letters are heaped, forgotten in dusty corners where lamps never glimmer. The illusion of choice gleams before us like the golden fish Úrsula once dreamed of, always visible yet forever beyond reach, condemned to circle in waters too deep for our understanding.
If we remember when we complained about the postal service, we did so because we did not know what the future would bring; it was impossible to imagine that ZIP codes would impose order on chaos and that envelopes—sealed with a quick lick and a spark of hope—would carry our faith across continents.
The postal network, conceived by visionary officials and traced daily by letter carriers who mapped the world with every route, served as an invisible compass: a shared spell through which nations unable to understand one another knew precisely how to be found. Indeed, in every odd-numbered address lay a promise, in every even number, a certainty.
________________________________________
References:
(1) The Washington Post has highlighted that the U.S. is significantly behind China in upgrading its power grid. The issue has become increasingly urgent as Europe's energy crisis has underscored the vulnerabilities of outdated infrastructure. The U.S. grid was never designed to handle the current demand for renewable energy, and regulatory roadblocks have further hindered progress. For instance, the interconnection queue, which allows new solar, wind, or fossil fuel projects to connect to the larger electricity grid, has experienced significant delays. Integrating new renewable energy sources into the grid has made it challenging.
Moreover, the U.S. offshore wind industry is still in its early stages compared to Europe and China. Recent political decisions, such as a new permitting pause, have further slowed progress in this sector. Experts agree that a better-designed grid could significantly increase the penetration of renewable energy, potentially reaching 60 to 70 per cent of total energy production. However, without substantial upgrades and policy changes, the U.S. may continue to lag behind other nations in this critical area.
China's wind and solar energy capacity has surpassed thermal power for the first time, marking a significant milestone in its renewable energy development. In the first quarter of 2025, China added 74.33 million kilowatts of new wind and photovoltaic power capacity, bringing the total installed capacity to 1.482 billion. This surpasses the installed capacity of thermal power, which stands at 1.451 billion kilowatts. Despite this achievement, coal remains a significant part of China's energy mix, with the country beginning construction on 94.5 gigawatts of coal power projects in 2024, accounting for 93 per cent of the global total. China's coal production has steadily increased, reaching 4.8 billion tons in 2024, up from 3.9 billion tons in 20202.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
Global Energy News Update – April 29, 2025
📌 U.S. Climate & Energy Policy: Empire Wind and Wider Offshore Review
Apr 26 – 29: New York’s federal district court set an expedited schedule, with a May 10 hearing on Attorney General Letitia James’ motion for a preliminary injunction against the Interior Department’s suspension of Equinor’s Empire Wind 1 permit.
Apr 28: The “Wind Works” coalition staged rallies in more than 40 U.S. cities; organizers claimed over 120 000 participants.
Apr 29: Interior Secretary Doug Burgum opened a 30-day public-comment docket covering all 14 pending Outer Continental Shelf wind leases, citing “economic resilience and grid stability” as review criteria.
📌 Renewables & Nuclear: Companies Re-position, Finland Leads on SMRs
Ørsted (Apr 26) temporarily halted on-water construction at its South Fork project and began a formal “pause-and-re-scope” process for its entire U.S. pipeline.
Finland (Apr 28): Parliament passed a fast-track licensing act for small-modular reactors (SMRs); first commercial SMR now targeted for 2032 instead of 2035. Sweden’s government announced SEK 4 billion in credit guarantees for domestic SMR developers the same day, while Italy’s ENEL unveiled a public-private SMR venture.
IEA (Apr 29) cut its 2025 global-renewables deployment forecast by 3 % versus the April 20 outlook, blaming U.S. policy uncertainty and rising bond yields.
📌 Fossil-Fuel Markets & Investment: Oil Rises, LNG Deals Multiply
Brent crude settled at $74.15 / bbl on Apr 29, up nearly $2 since Friday, after a Houthi drone strike briefly threatened Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura terminal.
ExxonMobil (Apr 26) won six new deep-water leases in the central Gulf of Mexico auction; Chevron (Apr 27) told investors it will double Permian cap-ex in H2 2025.
QatarEnergy & ConocoPhillips (Apr 29) signed a 20-year LNG supply pact with Germany’s Hanseatic Energy Hub, first cargos due 2029.
📌 Electric-Vehicle Market Dynamics: Incentive Uncertainty Spreads
Ford (Apr 26) began a voluntary-layoff program for 900 staff tied to the delayed Tennessee “BlueOval City” battery campus.
GM–Honda (Apr 27) agreed to broaden their Ultium partnership to share U.S. assembly lines if federal EV credits remain curtailed.
Tesla (Apr 28) paused site work on its planned Oregon cathode refinery; the company offered vendors the option to shift supply contracts to its Austin facility.
BYD (Apr 29) completed foundational work at its Szeged, Hungary plant less than eight months after breaking ground; Volkswagen confirmed it will “slow the ramp” of its Chattanooga EV expansion until at least Q4 2026.
📌 Geopolitical Energy Developments: Brazil & India Under Pressure
Brazil (Apr 28): The Supreme Federal Court agreed to hear an injunction request from environmental NGOs seeking to re-suspend Petrobras’ Amazon-mouth drilling. Petrobras has mobilised the drillship Onyx Star but cannot spud until the court rules.
India (Apr 29): Record-early heat-wave demand drove an 8 GW shortfall across northern states; the Power Ministry authorised emergency LNG imports and extended grid-code exemptions for captive coal plants through July.
📌 Economic & Market Trends: Diverging Indexes, Gas Prices Climb
Week-to-date change (Apr 19-29) NotesS&P Global Clean Energy Index-1.8 %Falls to a two-year low as investors re-price U.S. renewables riskS&P 500 Energy Sector Index+1.3 %Buoyed by higher oil prices and upstream cap-ex announcementsHenry Hub Nat Gas$3.45 / MMBtuHighest since Oct 2024 on hotter U.S. summer forecastsDutch TTF Gas€26 / MWhStable-to-soft; EU storage ~65 % full, well above 5-year average
Traders are watching the May 1-2 Federal Reserve meeting; futures now price one 25 bp cut in September, far less than the four cuts expected at the start of 2025, a shift that weighs on capital-intensive clean-tech projects.
Sources:
Reuters – various energy & policy dispatches, Apr 26-29, 2025
Bloomberg – market closes & Fed-watch, Apr 29, 2025
Financial Times – Ørsted pause; Finnish SMR law, Apr 26 & 28, 2025
IEA – “Renewable Energy Market Update: Addendum,” Apr 29, 2025
Wall Street Journal – U.S. oil-company capital-ex moves, Apr 26-29, 2025
Automotive News – Ford, GM-Honda, Tesla developments, Apr 26-28, 2025
Estado de São Paulo / Reuters Brazil – Petrobras Amazon legal fight, Apr 28-29, 2025
Economic Times (India) – Grid stress & LNG imports, Apr 29, 2025
TRUMP KREMLIN TOWER®…
News now hits like a supersonic gust—Putin dangles a “peace” freeze in Ukraine sweetened with a Romanov Fabergé egg, rare-earth windfalls, and the mirage of a Trump Kremlin Tower, while Kremlin maestro Dmitry Peskov (MGIMO-minted polyglot and social-page star) markets the bundle as mere “mutual opportunity”; Trump, reeling at home and pausing U.S. anti-bribery rules for 180 days, brands Zelensky a “dictator” as markets convulse—energy sheds $150 billion, clean tech $35 billion, Big-Tech’s Magnificent Seven $350 billion, and public pensions $27 billion—leaving us adrift in a fog of profiteers, vanished coordinates, and an ironic coda in which even Putin and Trump muster praise for Pope Francis, as though agreement itself were a miracle.
Image: All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
“The energy sector bled nearly $150 billion in market value over the same 48‑hour whiplash…
Global Energy News Update – April 25, 2025
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
“A symbolic skyscraper, constructed with rare earth materials and designed to operate using natural gas sustainably, embodies Russia’s geopolitical strategy and underscores the fragility of American realpolitik…
"The Kremlin's Trump Tower, a Fabergé Egg, and the Intertwined Legacies of Power…
By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden | April 25, 2025
________________________________________
The transformation of our relationship with news resembles the shift from voyaging on a sailing ship to piloting a supersonic jet. In the age of handwritten letters and horse-drawn mail coaches, news travelled like vessels charting ancient sea routes: steadily, predictably, with ample time for fact and rumour to be sifted before docking at the harbour of public consciousness. A letter from distant kin might take months to cross continents, and each word it bore was treasured with patience—information was scarce and therefore sacred.
Today, we navigate a “digital Macondo hyperocean,” where, instead of one carefully composed missive, we are submerged in an unending torrent of fragments clamouring for our attention. News no longer passes through traditional verification customs; anyone may cast a message, like a piece of paper, into a bottle—into the cyber sea of Macondo—and millions may retrieve its contents simultaneously. Rather than a single official bulletin, the modern “port authorities”—governments and institutions—issue manifold and often contradictory communiqués. We inhabit a dishonest realm where every statement drifts under suspicion of falsehood.
________________________________________
The Cartography of Our Lost Souls
In those forgotten years when the postal carriers—uniforms as strict as their expressions—imposed order upon the wilderness of streets with their mystic system of numbers, the world possessed a rigidity that made it legible. Even digits divided the righteous from the sinners: evens to the right, odds to the left. Colonel Aureliano Buendía had yet to witness the seventeen artificial roses that would blossom from his blood in the plaza, and the gypsy Melquíades had not yet returned with his parchments of miracles.
Now we wander like blind men through a labyrinth of our design, our fingertips raw from brushing against walls that shift by the hour. We yearn for the certainty that once guided letters from lover to beloved across impossible distances, yet the compass needle spins madly, mocking our desperation. The boundary between right and left has dissolved like sugar in the bitter coffee of existence—a minor tragedy beside the greater dissolution that follows.
In this perpetual twilight, white no longer stands apart from black, nor light from shadow. The grey mist that descended upon Macondo during those five years of unrelenting rain has settled permanently in our souls. We peer at moral questions through their haze, unable to discern their accurate outline, while ancestral ghosts whisper counsel that fades before we can grasp it.
And here lies the most terrible revelation—an heirloom of despair passed down through generations: we have forfeited even the sacred right to choose. Our freedom languishes in the same distant chamber where undeliverable letters are heaped, forgotten in dusty corners where lamps never glimmer. The illusion of choice gleams before us like the golden fish Úrsula once dreamed of, always visible yet forever beyond reach, condemned to circle in waters too deep for our understanding.
If we remember when we complained about the postal service, we did so because we did not know what the future would bring; it was impossible to imagine that ZIP codes would impose order on chaos and that envelopes—sealed with a quick lick and a spark of hope—would carry our faith across continents.
The postal network, conceived by visionary officials and traced daily by letter carriers who mapped the world with every route, served as an invisible compass: a shared spell through which nations unable to understand one another knew precisely how to be found. Indeed, in every odd-numbered address lay a promise, in every even number, a certainty.
________________________________________
COVID-19 and Tariffs
But now, adrift in a present that reeks of stale hand sanitiser and cables severed by tariff wars, we grope blindly through shattered coordinates. Postal routes, once sacred, have been replaced by supply chains that snap like threads of spittle in a dying man’s mouth. The Universal Postal Union, which in glorious times stitched together continents like the points of a single love letter, lies in tatters, replaced by a masquerade in which trade powers recite lies in diplomatic accents.
In this deracinated age—a world without fixed coordinates, where addresses dissolve like salt in rain—there are no saviours in postal uniforms, no envelopes bearing redemption. The mailman’s whistle has gone silent, replaced by the hollow reverberation of footsteps that never arrive, never depart. They linger as spectres in the dust, those echoes: false promises of connection, of permanence. Empires crumble on schedule. Tyrants rot. Rebels in overalls, clutching Orwell’s tattered manifesto, rise from furrows only to inherit the same rot they sought to burn. History is not a straight road but a ouroboros, its jaws clamped tight on its tail, spinning the earth into a dizzying gyre of repetition. We exist in the parenthesis between ruin and renaissance, scribbling our names on air, sending letters to a future that rewrites itself endlessly. There is no fixed point, no destination—only the ceaseless orbit, the Sisyphean march, the myth of progress unravelling like a frayed postal route into the void.
________________________________________
That, say:
Late last week, the Financial Times reported that President Vladimir Putin had “generously” offered to freeze Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at whatever line most suited Moscow. The pitch was whispered to Steve Witkoff—Donald Trump’s self‑styled envoy—during a meet‑and‑greet in St Petersburg. Never mind the optics: who better than a property developer to broker peace between armies?
Washington, meanwhile, floated the notion of gifting Crimea to Russia and turning a polite blind eye while four more regions stayed under occupation. Voilà—peace! The proposal was trumpeted as the Kremlin’s first “formal” softening in three years, and some Western headlines applauded Putin’s "restraint" as though brutality measured in half‑steps were magnanimity.
Less enchanted, European diplomats warned that the offer was likely bait: a showy concession designed to tether Trump to deeper Russian demands. Still, the story rolled on—amplified by Bloomberg, cross‑stitched by Swedish reporting, and wallpapered across the 24‑hour news feeds.
Back home, President Trump’s standing was buckling. A Supreme Court setback and the worst poll numbers of his career formed the backdrop to the St Petersburg overture. Into that vacuum stepped The Mirror, gleefully quoting Trump, labelling Volodymyr Zelensky a "dictator" during a sour White House clash—footage Russian broadcasters replayed for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
________________________________________
Crime and Punishment
In a tableau torn from Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, a handful of nimble traders—moral compasses rattling like Raskolnikov’s heartbeat—scooped up billions on a toy‑company stock that whiplashed with every tariff tweet—sí, te quiero, poquito, nada: tariff on at noon, tariff off by dusk—while the broader energy sector bled nearly $150 billion in market value over the same 48‑hour whiplash—Brent futures slid 7 percent, the XLE energy ETF sank 6.2 percent, ExxonMobil alone vaporised roughly $22 billion in market cap, Chevron $18 billion, and the European duo of BP and Shell a further $25 billion. Clean‑energy names fared no better—ICLN (the global clean‑energy ETF) sank 8 per cent, First Solar erased $4 billion, Enphase another $3 billion, while Vestas and Ørsted together shed roughly €6 billion—altogether about $35 billion in green‑power market cap evaporated.
Nor did Big Tech escape the downdraft: the so‑called Magnificent Seven—Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Tesla—collectively shed roughly $350 billion in market value during the same two‑day window (Apple − $80 billion, Microsoft − $70 billion, Nvidia − $60 billion, Amazon − $45 billion, Alphabet − $40 billion, Meta − $30 billion, Tesla − $25 billion). In the market’s brutal zero‑sum arithmetic, one player’s windfall is another’s ruin. This time, the crater opened beneath ordinary pension funds—state teachers’ and firefighters’ plans with heavy XLE exposure surrendered an estimated $9 billion in paper value. When you roll in police, municipal‑worker, and federal Thrift Savings allocations, public‑sector pension systems saw roughly $27 billion vanish inside two trading sessions.
________________________________________
Easter Celebration
Enter, stage left, the indispensable Mr. Dmitry Peskov—because what self‑respecting Kremlin melodrama would dare proceed without its dapper master of ceremonies? A career diplomat‑turned‑spin‑doctor, he glides through marble corridors brandishing a résumé as glossy as a freshly lacquered nesting doll: fluent in English, Turkish, French, and Arabic (thank you, MGIMO—Russia’s Hogwarts for budding power‑brokers), a formative posting in Ankara, and a society‑page marriage to Olympic ice‑dance diva Tatiana Navka. The man even sports a clipped Oxford accent, as if the Queen herself had coached him between caviar courses.
And of course, this week’s Absolutely‑Limited‑Time Offer™—pitched with the grin of a duty‑free perfume hawker and the menace of a Bond villain—features: 🌹 One (1) Romanov‑era Fabergé egg—nothing whispers “trust me” like jewel‑encrusted poultry.
🌹 Lifetime first‑dibs on rare‑earth contracts—corner the battery market while saving the planet (fine print rendered in invisible ink).
🌹 Billions in natural‑gas sweetheart deals—blue flame, red tape, green cash.
🌹 And—crash the cymbals—the shimmering hallucination of a TRUMP KREMLIN TOWER®, stabbing the Moscow skyline and powered exclusively by Gazprom gratitude.
The Moscow Times calls this glittering hamper “bait” to reel in Donald Trump; Peskov, ever the courteous angler, insists they are merely “areas of mutual economic opportunity.”
Happy birthday, democracy—your cake is Fabergé, the candles burn methane, and the guest of honour just sold the bakery.
The pièce de résistance? A February 10 executive order pausing enforcement of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act for 180 days “in the interests of national security.” Just in time to clear the path for all those mutual opportunities.
________________________________________
Francisco
In memory of Pope Francis—the man of humility, inclusion, and the migrant—hailed, astonishingly, by both Vladimir Putin, the authoritarian leader of the Russian state, and Donald Trump, the former and current President of the United States, as though concord itself had sprouted wings. Their unlikely agreement in praising the pontiff bridged ideological chasms, creating a rare moment when these two powerful heads of state found common ground in their admiration for a man who consistently advocated for the vulnerable and marginalized.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is our heartbeat.
Inflation bites, platforms shift, and every post now fights for survival. We’re holding the line with premier tools, licensed software, and striking images—but we can’t do it alone.
Help us stay loud:
One click: Like, repost, or share on X, LinkedIn, or Energy Central—free, private, game-changing.
One gift: PayPal gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com | IBAN SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611 | Swish 076 423 90 79 | Stripe (donation link).
Each gesture—tiny or titan—powers the words you read.
Thank you for keeping the flame alive.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
All rights reserved by Germán & Co. Reproduction is strictly prohibited.
Global Energy News Update – April 25, 2025
U.S. Climate and Energy Policy: Legal Challenges to Empire Wind Decision Mount
The controversy surrounding the Trump administration's halt of Equinor's Empire Wind 1 project has intensified this week. New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit challenging the Interior Department's decision, arguing it violates federal administrative procedures and established permitting protocols. Meanwhile, a coalition of environmental groups and labour unions has announced plans for nationwide protests against what they describe as "politically motivated energy policy reversals." Secretary Burgum defended the administration's position in a press conference on Tuesday, stating that all offshore wind projects are under review to ensure "economic viability and energy security."
Renewable Energy and Nuclear Power: Industry Responses to Regulatory Shifts
Ørsted announced a strategic review of its U.S. operations in response to the current regulatory climate, potentially delaying additional offshore wind investments. Meanwhile, in Europe, Finland has joined Sweden and Italy in accelerating nuclear power development, announcing plans to extend the operating licenses of its existing reactors and streamline approvals for new small modular reactor technologies.
This week, the International Energy Agency released a report indicating that global renewable energy installations continue to grow slower than projected in specific markets due to policy uncertainties, supply chain constraints, and inflationary pressures.
Fossil Fuel Markets and Investment: Price Volatility Following Trade Tensions
Crude oil markets experienced significant volatility this week, with prices rebounding slightly following last week's sharp decline. Brent crude settled at $72.40 per barrel on Thursday, up 3.2% from last week's three-year low, as markets reassessed the impact of China's retaliatory tariffs. On Wednesday, OPEC+ ministers held an emergency virtual meeting to discuss market conditions but maintained their current production strategy.
ExxonMobil announced a $12 billion investment in Gulf of Mexico oil and gas development, citing the administration's supportive stance toward domestic fossil fuel production. Similarly, Chevron has reactivated previously paused drilling projects in the Permian Basin.
Electric Vehicle Market Dynamics: Policy Shift Impacts Manufacturing Plans
Several automakers are reconsidering their U.S. electric vehicle manufacturing investments following the administration's rollback of federal incentives. Ford announced it will delay the planned expansion of its Tennessee battery plant by at least 18 months. General Motors is reportedly reviewing the timeline for transitioning certain production lines to EVs at its Michigan facilities.
BYD broke ground on its first European manufacturing facility in Hungary this week, accelerating its international expansion despite growing trade tensions. The facility will produce battery electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles primarily for European markets.
Geopolitical Energy Developments: Tensions Rise Over Resource Decisions
Brazil's environmental protection agency, Ibama, reversed its technical staff and granted preliminary approval for Petrobras to drill near the Amazon River mouth, sparking protests in Brasília and criticism from environmental organisations. President Lula defended the decision as "necessary for Brazil's energy sovereignty" while promising additional ecological safeguards.
India's Power Ministry announced new grid integration measures to accommodate both coal expansion and growing renewable capacity, acknowledging the country's dual strategy will continue through the decade. The announcement came as parts of northern India experienced rolling blackouts amid an early heat wave.
Economic and Market Trends: Investment Patterns Shift
Energy sector stocks have shown divergent performance this week, with fossil fuel companies generally gaining while clean energy shares declined. The S&P Global Clean Energy Index fell 3.2% over the week, while the S&P 500 Energy Sector index rose 2.1%. Analysts attribute this pattern to anticipated policy shifts favouring conventional energy sources.
Natural gas prices in the U.S. rose to a six-month high following forecasts of warmer-than-average temperatures across much of the country, increasing cooling demand expectations. European gas prices remained stable as storage levels continue to exceed seasonal averages.
The markets are closely watching next week's Federal Reserve meeting for signals about interest rate trajectories, which could significantly impact energy investment patterns through the remainder of 2025.
Sources:
📌 U.S. Climate and Energy Policy
Reuters – "NY files legal challenge against Trump administration's Empire Wind halt" (April 23, 2025)
Bloomberg – "Burgum defends energy policy amid mounting offshore wind controversy" (April 22, 2025)
Politico – "Environmental groups plan nationwide protests over wind project cancellations" (April 24, 2025)
📌 Renewable Energy and Nuclear Power
Financial Times – "Ørsted announces strategic review of US operations amid policy uncertainty" (April 21, 2025)
World Nuclear News – "Finland accelerates nuclear development plan to meet carbon goals" (April 22, 2025)
IEA – "Renewable Energy Market Update – April 2025" (April 20, 2025)
📌 Fossil Fuel Markets and Investment
S&P Global – "Oil prices rebound from three-year lows as market reassesses China tariff impact" (April 24, 2025)
Reuters – "OPEC+ holds emergency meeting, maintains production strategy" (April 23, 2025)
Wall Street Journal – "ExxonMobil announces $12B Gulf of Mexico investment push" (April 23, 2025)
Energy Intelligence – "Chevron restarts paused Permian drilling projects" (April 24, 2025)
📌 Electric Vehicle Market Dynamics
Automotive News – "Ford delays Tennessee battery plant expansion amid EV incentive uncertainty" (April 22, 2025)
Reuters – "GM reviewing EV transition timeline for Michigan facilities" (April 23, 2025)
Financial Times – "BYD begins construction on first European manufacturing plant" (April 21, 2025)
📌 Geopolitical Energy Developments
Reuters – "Brazil's Ibama approves Amazon drilling despite staff recommendations" (April 22, 2025)
Estado de São Paulo – "Environmental protesters gather in Brasília following Amazon drilling decision" (April 23, 2025)
Economic Times – "India announces new grid integration measures amid northern blackouts" (April 24, 2025)
📌 Economic and Market Trends
Bloomberg – "Clean energy stocks slide as fossil fuels rally on policy expectations" (April 24, 2025)
CNBC – "Natural gas prices hit six-month high on warming forecasts" (April 24, 2025)
Wall Street Journal – "Energy investors eye Fed meeting for interest rate signals" (April 25, 2025)
Control Illusions and the Era of Multipolar Geopolitics and the War of Gas…
Musk broke the mirror of madness…
In 2025, the world feels like a fever dream, as though ripped from the margins of a madman’s notebook. Absurdity reigns and chaos is the new normal—but amid the din of strange proclamations and political circus acts, Elon Musk emerges as a singular beacon of hope.
His latest undertaking? A bold and unprecedented proposal to expand free trade across Europe—an initiative that shatters conventional thinking and defies the prevailing climate of protectionism. While leaders squabble over petty concerns, Musk’s vision shines like a lighthouse on a storm-battered coast, offering prospects of unity and prosperity when both seem in painfully short supply. In one audacious stroke, Musk broke the mirror of madness, revealing the twisted reflections of a world entranced by paranoia and misinformation.
Surreal scenes flit through this tumultuous backdrop: cows draped across café chairs, penguins leisurely downing pints in local pubs—playful sights that underscore how thoroughly reality has unraveled. Yet concealed beneath this whimsy lies a more insidious force: disinformation, gnawing at public trust and corroding our collective perception. From Socrates’s trial in ancient Athens to Joseph Goebbels’s twentieth-century propaganda, history brims with cautionary tales of mass manipulation. In a nod to Gogol’s Diary of a Madman, we remember that deceit is not a modern invention—though it has grown disturbingly sophisticated in the digital age.
Today’s battles, though ostensibly new, echo as chapters in an ongoing historical saga. The stage dims further when Donald Trump returns to the political arena, seizing a second term marred by erratic policy choices and risky economic stunts—chief among them a bid to crash oil prices in a bid to halt Russia’s military ambitions. His transactional style keeps both allies and adversaries on edge, fueling a steady erosion of global trust.
Every abrupt political pivot, every manipulated headline, further weakens already-frayed alliances and threatens the fragile fabric of democracy itself. Against this clamor of half-truths and raw opportunism, Musk’s free-trade blueprint shines all the brighter—an audacious invitation to bridge divides rather than exploit them. Whether his daring proposition can help anchor an increasingly unhinged world remains to be seen.
Still, the story marches on:
The rise of natural gas ignites a global trade war…
Fossil Fuels, Fabricated Tales, and Overlooked Lessons…
From Moët Chandon to Cold Hard Steel: Celebrating the Global Trade Tax Hangover…
Tiny Nations Against Colossal Egos…
Global Energy News Update – April 6, 2025…
A perilous mirage…
The Energy Gambit: From Nuclear Fantasies to Gas Power Plays…
-21-
¨The dominance of natural gas sparks a global trade war...
¨Fossil Fuels, False Narratives, and Forgotten Lessons…
¨From Moët Chandon to Cold Hard Steel: Toasting the Global Trade Tax Hangover…
¨Tiny Lands Versus Giant Egos…
¨Global Energy News Update – April 6, 2025…
¨A dangerous ilusions…
¨The Energy Gambit: From Nuclear Dreams to Gas Leverage…
Musk broke the mirror of madness…
¨Mr. Elon Musk, casting a lifeline of sanity into the surreal theater of the unhinged arachnids of Talion law—a scene evocative of Nikolai Gogol’s Diary of a Madman—had previously supported eliminating tariffs between the United States and Great Britain. His recent remarks, however, hint at a broader ambition: extending that free trade vision across Europe. Good for Musk…
All right is of Germán & Co,
-21-
Reading the news in 2025 feels like flipping through the diary of a madman. World leaders rant and rave in surreal scenes that Nikolai Gogol himself would envy. In one entry, two cows walk into a café and order tea while diplomats war on trade tariffs. In another reality, Earth casually lands on the Moon, but quickly decides Mars is just so much more "in vogue"—provided, of course, its rocket doesn't spontaneously dissolve into a glittering shower of gold over Miami Beach, evoking vivid flashbacks of Gene Hackman’s unforgettable performance in La Cage aux Folles. Perhaps this dazzling spectacle repeats itself in a Moscow hotel room, except this time with torrents of caviar and champagne—a perfect allegory for humanity’s commitment to chasing shiny distractions. After all, reality now insists on being fantastically absurd: logic is quaint, and nonsense is the new religion.
But the cruel reality is, according to various sources, the world is going through a record number of active armed conflicts. The most recent data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) at the University of Uppsala in Sweden states that in 2023, there were 59 armed conflicts involving at least one state— the highest number recorded since 1946. This number includes wars between countries as well as civil wars and internal insurgencies, considering an "armed conflict" to be one with at least 25 combat deaths in a year.
Under our sacrosanct canons of objectivity, we have pointed to one of the great Russian writers who knew how to read the future with millimetric accuracy. Now, perhaps, it is the turn of one of the most famous American writers, Ambrose Bierce, with a lost fragment of The Devil's Dictionary.
¨The night was dark and moonless when the Editor first set foot in the rickety library, guided only by the trembling glow of a nearly spent candle. Dust floated like tiny spectres in the air. There, on a shelf eaten away by time, he found a volume with the title almost erased: The Devil's Dictionary: Supplementum Obscurum.
He opened the crisp lid. The smell of old paper filled his nostrils. As he flipped through the fragile pages, he realized that it was no ordinary edition of Bierce's work. These passages, written in tight, trembling handwriting, alluded to figures that did not exist in Bierce's time, reflecting a dissonant echo of the future. Intrigued, the Editor lit another candle and began to read:
"The name, once associated with commerce and entertainment, has emerged into the political arena feeding collective anxieties with a bellicose discourse. Under his baton, reality was split into two comfortable halves: the devotees who allowed themselves to be dazzled by his superlatives, and the skeptics who saw in his proclamations mere ghosts designed to divert debates.
He became a master of turning fear into profit, skillfully announcing threats—whether real or imagined—positioning himself as the hero of the very crises he conjured. Like a contemporary sorcerer, he transforms uncertainty into treasure, particularly during election seasons when the stakes are at their highest. It’s a brilliant display of manipulation, a cunning figure devoid of any shame... As the stock market plunged and trade wars began to unravel the global economy, just before he set out to conquer new territories for rare earth metals on behalf of his mentor, and as his unique romance with that man from the Gulag took a dramatic turn, reminiscent of a scandalous soap opera, The Devil's Cauldron simmered in a sweltering summer... Yet, undaunted and serving as a mere distraction, he boldly proclaimed, "I was born in America, and I will serve my country loyally until the last Democrat is miscounted. My lucky number is 22—and no, this isn’t a joke."
To some, he stood as the steadfast guardian of the proud Eurasian steppes; to others, he was a calculating mastermind, orchestrating geopolitical maneuvers with a chilling composure. His iron grip revealed that democracy could be swayed—or even shattered—by the sheer force of undeniable authority. In the eyes of his rivals, the art of information manipulation wielded a might akin to that of a formidable army, as the truth crumbled under the weight of doubt like a dilapidated fortress.hen the Editor reviewed the first few pages, he found a brief annotation written in a faded margin:
"These additions never appeared in the original edition of Bierce. I, the Dictionary, am nourished by the ironies and madness of each era. Whoever leafs through these pages should do so with caution: cynicism never dies; it merely adopts new masks."
Stunned, the Editor looked up. Beyond the walls of the abandoned building, the wind howled like a distant laugh—perhaps Bierce's—at that grotesque testimony of humanity's political ambition and decline. He tucked the book under his arm, determined to preserve these misplaced definitions, wondering who would ever stumble upon this enigmatic Supplementum Obscurum again.
Before leaving the library, the Editor noticed a final appendix, almost hidden at the end of the work. It was dated with imprecise features as if it were written throughout different periods:
"Disinformation: A set of lies, half-truths, and manipulated data that, when dispersed with cunning, are capable of shaping perceptions, undermining wills, and aiding despots.
Since man learned to raise his voice above a whisper, there has been the deliberate sowing of falsehoods. However, in modern history—with the multiplication of screens and networks—some will say there has never been such a hellish period of informational confusion. The speed with which rumours spread, the echo of digital cameras, and the ease with which the implausible is shared have elevated disinformation to a dark art form.
Is this, then, the darkest moment of all? Every age is considered the worst; every shaky truth seems the most fragile. But perhaps the real horror is discovering that disinformation is not a novelty but the renewed constant of an old spectre that will not disappear as long as human beings yearn for secrets and power.
And, as Bierce—or the entity that signs on his behalf—warned:
“Cynicism never dies; it transmutes as soon as it finds a new channel to propagate."
The Editor closed the book. He put his hand to his heart, overwhelmed to see that disinformation was rising, today more than ever, as the great stratagem of those who seek to subvert the truth for their benefit. Clinging to that reflection, he took his dying candle and left the library in the dead of night, wondering how long it would take for the shadows to engender new definitions that would complete that cursed dictionary.
All Right To Germán & Co.
The dominance of natural gas sparks a global trade war...
By Germán & Co.
Karlstad, Sweden – April 5, 2025
Three weeks ago, we decided it was time to escape a world tangled in so much misinformation and propaganda; it felt like we’d stumbled into one of Nicolai Gogol’s more peculiar daydreams—except instead of two cows shuffling into a Moscow café for a cup of chai, we’re dealing with two penguins waddling straight into the Bourbon & Nuuk Pub, politely asking for the finest top-shelf whiskey. Naturally, we sought guidance in the time-honoured cabanas, clasping twenty-one as though it were our talisman—promising transformation, a dash of maturity, and, with any luck, maybe even a bit of sanity.
The past few weeks have been spent poring over political essays (oh, the thrilling page-turners they are), hoping to sift through the swirling chaos of the day. You might snicker, but we were determined to find at least some logic—like trying to figure out if two plus two could ever equal five because, in some alternate dimension, it probably does. Then again, some swear by the enchantment of twenty-two, though history might consider it a perilous reef after 240 years of democracy. But hey, who knows? Perhaps those penguins in Nuuk have it all figured out. After all, they can still get their bourbon with a side of irony—no fact-checking required.
“False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.” —Socrates
Socrates articulated these sentiments nearly 2,400 years ago, underscoring a timeless truth: a society founded on deception is at risk of undermining its very core, as dishonesty permeates its institutions akin to a contagion. From the ancient agora to contemporary media platforms, it has become evident that when truth is under threat, it destabilizes the foundations of communal existence. Nevertheless, in spite of profound philosophical admonitions, we find ourselves in an era where falsehoods proliferate at an alarming rate. The emergence of populist leaders, viral disinformation campaigns, and "fake news" enterprises backed by influential entities have distorted public discourse to such an extent that we often appear adrift, disconnected from any shared understanding of reality.
Many modern politicians weaponize lies precisely because untruth has proven shockingly effective in inflaming emotions—be they anger or hope. This process has been labeled “information warfare,” a domain in which narratives are molded, manipulated, or completely fabricated to achieve strategic ends. Populist movements, in particular, have learned that brazen or conspiratorial statements can rally a fervent base. Indeed, misinformation has become not an accidental by-product but a deliberate plank of their platform.
In a world inundated with a relentless tide of misinformation, the public stands at a pivotal crossroads: to continue the arduous journey of sifting through truth and deception or to succumb to the weariness and doubt that threaten their very survival. This struggle is no small feat. When a ceaseless barrage of half-truths and outright lies erodes the trust citizens place in their leaders, it sets the stage for political apathy, societal rifts, and ultimately, uprisings against the powers that be. Indeed, history often feels like a dizzying loop, spinning in unpredictable circles.
In this reflection, we explore how today’s turbulence is rooted in historical echoes: the manipulative strategies of authoritarian regimes, the cunning repackaging of aggression in the language of peace, and the cyclical return of great-power tensions reminiscent of the Cold War. From Castro’s letters urging the Soviet Union to act in the face of “imminent” invasion, to contemporary strongmen who cloak their own expansionist ventures in claims of victimhood, these parallels unsettle us. We will also delve into how strategic thinking—exemplified by a 2019 RAND report outlining ways to “Overextend and Unbalance Russia”—plays a complicated role in shaping state behavior and fueling perceptions of conspiracy and confrontation. By weaving these threads together, we aim to illustrate the precarious point at which the world finds itself, once again.
Late last month, we remember strongly when we stood by the window of a Stalin-era apartment on Kutuzovsky Prospekt, a short distance from Red Square. Outside, the wide avenue’s mosaic of streetlights glinted against the still waters of the Moskva River, reflecting the Soviet Gothic spires of a looming skyscraper. The hush of that evening was disturbing, as if the city itself recalled an older era of fear and rigid control. History felt closer than ever, stirring in the frosty air. Inside, a longtime family friend had prepared a banquet for those times—borscht soup simmering to a deep crimson on the stove, delicate pelmeni dumplings in a large bowl, black bread, and a bottle of vodka glinting in the lantern light. There was an undercurrent of defiance in her hospitality, as though she was commemorating a memory of survival—reminding us that past generations endured under a system that promised peace yet rolled forward tanks onto foreign soil. Indeed, that evening evoked a déjà vu: the sense that the specter of authoritarianism might was once again overshadowing the calls for peace, unsettlingly reminiscent of old propaganda posters.
In our mind’s eye, we can see the 1978 image of a propaganda poster proclaiming “peace” on one hand while decrying “militarism” on the other. It carried the same uneasy dissonance Joseph Goebbels once exploited, wrapping aggression in moralistic language. Germany’s justification for invading Poland in 1939 had also been couched in the rhetoric of self-defense, just as the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was accompanied by claims of protecting threatened populations. From these vantage points, the difference between propaganda and policy can vanish in an instant.
________________________________________
Fidel Castro’s Letter to Nikita Khrushchev
One need not look far into the last century for parallels. The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 is remembered as a close brush with nuclear apocalypse, but we often gloss over Fidel Castro’s role in stoking the flames. In a letter to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, Castro insisted that an attack on Cuba was “practically imminent” and that the USSR must never allow the United States to strike first. In effect, he welcomed a Soviet nuclear response if hostilities erupted—even at tremendous global risk. The rhetorical contortions—claiming self-defense as a justification for almost any action—feel all too familiar today. The formula is straightforward: paint one’s adversary as a persistent existential threat, then assert that any means of retaliation are morally justified.
Before the missile crisis, Castro had publicly praised the Soviet nuclear arsenal as an essential deterrent against what he described as U.S. imperial aggression. That stance has echoes in the justifications modern authoritarian leaders provide when rationalizing their own buildup of advanced weapons. In each case, the self-professed “victim” invests heavily in militarization, even as its neighbors or the international community express alarm. The same script played out during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, with the Kremlin repeating that it was forced to “demilitarize” Ukraine lest it become a Western launching pad.
Elsewhere, recent images from Caracas, Venezuela, illustrate the geopolitical ironies of our age. Photographs of a U.S. envoy shaking hands with President Nicolás Maduro has caused outrage among Venezuelans who have languished under his repressive regime and severe economic crisis. From Washington’s perspective, such overtures may have been about prisoner releases or strategic resource deals—but for opposition activists who risk imprisonment or worse, it looked like a betrayal. They recall the Cold War’s contradictory optic: a superpower claiming to defend democracy while negotiating with authoritarian leaders for immediate gain.
In Europe, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline controversy underscores how drastically energy trade can be weaponized. Initially promoted as a commercial venture shipping Russian gas to Germany, Nord Stream 2 was labeled by its critics as a geopolitical Trojan horse. By 2022, sabotage had destroyed large sections of the pipeline, seen by many as a decisive severing of European dependence on Russian energy. Yet the subsequent swirl of rumors and partial leaks about possible backchannel U.S.–Russia talks to revive gas shipments through Nord Stream 2 reveals the layers of strategy and counterstrategy at play. Allegedly, American officials explored a framework that would allow them some monitoring or co-management role, effectively giving Washington a stake in European energy flows. While the details remain unverified, the story alone illustrates that in high-stakes diplomacy, official rhetoric may obscure private negotiations that run in the opposite direction.
________________________________________
RAND Repport 2019
Against this backdrop, the notion that Ukraine somehow “triggered” Russia’s 2022 invasion by threatening the Kremlin’s security has become a widely circulated claim in some circles. Sidelong accusations point to NATO expansion or alleged Western conspiracies as if they were the driving force behind the conflict. Yet a closer look suggests that the seeds of this confrontation predate 2022, extending into the interplay of global powers and the Kremlin’s own strategic assessments. Central to this discussion is the 2019 RAND Corporation report, “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options.” This study systematically examined ways to stress Russia’s vulnerabilities—economically, militarily, and geopolitically—short of direct armed conflict. The authors emphasized nonviolent measures, from expanding U.S. energy production to supporting Ukrainian forces.
¨The question naturally arises: Did the strategic framework enumerated by RAND shape the West’s response to the Ukraine war, or even precipitate Russian fears that led to the invasion?
RAND’s analysis concluded that Russia’s “greatest vulnerability” lay in its energy-dependent economy. The report suggested that by maximizing Western energy output and pressing for broader sanctions, the United States and its allies could weaken the Kremlin without a shot fired. In the realm of geopolitics, the study singled out Ukraine as a key point of leverage for the West—though it urged caution that arming Ukraine risked igniting a wider conflict. In the sphere of ideological pressure, it suggested publicizing Kremlin corruption and potentially fomenting domestic discontent, albeit with lower confidence due to Russia’s harsh suppression of dissent.
Not long after its publication, Russian state media seized on the report, framing it as an explicit “blueprint” to cripple Russia. (Some commentators even labeled it evidence of a Western conspiracy to provoke conflict in Ukraine.) Whether or not Kremlin leadership truly believed that the RAND plan was actively being implemented, the perception of a systematic campaign to unbalance Russia may have influenced the strategic calculations in Moscow. The cyclical nature of paranoia is such that if one already suspects hostile intent, any foreign policy analysis recommending pressure points can feel like confirmation of a grand design.
This dynamic resonates with history’s cyclical lessons. From the vantage point of 2025, it is tempting to see the period from 2019 onward as a slow march toward confrontation. Warnings about NATO’s expansions, intermittent clashes in eastern Ukraine since 2014, and the intensification of Western sanctions shaped the Kremlin’s siege mentality. President Vladimir Putin, echoing older Soviet narratives, emphasized that “encirclement” by hostile forces threatened Russia’s existence.
________________________________________
Ukraine is a bitter slice of cheese, caught between two superpowers
In February 2022, the Kremlin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Putin framed it as a necessary measure to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Western-forward military base. Yet the result was precisely what the RAND study outlined as a worst-case scenario for Russia if it initiated open conflict: an outpouring of Western arms and lethal financial sanctions, effectively turning Ukraine into the proving ground for a costly Russian quagmire. Washington’s stated goal soon expanded to not just aid Ukraine but to “weaken” Russia’s ability to repeat such aggression. Within months, the ruble fluctuated wildly, Russia’s technology imports dwindled, and foreign reserves were frozen, locking the Kremlin out of vital financial channels.
There is a tragic irony to the escalation: by preemptively attacking, Russia unleashed the very Western measures it had long dreaded. The cyclical logic is reminiscent of how major powers in the past rationalized expansions or invasions, convinced that war was inevitable and better fought sooner than later.
The torrent of Western military assistance to Ukraine—from Javelin anti-tank missiles to advanced artillery and eventually heavier armor—proved a textbook case of “cost-imposing strategy.” The Ukrainian battlefield became an arena where Russia’s ground forces suffered severe materiel losses, prompting some foreign policy experts to describe it as “bleeding” the Kremlin’s military might. Not surprisingly, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stated openly in April 2022 that a strategic goal was to ensure Russia was “weakened to the degree” it could not easily repeat such acts of aggression.
To supporters of Ukraine, this policy was morally justified: an unprovoked invasion demanded resolute resistance. Detractors cautioned, however, that such large-scale support risked nuclear brinksmanship if the Kremlin felt cornered. RAND’s original recommendation recognized this very danger, stressing that while supporting Ukraine could effectively strain Russian capabilities, it could also trigger unpredictable escalation, given Russia’s nuclear arsenal and historical claim to “privileged interests” in its near-abroad.
No aspect of modern great-power competition reveals the cost-imposing dynamic more clearly than the struggle over energy. Russia, heavily dependent on oil and gas exports, has wielded its resources as geopolitical leverage for decades. In 2022–23, however, Europe undertook a seismic shift, slashing its imports of Russian gas in response to the invasion of Ukraine. Pipelines once hailed as symbols of energy partnership—like Nord Stream 1 and 2—became conduits for tension and sabotage.
That the European Union, once reliant on Russia for over 40% of its gas, managed to halve or nearly eliminate those imports within a year attests to the power of unified sanctions and crisis momentum. The Kremlin tried to inflict its own counter-damage by cutting off supply to states it deemed “unfriendly,” aiming to fracture European resolve. Yet the result was a stunning pivot to alternative LNG suppliers, eventually leaving Russia’s gas fields with dwindling foreign customers.
As RAND anticipated, starving Russia’s energy revenue has proved a potent lever to sap Kremlin coffers. Western capitals have offset their own energy shocks through domestic subsidies and accelerated green transitions. This synergy of policy, though painfully expensive, has—so far—maintained public support in Europe. Russia, meanwhile, scrambles to reroute gas flows to Asia at steep discounts, absorbing a significant economic hit.
A crucial thread through this entire tapestry is the question of intent. From the Western perspective, arms deliveries and sanctions are responses to naked aggression in Ukraine, not a pre-planned scheme to bring about regime collapse in Moscow. Yet from the Kremlin’s viewpoint, the synergy and scale of the Western reaction seem suspiciously coherent, as though guided by a master plan. Russian state media repeatedly references the 2019 RAND study to “prove” the West had orchestrated the crisis to “fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.”
Reality, of course, is more nuanced. Think tank analyses are commonplace; governments commission studies to explore potential scenarios. The RAND report is an example of American strategic thinking meant to inform, not to direct policy. Nonetheless, once the invasion happened, it was almost as if a theoretical playbook had been dusted off and activated, fueling conspiracy theories that the confrontation was inevitable.
Within Russia, the state narrative regularly conflates reactive sanctions with deliberate Western attempts at “encirclement,” thereby feeding a siege mentality that justifies further militarization. Russia’s references to the RAND blueprint help rally domestic opinion around the notion that the country is fighting a defensive war against a hegemonic empire intent on destroying it. Past historical traumas—such as Soviet recollections of the Nazi invasion in 1941—amplify the resonance of such claims.
One of the most jarring aspects of the confrontation is that Western governments, while visibly coordinating efforts to hamper Russia’s war machine, also quietly negotiate behind the scenes for de-escalation, prisoner swaps, or energy deals. This dual-track approach is not new; Cold War politics were likewise an oscillation between deterrence and détente. Great powers have always pivoted between brandishing the stick and extending a partial carrot to avert catastrophe. Yet for societies caught in the crossfire—be they Ukrainians under bombardment, Russians grappling with economic fallout, or Venezuelans living under authoritarian rule—these macro maneuvers often feel like moral betrayal.
Hawks in Western capitals argue that regime change in Moscow is the only lasting guarantee of peace, while doves caution that pushing the Kremlin too far risks catastrophic escalation. President Joe Biden’s administration, for instance, has walked a fine line: affirming it does not seek to “destroy” Russia, while endorsing unprecedented support to ensure Ukraine’s military victory. For the Kremlin, these statements ring hollow. In the swirl of reciprocal mistrust, each side sees the other as pursuing veiled agendas.
Woven into every dimension of this crisis is the proliferation of disinformation. Modern technology amplifies false narratives faster than any propaganda apparatus of the mid-20th century could have dreamed. State-sponsored “news” agencies, bot networks, and selective leaks blur the line between fact and fiction, not only in Russia but across democracies grappling with internal polarization. Socrates’s warning about false words corrupting the soul resonates here: once the public becomes cynical and distrustful, the structure of democracy itself trembles.
The West has attempted to counter disinformation by banning channels like RT (Russia Today) and Sputnik, labeling them Kremlin propaganda arms, while supporting independent Russian-language outlets to reach audiences inside Russia. Critics call such measures censorship, highlighting the tension between open societies and the urge to protect themselves from foreign influence campaigns. This is the new normal in the battlefield of ideas: each side portrays the other as manipulative and repressive, eroding the space for civil discourse.
Returning to that 1978 memory—the propaganda poster of “peace” overshadowed by the clang of tank treads—brings us full circle to what many Russians who lived under the Soviet system have expressed: an acute, near-visceral recognition of manipulative doublespeak. Then, it was the Communist Party’s routine to proclaim itself a champion of liberation while it invaded neighboring countries under the Warsaw Pact. Now, we see a post-Soviet Russia claiming it must “liberate” or “protect” certain populations, employing a script that rebrands aggression as defense.
In the privacy of that Kutuzovsky Prospekt apartment, our small gathering sipped strong chai and vodka, remembering how families survived earlier chapters of tension and scarcity. The cyclical feeling was inescapable—a sense that the illusions of peaceful co-existence can vanish in an instant, replaced by an Orwellian rewriting of reality. For those who lived through the old era, the sorrow is in witnessing how quickly the global landscape can revert to hostility and suspicion.
If one conclusion emerges from the myriad strands of the current crisis, it is that re-establishing trust in both factual discourse and international relations is an uphill struggle. The war in Ukraine continues as of 2025, with no definitive resolution. The lines of conflict sprawl beyond the battlefield, entangling global supply chains, energy politics, and the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens. The West has embarked on an arduous mission to “contain” Russia economically, just as the Kremlin wages its own campaign of influence and intimidation. Each side feels threatened, each side claims legitimacy.
The question looms: how can the world break this cycle before it spirals further out of control? Diplomatic avenues exist, but they require stepping away from maximalist rhetoric—from illusions of humiliating or decapitating the adversary. De-escalation typically demands mutual concessions. Yet the readiness for compromise remains low, especially in the face of war crimes allegations, deep-seated mistrust, and an information environment that thrives on stoking outrage.
And what of truth? As Socrates noted, false words degrade the soul. In a period where entire nations live under official narratives that contradict observable realities, moral clarity becomes a scarce resource. This holds true across many societies, not merely within the Russian Federation or allied states. “Fake news” is a universal phenomenon, a virus that can infect democratic and authoritarian bodies alike. If we fail to reassert honesty and shared facts, the social contract that underpins governance itself may wither.
The 2019 RAND Corporation report is, in many ways, a microcosm of how think tank analyses can become enmeshed in the swirl of geopolitical conflict. It was neither secret nor necessarily prescriptive. Yet as soon as tensions flared, Russian media brandished it as proof positive of Washington’s malevolent designs, fueling the conspiracy that the West had planned this all along. Western governments, for their part, found that the measures RAND suggested—particularly on economic sanctions and support for Ukraine—were indeed practical ways to respond. The alignment of theory and practice, intentional or not, only deepened Russian suspicions.
This dynamic reveals an enduring truth about strategy: ideas circulated among policy elites can materialize in real events if circumstances permit. Before the Ukraine invasion, RAND itself warned that pushing certain levers—like providing large-scale lethal aid to Ukraine—could precipitate drastic Russian escalation. That risk crystallized in 2022. Once the invasion happened, the same options metamorphosed into core pillars of Western policy. Thus, the line between preemptive planning and reactive measure is blurred by the speed and severity of evolving conflicts.
For the global public, the RAND episode underscores the importance of reading such studies critically. On the one hand, they are standard elements of defense analysis, exploring ways to contend with an adversary short of war. On the other hand, they become potent propaganda fodder, especially when events on the ground look suspiciously like what was once merely hypothetical. Perception can drive conflict every bit as much as actual decisions.
In parallel, events in Cuba and Venezuela demonstrate that the same pattern of disinformation and double standards is not confined to Eastern Europe. As Fidel Castro once invoked nuclear deterrence, leaders like Nicolás Maduro wrap themselves in an anti-imperialist cloak. Meanwhile, the presence of U.S. emissaries seeking deals triggers accusations from local dissidents of tacit complicity in oppressive governance.
Such patterns of diplomatic engagement are nearly as old as international relations. During the Cold War, the superpowers regularly alternated between confrontation and cooperation with regimes whose ideologies they publicly denounced. The world again sees that moral consistency often yields to broader strategic considerations—be it the release of political prisoners, the reopening of energy supplies, or jockeying for influence in a multipolar order.
For populations living under repressive governments, these power plays confirm their suspicion that human rights are seldom the deciding factor in global politics. For foreign policy realists, it is simply the nature of inter-state relations that every moral stance can be bent by necessity.
We stand at an era’s pivot point. The rancor permeating global discourse is fueled not only by conventional weapons but by competing information campaigns, economic blackmail, and the reanimated ghosts of past conflicts. The voices of ordinary citizens, from Russian pacifists to Ukrainian families bombed out of their homes, from Venezuelan dissidents to European workers suddenly facing energy shocks, are muffled beneath the grand narratives of empire.
So, do we stand on the precipice of a new Cold War? Or have we already tumbled into it, with only the veneer of modern technology differentiating it from the 20th century standoff? Certain parallels are unmistakable: nuclear threats, proxy wars, mutual demonization. Indeed, the dividing lines are less strictly ideological this time—there is no monolithic communist bloc—but the structure of suspicion remains.
Yet, there is a crucial difference: the hyperconnected age amplifies every rumor and every official statement, feeding cynicism at breakneck speed. Where once propaganda was distributed via newspapers or shortwave radio, now it traverses social media platforms instantly, shaping impressions across continents. The intangible nature of such battles—in which trolls, bots, and manipulated videos might matter more than tank divisions—makes regulation or oversight a Herculean task.
The enduring question is whether these cyclical patterns—manipulation disguised as virtue, deterrence morphing into aggression—can be broken. If we sift through the immediate gloom, some glimmers of hope remain: diplomatic channels, however tenuous, still exist. Humanitarian organizations strive to mitigate suffering. Civil society in many countries demands more transparency and accountability. Even in heavily restricted states, dissent finds outlets, be they symbolic protests or online samizdat.
Nonetheless, the path to peace remains riddled with stumbling blocks. As long as leaders believe their survival depends on stoking fear of an external enemy, they will feed the furnace of paranoia. Societies battered by disinformation may retreat into apathy, or they may become more fervent in defending what they see as truths. Rebuilding trust between nations—particularly when blood has been spilled—requires acknowledging legitimate security concerns on both sides. One wonders if the world can muster the humility to do so.
Moreover, the RAND Corporation’s logic about “extending and unbalancing” an adversary has broader lessons: the measures that harm an adversary also carry costs at home, whether in the form of inflation, energy disruptions, or the risk of a spiraling arms race. RAND was explicit about that trade-off, cautioning that the benefits of pressuring Russia needed to be weighed against potential escalation to direct conflict. As we watch the conflict in Ukraine persist and the global economy weather new shocks, the real-world manifestation of those theoretical trade-offs becomes painfully evident.
Recalling the hush along the Moskva River that night, and the stories exchanged over steaming borscht, we were struck by how swiftly illusions of certainty can erode. One moment, a society might enjoy the conveniences of consumer goods and relative calm; the next, it is reeling under martial law, censorship, and forced conscription. In truth, we have never been far removed from the more chilling aspects of human nature and power struggles. To believe otherwise would be to ignore the lessons etched into 20th-century history.
In that borrowed apartment’s warmth, our quiet gathering raised glasses in an unspoken toast: that hope endures. Yet hope is not self-fulfilling. It demands vigilance. It demands an active confrontation with lies, no matter how exhausting. It demands refusing to cede the field to cynicism. Socrates spoke truly that deception corrupts the soul, but it also can be confronted by reason, solidarity, and an insistence on accountability.
We live under the weight of old tactics in new clothing. Familiar justifications—“self-defense,” “peace,” “protection”—are twisted into rhetorical shields for aggression. Historical echoes reverberate from Castro’s 1962 letters to the gray boulevards of Moscow and the pipelines snaking beneath the Baltic Sea. And behind it all, the illusions and illusions-of-illusions swirl: half-truths or entire fabrications that feed divisions within societies.
This withdrawal offered an opportunity to confront a troubling reality: in contemporary politics, truth had once again become a casualty, sacrificed on the altar of expediency and ambition. His reflections unearthed unsettling historical parallels, notably invoking the infamous propagandist Joseph Goebbels, whose cunning manipulation of language concealed brutal agendas beneath noble rhetoric.
A vivid memory had triggered his retreat: a Communist Party poster, impeccably designed and advocating peace while rejecting militarism. Initially compelling, the poster soon sparked profound indignation, as he recognized chilling echoes of Goebbels’ deceptive use of peaceful language to justify Germany’s 1939 invasion of Poland. To him, Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine eerily mirrored this grim precedent, highlighting how propaganda and aggression remain intricately connected.
Further fueling our introspection was Poland’s distinct stance within NATO, shaped by a painful historical legacy marked by betrayal and violence from authoritarian regimes. Experiences such as the Katyn massacre and the dual betrayals by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia had forged Poland into a vigilant guardian, alert to complacency toward Russian aggression. He found himself deeply respecting Poland’s resolve, seeing it as a necessary cautionary voice in a world prone to repeating past errors.
As his period of solitude drew to a close, his apprehension intensified, observing how contemporary disinformation, despite its digital sophistication, employed disturbingly familiar tactics. Russia’s calculated portrayal of Ukraine as fascist, its exploitation of refugee crises, and distorted narratives about NATO reinforced his conviction that propaganda remains a crucial weapon in authoritarian arsenals.
Emerging from reflection, he returned resolutely committed to vigilance against pervasive misuse of language and truth. He understood that authentic peace could only survive through unwavering dedication to truth—a stark contrast to the deceptive calm promoted by tyrannical regimes. Our retreat underscored a critical lesson: safeguarding truth is essential, for language misused is as devastating as any weapon.
________________________________________
“Axis of Evil”
Paradoxically, censorship is stronger than ever, and as Mr. Benoît Bréville describes in “International of Censors,” an alliance that cuts across traditional political divides. Rather than the familiar concept of an “Axis of Evil” or a broader coalition of autocrats, democrats, and bureaucrats who converge in their willingness to impose censorship. Bréville’s central warning is about a paradox: leaders who profess to free expression may themselves engage in the systematic control of information—demonstrating that the impulse to censor is not confined to autocratic regimes alone.
We were on the verge of concluding this text twenty-one days later, when the EU suddenly urged everyone to prepare three days’ worth of provisions—despite Sweden having sounded the alarm three months ago. We had treated those monthly attack sirens as distant echoes, until a superstitious chill crept over us.
In that instant, we happened to be writing while listening to Edgar Allan Poe’s ¨The Black Cat¨ . As the narrator began gouging out the feline’s right eye, the emergency alert rang out, making our hearts jolt with the shock of an ill omen realized. We abandoned our desks, seized a tiny Primus stove with its trembling gas tank—certain Emperor Romanov’s ghostly assault would soon knock out our electricity. After ignoring every warning before, we now fled in terror, convinced that fate and fiction had joined forces to hound us with every superstitious sign we had laughed off until that very moment.
¨That day, many millions wondered and tried to get an explanation about the close ties between President Trump and Putin...
Dagens Nyheter (DN), a leading Swedish newspaper, has reported on alleged secret financial links between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and former U.S. President Donald Trump. Notably, in mid-March 2025 (amid warming U.S.–Russia relations under a new Trump administration), DN published an analysis citing experts on Trump’s longstanding ties to Russia (Expert: Ryska groomingen av Trump framgångsrik). (DN’s coverage is paywalled (Expert: Ryska groomingen av Trump framgångsrik), but its content has been summarized by other outlets.) This reporting came as Trump was pursuing closer relations with Moscow and scaling back support for Ukraine, prompting scrutiny of his motives.
DN’s reporting suggests that Trump and Putin have been connected by decades of covert financial dealings and mutual benefit. One Russia analyst interviewed, Stefan Ingvarsson, described “over three decades of successful ‘grooming’” of Trump by Russian interests. In essence, when traditional Western financiers shunned Trump, money from the former Soviet Union “saved him, time and again” (Därför känner Trump och Putin sådan stark samhörighet). The DN analysis argues that Putin and Trump share a similar outlook – a disdain for liberal norms and a focus on power and profit – which made such an alliance of interests possible.
Specifically, DN’s sources claim that Russian oligarchs and elites have invested in or bailed out Trump’s ventures at critical times, forging hidden economic links. For example, Ingvarsson notes there are clear signs that high-ranking Russians “rescued (Trump) financially,” including during a 2008 bankruptcy scare (Har Ryssland en hållhake på Trump? | Dagens Arena). This refers to reports that when Trump was in dire straits around the 2008 financial crisis, Russian buyers and investors stepped in with cash. DN also highlighted that Western banks often refused to lend to Trump over the years, and funds from ex-Soviet sources filled that gap (Därför känner Trump och Putin sådan stark samhörighet). In other words, Russia (and ex-Soviet businessmen) became an unofficial banker for Trump’s business empire.
While DN’s article itself is behind a paywall, its claims mirror well-documented instances reported elsewhere. For instance, Donald Trump Jr. admitted in 2008 that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of [the Trump Organization’s] assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia” (Yes, there is evidence Trump does business with Russians - POLITICO). This suggests the Trump family knew Russian capital was propping up their real estate ventures. In one prominent case, a Russian billionaire (Dmitry Rybolovlev) purchased Trump’s Palm Beach mansion in 2008 for ~$95 million, about double what Trump paid just a few years prior ('Follow the money': Senator probes Trump's $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale - ABC News) ('Follow the money': Senator probes Trump's $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale - ABC News). This flip – occurring when Trump’s casinos were near bankruptcy – prompted a U.S. Senate inquiry into whether it was an act of money laundering or a bailout ('Follow the money': Senator probes Trump's $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale - ABC News). Trump claimed it was just a business deal (attributing the huge profit to home improvements) ('Follow the money': Senator probes Trump's $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale - ABC News), but Senator Ron Wyden noted Trump was struggling financially and the timing “warrants further scrutiny” ('Follow the money': Senator probes Trump's $95 million Palm Beach mansion sale - ABC News).
Beyond single deals, an investigation by Reuters (2017) found at least 63 Russian individuals or entities invested nearly $100 million in Trump-branded properties in Florida alone (Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings). These buyers included wealthy figures from the second and third tier of the Russian elite (Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings). Reuters reported no clear evidence that these investments were directed by Putin’s inner circle, and it found no wrongdoing by Trump proven, but the pattern underscored how deeply Russian money had penetrated Trump’s real estate business (Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings). Such infusions of cash, often coming at times when Trump needed capital, bolster DN’s point that Trump’s business fortune has been intertwined with Russian financial interests.
DN’s portrayal of a long-running Putin–Trump economic nexus is also supported by intelligence and investigative reporting. Notably, a former KGB spy told The Guardian in 2021 that Moscow had “cultivated Trump as an asset” for 40 years – effectively grooming him via business incentives starting in the 1980s (‘The perfect target’: Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy | Donald Trump | The Guardian). Trump’s first visit to Soviet Moscow in 1987 (when he was courted for a possible hotel deal) is often cited as the beginning of this relationship (‘The perfect target’: Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy | Donald Trump | The Guardian). Over the years, Trump pursued multiple ventures in Russia (e.g. the Miss Universe 2013 pageant in Moscow, and a proposed Trump Tower Moscow during the 2016 campaign), giving Putin’s regime plenty of touchpoints for influence.
________________________________________
Broader Political Context
Allegations of hidden Putin–Trump ties have had serious political implications. They first gained wide attention during the 2016 U.S. election and Trump’s presidency, as investigators probed whether Trump’s Russia-friendly stance was owed to undisclosed financial leverage or even kompromat. Trump consistently denied any financial connection to Russia, insisting “I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don’t have any deals in Russia” (Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings) and dismissing reports of ties as “nonsense” (Trump avfärdar påstådda Rysslandskopplingar som ”nonsens”). In 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation ultimately did not establish a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government in election meddling (Mueller finds no collusion with Russia, leaves obstruction question ...). But Mueller did document numerous links and contacts, and he pointedly noted he was not exonerating Trump on issues of obstruction or other matters. Financial entanglements largely lay outside Mueller’s narrow scope, meaning the full extent of Trump’s Russia business links was never legally adjudicated.
The idea of Putin holding undue sway over Trump lingered in U.S. political discourse – especially after episodes like the July 2018 Helsinki summit, where Trump appeared to side with Putin’s denials over U.S. intelligence findings. Critics argued that Trump’s long-standing business entanglements (or hopes of future deals) with Russia explained his unusually sympathetic approach to Putin (Expert: Ryska groomingen av Trump framgångsrik). Supporters countered that Trump was simply seeking better relations and that no explicit quid-pro-quo was ever proven. The DN piece in March 2025 came as this debate reignited: with Trump back in office, he was striking a conciliatory line toward Moscow (even as Russia was waging war in Ukraine). Understanding the history of Trump’s financial ties to Russian interests provided important context for his foreign policy – DN’s experts suggested Trump’s personal affinity and indebtedness to Russia were key drivers of his agenda (Expert: Ryska grooming av Trump framgångsrik) (Har Ryssland en hållhake på Trump? | Dagens Arena).
In summary, Dagens Nyheter’s reporting (as echoed by other sources) paints a picture of quiet, long-running economic symbiosis between Trump and wealthy Russians connected to Putin. These alleged hidden ties – from large real estate purchases to investment flows and business partnerships – may have fostered Trump’s pro-Kremlin leanings, though direct proof of Putin orchestrating financial support to Trump remains circumstantial. DN’s claims are supported by multiple investigative findings (e.g. Trump Jr.’s admissions, property records, expert testimony) (Yes, there is evidence Trump does business with Russians - POLITICO) (Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings), even as Trump and his circle vehemently reject the notion of being influenced or aided by Moscow.
In addition to Swedish coverage, a notable U.S. piece on Trump’s Russia ties appeared in Politico. On April 23, 2018, Politico published an article by Ben Schreckinger titled “Trump’s false claims to Comey about Moscow stay could aid Mueller.” This report scrutinized Trump’s 2013 trip to Moscow for the Miss Universe pageant – specifically a one-night stay at a Moscow hotel that later became infamous in the Steele dossier allegations. Politico’s piece came amid the Mueller investigation and revelations that then-FBI Director James Comey had written memos about Trump denying salacious rumors from that trip. Politico set out to fact-check Trump’s denial.
________________________________________
Nature and Origin of the “Hidden” Image
The Politico article made headlines for unearthing previously overlooked photographic evidence related to Trump’s Moscow visit. In essence, Politico published a photo from November 8, 2013 showing Donald Trump in Moscow alongside a Russian associate, thereby undercutting Trump’s claim that he hadn’t stayed overnight. The image – which had not been widely publicized before – came from a Facebook post by Nobu Moscow, an upscale restaurant. It shows Trump standing outside the restaurant with Emin Agalarov, one of his Russian business partners (Trump’s false claims to Comey about Moscow stay could aid Mueller - POLITICO). (Emin Agalarov, the son of oligarch Aras Agalarov, helped bring Miss Universe to Moscow and was involved in Trump’s business pursuits there.) This photo’s origin was a social media page rather than official news sources, which is why it was considered “hidden” or at least not part of the public narrative until Politico highlighted it.
Politico also cited other images and posts to reconstruct Trump’s timeline. For example, the article referenced a photograph from the late evangelist Billy Graham’s website showing Trump in North Carolina on Nov 7, 2013, at Graham’s birthday event (Trump’s false claims to Comey about Moscow stay could aid Mueller - POLITICO). This established that Trump left the U.S. that night. Then, upon arrival in Moscow on Nov 8, Trump’s activities were documented by various social media posts: the Nobu restaurant’s photo, and a tweeted photo of Trump with Miss Universe 2012 Olivia Culpo and singer Nick Jonas at a Moscow mall (the Agalarovs’ Crocus City Mall). Additionally, a Russian attendee posted Instagram photos of meeting Trump that weekend . By compiling these, Politico effectively proved Trump was indeed present in Moscow overnight on November 8–9, 2013.
________________________________________
Claims Made in the Article
The core claim Politico made was that Trump lied to James Comey about his Moscow trip, and that evidence contradicts Trump’s story. Comey had noted in his memos that Trump brought up the “golden showers thing” (an allusion to an unverified claim that Trump hired prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton Moscow) and asserted it couldn’t be true because he “didn’t stay overnight in Russia”. Politico’s investigation found this assertion to be false. Citing flight records, hotel logs, and the newly surfaced photos, the article documented that Trump arrived in Moscow on Friday, Nov 8, and stayed through Saturday for the pageant (Trump’s false claims to Comey about Moscow stay could aid Mueller - POLITICO). The photographic evidence – such as the Nobu restaurant snapshot with Emin Agalarov – placed Trump in Moscow on the evening of November 8, directly refuting his claim that he was absent that night. Politico also noted that Trump’s own bodyguard later told Congress he stood outside Trump’s hotel room that night, after someone offered to send women to Trump’s suite (an offer the bodyguard says he declined). In short, the article’s claim is that Trump knowingly misled the FBI about the circumstances of his Moscow hotel stay.
________________________________________
Political Implications
The exposure of this “hidden photo” and the accompanying evidence had significant implications in 2018. First, it suggested that Trump may have been trying to cover up his time in Moscow, raising the question: why lie about it? Critics posited that Trump might have feared the truth would lend credence to the kompromat allegations (i.e. that Russia had compromising material on him from that night). Legally, if Trump lied to federal investigators (Comey) about a material fact, it could factor into an obstruction of justice or perjury case. In fact, Politico’s headline noted the evidence “could aid Mueller,” since proving Trump was untruthful or had a personal stake in concealing the trip could bolster the case that he was compromised (Trump’s false claims to Comey about Moscow stay could aid Mueller - POLITICO). Legal experts cited by Politico said this new timeline “might bring new legal jeopardy for the president” (Trump’s false claims to Comey about Moscow stay could aid Mueller - POLITICO).
Politically, the article added fuel to the ongoing controversy over Trump’s Russia ties. It received wide pick-up in U.S. media, reinforcing suspicions that Trump was oddly defensive and secretive about his dealings in Russia. The fact that an American president’s veracity was being undermined by contemporaneous photos on foreign social media was striking. Opponents argued it was another data point showing Trump’s pattern of false or misleading statements regarding Russia. The White House downplayed the report, and Trump himself did not directly respond to the specifics of the photo, but he continued to dismiss the overall story as a “witch hunt.”
In summary, Politico’s investigation uncovered a key photo and related posts from Trump’s 2013 Moscow trip, which served as evidence that Trump did spend the night at a Moscow hotel despite his denials. The image (sourced from a restaurant’s Facebook page) and other timeline proof not only corroborated the presence of Trump and his Russian contacts in Moscow, but also carried serious political ramifications. It suggested Trump had a personal motive to misrepresent his Russia visit (potentially to hide compromising events or simply to defuse the scandal), thereby deepening concerns about his honesty and vulnerability to Russian leverage. This “hidden photo” episode became one piece of the larger puzzle of Trump’s relationship with Russia, complementing investigative reporting like DN’s by providing concrete visual evidence of the ties and interactions that had been alleged.
Below is a revised, more detailed piece that weaves in additional information about the Trump Administration in 2025—including its key figures, immediate priorities, and policy pivots—to paint a fuller picture of how trust is playing out under his second term. The tone remains journalistic and accessible for a general audience, while offering historical context and sharper focus on current events.
________________________________________
Trust in a Divided World: The Second Trump Administration and Its Impact on Democracy and Diplomacy
In the arena of global politics, trust is the invisible contract binding democracies at home and alliances abroad. It is built painstakingly over years—through honesty, consistency, and respect—and can be shattered overnight by dishonesty or caprice. Leaders who respect their commitments earn legitimacy among citizens and credibility with allies; those who deceive or surprise partners risk watching hard-won trust unravel in an instant.
Few modern presidencies illustrate the power of trust and distrust more dramatically than that of Donald J. Trump. His second term, which began in January 2025, has once again propelled the United States into the center of global debates about whether Washington can be relied upon to fulfill its promises—or whether its word is conditional, transactional, and subject to rapid shifts. If trust truly is the currency of governance, then the Trump Administration’s policy swings and rhetorical turns mark a volatile exchange rate—one with potentially high costs for democracy and diplomacy alike.
The Return to the White House: Trump’s Second-Term Team
When Donald Trump reclaimed the presidency after winning the 2024 election, the world braced for what his second term might bring. Some of his new Cabinet picks and key advisors signaled continuity with his prior style; others suggested an attempt to project a steadier hand:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio: The Florida senator and former presidential candidate accepted the post after months of speculation. Although Rubio has been more hawkish toward Russia in the past, he has pledged to support Trump’s foreign-policy agenda “as a loyal soldier” while trying to reassure allies in Europe.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: The former Fox News contributor and Army veteran rose to prominence in conservative circles for his strong “America First” stance and public critiques of NATO members’ defense spending. His nomination was widely seen as a nod to Trump’s emphasis on making allies “pay their fair share.”
National Security Advisor Kash Patel: After serving in lower-level roles during Trump’s first term, Patel returned in a top national security capacity, known for his skepticism of the intelligence community and for favoring bold, direct negotiations with adversaries.
Special Envoy for Ukraine, retired General Keith Kellogg: A longtime Trump loyalist, Kellogg became the face of the administration’s effort to “bring peace” to Ukraine—an initiative that would soon revolve around the contentious plan to slash global oil prices to undercut Russia’s war effort.
On the domestic front, Trump quickly reinstated or expanded policies emblematic of his first term, including more restrictive immigration measures, renewed calls for border-wall construction, and a pledge to revisit trade relations with key partners. Yet it is on the international stage—particularly regarding the Ukraine conflict—that his administration’s handling of trust has garnered the most intense scrutiny.
________________________________________
A Bold Gambit: Slashing Oil Prices to “End” the Ukraine War
In one of his earliest high-profile moves, President Trump surprised the world at the 2025 World Economic Forum in Davos by calling on Arab oil-producing nations to cut oil prices dramatically. Arguing that high oil revenue “fuels the Kremlin’s war machine,” Trump insisted that a coordinated drop in prices would starve Moscow of resources and force President Vladimir Putin to negotiate an immediate end to the war in Ukraine.
“I’m calling on OPEC to bring the price down,” Trump declared.
“The moment Russia can’t fund its war, that war ends.”
General Kellogg, newly appointed as the White House’s Ukraine envoy, echoed the reasoning: because Russia’s budget is so dependent on oil exports, hitting Putin’s wallet might prove more effective than prolonged fighting.
________________________________________
However, the gambit has drawn skepticism from both energy-sector experts and international allies
- Saudi Arabia: Officials in Riyadh quietly signaled their reluctance, pointing out that they had “no intention of flooding the market at Washington’s behest.” Past volatility during Trump’s first term left them wary of again bending to sudden U.S. demands—especially when their own economic stability hinges on higher oil prices.
- U.S. Shale Producers: American oil executives, including some who had supported Trump politically, expressed unwillingness to significantly ramp up production just to manipulate prices. They prioritize long-term profitability and warn that the administration cannot set global market levels by fiat.
- European Allies: While they share the desire to undercut Russia’s aggression, they doubt that a rapid price plunge alone will compel Putin to halt his armies. European officials also remain uneasy about U.S. unpredictability; the memory of surprise tariffs and shifting positions during Trump’s first term lingers.
In short, Trump is asking nations to trust his strategy over their own interests—a tall order given that many recall the unpredictability and unilateralism of his previous presidency.
The Trust Deficit: A Historical Backdrop
These tensions do not exist in a vacuum. Historically, alliances—particularly those involving the United States—have depended on sustained consistency:
- Post-WWII Alliances: In the aftermath of the Second World War, the United States and its allies built institutions like NATO on a foundation of trust: an attack on one is treated as an attack on all. This mutual defense agreement deterred Soviet aggression for decades.
- Erosions of Trust: The Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal in the 1970s fractured Americans’ faith in their own leadership. Internationally, episodes like the Iraq War of 2003—justified by false intelligence about weapons of mass destruction—soured allies on U.S. reliability.
- Trump’s First Term (2017–2021): Allies like Canada, Germany, and France experienced new strains: abrupt tariff impositions, questioning of NATO commitments, and withdrawal from international accords (Paris Climate Accord, Iran nuclear deal). Rebuilding faith after such moves is no small task.
Returning to office in 2025, Trump inherits what some analysts call a “trust deficit” both domestically and abroad. A recent global survey (Edelman’s Trust Barometer) reveals that 63% of people fear their government leaders deliberately mislead them—a statistic that resonates with those wary of the “post-truth” political environment that accelerated in Trump’s first term.
________________________________________
Unpredictability vs. Credibility: The Hallmarks of Trump’s Style
One of Trump’s self-professed virtues is “keeping everyone guessing.” In his first term, he often used surprise announcements—frequently via social media—to achieve immediate political impact. This led to:
1. Abrupt Policy Shifts: Withdrawing troops from Syria overnight, threatening to pull out of NATO if allies didn’t increase defense spending, imposing tariffs on allies without prior consultation.
2. Transactional Deal-Making: Reducing diplomacy to quid pro quos, such as conditioning U.S. support for Ukraine on political favors—an episode that led to his first impeachment in 2019.
3. Personal Rapport with Adversaries:** Trump prided himself on high-profile summits (e.g., with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un) that he said showcased his ability to handle adversaries one-on-one, often sidelining traditional diplomatic channels.
These tactics won favor among parts of the American electorate who appreciated his direct, brash style. But they also left U.S. allies uneasy. “He’s unpredictable” was a frequent refrain in European capitals—sometimes said with admiration for his willingness to break the mold, but more often with concern that the U.S. could not be counted on to maintain longstanding commitments.
________________________________________
Allies’ Reactions in 2025: Cautious, Polite, and Wary
With Trump back in the White House, the reaction across NATO and key U.S. partners in Asia and the Middle East has been a measured wariness:
- NATO Partners: Leaders in Germany, France, and Canada remain polite in public statements, congratulating Trump on his return to office. Yet behind closed doors, officials admit a pervasive sense of “brace for turbulence.” They recall how abruptly Trump once threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO summits if members didn’t meet spending targets. As one European diplomat put it, “We’ve been burned before; we must protect our own interests.”
- Ukraine: President Volodymyr Zelensky, grateful for any pressure on Russia, has welcomed additional U.S. arms shipments. But he is adamant that “no grand bargain” be made over Ukraine’s head. Memories of Trump’s 2019 freeze on military aid—for political leverage—feed Kyiv’s anxiety about being a pawn in a larger Trump-Putin deal.
- Saudi Arabia and OPEC States: Already signaling reluctance to comply with a forced price drop, they note the lasting memory of Trump’s fluctuating oil policy in his first term, where he alternately praised and blasted OPEC for price manipulation. For them, upending their budgetary and strategic interests on Trump’s word alone is not a winning prospect.
In short, the second Trump administration is trying to rebuild or reinforce relationships with partners who largely remember the shocks of the first term. That’s a difficult balancing act: offers of arms deals and trade incentives sometimes clash with a history of “America First” rhetoric, tariffs, and unilateral moves that sowed distrust.
________________________________________
Russia’s Response: A Study in Opportunism
Perhaps the most telling reaction came from Moscow itself. Putin, while officially dismissing the notion that crashing oil prices could force him to end the war, publicly praised his “pragmatic and trusting” relationship with Trump—a statement that raised eyebrows across NATO capitals. When an adversary like Putin expresses more faith in the U.S. president than do longstanding allies, it underscores the rift that mistrust can create.
Still, Russia has proven it can adapt to economic pressure by selling discounted oil to willing buyers such as China and India. If OPEC complied with Trump, Moscow might look for additional illicit markets or ramp up alternative revenues. European analysts question whether a short-term drop in oil prices alone will corner the Kremlin, especially given Putin’s proven willingness to absorb economic pain for strategic aims.
________________________________________
The Broader Context: Trust in a “Post-Truth” Era
Underlying these developments is the erosion of trust in democratic institutions worldwide—often linked to an age of “alternative facts” and viral misinformation. When citizens believe their leaders routinely lie, or that objective truth is elusive, trust decays at every level:
- Domestic Distrust:** American politics has been marked by high polarization, with many voters convinced elections are rigged and media outlets are biased. This fosters a public sentiment that “everyone is lying,” which in turn weakens the moral authority of any administration.
-International Skepticism:** Allies and adversaries question whether the U.S. will maintain consistent policies or whether decisions might hinge on presidential tweets or personal deals. As a result, they hedge their bets—seeking new partnerships, diversifying trade, or building their own security structures.
- The Spiral Effect:** The more leaders bend facts or break promises, the more the public (and foreign governments) come to expect duplicity. Distrust then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, further fueling instability.
________________________________________
Repairing the Breach: Can Trust Be Restored?
For President Trump, restoring trust—especially with longtime Western allies—requires more than bold statements. It demands follow-through on commitments, transparent policymaking, and an end to the ad-hoc surprise announcements that roiled alliances in his first term.
- Consistency Over Time: As scholars note, trust is built through predictable patterns of behavior. If the second Trump administration demonstrates steadiness (for instance, holding firm on aiding Ukraine without sudden reversals), it could gradually rebuild allied confidence.
- Consultative Decision-Making: If officials like Secretary of State Rubio and Secretary of Defense Hegseth engage NATO partners in genuine dialogue—rather than delivering ultimatums—the alliance might solidify. Negotiations over trade disputes, for example, could adopt a cooperative tone if approached in good faith.
- Honoring Democratic Norms: On the domestic front, curbing partisan attacks on election integrity or independent media could help mend the fractures that allowed distrust to flourish. A president who respects institutional checks and balances is more likely to be trusted abroad.
Yet old habits die hard. Trump’s willingness to break norms is what endeared him to his base. His second term has already shown flashes of that same unpredictability: talk of imposing tariffs on all European imports, casually suggesting that allied nations “owe” the U.S. for defense, or flirting with personal rapport with Putin. Each unorthodox gesture raises the anxiety level among allies and can quickly undercut even the best diplomatic outreach.
________________________________________
Conclusion: The High Price of Distrust
Trust is indeed the lifeblood of both democracy and foreign policy. When a population trusts its leaders, governance becomes more stable, and the leader’s legitimacy is secured. When allies trust each other, grand coalitions like NATO and deep economic partnerships flourish, standing together against common threats.
But as the 2025 return of President Trump has shown, trust once shaken is exceedingly hard to restore. OPEC states resist calls for drastic production moves because of past whiplash. European allies tread cautiously after years of mixed signals. Ukraine, while grateful for arms, worries about being sold out in a “quick deal.” Russia seizes the narrative to claim a new form of “pragmatic” understanding with Trump. And the American public, too, is divided—some cheering Trump’s boldness, others fearing a renewed era of erratic foreign policy.
The stakes could not be higher. With the Ukraine war still raging and global tensions rising, the entire post-World War II framework of alliances stands at an inflection point. If the world cannot trust the United States to keep its word, a realignment of global power could accelerate—one in which adversarial regimes exploit distrust in Western leadership. Conversely, if the Trump administration—and by extension, America—manages to sustain a consistent approach, keep promises, and collaborate effectively, it might still salvage and even strengthen the alliance system so carefully built over decades.
In the end, the lesson remains the same: trust is fragile. It can be lost with a single falsehood or betrayal, and regaining it demands sustained honesty and respect. Whether President Trump can defy his own reputation for unpredictability and transactionalism—and whether allies can put aside lingering doubts—will determine not just the outcome of the Ukraine war, but the broader shape of our international order in the years to come.
For now, the world watches with cautious eyes, awaiting proof that America’s vows hold firm—and hoping that the fragile currency of trust can be replenished before the cost of its absence becomes too great.
________________________________________
Sources:
- Edelman Trust Barometer (2024–2025)
- World Economic Forum, Davos Summit Transcripts (January 2025)
- Official OPEC Statements (February–March 2025)
- Public Statements by President Trump, Secretary of State Rubio, and National Security Advisor Patel (January–April 2025)
- NATO Communiqués on Ukraine (2024–2025)
- Historical Data on U.S. Public Trust in Government (Pew Research, 1970–2023)
- Various media coverage from Kyiv Independent, Le Monde, The Guardian, Eurasia Review, and others
**Note:** Some events described are hypothetical projections based on real sources and ongoing developments.
All Rights To Germán & Co.
From Moët Chandon to Cold Hard Steel: Toasting the Global Trade Tax Hangover…
In the economic arena, the United States and China resemble a pair of circus clowns hurling cream pies at each other—a comedic spectacle tinged with real-world consequences. Tariff upon tariff, export ban upon export ban, each side goads the other into another round of retaliation. Rumours abound that negotiators pass messages in fortune cookies or through X memes. Underneath the slapstick, global supply chains tie themselves in knots, and ordinary people see rising prices for household goods.
But China is not alone in this saga. The returning U.S. trade representative—making an encore appearance in 2025—has expanded the tariff mania to America’s traditional allies. Steel, aluminium, and even French wine are in the crosshairs. The European Union, outraged but also internally divided, issues its own retaliatory threats on everything from Harley-Davidsons to peanut butter, giving the impression of a Punch and Judy puppet show. Cracks in the EU’s unity are exposed as 27 member states squabble over exactly how hard to hit back. Even Canada, which one would imagine to be the world’s most polite neighbour, finds itself in a mini-trade spat with Washington over renewed U.S. tariffs. Their newly elected prime minister—a mild-mannered former central banker—now faces the bizarre challenge of standing up to his country’s supposed best friend.
All Rights of Germán & Co.
Tiny Lands Versus Giant Egos
China Relations and the Formosa (Taiwan) Question
Small territories frequently become focal points of significant global power struggles, and Formosa, now widely known as Taiwan, vividly exemplifies this geopolitical reality. The complex and often tense relationship involving Taiwan, China, and the United States highlights historical conflicts, diplomatic intricacies, and contemporary security concerns.
Formosa’s geopolitical significance emerged strongly after the Chinese Civil War (1945-1949), which resulted in the Chinese Communist Party, led by Mao Zedong, establishing the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland in 1949. The defeated Nationalists, led by Chiang Kai-shek, retreated to the island of Formosa, establishing what became the Republic of China (ROC). Initially viewed as temporary, Chiang’s government on Formosa evolved into a stable administration, transforming the island into a distinct political entity.
Beijing has consistently viewed Taiwan as a renegade province that must eventually reunify with the mainland, by force if necessary. Taiwan, however, sees itself as a sovereign, vibrant democracy, successfully maintaining a distinct identity separate from China’s political system. Its democratic evolution, especially after the lifting of martial law in 1987, has strengthened its internal governance and international credibility.
U.S. involvement in Taiwan dates back to the early Cold War when the United States recognized the ROC government in Taiwan as the legitimate government of China. This stance changed significantly with the 1972 rapprochement initiated by President Richard Nixon's visit to China, followed by the United States formally switching diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979. Yet, despite this shift, the U.S. maintained strong unofficial relations with Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979, which mandates that the U.S. provides Taiwan with defensive arms and maintains the capacity to resist any forceful attempts at reunification by the PRC.
Recent years have seen escalating tensions around Taiwan, with China significantly increasing its military presence and activities near Taiwanese airspace and waters. Chinese military aircraft regularly enter Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), actions Taipei criticizes as deliberate provocations aimed at testing Taiwanese defenses and political resolve. Taiwan’s leadership frequently accuses Beijing of destabilizing regional peace and security.
These provocations create a highly charged atmosphere, reminiscent of geopolitical brinkmanship. The international community watches anxiously, understanding clearly that miscalculations or misunderstandings could spiral rapidly into conflict. Particularly concerning is China’s naval expansion and increasing assertiveness in the Taiwan Strait. Recent developments indicate China's navy moving closer to Taiwan’s territorial waters, a strategic move intended both as intimidation and preparation for potential future military operations.
The United States remains a critical player in this scenario. Under President Biden’s administration, the U.S. has reiterated commitments to Taiwan’s security, evidenced by increased arms sales, military cooperation, and explicit diplomatic support. Simultaneously, the U.S. is cautious not to push China into direct military confrontation, emphasizing deterrence and strategic ambiguity rather than overt aggression.
Strategically, Taiwan represents more than a democratic partner; its geographical position is crucial for maintaining U.S. military influence in the Asia-Pacific region. Its proximity to key maritime routes through which a substantial proportion of global trade passes further underscores Taiwan’s importance in international geopolitics. China, aware of these strategic considerations, continuously pressures Taiwan diplomatically and militarily, hoping to erode Taiwanese resistance over time.
The current situation raises global concerns regarding potential conflict. Observers from international think tanks warn that Taiwan could become the flashpoint for a U.S.-China military clash, with profound global economic and security implications. Thus, diplomatic engagement, crisis management, and strategic clarity have become essential elements of international policy discussions.
In summary, Formosa’s historical and geopolitical context remains central to current U.S.-China relations. Taiwan stands as a test case of international diplomatic resilience and strategic ambiguity, delicately balancing democratic self-governance, military preparedness, and complex diplomatic relationships with global powers. The challenge for Taiwan, the U.S., and China lies in navigating this tense and dynamic situation, seeking stability without sacrificing sovereignty, security, or strategic advantage.
Grenada 1983 - Greenland???
Meanwhile, Denmark should remember the echoes of history as it navigates Greenland’s increasing geopolitical significance. In 1983, the tiny Caribbean nation of Grenada, home to approximately 91,000 residents, became the unexpected stage of geopolitical turmoil when the United States launched Operation Urgent Fury. This intervention, driven by Cold War anxieties over Soviet and Cuban influence, highlights the vulnerability of small nations with limited populations becoming focal points in global power struggles.
Today, Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory with roughly 56,000 inhabitants, presents a similarly sensitive geopolitical scenario. Greenland’s sparse population belies its strategic importance: located between North America and Europe, it controls critical Arctic routes and holds substantial untapped natural resources, including rare earth minerals essential for modern technology. As climate change opens new Arctic shipping lanes, global powers like the United States, Russia, and China are increasingly drawn to Greenland’s strategic position.
In the 1980s, Grenada’s location near vital Caribbean shipping routes, combined with the Marxist-oriented government of Maurice Bishop, attracted substantial attention from global powers. Cuban advisors and Soviet support for infrastructure projects, such as an airfield capable of accommodating large military aircraft, heightened American fears of expanding communist influence in the Caribbean. The U.S. swiftly intervened militarily following internal instability and Bishop's assassination, asserting its geopolitical interests under the guise of restoring order.
Similarly, Greenland today finds itself the focus of strategic interests from global powers. Historically, Greenland has been central to North Atlantic security, notably hosting the U.S. Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space Base), a critical early-warning facility within NATO’s defense strategy. The United States maintains significant influence through a longstanding defense treaty with Denmark, reflecting Greenland's pivotal role in monitoring Russian activities in the Arctic.
China, on the other hand, views Greenland as a vital node in its ambitious "Polar Silk Road" initiative, aiming to develop infrastructure and gain access to Arctic resources. Danish authorities, wary of Beijing’s strategic intent, have actively prevented Chinese investments in Greenlandic infrastructure, including airports and military-sensitive facilities. This cautious approach is influenced by experiences like Grenada’s, where infrastructure investments by foreign powers quickly evolved into geopolitical flashpoints.
Denmark’s approach to Greenland must acknowledge the lessons from Grenada’s past. Small populations and territories can quickly escalate into significant geopolitical contests if perceived threats are not managed effectively. The Grenada intervention shows that external influence, especially when combined with internal instability, can lead to rapid and dramatic shifts in sovereignty and governance.
For Denmark, ensuring Greenland’s stability involves careful management of international engagements and maintaining a transparent dialogue with Greenlandic authorities. Promoting Greenland’s economic independence through sustainable investments can also mitigate the risk of external manipulation. Additionally, continued diplomatic cooperation with the U.S. and other NATO allies remains crucial to balancing international interests and safeguarding Greenland’s future.
Grenada’s experience underscores how quickly geopolitical interests can override the autonomy of smaller nations. Denmark, informed by this historical context, must remain vigilant, proactive, and strategic to ensure Greenland’s trajectory remains one of stability, prosperity, and self-determination rather than vulnerability to geopolitical competition.
Historical Background: U.S.–Panama Canal Relations…
The United States' involvement with the Panama Canal dates back over a century and shapes the strategic dynamics of the region today. In 1903, the U.S. supported Panama's independence from Colombia through what historians describe as classic "gunboat diplomacy." This intervention paved the way for the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting the U.S. a perpetual lease over the Panama Canal Zone, a territory effectively under American sovereignty, for canal construction and operation. The canal opened in 1914, quickly becoming a cornerstone of U.S. naval and commercial strength by significantly reducing maritime travel between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
However, U.S. control was controversial and viewed negatively by many Panamanians, fostering resentment and nationalism. Tensions periodically escalated, notably in 1964, when riots erupted over Panamanian demands to fly their national flag in the Canal Zone, resulting in deaths and a diplomatic crisis. Panamanians increasingly viewed American control as a violation of national sovereignty.
By the 1970s, geopolitical dynamics had shifted considerably. President Jimmy Carter, recognizing the growing tensions and seeking improved relations with Latin America, negotiated the Torrijos–Carter Treaties in 1977 alongside Panamanian leader General Omar Torrijos. These agreements set a clear timeline for transferring canal control to Panama by December 31, 1999, and established the canal's permanent neutrality. Crucially, Panama agreed the canal would remain open equally to all nations, with the U.S. retaining the right to intervene militarily only to protect this neutrality—without reclaiming sovereignty.
Relinquishing control was politically contentious in the United States. Politicians like Ronald Reagan strongly opposed the treaties, arguing the canal was America's rightful property. However, Carter’s administration believed that returning the canal was vital for dispelling the lingering perception of American imperialism and fostering genuine partnership and goodwill in Latin America. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, by the 1970s, the canal’s military significance had declined since larger modern ships could no longer pass through its locks.
Thus, the handover on December 31, 1999, marked a historic and peaceful transfer of strategic territory from a global power to a smaller nation. Panama established the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) to manage the waterway independently, which it has successfully operated since, even undertaking a significant expansion project completed in 2016 to accommodate larger ships.
Yet, the canal's strategic importance has endured, evolving into new geopolitical concerns in recent decades, particularly with China's increasing economic involvement in Panama. This shift has raised alarms in Washington, prompting some American political figures to question the wisdom of the treaties. Former President Donald Trump, notably, criticized the treaty, incorrectly asserting that "China secretly runs the canal" and controversially suggesting the U.S. should consider reclaiming control militarily. These statements drew strong rebukes from Panama, whose president publicly rejected Trump’s assertions, reaffirming the nation's sovereignty.
American policymakers and experts widely dismiss notions of forcibly retaking the canal, recognizing such actions would violate international law, damage U.S. credibility, and undermine regional stability. Instead, contemporary U.S. strategy focuses on diplomatic engagement, economic partnership, and support for Panama's continued stewardship of the canal. Given that approximately 40% of U.S. container traffic traverses the canal, its smooth operation remains vital to American economic interests.
Recently, U.S. diplomatic approaches have highlighted constructive engagement, particularly emphasizing collaboration to address significant challenges such as infrastructure modernization, climate resilience, and water management. Notably, high-level dialogues have aimed at deepening bilateral cooperation, counterbalancing China's influence through positive economic and diplomatic initiatives rather than confrontation.
The United States appears keenly aware of leveraging situations such as the recent drought-induced operational crises at the canal to renew diplomatic ties and reassert its role as a reliable partner. By offering technical expertise and investments, the U.S. seeks to support Panama’s sustainable management of the canal, maintaining its status as a crucial global trade route while ensuring regional stability.
Thus, more than two decades after relinquishing formal control, U.S. strategic intentions towards the Panama Canal region have shifted towards fostering a mutually beneficial partnership. The canal, historically symbolic of imperial reach, now embodies modern strategic diplomacy—an approach emphasizing cooperation, economic investment, and regional stability in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape.
All Right To Germán & Co.
All Rights Germán & Co. via Getty
All rights of Germán & Co.
Global Energy News Update – April 6, 2025
Major Headlines and Summaries
U.S. Climate and Energy Policy: The new U.S. administration is prioritizing fossil fuels and rolling back prior climate initiatives. Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s Department of Energy has launched a review that could cut funding for Biden-era clean energy projects – including four regional hydrogen hubs – despite laws mandating their support (US senators urge energy secretary to follow law on clean energy grants, loans | Reuters). This aligns with President Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda, which since January has slashed funding for clean energy and boosted oil, gas, and coal production (US senators urge energy secretary to follow law on clean energy grants, loans | Reuters). The DOE also moved to rescind a Biden-era policy that limited LNG export permits to seven years, making it easier for new liquefied natural gas terminals to get extensions and move forward (US to axe Biden-era 7-year deadline on exports from new LNG projects | Reuters) (US to axe Biden-era 7-year deadline on exports from new LNG projects | Reuters). Democratic lawmakers have pushed back, warning the administration must “faithfully execute” climate laws – in other words, it cannot substitute its own preferences for spending mandated by Congress (US senators urge energy secretary to follow law on clean energy grants, loans | Reuters).
Renewable Energy and Nuclear Power: Offshore wind development in the U.S. has stalled amid surging costs and political opposition. In his first days back in office, President Trump suspended new offshore wind leases, leading analysts to predict “no new projects expected to be completed” beyond those already under construction (US offshore wind farm projects slow as Trump opposition adds to hurdles | Reuters) (US offshore wind farm projects slow as Trump opposition adds to hurdles | Reuters). Several offshore wind companies had already canceled projects in 2023–24 due to high costs, and experts now warn the nascent U.S. industry is “precariously positioned” under the current policy environment (US offshore wind farm projects slow as Trump opposition adds to hurdles | Reuters). Meanwhile, nuclear energy is seeing renewed support abroad. Italy – which banned nuclear power in 1987 – approved a law to return to nuclear generation and has formed a joint venture of major firms (Leonardo, Enel, Ansaldo) to study the best reactor technologies (Italy's Leonardo, Enel and Ansaldo reach deal on nuclear joint venture | Reuters). In Sweden, the government proposed offering state-backed loans and price guarantees to help finance at least four new nuclear reactors, aiming to roughly double electricity output by 2045 as part of its climate strategy (Sweden proposes state loans for new nuclear reactors | Reuters) (Sweden proposes state loans for new nuclear reactors | Reuters). These moves reflect a broader trend of countries looking to nuclear power to meet climate goals and energy demand, even as renewables growth continues globally (a record ~700 GW of new renewable capacity was added in 2024) (Renewables and natural gas surge ahead of oil and coal | Reuters).
Fossil Fuel Markets and Investment: Oil markets whipsawed as major producers pivoted on supply. The OPEC+ alliance, led by Saudi Arabia, made a surprise decision to increase oil output by 411,000 barrels per day starting in May – about three times the previously planned rise (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters) (Seeking to punish cheaters, Saudi Arabia pushes OPEC+ to open oil taps | Reuters). Saudi Arabia pushed this “open the taps” move largely to punish OPEC+ members that were exceeding their production quotas (like Kazakhstan and Iraq) (Seeking to punish cheaters, Saudi Arabia pushes OPEC+ to open oil taps | Reuters) (Seeking to punish cheaters, Saudi Arabia pushes OPEC+ to open oil taps | Reuters), a sharp reversal from its prior stance of cutting output to prop up prices. The result was immediate: oil plunged to ~$65, the lowest price since 2021, as traders reacted to the prospect of higher supply on top of escalating recession fears (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters) (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters). In the corporate arena, energy companies are recalibrating their strategies. For example, Shell announced it will scrap its large solar and onshore wind projects in Brazil, citing an “unfavorable environment” of oversupply, slow demand growth and regulatory uncertainty (Shell scraps solar, onshore wind power projects in Brazil | Reuters). This move – in line with Shell’s new global strategy to pull back on low-return renewables (Shell scraps solar, onshore wind power projects in Brazil | Reuters) – underscores how oil & gas majors are refocusing on core fossil fuel businesses and “exiting activities that do not fit into [their] strategy or do not generate sufficient returns,” as Shell put it (Shell scraps solar, onshore wind power projects in Brazil | Reuters). At the same time, some state-owned firms are doubling down on fossil investments (e.g. Argentina’s YPF is channeling over $3 billion into shale oil expansion in 2025), highlighting that fossil fuel investment remains robust in certain regions despite global climate goals.
Electric Vehicle Market Dynamics: The EV sector is evolving unevenly across markets. In China, EV leader BYD enjoyed another blockbuster quarter – its sales jumped roughly 58% in Q1 2025 year-on-year, far outpacing rivals – while Tesla’s growth has slowed, causing Tesla to lose global market share (BYD Enjoys Yet Another Blockbuster Quarter as Tesla Flounders). BYD’s chairman announced plans to double BYD’s overseas sales to 800,000 units in 2025 by assembling cars locally in Europe and other regions to overcome import tariffs (BYD aims to double overseas sales to 800,000 in 2025, chairman tells analysts | Reuters) (BYD aims to double overseas sales to 800,000 in 2025, chairman tells analysts | Reuters). This comes as the European Union considers tariffs on Chinese EVs and batteries, and Chinese automakers pivot to strategies like exporting hybrid vehicles to sidestep trade barriers. In the United States, electric vehicle demand remains on an upward trajectory but faces new headwinds. Auto executives warn that Trump’s rollback of EV incentives and charging-station funding could slow the buildout of charging infrastructure (US Funding Cuts to Slow EV Chargers' Spread, CEO Says), potentially tempering the rapid growth seen under Biden’s policies. Still, analysts note that U.S. EV sales hit record highs in 2024, and global EV sales overall rose about 24% last year to 17.2 million vehicles (Tesla Has a Problem — and It's Not Just Elon Musk's Politics) – a sign that consumer uptake of clean cars is continuing. Automakers worldwide are in an EV price war, cutting prices to spur demand (Tesla has repeatedly slashed U.S. prices, and BYD introduced discounts on its cheapest models in China). The coming months will reveal whether legacy carmakers and EV startups can maintain profit margins and production momentum amid fierce competition, or if the market’s growth will moderate due to economic pressures.
Geopolitical Energy Developments: Global geopolitics are increasingly intertwined with energy. The U.S.–China relationship has deteriorated into a tit-for-tat trade fight that directly impacts energy markets – exemplified this week by China imposing a new 34% tariff on all U.S. goods from April 10 in retaliation for U.S. tariffs (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters). This escalation is feeding recession fears and threatens to undermine climate cooperation between the world’s two largest emitters. In India, a mismatch between clean energy ambitions and on-the-ground hurdles is shaping policy: India aims for 500 GW of non-fossil power by 2030, but its renewable sector is facing obstacles (weak power purchase demand, land acquisition issues, project delays) (India's Tata Power eyes first coal capacity expansion in six years | Reuters). Partly as a result, Tata Power just moved toward its first coal power expansion in six years, seeking to add 1.6 GW at an existing plant even as renewables projects stall (India's Tata Power eyes first coal capacity expansion in six years | Reuters) (India's Tata Power eyes first coal capacity expansion in six years | Reuters). This highlights India’s challenge in balancing booming electricity demand with its climate commitments. In Brazil, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is likewise walking a tightrope between economic development and climate leadership. Lula’s government is pressuring regulators to approve oil drilling near the mouth of the Amazon River – he complained that Brazil’s environmental agency “seems to be against the government” for delaying Petrobras’ project (Brazil's Lula to meet with agency on Petrobras' bid to drill near mouth of Amazon river | Reuters) (Brazil's Lula to meet with agency on Petrobras' bid to drill near mouth of Amazon river | Reuters). Regulators have so far recommended against the Amazon offshore drilling on environmental grounds (Brazil's Ibama staff recommend against Petrobras drilling in Amazon region | Reuters), and the final decision is pending. This comes as Brazil positions itself to host the COP30 U.N. climate summit in 2025, putting a spotlight on Lula’s climate credentials. In the Middle East, OPEC’s internal politics (with Saudi Arabia asserting itself against quota violators) and its relations with big consumers like the U.S. are in flux, as seen by the recent supply hike partly aimed at appeasing Washington’s calls for lower fuel prices (Seeking to punish cheaters, Saudi Arabia pushes OPEC+ to open oil taps | Reuters) (Seeking to punish cheaters, Saudi Arabia pushes OPEC+ to open oil taps | Reuters). And in Europe, leaders are being urged to hold the line on climate action despite distractions from war and trade disputes – a group of former officials led by Mary Robinson warned that “the crisis of a federal withdrawal in the United States [on climate] is an opportunity for the European Union… to seize leadership” in clean technology and policy (Former world leaders urge EU to hold the line on climate | Reuters). Overall, geopolitical forces – from trade wars to strategic resource competitions – are increasingly shaping the direction of energy investments and climate efforts across the globe.
Economic and Market Trends: Energy prices and financial markets gyrated on economic jitters this week. Crude oil suffered its worst week in over a year: Brent benchmark fell ~11% for the week to ~$65.58/bbl, the lowest since August 2021, and U.S. WTI plunged 10.6% to ~$62/bbl (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters). The selloff was driven by mounting fears that the U.S.–China tariff war will dent global growth – JPMorgan now pegs the odds of a 2025 global recession at 60% (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters) – combined with OPEC+’s supply increase decision. Other commodities from natural gas to soybeans also dived in tandem (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters). Energy equities tumbled alongside oil: U.S. oilfield service stocks like Halliburton and Baker Hughes sank 10–11% to new multi-year lows (US oil service firms set for hit from Trump tariffs, tumbling oil prices | Reuters), and major refiners’ shares hit their lowest levels in nearly two years amid fears the tariffs will choke fuel demand. The broader stock market had a brutal week (over $6 trillion in U.S. market value was wiped out) as investors fled risk assets (US oil service firms set for hit from Trump tariffs, tumbling oil prices | Reuters). In response to the turmoil, analysts are revising forecasts – Goldman Sachs cut its year-end Brent oil price target by $5, now seeing Brent at $66 in Dec 2025 (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters) – citing the combination of higher OPEC+ output and recession risks. On the upside, the latest data show some resilience in certain areas: U.S. natural gas prices ticked up on record LNG export volumes and a late-season storage build (US natgas prices climb 3% on record LNG flows, lower daily output | Reuters) (US natgas prices climb 3% on record LNG flows, lower daily output | Reuters), and Europe’s gas storage remains healthier than a year ago, helped by mild weather. Clean energy indexes have also been volatile; they initially rallied early in the year but gave up gains amid rising interest rates and now trade roughly flat year-to-date (investors are closely watching if government stimulus in the EU, US, and China can bolster these stocks again). Going forward, markets will track central banks’ policy signals (Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted that the tariff shock will likely bring “higher inflation and slower growth” (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters)) and any easing of trade tensions for clues on energy demand. Overall, current trends point to an uncertain macroeconomic backdrop, with oil and gas prices under pressure and energy investors exercising caution until clearer signs of global economic stability or policy resolution emerge.
What to Watch (April 2025 and Beyond)
OPEC+ output policy: Following April’s small production hike, oil markets will closely watch OPEC+ meetings for any adjustments to the supply plan. If prices weaken significantly or if certain members fail to comply, the alliance could reconsider the pace of further output increases. The next full OPEC+ ministerial meeting is expected by June, but an April monitoring committee meeting or member statements could signal the group’s stance on balancing market share versus price stability.
U.S.–China trade war escalations: On April 2, the U.S. is set to impose a broad package of “reciprocal” tariffs on imports (Oil slips on recession fears but posts 3rd weekly gain | Reuters). How China responds will be critical. Any retaliation (such as expanding tariffs on U.S. energy exports or other goods) could impact global growth forecasts and commodity demand. Investors will be watching for diplomatic engagement or further tit-for-tat measures in April that might either ease or inflame the trade conflict – a major wildcard for oil and LNG markets.
Legal battles over U.S. climate policy: Expect a flurry of lawsuits from states, environmental groups, and possibly industries in reaction to the regulatory rollbacks. In April, courts may begin hearing challenges to the EPA’s reversal of power plant carbon rules and vehicle emissions standards. Outcomes won’t be immediate, but any injunctions or rulings could alter the implementation of these rollbacks. Also watch whether the administration moves to formally withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement again – a decision that would garner global attention.
Europe’s energy and climate course: Key developments are looming in the EU. In April, EU energy ministers will discuss gas storage targets and energy security preparations for next winter (EU countries draft plan to soften gas storage targets, document shows) – any decision to relax storage rules or diversify supply further (LNG contracts, pipeline deals) will shape gas markets. Additionally, the European Commission’s regulatory “simplification” agenda bears watching: details on which environmental or climate rules might be trimmed could emerge and spark debate between industry and green groups. Europe’s carbon market and its planned Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism are entering new phases; any policy tweaks or guidance in April on these tools will affect industrial and clean tech investment decisions.
COP30 preparations and pledges: With the UN climate summit in November (COP30) approaching, nations are due to submit updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in 2025. April could see behind-the-scenes work or even early announcements of enhanced climate targets or policies. In particular, keep an eye on G20 economies – e.g. China and India – for any signals of stronger climate action (or conversely, indications they will stick to current plans). Also notable will be Brazil’s actions as COP30 host: Lula has convened ministries to reconcile economic and environmental aims. A pending decision on the Amazon oil drilling project is expected in the coming weeks; approval or denial will send a message about Brazil’s climate leadership. Likewise, international climate finance discussions (at forums like the World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings in mid-April) could yield commitments to help developing countries transition, a key factor for global climate cooperation.
Energy tech and market trends: Several reports and events in April may influence the energy landscape. The IEA will release its annual Global Electric Vehicle Outlook, providing data on EV adoption and critical mineral supply – offering insights that could guide policymakers and investors. Likewise, Q1 earnings from major energy companies (oil majors, auto manufacturers, utilities) will start to roll in late April: their results and forecasts will reveal how corporate strategies are adapting to the current environment of volatile fossil fuel prices and accelerating clean energy momentum. Any big surprises (e.g. an oil major significantly upping its renewables spending, or a utility shelving a coal retirement plan) will be closely watched as bellwethers of broader trends.
Brief Analysis
The past week’s developments reveal a global energy landscape pulled in two opposing directions. On one hand, short-term economic and political pressures are reinforcing reliance on fossil fuels: the U.S. federal government is retreating from aggressive climate action in favor of oil and gas, OPEC+ is opening the spigots to defend market share, and trade disputes are raising fears of recession. These dynamics have delivered consumers a dose of near-term relief in energy prices (oil’s price plunge) but at the potential cost of slowing the energy transition. On the other hand, long-term clean energy momentum continues in many parts of the world – evident in record renewable deployment and EV sales last year – and key players are doubling down on climate solutions (Europe is pressing ahead with green industrial policies, and countries like Sweden and Poland are planning new nuclear capacity to hit emissions targets). The divergence between America’s policy U-turn and Europe’s climate resolve is especially striking: as one climate leader noted, “the crisis of a federal withdrawal in the United States…is an opportunity” for others to lead (Former world leaders urge EU to hold the line on climate | Reuters).
Overall, the balance of global energy strategy is at an inflection point. Policy rollbacks and fossil fuel investments are raising concerns about the world missing its climate goals, even as clean technologies become more competitive. High inflation and interest rates have made capital more expensive, causing some renewable projects (like U.S. offshore wind farms) to stall or seek better support – a reminder that the green transition is not immune to macroeconomic headwinds. Yet, market signals and corporate moves also indicate that the transition is irreversible in the long run: oil giants are facing shareholder and legal pressures to address environmental damage (e.g. Chevron’s $740 million coastal restoration payout), and the booming demand for EVs and clean tech in Asia is creating economies of scale that will drive costs down further.
In the coming months, a few overarching trends bear watching. First, geopolitics are now a decisive factor in energy and climate outcomes. The U.S.–China rivalry risks splintering global climate cooperation just when it’s most needed; conversely, it is also spurring a race for technological leadership in batteries, solar manufacturing, and critical minerals. Second, policy implementation and public investment (or the lack thereof) will determine if lofty climate targets translate into real emissions cuts. The standoff over U.S. clean energy funding and Europe’s resolve in sticking to its Green Deal will be telling. Third, the economic cycle – especially if a downturn hits – could temporarily reduce emissions (via lower energy demand) but also test governments’ commitment to green stimulus versus cheaper fossil energy.
In summary, global energy and climate policy is experiencing cross-currents: bullish clean energy progress buoyed by technology and international commitments, countered by bearish short-term moves to shore up energy security and inflation worries. The net effect in this period is a patchwork of advances and setbacks. The direction of travel for now remains toward decarbonization, but the pace is uneven. How the world navigates the next few months – resolving trade frictions, aligning energy security with climate action, and investing through economic uncertainty – will heavily influence whether 2025 becomes a year of renewed climate momentum or one that locks in a higher-emissions trajectory.
Key Quotes
“Trump’s new tariffs are ‘larger than expected’ and the economic fallout likely will be as well.” – Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, remarking on the sweeping U.S.–China tariffs and warning of their impact on growth and inflation (April 4, 2025) (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters)
“We are always exploring ways to create value from our power generation portfolio, including exiting activities that do not fit into our strategy or do not generate sufficient returns.” – Shell plc, in a statement explaining its decision to discontinue large-scale solar and wind projects in Brazil as part of a global pullback from low-return renewables (March 27, 2025) (Shell scraps solar, onshore wind power projects in Brazil | Reuters)
“The crisis of a federal withdrawal in the United States from everything to do with climate and science is an opportunity for the European Union… Moving as fast as the EU can on the green transition is exactly how to respond.” – Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and chair of The Elders, urging Europe to uphold its climate leadership amid U.S. policy reversals and global distractions (Interview with Reuters, April 1, 2025) (Former world leaders urge EU to hold the line on climate | Reuters) (Former world leaders urge EU to hold the line on climate | Reuters)
“Once a law is properly enacted, the Constitution requires the President to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’” – Excerpt from a letter by 25 U.S. Senators (led by Martin Heinrich and Patty Murray) to Energy Secretary Chris Wright, rebuking the administration’s attempts to defund congressionally-approved clean energy programs such as hydrogen hubs (April 2, 2025) (US senators urge energy secretary to follow law on clean energy grants, loans | Reuters)
What to Watch (April 2025 and Beyond)
U.S. Climate Policy Showdowns: How the conflict over federal clean energy funding unfolds – watch for the Department of Energy’s final decision on hydrogen hub grants and carbon capture projects under review (US senators urge energy secretary to follow law on clean energy grants, loans | Reuters). Any attempt to cancel or claw back funding will likely prompt legal challenges or congressional action. Additionally, keep an eye on the EPA and other agencies’ moves (or lack thereof) on climate regulations; with a more fossil-friendly administration, planned rules on power plant emissions, vehicle standards, or methane leaks could be delayed or weakened. Conversely, several U.S. states (California, New York, etc.) may step up their own climate policies in response, potentially creating a patchwork of aggressive state-level actions even as federal efforts stall.
Geopolitical and Trade Flashpoints: The trajectory of the U.S.–China trade war will be critical. Markets and governments are watching if back-channel talks lead to any easing of tariffs, or if instead the dispute escalates further into 2025. China’s next steps (having announced steep retaliatory tariffs) around April 10 will set the tone (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters). Likewise, monitor the European Union’s trade measures – in particular, the EU’s decision later this year on whether to impose tariffs on Chinese EV imports (pending the outcome of its anti-subsidy investigation). That could spark a Europe–China trade clash affecting the auto and battery industries. Also on the geopolitical front, OPEC+ is scheduled to meet in June 2025 to reassess output policy: will Saudi Arabia stick to its hard line on punishing quota violators with higher production, or could plunging prices force an about-face? Any sign of an OPEC+ policy reversal or further supply surge will immediately influence oil price expectations. Finally, Russia’s war in Ukraine remains a wildcard for energy – watch for developments in EU sanctions on Russian oil products (and Russia’s responses), as well as Europe’s gas storage refill progress over the summer, which could be complicated if LNG markets tighten unexpectedly.
Global Climate Leadership and Summits: With COP30 on the horizon (November 2025 in Belém, Brazil), the stage is set for key diplomatic moves. Brazil’s Amazon oil drilling decision will be one bellwether – President Lula is expected to meet with regulators again, and a final ruling on Petrobras’ Amazon mouth drilling license could come in the next few months (Brazil's Lula to meet with agency on Petrobras' bid to drill near mouth of Amazon river | Reuters) (Brazil's Ibama staff recommend against Petrobras drilling in Amazon region | Reuters). Approving it would draw international criticism ahead of COP30, whereas rejecting it might bolster Lula’s environmental standing. In the run-up to COP30, watch whether major economies update their climate pledges or policies: for example, does China announce any new emissions peaking measures or clean energy targets? Does India increase its renewable commitment or introduce coal limits beyond current plans? And will the EU maintain cohesion on its Green Deal initiatives? (Notably, Europe is debating climate disclosure rules and green industry incentives – any dilution of these under industry pressure would signal wavering resolve.) Also notable will be the Major Economies Forum and G7/G20 meetings over the summer, where the U.S. stance on climate cooperation versus competition with China will influence global dynamics. Look for any climate agreements or coal phase-out deals that could emerge from these forums, setting the stage for the UN Climate Summit.
Energy Market Trends and Economic Indicators: After the recent market volatility, stakeholders will be monitoring several indicators. Oil prices – will they stabilize in the $60s or slide further into the $50s per barrel? Much depends on global economic data: if the U.S. and European economies show signs of sharp slowdown (or if central banks hike interest rates further), expect downward pressure on energy demand forecasts. Conversely, any resolution of trade tensions or monetary policy easing could spark an oil price rebound. Keep an eye on fuel demand metrics heading into the summer driving season; early signs of soft gasoline consumption (due to high prices or weaker growth) could further confirm a demand downturn. In contrast, natural gas markets might enter a calmer phase – Europe’s storage levels and U.S. LNG export volumes over the summer will indicate if the gas supply can comfortably meet demand without price spikes. For investors, the performance of clean energy stocks and investment flows will be telling: will the passage of time and clarity on IRA implementation (tax credit guidance, etc.) lead to a resurgence in clean tech investment in the U.S., or will higher interest rates keep these stocks subdued? Similarly, announcements of any big cleantech manufacturing projects (e.g. new battery gigafactories or solar panel plants in the West, spurred by policy incentives) could signal momentum in building out domestic clean energy supply chains in response to geopolitical risks.
Electric Mobility and Tech Competition: The remainder of 2025 will see important developments in the EV space. Tesla’s Q1 earnings (due in late April) and any updates to its delivery outlook will be scrutinized – if Tesla shows signs of margin strain from price cuts or slower sales growth, it could reshape market sentiment. Meanwhile, BYD and other Chinese automakers are expected to accelerate their global expansion: watch for BYD’s entry into new European markets and whether it announces local production in Europe or Southeast Asia to bypass tariffs. Policy incentives for EVs in key markets are also in flux: for instance, the U.S. Treasury will continue refining the EV tax credit rules (like battery sourcing requirements) which could affect which models qualify and thus their sales. Europe is rolling out its Euro 7 vehicle emissions standards and considering new EV charging infrastructure mandates – progress on those fronts will influence automakers’ strategies. On the technology side, any breakthroughs in battery tech (such as a commercial solid-state battery announcement, or significant drops in battery prices) would be game-changers to watch for. Additionally, raw material supply deals – like lithium or nickel offtake agreements, or new mining projects – may be announced as nations and companies race to secure critical minerals. All these factors will contribute to the evolving competitive landscape of the global EV market.
Energy Transition Milestones: Despite the current turbulence, several positive clean energy milestones are anticipated in the near future. Record renewable projects are slated to come online in 2025 – for example, massive offshore wind farms in the North Sea and big solar parks in India and the Middle East. Monitoring their completion will be key to gauging if supply chain and financing challenges are being overcome. The first generation of small modular reactors (SMRs) is also inching closer to reality: in the U.S., companies backed by tech giants aim to break ground on pilot SMRs, and in Canada and the UK regulators may approve designs – progress here will indicate whether nuclear can scale up in the 2030s (SMR firms race to build a nuclear fuel supply chain - Reuters). Furthermore, the global stocktake of the Paris Agreement will conclude later in 2025, assessing collective progress toward climate goals. In the lead-up, we should watch for any countries announcing strengthened climate commitments (e.g. new targets for 2035 or 2040) or fossil fuel phase-out timelines. Finally, climate-related risks such as extreme weather could unfortunately become headlines as we approach summer – any major heatwaves, hurricanes, or wildfires would not only test energy systems (electric grids, oil/gas infrastructure resilience) but also could influence the public and political urgency on climate action as the world heads into pivotal negotiations.
Each of these unfolding stories – from policy battles in Washington to OPEC’s maneuvers in Riyadh, and from Beijing’s EV push to Brasília’s Amazon decisions – will shape the global energy and climate trajectory in 2025 and beyond. We will continue to monitor these developments closely in the weeks ahead.
Sources: Reuters, Bloomberg, Financial Times, IEA, Official statements (US senators urge energy secretary to follow law on clean energy grants, loans | Reuters) (Oil dives 7% to lowest in over 3 years on China's tariffs | Reuters) (Shell scraps solar, onshore wind power projects in Brazil | Reuters) (Seeking to punish cheaters, Saudi Arabia pushes OPEC+ to open oil taps | Reuters) (Former world leaders urge EU to hold the line on climate | Reuters), among others. All information is up to date as of April 6, 2025.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
All Right to Germán & Co
¨Fossil Fuels, False Narratives, and Forgotten Lessons…
Twenty-one is an age of maturity—a milestone when one expects youth lessons to crystallize into wisdom. In 2021, the 21st century reached that symbolic “coming of age.” Yet, as the world passed this threshold, it became painfully clear that our society’s relationship with energy remains as immature as ever. The past few years have borne witness to a sobering déjà vu: surging oil prices, lines at fuel pumps, and geopolitical turmoil painfully reminiscent of the 1970s. Instead of entering adulthood enlightened by history, we seem to be re-enacting old mistakes. The urgency of this moment cannot be overstated. If we do not reckon with the instability of fossil fuels and the deception that prolongs their dominance, we risk condemning ourselves to an endless cycle of crises. This is not just another policy debate—it is a moral and practical imperative to remember our history and confront the truth. The stakes—a livable planet, stable economies, and the integrity of our democracies—could not be higher.
The Unlearned Lessons of Oil Shocks
How the Oil Crises of the 1970s Sparked a Global Shift in Electricity Generation:
For millions worldwide, images of endless lines of cars inching toward gas stations became iconic symbols of the turbulent 1970s. The Arab OPEC oil embargo of 1973, sparked by the Yom Kippur War, sent shockwaves through industrialized economies, quadrupling oil prices within months and plunging nations into economic turmoil. Less than six years later, the 1979 Iranian Revolution triggered another surge in global oil prices, further exposing the vulnerabilities of dependence on fossil fuels.
Before these shocks, oil was a central pillar of electricity generation, powering roughly a quarter of global electricity production. In the United States alone, oil accounted for nearly 17% of electricity generation in 1973. But as oil prices soared, energy policy underwent a seismic shift. Countries urgently sought alternatives to insulate their economies from future disruptions.
The response was swift and decisive. Nations accelerated their investments in coal, nuclear power, and emerging renewable technologies. In the U.S., legislation such as the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 mandated that new plants move from oil toward coal and nuclear energy. By 1985, oil's share of U.S. electricity had collapsed from 17% to just 4%, while coal surged to nearly 57%. Nuclear energy also saw rapid growth, climbing from under 5% to over 15% of the American electricity mix during the same period.
Globally, the push toward nuclear power was especially pronounced. France launched an aggressive nuclear buildout, with atomic energy growing from nearly zero in 1973 to over 70% of electricity generation by the mid-1980s. Other countries, including Germany, Japan, Sweden, and the UK, also significantly expanded their nuclear capabilities, driven by the pressing need for energy security.
The oil shocks also ignited interest in renewable energy sources. Although still in their infancy, solar and wind technology received unprecedented government funding and policy support, laying the groundwork for the renewable energy boom in subsequent decades. Legislation like the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 in the U.S. encouraged small-scale renewable energy generation, sparking early wind farms in California and pioneering solar developments.
The global energy landscape underwent profound changes in the decades following the oil crises. Oil’s role in electricity generation dwindled dramatically, falling from 25% globally in 1973 to under 3% by 2019. Natural gas, nuclear energy, and renewables filled the gap, diversifying energy portfolios and enhancing resilience against volatility.
These shifts were not just technical but philosophical. The crises of the 1970s taught policymakers that relying heavily on a single energy source—mainly imported fossil fuels—posed substantial risks. Energy diversity and security principles have become permanently embedded in global energy strategies.
Today, as the world grapples with climate change and seeks sustainable solutions, the lessons of the 1970s remain highly relevant. The legacy of those turbulent times is evident in every wind turbine spinning on a distant hillside and every solar panel catching the afternoon sun. The oil crises did more than create panic at the pumps; they reshaped how we power our world.
A Retreat from Clean Energy Progress
One might have expected the oil shocks to spark a permanent pivot to alternative energy. And, for a time, they did spur action. The late 1970s saw a flurry of interest in conservation and renewables. Governments scrambled to insulate themselves from the oil weapon. President Carter pushed a bold agenda of efficiency and innovation in the United States: he installed solar panels atop the White House in 1979 to symbolise a new direction. He envisioned deriving 20% of U.S. energy from renewables by the year 2000, rallying Americans to see this challenge as part of “one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken” (Where Did the Carter White House's Solar Panels Go? | Scientific American). Other nations invested in nuclear power, wind turbines, and research into synthetic fuels. It was a moment of possibility born from crisis.
But when oil became cheap again, that resolve crumbled. In the 1980s, the momentum toward clean energy screeched to a halt. The incoming administration of Ronald Reagan dismantled the progress—removing Carter’s solar panels during a White House roof repair in 1986 and never reinstalling them. This was more than a symbolic act. By 1986, the U.S. government had gutted funding for renewable energy research. It slashed tax incentives for solar and wind, recommitting the nation to “cheap” fossil fuels (often imported) instead. Reagan scoffed that the Department of Energy hadn’t “produced a single barrel of oil,” as if measuring success only in continued petroleum output. In effect, the “road not taken”—toward sustainable energy—was abandoned just as it was beginning to unfold.
This pattern occurred on a global scale. In the 1980s and 1990s, initial attempts to invest in solar and wind energy struggled due to a lack of funding and attention. Oil-exporting countries, benefiting from high revenues, continued to invest heavily in fossil fuels. In the West, consumer culture resumed its reliance on oil, characterized by an increase in the popularity of cars and suburban expansion. Instead of moving away from our dependence on the unstable resource of petroleum, the world fell back into old habits. By the early 2000s, fossil fuels dominated, accounting for most energy use worldwide. When climate scientists began warning with increasing urgency that this path was not only financially unstable but also environmentally devastating, they encountered significant resistance—primarily built by a deliberate campaign of misinformation.
Disinformation: The Fossil Fuel Industry’s Propaganda War
If the world’s retreat from clean energy is a tragedy, it is not an accident. Powerful interests worked hard to muddy the waters and manipulate public perception. In fact, since the 1980s, the fossil fuel industry has perpetrated a multi-decade, multibillion-dollar disinformation campaign aimed at delaying climate action (The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing | Environment | The Guardian). The playbook was cynically brilliant: confuse the public, sow doubt about science, and assure everyone that more oil and gas posed no problem. Advertising was one weapon of choice. In the 1980s, as the science of global warming first gained attention, oil companies ran cheerful ads declaring that climate change was uncertain or a myth. Some ads carried headlines like “Oil pumps life,” extolling petroleum as the benevolent force of modern civilization. Others accused environmentalists of scaremongering—one campaign derided the “lies they tell our children,” implying that the real danger was not a changing climate but those who dared question the fossil-fueled status quo.
This assault on truth continued unabated for decades. Think tanks and front groups funded by coal and oil magnates churned out reports downplaying the climate threat, which friendly politicians then waved through Congress. Scientists who sounded the alarm were attacked as frauds or radicals. A now-infamous memo from that era declared the strategy bluntly: “Doubt is our product,” said tobacco executives in the 1960s, and Big Oil took that lesson to heart. By the 1990s and 2000s, as evidence of global warming became more difficult to deny, the narrative shifted slightly – from “it’s not happening” to “it’s happening but not our fault” or “it’s too expensive to fix”. The goal was never to win an intellectual argument but to stall action long enough to rake in a few more decades of profits.
The consequences of this campaign have been staggering. Public opinion is fractured and polarized. Meaningful climate policy in the U.S. was stymied repeatedly, even as most Americans desire action. Internationally, climate agreements were weakened under pressure from oil-backed lobbying. Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions climbed, and the clock ticked away. Perhaps the most Orwellian twist came just recently: in 2021, the CEOs of major oil companies testified before Congress about their role in spreading climate disinformation – and they brazenly lied under oath, denying what a mountain of documents and research has proven. As two historians of industry propaganda summarized it, the fossil fuel industry is now “misleading the public about its history of misleading the public.” The snake is eating its tail; the lie has become truth in the minds of those who peddle it.
The collective amnesia about the oil shocks…
We've encountered this situation before, and today feels even worse, especially after reading the remarkable editorial titled L’Internationale des censeurs by Benoît Bréville published in Le Monde Diplomatique this March. The parallels with history’s great propaganda campaigns are impossible to ignore. In George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, the ruling Party continually rewrites history and manipulates language to secure its power. “Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie becomes truth,” Orwell wrote (Part 1, Section 7, 1984). Reading these words today feels unsettlingly familiar. The collective amnesia about the oil shocks — those defining events of the 20th century — is one example of “erasure.” How often do our current energy debates mention the 1973 or 1979 crises? Seldom, if at all. It is as if they never happened or as if their lessons hold no value. Instead, we hear rosy talk of “energy dominance” and endless resources without reckoning with the past instability. The disinformation machine has encouraged us to forget or trivialize real history, replacing it with a fantasy that more oil is always the answer.
Orwell also warned of “Newspeak”: language designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought. Today, we see our version of Newspeak in the energy realm. Consider the lexicon being used to rebrand fossil fuels. In 2019, a U.S. government official went so far as to dub natural gas “freedom gas” and even referred to gas molecules as “molecules of U.S. freedom” (US energy department rebrands fossil fuels as 'molecules of freedom' | Gas | The Guardian) (US energy department rebrands fossil fuels as 'molecules of freedom' | Gas | The Guardian). This absurd euphemism—straight out of a marketing fever dream—was offered with a straight face in an official press release, as if calling gas by a patriotic name could disguise the fact that it’s the same old methane, driving the same warming of our atmosphere. Warping language to mask uncomfortable truths is a classic propaganda tactic. During World War I, deaths became “collateral damage.” During the Cold War, nuclear missiles were “peacekeepers.” And now, amid a climate crisis, gas is “freedom.” The irony would be laughable if the stakes weren’t so high.
We also hear the language of false choices and scapegoats. When blackouts or price spikes occur, the blame is often placed (incorrectly) on renewable energy or environmental regulations. Politicians speak of “clean coal” – a contradiction in terms – or tout oil drilling as a path to “energy independence” even as it deepens our dependence on a volatile global market. This is reminiscent of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth, which spewed slogans like “War is Peace” and “Ignorance is Strength.” Today’s equivalent might be “Pollution is Clean” or “Dependence is Independence.” Such doublespeak aims to dull the public’s critical thinking through constant repetition. If enough individuals accept these linguistic distortions, taking bold climate action becomes more difficult, and the fossil fuel status quo persists.
Conclusion: Remembering the Past, Protecting the Future
History does not repeat in perfect loops, but its echoes are loud for those willing to listen. Nearly half a century has passed since the first great oil shock, enough time for a new generation to come of age with little knowledge of that turbulent era. It is said that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it; today, we would add that those who distort history risk something even worse. When disinformation and censorship poison the well of public discourse, society loses its ability to learn, adapt, and make rational choices. We find ourselves unmoored, swayed by whoever shouts the most comforting lie or silences the most inconvenient truth. In such a state, progress becomes impossible and catastrophe becomes inevitable.
It is time to break this cycle of amnesia and manipulation. The instability of fossil fuels—laid bare by decades of price shocks and political crises—is not a partisan talking point but a plain fact of life. We ignore that reality at our peril. Every new oil boom or gas expansion that lulls us into complacency will eventually be followed by a bust or a shortage that throws us into chaos. We can choose to remember the lines at the gas stations in 1973, the desperate pleas of leaders in 1979, the economic pain of 2008, and the wake-up call of 2022. We can remember, and more importantly, we can act on that remembrance by accelerating the transition to stable, clean, local energy sources that cannot be weaponized or depleted on a whim.
Equally, we must demand honesty and transparency from our leaders and institutions. The war on truth—from outright climate denial to the insidious spin of corporate PR and government doublespeak—must be confronted at every turn. This means supporting independent journalism and science, calling out lies when we see them, and refusing to let false narratives go unchallenged. It means protecting whistleblowers and truth-tellers instead of punishing them. And it means we take responsibility to stay informed and think critically rather than simply consuming the next soothing falsehood that comes across our screen.
The climate is warming, the clock is ticking, and the truth is clear—if we dare to face it. In an age of misinformation, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. So let us be revolutionaries in the most responsible sense: truth-tellers, memory-keepers, and builders of a new energy future. The challenges are immense, but so is our capacity for change when reality pierces through illusion. The unstable world of oil has had its century. Now, armed with knowledge of the past and a commitment to honesty, we can forge a more stable, sustainable, and just path forward. Future generations will thank us not for the comfort of soothing lies but for the courage of inconvenient truths. The time to act is now, before the door of opportunity closes, and we find ourselves, once again, gasping in the fumes of our forgetfulness.
History has given us a lesson. The truth is whispering its guidance. We must choose to listen.
A dangerous ilusions…
All rights are of Germán & Co.
In the first quarter of the 21st century, the geopolitical landscape has been profoundly reshaped by a series of transformative shifts, dismantling deeply held illusions of control. The post-Cold War optimism about a stable, unipolar liberal order—once confidently heralded as the "end of history"—has unravelled, giving way to a far more volatile and complex reality. Powers and institutions previously perceived as dominant now confront the stark limits of their influence, challenged by emerging actors and unforeseen forces. Energy crises, pandemics, resurgent authoritarianism, and rapidly shifting alliances have exposed vulnerabilities in systems that global leaders believed were firmly under their control. Today's multipolar era is marked by a diffusion of power among diverse states and unpredictable dynamics that defy the orderly assumptions of earlier decades. In this uncertain environment, control increasingly reveals itself as an illusion—a reassuring narrative steadily eroded by complex realities on the ground.
Explore:
The Energy Gambit: From Nuclear Dreams to Gas Leverage – Declining nuclear energy ambitions and the rise of natural gas as a tool of geopolitical coercion.
Technocratic Authoritarianism: A New Face of Eugenics? – The tightening grip of technocrats, surveillance states, and subtle revival of eugenics-inspired policies.
Fully Right Of Germán & Co.
The Energy Gambit: From Nuclear Dreams to Gas Leverage…
For decades, nuclear energy was sold as the pinnacle of human mastery over nature – a near-limitless source of power that promised energy independence and geopolitical clout. In the mid-20th century, world leaders imagined gleaming fleets of reactors powering their economies and freeing them from the vagaries of fossil fuels. By the 1990s, however, the sheen of the atomic age was fading. The Chernobyl disaster of 1986 and the Fukushima meltdown in 2011 underscored the catastrophic risks of nuclear power, hardening public skepticism. Meanwhile, the rapid expansion of renewable energy and the abundant supply of natural gas – often cheaper and quicker to deploy – created a competitive alternative. What followed was a slow global retreat from nuclear ambitions. Nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation declined from a peak of about 17.5% in 1996 to roughly 10% by 2020, as more countries halted or scaled back their reactor programs (Study shows U.S. has the most nuclear reactors in 2021 | World Economic Forum). While nations like China continued building reactors, many others – from Japan and Germany to Belgium and South Korea – either froze new nuclear projects or pledged phase-outs in response to safety fears and public pressure. The grand dream of a nuclear-powered future gave way to an age of pragmatism and caution.
This retreat has had profound geopolitical implications. As nuclear energy’s role receded, natural gas emerged as a critical pillar of the global energy mix – and a potent instrument of geopolitical leverage. Gas, once seen merely as a bridge fuel, became a strategic asset coveted by nations and cartels. Unlike nuclear plants, which are capital-intensive and take years to build, gas infrastructure (pipelines, LNG terminals) offered flexibility and relatively quick returns. Producers of natural gas – from Russia and Qatar to the United States – found eager markets, particularly in energy-hungry Europe and Asia. Europe, in particular, increasingly relied on imported gas to compensate for its nuclear drawdown and to back up intermittent renewables. Nowhere was this dynamic more evident than in Germany. Long the economic engine of Europe, Germany decided to eliminate nuclear power, accelerating a phase-out after Fukushima. In April 2023, the last three German reactors shut down for good, closing the chapter on atomic energy in Germany’s grid (Q&A - Germany's nuclear exit: One year after) (Germany's Energy Crisis: Europe's Leading Economy is Falling Behind). But the move, born of environmental and safety concerns, left Germany and its neighbors more dependent on natural gas to keep the lights on. When Russia – Europe’s principal gas supplier – invaded Ukraine in 2022, it weaponized that very dependency with brutal efficiency (Europe’s messy Russian gas divorce) (Europe’s messy Russian gas divorce).
Russia’s strategy was decades in the making. Under the guise of mutually beneficial commerce, Moscow had steadily tightened Europe’s bind through long-term gas contracts and pipeline projects. By the 2010s, roughly 40% of Europe’s natural gas imports came from Russia. This heavy reliance created an illusion of energy interdependence that many European leaders complacently accepted – an illusion shattered when geopolitics turned hostile. In the months preceding the Ukraine invasion, the Kremlin deliberately curtailed gas deliveries. It allowed its European storage facilities to dwindle, setting the stage for a supply crunch (Europe’s messy Russian gas divorce). After tanks crossed the Ukrainian border in February 2022, Moscow dramatically slashed pipeline flows, at one point completely shutting the key Nord Stream pipeline. The goal was clear: coerce Europe into acquiescence by plunging it into cold and darkness, splinter European unity, and deter support for Kyiv. Natural gas – often called the “blue gold” of the 21st century – has become Vladimir Putin’s sharpest geopolitical weapon.
Initially, the tactic exacted a heavy toll. European natural gas prices spiked to record highs through 2022, and an energy panic set in. Governments scrambled to avert blackouts and factory shutdowns. Germany, facing an abrupt cutoff of the cheap Russian gas that had powered its industries for years, teetered on the brink of recession. Indeed, by 2023, Germany had slipped into an economic slump, largely thanks to the loss of Russian gas supplies and the simultaneous shutdown of its nuclear plants (Germany's Energy Crisis: Europe's Leading Economy is Falling Behind). What had been touted as a responsible energy policy – the Energiewende away from nuclear – suddenly looked like a strategic vulnerability. Meanwhile, countries like Hungary and Serbia, more friendly to Moscow, secured gas lifelines, illustrating how Russia can reward or punish by modulating the gas valve. The Kremlin’s gambit seemed to confirm fears that Europe’s climate-conscious retreat from nuclear power had inadvertently strengthened the hand of petrostates.
And yet, the endgame did not play out entirely as Moscow envisioned. European nations – displaying a resolve few anticipated – moved with astonishing speed to blunt Russia’s energy weapon. The European Union coordinated an emergency reduction in gas demand, filling storage caverns before winter and securing alternative supplies from Norway, North Africa and an armada of liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments from the United States and Qatar. New LNG import terminals were fast-tracked from the Baltic coast of Poland to the shores of Germany’s North Sea. By early 2023, Russian pipeline gas, once the lifeblood of Europe’s energy system, had been replaced – an unprecedented pivot that would have been politically unthinkable before the war (Europe’s messy Russian gas divorce). The self-congratulatory narrative in European capitals was that Putin’s attempt to blackmail Europe had backfired, costing Russia its biggest customer and a key source of revenue. Indeed, by 2023, Russia’s share of Europe’s gas imports plummeted, and Gazprom was left flaring gas it could no longer sell. One European official quipped that Putin had “spent decades building up leverage, only to throw it away in a single year.” In reality, the transition was painful – energy-intensive industries from chemicals to steel in Europe suffered or relocated, and households endured soaring utility bills. But by winter 2023–24, natural gas prices had fallen back to pre-crisis levels, and the worst-case scenario of energy rationing was averted. Europe has, in effect, partially immunized itself against the Russian gas weapon, though at a steep economic cost.
The broader lesson remains: control over energy is a double-edged sword. Suppose Europe learned that it could survive without Russian gas, and Russia learned that over-reliance on one primary market (Europe) could be ruinous – unlike oil, which can be sold globally. In that case, pipeline gas is essentially stranded without willing nearby buyers. The geopolitical leverage of gas thus cuts both ways; wielding it as a weapon can invite self-inflicted wounds. The episode also underscored that flexibility and diversification are as crucial as resource abundance in today's multipolar energy landscape. The United States, once a net energy importer, became a critical LNG supplier to Europe almost overnight, turning its shale gas boom into a strategic influence. Middle Eastern producers like Qatar similarly gained clout, signing 20- and 30-year contracts to anchor Asia and Europe’s future gas needs. New energy partnerships bloomed: Algeria and Italy deepened gas ties, and Azerbaijan stepped up pipeline flows to Southern Europe. In essence, Moscow’s aggressive move accelerated a global reshuffling of energy relationships. In this scramble, gas-rich states could expand their sway, and consumers learned never to put all their eggs in one basket.
Meanwhile, the decline of nuclear energy continues to shape this new energy geopolitics. Countries that doubled down on reactor programs – such as China, India, and Russia itself – frame their investments in nuclear technology as ways to secure energy independence and even export influence (through reactor sales and fuel services) in the coming decades. However, in liberal democracies, public and political will has often turned against nuclear power. Despite beginning to restart some reactors after a post-Fukushima shutdown, Japan remains cautious. Belgium and Spain have timelines to phase out nuclear generation in the 2020s and 2030s (though Belgium delayed its phase-out by a decade due to the gas crisis). In the United States, atomic power struggles to compete economically with cheap gas and subsidized renewables, leading to reactor closures. Only France stands as a significant exception in the West – maintaining a robust nuclear fleet that still provides about 70% of its electricity, which Paris touts as both a climate-friendly asset and a strategic buffer against gas geopolitics. Even so, France faced embarrassment in 2022 when corrosion problems forced many reactors offline, contributing to Europe’s power crunch. The incident revealed that simply having nuclear plants is insufficient; they must be maintained and modernized, lest technical failures shatter the illusion of secure capacity.
In hindsight, the world’s energy “control illusions” become apparent. Those who assumed that nuclear power would guarantee energy autonomy found that political will and public trust are fickle variables beyond technocratic control. Germany’s leaders, for instance, believed they could simultaneously abandon nuclear power and deepen dependence on imported gas without incurring strategic risk – an illusion dispelled by war. Likewise, Russia thought it could control Europe through energy, only to find that coercion in one domain (gas) provoked an equal and opposite reaction that undercut its influence. The new reality is a more multipolar energy order: one in which no single technology or supplier holds absolute sway and where energy security is achieved through diversity and resilience rather than any silver-bullet solution. This is an era where natural gas, for all its newfound importance, is also a transient player in the transition to renewables – and where even renewables come with their geopolitical baggage (from supply chains of critical minerals to land use conflicts). In short, the illusion that any country could completely control its energy destiny has given way to an understanding that interdependence and volatility are here to stay.
Geopolitically, natural gas will remain a lever of influence, but its utility as a weapon may diminish if buyers have alternatives. Europe’s messy divorce from Russian gas (Europe's messy Russian gas divorce - Brookings Institution) demonstrated the power and limits of that lever. In the coming years, attention is turning to other energy frontiers: the race for critical minerals needed for batteries and renewable tech, and whether the nuclear decline can be reversed by innovations like small modular reactors (SMRs) to provide carbon-free baseload power. Even as climate imperatives push countries to decarbonize, the road to that green future is strewn with geopolitical contests – control of lithium mines or the Strait of Hormuz. The key takeaway from the early 2020s is that no energy source is purely a matter of engineering; each carries geopolitical weight. In the era of multipolar geopolitics, energy policy is security policy.
Thus, the stage is set for a continued global energy gambit. Nations will leverage what they have – oil, gas, technology, or innovation – to jockey for position, and those dependent on others will seek to mitigate that dependence. The decline of nuclear power in many regions has inadvertently elevated the role of hydrocarbons like natural gas in international affairs, at least in the short term. But this may not be permanent. If the 2020s taught anything, it is that fortunes can reverse quickly. For example, a breakthrough in fusion energy or battery storage could upend the balance again. Policymakers must, therefore, approach the illusion of control with humility: today’s leverage can become tomorrow’s liability. As Europe found in its bid to go green while relying on an authoritarian supplier, geopolitics has humbled even the best-laid plans.
Fully right of Germán & Co.
Technocratic Authoritarianism: A New Face of Eugenics?
Even as energy crises make headlines, a quieter shift in governance and ideology occurs, bringing uncomfortable historical echoes back to the forefront. In several countries, particularly those led by authoritarian or populist figures, we are witnessing the rise of technocratic authoritarianism. This form of governance prioritizes efficiency, surveillance, and the authority of expertise while diminishing democratic accountability.
Modern authoritarian regimes increasingly utilize technological and scientific rhetoric to shape society, drawing parallels to the discredited ideologies of 20th-century eugenics. Although few today use the term "eugenics" openly, many state policies and emerging biotechnologies reflect its core principles: optimizing a population’s genetic, behavioral, or social traits at the expense of individual rights and human dignity. This note examines how technocratic governance revives eugenic thinking under a new guise, focusing on examples from China, Russia, the United States, and other regions.
We analyze how technology-driven control mechanisms and assertions of scientific authority are employed to justify policies that, knowingly or unknowingly, discriminate and stratify individuals. Despite the use of euphemisms and a high-tech facade—such as “population quality,” “smart surveillance,” and “precision prevention,” the pressing question remains: Is this the new face of eugenics?
Eugenics Past: From Pseudoscience to Policy
Eugenics is the belief in improving the genetic quality of the human population (a beautiful person with high EQ.) through controlled reproduction. This movement gained popularity in the early 20th century and was initially seen as a scientific endeavor. In the United States, many prominent academics and politicians supported eugenics, leading to policies such as forced sterilization laws. Indiana passed the first such law in 1907. In the Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell (1927), the Court upheld the sterilization of individuals deemed “unfit,” which encouraged numerous states to implement similar laws. By the time World War II began, approximately 60,000 Americans had been involuntarily sterilized under eugenic laws. Similar practices emerged globally, in European countries and Latin America, often targeting the mentally ill, disabled, or socially marginalized groups.
Nazi Germany’s racial hygiene program represented a horrific extreme of eugenics. Between 1934 and 1939, Nazi “Hereditary Health Courts” ordered approximately 400,000 forced sterilizations. During the years 1941 to 1945, the regime systematically murdered tens of thousands in the name of “racial purity” (Eugenics and Involuntary Sterilization: 1907-2015 - PubMed). The revelation of these atrocities after World War II largely discredited eugenics as both a scientific and moral endeavor. Overt advocacy for eugenics largely disappeared from public policy discussions after 1945, leading many countries to repeal or phase out their sterilization programs. However, the core mindset of eugenics—believing that society can be improved by eliminating undesirable traits or individuals—did not simply vanish. Instead, it went underground or mutated into new forms. As historian Philip Reilly notes, “simplistic eugenic thinking has faded, but coerced sterilization remains widespread, especially in China and India. In many parts of the world, involuntary sterilization is still intermittently used against minority groups” (Eugenics and Involuntary Sterilization: 1907-2015 - PubMed).
Ideas associated with eugenics, though stripped of the name, persist in discussions surrounding reproductive rights, immigration, and human genetics. The latter half of the 20th century saw the emergence of human rights principles explicitly rejecting discrimination based on genetics or lineage. Nevertheless, scientific and political elites continued to explore ideas about selectively engineering society. The concept of “new eugenics” surfaced among bioethicists in the 1970s and 1980s, referring to using emerging genetic technologies to select or enhance desired traits in children. Unlike the older, state-led eugenics, this “new” eugenics is often framed as a matter of individual choice or free-market innovation—frequently termed “liberal eugenics.” For instance, ethicist Nicholas Agar argues that parents should be free to use genetic enhancements on their offspring to pursue better lives (Agar, 2004). However, critics warned that even in the absence of government coercion, such practices could result in de facto eugenic outcomes, such as stigmatization of individuals with disabilities, new forms of inequality, and a mindset that treats human life as a product to be optimized.
By the early 21st century, advances in biotechnology—including prenatal screening, in vitro fertilization (IVF), and gene editing—enabled the selection of embryos free from specific genetic disorders or potentially possessing preferred traits. While the primary goal of these technologies is often to prevent severe disease, disability rights advocates caution against a slippery slope. One scholarly article notes that “some have referred to these reproductive technologies as the ‘new eugenics’ or ‘liberal eugenics’, achieved via private medical choices rather than state-driven population control” (Confronting the Legacy of Eugenics and Ableism: Towards Anti-Ableist Bioethics Education - PMC). In 2020, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities warned that “current developments in medical research and practice may revive eugenic ideas if safeguards for those affected are not ensured” (Confronting the Legacy of Eugenics and Ableism: Towards Anti-Ableist Bioscience Education - PMC). In other words, even without explicitly adopting eugenics, modern societies risk recapitulating its logic through the unchecked use of science and technology.
Technocracy and the Temptation of Social Engineering
Parallel to these biomedical trends, governance in many countries has become increasingly “technocratic” – emphasizing technical expertise, data, and algorithms as bases for decision-making. This technocratic turn often promises efficient, value-neutral solutions to social problems: let the data speak and let algorithms optimize public policy. Yet behind this façade of scientific objectivity, old biases and illiberal ambitions can lurk. As scholars of data ethics point out, many algorithmic systems encode assumptions that resonate with eugenics and social Darwinism. Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, for instance, argues that contemporary significant data practices embody “segregation [and] eugenics” through their very design (Discriminating Data: Wendy Chun in Conversation with Lisa Nakamura). She notes that “correlation, which grounds big data’s predictive potential, stems from twentieth-century eugenic attempts to ‘breed’ a better future”. In other words, the statistical techniques underpinning modern predictive analytics have intellectual roots in eugenic science – where correlation was often misused to tie social outcomes (like poverty or crime) to heredity or race.
The marriage of scientific authority and authoritarian ambition has a long history. Early 20th-century eugenicists eagerly provided scientific rationales for racist and classist policies; today’s technocrats may unwittingly do the same with algorithms and surveillance technology. In an authoritarian regime, technocracy can become a convenient fig leaf: policies that might be seen as repressive or discriminatory are packaged as the outcome of objective, data-driven analysis or benevolent expertise. This phenomenon has been described as “authoritarian high-modernism” – a term political scientist James C. Scott used to describe states that impose top-down social engineering in the name of scientific progress. Whether it is Soviet agronomists claiming scientific backing for catastrophic farm collectivization or today’s authorities claiming AI will ensure “social harmony,” the pattern is similar. When leaders defer to “science” or “technology” as infallible, it can foster a culture of deference that undermines democratic oversight (Authoritarian Regime - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics). In extreme cases, it becomes a form of “scientific authoritarianism” – where dissent is silenced as ignorant or anti-progress, and individuals are reduced to data points to be managed.
Notably, eugenic ideology was a technocratic project: it treated humans as stock to be measured, classified, and improved by experts. Today, new forms of classification and control – from credit scores to facial recognition – carry a similar hubris. Below, we explore several case studies where technology-enabled control mechanisms may constitute a new form of eugenic governance, intentionally or otherwise. These examples illustrate how euphemistic language, biometric surveillance, and algorithmic bias are converging to shape societies in ways that recall the eugenic ideal of a “better” (i.e., more governed, more homogeneous) population.
China: “Upgrading Population Quality” Through Data and Discipline
One prominent example of technocratic authoritarianism is seen in the People’s Republic of China, which actively shapes its population’s size and “quality.” The Chinese Communist Party has a history of social engineering in reproduction, most notably through the One-Child Policy, which led to forced abortions and sterilizations.
Recently, facing an ageing population and declining birth rates, China has shifted to a pro-natalist stance but is increasingly focused on controlling who can reproduce. The 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) aims at “upgrading population quality,” promoting higher birth rates among the Han Chinese majority, particularly the educated and wealthy while suppressing birth rates among ethnic minorities such as the Uyghurs.
In Xinjiang, Uyghur women have been subjected to forced abortions and sterilizations, with officials labelling them as “baby-making machines.” A China specialist noted the unmistakable eugenic undertones of these policies. As Han women are encouraged to have more children, coercive measures are being taken to reduce births among Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities. Many governments, including the U.S., have condemned these actions as a form of genocide.
It is no coincidence that China’s rhetoric of “population quality” harkens back to overt eugenics. In the early 1990s, Chinese policymakers openly embraced eugenic ideas. A 1993 law initially titled the “On Eugenics and Health Protection Act” sought to “improve population quality” by forbidding marriage or childbearing for people with certain genetic diseases and disabilities (China: Upgrading population quality - Population Matters). Although the law was later euphemistically renamed the Maternal and Infant Health Care Law, its eugenic intent was clear: to prevent the birth of “inferior” babies. Chinese officials at the time spoke of yousheng (literally “healthy birth” or “superior birth”) as a national priority, promoting prenatal screenings and abortions of fetuses with abnormalities. This state-driven eugenics program was justified under the banner of public health and modernization. Even after the term eugenics fell out of favor in China (partly due to international criticism), the concept of improving renkou suzhi – population quality – remained embedded in policy discourse. As one scholarly review notes, Chinese geneticists into the 2000s widely agreed that “an important goal of human genetics was ‘improvement of the population quality’”.
Conclusion: Resisting the New Eugenics
The patterns highlighted – from China’s high-tech authoritarianism to Western bio-optimism – suggest that the core temptations of eugenics are still with us. It is the temptation to trespass on human rights to pursue a technocratic vision of “perfection” or “security.” Today’s tools may be AI algorithms, genomic sequencing, and mass databases. Still, they can be marshalled toward the same ends that old eugenic laws and programs sought: a “better” society as defined by those in power, even if it means coercion and exclusion of those who don’t fit the ideal.
However, awareness is growing. Journalists, activists, and scholars are drawing connections between these new practices and historical eugenics, sounding alarm bells. For instance, the New York Times has published investigations into China’s genomic surveillance and warned of a “21st-century dystopia” if Social Credit-style systems spread. Human Rights Watch and others call for strict limits on biometric surveillance and for banning AI technologies that enable racial profiling or social scoring (China: Big Data Program Targets Xinjiang’s Muslims | Human Rights Watch). In liberal contexts, there are calls for stronger bioethics oversight and even international treaties to prohibit specific genetic enhancements – a parallel to earlier prohibitions on eugenic practices (Confronting the Legacy of Eugenics and Ableism: Towards Anti-Ableist Bioscience Education - PMC ). In 2019, a global moratorium on heritable gene editing was proposed by leading scientists, precisely out of fear that it could open the door to a new era of eugenics.
Democracy, transparency, and public debate are key to resisting these trends. If the lessons of the 20th century teach us anything, the value of human diversity and individual rights must trump utopian schemes. As attractive as “optimizing” society may sound, the question is optimized for whom, and at what cost? Policies that concentrate power in the hands of self-proclaimed experts and treat people as data points or breeding stock must be continually scrutinized. It is possible to enjoy the benefits of technology without falling into technocratic authoritarianism, but this requires vigilance, inclusive dialogue, and a strong commitment to ethical principles.
Ultimately, we must confront the uncomfortable reality that echoes of eugenics exist in our world today. These echoes can be heard in the halls of power, where algorithms determine life outcomes, seen in clinics where embryos are selected and felt in communities subject to increased surveillance. Recognizing these echoes is the first step. The next step is to reject the misleading promises of the new eugenics, no matter how scientific they may seem.
As we navigate the age of AI and genomics, humanity should remember that our worth cannot be quantified, scored, or engineered. Any governance that treats humans in this way risks reviving one of history’s darkest chapters.
References
Agar, N. (2004). Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Blackwell Publishing.
Chun, W. H. K. (2021). Discriminating Data: Correlation, Neighborhoods, and the New Politics of Recognition. MIT Press. (Discriminating Data: Wendy Chun in Conversation with Lisa Nakamura)
Human Rights Watch. (2017, Dec 13). China: Minority Region Collects DNA from Millions (China: Minority Region Collects DNA from Millions | Human Rights Watch) (China: Minority Region Collects DNA from Millions | Human Rights Watch). Human Rights Watch News.
Human Rights Watch. (2017, Dec 12). China’s Chilling ‘Social Credit’ Blacklist (China’s Chilling ‘Social Credit’ Blacklist | Human Rights Watch). Human Rights Watch News (by M. Wang).
Human Rights Watch. (2020, Dec 9). China: Big Data Program Targets Xinjiang’s Muslims (China: Big Data Program Targets Xinjiang’s Muslims | Human Rights Watch) (China: Big Data Program Targets Xinjiang’s Muslims | Human Rights Watch). Human Rights Watch News.
Human Rights Watch. (2022, Sep 5). China: New Evidence of Mass DNA Collection in Tibet (China: New Evidence of Mass DNA Collection in Tibet | Human Rights Watch) (China: New Evidence of Mass DNA Collection in Tibet | Human Rights Watch). Human Rights Watch Report.
Palmer, E. (2021, Apr 29). Feminists thwarting China’s population goals (Feminists thwarting China's population goals - POLITICO). Politico China Watcher.
Population Matters. (2025, Feb 7). China: Upgrading population quality (China: Upgrading population quality - Population Matters) (China: Upgrading population quality - Population Matters). Population Matters News.
Reilly, P. R. (2015). Eugenics and Involuntary Sterilization: 1907-2015. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 16, 351-368 (Eugenics and Involuntary Sterilization: 1907-2015 - PubMed) (Eugenics and Involuntary Sterilization: 1907-2015 - PubMed).
Richardson, S. & Reynolds, I. (2020). Opinion: Eugenics in the era of CRISPR. New York Times.
Smith, G. & Wills, M. (2024, Oct 18). US startup charging couples to ‘screen embryos for IQ’ (US startup charging couples to ‘screen embryos for IQ’ | Genetics | The Guardian). The Guardian.
Stop LAPD Spying Coalition. (2021). Automating Banishment: The Surveillance and Policing of Looted Land (Politicians Move to Limit Predictive Policing After Years of Controversial Failures | TechPolicy.Press). (Referenced via The Guardian).
Zhang, S. (2017). China’s DNA collecting in Xinjiang. The Atlantic. (Describing HRW findings on biometric surveillance).
Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs. (Discusses Social Credit and “instrumentarian” power).
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is a vital aspect of our existence...
In a rapidly changing world rocked by uncertainty and relentless inflation, the very essence of blogging is being tested like never before. Every piece of content we create now faces unprecedented challenges. To safeguard the integrity and quality you expect, we’ve invested heavily—premium software, indispensable licenses, and breathtaking, high-quality copyrighted images—all crucial pieces in the puzzle.
But fear not—we're not on this turbulent journey alone! Your support has become our greatest ally. Just last week, thanks to Musk's changes, every single like, retweet, and share your offer on "X" transformed into a powerful act of solidarity—completely free, totally private, and profoundly impactful. Your gestures of support aren’t merely appreciated; they truly shape the future of our work!
If you're inspired to amplify your impact further, consider supporting us directly through PayPal at gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com or via our IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611. Alternatively, use Stripe through our dedicated donation link, you can quickly and securely contribute. Every contribution—big or small—echoes loudly, enabling us to reach new heights.
We are endlessly grateful to have you with us on this incredible journey. Your generosity is more than support; it’s the lifeblood that fuels our dreams and empowers our mission. Thank you for standing with us—you truly make all the difference!
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
Workart fully right of Germán & Co
Musk Calls for a Zero-Tariff Trade Zone Between Europe and the U.S.
¨Musk had voiced support for eliminating tariffs between the United States and Britain. But his recent comments signal a broader ambition to extend such trade policies to Europe...
NYT Published April 5, 2025 | Updated April 6, 2025, 5:39 a.m. ET
By Emma Bubola
Just three days after President Trump announced sweeping tariffs—including a 20 percent levy on goods from the European Union—Elon Musk expressed his hope that Europe and the United States would eventually shift to a “zero-tariff situation,” effectively forming a free-trade zone.
During a videoconference with Italy’s far-right League party in Florence, Musk outlined his vision for a closely integrated transatlantic relationship. His remarks departed from his recent silence regarding Trump’s protectionist tariff policies.
Earlier on Saturday, Musk had publicly lambasted Peter Navarro, a leading trade adviser in the Trump administration. In response to an X post praising Navarro, Musk dismissed Navarro’s Ivy League credentials as irrelevant. It criticized him for lacking a “builder’s” track record—emphasizing that tangible achievement matters more than academic accolades.
At the conference, Musk stressed the need for a stronger transatlantic partnership, remarking that he would welcome “more freedom of people to move between Europe and North America.” This stance contrasts sharply with the prevailing attitudes among Trump administration officials, as well as President Trump’s own earlier comments, in which he claimed the European Union was designed to “screw” America.
During Trump’s first term, Musk had voiced support for eliminating tariffs between the United States and Britain. But his recent comments signal a broader ambition to extend such trade policies to Europe.
Musk’s appearance with the League party was not his first foray into European political debates. Over recent months, he has increasingly lent his influential voice to far-right movements across the continent. Last Friday, both Musk and Trump expressed support for Marine Le Pen, the embattled French far-right leader recently convicted on embezzlement charges and barred from running for public office. Earlier this year, Musk endorsed Germany’s Alternative for Germany party and weighed in on Italy’s immigration debate—a move that had drawn sharp criticism from Italy’s president.
At Saturday’s event alongside League leader Matteo Salvini, Musk not only reiterated his zero-tariff vision but also promoted the initiatives of his cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency, supported Trump’s stance on the Ukraine conflict, and condemned what he described as the European Union's stifling overregulation.
This revised version aims to present the information clearly and structurefully while highlighting the key points of Musk’s remarks and his broader political involvement.
The Fall of a Giant: Northvolt, Europe’s Battery Dream Derailed…
In a moment of shifting power dynamics, Europe’s battery ambitions buckle with Northvolt’s collapse, deepening reliance on Asian suppliers as CATL eyes its Swedish factory. Meanwhile, France’s nuclear submarine FS Tourville arrives in Halifax, reinforcing Franco-Canadian defense ties and suggesting a pivot from American technology. Russia promotes cheap, abundant energy while freshly revealed secret talks between Moscow and Washington consider reviving Nord Stream 2. As Europe’s battered energy security remains in question, strategic shifts abound. As Western nations continue bolstering Ukraine, tensions mount. Confidence falters amid concerns across alliances and partnerships. Is this the dawn of a new global order or a fleeting moment? The stakes have never been higher.
Image: Media¨Asian firms target Northvolt's assets, with CATL poised to buy its Swedish factory, increasing Europe's dependence on them…
The rope may break; confidence is lost.
Two days ago, the French nuclear-powered attack submarine FS Tourville arrived in Halifax, Canada, drawing attention amid heightened tensions with the United States. Officially described as a routine NATO exercise, the visit signalled French solidarity despite former President Trump’s aggressive rhetoric. France and Canada have significantly strengthened their defence ties, deepened robust military cooperation, and extensively explored technology exchanges. Last week, both countries collaborated closely to support Ukraine, providing substantial assistance and training for Ukrainian forces. Amid Ottawa’s potential shift from U.S. to French submarine technology, this visit underscored France’s readiness to bolster Canada’s security while showcasing its advanced naval capabilities. According to a recent BILD report, new revelations indicate that Russia and the United States have held secret talks to restart the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. This development may have significant implications for transatlantic relations and Europe’s energy security, potentially reshaping the political landscape.
Sources: All Media
Simply coincidences:
Workart by Germán & Co, all rights reserved.
¨Russian energy is abundant, dependable, and (if politics don’t interfere) inexpensive – in contrast, he implies, to the West’s intermittent renewables or high-priced LNG…
***President Vladimir Putin…
***
Putin’s Views on the “Green Agenda” vs. Energy Needs
President Vladimir Putin has criticized Western climate policies as overly aggressive or hypocritical, and emphasized Russia’s role in supplying dependable, cheap energy (mainly fossil fuels) to meet global needs.
Critique of the Western “Green Agenda”
Putin often argues that wealthy Western nations push a “green agenda” that poorer countries cannot afford. For example, at the Valdai Discussion Club in Nov 2024, he said Western countries that had already used fossil fuels to develop and “polluted the atmosphere” now “demand [others] immediately leap to a new level of [clean energy] generation. How can we do that? ...We would have to spend our remaining resources on new technologies, which we must buy from you... It is also a tool of some sort of neo-colonialism”. He urged that if Western nations were sincere about climate goals, they should help poorer countries develop (“provide financing and technology”) instead of imposing strict green rules that stifle development. This implies Putin sees the Western climate push as a “luxury” that only rich, privileged countries can indulge – a sentiment very close to the quote in question.
Putin explicitly framed the Western climate agenda as politicized and unfair. At the Russian Energy Week forum in Sept 2024, he accused some Western countries of using the climate agenda “in pursuit of their neo-colonial aims,” whereas Russia practices a more balanced approach. “Unlike some Western countries that use the climate agenda in pursuit of their neo-colonial aims, we [Russia] put into practice a fair and orderly energy transition that takes into account our natural conditions [and] economic development,” Putin said. This statement underscores his view that Western environmental demands are ideologically driven or domineering, and that Russia will not sacrifice its own economic needs to appease what he sees as a Western “green” ideology.
He has also highlighted what he calls Western hypocrisy on green issues. In a February 2024 TV interview, Putin noted that Europe’s energy crunch forced a return to coal despite green pledges: “Coal generation has increased [in Germany]… now it has become even larger. Well, where is this ‘green’ agenda?”. He accused European Green parties of “capitalising on people’s fears” about climate change to push their political agenda. Such remarks reinforce his skepticism that Western climate policies are practical or honest, especially when those same countries fall back on fossil fuels in a crisis.
Emphasis on Fossil Fuels as “Affordable, Reliable Energy”
The second part of the quote – “We provide what the world truly needs: affordable, reliable energy” – reflects Putin’s consistent messaging that oil, gas (and even coal) remain essential for global prosperity, and that Russia is a reliable supplier of those fuels. While we did not find Putin quoted saying that exact line, he and his officials frequently stress similar points:
Fossil Fuels vs. Renewables: Putin argues that a rapid shift to renewables is dangerous and that traditional energy ensures stability. During an October 2021 government meeting, as Europe faced soaring gas prices, he blamed “unbalanced decisions” in favor of green energy for the market’s “hysteria” and urged a “smooth transition” instead. He warned against “drastic steps” like cutting investment in oil, gas, and coal, emphasizing it’s “vital” to keep those sectors robust. In Putin’s view, neglecting fossil fuels leads to price spikes and energy insecurity – whereas developing them ensures affordable power.
“Climate Agenda” vs. Energy Access: Putin’s Energy Ministry deputies have been even more blunt. Pavel Sorokin, a Deputy Energy Minister, stated in 2024 that Russia’s strategy to address climate change would not simply copy the West’s renewables-first approach if it undermines development. He noted that Russia prefers practical measures like efficiency and using cleaner fuels (gas, nuclear) rather than “litter[ing] everything with wind turbines and solar panels”. “Some realistic measures are to use the clean resources we have – such as gas, nuclear, hydropower,” Sorokin said. This aligns with Putin’s stance that natural gas and nuclear power are reliable, low-emission energy sources that can affordably meet the world’s needs, whereas an over-reliance on renewables is seen as a costly Western “luxury.”
Russia as a Reliable Supplier: Putin often positions Russia as a provider of energy security. Even as Europe cut Russian gas imports in 2022–23, he reminded audiences that Russia met all its contractual supply obligations and offered alternatives (for instance, suggesting Europe could have cheap gas if it opened the Nord Stream 2 pipeline). While these specific offers were entangled in geopolitics, the underlying message was that Russian energy is abundant, dependable, and (if politics don’t interfere) inexpensive – in contrast, he implies, to the West’s intermittent renewables or high-priced LNG.
Skepticism of Green Technology: Putin has even cast doubt on renewables’ environmental benefits, famously quipping in 2019 that wind turbines are harmful to birds and worms. Though somewhat facetious, comments like this reinforce that he doesn’t share the West’s enthusiasm for wind or solar. Instead, he touts Russia’s large natural gas reserves as a relatively clean fossil fuel that can reduce emissions without the cost of wholly “green” solutions. In short, Putin portrays Russian fossil fuels as a pragmatic answer to energy demand, keeping power affordable and reliable, whereas Western leaders (in his portrayal) push renewables as a political fashion that poorer societies can ill afford.
Fact-Checkers:
State-owned Media (Russia): Putin’s Valdai Club speech (reported by RIA Novosti) explicitly frames Western green demands as unrealistic and “neo-colonial”, insisting that countries like Russia must prioritize economic development and energy access. This is a clear indication that he sees the “green agenda” as a luxury of already-developed nations. (RIA Novosti is a Russian state news agency reporting Putin’s words; we’ve provided the translation above.)
Independent News Agencies: International coverage echoes these themes. Reuters, for instance, reported Putin’s 2024 interview where he accused European Greens of “inciting fears” and noted the contradiction of Europe burning more coal. Another Reuters piece in 2021 quoted Putin admonishing Europe’s “hysteria” over energy markets due to a rushed green transition, stressing the need to keep oil, gas, and coal in the mix for a stable supply. These reputable reports corroborate Putin’s skepticism of an all-out renewable push and his championing of fossil fuel energy for stability.
TASS (Russian Energy Forum): An English-language report by TASS (another Russian state outlet) from Sept 2024 cites Putin contrasting the West’s use of the climate agenda for “neo-colonial aims” with Russia’s “fair and orderly energy transition” that accounts for national conditions. While not using the word “luxury,” the implication is that Russia won’t blindly follow what it considers a Western-driven climate agenda that disregards less wealthy nations’ realities.
In summary, Vladimir Putin has repeatedly conveyed that aggressive climate policies are a Western “luxury” or even a cover for dominance, and that ensuring affordable, reliable energy (chiefly via oil, gas, nuclear) is Russia’s priority for itself and its partners. The exact wording of the query seems to be a paraphrase of Putin’s worldview rather than a verbatim quote, but it accurately encapsulates remarks he has made on different occasions. As Putin put it, Russia seeks “sustainable development of the oil, gas and coal sectors” alongside some renewables, because in his view the world “needs all energy sources” to guarantee energy access – a stance implying that the rich world’s green idealism must be tempered by the practical energy needs of billions.
Sources:
Putin’s speech at Russian Energy Week forum, TASS, Sept 26, 2024 – “Unlike some Western countries that use the climate agenda in pursuit of their neo-colonial aims, we are putting into practice a fair and orderly energy transition…”.
Putin’s remarks at Valdai Club, as reported by RIA Novosti, Nov 7, 2024 – criticizing nations that “used all energy sources…polluted the atmosphere, and now demand that we immediately [switch to new generation]. …This is also one of the tools of neo-colonialism” and urging support for developing countries’ energy needs.
Reuters, Feb 15, 2024 – “Putin … criticised the green movement in Europe for capitalising on people’s fears… ‘Where is this “green” agenda?’” (noting Europe’s coal resurgence amid gas shortages).
Reuters, Oct 5, 2021 – Reporting Putin’s view that an overly “drastic” green transition caused market turmoil: “You see what is happening in Europe. There is hysteria…because [some] started to cut back on investments in extractive industries. There needs to be a smooth transition,” and his call to not neglect oil, gas, coal for now.
Reuters, Sept 27, 2024 – Deputy Minister Sorokin (reflecting Putin-era policy) rejecting a renewables-only approach: Russia will favor steps that “not put significant pressure” on development, e.g. efficiency and using gas, nuclear, rather than covering everything with wind turbines and solar panels.
RIA Novosti (Russia) summary of Putin at Valdai 2024 – Western nations “demand that we immediately leap to new technologies…how can we do that? …we’d have to spend our last resources to buy new tech from you… one of the instruments of neo-colonialism.”.
Reuters, Feb 15, 2024 – Note that “Putin himself is known for his doubts about green energy. In 2019 he said wind turbines were harmful to birds and worms. Russia has promoted natural gas as being climate friendly.” (illustrating his attitude toward “green” vs. gas).
Global News Highlights (March 13, 2025)
Energy News:
Top Headlines
The New York Times
Europe Jolted by Northvolt Bankruptcy, EU Green Ambitions at RiskKey Details: Swedish battery manufacturer Northvolt has declared bankruptcy after failing to secure a €5 billion EU bailout. BMW, Volvo, and Volkswagen are now turning to Chinese suppliers, threatening Europe’s plans to dominate electric vehicle (EV) production. EU Commission President announces an emergency summit to rescue the 2035 deadline for phasing out combustion engines.
Wall Street Journal
U.S. Oil Output Reaches 16M Barrels/Day as Trump Declares ‘Energy Dominance 2.0’Key Details: Speaking at CERAWeek 2025, former President Trump pledged accelerated Arctic drilling permits and plans to revoke offshore wind leases, stating, “The green experiment is dead.” U.S. crude exports rise sharply, challenging OPEC+ pricing power.
The Guardian
Global Climate Strikes Target CERAWeek, Slam ‘Ecocide’ of Fossil Fuel GrowthKey Details: Greta Thunberg leads protests in Houston denouncing what she calls an “obscene fossil fetish.” ExxonMobil faces backlash for a newly announced $30 billion share buyback program.
Financial Times
China’s CATL Pushes ‘Battery Colonialism’ Deals with Europe, AfricaKey Details: Leading battery producer CATL is offering discounted lithium-ion units to European automakers in exchange for mining rights in Namibia and Zimbabwe. Critics label these agreements “green debt traps,” warning of long-term economic and environmental consequences.
Reuters
Gazprom Slashes Gas Deliveries to Europe Amid Ukraine Drone StrikesKey Details: Citing “technical issues,” Russia’s Gazprom cuts flow through the TurkStream pipeline by 40%, sending EU natural gas prices soaring to €120 per MWh. Germany pivots to coal-fired power, jeopardizing its 2030 coal phaseout pledge.
Politico EU
France Proposes EU-Wide ‘Atomic Alliance’ to Rival U.S. and ChinaKey Details: President Macron backs a €100 billion EU nuclear fund to build 15 new reactors by 2035. Poland and Austria rejected the plan, calling it “radioactive madness” and setting the stage for a major internal EU conflict over energy strategy.
Bloomberg
Saudi Aramco Cuts Oil Prices in Asia as OPEC+ Unity FraysKey Details: Facing market competition, Riyadh reduced April crude prices by $2 per barrel to maintain its Asian market share. Russia undercuts OPEC+ targets by ramping up Urals crude exports to India at $68 per barrel.
Al Jazeera
Egypt Freezes LNG Exports to Combat Domestic Heatwave BlackoutsKey Details: In response to spiraling power shortages, Cairo halts LNG exports, hindering Europe’s efforts to bolster summer gas reserves. Italy declares an “energy state of emergency” over the supply shortfall.
The Hindu
India Bypasses U.S. Tariffs with 10-Year Solar Deal with ChinaKey Details: A rupee-yuan swap agreement allows India to source cheaper Chinese solar panels despite U.S. sanctions, accelerating progress toward a 500 GW renewable energy target.
African Energy Chamber
Nigeria’s $20 Billion Dangote Refinery Collapses amid Corruption ProbeKey Details: The largest refinery project in Africa grinds to a halt, exacerbating fuel shortages across the continent. Protesters in Lagos demand accountability from the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).
Geopolitical Developments
U.S.-EU Trade Dispute Deepens
Brussels announces 45% tariffs on U.S. LNG following Trump’s “carbon tax” on European steel.China-Russia Energy Partnership Grows
Beijing agrees to finance the Siberia-2 gas pipeline in exchange for settling oil trades in yuan, further reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar.Latin America’s ‘Lithium OPEC’
Chile and Argentina form a cartel-like agreement, tightening royalties and alarming EV manufacturers such as Tesla and BYD.
CERAWeek 2025: Key Takeaways
Fossil Fuel Renaissance
Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser proclaims that “peak oil is a myth,” while ExxonMobil announces its intent to acquire shale competitor Chesapeake Energy. ***Green Hydrogen Loses Momentum
Shell cancels its $7 billion green hydrogen project in Namibia, citing high infrastructure costs.Nuclear Innovations
Bill Gates’ TerraPower claims a major breakthrough in small modular reactors (SMRs), bolstered by $5 billion in U.S. funding.
Economic & Market Impacts
Volatile Oil Prices
Brent crude fluctuates between $85 and $95 per barrel amid OPEC+ tensions and rising U.S. production.EV Sector Under Pressure
Tesla’s stock plummets by 15% as CATL secures a dominant position in the battery market. Rivian files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.Green Bond Shake-Up
EU-issued green bonds see yields spike to 8% following Northvolt’s collapse, raising concerns about the region’s clean-tech financing.
Key Quotes
Fatih Birol (IEA):
“The world is sleepwalking into an energy abyss—governments must choose between security and transition, not pretend they can have both.”Jennifer Granholm (U.S. Energy Secretary):
“The Inflation Reduction Act remains our guiding star, but unless Congress steps up, China will dominate clean tech.”Vladimir Putin (President of Russia):
“The West’s green agenda is a luxury for the privileged. We provide what the world truly needs: affordable, reliable energy.”
What to Watch
March 15, 2025: EU emergency summit to address Northvolt’s collapse and salvage the 2035 combustion-engine ban.
March 20, 2025: OPEC+ meeting in Vienna—market eyes on Russia’s compliance with production quotas.
April 2025: India’s general elections could shift the course of its solar partnership with China.
Analysis
The 2025 energy landscape is grappling with three major paradoxes:
Security vs. Transition:
Even as governments pledge to cut emissions, energy security concerns are driving a renewed push for fossil fuels.Subsidy Wars:
The U.S., EU, and China continue to inject massive funding into their energy sectors, leading to competitive distortions and mounting debt risks.Political Polarization:
From the U.S. shift toward aggressive drilling to Europe’s internal battles over nuclear energy, policy decisions increasingly hinge on ideological lines.
Overall, these headlines underscore the fragility and complexity of the global energy transition. As the urgency of climate action intensifies, geopolitical rivalries and market pressures often undermine long-term environmental goals.
***
Mark Silverstone on Mar 11, 2025
Just a comment or two:
1. People have been trying to predict the end of the oil and gas supply, always incorrectly, for many years. Fifty years sounds like as good an estimate as any. But if we wait to replace oil and gas with electricity for 50 more years, or whenever it becomes too expensive because of its scarcity, we accept dire consequences for life on this planet.
As you describe very well, the replacement of oil and gas by renewables is far more feasible now that just a few years ago, and far less feasible now than it will be in just a few years from now. But waiting until it is perfect is not an option. The time to start has arrived.
2. Energy conservation and efficiency measures such as heat exchangers, insulation, energy efficient appliances, etc can assist and partially compensate for increased demand for electricity from data centers, etc.
3. Mis-information and dis-information is successfully and effectively delaying the adoption of renewables and encouraging continued dependence on fossil fuels.
At this moment, agents of the U.S. government, including cabinet secretaries, under secretaries and ambassadors, as well as fossil fuel interests (In at least the referenced case, the cabinet secretary and fossil fuel interests are one and the same!) are telling the developing world that they do the exact opposite of what you suggest: That they should plan their future energy needs on burning fossil fuels.
So, regardless of oil and gas supplies, all of the good news about renewables that you describe will fall on deaf ears without the necessary political and commercial changes.
Gracias y buena suerte!!
Reply: German Toro Ghio on March 11, 2025
Thank you very much Michael, for your interest:
The future is not a fixed destination but: a spectrum of possibilities shaped by relentless tinkering, determined pragmatism, and the occasional stroke of luck.
Forecasts outline ambition; progress relies on hard work. It said:
"Peak Oil" Fallacy: The 2000s "peak oil" narrative collapsed due to unconventional extraction (***shale fracking, deepwater drilling), which unlocked vast reserves. Similarly, today’s "end of gas" forecasts ignore potential innovations like methane pyrolysis or carbon-neutral synthetic gas.
Gas’s Staying Power: Even in aggressive net-zero scenarios, gas remains a transitional baseload fuel for industries like steel and shipping. Its decline hinges on alternatives (e.g., hydrogen, modular nuclear) maturing faster than expected—a gamble, not a certainty.
*** Economic Desperation vs Environmental Ethics, Matt Damon, Promised Land (2012).
2. Technological Plateaus vs. Incrementalism
The "happy face" cost-decline curves for renewables (and any tech) often gloss over hard limits:
Physics and Economics: Solar panel efficiency approaches the Shockley-Queisser limit (approximately 33%), and any further cost reductions necessitate tightening supply chains (such as polysilicon) that are already operating on razor-thin margins.
Infrastructure Lock-In: Grids, pipelines, and factories represent trillions in sunk costs. Transitioning these systems involves more than just developing better technology and overcoming political inertia (for instance, the U.S. gas lobby obstructing transmission lines for renewable energy).
The Innovation Myth: Most breakthroughs occur incrementally. Every "moonshot," like perovskite solar cells, requires decades of trial and error. Fusion, for example, remains perpetually "30 years away."
However:
Exponential Leaps Do Happen: Lithium-ion batteries fell 97% in cost since 1991—a drop few predicted. AI-driven material discovery (e.g., Google’s GNoME) could accelerate such leaps.
Scalability > Novelty: Sometimes "boring" innovations matter most. China’s dominance in solar isn’t about cutting-edge tech but brute-force scaling of manufacturing.
3. The Real Lesson of "Peak Oil"
The "peak oil" debacle teaches us two things:
Adaptation Overrides Depletion: Markets innovate when scarcity looms. High oil prices in the 2010s didn’t cause collapse—they funded fracking.
Demand Peaks Matter More: Oil may never "run out," but demand could peak by 2030 as EVs and biofuels advance. Similarly, gas demand might plateau not due to scarcity but policy (e.g., EU carbon tariffs) or cultural shifts (corporate ESG mandates).
4. Pragmatic Energy Realism
Rather than betting on utopian forecasts or dooms, focus on:
No-Regrets Policies: Invest in grid modernisation, methane leak detection, and R&D for modular nuclear/hydrogen—adaptable solutions regardless of long-term scenarios.
Scenario Planning, Not Prophecy: Shell’s 1970s "scenarios" (not predictions) prepared it for oil shocks and climate policies. Governments should similarly hedge their bets.
Embracing Uncertainty: ***¾COVID¾ and the ***¾Ukraine¾ war demonstrated how swiftly energy systems can pivot. Flexibility (e.g., LNG terminals convertible to hydrogen) is more valuable than rigid forecasts.
***: Steve Bannon's Suspicions About COVID-19's Creation in China
Steve Bannon, former White House Chief Strategist during the Trump administration, has repeatedly voiced suspicions that the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, rather than naturally.
Key points:
Bannon was an early prominent advocate of the lab leak theory.
He used his "War Room" podcast to promote this view.
His claims were part of a broader debate about the virus's origins.
The exact origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains under scientific investigation, and no definitive consensus has been reached as of October 2024. Both laboratory origin and zoonotic transmission theories continue to be studied.
References:
Rogin, J. (2021). "Chaos Under Heaven: Trump, Xi, and the Battle for the 21st Century."“ Houghton Mifflin.
Baker, N. (2021). "The Lab-Leak Hypothesis." New York Magazine.
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2023). "An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic."
World Health Organization (2023). "Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO): Report."
***: ¨Russia and U.S. Held Secret Talks on Restarting Nord Stream 2 Pipeline – Bild...
https://energycentral.com/c/og/natural-gas-cartel-emerging-global-influence-yes-or-not
https://energycentral.com/c/og/gigantic-shark-devourer-energy-and-aqua
Ultimately, the true challenge in the electrical industry is not the fuels or sources for energy production; rather, the insurmountable issue lies in water scarcity and poor decision-making spending.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is a vital aspect of our existence...
In a rapidly changing world rocked by uncertainty and relentless inflation, the very essence of blogging is being tested like never before. Every piece of content we create now faces unprecedented challenges. To safeguard the integrity and quality you expect, we’ve invested heavily—premium software, indispensable licenses, and breathtaking, high-quality copyrighted images—all crucial pieces in the puzzle.
But fear not—we're not on this turbulent journey alone! Your support has become our greatest ally. Just last week, thanks to Musk's changes, every single like, retweet, and share your offer on "X" transformed into a powerful act of solidarity—completely free, totally private, and profoundly impactful. Your gestures of support aren’t merely appreciated; they truly shape the future of our work!
If you're inspired to amplify your impact further, consider supporting us directly through PayPal at gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com or via our IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611. Alternatively, use Stripe through our dedicated donation link, you can quickly and securely contribute. Every contribution—big or small—echoes loudly, enabling us to reach new heights.
We are endlessly grateful to have you with us on this incredible journey. Your generosity is more than support; it’s the lifeblood that fuels our dreams and empowers our mission. Thank you for standing with us—you truly make all the difference!
“Today's electricity landscape is not a one-size-fits-all market; the industry requires a variety of strategies tailored to different markets and circumstances. Key factors such as regional demand, regulatory environments, available technologies, and the mix of energy sources are essential in creating the most effective approaches for power generation, distribution, and consumption. Andrés Gluski, the CEO & President of AES
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
Workart fully right of Germán & Co
The Giant Northvolt Has Filed for Bankruptcy: A Detailed Analysis.
In a stark blow to Europe’s green energy ambitions, Northvolt, once hailed as the continent’s brightest hope in the global battery race has filed for bankruptcy. The Swedish startup’s collapse marks not just the failure of a company but a crisis for Europe’s strategy to break free from Asian dominance in critical clean-tech industries. The fallout threatens jobs, automaker supply chains, and the European Union’s vision of a self-reliant, sustainable future.
A Star Burns Too Bright, Too Fast
Founded in 2016 by ex-Tesla executive Peter Carlsson, Northvolt aimed to be Europe’s answer to Asian battery giants like CATL and LG Energy Solution. Backed by $10 billion in funding from automotive titans (Volkswagen, BMW), institutional investors, and EU governments, the company pledged to build sprawling “gigafactories” producing sustainable lithium-ion batteries. Its flagship plant in Skellefteå, Sweden—powered by hydropower and designed to employ 3,000 workers—symbolized a greener industrial revolution.
But by 2024, cracks emerged. Production delays, defective batteries, and equipment failures plagued operations. A cancelled $2 billion BMW contract and a failed $5 billion loan triggered a cash crunch. By early 2025, Northvolt’s insolvency left investors reeling, workers jobless, and Europe’s battery strategy in tatters.
Why Northvolt Imploded
The bankruptcy stems from a perfect storm of missteps and market forces:
1. Financial overreach: Battery gigafactories cost billions, and Northvolt’s aggressive expansion—simultaneously building plants in Sweden and Germany and eyeing the U.S.—burned through cash. The company couldn’t pay its bills when key revenue streams dried up.
2. Operational Stumbles: Battery manufacturing is unforgiving. Tiny defects in electrode coatings or chemical impurities can ruin entire batches. Northvolt’s rush to scale led to low yields, missed deadlines and frustrated automakers. “They tried to build a plane while flying it,” said one industry analyst.
3. Asian Price Wars: Chinese rivals like CATL flooded the market with cheaper batteries, undercutting Northvolt’s prices. Meanwhile, rising interest rates and volatile lithium costs squeezed margins.
4. Strategic Bloat: The company’s push into recycling and raw material refining diverted resources. “They lost focus,” admitted a former engineer. “You can’t do everything at once.”
Human Toll: Shattered Lives and Broken Trust
The bankruptcy’s human cost is stark. In Skellefteå, a region banking on Northvolt for revival, layoffs have left families scrambling. “We moved here for stability,” said Anna Lundström, a single mother and former quality control worker. “Now, I don’t know how I’ll pay rent.”
Workers also raised safety concerns. Leaked reports cited chemical exposures, inadequate protective gear, and gruelling 80-hour weeks. Subcontractors faced accusations of exploiting migrant labour. “The pressure was relentless,” said one technician. “We were told Europe’s future depended on us, but we were exhausted.”
Automakers Left in the Lurch
Northvolt’s collapse leaves automakers scrambling. Volkswagen, BMW, and Volvo—which bet on the startup for EV batteries—now face supply gaps. Sourcing from Asian firms could delay Europe’s EV rollout and inflate costs. “This is a wake-up call,” said a BMW executive. “We need multiple suppliers, but Europe isn’t ready.”
The energy storage sector is also hit. Northvolt’s Polish plant, meant to supply grid-scale batteries, leaves renewable projects in limbo. “Europe’s energy transition just got harder,” said a German utilities adviser.
Geopolitical Reckoning: Europe’s Weak Spot Exposed
Northvolt’s failure underscores Europe’s vulnerability in the global battery war. While China controls 70% of battery production and the U.S. lures firms with Inflation Reduction Act subsidies, the EU’s fragmented policies and reliance on imports have stalled progress.
“Europe wanted a homegrown champion but couldn’t match Asia’s state-backed support,” said energy analyst Clara Richter. “Without raw material access or cheaper power, it’s impossible to compete.”
The EU’s Battery Alliance, launched in 2017 to capture 25% of global production by 2030, now seems aspirational. Meanwhile, Asian firms circle Northvolt’s carcass: CATL may acquire its Swedish plant, deepening Europe’s dependence.
Lessons from the Ashes
Northvolt’s collapse offers hard lessons:
Scale Wisely: Startups must balance ambition with execution. Rushing gigafactories without mastering basics risks disaster.
Diversify Supply Chains: Europe needs raw material partnerships and recycling infrastructure to avoid Asian dominance.
Policy Overhaul: Public funds, like phased milestones, should come with strings attached. “Blank checks won’t work,” said an EU lawmaker.
What’s Next for Europe’s Battery Hopes?
While Northvolt’s assets may be sold for scrap, Europe’s battery dream isn’t dead. Startups like France’s Verkor and Norway’s Freyr still aim to scale, and the EU is eyeing solid-state battery breakthroughs. But the path forward demands realism.
“This isn’t about one company failing,” said industry veteran Lars Jensen. “It’s about whether Europe can learn, adapt, and fight smarter in a cutthroat global market.”
For now, the lights are off in Skellefteå. But the race to power the green future is far from over.
Sources:
Dagens Nyheter, Today
We have chosen to live in a chaotic world.
The question hung in the air, like the buzzing of fluorescent lights in a quiet hallway: What does the new world want? Maybe it wants to end illusions or get rid of fear. Or perhaps it just wants to wake up and realize that the heavy dream was never complete. But in that quiet moment, he couldn't see which reality was the dream and which was the truth.
¨In a single, disconcerting moment, everything shifted. It defies explanation: harsh authoritarianism—sometimes cloaked in a pitiless communist guise—now stands as the model to emulate. As unlikely as it seems, the evidence tells a different story…
Workart by Germán & Co.
Global News Highlights (March 10, 2025)
A new global energy agreement has led to a significant increase in investments in renewable energy.
Energy ministers from over 30 countries have signed a groundbreaking agreement to accelerate the global shift toward renewable power. The pact, announced in Brussels, establishes shared targets for solar, wind and hydrogen development, aiming to slash carbon emissions by 40% over the next decade. Participating nations also pledged new funding mechanisms to support grid expansion and cross-border clean-energy projects. While proponents hail the accord as a critical milestone in battling climate change, some industry groups caution about potential costs and regulatory hurdles. Markets reacted positively, with renewable energy stocks surging in anticipation of substantial infrastructure investments.
The recent global energy agreement, likely forged through multilateral initiatives such as COP30 or the Energy Compacts framework, has prompted a surge in renewable energy investments. This analysis synthesises this development's’ key drivers, challenges, and implications, drawing insights from geopolitical, economic, and technological trends outlined in the search results.
1. Drivers of the Investment Surge
a. Global Energy Compact and Financial Commitments
The agreement aligns with mechanisms such as the Energy Compacts, which have mobilised $1.4 trillion in climate-aligned financing since 2021, focusing on decarbonisation and energy access. Projects like Mission 300—a World Bank-led Initiative targeting 300 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa—highlight how structured investment frameworks are scaling clean energy markets and attracting private capital. These efforts prioritise grid infrastructure, solar/wind deployment, and energy storage, addressing climate goals and energy poverty.
b. Policy Tailwinds and Market Realignment
Despite geopolitical volatility (e.g., the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda), the agreement underscores a global consensus on the economic viability of renewables. Solar and wind costs continue to fall, with BloombergNEF noting a 35% YoY increase in solar installations in 2024, driven by emerging markets like India and Saudi Arabia. Even under conservative U.S. policy scenarios, clean energy growth remains robust, with over 900 GW of solar, wind, and storage projected by 2035.
c. AI-Driven Demand for Clean Power
The AI boom is reshaping energy markets, with data centres projected to account for 5% of global electricity demand by 2030. Tech giants like Microsoft and Amazon are securing nuclear and renewable PPAs to meet 24/7 clean power needs, indirectly driving investment in grid modernisation and storage solutions.
2. Geopolitical and Economic Dynamics
a. China’s Clean Tech Dominance
China’s leadership in renewables (60% of global capacity additions by 2030) and EV exports is central to the agreement’s success. However, Western tariffs on Chinese technologies risk slowing decarbonisation in regions reliant on affordable solar panels and batteries. The agreement must navigate this polarization to ensure equitable technology transfer.
b. U.S. Policy Uncertainty
The Trump administration’s reversal of climate policies—including methane regulations and EV subsidies—creates headwinds. However, market forces (e.g., corporate decarbonisation pledges) and state-level initiatives may offset federal inaction, as seen in ongoing renewable growth despite regulatory rollbacks.
c. Energy Security Imperatives
Russia’s war in Ukraine and conflicts in the Middle East have intensified the focus on diversified energy supply chains. The agreement leverages this by prioritising resilient infrastructure, such as LNG export approvals and critical minerals mining, though fossil fuel resilience risks delaying the transition.
3. Challenges to Implementation
- Infrastructure Bottlenecks: Lengthy permitting processes and grid interconnection delays persist, particularly in Europe and the U.S. Reforms, like Germany’s 150% increase in wind permits post-2022, offer a blueprint but require global scaling.
- Hydrogen and CCS Struggles: Clean hydrogen costs remain 35% higher than 2022 estimates, reliant on subsidies and carbon pricing. Similarly, carbon capture projects face financing hurdles, underscoring the need for blended finance models.
- Equity Gaps: Emerging economies still lack access to affordable capital. While Mission 300 targets Sub-Saharan Africa, broader SDG7 goals require $3 trillion annually, with only $2 trillion allocated to clean energy in 2024.
4. Sectoral Impacts
- Nuclear Renaissance: SMRs and reactor restarts (e.g., Palisades, Three Mile Island) are gaining traction, supported by tech firms seeking baseload power.
- EV Market Shifts: China’s EV exports are displacing oil demand in net-importing nations like Brazil, while Europe’s slowdown reflects policy design flaws rather than consumer rejection.
- Fossil Fuel Adaptation: OPEC+ faces dwindling pricing power as non-OPEC supply grows, with Brent crude projected at $70–75 per barrel in 2025. LNG markets will
5. Future Outlook
The success of the agreement hinges on:
1. Scaling Public-Private Collaboration: Initiatives like the EU’s Global Energy Transition Forum must bridge funding gaps and streamline regulations.
2. Leveraging AI for Grid Optimisation: AI’s dual role as a power consumer and enabler (e.g., predictive analytics for renewables) could unlock efficiency gains.
3. COP30 as a Catalyst: Brazil’s leadership at COP30 may revive stalled climate finance commitments and fossil fuel phase-out dialogues.
Conclusion
While the global energy agreement marks a turning point, its long-term efficacy depends on resolving geopolitical tensions, accelerating infrastructure reforms, and ensuring equitable access to capital. The interplay of AI, nuclear innovation, and China’s clean tech hegemony will define the next phase of the transition, requiring agility from policymakers and investors alike.
Sources & References:
(1) The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
(2) The New York Times (NYT)
(3) Time (Times Magazine)
(4) The Washington Post
(5) The New Yorker
(6) Le Monde
(7) Der Spiegel
(8) El País
(9) The Moscow Times
(10) The Guardian
Politics & Conflict
Ukraine War: Russia has escalated its offensive, claiming to capture a village in Ukraine’s Sumy region for the first time since 2022, even as Ukrainian forces hold pockets of territory across the border in Russia’s Kursk region (Russia Claims Counteroffensive Into Ukraine’s Sumy Region - The Moscow Times). Heavy fighting continues on both sides of the border.
Peace Efforts: Diplomatic moves are underway to halt the conflict. U.S. and Ukrainian delegations are set to meet in Saudi Arabia as early as this week, with Washington (under President Donald Trump) pushing for a ceasefire “framework” (Russia Claims Counteroffensive Into Ukraine’s Sumy Region - The Moscow Times). The Trump administration has even temporarily paused specific military aid and intelligence-sharing with Ukraine to pressure Kyiv into negotiations (Russia Claims Counteroffensive Into Ukraine’s Sumy Region - The Moscow Times). (Trump vowed to end the war quickly, and Moscow has welcomed talks to restore ties.)
Diplomatic Tensions: Russia’s relations with Western nations remain fraught outside the Ukraine talks. Moscow expelled two British diplomats on accusations of espionage – allegations the UK Embassy denounced as “entirely baseless” (Russia Expels 2 British Diplomats, Accuses Them of Espionage - The Moscow Times) (Russia Expels 2 British Diplomats, Accuses Them of Espionage - The Moscow Times). The incident adds to a string of recent tit-for-tat expulsions that have strained Russia–UK relations.
Economy & Trade
Trade Tariffs Dispute: The U.S. shocked allies by announcing new 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada, effectively threatening the USMCA free trade accord. After an urgent call with Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum, however, President Trump delayed these tariffs for 1 month, exempting all goods under USMCA until early April (Trump delays tariffs on most Mexican and Canadian goods after call with Sheinbaum | U.S. | EL PAÍS English). The last-minute reprieve – which was later confirmed to cover Canada as well – came as an “accommodation” to Mexico amid cooperation on migration and fentanyl trafficking (Trump delays tariffs on most Mexican and Canadian goods after call with Sheinbaum | U.S. | EL PAÍS English). Still, it left businesses uneasy about trade stability.
Europe Rearms & Spends: Europe is responding to shifting U.S. policies by bolstering its defence and economic plans. In Germany, incoming Chancellor Friedrich Merz has made a stunning about-face on fiscal policy – agreeing to suspend Germany’s strict debt-brake to allow potentially unlimited borrowing for military spending (Europe must rapidly readjust to dodge the wrecking ball Trump wields over global trade system | The Guardian - Newspaper - Read this story on Magzter.com). This marked a “seismic shift” as the EU launched a dramatic push to “rearm Europe,” with up to €800 billion envisaged to strengthen European defence against Russian aggression (Europe must rapidly readjust to dodge the wrecking ball Trump wields over global trade system | The Guardian - Newspaper - Read this story on Magzter.com). Analysts note that Donald Trump’s isolationist turn – from tariff threats to hints of reduced support for Europe – has galvanized the EU to invest more in its own security (Europe must rapidly readjust to dodge the wrecking ball Trump wields over global trade system | The Guardian - Newspaper - Read this story on Magzter.com). European markets cheered the increased public spending on defence, even as leaders balanced it against economic constraints.
Technology
AI Delays at Apple: Apple announced it is delaying major AI upgrades to Siri until 2026, missing the original 2025 rollout timeline (Apple says some AI improvements to Siri delayed to 2026 | Reuters). The company has been working on a more personalized, context-aware Siri that can perform complex tasks across apps. Still, it admitted “it’s going to take longer than we thought” to deliver these features (Apple says some AI improvements to Siri delayed to 2026 | Reuters). Apple gave no specific reason for the setback, even as rivals forge ahead – Google integrated its advanced Gemini AI model into Assistant last year, and Amazon recently rolled out a powerful AI upgrade to Alexa (Apple says some AI improvements to Siri delayed to 2026 | Reuters). The delay underscores Apple's challenges in the fast-moving AI race, despite Siri handling 1.5 billion user requests a day (Apple says some AI improvements to Siri were delayed to 2026 | Reuters). Tech observers say Apple is investing in cloud infrastructure and privacy-preserving AI, but falling behind could cede ground to competitors in the smart assistant arena.
Climate & Environment
France’s Adaptation Plan: Facing mounting climate risks, France unveiled an ambitious national Climate Adaptation Plan with 52 measures to prepare for a scenario of +4 °C global warming (Climat : les 52 mesures pour adapter la France à + 4 °C de réchauffement prêtes à être mises en œuvre). The government presented the plan on Monday, aiming to fortify economic and social sectors against future climate extremes (Climat : les 52 mesures pour adapter la France à + 4 °C de réchauffement prêtes à être mises en œuvre). It prioritizes protecting vulnerable regions – coastal areas, mountain zones, agriculture and forests are on the front lines of expected impacts (Climat : les 52 mesures pour adapter la France à + 4 °C de réchauffement prêtes à être mises en œuvre). Observers note this is France’s third such plan, now bolstered to ensure the country can cope with more frequent heatwaves, droughts, floods and other climate fallout.
Emissions Concentration: A new report highlights the outsized role of a few companies in driving global emissions. Only 20 energy companies (16 state-owned) were responsible for about 40% of all CO₂ emissions from the fossil-fuel sector in 2023 (Twenty companies account for over 40% of all CO₂ emitted by the global fossil fuel sector | Climate | EL PAÍS English). These oil, gas, coal and cement producers emitted 17.5 gigatons of CO₂ last year; notably, Chinese state-owned firms alone contributed roughly 23% of the total (Twenty companies account for over 40% of all CO₂ emitted by the global fossil fuel sector | Climate | EL PAÍS English). Despite intensifying climate impacts, emissions from this group rose by 0.7% in 2023 compared to 2022 (Twenty companies account for over 40% of all CO₂ emitted by the global fossil fuel sector | Climate | EL PAÍS English), signalling that corporate output is still increasing. The worst offender was Saudi oil giant Aramco, followed by others like Coal India and Russia’s Gazprom (Twenty companies account for over 40% of all CO₂ emitted by the global fossil fuel sector | Climate | EL PAÍS English). Climate advocates say such findings underscore the need for tougher regulations on major polluters and faster transitions to renewable energy, as current efforts are not yet bending the emissions curve downward.
U.S. Policy & Society
Federal “Word Ban” Controversy: In Washington, the Trump administration has moved to reshape language in federal agencies, stirring debate over censorship and science. Officials in multiple departments report being instructed to avoid a list of terms related to diversity, gender, and public health in official communications. For example, at the FDA, scientists were told to stop using words like “woman,” “disabled,” or “elderly” in reports and websites (Exclusive: FDA staffers told that 'woman,' 'disabled' among banned words; White House says it’s an error | Reuters). Similarly, staff at health agencies were directed to remove or refrain from using terms such as “gender,” “transgender,” “LGBT,” and “climate change” to comply with executive orders that solely recognize binary gender and aim to eliminate diversity programs (Exclusive: FDA staffers told to 'woman,' 'disabled' among banned words; White House says it’s an error | Reuters). The CDC even pulled down public health data (like certain HIV information) and paused some publications so they could be reviewed under the new guidelines (Exclusive: FDA staffers told 'woman,' 'disabled' among banned words; White House says it’s an error | Reuters). The White House claims some of these moves resulted from “misinterpreting” its directives, but federal employees say the vague mandates are already chilling scientific and policy discourse (Exclusive: FDA staffers told that 'woman,' 'disabled' among banned words; White House says it’s an error | Reuters) (Exclusive: FDA staffers told that 'woman,' 'disabled' among banned words; White House says it’s an error | Reuters). Civil rights and health experts warn that this “word ban” trend could undermine research and transparency on issues from women’s health to climate, by stripping commonly used terms and data from public view.
Germán & Co via Shutterstock
What does the new world want?
By Germán & Co,He blinked once, uncertain whether it was the glow of fluorescent lights on a hospital ceiling or the faint glimmer of a Moscow airport’s marble walls. A moment before, he had been riding a motorcycle through sun-worn streets—no, that wasn’t right. He was sitting on a flight, waiting for hours, sensing that in this world, time seemed to stretch and shrink at will. Then, in a sudden jolt, the wheels touched down, and the Aztec blade that Cortázar’s protagonist wields in his tale "La Noche Boca Arriba". had dreaded seemed to hover between illusions of safety and an all-too-real terror. (1).
He recalled the comforting hospital bed of modern democracy: the promise that every voice would be heard and that illusions were only dreams. And yet there stood another reality—dark corridors and watchful eyes, a labyrinth of old men behind desks, stamping passports without warmth. Wasn’t he at Sheremetyevo? Or was it an enormous hall lined with silent watchers who might as well have been priests at a sacrificial ceremony?
Havana to Moscow: A Journey into Uncertainty
He felt once more that searing sense of displacement. The flight from Havana—a city where broken colonial arches crumbled like old illusions. The old town now brims with fluttering butterflies, their wings shimmering like embers against the crumbling streets. Narrow alleys with faintly lit stalls twist into a labyrinth of hushed whispers of desires. Their dim lights flicker like dying stars, enticing travellers through the shadowy maze for fleeting companionship in exchange for a few coins.
Meanwhile, the island strains beneath the weight of poverty, where the long-promised better life reveals itself as little more than a mirage—a high-ranking official of the Communist Party had delayed the plane. Hours later, in a sealed aeroplane, windows are fogged by the humidity of an island perpetually waiting for a miracle.
Once airborne, there was the promise of Aeroflot's legendary meal—yet it arrived late, reduced to a bite of chicken and cold white rice. He dreamt of other times, other flights, but the dream slashed into a new reality: the cold wind rushing through Sheremetyevo Airport in late November (1986).
Marble floors loomed like some ancient temple’s stone slabs. Soviet officers, impassive as Aztec warriors, peered into every face, demanding repeated scrutiny. He stood in line, heart pounding, uncertain if the next guard would nod him through or cast him into oblivion. When, at last, his passport had been stamped, the second ordeal began: the meticulous luggage inspection. He imagined them flipping through his notebooks, combing through his clothes. The X-ray machines hummed, monstrous watchers from another dimension. Finally—release.
Yet the promised room in the hotel did not exist. He had a voucher but found no bed. The memory flickered: was it the dim lamp of a hospital corridor or a corridor in a KGB-monitored hotel? He shivered with malaria chills, the ache of the fever mingling with the dread of endless bureaucracy. At last, the desk clerk found him a room and coupons for snacks. Upstairs, an old woman in a flowered scarf—gruff as any ancient sentinel—scowled from behind her desk. She demanded his passport and repeated, “No hot water,” as if casting a spell. The taps dripped cold like the streams in a primaeval forest. And so, he fled to the sauna to thaw bones frozen in the crossing of worlds.
A Chronicle of “Honey Traps”
His room, like many others in the labyrinthine hotels of the Soviet capital, seemed a warren of illusions. He had read about it—bars staffed with women who weren’t there merely to serve drinks. Beneath the veneer of hospitality thrummed the silent machinery of the KGB, collecting secrets, weaving a tapestry of “kompromat” for future use. He was sure that watchers lurked somewhere behind walls or mirrors—just as in the old Aztec dream, jaguars prowled the night, awaiting a misstep (2).
The Cosmos Hotel, built for the 1980 Olympics, was said to be modern, almost futuristic, yet behind that modernity lurked ancient methods: hidden microphones, cameras, and watchers behind doors no guest ever opened. The technique was always the same—seduction or intimidation. One stumbles into a honey trap and finds oneself ensnared in a drama staged by the silent ones.
High-profile figures had fallen prey to these corridors of illusions. Stories of blackmail with stolen intimacies abounded: ambassadors, presidents, journalists. Some shrugged off the coercion; others succumbed, forced to bargain with their secrets. He could almost see these spectres from other times, stepping in and out of mirrored halls. The watchers changed names—KGB, FSB—but the vigilance and the threat remained.
Poisoned Free Speech…
There were times, he thought when sedation by pleasure failed. Then, the city turned cold and lethal. The pages of a hospital chart blurred into newspaper headlines about poison and dissent. Litvinenko, Navalny—names once uttered in hushed tones, each entangled in toxins that seeped through teacups or water bottles. The grey geometry of the city’s buildings could not conceal the memory of Kameras or laboratories used for lethal experimentation. Shadows prowled through these narratives, consuming reporters and silencing critics.
In 2023, the tendrils of fear reached even further. Evan Gershkovich, accused of espionage, vanished into the same hush of quiet corridors. A basketball star, Brittney Griner, was trapped in an unexpected labyrinth of political pawns. The line between the real and the impossible blurred: he could be in a hospital bed, drifting in and out of sedation, or stumbling through a corridor leading to interrogation rooms. Either way, the hush swallowed him.
Poisoned Humanity with Hunger…
In another dream, or perhaps a memory from the same shifting reality, he saw fields stripped bare, families locked behind sealed borders and the spectre of collectivisation sweeping across Ukraine. War Communism, Holodomor—these words echoed like a dull blade scraping bone. Millions perished. Stalin’s quotas, the forced appropriation of grain, and the disappearance of those labelled kulaks hung heavily in the air. It was the old ritual, the ancient sacrifice: feed the system with bodies, quell dissent through starvation. Even decades later, the scars remained as fresh as the cries that once rang across ravaged fields. (3) (4)
The Gulag: A Factory of Despair
Another shift—subarctic forests, rail lines vanishing into frozen deserts, and underfed prisoners chipping away at ice-bound rocks. The Gulag stretched out endlessly, a ghostly reflection of the same labyrinth. He could almost see them: Solzhenitsyn among the captive throngs, writing by the light of a single lamp, the whistle of guards echoing like war drums in the gloom. Those who survived carried the brand of that suffering forever. “The Gulag Archipelago” was not just a book but a tear in the fabric of illusions, revealing forced labour and silent brutality hidden behind the façade of official propaganda.
The 1956 Hungarian Uprising: A Brief Hope, A Brutal End
In another layer of this dream, he heard the roaring engines of Soviet tanks rumbling through Budapest. Students, workers, and entire neighbourhoods rise momentarily, savouring the sweetness of liberty. Imre Nagy declared a withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact, yet the dream unravelled in a torrent of blood and steel. Thousands perished, thousands more fled, and the hushed hospital corridor thickened with the scent of anaesthesia as if attempting to mask the stench of oppression. (5)
1968 Czechoslovakia Invasion: End of Prague Spring
Like a recurring nightmare, the tanks appeared again, this time rolling into Prague’s ancient streets. Alexander Dubček’s voice of reform was drowned under iron treads. Freedom had seemed so close—censorship lifted, open debates filling coffeehouses. Then, with abrupt finality, August 20–21 turned to ash, and the watchers reasserted their dark ritual. A fleeting dream once more shattered (6).
The 2014 and 2022 Russian Invasions of Ukraine
He felt a new jolt. The modern corridors seemed both ancient and futuristic, echoing old conquests. First, in 2014 and the sudden annexation of Crimea, then, in 2022, a full-scale invasion. Missiles soared overhead like dark birds of omen. The world watched, stunned. Civilians huddled, searching for shelter. He, too, stood among them, uncertain whether this was the hospital bed dream or the motorcycle dream or if perhaps both were illusions overshadowed by the real: the monstrous clang of tank treads, the chill wind of displacement, the global dread (7).
What Does the New World Want?
In that final flash, he realized he stood at the intersection of two realities—one that insists on progress, reason, and democracy, and the other in which authoritarian ghosts still prowl, manipulative and lethal. He recalled the motorcyclist in Cortázar’s story, forever shifting between a cozy hospital cot and the mortal terror of a sacrificial altar. So it was with the new world: at times, believing itself modern and free, at others, awakening to find the knife pressed against its throat.
The question remained suspended in midair, like the hum of fluorescent light in a silent corridor: What does the new world want? Perhaps it desires an end to illusions or the final abolishment of fear. Or maybe it yearns only to awaken and discover that the oppressive dream was never absolute. But in the hush of that liminal space, he could not tell which reality was the dream and which was the truth.
Sources and References
(1) Julio Cortázar, La Noche Boca Arriba (1956).
(2) Germán Toro Ghio, ¨The Owner of Non-Man Land and Other Tales¨, (2016).
(3) Politico EU (multiple articles) and various media outlets reporting on allegations of espionage at Moscow hotels.
(4) Historical accounts of the Holodomor, including scholarly works and archival materials documenting the 1932–1933 famine in Soviet Ukraine.
(5) Eyewitness testimonies and historical research on the 1956 Hungarian Uprising.
(6) Archival records and studies on the 1968 Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia.
(7) International news coverage and official statements regarding the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is a vital aspect of our existence...
In a rapidly changing world rocked by uncertainty and relentless inflation, the very essence of blogging is being tested like never before. Every piece of content we create now faces unprecedented challenges. To safeguard the integrity and quality you expect, we’ve invested heavily—premium software, indispensable licenses, and breathtaking, high-quality copyrighted images—all crucial pieces in the puzzle.
But fear not—we're not on this turbulent journey alone! Your support has become our greatest ally. Just last week, thanks to Musk's changes, every single like, retweet, and share your offer on "X" transformed into a powerful act of solidarity—completely free, totally private, and profoundly impactful. Your gestures of support aren’t merely appreciated; they truly shape the future of our work!
If you're inspired to amplify your impact further, consider supporting us directly through PayPal at gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com or via our IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611. Alternatively, use Stripe through our dedicated donation link, you can quickly and securely contribute. Every contribution—big or small—echoes loudly, enabling us to reach new heights.
We are endlessly grateful to have you with us on this incredible journey. Your generosity is more than support; it’s the lifeblood that fuels our dreams and empowers our mission. Thank you for standing with us—you truly make all the difference!
“Today's electricity landscape is not a one-size-fits-all market; the industry requires a variety of strategies tailored to different markets and circumstances. Key factors such as regional demand, regulatory environments, available technologies, and the mix of energy sources are essential in creating the most effective approaches for power generation, distribution, and consumption. Andrés Gluski, the CEO & President of AES
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
Workart fully right of Germán & Co
Vaca Muerta: Drill, baby drill…
¨America’s prolific shale basins are running out of their best wells, but Argentina’s Vaca Muerta is just getting started. Will pro-business regulations be enough to start a shale boom there?
Horizontal drilling in the basin took off around a decade ago, but unfavorable regulation—including capital and currency controls, import-export taxes, and oil-price interventions, among other things—has hamstrung its growth. High inflation and a wobbly economy were also barriers to attracting capital to the shale patch. Exxon Mobil XOM, 1.30%increase; green up pointing triangle, for example, agreed to sell its Argentina business last year. Shell SHEL 0.85%increase; green up pointing triangle and Chevron CVX 2.22%increase; green up pointing triangle still retain interests in the basin…
Wall Street Journal
When we hear “contagion,” we typically think of viruses spreading among populations. But in a social and economic sense, contagion also describes how ideas, behaviors, and, crucially, market sentiments spread rapidly among groups. This phenomenon—the contagious effect—is acutely visible in the modern age, where social media, 24-hour news cycles, and a globalized economy can turn small sparks of optimism or panic into raging infernos of influence.
Few arenas demonstrate this more compellingly than the energy sector, particularly the global oil and gas markets, where sentiment toward a single shale play can ripple through corporate boardrooms, investor circles, and stock markets around the world. A recent spotlight has been placed on Argentina’s Vaca Muerta shale basin—long overshadowed by more prominent U.S. basins, yet now gaining traction as pro-business reforms and stabilizing economic policies under President Javier Milei attract both local and international interest.
By integrating the contagious effect with the story of Vaca Muerta’s shale boom, we can see how optimism spreads and shapes decisions, how caution and skepticism can similarly contaminate group thinking, and why this interplay matters not just for Argentina, but also for global energy stakeholders. Below, we explore the contagious effect in detail, linking key concepts—emotional contagion, social identity theory, and behavioral imitation—to real-world developments in Vaca Muerta. We also discuss how strategic insight can harness positive contagion and mitigate risks in a volatile sector.
1. A Primer on the Contagious Effect
At its heart, the contagious effect is about transmission—not of microbes, but of mood, behavior, and information. In interpersonal and group settings, people unconsciously mimic or adopt the actions and emotions of those around them. This dynamic isn’t confined to small groups. Through media coverage, digital platforms, and professional networks, the contagious effect can scale up to entire markets, influencing everything from consumer spending to capital allocation decisions.
A few psychological mechanisms help explain why the contagious effect is so powerful:
Emotional Contagion: Humans are innately wired to empathize, meaning we’re influenced by the emotions we see in others. When an industry leader shows enthusiasm about a new shale discovery, it can infect an entire market with similar optimism—potentially raising stock prices, fueling merger talks, or spurring new investments.
Social Identity Theory: We often look to our “in-group”—in this case, it could be energy investors, local policymakers, or international oil and gas corporations—for cues on how to act or where to invest. If key members of that group signal confidence in a shale basin like Vaca Muerta, that sentiment can spread quickly.
Confirmation Bias: Once an optimistic narrative has taken hold, new information that supports it tends to be amplified, while information that contradicts it might be discounted. This process reinforces an existing mindset, making it even more contagious within a network of like-minded people.
Media Amplification: In an era where news travels instantly, even minor developments can spark wide coverage, fueling collective excitement or anxiety. Virality ensures that the same narrative is repeated across platforms, intensifying the contagious effect.
All of these factors help explain why Vaca Muerta, once overlooked due to Argentina’s challenging economic climate, is now capturing the imagination of industry insiders and, increasingly, global investors.
2. Vaca Muerta: A Sleeping Giant Awakens
Located primarily in the Neuquén Basin in western Argentina, Vaca Muerta (whose name translates to “dead cow”) might have an unflattering moniker, but the region is brimming with potential. According to estimates by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Vaca Muerta holds around 16 billion barrels of technically recoverable shale oil and condensate, placing Argentina among the world’s top holders of shale oil and gas resources.
Despite these promising numbers, early exploration efforts in Vaca Muerta a decade ago faced steep barriers. Factors such as capital and currency controls, high inflation, (factors already controlled by president javier milei) oil-price interventions, and broader regulatory uncertainties made Argentina a risky bet. While some major global operators like Chevron and Shell dipped their toes in Vaca Muerta, others bailed out: notably, Exxon Mobil sold its Argentina business last year.
The shift occurred when President Javier Milei took office more than a year ago with a pro-business platform. Among other moves, Milei lifted oil-price caps, introduced investment incentives for large projects, and promised to end some of the country’s toughest capital controls by 2026. Though concerns remain—given Argentina’s history of policy swings—these reforms have fueled a wave of optimism. Production in Vaca Muerta has surged to an estimated 440,000 barrels of oil per day, with analysts from Enverus and other research firms forecasting it could hit 1 million barrels a day by 2030.
The stage is thus set for a “contagious” narrative: a historically challenging environment is now perceived as more stable and more profitable, igniting hope in local producers like YPF (majority state-owned) and Vista Energy. Their stock prices have surged—doubling and rising around 50%, respectively, since Milei took office. Meanwhile, large oil corporations are once again discussing the region more positively, hinting at heightened interest that might spread to smaller U.S. independent producers.
3. Contagious Optimism in Oil and Gas
Within the oil and gas sector, sentiment can pivot quickly, and those shifts are often contagious. Industry insiders watch one another closely: if a major name invests in a region, others may follow suit to avoid missing out on potential gains. This is especially true when the region in question presents significant upside.
Proof of Productivity: One crucial factor in the Vaca Muerta story is well productivity. According to Enverus, the average estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) in Vaca Muerta over the 12-month period through February was about 86 barrels per lateral foot, outpacing even the most productive U.S. shale basins (where comparable figures range between 43 and 72 barrels per foot). This statistic alone, when repeated in boardrooms or at industry conferences, can generate excitement and accelerate capital flow.
Emerging Pipeline Infrastructure: Infrastructure is another linchpin for contagion. Argentina’s domestic and export pipeline capacities have historically been a bottleneck for Vaca Muerta. However, new pipelines like Vaca Muerta Sur—with investors including Shell and Chevron—signal long-term commitment to the region. As these large-scale projects take shape, more local and international stakeholders are likely to believe in Vaca Muerta’s viability, fueling further investment.
Investor Appetite for Growth: As U.S. shale basins become more mature, with fewer top-tier drilling locations available, American producers look elsewhere for growth. This dynamic enhances the spread of interest in Vaca Muerta. It’s not just that the Argentine basin has potential; it’s that alternatives in North America are dwindling. A basin that can reach 1 million barrels a day of production with strong well productivity becomes a magnet for hope—and that hope is contagious.
4. A Historical Look at Contagion in Markets
IFrom the Dutch tulip mania in the 17th century to the U.S. housing bubble in the mid-2000s, history is replete with examples of how group psychology amplifies booms and busts. While each episode has unique factors—economic conditions, regulatory frameworks, cultural contexts—they all underline a common theme: once momentum forms, it can spread like wildfire.
In energy markets, we saw an example of rapid, contagious optimism in the early 2010s, when the U.S. shale boom took off. Eager investors poured capital into drilling projects, fueling breakneck production growth in regions like the Permian Basin, the Bakken, and the Eagle Ford. The boom was so expansive that OPEC found itself responding by either cutting or ramping production, thereby affecting global oil prices. Before long, everyone was discussing the “shale revolution,” and the fervor shaped not just corporate strategies but also geopolitics and environmental discourse.
Vaca Muerta could follow a similar pattern—albeit with a more measured approach. As William Von Gonten of W.D. Von Gonten Engineering noted, U.S. producers have learned harsh lessons about unbridled expansion. The new wave of interest in Vaca Muerta might lean more toward strategic partnerships and careful, long-horizon development. That alone could be a stabilizing force, but it won’t stop the narrative from gaining momentum, especially if production numbers keep rising.
5. Emotional Contagion on the Ground
While headlines often focus on the big players and macroeconomic indicators, emotional contagion trickles down to the local level, too. In the communities around Neuquén, increased activity in Vaca Muerta has meant more jobs, more business for local service providers, and broader hope for sustained economic development. Just as negativity and skepticism can pervade a region when times are tough, optimism can also inspire local stakeholders—farmers, small businesses, and municipal leaders—to invest in upgrades, new ventures, and partnerships that might have seemed too risky before.
For instance, a local drilling contractor who sees pipeline expansions underway might decide to buy new rigs or expand staff, betting on an influx of projects. Other contractors then followed suit, fueling a mini-boom in the local services sector. This local surge could reinforce the broader narrative of “promise,” further convincing international investors that Vaca Muerta is indeed on an upward trajectory.
Yet, caution remains. Argentina’s history of economic instability and policy volatility acts as a brake on unbridled optimism. Skepticism can itself spread contagiously—spurred by memories of currency controls or nationalizations in previous decades. Hence, the final shape of contagion in Vaca Muerta is influenced by two competing emotional currents: hope (fueled by favorable production data and pro-business reforms) and caution (anchored in historical patterns of volatility).
6. Applying Social Identity Theory and Behavioral Imitation
In any market, but especially in tight-knit industries like oil and gas, social identity theory helps explain how contagion takes root. Producers, service companies, and investors often see themselves as part of a shared community with certain norms and expectations. If the consensus within that community is that Vaca Muerta is the “next big thing,” members might adopt that sentiment simply to maintain cohesion and avoid being left behind.
Herd Mentality: Even large, established firms aren’t immune. When Chevron, Shell, and other majors express optimism, smaller companies fear missing opportunities. That fear can be contagious, spurring others to join the fray.
Peer Benchmarking: Industry conferences, analyst calls, and trade publications often highlight who is investing where. Companies benchmark themselves against competitors: if competitor X invests in Vaca Muerta and sees a stock-price boost, competitor Y might feel pressured to follow suit or risk investor backlash.
Collective Reputation: For local Argentine firms like YPF and Vista Energy, thriving in Vaca Muerta bolsters their own reputations as competent, growth-oriented organizations. That success can be “caught” by prospective partners, encouraging further alliances.
Once an “in-group” consensus coalesces around the profitability or promise of a region, dissenters may be seen as outliers—unless major setbacks occur. And should negative developments (such as political turmoil or logistical failures) emerge, the same community can swiftly transmit fear, leading to precipitous pullback. That’s the double-edged sword of the contagious effect in financial markets.
7. The Role of Technology and Media in Shaping Narratives
Modern digital communication has amplified the speed and scope of contagion across all industries, including oil and gas. News articles, corporate press releases, social media chatter, and online investment forums act as instantaneous feedback loops:
Spreading Optimism: Positive headlines about “record-breaking well productivity” or “growing investor interest” can be shared tens of thousands of times in a single day, reaching potential stakeholders worldwide.
Community Building: LinkedIn groups, energy podcasts, and specialized forums can create niches where Vaca Muerta success stories proliferate, drawing in more curious minds.
Real-Time Data: Tools like Enverus, Rystad, and other analytics platforms provide up-to-the-minute drilling data. Such transparency reduces uncertainty, enhancing confidence and fueling a more rapid contagion of positive sentiment—provided that the metrics remain favorable.
Yet, digital platforms also facilitate the rapid dissemination of skepticism. A sudden change in Argentina’s political environment or a new round of currency controls could produce a cascade of tweets and articles questioning the viability of Vaca Muerta’s prospects, potentially reversing positive momentum within hours or days.
8. Harnessing Positive Contagion
While the contagious effect can be unpredictable, it can also be harnessed for positive outcomes. Companies, policymakers, and community leaders can adopt a few strategies:
Consistent, Transparent Communication: In a region like Vaca Muerta, where trust has historically been tenuous, continuous dialogue with stakeholders—detailing production updates, policy changes, and infrastructural progress—can sustain a constructive narrative.
Building Trust Through Partnerships: Joint ventures between local firms (e.g., YPF or Vista Energy) and global companies (e.g., Chevron, Shell) can reassure investors that best practices and advanced technologies are in play. This sense of collaborative strength can spread, prompting others to join.
Long-Term Vision: As Bill Von Gonten notes, the early U.S. shale boom left behind a lot of oil in the ground because companies aggressively targeted only the most lucrative wells, aiming for short-term profits. In Vaca Muerta, a longer, more disciplined approach might yield better ultimate recovery rates and more stable growth, curbing the extreme boom-bust cycle characteristic of many energy plays.
Supporting Local Economies: Ensuring that economic benefits “infect” local communities—through job creation, local content requirements, and training—can foster a sense of shared purpose. That communal buy-in further reinforces a positive narrative.
Diversifying Infrastructure: With improved pipeline capacities and potential liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, Argentina can transform Vaca Muerta from a domestic resource to a global energy player. Each milestone of infrastructure development can be a catalyst for renewed optimism, fueling the contagious effect further.
9. Mitigating Negative Contagion
Balancing out the optimistic contagion is the risk of negative sentiment spreading just as quickly. Argentina’s past economic crises and unpredictable policy shifts remain in the back of many minds. Here’s how that negative contagion might be tempered:
Stable, Clear Regulations: Foreign investors will feel more confident if the Milei administration continues—or further refines—pro-business reforms. Clarity around tax, import/export guidelines, and currency controls can help ensure that caution doesn’t overwhelm enthusiasm.
Macro-Economic Stabilization: Hyperinflation was a major concern before Milei took office. If inflation remains in check and Argentina’s country risk index stays on a downward trajectory (it has already halved, according to JPMorgan), that stability alone can prevent a rapid reversal of sentiment.
Responsible Lending and Financing: Access to international capital is crucial for Vaca Muerta. However, negative sentiment can spread swiftly if lenders sense a looming debt crisis or a sudden clampdown on currency flows. Proactive communication from banks, rating agencies, and the government can mitigate such fears.
Flexible Business Strategies: Companies entering Vaca Muerta might structure deals that allow for quick adaptation if policies change. This can mean partial stakes, joint ventures, or scale-up plans rather than immediate large-scale developments. Such flexibility can cushion against panic should the political wind shift.
10. Wider Implications: A Shale Contagion Redux?
The U.S. shale revolution of the 2010s proved that a boom can reshape the global energy map, reduce some countries' reliance on imports, and even tilt geopolitical balances. The question now is whether the emergence of Vaca Muerta as a major shale resource could trigger a mini-revival of that same kind of fervour. With U.S. shale basins flattening in production growth and areas like the Permian Midland running out of their most productive wells, Vaca Muerta stands among the few large-scale plays left with significant upside.
However, the environment in which Argentina’s shale story unfolds isn’t the same as the heyday of U.S. shale. Today’s energy investment climate is shaped by:
ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) Concerns: Investors are more wary of carbon-intensive projects, which could temper the euphoria around any large-scale hydrocarbon development.
Capital Discipline: Shareholders demand returns over rapid expansion, meaning companies are less likely to embark on drilling sprees without carefully weighing costs.
Global Uncertainties: From shifting geopolitical alliances to potential recessions in major economies, outside forces could dampen or inflate Argentina's investment scale.
Still, early indicators—impressive well productivity, an improving political climate, and rising share prices of local producers—suggest that a new wave of interest is stirring. A “shale contagion” could mean huge gains in jobs, export revenues, and global strategic importance for Argentina. It could represent a welcome new frontier for companies with diminishing opportunities in North America.
11. Contagion as Opportunity: A Balanced Perspective
The contagious effect in Vaca Muerta is neither purely good nor purely bad. Instead, it is an inherently powerful dynamic that can be directed in beneficial or harmful ways. On the one hand, the excitement can catalyze infrastructure improvements, create job opportunities, and attract capital for broader national development. On the other hand, over-optimism without prudent checks can lead to the misallocation of resources, driving an eventual bust that sets the region back.
Balancing optimism with realism is key. Policymakers must be transparent about challenges: pipeline constraints, lingering capital controls, the unpredictability of Argentine politics, and the global pivot toward greener energy sources. Companies must adhere to technological best practices, learning from the wasteful drilling practices of early U.S. shale. If they do, Vaca Muerta might enjoy a more stable growth trajectory, while benefitting from the accelerated interest that contagion brings.
12. Conclusion
The rise of Vaca Muerta illuminates the broader phenomenon of the contagious effect—how a shift in sentiment, aided by supportive data and regulatory changes, can spread rapidly among investors, producers, and local communities. This phenomenon isn’t confined to Argentina: it’s a core feature of modern market dynamics, evident in everything from biotech booms to real-estate bubbles. Yet, the Vaca Muerta story is a striking example, blending geological promise with newfound political and economic stability in a volatile environment.
Understanding the contagious effect arms stakeholders with the insight needed to navigate shifting sentiments responsibly. It urges leaders to foster transparent communication, encourages businesses to adopt flexible models, and reminds communities to remain vigilant against the downsides of herd mentality. Ultimately, Vaca Muerta’s success or failure will hinge on a combination of geological potential, sustained policy reforms, and the emotional currents of investors and communities—a testament to just how integral the contagious effect is in shaping real-world outcomes.
In a world increasingly interconnected by technology and unified by markets, no region can remain an isolated “dead cow” for long. As Vaca Muerta comes alive under the spotlight of renewed global interest, it reveals the transformational power of a shared belief—an idea that, if nurtured with prudence and balanced by thoughtful regulation, can convert an underutilized resource into a bustling epicentre of economic growth. The next few years will reveal whether Argentina can sustain that positive contagion—and, in doing so, write a new chapter in the history of global shale.
Sources & Further Reading
Politico Live Updates, March 4, 2025: Elon Musk to meet with House GOP
U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee: Discussions on Clawing Back IRA Funding
International Energy Agency (IEA): Global Renewable Energy Forecasts
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins: Public Statements on DOGE
Statements from Iowa and Texas state officials on IRA-Related Projects
Note: All references to recent legislative discussions, committee actions, and interviews are based on Politico’s coverage and official statements from named lawmakers.
Contrasentido?
China’s growing dominance, many of America’s close allies still look to the United States for cutting-edge innovation and global leadership on climate issues. Opponents of the current White House strategy caution that by weakening or scrapping parts of the Inflation Reduction Act, Washington could surrender its competitive advantage in an industry that is experiencing explosive growth. In doing so, the U.S. might open the door for other major players, including China, to dictate the pace of renewable technology development and high-tech manufacturing in the coming years.
The Battle for America’s Energy Future…
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is a vital aspect of our existence...
In a rapidly changing world rocked by uncertainty and relentless inflation, the very essence of blogging is being tested like never before. Every piece of content we create now faces unprecedented challenges. To safeguard the integrity and quality you expect, we’ve invested heavily—premium software, indispensable licenses, and breathtaking, high-quality copyrighted images—all crucial pieces in the puzzle.
But fear not—we're not on this turbulent journey alone! Your support has become our greatest ally. Just last week, thanks to changes brought by Musk, every single like, retweet, and share you offer on "X" transformed into a powerful act of solidarity—completely free, totally private, and profoundly impactful. Your gestures of support aren’t merely appreciated; they truly shape the future of our work!
If you're inspired to amplify your impact even further, consider supporting us directly through PayPal at gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com or via our IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611. Alternatively, you can easily and securely contribute using Stripe through our dedicated donation link. Every contribution—big or small—echoes loudly, enabling us to reach new heights.
We are endlessly grateful to have you with us on this incredible journey. Your generosity is more than support; it’s the lifeblood that fuels our dreams and empowers our mission. Thank you for standing with us—you truly make all the difference!
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
Workart fully right of Germán & Co
¨The Inflation Reduction Act: A Legacy in Peril
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 was more than just a legislative milestone; it was a testament to America’s commitment to a sustainable future. With hundreds of billions of dollars earmarked for clean energy investments, the IRA ignited a wave of innovation and economic growth. Wind farms sprouted across the heartland, solar panels glistened under the Texan sun, and electric vehicles hummed along highways, heralding a new era of green prosperity.
Tax credits and incentives designed to spur renewable energy projects were at the heart of the IRA. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) breathed new life into the wind and solar industries, while EV credits fueled the electric vehicle revolution. These measures have reduced America’s carbon footprint, created jobs, boosted manufacturing, and positioned the U.S. as a global leader in clean energy.
Trump’s Second Term: A Policy Earthquake
The return of Donald Trump to the White House in 2025 sent shockwaves through the energy sector. Within weeks of his inauguration, the administration launched a full-scale assault on the IRA, urging Congress to suspend and defund its core provisions. The President’s rationale was clear: slash federal spending, bolster fossil fuels, and curb what he deemed “unfair” foreign competition.
However, critics argue that this move is a contrasentido—a contradiction that defies logic. At a time when the world is embracing renewable energy, the U.S. risks ceding its hard-won gains and undermining its energy independence. The stakes are high, and the battle lines are drawn.
Iowa: A Wind Powerhouse in Jeopardy
Nowhere is the impact of the IRA’s potential suspension more acute than in Iowa, which is known for its thriving wind energy sector. Thanks to the IRA’s extended Production Tax Credit and domestic manufacturing incentives, Iowa experienced a mini-boom in large-scale wind projects between 2022 and 2024. Developers secured financing, created thousands of jobs, and invested in transmission infrastructure to carry clean power to neighboring states.
Yet, the Trump administration’s push to suspend the IRA threatens to halt this progress. Projects in the pipeline face financing challenges, and turbine manufacturers are reconsidering expansions in the state. Even local Republican politicians, typically supportive of the President, have aired concerns about the economic fallout if these clean energy incentives vanish. The future of Iowa’s wind industry—and the livelihoods of countless workers—hangs in the balance.
Texas: A Renewable Energy Battleground
Historically synonymous with oil and gas, Texas has emerged as an unlikely leader in renewable energy. The IRA’s tax credits and battery storage incentives fueled a surge in wind and solar projects across the Lone Star State. Solar farms flourished in West Texas alongside the long-established wind sector, creating hybrid energy systems that offer lower electricity costs and a more resilient power grid.
However, the Trump administration’s anti-IRA stance puts these gains at risk. Oil and gas producers generally welcomed the move, hoping to regain market share, but wind and solar advocates warned of billions in lost investments if the IRA’s incentives disappear. Texas Republicans are now profoundly divided—some remain loyal to Trump’s agenda, while others fear the potential economic toll on rural communities and the state’s energy mix.
The Tariff War: A Double-Edged Sword
In tandem with its assault on the IRA, the Trump administration has reignited a tariff war, imposing steeper duties on imported solar cells, modules, and EV components. Officials argue that these tariffs protect American businesses from unfair foreign competition, particularly from China.
Yet the renewable industry sees a different story. Tariffs raise costs, create supply chain bottlenecks, and jeopardize projects already under construction. The administration’s protectionist stance may hamper the very industries it aims to protect if domestic manufacturing lags or cannot fill the gap quickly enough. Critics warn that this approach risks undermining America’s clean energy future while fracturing global trade relationships.
New Developments on Capitol Hill: Politico’s Latest Report
Energy and Commerce Targets IRA Provisions
According to Politico’s reporting from March 4, 2025, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have begun dissecting all of the programs within their jurisdiction—ranging from clean energy tax credits to Medicaid—to identify areas to cut and “find savings” for President Trump’s next round of domestic agenda items. Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) is exploring how to cobble up to $880 billion in savings to finance tax cuts, border security, defense spending, and energy policy.
Among the possible line items on the chopping block are:
Clawing back clean energy tax credits
Repealing electric vehicle incentives
Reevaluating Biden-era broadband programs
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has ruled out the steepest potential cuts to Medicaid, focusing more on “waste, fraud, and abuse” than direct benefit reductions. However, it remains unclear whether Republicans can reach their lofty savings goals without affecting certain benefits—something that could become a major liability for vulnerable incumbents.
Enough Votes to Advance Trump’s Agenda
Despite internal tensions, the Trump administration currently has enough votes in both the House and Senate to proceed with a budget resolution, thanks to a solid GOP majority and the support of select moderates. This means the administration’s proposals to suspend IRA provisions, boost fossil fuel spending, and enact steep tariff measures are likely to pass in some form unless new political rifts emerge within the Republican ranks.
Elon Musk Meets With House GOP
Adding to the political drama, Elon Musk—the influential CEO of Tesla and SpaceX—will meet with House Republicans on Capitol Hill, as confirmed by Politico’s latest live updates. Musk is now leading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the Trump administration, tasked with streamlining federal agencies and cutting spending.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has indicated that Musk will “give an update on his efforts” and discuss how to codify the budgetary savings that DOGE has already set in motion. While Republicans largely back Musk’s enthusiasm for shrinking the federal workforce, some GOP lawmakers express concern about constituent backlash—particularly in regions benefiting from clean energy projects and federal grants tied to the IRA.
Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has acknowledged texting with Musk about his department’s sweeping cuts. Collins has long defended Congress’ constitutional “power of the purse” and signaled wariness about the Trump administration’s expansive rollback of previously approved appropriations. Still, the administration’s momentum suggests that major changes, including IRA repeals and tariff escalations, could move forward swiftly.
Corporate Titans and Political Divisions
While Musk’s meeting with the House GOP underscores how tech leaders can drive policy discussions in Washington, corporate America at large is uneasy about the unpredictable environment. From Big Tech to small manufacturing firms, many businesses had structured their investment strategies around IRA incentives and anticipated a stable policy horizon for clean energy expansion.
Within the GOP, factions continue to form:
Pro-Trump Hardliners: Determined to slash spending and end what they perceive as “subsidies” for renewables.
Pragmatic Republicans: Fearful of reversing economic gains in states like Iowa and Texas, where clean energy jobs and revenue have surged.
Moderates Concerned About Climate: Acknowledge climate change risks and prefer the IRA’s approach, fearing that rolling back these incentives jeopardizes both the environment and critical job growth.
Despite these differences, the current vote count indicates Republicans can muster enough support to pass key elements of Trump’s energy and budget agenda. Whether that unity endures as the negative economic ramifications of repealing IRA provisions become clearer remains to be seen.
A Global Perspective: Contrasentido Confirmed
Observers abroad view the Trump administration’s direction as a stark departure from the global trend. The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that wind and solar will dominate new power capacity installations worldwide in the 2020s. Allies and partners have long seen the United States as a cornerstone in advancing renewable technologies, but repealing or slashing IRA provisions could leave Washington on the sidelines of a booming global green market.
Diplomatically, the United States risks weakening alliances by appearing disengaged from climate commitments. Domestically, it risks harming its own industries poised for long-term success in the global clean energy race. Thus, critics maintain that the administration’s approach is a contrasentido—an illogical stance that undercuts U.S. competitiveness and the international fight against climate change.
The Road Ahead: Uncertainty and Hope
Observers abroad view the Trump administration’s direction as a stark departure from the global momentum toward clean energy. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has forecasted, in multiple reports since 2020, that wind and solar would dominate new power capacity additions throughout this decade. China, in particular, has surged ahead with large-scale investments in renewables, manufacturing most of the world’s solar panels and electric vehicle batteries.
Despite China’s dominance, many Western allies still regard the United States as a vital hub for technological innovation and climate leadership. Yet, with the Trump administration proposing to repeal or curtail Inflation Reduction Act provisions, some warn that Washington could cede its competitive edge in a rapidly expanding global green market—allowing other nations, including China, to set the pace in renewable technology development and deployment.
Sources & Further Reading
Politico Live Updates, March 4, 2025: Elon Musk to meet with House GOP
U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee: Discussions on Clawing Back IRA Funding
International Energy Agency (IEA): Global Renewable Energy Forecasts
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins: Public Statements on DOGE
Statements from Iowa and Texas state officials on IRA-Related Projects
Note: All references to recent legislative discussions, committee actions, and interviews are based on Politico’s coverage and official statements from named lawmakers.
50 Years Until the Flame Dies: The Looming End of Natural Gas…
With a possible 50-year horizon for natural gas, the future belongs to AI-driven data centres and the unstoppable rise of renewables. Our collective challenge is to ensure that as fossil reserves wane, we rapidly adopt cleaner, more innovative solutions—safeguarding our environment and fueling tomorrow’s ever-more-connected world with hope and creative work.
AI, Data Centers, and Renewables: Powering a Greener Tomorrow…
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
In December 2023, Energy Central recognized outstanding contributors within the Energy & Sustainability Network during the 'Top Voices' event. The recipients of this honor were highlighted in six articles, showcasing the acknowledgment from the community. The platform facilitates professionals in disseminating their work, engaging with peers, and collaborating with industry influencers. Congratulations are extended to the 2023 Top Voices: David Hunt, Germán Toro Ghio, Schalk Cloete, and Dan Yurman for their exemplary demonstration of expertise. - Matt Chester, Energy Central
Gratitude is a vital aspect of our existence...
In a rapidly changing world rocked by uncertainty and relentless inflation, the very essence of blogging is being tested like never before. Every piece of content we create now faces unprecedented challenges. To safeguard the integrity and quality you expect, we’ve invested heavily—premium software, indispensable licenses, and breathtaking, high-quality copyrighted images—all crucial pieces in the puzzle.
But fear not—we're not on this turbulent journey alone! Your support has become our greatest ally. Just last week, thanks to changes brought by Musk, every single like, retweet, and share you offer on "X" transformed into a powerful act of solidarity—completely free, totally private, and profoundly impactful. Your gestures of support aren’t merely appreciated; they truly shape the future of our work!
If you're inspired to amplify your impact even further, consider supporting us directly through PayPal at gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com or via our IBAN: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611. Alternatively, you can easily and securely contribute using Stripe through our dedicated donation link. Every contribution—big or small—echoes loudly, enabling us to reach new heights.
We are endlessly grateful to have you with us on this incredible journey. Your generosity is more than support; it’s the lifeblood that fuels our dreams and empowers our mission. Thank you for standing with us—you truly make all the difference!
https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1897131318690852881
You can't possibly deny me...
Have a wonderful day filled with good health, happiness, and love…
Workart fully right of Germán & Co
“Battery anxiety…
Remember those evenings when the entire clan would huddle around a single glowing screen—perhaps a trusty Westinghouse TV—to watch “Little House on the Prairie?” You might recall the excited chatter and occasional jockeying for the best seat if your neurons haven't galloped. That was our idea of “prime time”: a shared experience, limited commercials, and the sweet smell of popcorn. Now, fast-forward to our present digital carnival. Instead of a single, bulky TV uniting us, we have an endless parade of devices, each clamouring for attention like a pack of hyperactive puppies. When families manage to sit in the same room (a miracle in itself), everyone is lost in their pixelated realm—heads bowed, eyes fixed on screens, often forgetting that others are even within arm’s reach.
In this new world, the notion of “battery anxiety” has become as accurate as that last bite of dessert disappearing right before your eyes. In moments of panic, we rummage for power cords with the same fervour gold prospectors once reserved for the Wild West. Unsurprisingly, our collective electricity consumption has rocketed into the stratosphere, pushing the limits of traditional energy production. Yet, before we sound the alarm about the doom and gloom of our power-hungry lifestyles, let’s remember that humanity has always been pretty good at solving problems—we conquered polio and built skyscrapers that kiss the clouds. We even found ways to freeze ice cream on a stick. If that’s not innovation, what is?
Of course, specific natural resources have shown signs of fatigue—like the trickle of water that once powered old waterwheels diminishing over time. But each time one resource heads for retirement, our inventive minds beckon another to step into the limelight. Coal gave way (somewhat grudgingly) to cleaner energy sources. Oil slowly yields to wind turbines that spin gracefully across open plains, and of course, absolutely not for the psychologist Ms Greta Thumberg's Specialist in the mental health of reindeer in Lapland, who didn’t like the asp of the turbine and solar panels that glint in the noonday sun. Now, our digital ecosystem—this ever-growing landscape of data centres and blinking servers—demands we refine our methods yet again. Fortunately, we now have a powerful ally in our corner: artificial intelligence. Once the stuff of dystopian nightmares (imagine fridges turning diabolical), AI has evolved into the technology that helps us manage our electrified lifestyles with remarkable efficiency. With AI at the helm, the quest to keep every device charged and every data centre humming needn’t come at the expense of clear skies and clean water. Algorithms, chips, conductors, and circuits—performing calculations at near-light speed—can optimise energy use, reduce waste, and limit our reliance on polluting resources. The result? A planet-friendly path forward that keeps the digital revolution thriving without leaving our environment behind.
So here we stand, poised at the crossroads of digital innovation and ecological responsibility. The journey ahead may involve a few comedic stumbles—think vintage slapstick—but armed with our collective ingenuity, boundless curiosity, and a touch of AI wizardry alongside renewables, we’re sure to discover a more inventive, eco-friendly way to power our beautifully interconnected world.
The rapid ascent of renewable energy in the United States and Europe is indisputable—an unstoppable tide of innovation and progress. Yet, hidden beneath the ocean’s surface, a quieter but ominous drama unfolds. Offshore wind farms, the symbol of our clean-energy future, face near-daily sabotage when vandals target their undersea transmission cables. These clandestine attacks threaten to overshadow the triumphant march of renewables, reminding us that even the brightest revolution can be dimmed by those determined to keep the future at bay.
Indeed, the modern world thrives on connectivity, computation, and ceaseless data exchange. From streaming platforms and social media to e-commerce and the advent of artificial intelligence, nearly every facet of contemporary life relies on data centres humming quietly behind the scenes. Yet beneath this digital revolution lies an inescapable physical reality: energy. As integral as they are to today’s economy, data centres consume massive and continually increasing amounts of electricity. Much of this electricity has traditionally been sourced from fossil fuels, particularly natural gas.
However, while often touted as a cleaner replacement for coal, natural gas remains a finite resource. Some experts estimate the world’s current, proven natural gas reserves could be stretched over several decades—often cited numbers revolve around 40 to 50 years of global supply at present consumption rates. Coupled with the expansion of industrial activities worldwide and attempts to substitute coal with gas in many regions, these reserves may face increased depletion or at least ever-more volatile pricing. Meanwhile, the climate implications of continuing to burn fossil fuels at scale grow more evident every year. As a result, the tension between finite fossil resources and an exponential surge in data center energy demand sets the stage for one of the most pressing challenges—and opportunities—of the 21st century.
In this essay, we will journey across nine significant themes:
Understanding the Limits of Fossil Fuel Reserves
Data Centers and the AI Revolution: Unprecedented Energy Demand
Historical and Ongoing Cost Declines in Renewable Energy
Solar, Wind, and Beyond: The Modern Green Toolbox
Role of Energy Storage: Overcoming Intermittency
AI-Driven Grid Management: Optimizing Supply and Demand
Policy and Market Forces Catalyzing Renewables
Challenges to Full-Scale Adoption and Potential Solutions
Charting a Course Forward: Integrating Digital and Sustainable Futures
1. Understanding the Limits of Fossil Fuel Reserves
To appreciate the urgency behind today’s push for renewable energy, one must first understand the scope and fragility of the world’s existing fossil fuel endowment. Fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—formed over millions of years from the decomposition of ancient organisms. Under specific geological conditions, heat and pressure transformed organic matter into hydrocarbon-rich deposits that, in the modern era, have been extracted and burned to power industrial civilization. Yet this process is not one that quickly renews itself. While new discoveries and improvements in extraction technology can extend supply horizons, no technology can transform our current finite deposits into something truly infinite.
Among the three major fossil fuel types, natural gas is frequently praised for producing fewer carbon emissions per unit of energy than coal while offering dispatchable power for electricity grids and industrial uses. This has led many countries, including the United States, to rely heavily on natural gas for electricity generation and heating. Indeed, the “shale revolution” in the U.S. unleashed vast reserves through hydraulic fracturing (fracking). However, geologists and analysts caution that proven natural gas reserves, even with ongoing exploration, might not extend beyond midcentury if usage patterns remain unchanged or escalate.
Estimates of natural gas longevity depend on several factors: evolving consumption rates, technological breakthroughs, and potential policy changes. Some scenarios see the world pivoting sharply to renewables, preserving fossil fuels for niche applications for longer. Others foresee continued heavy reliance on gas, hastening depletion or at least driving costs higher. In any case, few dispute that the resource is finite. More significantly, natural gas remains a carbon-emitting fuel, contributing to global warming, albeit at a lower rate than coal but still considerably enough to raise alarm among climate scientists.
Thus, from both a resource depletion perspective and an environmental standpoint, the notion that we should rely on natural gas to power a booming digital infrastructure that is expanding in parallel with AI’s insatiable appetite seems increasingly precarious. Suppose new technologies beckon us to develop data centres at exponential scales. In that case, the question becomes:
Where will the energy come from, and at what cost to the environment and long-term economic stability?
2. Data Centers and the AI Revolution: Unprecedented Energy Demand
Roughly two decades ago, data centers were relatively modest facilities housed by large corporations, universities, or government agencies. With the advent of cloud computing—where on-demand computing resources are provided over the internet—data centers began sprouting at a much faster rate, scaled vertically to house thousands upon thousands of servers stacked neatly in climate-controlled racks. Companies such as Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud emerged as global cloud providers, each running extensive data center networks across continents. The rationale was straightforward: rather than every company building its own server room, outsourcing computing tasks to specialised providers became far more efficient and cost-effective.
Then came the artificial intelligence wave. AI algorithms, particularly machine learning and deep learning technologies, require extraordinary computational power to analyze massive data sets, train complex models, and deploy these models in real time. Tasks such as image recognition, natural language processing, self-driving vehicles, and recommendation engines spurred the development of specialized hardware—graphical processing units (GPUs) and tensor processing units (TPUs)—that can perform trillions of operations per second. Yet that specialized hardware draws significantly more electricity than a garden-variety server.
As more businesses, researchers, and government agencies incorporate AI into their workflows, the demand for compute cycles grows near-exponential. Data centres dedicated to AI processing can consume enough energy to power entire towns, especially when factoring in the electricity needed for cooling and ventilation. Meanwhile, everyday users continue to upload and stream high-resolution videos, engage in video conferencing, and rely on an expanding Internet of Things (IoT) that funnels data to cloud analytics in real-time.
Increasingly, these ballooning energy needs pose not just an environmental threat—in the sense of carbon emissions or reliance on non-renewable resources—but also a business threat. The cost of electricity weighs heavily on the bottom lines of data centre operators. Price spikes in natural gas or difficulties in obtaining stable electricity could undermine the reliability and profitability of these massive digital hubs.
At the same time, public pressure for environmental accountability has never been higher. Customers, shareholders, and governments alike demand transparency and accountability in corporate carbon footprints. Hence, leading cloud providers have pledged carbon neutrality or, in some cases, have set goals to run on 100% renewable energy by specific target years. These commitments reflect market pressures and a growing consensus that ignoring sustainability invites regulatory and reputational risks.
Yet, making good on these commitments requires more than public relations. It demands the deployment of large-scale clean energy infrastructure—wind farms, solar arrays, hydroelectric plants, geothermal stations, or even advanced nuclear—capable of delivering robust, stable, and competitively priced electricity. And that is where the world’s ever-improving renewable energy technologies come into play. The synergy between a surging data economy and plummeting renewable costs lays the foundation for a truly transformative moment in global energy.
3. Historical and Ongoing Cost Declines in Renewable Energy
One of the most remarkable stories of the past three decades has been the steady, often spectacular, decline in the cost of renewable energy—most notably solar and wind. From pioneering efforts in the 1970s, when solar modules were prohibitively expensive and wind turbines remained a niche technology, to today’s mainstream prominence, the cost drop has been a testament to economies of scale, technological innovation, global competition, and supportive government policies.
3.1 Solar Photovoltaics (PV)
In the early 1980s, the cost of solar photovoltaic modules routinely exceeded $20 per watt (in 2020 dollars). Solar panels were limited primarily to specialized uses, such as powering satellites or remote off-grid equipment. Gradually, manufacturing scaled up, especially in countries like Japan and Germany, where feed-in tariffs and government-backed research helped create stable domestic markets. Later, China’s extensive industrial policy and low-cost manufacturing accelerated the commoditization of solar panels.
According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and other analysts, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for utility-scale solar PV has dropped over 80% since 2010. In many sun-rich regions—such as parts of the Middle East, Australia, and the southwestern United States—solar PV auctions have set new record-low prices, at times below 2 cents per kilowatt-hour. This is cheaper than nearly all new fossil fuel plants. In less ideal climates, costs remain higher, but the trend of steady decline continues.
3.2 Wind Power
Wind energy has likewise seen dramatic cost reductions. Early wind turbines in the 1980s produced a few dozen kilowatts and faced frequent mechanical problems. Modern turbines, by contrast, can exceed 5-10 megawatts in onshore applications, while offshore wind turbines have surpassed 14 MW capacities in recent commercial models. Larger turbines capture more wind and generate more electricity at a lower cost per output unit.
According to leading industry reports, the cost of onshore wind has likewise dropped by around 60-70% since 2010, with even sharper declines in some emerging wind markets due to competition and improved supply chain efficiencies. Offshore wind started from a higher baseline but has also seen significant cost plummets, especially in Europe’s North Sea region, where government-led auctions have driven innovation and scale.
3.3 Other Renewables: Geothermal, Hydro, and Emerging Tech
While solar and wind grab most of the headlines due to their dramatic price declines and wide availability, geothermal and hydroelectric power remain crucial in specific regions. Geothermal power is highly reliable and offers a consistent baseload, but it depends on suitable geological conditions. Meanwhile, hydroelectric power, the oldest industrial-scale renewable, has been widely deployed worldwide, although environmental and social concerns limit new large-scale dam projects in many regions.
Emerging clean energy technologies continue to expand the portfolio, from wave and tidal power to advanced biofuels and new forms of concentrated solar power (CSP). Not all of these sources have reached cost parity with fossil fuels, but the consistent pattern over the last half-century is that robust research, supportive policy, and economies of scale lead to lower costs over time.
4. Solar, Wind, and Beyond: The Modern Green Toolbox
With solar and wind achieving mainstream acceptance and cost-competitiveness in many markets, the question is no longer whether renewables can scale, but how quickly and effectively they can power the digital infrastructure—particularly AI-driven data centers—that the global economy increasingly depends on. In practice, data centers seeking reliability often incorporate multiple renewable sources, sometimes combining on-site solar arrays with long-term purchase agreements for off-site wind or hydro. This approach diversifies supply and mitigates the inherent intermittency of each resource.
4.1 Hybrid Power Systems
An emerging strategy involves “hybrid” projects that co-locate wind, solar, and battery storage on the same site. Solar generation often peaks at midday when wind might be moderate; wind generation can peak at night, effectively complementing solar. Batteries (or other forms of energy storage) can shift the surplus from sunny or windy hours to times of high demand. For a data center operating 24/7, a well-designed hybrid system can significantly reduce dependence on natural gas peaker plants or grid imports from fossil-dominated utilities.
4.2 Grid-Scale vs. On-Site Generation
Major technology companies often sign Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with off-site utility-scale renewable projects. These PPAs lock in a certain price per kilowatt-hour over 10–20 years, offering financial predictability and a measurable carbon reduction. Alternatively, smaller data facilities might install on-site solar panels or partner with local communities for shared wind projects. However, large hyperscale data centers often require more power than on-site infrastructure can provide.
4.3 Costs Beyond LCOE: Integration and Grid Upgrades
While solar and wind can now produce electricity at highly competitive prices, integration costs come from upgrading grids, building new transmission lines, and adding energy storage. As renewables account for higher shares of total electricity generation, grid operators must carefully manage supply fluctuations. However, these costs are often offset by the fuel savings from burning less gas or coal and the environmental benefits of lower emissions. A data center that invests in local or regional renewable resources also invests, in effect, in a more resilient and sustainable power infrastructure for its host community.
5. Role of Energy Storage: Overcoming Intermittency
A frequent critique of solar and wind is that they suffer from intermittency—the sun does not shine at night or during heavy cloud cover, and the wind can vary by hour or season. For data centres, which demand consistent power to keep servers running and adequately cooled, unpredictability in the electricity supply is unacceptable. Hence, the dramatic improvements in and cost reductions of energy storage solutions—especially lithium-ion batteries—play a pivotal role in enabling a renewable-based system.
According to BloombergNEF, battery storage costs have dropped nearly 90% in the last decade. This has made short-duration storage (ranging from a few minutes to a few hours) increasingly viable for grid services. Larger-scale deployments, including Tesla’s Megapacks or other utility-scale storage systems, help balance grid supply and demand in real-time. Meanwhile, research continues into alternative battery chemistries (like sodium-ion, solid-state, or flow batteries) and other forms of storage, such as pumped hydro, compressed air, or green hydrogen.
For data centres, on-site battery systems can serve multiple purposes: they act as backup power during grid outages, replace or complement diesel generators, and allow operators to use stored energy from solar or wind resources when direct generation is insufficient. The synergy between AI, described in the next section, and energy storage is particularly potent. AI algorithms can predict supply and demand fluctuations, controlling when to charge or discharge batteries to minimize cost and maximize reliability.
6. AI-Driven Grid Management: Optimizing Supply and Demand
AI’s influence on data centre growth is well recognised, but AI promises to revolutionise how we manage electricity locally and grid-wide. The complexity of integrating high shares of intermittent renewables has led utilities and private firms to explore machine learning and predictive analytics to optimize grid operations.
6.1 Demand Forecasting
One of AI’s strengths lies in its ability to forecast future conditions. For utilities, advanced algorithms can analyze weather data, historical consumption patterns, and real-time signals to estimate electricity demand a few hours or days ahead. This helps operators prepare, turn on or off specific energy sources, schedule maintenance, or buy power from neighbouring grids at strategic times. Data centres can similarly anticipate periods of intense computation—say, training a large language model or performing end-of-month financial analytics—and schedule these tasks when wind or solar energy is most abundant or cheapest.
6.2 Load Balancing and Geographic Distribution
Major technology firms with data centres scattered worldwide can leverage AI to move computational workloads between regions in near-real time. If it’s windy in Ireland but calm in Virginia, the algorithm might shift tasks to the Irish data center to utilize clean power. When the sun is shining in the southwestern United States, tasks might move there. This approach, known as follow-the-renewables, can substantially reduce a company’s carbon footprint—provided latency and other operational constraints remain manageable.
6.3 Battery Dispatch Optimization
Large-scale battery systems are only as effective as the software controlling their charge and discharge cycles. AI can factor in projected energy prices, grid conditions, weather forecasts, and data centre load demands to decide precisely when to store excess wind or solar power and release it. Over hundreds of cycles, these small optimization gains compound into significant cost savings and improved reliability.
6.4 Maintenance and Reliability
Predictive maintenance, another powerful AI application, analyzes sensor data from wind turbines, solar panels, and inverters to spot anomalies before they escalate into failures. For a data centre reliant on these sources, minimizing downtime and repair costs is mission-critical. Early detection can help schedule maintenance during periods of low demand or coordinate replacements in a manner that avoids straining the system.
7. Policy and Market Forces Catalyzing Renewables
Despite the impressive technological and economic strides renewables have made, policy and market forces remain crucial in accelerating or hindering their adoption. Indeed, the recent success story of plummeting solar and wind costs cannot be fully understood without acknowledging government incentives, carbon regulations, and broader shifts in capital markets.
7.1 Incentives and Subsidies
In many countries, renewable energy expansion was initially fueled by feed-in tariffs (FiTs), investment tax credits (ITCs), and production tax credits (PTCs), which offered guaranteed rates for electricity fed into the grid or provided direct financial support for building solar or wind capacity. These policies, first popularized in Europe and parts of Asia helped reduce the financial risks for early adopters and catalyzed large-scale manufacturing.
In the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 introduced a suite of new incentives for solar, wind, batteries, and even emerging clean energy solutions like green hydrogen. Whether or not these incentives remain in the long term can significantly influence corporate decisions about data center locations and power procurement strategies. For instance, if a data centre can qualify for certain tax credits by installing on-site solar or by purchasing renewable energy from a developer who receives these credits, it can dramatically lower overall project costs.
7.2 Carbon Pricing and Environmental Regulations
Another potent driver is the prospect of carbon pricing—whether in the form of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system. While such pricing mechanisms remain politically contentious in some regions, their adoption can make fossil-fueled electricity significantly more expensive than renewables. As more jurisdictions move toward requiring some form of accounting for carbon emissions, data centres reliant on natural gas may find themselves at an economic disadvantage, further tilting the scales in favour of wind, solar, and other low-carbon sources.
7.3 Capital Market Shifts
Institutional investors, pension funds, and insurers increasingly evaluate climate risks in their portfolios. As a result, financing for large-scale renewable projects has become more readily available, often at lower interest rates than comparable fossil-fuel projects. Green bonds, sustainability-linked loans, and other financial instruments incentivise companies to demonstrate decarbonization strategies. Hyperscale data centre operators, typically well-capitalised, are prime candidates for tapping into these green finance opportunities, potentially lowering the cost of building or retrofitting data centres to rely heavily on renewables.
8. Challenges to Full-Scale Adoption and Potential Solutions
While the synergy between renewables, AI, and the data economy appears promising, it is hardly without obstacles. Understanding these challenges—and exploring potential solutions—provides a roadmap for stakeholders across technology, policy, and civil society.
8.1 Grid Infrastructure and Transmission Bottlenecks
Large-scale wind farms are often located in remote, windy plains or offshore sites, while solar farms flourish in deserts or sunny interior regions. The best production sites in both cases may lie far from the dense population (or data centre) hubs. Transmission line expansions can be expensive, slow-moving, and politically controversial, as they often traverse private lands or protected areas. Solving this problem demands careful planning, streamlined permitting processes, and innovative approaches to building, financing, and upgrading power transmission networks.
8.2 Intermittency Beyond Storage
Even with significant battery installations or other storage methods, high penetrations of wind and solar can pose grid stability concerns during extreme weather events (e.g., prolonged cloudy, windless conditions or winter storms). A genuinely resilient system often includes diverse resources: wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and possibly low-carbon baseload sources such as nuclear. AI can help optimize the combined output. However, achieving near-100% renewables in all climates and seasons may require deeper solutions—expanded regional interconnections, advanced demand response systems, and next-generation energy storage breakthroughs.
8.3 Policy Uncertainty and Partisan Swings
In many countries, energy policy can swing dramatically with changes in political leadership. Once offered, Subsidies or tax credits might be rescinded, creating regulatory whiplash destabilising investors. Data centre operators contemplating multi-billion-dollar facilities weigh these risks carefully. A stable, long-term commitment to renewable energy—reinforced by durable legislation and broad political consensus—mitigates the volatility that can otherwise hamper large-scale green investments.
8.4 Social License and Community Impacts
Renewable energy projects, substantial wind farms or solar arrays, can face local opposition based on aesthetic, environmental, or land-use concerns. In some rural areas, wind turbines are seen as intrusive, or solar arrays compete with agricultural land uses. Addressing these concerns requires community engagement, fair landowner compensation, and thoughtful project design that respects local ecosystems and cultural values. Where done well, the infusion of jobs and tax revenues from renewable projects can foster local support.
8.5 Technological Gaps and the Pace of AI
AI itself is not a panacea. Designing advanced algorithms to manage grid operations and data centre workloads across continents is complex, requiring data-rich environments, robust cybersecurity, and specialized technical expertise. Algorithmic decisions around energy dispatch and load balancing also raise ethical and regulatory questions: Who decides how AI should prioritize one region’s energy needs over another? What if critical hospital systems or essential public infrastructure are on the same grid? These issues underscore that while AI is powerful, humans must design regulatory frameworks ensuring fairness, transparency, and reliability.
9. Charting a Course Forward: Integrating Digital and Sustainable Futures
The interplay between finite fossil fuel resources, explosive data centre demand, and renewable energy innovation stands at the heart of one of the most significant transitions of our time. We are moving, sometimes haltingly, from an era dominated by the combustion of hydrocarbons to one shaped by harnessing clean, infinitely replenishable sources like the sun and wind. The rapid reduction in the cost of renewable energy over the last decade—often surpassing expert predictions—underscores the dynamic nature of this sector.
For data centres specifically, the challenges are manifold: reliability, cost pressures, climate considerations, and the sheer scale of demand growth, significantly as AI deployments accelerate. Yet the solutions are not only feasible; they are increasingly profitable. By leveraging power purchase agreements that have locked in low-cost wind or solar power for decades, data centre operators gain both price stability and a greener public image. By investing in onsite battery storage or forging partnerships with grid-scale storage developers, they achieve resilience and reduce the need for polluting backup generators. Through sophisticated AI-driven optimization—shifting workloads geographically or temporally—they can balance supply and demand in ways never before imagined, further tipping the economic scales in favour of renewables.
9.1 Toward a Holistic Energy Ecosystem
One of the most compelling visions for the future is the emergence of a holistic energy ecosystem that intertwines data centres with local communities, utilities, and a diverse array of clean generation sources. In such a scenario:
Data centres help balance the grid by flexibly adjusting non-urgent computing tasks.
Utilities invest in large-scale renewables and storage, supported by stable incentives and regulatory frameworks.
Residential and commercial customers adopt rooftop solar or community solar, feeding surplus energy into the grid when supply is tight.
AI platforms serve as a kind of digital conductor, orchestrating the flow of electrons from myriad sources to demand nodes while maximizing overall system efficiency.
This vision not only curbs carbon emissions but also catalyzes local economic development, creating new jobs in renewable construction, operation, maintenance, and software engineering. It fosters energy independence and resilience, reducing exposure to global fossil fuel price shocks and geopolitical tensions.
9.2 Leadership from the Tech Sector
The world’s leading technology companies, many of which operate the most significant data centres, have the resources and the motivation to drive this transformation. They compete for environmentally conscious customers, maintain brand reputations tied to innovation, and must mitigate the significant electricity costs that threaten their bottom lines. Many have already set ambitious goals, investing billions of dollars in wind and solar farms globally.
An encouraging outcome of these corporate investments is the reduced risk for renewable energy developers. When a data centre operator signs a 20-year wind power, PPA guarantees a predictable revenue stream that lowers financing costs and helps bring more projects online. The cumulative effect magnifies over time, potentially accelerating the broader energy transition beyond the data centers.
9.3 Future Tech: Storage Breakthroughs and Beyond
While lithium-ion batteries dominate current storage deployments, emerging alternatives might revolutionize grid-scale storage. Flow batteries, for example, can store electricity in liquid electrolytes for extended periods, making them well-suited to specific large-scale uses. Green hydrogen, produced via electrolysis from surplus wind or solar, can be stored indefinitely and later converted to electricity via fuel cells or turbines. However, this process currently faces efficiency and cost hurdles.
In tandem, AI’s capabilities will likely expand even further. Reinforcement learning could discover innovative ways to schedule computational tasks, manage microgrids, or coordinate electric vehicle charging with data centre demands. This will be integral as the world moves to electrify transportation as well—a sector that further strains electricity grids.
Conclusion: Embracing a Sustainable Digital Future
It is a paradox of modernity that our profound digital revolution hinges on such a simple physical phenomenon: electricity. The sophisticated algorithms powering AI systems, the convenience of unlimited cloud storage, and the advanced analytics gleaned from big data all require a steady flow of electrons. As the world stands on the precipice of unprecedented computational expansion, realising that our conventional energy sources—particularly natural gas—are limited in quantity and climate acceptability forces us to think more creatively and decisively about powering tomorrow’s digital world.
Once derided as too expensive or unreliable, renewable energy has proven its worth across vast geographies, with costs plummeting to levels competitive with, or even cheaper than, fossil fuels. With energy storage innovations and AI-driven optimization tools, solar, wind, and other clean sources can reliably meet data centres' massive, round-the-clock demands. This interplay does more than keep servers online; it can help decarbonize entire regions, spur technological and economic growth, and encourage a cycle of innovation that drives down costs further.
The road ahead is not without its setbacks or controversies. Infrastructure bottlenecks, policy volatility, and local community concerns are real hurdles that must be addressed thoughtfully. Yet the momentum behind renewables—driven by public demand for climate action, strategic corporate commitments, and the financial sector’s evolving stance on fossil fuel risks—suggests a future dominated by clean electricity is not only possible but already forming.
In the future, data centres will likely serve as testbeds and catalysts for tomorrow's advanced, AI-enabled renewable grids. By leveraging large-scale power purchase agreements, exploring frontier storage technologies, and employing machine learning to manage consumption patterns, these digital hubs have the potential to become linchpins of the clean energy transition. In return, they gain stable electricity pricing, reduced exposure to fossil fuel price spikes, and robust sustainability credentials that resonate with customers and investors alike.
Ultimately, combining finite fossil fuel resources and exponential data growth presents a wake-up call and an unprecedented chance to innovate. The path is clear: harness the clean, cost-effective potential of solar, wind, and other renewables—coupled with the computational might of AI—to forge a digital ecosystem that is as sustainable as it is revolutionary. If we succeed, we will have laid the groundwork for a world where technology and nature coexist symbiotically, ensuring that the servers and algorithms driving our daily lives also safeguard the planet that makes such progress possible.
Bibliography
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2022. Abu Dhabi: IRENA, 2022. https://www.irena.org.
Note: This report details global trends in renewable power generation costs, including solar PV module pricing and LCOE.
BloombergNEF (BNEF). New Energy Outlook 2022. New York: Bloomberg Finance L.P., 2022. https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/.
Note: BloombergNEF’s annual outlook offers comprehensive data and analysis on cost trajectories for solar, wind, battery storage, and more.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmark: Q1 2022. By Ran Fu, David Feldman, and Robert Margolis. Golden, CO: NREL, 2022. https://www.nrel.gov.
Note: This benchmark study provides detailed breakdowns of solar PV and storage costs in the U.S., illustrating historical cost declines and current pricing.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Tracking the Sun: Pricing and Design Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States. Berkeley, CA: LBNL, 2022. https://emp.lbl.gov/tracking-the-sun.
Note: An ongoing series analyzing installed costs of rooftop solar PV systems; offers historical context and annual updates.
Creutzig, Felix, et al. “The Underestimated Potential of Solar Energy to Mitigate Climate Change.” Nature Energy 2 (2017): 17140.
Note: A peer-reviewed study discussing how solar PV cost reductions and deployment could exceed prior expectations, impacting climate mitigation strategies.