- reverse pyromania
- Posts
- This is Really Kind of The Whole Ball of Wax
This is Really Kind of The Whole Ball of Wax
Energy Security Through Renewables
Joe is Wypoxic
March 06, 2026
Not something I usually do, but I’m patting myself on the back today in a disgustingly smarmy way (feel free to razz me) because I beat Krugman to the punch for probably the first - and last - time ever.
I wrote about this the other day:
The sub-title of Krugman’s post really says it all: “The wind and the sun don’t need to transit the Strait of Hormuz”. It is truly stunning from a national security perspective that our current “leaders” don’t get - or don’t care - how vulnerable we are from an energy perspective.
“Drill Baby Drill” might be an effective catchphrase or soundbite, but it is truly meaningless in terms of actual policy, whereas Krugman’s sub-title referenced above actually has strong policy applicability. Oil and LNG are worldwide commodities. Their price in the U.S. is subject to whatever happens with regard to supply, demand, politics, wars, transportation and manipulation everywhere else in the world. Not so for renewable energy (which also includes hydro, wave and geothermal) which cannot be monopolized or manipulated nearly to the level that fossil fuels can.
We have spent trillions of dollars aligning ourselves with countries whose cultures do not share our (supposed) values - freedom, equality of sexes, opportunity for all - because we do not have the political will to truly gain energy independence. We fight wars over this. It. Is. Insane.
This needs to be top of our action list when we are rid of the buffoons running our country.
Worth the Krugman read:
“The usual argument for promoting solar and wind power is that relying on renewable energy avoids the environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels. This environmental damage includes, but isn’t limited to, climate change. In addition, air pollution imposes shockingly large direct and immediate costs by harming our health and reducing our life expectancy.
But now we know that there is another reason for nations to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels: security. In a dangerous world, it’s infinitely safer to rely on the sun and the wind than to depend on fossil fuels that must be transported long distances, from nations that are untrustworthy, often exploitative and located in regions that frequently devolve into war zones.
…
Donald Trump may say that he will reopen the strait. But short of regime change in Iran, it’s very hard to see how he can.Oil tankers are extremely vulnerable targets while drones, anti-ship missiles and mines are cheap. Moreover, the Iranian regime surely still has thousands of them in stock, in readiness for an attack just like this.
…
Now, Trump hates renewable energy, especially wind power. He has tried to destroy hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of investment in offshore wind turbines and sought to block land-based projects as well, although in some cases he has been stopped by the courts. He has also put pressure on other countries to go back to fossil fuels. On Tuesday he lashed out at the UK, calling the British “very uncooperative” and attacking them for having “windmills all over the place that are ruining the country.” But Britain would be in much worse shape right now if wind power weren’t supplying about 30 percent of its electricity.
…
Writing in the Financial Times, Alan Beattie puts energy policy in the context of geopolitical rivalry:
The competing economic superpower offers are now as follows. From the US you get forced into trade deals promising a future of burning fossil fuels whose price is subject to wildly destructive US adventurism. From China you get reliably cheap EVs and green tech to generate renewables.
That may be a bit hyperbolic, but he has a point. I’d add that the problem with U.S. demands that nations burn, baby, burn isn’t just American adventurism. It’s also the fact that relying on the United States for LNG, which is what doing things Trump’s way would amount to, is itself unsafe. Are you sure that Trump or a Trump-like future president won’t cut off energy supplies to nations that annoy him? I’m not.
So the U.S. war against Iran is making a strong case for nations around the world to seek energy independence. And for those nations that don’t have large fossil fuel reserves, that means wind and solar (and, yes, nuclear.)
Donald Trump, hero of renewable energy? Who knew?”
PS - Krugman does add in nuclear to the list of desired energy sources. I wrote my grad school thesis on “The Social Accountability of Nuclear Power”. It was a while ago, but my view hasn’t changed. We need to make sure we have safe long-term (and I mean looooong term) storage for spent nuclear fuel and better security and protection from nuclear accidents before I’ll get behind nuclear power. It may seem trite to say it, but a nuclear accident like Chernobyl leaves wide swaths of places uninhabitable for thousands of years. That is a risk I am not yet willing to endorse.
Reply