So much misinformation on the green energy transition
The Wall Street Journal’s European energy story gets almost everything wrong
Here in Hawaii, we know something about high electricity rates. At 30 to 45 cents per kilowatt-hour, we pay roughly triple the national average. So when the Wall Street Journal published a front-page story last month declaring that Europe’s green energy transition had “crippled the economy,” with Germany suffering “the highest domestic electricity prices in the developed world,” I was open to learning something new.
Then I looked at the actual data. And what I found reveals a cautionary tale — not about the dangers of renewable energy, but about the dangers of confusing electricity rates with electricity bills, and correlation with causation.
The WSJ article by Tom Fairless and Max Colchester makes several factual claims. Some are accurate. But its central thesis — that Europe’s renewable energy push caused an economic crisis — entirely collapses under scrutiny.
Let me show you what they got right, and what they got badly (like really badly) wrong. Here’s a quick summary and the rest of this article gives the details, with sources.
In writing this piece I have tried to be objective and check my own biases. I’m not sure how WSJ got it so wrong since their reporting is normally good, but for whatever reason they did, and I’ve given the data and analysis to show what they got wrong — and right.
The Scorecard: What the WSJ Got Wrong (a LOT!) and Right (some)
The Rate vs. Bill Fallacy: Why High Prices Don’t Mean High Bills
The WSJ’s central sleight of hand is comparing electricity rates while ignoring electricity consumption. It’s like comparing the price per ounce of caviar versus rice and concluding that caviar consumers must be going bankrupt.
Here are the facts:
According to data from the World Energy Council, the average American household consumes approximately 10,178 kWh of electricity per year. German households consume roughly 2,800 kWh — barely a quarter as much. UK households fall between at around 4,600 kWh.
The result? Despite Germany having rates roughly 2–3 times higher than the US, German monthly electricity bills average around €84 per month (about $90). Average American electricity bills run $120–150 per month.
When you calculate the actual burden — electricity costs as a percentage of household income — the numbers are remarkably similar. Germans spend roughly 2–2.5% of household income on electricity. Americans spend roughly the same. The WSJ’s alarming rate comparison is essentially meaningless.
So the story becomes: when we compare what actually matters, what consumers pay for electricity on average in the US and in Germany is the same — and what the WSJ reporters would have us believe is that Germany is paying three times more.
This is not remotely true and constitutes journalistic malpractice.
Why such a big difference in consumption? Germans live in more efficient homes, use more efficient appliances, and have structured their society to use less energy in many ways. They haven’t lowered their standard of living (they have a higher standard of living, in fact); they’ve achieved the same outcomes with significantly less waste. This is a feature, not a bug.
“Crippled Economy”? The Data Says the Opposite
The WSJ’s headline claims Europe’s economy has been “crippled.” But according to the European Environment Agency and the European Commission, EU GDP has grown 68% since 1990 while greenhouse gas emissions have fallen 37%. The International Energy Agency confirms: “The EU economy is 66% larger now, while CO2 emissions are 30% lower than in 1990.”
This is the textbook definition of successful economic decoupling — growing the economy while shrinking environmental impact. It is literally the opposite of “crippled.”
Again: journalistic malpractice.
Yes, EU GDP growth has been slower than the United States in recent years. But attributing this to energy policy ignores a complex mix of factors: demographics, fiscal policy, productivity differences, and the massive shock of losing Russian energy supplies due to geopolitics, not green policy.
What Actually Caused the 2022 Energy Crisis
The WSJ conflates two separate phenomena: Europe’s long-term energy transition and the acute 2022 energy crisis. These are not the same thing. According to analysis from the Centre for Economic Policy Research: “The 2021–2022 energy crisis was not related to the green transition.”
The EU Council is explicit: “Russia’s unilateral decision to cut off the gas supply to a number of EU countries caused uncertainty, leading to skyrocketing gas prices.” Wholesale electricity prices went from €35/MWh in 2020 to over €500/MWh in 2022. That’s not a renewable energy problem; that’s a fossil fuel supply shock.
In fact, analysis from Ramboll found that renewables actually cushioned the blow. Without the renewable capacity Europe had built, the crisis would have been even worse — more fossil generation would have been needed at crisis prices.
The Pipeline Sabotage the WSJ Ignores
The WSJ’s analysis also omits one of the most consequential energy events of 2022: the deliberate sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in September. This wasn’t a market force or policy outcome — it was an act of destruction that permanently eliminated Germany’s option to resume Russian gas imports, even if the political situation changed.
Three of the four Nord Stream pipelines were destroyed by underwater explosions on September 26, 2022. Swedish authorities confirmed it was “gross sabotage” with the markings of a “state actor.” The German investigation — the only one still active after Sweden and Denmark closed their probes in February 2024 — has issued arrest warrants for Ukrainian nationals. As of late 2025, seven suspects have been identified, including former members of a private diving school in Kyiv.
Whatever the full truth about who ordered the operation, U.S. officials’ public statements are illuminating.
On February 7, 2022 — weeks before Russia’s invasion — President Biden stood alongside German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and made a remarkable promise: “If Russia invades… there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” When a reporter pressed him on how, since Germany controlled the project, Biden replied simply: “I promise you, we will be able to do that.”
After the sabotage, Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland told Congress she was “very gratified” that Nord Stream 2 was “now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”
Get Tam Hunt’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
In February 2023, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh published detailed allegations that the U.S. Navy carried out the sabotage during a NATO exercise, citing a source “with direct knowledge of the operational planning.” The White House denied the claims as “utterly false.” Mainstream media largely ignored the story, though it was raised at multiple UN Security Council meetings by Russian representatives.
One can analyze Europe’s energy crisis through many lenses. But ignoring deliberate infrastructure sabotage while blaming renewable energy policy is not serious journalism. The WSJ article never mentions Nord Stream. Not once.
Grid Balancing: A Cost for All Energy Systems
The WSJ highlights the UK’s £2.7 billion in annual grid balancing costs and the Seagreen wind farm being “disconnected more than 70% of the time” as evidence of renewable energy’s hidden costs. These are real issues. But the article presents them as if conventional power systems don’t have equivalent challenges.
They do.
Every power grid requires “spinning reserves” — backup capacity running below optimal output, ready to respond instantly to failures or demand spikes. According to MIT and Argonne National Laboratory research, “We primarily rely on gas and coal plants to meet all those flexibility needs today.” These plants burn fuel inefficiently while waiting on standby. That’s a hidden cost of conventional systems that rarely makes headlines.
Consider France, often held up as a model of stable, nuclear-powered electricity. In 2022, EDF recorded a loss of €17.9 billion as corrosion cracks forced extended shutdowns of its newest reactors. French nuclear output fell to its lowest level in over three decades, and France — normally a major electricity exporter — became a net importer at the worst possible time, during the European energy crisis.
Is that a “hidden cost” of nuclear power? Of course. All energy systems have reliability challenges and backup costs. Singling out renewable systems for honest accounting while ignoring equivalent costs in conventional systems is not objective journalism.
The Battery Revolution the WSJ Ignores
Perhaps the most glaring omission in the WSJ article is any serious discussion of battery storage. The piece treats intermittency as a permanent, expensive problem. But the data tells a radically different story.
According to BloombergNEF’s December 2025 survey, battery pack prices for stationary storage have fallen to $70 per kilowatt-hour — a 45% drop in a single year. This makes stationary storage the cheapest battery segment for the first time ever. Overall, battery pack prices have fallen 93% since 2010.
Turnkey battery energy storage systems now cost around $117/kWh globally, down 31% from 2024. BNEF projects costs falling to $41/kWh for 4-hour systems in China by 2035.
Deployment is accelerating rapidly. Europe installed 21.9 GWh of battery storage in 2024, bringing total capacity to 61.1 GWh. By 2029, Europe is projected to reach 400 GWh — a sixfold increase. Global grid-scale deployments are up 38% year-over-year.
At these prices and growth rates, the intermittency challenge is being solved in real-time. Analysis from Ember concludes: “Solar is no longer just cheap daytime electricity — solar is now anytime dispatchable electricity.” Writing about renewable energy costs in 2025 without mentioning battery storage is like writing about transportation costs in 1910 without mentioning automobiles.
What the WSJ Gets Right
To be fair, the article does identify some legitimate challenges:
Grid infrastructure genuinely hasn’t kept pace with renewable deployment in parts of Europe. The UK’s grid constraints causing wind farm curtailment are a real problem requiring major investment.
Industrial competitiveness for energy-intensive sectors is a legitimate concern. Companies like BASF and Huntsman have real reasons to worry about energy costs relative to competitors in the US or China.
Northern European countries face harder paths than sunny Spain or hydro-rich Nordic countries. Geography matters.
Europe’s “or” strategy (replacing fossil fuels rather than supplementing them) did create transition vulnerabilities that the US and China’s “and” strategy avoided.
These are fair criticisms that deserve attention. But they don’t support the article’s sweeping conclusion that renewable energy has “crippled” Europe’s economy.
What This Means for Hawaii
Hawaii faces its own energy transition challenges. We have the highest electricity rates in the nation, heavy dependence on imported oil, and ambitious renewable energy mandates. Articles like the WSJ piece are often cited to argue against renewable investment.
But the actual lessons from Europe support the opposite conclusion:
High rates aren’t destiny. Germany achieved similar household electricity burdens to the US through efficiency. Hawaii should aggressively pursue efficiency alongside renewables.
Dependence on imported fossil fuels is the real vulnerability. Europe’s crisis was caused by fossil fuel supply disruption, not by having too many solar panels. Hawaii’s continued dependence on imported oil exposes us to the same risks.
Battery storage changes everything. At $70/kWh and falling, storage makes solar dispatchable. Hawaii’s abundant sunshine becomes a 24/7 resource, not just a daytime one.
Grid investment matters. Europe’s genuine challenges stem from underinvestment in grid infrastructure, not from building too many wind farms. Hawaii must invest in grid modernization alongside generation.
Conclusion: Check the Receipts
The Wall Street Journal has published a story that gets its headline half right — Europe has indeed slashed emissions — but gets its analysis and the other half of the headline badly wrong. The economy wasn’t “crippled.” Consumer burdens aren’t dramatically higher. The 2022 crisis was caused by fossil fuel supply disruption, not by renewable energy. And the intermittency challenge that dominates the article’s framing is being rapidly solved by plummeting battery costs.
None of this means Europe’s energy transition has been flawless. There are real lessons to learn about grid investment, industrial policy, and managing transition risks. But the sweeping narrative of renewable energy as economic poison doesn’t survive contact with the actual data.
When you see alarming claims about energy policy, check the receipts. Compare rates to bills. Compare burdens to income. Compare renewable intermittency costs to conventional backup costs. And for goodness’ sake, check what’s happening with battery storage.
The energy future is being built in real-time. It would be a shame if we missed it because we were too busy reading misleading headlines.
— — —
Tam Hunt is an energy policy analyst with 25 years of experience. He serves on the board of the Hawaii Electric Vehicle Association and co-founded Think B.I.G.
