Wind and solar power, traditionally targets of cheap shots by decarbonization skeptics, are taking on a new role as the reliable energy sources in a world of geopolitical chaos. The spring of 2026 may turn out to have been a pivotal moment for readiness to redirect capital, and refocus politics, toward renewable-energy options.

As noted, early this month, in the French newspaper Le Monde:

Sanctions against Iran, pressure on Venezuela, repeated demands on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to increase production—while threatening trade reprisals against countries that do not comply—tariff threats to push more liquefied natural gas (LNG) toward Europe, and, more recently, critical tensions resulting from the conflict in the Middle East: every month brings a new batch of unprecedented or even bizarre disruptions…

Brent Crude prices have sometimes swung by more than 10% in a single day in response to chaotic announcements. LNG futures markets have experienced unprecedented price gaps between European and American platforms. Industrial buyers, for whom unpredictability is the greatest fear, have seen the specter of 2022 and the war in Ukraine reemerge: the impossibility of planning their energy supply with any medium-term visibility.

By comparison, the same article observes,

A nuclear power plant, a solar or wind farm, a heat pump, an electrolyzer, a biomethane plant, a building renovated to passive standards – all these assets have in common that they produce or save energy at a predictable cost.

Criticisms of wind and solar often boil down to variations on the question, “What happens when it’s dark and the wind isn’t blowing?” Given the events of the past several weeks, a possible riposte might be “What happens to your oil and gas reliance when you can’t sail tankers through the Strait of Hormuz?” – with a follow-up observation that the sun and the wind aren’t subject to anyone’s whims or strategies.

Further, adding an energy-storage component to the mix is one hugely obvious part of the answer: rigorous analysis in the journal Nature Communications finds straightforward trade-offs among solar power capacity, wind power capacity, and energy storage capacity, with a bottom-line result that adding 10 per cent “excess capacity” was comparable in effect to adding about four hours’ worth of energy storage.

Additionally, there are powerful synergies to be gained by linking systems over larger regions to level out the effects of varying wind. The same Nature Communications paper examined options at varying scales—national, regional, and continental pooling and sharing of power—with perhaps the most notable conclusion being that “supply gaps in continental-scale solar-wind systems might be entirely eliminated in Africa, Asia, and South America, and limited to <2% of demand and 49, 26, and 13 h[ours per year] in Europe, Oceania, and North America, respectively, given excess annual generation of 50% and 12 h of storage.”

Caveats must be recognized. The authors warn that the calculations above reflect efficient networks and acceptance of land use requirements, so there’s some optimistic bias there; on the other hand, technical improvements can also be expected. Appliances, for example, can be remotely scheduled to draw power preferentially at times of peak wind and solar power production, and in general “stronger positive correlation between solar/wind availability and demand may be observed as renewable energy gradually dominates the power system.”

The positives, furthermore, are strengthening as wind and solar systems are produced with improved processes and at larger scale. The energy used to build and install a wind turbine has typically been paid back in the first seven months of operation, and wind produces the smallest greenhouse-gas emission per kiloWatt-hour of energy compared to other sources [PDF].

In workshop notes from the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, a “no, really?” pronouncement takes the form of “oil price boom and bust cycles are most likely here to stay, and increased volatility is a distinct possibility in the foreseeable future.” That <sarcasm> daring prediction </sarcasm> was made nine years ago. Since then, it’s been noted that

In 2021, wind energy accounted for 58% of electricity production in Iowa, and 43% of electricity production in Kansas. Wind power has enabled Iowa not only to reduce energy costs, but to generate additional revenue by selling excess power to neighboring states during shortages. In California, electricity generated from wind power increased from roughly 3% in 2009, to roughly 7% in 2022. Electricity generated from natural gas declined from roughly 56% in 2009, to roughly 47% in 2022. Yet even with this increased reliance on wind power, California’s grid reliability has remained consistent, and largely above national averages. California has even been able to briefly meet 103% of its energy demands exclusively from renewable sources, demonstrating that a large economy can by powered by renewable energy.

The Yale School of the Environment sums this up with the long-standing cliché that “In God we trust; all others bring data,” observing that by the most commonly used measure of power reliability,

• Germany—where renewables supply nearly half of the country’s electricity—boasts a grid that is one of the most reliable in Europe and the world.
• The United States, where renewable energy and nuclear power each provide roughly 20 percent of electricity, had five times Germany’s outage rate.
• The Texas grid became more stable as its wind capacity sextupled from 2007 to 2020.

Compare these notes against today’s statement from Iran, with its indefinite prospect of “regulated passage through the Strait of Hormuz under the coordination of the Armed Forces of Iran” – which the country’s Supreme National Security Council says will give the country a “unique economic and geopolitical standing.” Sun and wind are looking a lot more reliable.