gas

Finding the cheapest gas station in your area is very simple thanks to this very powerful tool

by

We have been very attentive to fuel prices for a few days. It is no wonder, since since the conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran has exploded to the point of leaving the Strait of Hormuz in a compromised situation, oil has ended up skyrocketing and gas stations have already begun to notice the impact on their shelters. While the Government study what measures you can applyMany drivers go to those gas stations that have the cheapest fuel. And for this there are tools that the State itself offers. The Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge made it available to any citizen quite some time ago, the Geoportal from Gas Stations, a free tool that allows you to know the price of fuel at all service stations in the country, so you can filter by the cheapest one in your area. It also has another very useful function: knowing how much has the price changed at every gas station. We tell you all the details below. What is the Geoportal and why is it worth it? The Gas Station Geoportal is a web application of the Ministry that collects the prices of all service stations in Spainupdated every five minutes. What you see on the screen is practically the real price of the moment. The tool has been available for years, but in situations like the current one, or like the one that happened with the outbreak of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, its use makes special sense. Currently there are gas stations in large cities and in the main corridors that They already exceed 1.70 euros/liter in gasoline or 1.80 in diesel, while others remain below average. With a 50 liter tank, choose carefully where to refuel can mean quite significant savings. How to find the cheapest gas station from the GeoPortal To enter the Geoportal, all you have to do is enter this link. There is also a free mobile application for Android and iOS. It is called Route-E, and it is developed by the Ministry itself. In addition to gas station prices, it includes information on charging points for electric vehicles. When you enter the website you will see a map of Spain with marked service stations. On the left are the filters. The process is simple: Select “Service Stations” as search type. Choose your province and town. The map will automatically center on that area. You can refine it even further with the zip code if you live in a large city. Choose the type of fuel. You will find everything from the usual ones (gasoline 95 E5, gasoline 98, diesel A) to alternative options such as natural gas, bioethanol or hydrogen. As soon as you select one, the map will show the price of each station along with its schedule and operator. Mark “Sale to the public”. This excludes gas stations belonging to agricultural cooperatives or closed groups that are not open to any driver. Check the list ordered by price. When you have clicked ‘Search’, just below the map the tool generates a list of stations. Filter by price and the cheapest ones in the area should appear first, and you can export the list in CSV or Excel format if you need it. As extra information: yes you hover over any station on the map, you will directly see its price, schedule, rating and operator without having to click. There is an additional filter: “Discount plans”. If you activate it, the search engine shows gas stations with current promotions, either because they belong to a specific chain or because they offer discounts to groups such as transporters, farmers or taxi drivers. Mobile Apps If you prefer not to use the Ministry’s website, there are several free applications for iOS and Android that offer a similar feature. At Xataka we already talked about them a while ago, among which are GasofApp, GasAll, Gasolineras or GasOnline, among others. They all draw on the same official data and allow you to locate the cheapest stations near your location in real time. In addition to all of them, there is also Ruta-E, which is the one we mentioned before, but the rest of the apps offer (in our opinion) much faster and easier navigation. How to see the price history of any gas station Knowing the current price is good, but if you are curious about how the price of a specific station has evolved over time, you can also do it from the Geoportal. For that, just enter this page and complete the form that appears on the screen. You have two options to check the evolution of prices: through the price history or through a timeline per gas station. To do this you must: Selectr the interval of time. You can choose between daily, weekly, monthly or yearly views, and set a start date and an end date for the period you want to analyze. Heegir data series. Below in the form will be where you can decide if you want to see the evolution of the average price of all of Spain, of an autonomous community, of a province, of a municipality or of a specific gas station. Select the fuel. The menu includes all available: 95 E5 gasoline, 98 gasoline, diesel A, diesel B, LPG, natural gas, hydrogen and many more. Choose the type of graph. You can view the data in a line or bar graph, depending on what is most comfortable for you. The result is a graph that shows the evolution of the price in the chosen period. With it you can see, for example, how much diesel cost at the gas station in your neighborhood before the situation with Iran became tense and how much it costs today. Cover image | Geoportal and engin akyurt In Xataka | Cuts are coming for the most used Cercanías line in Spain. The reason: more capacity and driverless trains

While Europe fears for its pocket after gas cuts in the Middle East, France has a plan: its nuclear power

by

Europe holds its breath in the face of the threat of a new energy crisis. The escalation of war in the Middle East has caused a real earthquake in the markets. The de facto blockade in the vital Strait of Hormuz puts in check the arrival of liquefied natural gas (LNG) ships from Qatar, forcing cargo ships to deviate towards Asia. With European gas reserves below 30% after an unusually cold winter, panic relives the nightmare of 2022 it is palpable. However, in the midst of this continental chaos, France observes the situation with an apparent and calculated calm. The French country believes it has an ace up its sleeve to avoid blackouts and industrial ruin: its imposing, and recently resurrected, nuclear fleet. A historical export record. While northern Europe trembles over gas, the French electricity grid operator, RTE, has just put figures on the table that support the Elysée’s optimism. According to the Bilan electric 2025Last year, France broke its historical record by exporting 92.3 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity. To put it in perspective, RTE’s Director General of Economics, Thomas Veyrenc, explained to the Revue Générale Nucléaire that this volume exceeds the annual electricity consumption of an entire country like Belgium. This milestone has returned France to its traditional role as Europe’s “electric battery”, a status that it had resoundingly lost in 2022. The secret of this success lies in the recovery of its nuclear park, which produced 373 TWh in 2025 (3.1% more than the previous year) thanks to better availability of its reactors. As pointed out by Financial Timesthis French nuclear fleet is precisely the energy lever that Europe was missing after the invasion of Ukraine, and could be the key to not having to turn on polluting coal plants again in the face of the current gas cut in the Middle East. The paradox: they export because they do not consume. Economically, the move is round. According to Le Mondethese exports have earned France 5.4 billion euros. By having so much low-cost electricity production (nuclear and hydroelectric), the country manages to maintain very competitive wholesale prices, situated at an average of €61/MWh in 2025, well below the suffocating prices suffered by neighbors such as Germany or Italy. But this “miracle” has some worrying fine print. As the specialized media warns Le Monde de l’EnergieFrance exports so much electricity mainly because its domestic consumption is stagnant. The country’s electricity demand remained at 451 TWh in 2025, 6% below pre-crisis levels. The reality is that France is far behind in the electrification of its own economy. Paradoxically, 56% of the final energy consumed by the country continues to depend on fossil fuels, especially in sectors such as transportation and heating. The energy clamp to Spain. The French master plan to establish itself as the energy savior of Europe has a clear loser: the Iberian Peninsula. As we explained in Xatakawhile Germany pays more than 100 euros for electricity and France pays 13 euros, in Spain and Portugal renewable overproduction sinks prices until they reach zero or negative values. Why doesn’t that cheap and clean Iberian energy flow to a thirsty Europe? Because France acts as a protective wall. The country maintains Spain as an “energy island” with only 2.8% interconnection, deliberately blocking vital projects in Aragon and Navarra in its network plan for 2025-2035. ANDThe eternal France-Spain conflict. The motivation is not technical, but pure geostrategy and economic survival. Paris needs urgently make profitable a pharaonic investment of 300,000 million euros in its atomic sector. Allowing the massive entry of competitive Spanish solar and wind energy would sink the prices and profitability of its nuclear plants. In fact, President Emmanuel Macron has come to attack the Spanish energy model in the international press, calling it unstable, arguing that a network does not support a 100% renewable model, and describing the urgency of interconnections as a “false debate.” However, the data dismantles the Elysée story. On the one hand, there is the “Danish mirror”: Denmark operates with more than 80% wind generation and does not suffer blackouts because it is ultra-interconnected with its neighbors to balance the load. On the other hand, the flagrant French amnesia regarding 2022 stands out, the year in which the French reactors failed massively due to corrosion problems and it was Spain that had to export electricity to rescue France from the blackouts. Because of this current plug, Spain is forced to throw it away (what is known as technical discharges or curtailment) around 7% of its clean energy because it literally “does not fit” into the grid. All this is part of a strategy of total domination by the Elysée: Macron not only seeks civil energy hegemony, but, how to collect CNBChas put a doctrine of “advance deterrence” on the table, offering the protection of its nuclear weapons to Europe in the face of the withdrawal of the United States. The Achilles heel: the uranium crisis. However, Macron’s nuclear fortress could have feet of clay. The chain RFI (Radio France International) warns that this “nuclear renaissance” faces great uncertainty over uranium supply. Historically, France obtained 20% of its uranium from Niger. But following the recent military coup, the ruling junta revoked the permits of the French company Orano, nationalized the mines and blocked exports, leaving Paris with a gaping supply hole. Now, France is desperately trying to look for new sources in countries like Kazakhstan (the world’s largest producer) or Mongolia, but there it comes face to face with the overwhelming geopolitical, business and infrastructure influence of Russia and China. A castle with a drawbridge. France has managed to build an energy strength that, in the short term, allows it to weather the Middle East storm better than its European neighbors, selling its surpluses at a gold price. But it does so at the cost of isolating the Iberian Peninsula and betting everything on a mineral, uranium, whose control is increasingly slipping out of its hands on the global chessboard. Time will … Read more

In 2022, the gas crisis skyrocketed the price of electricity in Spain. In 2026 we have a “green shield” but also a serious problem

by

Just when in Spain we began to breathe a sigh of relief, convinced that we had overcome the inflationary trauma of 2022 “after cutting energy ties” with Russia, history repeats itself. This week a “black Monday” began that has shaken international markets. This time the epicenter is not in eastern Europe, but in the Persian Gulf, after the recent attacks that have been forced to paralyze QatarEnergy facilities. The impact on our country has been devastating. According to data collected in OMIEthe price of electricity in the wholesale market has jumped 60% in just 24 hours, climbing to 90.14 euros per megawatt hour (MWh). To put it in perspective, this represents a 1,300% increase in price compared to what we paid just a month ago. The President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, has already warned that We must prepare for a “long war” with serious global economic consequences. And the fear is already palpable in the street with the long lines that yesterday we observed of drivers trying to fill their tank at gas stations low cost before prices continue to rise. If the gas goes up, why does the electricity go up? To understand why a conflict thousands of kilometers away makes our electricity more expensive almost instantly, you have to look at how our system works. As explained The Confidential in a very didactic way: the European electricity market is “marginalist”. This means that the most expensive technology that needs to be used to cover the demand of a specific day is the one that sets the final price of all energy. If the sun or wind is not enough and the gas plants have to be turned on, all electricity is paid for at the price of gas. And the gas, right now, is trapped in a war funnel. As we have already explained these days20% of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) and 25% of the world’s oil transit through the Strait of Hormuz (the epicenter of the current tension). Any threat of a blockade in that area generates a domino effect that triggers reference prices in Europe. The energy expert Joaquín Coronado explained in LinkedIn that this panic is already real: The prices of electricity futures for the rest of 2026 have suddenly risen by 24%. As he himself points out, “only the price of gas has changed,” but that is enough to drag down the entire system. The hit in the pocket. All this macroeconomics lands directly in the bank account of citizens. As pointed out The Countrythere are more than 11 million users in Spain who have regulated rates (the PVPC for electricity and the TUR for gas) who will notice this increase almost immediately, since their contracts reflect the daily fluctuations of the market. The calculations about what this crisis is going to cost us are already on the table: The OCU, in statements to The Newspaperestimates that if these prices are maintained, the average electricity bill with a regulated rate will jump from the 62 euros we paid in February to around 82 euros in March. An increase of 30% in a single month. A platform report Roams figures the monthly impact about 12 euros extra for electricity (17% more) and increases of up to 18% on the gas bill. The worst scenario is drawn the comparator Selectra: If the conflict drags on and we return to the panic levels of 2022, the electricity bill could skyrocket by 200%. But energy is just the first domino. Financial Times collect warnings from the chief economist of the European Central Bank (ECB), who already assumes a short-term rebound in general inflation. As oil rises, transportation rises: from fuel at the pump (gas stations already assume extra costs of 12 cents per liter) to maritime freight of goods and plane tickets, which on some routes to Asia have quadrupled in price. So, are we the same as in 2022? The good news is that we are not exactly at the same starting point as when the Ukrainian war broke out. As analyzed elDiario.esSpain today has three “mattresses” that cushion the first impact: the arrival of spring (which reduces the use of heating), some reservoirs 83% full (which allow generate a lot of hydroelectric energy cheap) and an electric mix where more than 50% of energy is already renewable. Furthermore, the PVPC formula was recently renovated so that it does not depend only on the daily market, softening the extreme peaks a little. The bad news is that we have exchanged one problem for another. To stop depending on Russia, we throw ourselves into the arms of the United States. As the economist José Carlos Díez warns in the chain Vibe Zero44% of the gas we consume today comes from the US. This places us in a position of extreme vulnerability to the new geopolitical “black swan”: the anger of Donald Trump. The refusal of the Spanish Government to give up the military bases of Rota and Morón for the offensive against Iran has caused Trump to threaten to cut off all trade with Spain. If the United States turns off the tap on LNG ships, José Carlos Díez warnsSpain does not have the physical capacity or infrastructure to replace a supplier that gives us almost half of our gas from one day to the next. The social shield and our pending duties. Faced with the threat of the crisis becoming entrenched, the Government is already moving. According to Expansion, If the conflict lasts more than four weeks, Pedro Sánchez’s Executive has on the table reactivating the “social shield” of previous crises: reductions in VAT on electricity, fuel discounts and direct aid. However, fiscal patches do not hide the underlying problems. In Xataka We have put our finger on two great absurdities of our system. On the one hand, we are an “energy island” since we have seven regasification plants capable of receiving ships from all over the world and helping Europe, but we do … Read more

The country that opted most for green now embraces the one made with gas

by

Just a couple of years ago, the atmosphere in German energy policy was one of pure euphoria. The small town of Bremervörde (Lower Saxony) had just opened the first train route operated solely on hydrogen. With an estimated saving of 4,000 tons of CO2 per year, the project was the perfect showcase for the Government’s great plan: relying the entire weight of its decarbonization on the purity of green hydrogen However, time has cooled enthusiasm and the current hydrogen landscape in Germany faces harsh economic realities. Refueling stations for hydrogen cars languish; in fact, H2 Mobility, the country’s main operator, announced the closure of several of its stations due to the lack of demand in passenger vehicles and constant supply bottlenecks. This face-to-face collision with reality has forced a drastic political turn: Germany, the country that most opted for the purity of green hydrogen, is modifying its laws to embrace “blue” hydrogen, that which is produced from natural gas using carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Urgency changes the rules. The fractions of the government coalition (Union and SPD) have agreed to amend the Hydrogen Acceleration Law so that the production of blue hydrogen now enjoys the status of “overriding public interest”. Originally, this regulation sought to streamline bureaucracy only for 100% renewable projects, but the new draft expands its scope of application. As the specialized publication points out Tagesspiegel Backgroundthis change equates at the permit level the facilities that extract hydrogen from fossil gas (capturing CO2) with those that use wind or solar energy. This shift towards natural gas raises an obvious question for a country that has just gone through a severe energy crisis: where will the raw material come from now that the Russian tap is closed? The answer look north. Gas from the Barents Sea, of Nordic and Norwegian origin, is emerging as the ideal geopolitical lifeline to fuel this new European blue hydrogen machinery, guaranteeing industrial supply without falling into dependence on Moscow. A devastating wake-up call. This political shift does not come out of nowhere, but comes after a devastating report from the German Federal Court of Auditors (Bundesrechnungshof). According to this supervisory bodydespite the billions of euros injected in subsidies, the government is flagrantly failing to meet the objectives of its own strategy, as neither supply nor demand are growing as planned. Kay Scheller, president of the Court, publicly demanded a “reality check”, warning that, if it is not assumed that green hydrogen will not be competitive in price in the short term, federal finances will collapse under the weight of subsidies. The energy transition simply cannot wait for green hydrogen to be technically and economically viable on a large scale. The central problem is the cost. While natural gas (including CO2 emission rights) is between 43 and 67 euros per megawatt hour (MWh), the forecasts for imported hydrogen in 2030 rise to a range of between 137 and 318 euros per MWh. This abysmal price difference — which can reach 275 euros per MWh — makes it unfeasible for companies to make the change in the short term. Train crash. The business sector has breathed a sigh of relief. As explained in another article by Tagesspiegel Backgroundkey entities such as the Association of German Energy and Water Industries (BDEW) and the Chamber of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) had been demanding this pragmatic step for some time. They argue that the transformation of heavy industry cannot sit idly by waiting for there to be enough wind and solar farms to flood the market with green hydrogen at affordable prices. On the contrary, environmental organizations They denounce that this movement It is a serious setback that will only consolidate and perpetuate the dependence of the largest European economy on fossil fuels. To unclog the sector, the Minister of Economy, Katherina Reiche, promised a few months ago simplify procedures “from the ground up”, recognizing that current processes are too slow. The declaration of “overriding public interest” will function as an administrative fast track that will cover not only production, but vital infrastructures as maritime import terminals and Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers (LOHC). The risk of the “white elephant” and the fiscal hole. But legislative flexibility may not be enough to cover the enormous financial hole that is looming. The specialized portal CleanTechnica goes deeper, warning of the severe danger of “sunk costs”. Building and pressurizing pipelines without assured customers turns a theoretical infrastructure into an active spending sink. The Court of Auditors supports this thesis and warns of a serious synchronization problem: Germany has planned a huge 9,040-kilometre pipeline “core network”, but it is being built for a demand that today is a mirage. Large steel projects that were going to consume 18 TWh annually are faltering; of the four main ones, one has already been canceled and the rest face uncertain deadlines. The financing mechanism of this network is based on future users paying tolls to repay a state loan from the KfW development bank of up to 24 billion euros. If demand does not materialize and the pipelines remain empty, the mechanism will fail miserably, leaving German taxpayers exposed to losses exceeding €18 billion. The “Plan B” of the European locomotive The utopia of a Germany driven exclusively by green molecules has collided head-on with State accounting and the non-negotiable deadlines of heavy industry. Faced with the imminent risk of losing competitiveness and generating a fiscal crisis, the government has been forced to sacrifice the purity of its initial ecological ambitions. The country has understood that it needs an urgent “Plan B.” That Buxtehude train that in 2022 promised an idyllic future powered only by the wind and the sun, will have to share the track, at least for the next few decades, with the pragmatism of natural gas. At this crossroads, blue hydrogen has ceased to be the “dirty brother” and undesirable and has become the indispensable temporary lifeline of one of the great European economies. Image | freepik 1 and … Read more

In 1986 a man parked on the wrong side of the gas station. That day he solved an embarrassing problem for all drivers

by

The history of innovation It’s full of big names and epic breakupsbut also of silent advances born from minimal errors, from everyday mistakes that anyone could have made. Sometimes, a small mistake reveals a problem so common that no one had thought of it or knew how to formulate it, and it is enough to look at it differently to find a solution that ends up benefiting millions of people without it being barely noticed. In this case, one man saved millions of drivers from embarrassment. A universal problem. Maybe his name doesn’t sound familiar to you, but the story of Jim Moylan It is more important than it seems. The story begins with a scene as trivial as it is recognizable: a Ford engineer (Moylan) soaked by the rain, standing at a gas station, realizing that he has parked in the wrong side of the pump. Where anyone would have felt frustration or perhaps some embarrassment, he saw an everyday problem that could be solved elegantly, cheaply and definitively, and in a matter of minutes. wrote a memorandum proposing a small symbol on the instrument panel to indicate which side the tank was on, a simple idea born from personal experience and the conviction that eliminating that doubt would save time, inconvenience and, yes, small humiliations for millions of drivers. The path to a great idea. Moylan was not a media figure or a senior manager, but an engineer with a long and discreet career within the all-powerful Ford Motor Company, a man, yes, professionally obsessed. with instrument panels and with making them as clear and useful as possible. Thus, after sending his original proposal in 1986, the man did not think about it again, but the company did: the symbol he had scribbled on a page quickly went into development, it was approved without much resistance. and ended up integrating in the first models of the late eighties, demonstrating that in large organizations there was still room for a good idea, no matter how small and coming from whoever it was, to cross the hierarchy and become a reality. From Thunderbird to the entire world. Months passed until the first public appearance of the arrow came, an almost imperceptible moment, hidden in the instrument panel of a Ford Thunderbird 1989. It didn’t matter, its power lay precisely in that simplicity. It was so obvious and useful that the competition It didn’t take him long to copy itand in a very short time it went from being an internal Ford solution to becoming a de facto standard in the global automobile industry, and it did so to the point that today it appears in practically any car in the world, including electric ones, where it points to the side of the charging port with the same unbeatable logic. The inventor without a patent (or ego). Unlike other innovators, Moylan He never patented his idea nor did he ask for financial compensation or public recognition, content simply to see how his arrow worked and helped people. For decades, millions of drivers benefited from his invention without even knowing his name, while he silently watched as that little “walk of shame” at gas stations disappeared, getting closer sometimes to strangers to explain the usefulness of the symbol, but without ever mentioning that it had been his doing. Late recognition. I remembered a few weeks ago the wall street journal which was not until many years later, thanks to a chance investigation from a podcast and to the rescue of internal files, when Jim Moylan’s name came to light and he was publicly recognized as the author of one of the most discreet and universal innovations in the automobile. The man died without having sought famebut he left a legacy that lives on every time someone stops at a pump and, with a simple glance at the instrument panel, knows exactly where to stand, reminding us that sometimes true genius lies in solving the obvious in the simplest way possible. Image | Josh In Xataka | An engineer decided one day to put the BMW airplane engine in a car. The result was tremendous In Xataka | When an engineer wanted to cross Africa by car, he invented a wooden one. It would be the beginning of the end

AI needs electricity relentlessly. And that is returning the gas to the center of the system

by

For years, big technology companies projected a clean image: data centers powered by renewables and commitments to climate neutrality. But the explosion of artificial intelligence is putting that narrative to the test. Electricity demand is growing at a rate that the grid cannot keep up with, and the fuel that is covering the gap is not the wind or the sun. It is natural gas. The contradiction is already visible in the numbers. Google and Microsoft consume around 24 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity per year each, more than more than a hundred countries. And while they announce record clean energy contracts, their emissions continue to rise: Google has increased its emissions by 48% in the last five years and Microsoft by 31% since 2020. An independent analysis rated climate integrity of several technologies as “poor” or “very deficient” in the face of the energy boom of AI. The cloud is not ethereal. It’s physics. And for AI to work without interruptions, we are starting to burn more hydrocarbons. The electron fever. The phenomenon is not marginal. A report from the Open Energy Outlook initiative—led by researchers at Carnegie Mellon and NC State— projects that electricity demand of data centers and crypto mining could grow by 350% between 2020 and 2030, going from representing 4% to 9% of total consumption in the United States. Goldman Sachs points in the same direction: Specific consumption of data centers could increase by 160% before the end of the decade. The pressure has already broken market balances. In December 2024, in the PJM region—which supplies 13 states in the eastern United States and has the highest density of data centers in the world—capacity prices went from $30 to $270 per MW-day in a single auction. The extra cost will end up affecting the bills of some 67 million customers. John Ketchum, CEO of NextEra Energy, described it as a “golden era of energy demand”, but warned of a physical limit: “the new electrons cannot reach the grid quickly enough.” And in that void between explosive demand and insufficient supply is where gas reappears. The tyranny of 24/7. If renewables are increasingly competitive, why not cover this demand with more wind and solar? The answer is technical. Artificial intelligence requires continuous, 24/7 supply. It cannot be turned off when the wind goes down or the sun goes down. As Manuel Losa, manager at Pictet Asset Management, explained, to the Financial Times: If demand grows and firm energy is needed 24 hours a day, “today, the only way to achieve this is with gas.” The problem is not the marginal cost of renewables, it is firmness. Without massive storage or reinforced grids, solar and wind generation cannot guarantee constant supply. And the deployment of new transmission lines is slow and contentious. Furthermore, traditional electrical planning assumed growth of 1-2% annually; Now there are areas with increases of 20-30% annually linked to data centers. The quickest solution today is to build or expand gas-fired generation. But even there there are limits. Gas turbines—critical equipment—have become a bottleneck. Just three years ago, Siemens Energy executives stated that the turbine market was “dead” in the face of renewable advancement. Today, the factories are overflowing. Global orders are expected to exceed 1,000 units this year, with the United States absorbing almost half. Delivery times can be extended up to five or even seven years in some cases. The bottleneck is no longer the chips. They are the turbines. So what happens with renewables? Renewables do not disappear. In fact, they continue to expand. Google has signed agreements to purchase nearly 1.2 gigawatts of new wind and solar energy in the United States from Clearway Energy. Big tech companies continue to sign clean energy contracts in multiple regions. However, the problem is temporary and structural. Purchasing renewable electricity does not guarantee that hourly consumption is supported by clean generation at that same time and place. In fact, there are solutions. Battery storage and grid upgrades can increase renewable integration. The Open Energy Outlook report shows which regions like Texas, with more investment in transmission, they manage to take better advantage of wind power to feed new demand. But deploying storage and hardening the network takes years, and AI is growing rapidly. For this reason, even companies traditionally focused on renewables are expanding their portfolio in gas, How did you have access? Financial Times. NextEra has announced plans to develop up to an additional 8 gigawatts of gas-fired generation. Clearway builds hybrid data center campuses combining renewables and combustion turbines. It is not an explicit abandonment of renewables. It is an emergency solution. But there is also nuclear. amazon tried to connect directly a data center to the Susquehanna nuclear power plant to ensure stable and clean supply. Federal regulators blocked the deal over potential effects on grid stability and the impact on other consumers. Furthermore, Google has signed an agreement with Kairos Power to develop seven small modular reactors (SMR), with the goal of adding 500 MW emissions-free by 2030. Microsoft and other companies are exploring similar deals. But even in the most optimistic scenario, new nuclear capacity will not be operational on a relevant scale before the end of the decade. AI needs electricity now. A clash of transitions. Five years ago, natural gas was presented as a retreating bridge fuel within the energy transition. Today it has become the structural support of artificial intelligence. A friction between two transitions that advance at different paces: the digital one, exponential; the energy, regulated and slow. As the Open Energy Outlook initiative warnsthe choice should not be between digital progress and network stability. But if energy planning doesn’t adapt more quickly—more transmission, more storage, better market design—the expansion of AI could mean more gas, more emissions, and higher bills. Artificial intelligence promises efficiency and intelligent decarbonization. But for now, its massive expansion is prolonging the life of the fossil generation. The digital future is advancing at full speed and the energy … Read more

how to become independent from US gas

by

Europe has spent more than four years trying to close a dependency that made it vulnerable. At the end of January, he finally achieved it. The Twenty Seven They approved the total ban of Russian gas imports, both by pipeline and in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG). A historic decision that becomes law a repeated political promise since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine: never again entrust European heating, industry and electricity to Moscow. But victory comes with an asterisk. While Europe manages to disassociate itself from Russian gas, a new problem emerges on the horizon: the continent has gone, almost without realizing it, from depending on Russia to increasingly depending on the United States. An accelerated replacement. According to data from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA)imports of American LNG into the European Union quadrupled between 2021 and 2025, going from 21 billion cubic meters to around 81 billion. Last year it was confirmed that 57% of the LNG that arrived in Europe came from the United States. If all gas imports are added—both liquefied and by gas pipeline—the United States will already cover 27% of the total consumption of the European Union in 2025. And dependency threatens to increase. According to IEEFA projections, this share could approach 40% in 2030 if current contracts are maintained and plans to reduce demand do not prosper. The problem is even bigger with LNG. At this point, the United States could supply between 75% and 80% of all liquefied gas imported by the EU in 2030. This shift was not the result of a long-term strategy, but of an immediate need. After the invasion of Ukraine and the collapse of Russian flows, American gas came as a lifeline. LNG carriers leaving Texas and Louisiana helped avoid blackouts, stabilize markets and fill European storage in the most critical winters. “At the time, it seemed like a heroic solution,” summarizes Henning Gloystein, an analyst at Eurasia Group. quoted by The New York Times. “Now we are beginning to realize that we have replaced one massive dependency with another.” A very uncomfortable partner. So to speak in some way. The repeated threats of the American president about Greenland, its trade disputes with the European Union and his openly instrumental vision of energy trade They have set off alarm bells in Brussels. “The risk is not that the United States will cut off supply tomorrow,” several analysts explain. cited by The New York Times. “The risk is that it uses its dominant position to pressure, increase prices or condition.” Unlike Russia, the US gas sector is not controlled by a state monopoly, making an abrupt cut in flows less likely. But Washington could introduce export taxes, prioritize other markets or influence prices and contracts, which would have a direct impact on European consumers. Furthermore, American LNG is, according to IEEFAthe most expensive on the market for European buyers. This clashes head-on with one of the central objectives of the EU’s energy strategy: making energy cheaper to recover industrial competitiveness. Gas as a volatility factor. Increasing dependence on US LNG also exposes Europe to shocks that are completely beyond its control. In early 2026, an extreme cold wave in the United States caused a rapid rise in gas prices in the US market, where futures doubled in a matter of days. The effect was immediately transferred to Europe, where the price of gas exceeded 40 euros per megawatt hour (€/MWh). The situation is aggravated by low European storage levels, which have fallen below 45%, the lowest level for this date in five years. In key countries such as Germany, France and the Netherlands, deposits are between 30% and 45%which leaves little room for new tensions. A speech that repeats itself. Aware of the risk, European institutions insist that dependence on American gas must be temporary. “We don’t want to replace one dependency with another,” repeats Commissioner Dan Jørgensen. “Our strategy is to grow in our own energy and, in the medium term, free ourselves from gas.” The approved legislation obliges Member States to submit before March 2026 national supply diversification plans, identify bottlenecks and notify all remaining contracts with Russia. The REPowerEU plan still has three pillars: short-term supplier diversification, reduction in gas demand and accelerated deployment of renewables. The problem is the calendar and Europe still needs gas today, even as it promises to stop needing it tomorrow. The North Sea as a European powerhouse. In this scenario, the European commitment to offshore wind acquires strategic weight. At the North Sea Summit in Hamburg, nine countries – including Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark – they agreed to convert this region in the great clean energy hub of the continent. The plan it’s ambitious: Achieve 300 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2050 and deploy up to 15 gigawatts per year between 2031 and 2040, with at least 100 gigawatts developed through coordinated cross-border projects. Offshore wind is no longer presented as an environmental solution, but as a matter of control. The North Sea Pact puts investments of up to one trillion euros on the table to turn this technology into the new axis of the European energy system. The industry commits to make offshore wind electricity cheaper by 30% by 2040 and to assume a central role in the European energy system. “It’s not just about the climate,” said Britain’s Ed Miliband in Hamburg. in statements reported by the Financial Times. “It’s about controlling our energy and not leaving it in the hands of dictators or petrostates.” The cracks in the system. Despite the independence speech, contradictions persist. Europe continues to sign long-term gas contracts with American suppliers, while denouncing the risks of dependency. Regasification and transportation infrastructures are at their limit in countries like the Netherlands, and interconnections remain insufficientespecially between the Iberian Peninsula and the rest of the continent. Furthermore, European unity is fragile. Hungary and Slovakia maintain their opposition to the veto … Read more

Producing them emits hundreds of times less than coal and gas

by

All energy sources have their dark side and solar is no exception. Without going any further, we are creating huge mountains of garbage thanks to (or because of) the solar panels cheap. Now, as in any other decision-making, it is time to weigh the pros and cons and compare them with alternatives to have some perspective and here, solar energy does not fare so badly. Damn (blessed) cheap solar panels. The generation of waste from solar panels is a reality that goes hand in hand with the deployment of solar energy. Between 2020 and 2024 the number of solar panels that have gone to waste has multiplied by four according to IRENA reports: from 220,000 to 900,000 tons and be careful because by 2050 have already estimated that the figure will be 250 million tons. The reason? Although their useful life is 25 – 30 years, they are replaced before the end due to incidents such as storm damage or manufacturing defects. In short: replacing is cheaper than repairing. In perspective. But the moment of truth comes from an estimate: the actual waste per megawatt hour of electricity generated. A current standard solar panel weighs about 20 kg and over its 25-year lifespan in moderate sunshine generates about 10 megawatt hours of electricity. The calculation is simple: it is equivalent to 2 kilograms of waste per megawatt hour and is similar to that offered by recent research published in Nature Physicswhich aimed at 1.7 kg/megawatt hour. And now let’s face it against two energy rivals: coal and gas, two fossil fuels that continue to be behind the planet’s electricity generation. coal plants generate between 80 – 100 kg per megawatt hour. And that’s not to mention the 950 kg of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour emitted in combustion. Gas is slightly better: emits 450 kg of CO₂ per megawatt hour generated and no ash generated. But the difference is abysmal compared to the waste from solar panels. In a table on energy generation it is better seen, as this one from Clean Technica: solar panels Coal NATURAL GAS Solid waste (kg/megawatt hour) 2 80 – 100 0 CO₂ emissions (kg/ Megawatt HOUR) 0 950 (per ton) 450 Other emissions No SO₂, NOₓ, particles, mercury… NOx emissions An abysmal difference. That is to say, we are talking about that considering the megawatt hour of electricity generated, a solar panel produces 2 kg of solid waste for about 90 kg of ashes that lead to an emission of 950 kg of CO₂ under the arm for coal and for gas, about 450 kg of CO₂ emitted. Electricity generation plants based on fossil fuels generate continuous and massive atmospheric pollution compared to 0 from solar panels and if we talk about solid waste, coal substantially surpasses it. Not only the quantity, but also the quality. It has already been made clear that the amount of waste is substantially lower, but it is also worth mentioning how harmful this waste is and its consequences. To the remove a solar panel We find a frame made of aluminum, silicon, glass and some plastic, which although technically can be mostly recycled, in practice they are not recycled circularly. It is true that there are panels with traces of heavy metals such as lead (solders) or cadmium in thin film panels, but also that the EU counts with management programs for this waste. And the solar panels do not emit pollutants while they are operational. Coal ashes have a list of traces fearsome: in addition to lead and cadmium there is arsenic, mercury, selenium, uranium or thorium. This cocktail is a risk to health and the environment due to inadequate management or spills. There is no need to talk too much about carbon dioxide emissions: they are behind the global warming. Coal combustion alone generated 15 gigatonnes of CO₂ between 2020 and 2024, according to analysis by the Global Carbon Project. This another study from the British Medical Journal relates air pollution from fossil fuels to some five million premature deaths last year, mainly respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and strokes. Solar energy waste is not the problem. Clean energies are not perfect and their operation involves a series of challenges. As we have seen, in the EU in fact recycling infrastructure already exists which currently manages to recover up to 95% of these (the WEEE directive establishes a minimum recycling of 85% of the modules) in consolidated, scalable processes and result in small, manageable and moderately harmless final waste. With the data in hand, it is substantially clear that yes, waste from solar energy exists, but viewed from the perspective of current energy needs and the sources that provide it, they are not the problem at all. In Xataka | The dark side of solar energy: we are creating a 250 million ton mountain of garbage In Xataka | Europe produces more clean electricity than fossil electricity for the first time. The hard part starts now Cover | Anders J

the greenhouse gas that warms the planet faster than CO₂

by

In November 1776, while traveling on horseback between Italy and Switzerland, Carlo Giuseppe Campi saw bubbles in the marshes surrounding Lake Maggiore. He approached them and decided to investigate them. Almost by accident he discovered that they were flammable and He told it to his friend Alessandro Volta. Years later, Volta discovered that this gas was methane. Since then we have not stopped having problems with him. Colorless, odorless and highly flammable, methane (CH₄) It is a gas composed of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. It is the simplest hydrocarbon and, in fact, is the fundamental component of natural gas (and therefore a key fuel for boilers, power plants and part of industry). In addition to the energy context, methane also appears in biological and geological processes: it is a chemical compound that arises, naturally, in the processes of anaerobic decomposition of organic matter. That is, in wetlands, in landfills, in the digestive system of ruminants or in large bags under the ground. Otherwise, methane is used for many other things. Not in vain, it is a raw material for the chemical industry and is an essential part of the production of hydrogen, ammonia or methanol. But the global conversation is not has been talking about methane for decades for none of that. Because, curiously, the big problem with methane is that it is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. After all, from what we know, its molecules capture between about 82 times hotter than CO2 (taking a period of 20 years as a reference). If we broaden the focus and use the 100-year term, its global warming potential is 29.88 times greater than that of CO₂. The only good thing, so as not to paint a picture that is too gloomy or malicious, is that it has an atmospheric half-life (11.8 years on average) compared to a much longer average. This explains why, despite collecting much more heat than the other, the long-term impact of methane is not so great. So? Well, it is an “accelerator” of short-term warming and, in that sense, it is a first-order problem for us. Not only because we are not moving forward; but because if we manage to reduce it, it can provide relatively rapid climate benefits. The problem is that it is not an easy thing to solve. On a planetary scale, annual methane emissions are around hundreds of millions of tons and 40% of them are due to natural sources that we cannot directly control. The other 60% is due, generally speaking, to human sources. According to the Global Methane Budget, there are three main causes: agriculture and rice, fossil fuels and waste. Agrolivestock Monika Kubala For years, experts have discussed the impact of livestock farming (especially ruminants such as cows and sheep). The calculation, in any case, is complex: not only is it difficult to estimate methane production from enteric fermentation (due to digestion), but things as ‘simple’ as manure management suffered from an “information blackout” that makes them very difficult to evaluate. In addition to this (and it is important), you must add the rice. Every year they consume more than 500 million metric tons of rice. That’s a lot of rice (it’s the main source of calories for 3 billion people), but it’s also a lot of methane: because, favored by floods that leave wide plains without oxygen, our gas rises to the surface. Fossil fuels Methane leaking throughout the oil, gas and coal chain is also difficult to measure, but less so. After all, leaks in wells and equipment, ventsinefficient flaring, outdated compressors, plumbing or storage are money wasted. And if we know how to measure something, it is money. The International Energy Agency esteem that the production and use of fossil fuels generated about 120 million tons of methane emissions in 2023. Waste, landfills and wastewater This case is the simplest and the one that most clearly shows that the methane problem really does not matter much to us: landfills, wastewater and other types of waste accumulation areas are areas especially conducive to the generation of methane (due to pure anaerobic activity) and since we do not capture it, it is released into the atmosphere. Thus, the atmospheric concentration of methane remains high and increasing. To give an example, NOAA estimated which, between 2023 and 2024, went from 1915.73 ppb to 1921.79 ppb on average. And, as I say, it is a shame because methane is surely one of the fastest routes: according to UNEP/CCAC, a strong reduction in human emissions (up to 45% this decade, with available measures) “could avoid almost 0.3 ºC of warming by 2045.” Biomethane (also called “renewable natural gas“) is the term that we have coined to refer to a methane of biological origin that is obtained, above all, by improving biogas: the CO₂ and other contaminants in it are eliminated until a gas rich in CH₄ is ​​achieved and comparable, in almost all aspects, to natural gas. As a result of this process, a fuel is obtained that can be injected into the gas network. That is, it is an efficient way to take advantage of (and make the capture and processing economically interesting) a whole series of waste: from manure and sewage sludge to municipal waste or agro-industrial remains. Obviously, “green methane” does not automatically mean that it has “zero environmental impact.” Only that it has a biological origin and can be used like natural gas. For its environmental impact to be low, other things are required such as control of leaks, the origin of the waste or its impact on the network as a whole. Image | Katie Rodriguez In Xataka | The importance of the colors of hydrogen and what it means if it is green, brown, blue or turquoise

Europe believes it has won the gas war against Russia, but it has forgotten one small detail: infrastructure

by

Europe has made a historic decision: 2027 will be the year in which the last trace of Russian gas disappear from the energy system of the continent. However, between the offices in Brussels and the reality of homes there is a chasm that is not measured in cubic meters, but in months of construction. The continent’s security no longer depends on diplomacy with the Kremlin, but on the speed at which terminals can be erected, tubes connected and ships deployed. The new European sovereignty is in the hands of the engineers. A system to build. As analyst Giacomo Prandelli explainsthe focus of the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) market has been on the price, but the real crisis is infrastructure. Europe is in a frantic race to replace Russian gas, but much of the necessary capacity is still under construction or in the planning phase. This has created a golden opportunity for a very select group of companies that own the physical assets. According to Prandelli, there are vital European companies that still go unnoticed. He gives as an example a firm valued at 662 million euros that operates “at a bargain price”: Their profits are very high compared to their stock market value and, most importantly, they already have government contracts secured until 2030. They are, basically, the owners of the “plugs” that Europe is forced to go through. The reasons for structural change. The reason for this urgency is an irreversible “divorce”. According to data collected by OilPriceRussian exports by gas pipeline to Europe have fallen by 44% in 2025, reaching lows in the 1970s. The definitive closure of the Ukrainian route this December leaves the continent without its historic arteries. The reasons for this new reality are three: US dependence: US gas It already represents 56% of LNG imports in Europe. The July 2025 agreementby which the EU will buy 750 billion dollars in energy from the US, has reconfigured the global board. The physical rigidity of the system: Although there is plenty of gas in the global market, European regasification plants (especially in the Netherlands) have operated at the limit of their technical capacity. Spain has the gas, but cannot send it to the rest of Europe: its pipelines with France they only allow export 8,500 million m³ per year. The problem is not the lack of fuel, it is the “funnel” of the pipes. Gas as an eternal backup: A report from McKinsey & Company issues an uncomfortable warning: Gas demand will grow by 26% until 2050. Europe needs gas to stabilize its electricity grid when renewables fail. The energy transition, far from eliminating gas, has turned it into a “permanent strategic pillar.” The Black Sea axis and the ghost fleet. However, the European wall has cracks. Hungary and Slovakia they keep injecting money to the Kremlin via the Druzhba pipeline and the TurkStream route. While Brussels asks for disconnection, Budapest and Bratislava build new connections towards the Black Sea, claiming that the cut would be “economic suicide.” Added to this is the fear of the “ghost fleet.” Brussels fears that Russian gas will repeat the oil scriptan opaque market of ships that change flag and documentation to hide the origin of the gas. To avoid this, the EU has imposed fines of up to 3.5% of global turnover and certificate of origin systems, but the crude oil precedent shows that, when Europe closes a door, the market usually opens a clandestine window. Europe’s floating lifebuoy. Given the slowness of concrete, a technical solution arises. According to Professor Alexandre Munspoints towards FSRUs (Floating Storage and Regasification Units). These ships are mobile regasification plants that use the heat of the sea to process the gas. According to Muns, their advantages are the speed of deployment and the cost since they can be rented for about $155,000 per day. Giants such as Excelerate Energy or Höegh LNG are those that today allow the EU to keep the pulse. Without these ships, the gas crossing the Atlantic simply would have nowhere to enter the continent. The tyranny of the calendar. Europe closes 2025 with deceptive calm. As reported by El Economistaprices have fallen to four-year lows (€27/MWh) thanks to a mild winter and the constant flow of ships. But, as the president of Sedigas, Joan Batalla, warns, this stability is “conditional.” Any extreme cold snap or technical failure in a saturated terminal could skyrocket prices again, because the network operates without margin for error. Europe’s autonomy is no longer negotiated in Moscow; It is built in the ports of Germany, in the interconnections of the Pyrenees and in the FSRU shipyards. The success of the 2027 plan will not depend on politicians’ promises, but on cranes and welders finishing their work before the climate changes the rules of the game. Image | freepik Xataka | The European Union has finally made the decision that has terrified it for so many years: stop importing Russian gas

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.