I have been writing here for about a decade that wind and solar would inevitably prove to be far more expensive for producing useful electricity than other methods like fossil fuels, nuclear, or hydro. The reasons are not difficult to understand. Wind and solar, due to intermittency, are not capable of powering a full-time electrical grid on their own. To make the grid capable of fulfilling customer demand 24/7/365, wind and solar require large amounts of additional capital infrastructure — dispatchable back-up generation, energy storage, additional transmission capacity, and more. If wind and solar prove insufficient to eliminate dispatchable back-up generation, then you find yourself running (and paying for) two duplicative systems, when you could have had only one. Energy storage as a potential solution to intermittency turns out to be impossibly expensive. If the only back-up generation you can find that works is powered by fossil fuels, then you haven’t even succeeded in achieving zero carbon emissions in the electricity sector.
And yet we have been, and continue to be, subjected to a constant drumbeat of advocacy claiming that wind and solar are now the cheapest ways to produce electricity. I’ll give you a few examples of that in a moment.
So who is right? We’ve had a long wait here in the U.S. as groups of states have incrementally differentiated their energy systems, and then as data have accumulated as to relative costs between states that have emphasized the “renewables” and those that have stuck with fossil fuels. At this point I think that we can make a definitive call. The answer is that increasing penetration of wind and solar generation on the grid drives electricity costs higher. And not by a little.
Earlier this week a think tank called the Institute for Energy Research came out with a Report titled “BLUE STATES, HIGH RATES ELECTRICITY PRICES: ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.” The Report takes a deep look at five states in particular — California, Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky and New York. Two of those — California and New York — have sought to make themselves the “climate leaders” and have raced to increase use of the renewables and reduce the use of fossil fuels. The other three — Florida, Louisiana and Kentucky — have stuck with fossil fuels. Over time, the prices for electricity as between these two groups of states have diverged dramatically.
But before getting to the details, let’s take a brief look at the party line from those who continue to contend that electricity from wind and sun is cheaper. The unquestioned leader of the advocacy is the International Renewal Energy Agency, or “IRENA,” which is some kind of adjunct of the UN. A good example of their propaganda is their July 22, 2025 Report titled “Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2024.” From the introduction:
Renewables continue to prove themselves as the most cost-competitive source of new electricity generation. On an LCOE basis, 91% of newly commissioned utility-scale renewable capacity delivered power at a lower cost than the cheapest new fossil fuel-based alternative.
“LCOE” is the thoroughly fraudulent “levelized cost of electricity” measure that simply excludes all the ancillary costs of running a grid on renewables (costs like backup, storage, and extra transmission). Unfortunately, when the consumer gets the bill, the ancillary costs get included.
Also in the forefront of the advocacy is the usual gaggle of lavishly-funded environmental groups. From example, consider this from the Environmental Defense Fund on March 21, 2025:
The U.S. is going to need more affordable electric power to supply data centers, manufacturing and homes around the country. . . . Our country’s vast supplies of wind and solar resources are ready to be tapped to support that demand . . . . And these clean energy sources paired with battery storage are cost-effective too. Electricity from wind and solar costs less than electricity from gas and coal.
EDF’s link goes to an IRENA Report. And of course, don’t forget the New York Times. From a piece titled “Want Cheap Power, Fast? Solar and Wind Firms Have a Suggestion,” March 21, 2025:
Wind, solar and battery storage are relatively quick and cheap to construct. That could help avert energy shortages and keep prices low, an argument that renewable energy firms are making to policymakers.
Well, if those claims were true, then California and New York should be beating the pants off Florida, Kentucky and Louisiana on electricity prices. But of course, it is the opposite. Fortunately, we are now far enough into this process to have clear data on the diverging prices among the states. Here is a national map from the IER Report:
For New York, IER bases much of its discussion on the November 25 Report from the Progressive Policy Institute that I also cited extensively in my post of December 3. For the case of California, here are some details from the IER Report:
California is second in the nation in total electricity generation from renewable resources and leads the country in utility-scale solar generating capacity. California’s generation mix is 42% natural gas, 39% non-hydroelectric renewables, 12% hydroelectric, and 7% nuclear.
And how has that turned out for consumer electricity rates?
California’s electricity rates are the second-highest in the nation. Rates are double the national average. Governor Newsom and California’s state legislature have embraced numerous policies that intentionally increase electricity rates, including a carbon dioxide reduction mandate, renewable mandates, solar cost-shifting (net metering), nuclear reactor closures, and EV charging subsidies, to name a few.
The cases of the three example states that have avoided pursuit of the renewables are equally simple. Louisiana:
In 2025, Louisiana had the third-lowest electricity rates in the United States. The reasons are simple—73% of Louisiana’s electricity is generated by natural gas and unlike California or New York, Louisiana has not attempted to implement carbon dioxide or renewable energy goals through its electricity generation system.
Florida:
Florida delivers electricity at prices 2% below the U.S. average at 13.27 cents per kWh for all sectors. It achieves this mainly by generating 75% of its power from natural gas, even though the state has no significant natural gas production of its own and must import virtually all of it.
And Kentucky:
In 2025, Kentucky had the 13th-lowest electricity rates in the United States and the lowest rates of any state east of the Mississippi River. Kentucky’s rates are 21% lower than the national average. The reasons are straightforward—67% of Kentucky’s electricity is generated by coal and 26% by natural gas. Unlike states such as California or New York, Kentucky has not burdened ratepayers with the carbon dioxide reduction mandates or renewable energy requirements that inflate electricity costs.
To be fair, the IER Report does not cover some states with relatively high penetration of renewables on the grid that nevertheless have below average electricity costs. Prominent examples are Texas and Iowa. Both of those also have full fossil fuel backup capacity, meaning that their electricity costs could be lowered further by eliminating the wind turbines and just paying for one generation system. And, in my view, both Texas and Iowa have reached a practical maximum of wind generation on a grid. My prediction is that attempts in either state to meaningfully increase wind generation from current levels and eliminate fossil fuels will drive electricity costs dramatically higher. But let them go ahead and try. Prove me wrong!
Meanwhile, despite the evidence now available, Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey just won the governorship with a campaign substantially focused on providing more “affordable” electricity through mostly wind and solar generation. Her chances of success are about zero.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Story tip: MSN reports that scientists say we’ve been cooling for the last 1800 years, thanks to the oceans. Scientists ditch climate alarmism as new research shows oceans are accelerating global cooling
The title says they’re ditching climate alarmism. Just wait, though. Because of CO2, we’re headed for another ice age!
What do you mean that we’re headed for another Ice Age? What happened to the one that was supposed to be imminent during the late 1960s and early 1970s. I guess it bypassed Earth and headed to deeper outer space where it would be welcomed more on Jupiter or Neptune.
Well we are headed for another, excuse me, GLACIATION. Note that WE ARE ALREADY IN an “ice age,” which is defined as a period where the Earth has ice sheets in both hemispheres year-round. We just happen to be in an INTERGLACIAL period (a period with TOLERABLY warmer climate conditions between the times where much of the Earth’s land mass is covered in thick sheets of glacial ice) DURING the current ice age. And since an interglacial period is quite short in geological terms, the next big “climate change” WILL BE the descent into the next glaciation.
And since the WARMEST period during the current interglacial was near its beginning, the Holocene Climate OPTIMUM, and every “climate OPTIMUM” after that has been cooler (than all the preceding “climate OPTIMUMS”), we are in fact “headed for” the next glaciation. All in due time.
When the cooling trend sets in, even the true believers in the supposed human induced “climate crisis” will be wishing for the good old days of “global warming.”
A period with TOLERABLY warmer and far more STABLE climate conditions. The glaciation period is when we see the big swings in temperature and sea level.
We are in an ice age as there’s ice at both poles, however we are in an interglacial period.
For 70% of Earth’s history there have been no polar ice-caps, and have two at once is a rarity.
“Which Is Cheaper To Produce Electricity, Wind/Solar Or Fossil Fuels?”
OK, here is a version of that map with the top 5 wind states (by MWh as a fraction of total generation):
Looks like wind and cheap elec go together.
Only if you don’t look very closely at details of generation, grid setup, and who pays for more transmission lines to nowhere with tax credits we all pay for.
And the cost to renew those “renewables” every 15-20 years. Is that factored in? And, how about the damage to the local ecosystems including loss of habitat.
And ignore the capital cost.
In the Southwest Power Pool, which includes states 2, 3, 4, and 5, the maximum capacity factor for wind is about 50% and that is achieved rarely. Most of the time, natural gas, coal and nuclear are carrying the load. Go to their website and track it like I do.
OK, here are 2023 figures for actual production wind MWh as a % of total MWh generated (Google AI):
High wind fraction goes with low electricity prices.
My point is that the SPP has over 40,000 MW of wind power, but has never generated over 25,000 MW of wind. If you have a whole lot of wind installed, yes, you can get lucky sometimes, but you are still paying for the coal and natural gas generation that is the backbone of the grid. At this moment, coal and natural gas are providing 53% of the power, wind is providing about 30%, but it is only providing 16,500 MW out of an installed capacity of about 40,000. Today is a reasonably good day for wind generation–yesterday the wind generation dipped to about 3000 MW. Out of an installed capacity of 40,000 MW. The excess generation is literally never used, but we have to pay for it.
Its a transition. What do you expect?
Do you mean transution from living to death from hypothermia?
And what do I expect? I expect you and other cheer leaders to pay for it so the rest of us can stay warm, get on with the rest of our lives and not be impoverished.
There is no transition, just an increasing reliance on power sources that don’t work.
Not a transition? There’s about 40% renewable energy (including solar) in the State with the cheapest power according to Nicks data. And they clearly do work, that’s not even disputable.
As time goes on, the arguments against the transition become weaker, not stronger.
What do you expect?
More of the same nonsense.
What I hope for?
open debate
analysis of alternatives
real science
precise language
Not getting any of those. Might as well contribute to CO2 by popping a beer.
What do I expect. Less reliable energy that costs more. We are already seeing this.
California, Massachusetts and New York. I’ve lived and paid for power in these 3 states.
So, when your dream of all renewables happens, we can look forward to freezing each night with a flashlight.
I have solar panels on my roof. When you really need the power in the winter, the production maxes out at about 30% of summer production on a bright winter day.
Like everyone here, you think I’m against any particular form of energy because I am *for* the transition. The fact is we’ll use coal and gas for as long as it takes to transition and I’m perfectly ok with that. If we include nuclear energy, then great! But we’re not so far.
No matter how we play with numbers, it will never change the fact that wind & solar can only ever provide supplemental grid scale electricity.
If there’s going to be a grid, reliable, 24 x 7 x 52 dispatchable is required to be the mainstay.
So nuclear, coal, gas and hydro will always be required, for which consumers will have to pay.
(of course, there are variants to this requirement, as in South Australia relying on a fleet of diesel powered generators to keep the lights on)
The problem is that nuclear, coal, gas and hydro are now generating less revenue because they cannot produce at full capacity, while costs remain the same.
Don’t forget Ivanpah Solar Power Facility where they need to keep the heat transfer fluid hot using natural gas so that it can work.
The best use of Ivanpah was as the back ground of the opening scenes in “Blade Runner 2049”.
To dream, the impossible dream…
For the prairie provinces in Canada, a wind alert has just been issued with the warning that temperature could plunge to -45° C. Forgot wind turbines because these are shut down due to avoid high wind damage and minimum operating temperature is exceeded. Solar panels produce no electricity when covered with snow. At this high latitude the are only a few hours sunlight for generating electricity.
Manitoba gets nat. gas from Alberta for space and water heating and electricity from the James Bay hydro electric dam. In winter in Winnipeg, the average January temperature ranges from -20° to -10° C.
In winter in most regions of the earth CO2 hibernates.
-45 C? Holy ____
I doubt people there are fussing over an overheating planet. 🙂
Oh look at that…. Tornado alley.. 😉
Always windy.
And every one of those states has adequate COAL and GAS dispatchable to produce power
Doesn’t apply on the coast though, does it, especially not California and the upper east states.
Not windy, and because of ideology, not sufficient coal and gas
Blanket statements are rather pedestrian. It is more accurate to say that wind and solar are niche modalities. Still, one has to wonder how the numbers would stack up without direct subsidies and the irrational climate fear factor.
The other consideration is how much land and material are required for the process. That is absolutely not a sustainable trend.
It seems they do not include the land value in the cost of the installations.
Nick, almost all the power generated in North Dakota ends up being exported. The state produces far more coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric power than wind. Here’s a quote for you from an engineer who set up one of the early SCADA systems for a rural electric co‑op in North Dakota. He looked at the wind output and said, ‘What the hell are we supposed to do with that?’ The output was bouncing up and down so fast it was basically worthless. That was in the 1980s when wind was just coming online and if you think it has fundamentally improved since then, you’re sadly mistaken
“The state produces far more coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric power than wind.”
Here is the .xls EIA data for N Dakota. If you look at Table 5, cell B31, total generation for 2024 was 42.557 TWh. Total wind (B45) was 14.762 TWh. That is 34.7%, similar to the 34% I quoted for 2023.
N Dakota, a very red state, is not using wind to save the planet. It is using it to save money.
Did you know that North Dakota.
.. is predominately Farmland and has a small population of only about 785,000
.. Is the third largest crude-oil producer in the USA.
.. has the second largest lignite reserves in the world behind only Australia… and produced some 24 million tons in 2024
.. They also have huge supplies of natural gas and coal
.. Used to produce 90% of its electricity from coal, but because it can, (like hydro in Tasmania) has turned to wind… but still has access to its coal fired power that can easily cover the small demand of the small population when wind doesn’t deliver. (ie Like SA relies on GAS and Victorian brown coal)
While wind produces some 40% of the small electricity needs.. when it comes to total energy production, it is basically a non-entity. !!
This is where a marginal calculation like LCOE can be useful. They are comparing cost of ADDITIONAL generation against price it can be sold for. Basically, they don’t NEED energy and are only looking to sell a surplus to someone else. They don’t need the capacity factor reliability, they don’t need major battery backup to support overnight demand, they don’t need to overbuild due to environmental variability. A PURE marginal analysis.
Or perhaps, like here in Utah, they can make money off a state, like California, that will pay the extra. Our two largest wind farms export to the Left Coast.
Wonder what the electricity prices would have been if they hadn’t spent their money on a second (wind) system? Adding a second,
(especially an intermittant) energy source is very unlikely to LOWER costs, if you look at Full System Costs (not just LCOE).
Example: Texas’ wind build-out required ~ $4.8 Billion in transmission lines (from West Texas to the east where most everyone lives). Of course, these transmission costs were not included in the reported costs of the wind projects.
That is true of Utah. The two largest wind installations here export their power to California because they will pay more. Utah has a constitutional provision that prohibits the state from investing in any energy that is not cost-effective.
Google AI.
These aren’t the droids you are looking for. Move along. Move along.
Nick: “High wind fraction goes with low electricity prices.”
I refuted that statement above.
Nuclear Reactors:
30 reactors at 77MW each: Total capacity = 2,310 MW
Cost over 60 years: Approximately $38 billion (accounting for capacity factor)
Wind Turbines:
2,200 turbines at 3MW each: Total capacity = 6,600 MW
Adjusted for capacity factor and overbuild
Capacity factor (1/3): Multiply by 3
Intermittency (overbuild): Multiply by 4
Wind Turbines Total Cost Over 60 Years:
Grand Total: $152.8 billion + $5.544 billion to $6.336 billion = $158.344 billion to $159.136 billion
Comparison:
Nuclear Reactors (60 years): $38 billion
Wind Turbines (60 years with adjustments): $158.344 billion to $159.136billion
When accounting for capacity factor, life cycle, and overbuilding for intermittency wind is 4 times the cost of nuclear..
life cycle and overbuilding to handle intermittency, nuclear reactors appear to be significantly more cost-effective than wind turbines.
“”Capacity factor (1/3): Multiply by 3
Intermittency (overbuild): Multiply by 4″
Redundant? I though low capacity factor was a way to account for intermittency.
“A capacity factor is the ratio of a power plant’s actual energy output over a period to its maximum possible output if it ran at full capacity continuously.”
Wind CF is about 1/3 of CCGT and SMR so on a day to day basis to be comparable 3x more capacity is required. But Dunkelflaute happens. Near dead calm and cloudy weather for a week needs 4x+ more capacity for “gap filling”. Battery storage for the full output of any wind or solar array is forever, yes, forever too expensive and not an option. No matter how much anyone tortures the data, the bottom line is absolutely, positively, no doubt about it W&S is at least twice as expensive as CCGT with NG <$5/MCF so give it up.
Are you saying Dunkelflaute-type events should no be considered part of capacity factor?
Excellent analysis!
Thank you!
This map simply illustrates the complexities of determining cost. This article today, for example, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/12/14/one-states-green-mandates-can-become-another-states-nightmare/ talks about how N. Dakota pays costs for other states.
So how come electricity is so cheap in N Dakota?
Because that have a smallish population and HUGE supplies of coal, natural gas and crude oil.
Plenty to spare because they haven’t destroyed fossil fuel generation infrastructure.
Wind works ok because ND has strong consistent winds and plenty to back it up.
Totally the opposite of places like California and the NE regions.
Your question is naïve as asking why Tasmania uses hydro.
Are you suggesting the generators in N Dakota pay less than market price for their fossil fuels? If not, what is your actual argument here?
If each state had a completely independent grid, your nonsense would make a little bit of sense.
They don’t, and you don’t.
That may be true, but you aren’t exactly one to be talking about “nonsense”, are you, Professor? Have you learned what the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us yet?
I haven’t posted here since a WUWT editor changed one of my posts without my permission but I have to correct an intentionally misleading post where Nick is simply parroting propaganda spread by the wind lobby.
Iowa is touted as having the highest percentage of wind of any state. However, the part of Iowa served by the Associated Electric Cooperative had an average carbon intensity of 670 gm CO2 per kWh over the last year. THAT’S THE HIGHEST IN THE U.S. Other parts of Iowa served by MISO and SPP have carbon intensity of about 535 – well worse than the national average of 420. Why is Iowa so high? It’s because they still have high coal usage. 47% of the power generated by AEC comes from coal. 27% of MISO and SPP power comes from coal. But it’s WAAY worse than that – it takes 12 hours to start and stop a coal plant so when Iowa uses coal to back up their unreliable wind, they are keeping their coal plants running on hot standby.
Wind and solar generators get priority to put their electricity on the grid, but much of that electricity could have been provided by their coal plants on hot standby. So their statistic of 60% wind is bogus.
The only reason that electricity is as cheap as it is in Iowa is because of their use of coal for both primary electricity production and as back-up to wind and solar.
Mr. meab: Thanks for this post. Mr. Stokes has a talent for finding numbers that conform to the narrative, then the chart. I wonder, how many number sets he must go through and find “non-conforming” before he finally finds what he seeks? After all, he learned from Mann.
“ So their statistic of 60% wind is bogus.”
No, you have said nothing to refute it. You’ve said they also use coal – well, OK. And something about priority – that doesn’t dispute that the generation happened.
You can keep prices down by backing up intermittent wind and solar with cheap coal and gas – as long as you maintain enough rotating inertia to maintain stability. But expenses skyrocket when you attempt to decarbonize. Batteries and alternatives to thermal and hydro turbines gets expensive fast.
Well, they are using a lot of wind and keeping prices well down.
Nick,
They need to keep the turbines moving when the wind stop blowing so that the races don’t develop problems.
California has quite a few old wind turbines which predate my arrival in the Golden State (36 years ago). Most of these old turbines don’t work for one reason or another. You can drive through Altamont and count the working and non-working turbines.
Controlling the amount of energy on the grid is a complex business. A lot of times wind turbines are intentionally stopped so as to not over supply energy.
Nonsense. The average 100% fully firmed cost for onshore wind in 2025 was $315 / MWh (using batteries to firm supply). It’s bogus to use fossil fuels for backup as you’re getting all the cost benefits of fossil fuel leaving wind with almost no advantages.
The average fully firmed cost for coal was $127. Nat Gas $86.
Do not use LCOE, that’s bogus. It doesn’t account for the fact that wind is intermittent and needs 100% backup to cover the extended periods that the wind isn’t blowing.
Again, none of that bears on the fact that Iowa generated 60% of its electricity from wind. Or, as the IEIA says, 63% in 2024. At that source you can see the complete spreadsheet. It really happened. It isn’t bogus.
And there is no need to invoke LCOE. The simple fact is that they use majority wind and the end rates to users are low.
It sounds more like they are USING coal, and selling wind when they have it.
Your graphic pretty clearly shows that the cheapest electricity rates are not all in the high wind states. There are 7 states with equivalent rates to your numbers 1 and 3 which are not high wind states. There are 7 other states in the equivalent rates of your 2 and 4 states. California has plenty of wind turbines and solar arrays with exorbitant electricity pricing.
That graphic just shows the top 5. That does not mean other states use no wind. The second one shows the top 10, which includes many others with low user prices.
You say: “Looks like wind and cheap elec go together.” And you are trying to use this assertion to show that wind is a less costly technology, produces power cheaper, than conventional.
That is, you are trying to use end user retail pricing as a proxy for the cost of production and delivery.
Its a totally fallacious argument. Anyone who has worked in business management knows that market forces and company strategy set pricing, whereas cost of goods sold is determined by factors of production and transport.
The two are independent. Particularly in the electricity market which is heavily regulated on both sides of the equation: pricing is regulated, but so also are the purchase prices of inputs, and the technology which is used.
You cannot tell, from the retail electricity price, what the cost of production is. It is not simply an unreliable or error prone guide, it is no guide at all.
If you want to compare the cost of generating electricity from wind with that of generating it from coal or gas, there is only one way to do it correctly. As I keep explaining to deaf ears. As the Bible says, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
You first standardize the product so that the costs you are comparing are those incurred to deliver the same thing.
The product must be, in both cases, dispatchable power delivered to the point of use when required.
If you have included wind’s production of half its output when its the middle of the night in high summer and there is minimal demand, that is incorrect. The two products have to be the same, meaning equally substitutable for each other.
You then reckon all of the cash flows required to produce this power over the life of the installations. The life of the installations must also be the same. If this means reinstalling the wind turbines halfway through the life of the conentional plant, so be it, iinclude all those costs in the next step.
Applying any spreadsheet progrram you like you then calculate the Net Present Value of the required cash flows, divide by the amount of usable dispatchable power produced, and you get a value per MWh.
If you do this properly, meaning as explained in any corporate finance textbook, and wind turns out to have a lower NPV per MWh, then you are home free. But in fact, in every case where you reckon all of the costs of delivering dispatchable power by wind, you end up with it costing several times as much as conventional.
It is a complete mystery to me why an iindividual with a math background does not accept that the right way to do this is by using the quantitative methods that are universal in businesses doing business case appraisals, return on iinvestment and product development etc. And so, though I detest making personal assumptions in these debates, I am driven to the conclusion that its because doing the appraisal of wind (and solar for that matter) the right way does not produce the result you want.
The only explanation I can find is that you want wind to be cost effective so much that you are averting your eyes from anything that shows the real facts. What can one say? To you and to all the other advocates of this imaginary solution to an imaginary problem, please stop it! Please start using proper investment appraisal methods, please pay attention to the way this is done properly in finance textbooks and finance committees all over the world and follow these methods.
All very theoretical. But the practical test is the price at which you can make a profit. And in these Republican, high wind usage states, that price is low.
Those states are windy places. What works in Kansas won’t in New York, though they’ll try. Surely you know this.
And don’t pivot to Texas. We take risks with our market scheme, which doesn’t incentivize building backup capacity for those days when wind turbines become a block of ice. We’re addressing this but not by building more wind farms. And those costs will be passed on.
“What works in Kansas won’t in New York”
Well, at least it works in Kansas. And if you aren’t in Kansas any more, there is the magic of power cables.
But you can find windy places most anywhere.
All this may be true, but since there’s no planet B, shouldn’t we be willing to pay higher energy costs to not only save the planet and civilization along with it? Who knows, then we might result in the Planet of the Apes.
No.
Mindless adherence to the Precautionary Principle is no way to try and run an industrial civilization.
There doesn’t happen to be threat to the planet from CO2 but there are measurable plant growth improvements from having more of it. I suggest we keep burning carbon based fuels to increase CO2 levels and do our part to close the carbon cycle. 🤷♂️ Don’t forget that CO2 levels have been way higher in the past without any issues.
If we can trust any of the proxies used for paleo climate and CO2 estimates, the CO2 level was 3,000 to 6,000 ppm during the Cambrian Explosion of life.
Save Civilisation, what civilisation ??
Do you mean the non-thinking tribal morons who unquestionably play follow my leader/flag/religion & do the most grotesque acts to their fellow human beings for the love of their leader/flag/religion ?
The history of Civilisations up to the present day seems to be based on – Greed, Theft, Rape, Pilage, Slavery, Genocide, and the Domination of others.
The sheeple are led by a corrupt narcissistic individual (Kings, Emperors, Presidents, Generals) or groups of like-minded corrupt narcissistic individuals (governments) who elect a ‘charismatic’ leader (Prime Minister, President, Party Chairman), who then uses political & or religious dogma to bend that society to their will & subjugate others.
Even “Modern Civilisation” is difficult to distinguish from the “barbarism” that it was supposed to replace. Boer War, Congo, Gaza, Korea, Ukraine, Vietnam, Yemen & two world wars, to name but a few.
Is that the civilisation you want to save ???
As bad as it is, it certainly beats the alternative!
Mr Katz, your sarcasm was much too subtle for others to detect. Well done!
There is no evidence that CO2 causes any problems.
Couldn’t we save a lot of health costs and early deaths from obesity by taxing food 100%? We could even feed the world with the resultant food surplus. And there is far more evidence that overeating causes problems than CO2 emissions. Probably, but don’t you see a problem with that?
I was trying to be sarcastic here by resorting to the type of arguments that the alarmists inevitably resort to when they get desperate, which is becoming increasingly frequent. Examination of all my other posts will reveal my climate change skepticism and beliefs in renewables are consistently negative. Man-made global warming/cooling is just a myth promoted by governments and green product peddlers trying to profit from it.
Poe’s law
“Poe’s Law is an adage of internet culture that states that, without a clear indicator of the author’s intent (such as an emoticon, a tone indicator like “/s”, or explicit labeling), it is impossible to distinguish between a sincere expression of extreme views and a parody of those views.”
It took me a double reading to catch that. Well played sir!
Same logic can be used to justify any insurance plan but since there’s no planet B we should all pay half our income to fund a space laser anti-asteroid impact satellite network.
There are certainly Planet Bs, but the closest potential Planet B seems to be more than 50 light years distant.
Cool. How about we send a space shuttle powered by windmills.If we get to far out to use a solar sail, we can switch to space-wing power.
Ah, Greta again.
It is an assumption that the planet needs saving. There is no proof.
It is an assumption that the means pushed to save the planet also saves civilization. There is proof contrary to that.
Your sarcasm is noted and noteworthy.
LOL, this sounds like a cage match between the Precautionary Principle and the Law of Unitntended Consequences.
Also, are you arguing that paying the higher energy costs will get us Planet of the Apes?
Empirical reality:
Thanks. Vectors for change over past 5 or 10 years would be great to see.
Excellent. Probably a half-step too complicated for Internet main articles, but it’s where the argument goes.
Belgium, Austria, Germany and Denmark appear to exceed California electricity costs.
Energy Wisdom may be lacking among public officials.
All candidates (both parties) running for public offices throughout the country, for Mayor, Governor, President, etc., should be given the opportunity to share their Energy Wisdom in public debates.
Most candidates running for public office remain oblivious to the fact that wind turbines and solar panels can ONLY generate electricity but CANNOT make any products for the 8 billion on this planet. Continuous, dependable power remains essential for industrial society. Voters deserve to know how a candidate plans to secure reliable electricity under all conditions.
The global population has surged from 1 to over 8 billion in less than 200 years. This growth has been supported by the dramatic increase in the number of products and transportation fuels made from oil, and food production made possible by synthetic fertilizers, all of which did not exist before the 1800’s, just a few hundred years ago.
In addition, most of those candidates remain unaware that the demand by humanity continues for the more than 6,000 products that rely on petrochemicals every day, many of which are essential to health, safety, transportation mobility, agriculture, and national defense.
Voters deserve to know a candidates plan for what the replacement will be for that black tar commonly referred to as crude oil, to maintain the supply chain of products demanded by our materialistic society.
Medical advances, equipment and pharmaceuticals have also helped grow and sustain the population, and most are made possible by fossil fuels.
Comment on the use of the word “surge”. At least it wasn’t an unprecedented extreme gaslighting.
Excellent article.
Here in NY, the state “Energy Planning Board” meets Tuesday 12/16 to decide on adoption of the recently updated “Energy Plan” – which sets forth a headlong rush toward drastic reductions in CO2 emissions. There is huge emphasis on wind + solar + battery storage for grid supply.
Here is Figure 56 from the section 16 “Pathways Analysis” component of the “Plan.”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_gt5EYltq5B2Y2tSAA7zf6GbNkbg3Xso/view?usp=drive_link
The costs are HUGE in all of the four scenarios. The outlays for those estimated expenditures will be real and must be paid by consumers/ratepayers. The “benefits” are FICTIONAL and therefore cannot justify ANY of the costs.
NY is intentionally pushing a plan that is known not to have ANY CHANCE of being “cheaper”.
So to the NY “Energy Planning Board” – TABLE the plan, do not adopt it. Start over. CCGT natural gas + nuclear.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
You usually need electricity where land ISN’T free. That’s not usually properly accounted for in LCOE.
There are only two things you need to consider when comparing the cost of electricity generation. The cost to the rate payer and the cost to the tax payer all other costs are incidental.
We’re getting to the point where home solar/batteries are a genuinely viable combo. I have friends who have reduced their electricity bill to the service charge (ie no usage charges) and they’ll repay their upfront costs completely in 4-5 years. So that’s the rate payer benefiting.
Home solar/battery installations reduce the load on the grid, particularly peak loading and we’d expect to get reduced grid network costs over time.
You’re talking about suburban homes, right? What about us apartment dwellers?
Being an apartment dweller comes with Pros and Cons. I’m not sure which apartment, if any, has control of the roof. Same with being a renter.
Sharing a google: “In the US, approximately 65% of households own their homes, while about 35% rent”
At least there’s some chance a renter will find a property that has an existing battery/solar system. I’d expect that to increase over time.
But can he live off grid and can the grid live without the ”standby” system ? No one has a problem with more and cheaper and reliable energy.
He’s not trying to live off the grid. The battery and solar can feed the grid when needed. Actually many people here have a problem with rooftop solar and battery.
Somebody is paying for the incremental capacity at be available when your friend needs it. And it is not him.
He pays the service charge which is a daily flat rate so he does pay for the benefit of being connected. The battery means he can charge during the day and feed the grid in the evening at peak times. It’s a net benefit to everyone.
Yes because it’s another way to drive up electricity costs, FOR NO REASON. Building a redundant system to produce the same thing SOMETIMES does NOT make it cheaper.
Basic economics.
Solar, like wind, is a solution in search of a problem. And creates more problems nobody needs.
Storage batteries?! No thanks, don’t want an incendiary device in or near my home. Nor is solar going to produce much at high latitudes, and produces the most when needed the least.
And this “alternative” power simply makes the NEEDED dispatchable generation cost more, because every watt of dispatchable generation that doesn’t get used because of (1) redundant wind and solar being given priority by government fiat or (2) that gets employed by people trying to get away from grid prices artificially inflated by pushing wind and solar in the first place, means the price goes up for the dispatchable generation that DOES get used, because the fixed costs remain the same.
As for “reducing their bills to the service charge,” those service charges will keep going up the more people get sucked into the false economy of solar.
At the end of the day, the only ones who will benefit from this mass stupidity will be the snake oil salesmen selling worse-than-useless solar and wind and the politically connected and/or wealthy “investors” there are in on the grift.
Everyone else, as Jim Carey once so eloquently put it, will have to “bend over and take it up the tailpipe.”
Tim
How many subsidies did they get and are/were they in a net metering plan that paid them retail rates (vs wholesale) for any excess electricity? Most paybacks are in the 10-12 yr range.
As to reduced grid costs, it depends. The more distributed solar (roof top) the more complex the grid management becomes. The US grid has seen a progressive rise in number of brownouts & blackouts since 2000 as renewables are installed.
However, roof top solar could decrease the need to expand capacity. But trying to keep up with blockchain/crypto-mining, data centers and AI energy needs is a complete other story.
Note that Google, Microsoft, Musk, Meta, et al are NOT investing in renewables for their future AI energy needs. A very telling admission!
Here in sunny Arizona, our monthly service charge just went up by 50% [and we do not have roof top solar].
You’re out of date with your costs apparently. Their system is rooftop solar with battery and that decreases the complexity by helping reduce load and stabilise the grid.
Mr. ToolMan: Is there anything more ridiculous than the wind-and-solar acolyte stepping in to correct the actual consumer commenting on his actual electric bill? You know more about his bill than he does??!!
I observe that this condition is chronic to the renewable cultists like yourself.
Perhaps not reading before commenting is more ridiculous.
My comment was with reference to his claim of a 10-12 year payback, not his “actual electric bill”.
I have no problem with people having their own wind and solar source. That is their business but not one penny of public funds should be given to them to purchase, install or operate the system. The owners are also responsible for properly disposing of system at the end of its life. It should never be connected to the grid, it should always remain completely separate if for no other reason than to protect the grid. If your system produces more power than you use it is your responsibility to purchase and install some form of storage or shut your system dow, it is not our problem.
On what basis do you make this demand?
Your right that people should mind their own business about what others do, but on what basis do you claim that some entities should be able to supply power and not others?
Invoices for your ‘friend’ or it didn’t happen. I have first hand experience with solar plus battery installation. Paybacks are not even close to that number, even at a PGE cost of .59/Kwh.
Edit: I also have direct experience with solar grid tied lease/PPA type installations.
OT.. Conservative pro-Trump candidate wins CHILE election in landslide. 🙂
Good news after the disgusting jihadist attack on Bondi Beach 🙁
What is the connection between Trump and a South American political election?
How are either connected to a jihad?
Did I say there was a connection?
Just a “good-news” / “bad-news” situation.
I actually have friends in Bondi. Fortunately none were at the event or down the beach at the time.
A truly disgusting thing to happen… I was trying to track events most of the day.
It was just nice to hear some good news from Chile at the end of the day.
Not a problem with you or the comment, i was just wondering how Trump matters to Chileans. USA has been a cultural exporter of music, tv and movies. Maybe our globally-connected media is taking TDS on world tour. Our 79 year-old reality tv host commander in chief might be accused of causing teenage bad manners in Cape Verde or outbreaks of left-handed golfing in Argentina.
“First you build lots of wind and solar plants, and then a miracle occurs”.
A bit like the ‘JonFrum’ cargo cult.
Started in the 1930s, they still have 100s of followers, even though the miracle never occurred, it will gradually peter out.
Same as the climb-it cult.
Rather than COST, consider the VALUE of wind & solar power. To maintain reliability, a fully capable “standby” system must be built, operated and maintained. Adding intermittent sources only reduces the fuel consumption of the “standby” system as it is turned down to accommodate the intermittent power.
For a battery-based peaking powerplant, the cheapest way to charge it is by generating additional off-peak power from the “standby” system. The only cost is fuel. Capital, operating and maintenance costs are the same.
Adding intermittent sources may reduce the fuel consumption, but it also reduces the efficiency of a thermal generating system. So, yes, using the thermal plant to power up a battery system would be more efficient, so long as the the batteries are actually used, and not let sit to power down and power up again.
Using the thermal plant for ALL ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION is the MOST efficient.
All you need do is compare pre wind and solar electric costs to post wind and solar electric costs.
Grid connected wind and solar ARE IDIOTIC.
24/7/365? Really, that’s 7 years not one? Surely it should be 24/7/52 or 24/365.
“24/7/52″
What happens to the other day or two 😉
Stores that are open 7 days a week can still close for the major holidays.
The 365 indicates that the store is open even on the holidays.
It is a common, and as you point out, somewhat inaccurate expression.
From the article: “And, in my view, both Texas and Iowa have reached a practical maximum of wind generation on a grid.”
I think so, too, especially in Texas with its high blackout risk. I think Texas politicians are going to think long and hard about adding additional windmills and solar to their grid.
We get blackout warnings from our electrical grid System Operators every winter and summer now.
Before windmills and industrial solar were added to our electrical grids, we didn’t get blackout warnings.
DING! DING! DING!
WE have a winner!
TRA’s advantage must be in the industrial sector. Otherwise the map is wrong.
TVA
The other factor ignored is the economics of running a business. A business which cannot plan or adjust to match its output to demand, can only sell its output intermittently, and consequently has an erratic and intermittent revenue stream, therefore unpredictable and unmanageable cash-flow is not viable as a going concern. Nobody sane would invest in it in the first place.
It can only get a return on investment in a Government rigged market which eliminates lower cost competition, allows inflated market prices, and uses taxpayer funded subsidies.
The “cheaper” it could sell its output, the higher the inflated market price and subsidy must rise to compensate.
The unreliables given this and other factors as mentioned in the article will only ever cost more and more.
Let’s power the water pumping stations exclusively with wind and solar. That should work great……..wouldn’t it………?????
Editorial note : It took me way too long to “process” the data, but post results here anyway so that the PNG files are already on the WUWT server(s) for future “direct linking”.
.
Both “Solar” and “Wind” generation has “seasonality”, so (multiples of) 12-month sums should be used.
The EIA has per-state annualise data at the following link :
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/
Production data for 1990 to 2024 from the “EIA-923 Power Plant Operations Report, Net Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy Source (EIA-906, EIA-920, and EIA-923)” link can be “filtered” by any half-decent Excel-clone spreadsheet to extract just the “Total Electric Power Industry” lines for :
“Energy source” = “Wind” OR “Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic” OR “Total”.
“Residential prices (Cents/kWh)” data can similarly be extracted from the first two “EIA-861 Annual Electric Power Industry Report, Annual sales to ultimate customers by state and sector” links (2010-2024 and 1990-2009).
.
My initial “first pass” X-Y plot for all 50 states (+ the District of Columbia) of the combined “Wind + Solar” percentages for 2024 is attached below.
While the title of the ATL article includes “Wind/Solar Or Fossil Fuels” a lot of discussion above focussed on “Wind” (only) data.
The equivalent X-Y plot for all 50 states is included here for comparison purposes.
Each state appears to have unique characteristics.
To attempt to “clarify” the situation I selected the following “extreme” cases :
1) California : The most expensive CONUS / USA48 — i.e. excluding Hawaii — state
2) Texas : Large absolute generation, and has added “lots of” wind and solar capacity recently
3) Iowa : The highest “Wind” fraction of generation, but somehow keeping a “low” (residential) price
A graph showing how both the “Wind ° Solar” and “Wind (only)” options evolved from 1990 to 2024 for these states is attached below …
NB : I used (annualised) CPI-U data to get “inflation adjusted” pricing, but the end results at that level of “accuracy” should probably be taken with a very large pinch of salt.
.
Questions
– What the [ bleep ] did Iowa do over the last decade (or so) to ramp up their “Wind” fraction so much without the price “exploding” ?!?
– Is the “weather dependency” of a wind turbine fleet becoming more apparent over the last 5 years for Iowa even as the “capacity” numbers ramped up (over the 50% threshold) ?
– How much of California’s price increases has come from political decisions, e.g. increases in taxes and/or “climate change levies”, rather than from (electrical grid operation) engineering decisions ?
“What the [ bleep ] did Iowa do over the last decade (or so) to ramp up their “Wind” fraction so much without the price “exploding” ?!?”
Thanks for your informative plots. They do seem to show that big users of solar and wind are in the lowest tier of costs. The reason, and the answer to your quoted question, is that sun and wind are free. That removes a big cost that bears on prices.
And it is the answer to your quoted question. It definitely looks as if ramping up wind, for Iowa, further lowers prices.
The exception to all this is California. I asked Google why prices there are high. It said:
“California’s electricity prices are high due to massive utility investments in wildfire safety, grid hardening, and clean energy, coupled with rising fuel (natural gas) costs, inflation, and significant fixed charges, all passed onto consumers, especially impacting middle-income residents. Wildfire-related costs, including insurance and infrastructure, alone account for billions, while investor-owned utilities (IOUs) pass these expenses and profits onto ratepayers, creating some of the nation’s highest rates despite lower per-capita consumption. “
Wildfire is a big one. In 2017, they got a liability of $30B, which brought them close to bankruptcy, and led to a hugely expensive program of digging to put cables underground. That 30B comes from customers.