Wind and solar industry lobbyists are appealing to conservatives in a last-ditch effort to promote wind and solar power as a reliable energy source.
Wind and solar industry lobbyists are appealing to conservatives in a last-ditch effort to promote wind and solar power as a reliable energy source. They are rallying around the slogan, “all of the above”. By that, they mean that we should avail ourselves of all sources of electricity. The Western Way, a non-profit that seeks pro-market solutions to energy and environmental challenges, issued a recent report touting the reliability of power grids with a wide range of energy sources. It concludes with the following passage:
This whitepaper has sought to clear up this confusion. Phasing out tax subsidies for certain energy sources at the federal level does not mean phasing out the energy sources themselves at the local, state and regional level.
Make no mistake: The U.S. needs every economically viable energy source to maintain a stable power grid, win the global AI race and restore the nation’s manufacturing might. Not only that, but all those different energy sources will also need to work together as efficiently as possible, and therefore solutions will look different from state to state and region to region based on their unique circumstances.
In fact, relying too much on a small number of sources only increases the likelihood of grid failures, especially during unexpected events like equipment failures or severe weather. For grid operators, the risk of blackouts is much lower when they have more options in the generation stack – not fewer options – to choose from.
The author is incorrect in stating that “… the risk of blackouts is much lower when they have more options in the generation stack – not fewer options – to choose from.” As I discussed in a recent article entitled, “Not all gigawatts are the same”, intermittent power sources (wind and solar) do not come with the same level of reliability as firm power sources (coal, gas, oil, nuclear). Intermittent sources add nothing to the reliability of a grid. For a grid to be reliable, firm capacity must exceed peak demand.
The only role that intermittent sources play is to reduce fuel usage, but that comes at a price, and it’s not one that I would call economically viable. Depending on the region, operators are paying between 1.5 to 2.8 times more in terms of USD/kWh (see table below). My calculations are here.
Image created by author
I assume that the author wishes to preserve remaining state mandates for renewable energy as federal tax subsidies get phased out, and he hopes to achieve it by muddying the waters. To that end, he might have success. Many conservative politicians in western states are beholden to the wind and solar power industry that provides livelihoods to their constituents. One need only look back at the past economic folly with ethanol mandates that have enriched farmers in the Midwest for almost five decades. Ronald Reagan summed it up best when he said, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.”
Image generated by ChatGPT.
If they want wind and solar they can pay for it, not tax payers or rate payers.
Exactly!
Build all the windmills you like (just not near my house) but only if windmill companies pay for all the infrastructure required and they also pay the costs for backup power when the wind doesn’t blow.
of course, if windmill companies paid all those costs they would not be economically viable. The only way they can operate is if taxpayers pay their bills.
Windmills and Solar are a cancer on our electric grids. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing windmills and solar.
Did he mean bird choppers?
Yes.
Our politicians, Federal and State, glommed onto the “All-of-the-above” bandwagon several years ago, and that coupled with the fact that we have almost no state regulations or county level ordinances that limit wind power in anyway, has resulted in a huge number of “hurry up” applications for solar, wind and battery plants. I guess the “All-of-the-above” slogan sounded sophisticated to them.
If all these applications are approved one will be able to travel over a region of 45,000 square miles (half the state) and always have wind turbines in view. It’s going to be environmentally very destructive, but by the time all these plants are ready for decommissioning I fear there won’t be resources enough to do the job at all, let alone properly. One half of the state thinks they are going to get rich, the other half is unhappy about having to view the world through 700 foot tall turbines.
At any rate, I have an essay ready to submit, but my submit button no longer works and I have investigated the issue all morning and cannot find a cuase. Anyone else having trouble?
I clicked on the “Submit Story” button and nothing happened. You should consider posting your essay in the next “Open Thread”.
My State of Oklahoma’s legislature voted about two years ago to stop paying State subsidies for windmills. They said to continue doing so would bankrupt the State.
Story tip:
Volkswagen to recall 44,000 ID.4 electric SUVs because of the risk of battery fires.
Did anyone ever accept responsibility for the car carrier ship fires? I thought not.
What will VW do? Replace all those batteries or just junk those SUVs.?
Well, when Jaguar had similar issues, the verdict was junk.
https://www.motor.no/aktuelt/130-nyere-jaguarer-vrakes/557702 130 brand spanking new Jags are being sold for scrap.
Saving the environment much?
Could we all add a link to story tips, please?
“One need only look back at the past economic folly with ethanol mandates that have enriched farmers in the Midwest for almost five decades.” Amen. 20 years ago I ran the numbers on corn ethanol. I found that if ethanol were used to supply the energy to plant grow harvest and process corn into ethanol, one would have to plant 11 acres of corn to net 1-acre of marketable ethanol. That did not even account for the ethanol that would be required to manufacture all the farm equipment, irrigation systems, fertilizers, processing plants, and transportation systems. Processing corn for ethanol also produces massive quantities of low value corn byproducts.
On a macro scale, looking at agricultural harvests across the US using data from the USDA, the Btu value/acre of harvested crops, and considering the arable land in the continental US, if we converted all arable land to biofuel production, only a small fraction of transportation fuel demand would be met. Which then raises the question, where would we get our food, feed and fiber, as well as the rest of the fuel demand?
Low density, intermittent wind and solar are likewise folly, and only politics and governmental intervention keep them afloat.
Corn should be food or feed, not fuel.
DDGS
https://www.andersonsgrain.com/products-and-services/products/ddgs/
Really ?? Do you farm??
A local farmer says it takes 3 gallons of diesel per acre to prepare , plant , cultivate , and harvest his corn .
He farms over 1,000 acres .
He is well known to speak the truth . In eastern Kansas.
And he has farmed for over 50 years.
And one bushel of corn makes 2.8 gal. ethanol .
At 70 bushels per acre that gives 196 gal. of ethanol.
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/properties?fuels=GS
and …
https://ncga.com/stay-informed/media/the-corn-economy/article/2025/12/extracting-more-from-each-bushel-corn-in-fuel-and-feed-use
I am an agricultural scientist. Your quotes and link grossly misrepresent the energetics.Corn has only so much energy content. Going from 8,500 Btus/bushel of dried corn to 228,000 Btus in 3 gallons of ethanol requires either (1) many more bushels of corn or (2) massive external energy inputs to create the ethanol.
To get the right answer, you can’t simply quote a farmer’s fuel use and an alleged yield of ethanol in gallons per bushel. The latter is a gross misrepresentation by ethanol advocates.
The law of conservation of energystates that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant; it is said to be conserved over time.[1]In the case of a closed system, the principle says that the total amount of energy within the system can only be changed through energy entering or leaving the system. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another.
I am finding ~8500 BTUs per pound of dried corn, or 300,000 in a bushel.
https://ncga.com/stay-informed/media/the-corn-economy/article/2025/12/extracting-more-from-each-bushel-corn-in-fuel-and-feed-use
The Renewable Fuels Association notes an average bushel of corn processed by a dry mill ethanol biorefinery produces 2.9 gallons of denatured fuel ethanol, 14.5 pounds of distillers grains animal feed at 10% moisture, 0.9 pounds of distillers corn oil, and 16 pounds of captured biogenic carbon dioxide.
“I am an agricultural scientist. Your quotes and link grossly misrepresent the energetics.”
No , they do not .
Man up and admit your error .
😉
The U.S. needs every economically viable energy source to maintain a stable power grid, win the global AI race and restore the nation’s manufacturing might.
Well that leaves out renewables then. 🙂
100%!
Coal
Oil
Gas
Nuclear
Hydro
All of the above.
None of the below:
Wind
Solar
Fairy dust
Unicorn pharts
And anything purporting to “save the planet”.
George Carlin had the perfect rebuttal for “Saving the Planet”.
George Carlin – Saving the Planet
Love that bit. “The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are F*%$&#!”
Add: those little wheels for rats and hamsters
The windmill pushers and their useful idiots?
I wouldn’t say none, just limited to proven practical, off-grid, and/or self-supported.
I disagree with this post’s obiter dictum (off topic side remark) concerning ethanol mandates. There are three reasons.
Thanks for the brief lesson in agribusiness economics. Not a lot of that floating around these days.
Yes, one learns all kinds of interesting things around here.
And ethanol production produces CO2.
The water plant I where I worked uses CO2 in the treatment process, thousands of pounds a day. Our supplier bought the CO2 from ethanol plants.
Fun story. The largest ethanol producer in Illinois got millions in federal subsidies under Obama to capture the CO2 (easy) and sequester it in a deep saline aquifer lying right under the plant. Sounded good on paper. In reality, the injected CO2 reacted with the aquifers dissolved minerals to produce hard precipitates, which plugged the injection wells within weeks. Abject failure from not thinking thru basic physical chemistry.
U.S. farmers and the Ag industries are a marvelous bunch despite the current kerfuffle. Still, the best corn is that roasted in its husks under the coals of a nearly burned out fire.
“The trend in corn harvest has shown record-high production in recent years, with the U.S. corn harvest for 2025 reaching 17.0 billion bushels, the highest since 1933. Improved growing conditions and increased harvested area have contributed to these high yields.” {So says DDG Assist}
Small addendum. Even picked fresh, field corn is starchy even when roasted (actually in husk steamed like a Hawaiian luau). The best roasted corn is fresh picked garden sweet corn, a completely different cultivar. Been there, done that (many times), from the sweet corn grown on my dairy farm’s quarter acre vegetable garden. Nice accompaniment to the also Weber kettle grilled steaks from a professionally butchered half side of young steer beef raised on the farm (dairy cows produce males that we have to castrate early on) and then locally slaughtered and butchered at Prem’s in Spring Green. Prem’s is ‘free’—we give them half an steer and take half back.
Governmental mandates and environmental regulations aside, 3 to 5% ethanol in premium gasoline and even less or none in regular and plus grades is sufficient to provide the desired fuel performance characteristics. The vast majority of the ethanol produced in the US is strictly in response to legislative and EPA mandates (EPA’s total biofuel blending goal, about 15% of the total fuel supply). — “because global warming” — but this 15% comes at an extraordinarily disproportionate cost, which is in passed on to consumers as well as unnecessary damages to the environment (e.g., converting large acreages of marginal or low-productivity soils to row crop production and wasted primary energy resources necessary for biofuel production).
Looking back in time, tetraethyl lead (TEL) was primarily used as an antiknock additive to gasoline for many decades. It helped to improve the octane rating of gasoline, which effectively reduced knocking in engines. However, due to environmental and health concerns, the use of lead in gasoline was understandably phased out in the U.S. Seeking an alternative to lead, the US refining industry settled on methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an oxygenate (Octane booster) — which was at first approved by EPA — and refiners raced to design and install MTBE process units, with production peaking in 1999. Soon afterwards, it was realized that MTBE did not degrade readily in the environment and was highly mobile in water and ground water. Many states and eventually federal law did an about face on MTBE. The industry faced huge cleanup costs and legal settlements and gradually ceased MTBE use. The final nail in the coffin came with the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 , which removed the oxygenate requirement for reformulated gasoline and established the renewable fuel standard.
This story is another example of the law of unintended consequences, where ignorant, legislators and regulators create mandates that defy the principles of chemistry, physics, and economics.
I believe it is John Droz who for quite a few years has used the phrase
All of the Sensible
to distinguish from this Stupid phrase .
Wind and Solar can be reliable…
When Nature decides to deliver the Fuel
For about 5-10 years
Until the next Hail Storm
When combined with expensive Back-up (battery storage or other reliable FF generation)
To be unavailable at evening peak on a still day.
Wind and solar are never worth the climate, environment, ecological, and materials consequences at utility scale. Both are of minor value as boutique applications.
My Wisconsin dairy farm had (since retired) a wind powered sucker rod water pump for the second (remote) barn cistern. And my big (slept 6, two each in aft cabin, fore cabin, and main cabin) sailboat had a portable solar cell battery bank charger which meant less use of the diesel engine while cruising. Both niche applications.
“Except in niche applications” – Have a look here: 46.914479, -121.643789
A lot of diesel fuel was hauled from sea level to 6,500 feet before the installation of solar panels.
Successful Deployment of a Solar Power System at Mount Rainier National Park | Department of Energy
[A funny: the text says it is at the highest location in Mt. Rainier NP. They mean places where electricity is needed.]
Sunrise Visitor Center is at 6421 ft. It’s on the NE side of the mountain, and pretty remote from any power transmission lines. I’ve been there several times. One of the most beautiful places in the park, unless you do some serious hikes.
Aye, there’s the rub…
Good point. Windmills and solar destabilize the electric grid and pricing. The more windmills and solar on the grid, the greater the risk of blackouts, and electricity prices will certainly be higher.
Don’t believe that wind and solar would be in the game for very long if it was a level playing field. Ie. no government subsidies of any sort or level for the favorite du jure and the w&s players need to pick up the tab for the extra thermal needed when their babies can’t produce,and pay for their inability to produce, not the consumer.
I have the same thought. I would imagine that a sensible energy policy would prioritize the security of grid by ensuring that the those participating in the sale and distribution of electricity meet certain criteria. Something like the following as prerequisites to participate as a seller.
I wouldn’t have issues with private consumers building out their own solar arrays and wind generators to reduce their consumption. However, that electricity couldn’t be sold back to the grid as it wouldn’t satisfy the requirement for 24/7 availability and it isn’t likely that you would generate 120% of your own demand using solar and/or wind.
The larger issue I see with consumers reducing their consumption via the use cost reduction techniques is that you diminish the economy of scale that is developed when you spread the construction and operation costs of large scale generation and transmission facilities across a large number of rate payers.
I don’t know how it is determined that we need to build a new power generator or who determines it. Having said that I am for all of the above meaning every style of energy generation has an equal and fair opportunity to bid for the job. Ideally there would be no tax preferences, no subsidies, no mandates, no pay for no power. If it is necessary for any of these advantages it must be offered to all bidders. Wind and solar’s future would be on the rocks in the first round of bidding. Not because we don’t care for wind and solar but because they can’t compete. What we don’t care for is government privileges and mandates.
No pay for no power!
That’s the ticket!
Under those circumstances there would be no windmills and solar.
“Make no mistake”
I seem to recall that Obama used to say that at least once in every paragraph of words. Don’t recall it before him. Then since him, it’s become a common phrase, and for me it’s a flag to watch out for what’s about to be said.
If a Democrat’s lips are moving . . .
I think that is one of the “Ten Things Stupid People Say To Make Themselves Sound Smarter”.
Those that espouse an ‘all of the above’ philosophy should start looking into buying a horse, camel, donkey and skateboard in order to maximise their travel options.
They just want their hand in the taxpayer’s pocket.
Renewable energy reminds me of the vacuum energy of space. There’s so much of it everywhere, if only, somehow, there were a way to truly tap it easily, make it inexpensive, and store it to use as needed, from an aircraft carrier to your weed whacker. There are problems with it all along the way in making it economically competitive. We conservatives have no fundamental problem with so-called renewables. After all, there’s that giant burning ball of fire up in the sky just shining all this free energy down on us every day. If the peddlers of renewable energy make it truly competitive, then great, let’s do it. I don’t think we’re anywhere closer to that now than in 1988 when James Hansen testified to Congress. I would argue that the world is no worse off than in 1988. It’s better (because of traditional and nuclear energy).
Windmills and Solar are Such a Blight on the landscape and the sensibilities!
Ugly, Destructive monstrosities that can’t even pay for themselves.
There is no good argument for continuing to build them and lots of good arguments for not building them.
Renewables reduce fuel usage by only a tiny amount, if at all.
The reason for this is simple. Renewables are unreliable. Solar does not produce when the demand is highest, either in winter or summer. Beyond that, if you live in a cloudy region, solar becomes even more intermittent, cutting out whenever a cloud passes over the solar array. Wind is also intermittent, you get power only when wind is fast enough, but not too fast.
As a result of this unpredictability, Fossil fuel plants have to be kept running, ready to take over on a moments notice. It takes oil/gas/coal to keep these plants in standby mode. Almost as much fuel as they would need if they were supplying all the needed power by themseves.
The maintenance and labor cost of a plant on standby are also just as high as if ihe plant were providing all the power.
Up until Trump was elected “All of the above” meant wind and solar.
Good point.
The windmill sellers are changing their focus. They just want to be included now, not dominant.
The windmill sellers should pay their own way if they want to be included. No tax money for you!
Kudos to Bill Ponton for doing a quantitative analysis. To see it, you need to download the spreadsheet from Dropbox, which I did. He has done what is basically a LCOE, but getting very different results from the highly qualified people who normally do thta, so I tried to find out why. The first figure that caught my eye was California, where it is said that a relatively small W&S trebled the cost.
There are various assumptions that could be disputed, but don’t make this very large difference. But one alarming figure was the 3x difference in cost/kw a small amount of W&S made in California. I found that for wind, he put in a figure of $58B capital cost for 6.3GW. A rule of thumb is about $1/W; $58Bthat is almost 10 times too high. He actually quotes an EIA figure of $1.486/W (should be $1.386/W), but doesn’t use it in his arithmetic. That error alone is responsible for most of the supposed extra cost in California. I’m checking other spreadsheets.
Update: I see the error. He has used $58B capital cost for both Texas (42GW) and Calif (6.8GW).
Here in California you have to add in the cost of fraud.
I’ve realised the basic fallacy of his logic. For Texas, say, he takes the installed capacity of each, and uses EIA factors to convert to cap cost, which is then annualised. For the hypothetical all-gas scenario, he scales up the fuel cost required to get the same TWh, but takes out the cap cost of W&S, to get a lower cost overall for the all-gas scenario. But he adds no new cap for gas.
This might seem fair, as it might work. He shows that gas has a current cap fac of 26%, and it could be better used. But it is inconsistent accounting. Moving to the new scenario doesn’t mean you get the cap cost of W&S back. You may say, well, the investors bear that, but they may succeed in suing for compensation. The point is that for a useful LCOE, you n.eed to cost newly built systems, otherwise you get bogged down with sunk costs. A new gas+W+S system would not have all this redundant gas capacity.
That’s right Nick, get the ad hominem in first.
No ad hominem. The point is if highly qualified people get one answer, and Bill Ponton gets another, then it’s worth looking to find out why. So I did.
Thanks Nick for catching that error. It was pure sloppiness on my part to let it slip. The formula got replaced with a fixed value of $58B in TX tab and then got copied to CA tab. I made the corrections which it brings CA in line with TX. I should have been alerted earlier to my mistake with CA being such an outlier.
Well, having made such a mistake and being call on it by Nick, you are now classified as a highly unqualified person. That is the insinuation in Nick’s post.
Having mad a mistake and correcting it, for me, makes you highly qualified.
“every economically viable energy source”
Who judges?
The Market.
Is Ethanol Really the Best Octane Booster? A Short, Technical, Evidence‑Based Look
Ethanol is politically favored, but when you compare the energy inputs, chemistry, and refining alternatives, the case for ethanol becomes much weaker.
1. Ethanol Requires Large Fossil Inputs
Producing corn ethanol requires:
Ethanol’s full lifecycle energy use is so high that its environmental advantages shrink to nearly zero, and sometimes become negative.
2. How Refineries Produce High‑Octane Branched Alkanes
Branched alkanes are not exotic — they are produced by mature refinery technologies designed to convert low‑octane straight‑chain hydrocarbons into high‑octane molecules. Two core processes make this happen:
A. Isomerization
Branched structures have inherently higher octane, producing a clean, stable blendstock known as isomerate.
B. Alkylation
Alkylate is considered the premium, gold‑standard gasoline component: high‑octane, low‑sulfur, low‑aromatic, and clean‑burning.
These processes have existed for decades and already supply a large fraction of the octane in gasoline — without farmland, fertilizers, or fermentation.
3. Why Ethanol Dominates: Mandates, Not Chemistry
Refiners spend tens of billions per year buying ethanol because federal law requires them to.
If ethanol blending were voluntary, refiners would rely far more on isomerate and alkylate for octane.
This isn’t a technical debate.
It’s a regulatory one.
4. Refinery Upgrade Payback: About Three Years
Nationwide upgrades to expand alkylation and isomerization capacity are estimated at around $80 billion.
Refiners spend $25–28 billion every year buying ethanol.
→ Payback ≈ 3 years
→ Even faster in high RIN‑price years
For heavy industrial infrastructure, that is exceptionally fast.
5. Bottom Line
There is no clear environmental or economic justification for ethanol — only a regulatory one.