New Study: Solar Photovoltaic, Wind Power Fail To Meet Annual Energy Demands 62% Of The Time

From the NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 4. June 2026

“Unlike dispatchable fossil-fuel or nuclear generation, solar and wind power output varies unpredictably with weather conditions, leading to mismatches between supply and demand.” — Sargentis et al., 2026

New research utilizes stochastic analysis to assess the effectiveness of renewable energy sources (RES) in satisfying energy demands in Greece.

Results indicate solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind power only meet annual energy demands 32% and 44% of the time, respectively. When electricity is needed to heat or cool a home, wind and solar power cannot deliver most of the time.

Furthermore, a greater penetration of RES is known to “increase reliance on fossil-fuel generation or increases the risk of blackouts.”

Heavier reliance on wind and solar power is also “linked to higher electricity prices.” So we pay more to obtain less.

“Although solar photovoltaic (PV) generation can theoretically meet annual per-capita electricity demand, its stochastic variability significantly limits system reliability in the absence of storage. In the examined case study, a PV-only configuration satisfies demand during only about one-third of the examined time steps, while also producing substantial surplus energy that must be curtailed.”

If reliably meeting electricity demand is the intended goal of a higher penetration of wind and solar power, a documented ~62% combined failure rate demonstrate these technologies are severely unreliable and inadequate.

Image Source: Sargentis et al., 2026

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Bill Toland
June 7, 2026 6:22 am

Despite what renewable energy fans claim, intermittent sources of power like wind and solar can never replace reliable power sources like fossil fuels and nuclear. Anybody claiming otherwise is guilty of wishful thinking.

George Kaplan
Reply to  Bill Toland
June 7, 2026 6:35 am

Actually sunshine, windmills, and unicorn farts probably can replace constant, reliable, stable energy IF you’re prepared to spend enough money, scatter them across a large enough area, and build a sufficiently large grid as to interconnect everything. But you’re talking platinum plated continental scale infrastructure at a minimum. Doubtless the Green energy types would approve as it means trillions in their pockets, and the fuel’s free as they keep saying. If consumers have to pay for it however …

Reply to  Bill Toland
June 7, 2026 7:31 am

At About 30% Annual W/S Electricity on the Grid, Various Costs Increase Exponentially
The W/S systems uglify the countryside, kill birds and bats, whales and dolphins, fisheries, tourism, view-sheds, etc.
The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent W/S output, often too-little and often too-much, creates grid-disturbing difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and more costly (c/kWh) to counteract, as proven by the UK and California for the past 5 years, and Germany for the past 10 years, and recently in Spain/Portugal.
.
All these countries have “achieved” near-zero, real- growth GDPs, the highest electricity prices (c/kWh) in the EU, and stagnant real wages for almost all people, while further enriching the moneyed elites who live in the poshest places.

Reply to  wilpost
June 7, 2026 7:34 am

Net zero by 2050 Euro elites tried to weaken the US, with help of the unpatriotic, leftist Biden clique, into going down the black hole of 30,000 MW by 2030 of expensive, highly subsidized, weather-dependent, grid-disturbing offshore windmill systems, which would need expensive, highly subsidized, short-lived, battery systems for grid support.
.
If little wind and solar, aka DUNKELFLAUTE, there is near-zero output of wind and solar, and a large fleet of OTHER plants, must provide the missing electricity up to demand, 24/7/365. 
If the OTHER plants are insufficient, electricity needs to be imported at high wholesale prices
If too much wind and solar, much of the electricity needs to be exported at low wholesale prices
These OTHER plants must be fueled, staffed, kept in good working order to instantly provide what is missing. 
The more wind and solar tied to the expanded/reinforced/more complex grid, the more OTHER plants.
THAT TWO-SYSTEM COMPLEXITY DOES NOT COME FOR FREE.

Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, with the equivalent of 50% subsidies

Hidden Costs: Filling-in capacity, balancing capacity, counteracting capacity, grid extension/reinforcement, etc., about 11 c/kWh; powerplant to landfill basis. 
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
Some values increase due to inflation and as more W/S systems are added to the grid.
.
Such expensive W/S electricity would have made the US even less competitive in world markets.
Any US tariffs on the European supply of wind systems would greatly increase their turnkey capital costs/MW and their electricity costs/ kWh.
.
Almost the entire supply of the wind projects would be:
1) designed and made in Europe,
2) then transported across the Atlantic Ocean by European specialized ships,
3) then unloaded at new, taxpayer-financed, $500-million storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading areas,
4) then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the windmill systems.
5) The financing would be mostly by European pension funds, that pay benefits to European retirees.

Hundreds of people in each seashore state would have jobs during the erection phase
The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships
Hundreds of people in each seashore state would have long-term O&M jobs, using mostly European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.
.
Conglomerates owned by Euro elites would finance, build, erect, own and operate almost all of the 30,000 MW of offshore windmills, providing work for many thousands of European workers for decades, and multi-$billion profits each year.
.
That Euro offshore wind ruse did not work out, because Trump was elected.
Trump-hating, Euro elites are furious. Projects are being cancelled. The European windmill industry is in shambles, with multi-$billion annual losses, lay-offs and tens of $billions of stranded costs.
.
Trump spared the US from the W/S evils inflicted by the leftist, woke Democrat cabal, that used an autopen for Biden signatures, and bypassed on-the-beach/in-the-basement Biden, an increasingly dysfunctional Marionette.
.
Trump declared a National Energy Emergency. He put W/S/B systems at the bottom of the list, and suspended their licenses to put their rushed, glossy environmental impact statements, EIS, under proper scrutiny.
.
Euro elites used the IPCC-invented, “CO2-is-evil” hoax, based on its own “science”. These elites used:
.
1) the foghorn of government-subsidized Corporate Media to propagate scare-mongering slogans and brainwash the people,
2) censorship to suppress free thinking on town hall forums,
3) election interference, as in Moldova and Georgia,
4) ostracizing/marginalizing major political parties to produce desired outcomes, as in Germany.
.
Wall Street elites saw an opportunity for tax shelters for its elite clients.
Woke politicians/bureaucrats were “cut-in” on $juicy deals to pass subsidies, favorable rules and regulations, and impose government mandates.
Euro elites wanted the US to deliver electricity to users at very high c/kWh, to preserve Europe’s extremely advantageous trade balance surpluses with the US.
 https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/international-trade-is-a-dog-eat-dog-business

rovingbroker
June 7, 2026 6:36 am

I wonder why the “renewable energy” fans aren’t promoting wind-powered ships (often called sail boats) the way they promote covering the earth with windmills.

Reply to  rovingbroker
June 7, 2026 7:20 am

That was tried and turned out to be BS, because winds at sea are often near zero, and often are too strong for sails, so most of the time sails are idling.

A big high-seas investment, which needs to amortized like a bank loan, and likely much O&M per year.
That means a negative return on investment for owners during their short lives, even with the equivalent of 50% subsidies.
No owner would be stupid enough to go that route.

John Hultquist
Reply to  wilpost
June 7, 2026 7:32 am

Clipper ships, then, are fictitious creations of imaginitive English writers of the 19th century. Got it.  

Dave Andrews
Reply to  rovingbroker
June 7, 2026 7:37 am

A modern container ship can carry 15,000 – 24,000 20 foot containers and 7500 – 12,000 40 foot containers.

Imagine how many thousands of wind powered ships you would need to replace just one container ship!

Mr.
June 7, 2026 7:00 am

If only there was a way to build utility scale electricity generation & distribution systems that could guarantee inertia to keep the power flowing constantly, evenly.

If only our forebears had been smarter, they would have developed such systems for us, and we’d still be using them today.

Dave O.
June 7, 2026 7:32 am

This is “new research”? We’ve known this since forever because it’s logic 101. It’s surprising that people are surprised by this.