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
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.
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 …
George, oil, coal and gas are also free which the wind and solar advocates seem not to know nor, it seems, wish to know. God’s Nature has provided oil, coal, gas, wind and sunshine without human intervention just as He caused creation of water, soil, nutrients, a magnetic field, continental drift and a myriad of other forces and materials necessary for human life. Certain machines are needed to gather and convert oil, coal and gas into a huge variety of useful products including electricity just as very different machines are needed to convert the energy of wind and sunshine into only one useful product, electricity, but then only some of the time. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?
My thoughts exactly.
Denis, the answer to your question is simply there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
The definition of God would take us into a very deep philosophical area of debate.
I am comforted and live by the simple notion that Nature is God.
The possibly unique features of our world in a universe so vast it is beyond normal comprehension have brought us to where we are, i.e. sentient beings trying to understand their good fortune. Nature has given us the laws of physics we must deploy them as best we can. Maybe someone will eventually convey that truth to the Climate Alarmists. As an eternal optimist, I live in hope.
Zigackly.
George,
using overbuild, capacity figures and averages may theoretically provide sufficient power for 100% of the time, but and it is a very big but it still will not work.
Wind and solar are uncontrollable feeding a grid that needs minute control all of the time. They also lack inertia, for stability, reactive power control for a stable system voltage and also do not support short circuit current capability.
In other words wind and solar are totally unsuited for the job they are being forced to do.
They only work, at the detriment to a stable grid and high cost, because they are supported by conventional generation as well.
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.
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
“Trump spared the US from the W/S evils inflicted by the leftist, woke Democrat cabal,”
But only for one election cycle, if folks vote solely on today’s issues. Most US voters are willfully ignorant of Iran’s long-term chaos goals, of the EU’s unlimited gimmiegrant importation, of the Dems’ plan to restart unlimited alien (terrestrial, not extra-Solar) entry and voting, etc.
Either Newsom or Harris would immediately double down on Biden’s policies, with the full-throated support of the legacy misledia and not a few Republicans. Remember this is a party that has no problem accusing every Trump supporter a Nazi while strongly supporting candidates that actively support terrorists (Hamawy) or knowingly applied a Nazi tattoo to himself (Platner).
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.
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.
Clipper ships, then, are fictitious creations of imaginitive English writers of the 19th century. Got it.
Yes, and what happened in the later part of the 19th century?
Hardly. The problem with sailing ships is their very high O&M costs. After a typical season crossing the North Atlantic with cargo, an expected investment required would be about 20% of the entire original cost of the ship. After a year’s operation, it would usually need a complete new set of sails, new rigging, replacement of at least some of the spars, new copper sheets to replace those damaged or lost. This would be in addition to any hull repairs needed for normal wear and tear.
Making all this worse is that sailing ships require much larger crews than modern diesel powered ships. A typical clipper required about 100 crew for a cargo capacity of 500-1500 tons. A modern container ship has a crew of a few dozen for a cargo capacity of several hundred thousand tons of cargo.
Shush now. John may not know these details and perhaps does not want to know. It is a common problem among wind and solar advocates – there is so much they don’t know or refuse to know. Here is another tidbit he may not know. In 1875 less that 10% of the world’s population of about 1.4 billon lived a middle/upper class life. Over 90% were in poverty or near poverty. Clipper ships were sufficient to meet the needs of the middle and upper class population at those times. By 1975, world population had increased threefold yet the middle/upper class portion rose faster – to 30%. By 2000 the population had increased much more yet the fraction living a middle/upper class life rose even faster, to about 45%. By today, still more people but 50% enjoy a middle class life. Wind powered ships could not possibly support such increasing living standards beyond 1875 and indeed, the invention of very much larger and faster steam ships in the late 1800s and then still larger and faster motor ships beginning in the ~1930s and beyond not only supported such living standard improvements they were in many ways responsible for creating them. Energy and its efficient use is the be-all and end-all of our modern way of life. Diminish it or make it too expensive for most and we will all begin to return to the living standards of 1875, or worse.
Not to mention ocean crossing times being reduced from weeks to days allowing transport of perishable goods between hemispheres
Worse than that. A typical cargo voyage to China and back would take a year. A typical cargo pickup in Australia would take a year. So it was essential that the only cargoes that could be shipped over such long distances had to be ones that would not spoil during months in a wooden hold.
The last of the sailing ship cargo voyages long distance took place in the 1930s. Shipment of grain from Australia was done by sailing England to Australia in balast. Then the ship would be loaded, taking about two weeks, then a return again sailind east around Cape Horn to return to England. The whole circuit took about 10 months.
Grain race – Wikipedia
I highly recommend a book by Eric Newby, The Great Grain Race. He sailed in the last one before WW2.
Certainly far from fictitious but relegated to Barefoot Cruises and in port museums…where they thankfully belong today…having been replaced by something far better and faster for ocean crossing.
Much like Whale Oil having been replaced by Kerosene whose distillation from Crude Oil produces gasoline as a byproduct.
They existed all right. And steel square riggers existed at the turn of the century. But anyone who advocates going back to sail has probably never sailed on one of these ships, or even a very large ocean going yacht.
The casualty rate from commercial sailing was enormous. The fishing fleets off New England had huge losses from comparatively small vessels, mostly schooners. But when you are operating a big square rigger you have to take in and let out sail. Crew climb up the masts, go out on the yards, and do it by hand. And fall off sometimes. In the Southern Oceans it was not unknown for an entire watch to be swept away by a rogue wave.
A spell of strong weather at sea, in a vessel designed to be responsive to the wind, has to be experienced to be believed. The idea of going out on the yards in it? Or in a real storm? Inconceivable today. But that is what it took.
You simply could not build enough boats big enough to do even a fraction of today’s shipping volume. And even could you manage to build them big enough from an engineering position, there is no way you would find people to man them. And there is no way you would get insurance to cover them.
The memorial in Gloucester, Mass – the sculpture of the helmsman – is to the thousands who died in those waters. But even they are a fraction of those who died all over the world in the romantic days of sail.
The captain of a four masted barque on which my wife and I once sailed noted that the world was explored and commercially served by sailing ships travelling at an overall average speed of three knots. Clippers used ultra streamlined, limited volume hulls and incredibly complex sail operation to achieve shorter shipping times, with the downside being a very limited cargo capacity.
Sadly, critical thinking skills are not just lacking among climate alarmists.
Rovingbroker wrote:
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.
This is a very reasonable question.
Wilpost replied
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.
Notice that the reply refers to two different periods of time: both the past and the present. Wilpost’s reply seems to suggest that sailing ships were never an economic proposition. (That was tried and turned out to be BS.)
John Hulquist then replied:
Clipper ships, then, are fictitious creations of imaginative English writers of the 19th century. Got it.
John was referring to the past part of wilpost’s reply, not the present part. It would seem that he objected to the suggestion that sailing ships were never an economic proposition. Nowhere did he state that clipper ships could be an economic proposition in the twenty-first century.
So, are John’s critics agreeing with wilpost’s suggestion that sailing ships were never an economic proposition. Such a proposition can easily be falsified. The Spanish Empire was built on sailing ships. The Atlantic slave trade was built on sailing ships. The British Empire was built on sailing ships. The Royal Navy ruled the waves using sailing ships.
Now it is suggested that the only people who benefitted from all the trade conducted using sailing ships were the better-off people and not the poorer people. That is to suggest that poorer people did not benefit from the economic growth of the industrial revolution. That is highly debatable.
But some people got their knickers in a twist and went into a tirade about how sailing ships are less economic than ships powered by fossil fuels. But did anybody assert anything different? John certainly didn’t.
Bring back the press gangs to row the ships.
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!
Lots of windmills are reaching the end of their service life.
Instead of scaping them, install a bunch of them on ships. Replace the “energy producing” turbine part with a series of gears and shafts to turn the propellers!
What could go wrong?
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.
If toads had wings their asses wouldn’t bump when they jump….
The inertia in good sized MG set is amazing. The 12,000 Hp MG set at my work would spin for half an hour after it was shut off. The synchronous motor drove 4 550kW DC generators and spun on a 17″ shaft running on Babbitt bearings. It ran at 514 rpm but the setup is a lot of mass and very little friction.
This is “new research”? We’ve known this since forever because it’s logic 101. It’s surprising that people are surprised by this.
Anyone who has driven across the Canadian prairies is aware of the wind; it seems to always blow–and no matter the direction you need to go, it is always a quartering headwind. It was no surprise that wind turbines would get installed there, especially around Lethbridge. I checked AESO recently to determine capacity factor; it is about 40%.
I grew up on a dairy farm; that’s like buying 100 cows and getting milk from only 40 of them. If you’re still making money–someone else is paying for those other 60 cows.
My mother’s kin were dairy farmers way back in the day-milk wars and all-farmers dumping milk on the ground because they couldn’t make any money…that’s a very good analogy you make. There is Gov support now for dairy farmers, true, but not the same thing as subsidies for greenie crap. The support actually does something good-it feeds people, esp. children, unlike greenie crap that just wastes land and money. BTW, dairy farming-any farming-is hard work…kudos to you!
There’s another much larger problem with all typical solar and wind. Their function depends on them maximizing their surface area for energy collection. This in turn maximizes the damage to which they are subject by weather. This will appear as financial losses by increased maintenance costs per kWh or in performance reductions over time as their systems degrade from environmental exposure.
Wind and solar advocates will quickly retort that “all” you need is more batteries without having the slightest knowledge of what that actually means or if it is even possible.
That battery backup BS talk is like pouring more water in a bucket with holes in it instead of plugging them.
Or even better: replace the leaking bucket with one that has even more holes in it. But hey: see, it’s a new one. There problem solved ! SARC
From the article: “Furthermore, a greater penetration of RES is known to “increase reliance on fossil-fuel generation or increases the risk of blackouts.”
In other words, in order to have windmills and solar on your grid, you have to add enough conventional generation to take over for when the wind doesn’t blow, and the sun doesn’t shine. You have to double your generating capacity in order to incorporate windmills and solar into the grid.
Doubling your generation capacity doubles your electric bills.
This is not news, everybody knows wind and solar can’t sustain a modern society. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Remove wind and solar from the grid. Build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators.
If proponents of wind and solar want an explanation of why these two sources, despite billions in subsidies, currently provide only 4% of global primary energy the above revelations should clarify the issue. The facts are that with the current technology, wind and solar simply can’t deliver a reliable product at any reasonable cost. As all forecasts show, fossil fuels will continue to dominate at least until mid-century and most likely well beyond.
Solar alone is a no brainer. You simply need sufficient installed capacity to supply demand between 10am and 2pm plus sufficient dedicated capacity to recharge Terawatt Hours (TWhs) worth of back-up batteries that can then meet demand the remaining 20 hours a day.
The recharging capacity must be sufficient to gather and store those overnight TWhs of energy in 4 hours during solar peak during the worst solar conditions (Winter time above 50° Latitude).
Further, capacity might need to be further increased to allow for days worth of capacity especially during storm conditions.
I’ve posted the image below before (I can’t remember under which WUWT comment), but I think it’s appropriate here as well.
The island of Great Britain [ = England + Wales + Scotland ] extends from ~50°N (the south-west point of Cornwall) to ~58.5°N (the north coast of Scotland).
The GB electricity grid is managed by the NESO grid operator, and has a “nominal / nameplate capacity” for their “Solar (PV)” contribution of approximately 21 GW.
NB : The vast majority of this “capacity” is located along the south coast of England, from Cornwall to Kent, in the 50-51°N latitude range.
Data source : https://www.neso.energy/data-portal/historic-demand-data
Carefully “cherry-picking” the highest and lowest daily contributions of “Solar (PV)” electrical energy (GWh / day) to the GB grid for the last calendar year, 2025, gave me the following image file.
As the saying goes, “A picture is worth a thousand words” …
And you would need to design your system to provide 100% demand on that particular December day or face days with no available capacity except that which you could afford to purchase from another state/country with an available inter tie capable of handling the load.
“solar and wind power output varies unpredictably with weather conditions”
“wind and solar power cannot deliver most of the time”
No sh1t, Sherlock
Why do we need a new study to tell us the bleeding obvious?
It is 7:50 PDT in California’s Central Coast. My house is using 200 Watts and my rooftop solar array is producing 0 Watts. The “June Gloom” clouds should dissappear sometime this morning.
If we relied totally on our solar array, I could not be writing this.
Most solar produces ZERO before 8am then ramps up as close to nameplate as it will get for the day by 10am. Gets slightly stronger at noon then begins to drop off after 2pm. Then after 4pm it stops producing altogether for the next 16 hours. The only seasonal difference is the level of peak production in winter and at higher latitudes…also with cloudiness and storminess production can drop to zero during mid day.
The Renewables Paradox: The way to make intermittent wind and solar useful is with battery storage. Yet, the easier, faster, cheaper way to charge those batteries is with off-peak power from natural gas plants.
The Second Renewables Paradox: Even if the new-build cost is low, their intermittency means they do not add to overall grid capacity.