“Cheap” Solar Does Not Need Subsidies, Right? (wrong)

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

The wind/solar narrative shifts as the polls do. The latest message is that wind and solar are cost-effective and the natural choice for energy affordability. Yet the renewable industry pleads for evergreen help with the outsized subsidies of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which are on track to end at the end of next year for any new project.

As the free world turns toward natural gas in the new era, consider the following narrative quotations, aspirational and wrong.

“Some critics of solar facilities have falsely claimed that they are expensive and inefficient….” – Maxine Joselow, “As Trump Obliterates Climate Efforts, States Try to Fill the Gap,” New York Times (February 19, 2026)

“Solar is now the cheapest energy source in human history, yet rollbacks are spreading from California to Virginia as officials blame high costs and a hostile Trump administration.”   – Haley Zaremba, “Solar Is the Cheapest Power in History, but States Are Retreating from It,” OilPrice.com (June 19, 2026).

Desperation is the word as “House Democrats Want Clean Energy Tax Credits Back ,” according to Inside Climate News, (March 18, 2026). Reports Arcelia Martin:

A new bill would reinstate incentives from the Inflation Reduction Act and provide assistance for consumer electricity costs…. The “Energy Bills Relief Act,” signed by more than half of House Democrats, 122 in all, seeks to establish new incentives for renewable projects and to protect consumers from rising electricity costs due to grid demands from large energy users such as data centers. 

In addition to re-upping clean energy credits introduced in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the sweeping legislation would reinstate grant money for renewable energy projects that the Trump administration terminated and authorize $2.1 billion to address shortages of transformers and other grid technologies. 

Fake Republicans are also in on the act.

House Republicans have introduced the American Energy Dominance Act (April 2026) to reverse tightened deadlines on wind and solar tax credits (45Y/48E) imposed by the 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA). The new bill aims to remove the July 4, 2026, construction deadline and 2027 operational deadline for solar and wind projects, citing lost investments. 

And this from C3 Solutions. States co-founder Drew Bond in “Solar Doesn’t Need Subsidies Anymore” (April 27, 2026):

Solar power is now among the cheapest forms of electricity on Earth. Yet the industry still behaves as if it can’t survive without government support.

It cannot. One can only wish that Bond is right and the industry will raise the white flag regarding subsidies.

The solar industry doesn’t have a subsidy problem. It has a confidence problem. July 4 isn’t a deadline to fear but a milestone that signals American solar is ready to compete without training wheels. The numbers tell the story. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, the cost of utility-scale solar has fallen roughly 90% since 2010—from about 46 cents per kilowatt-hour to roughly 4.3 cents today. Solar is now one of the cheapest sources of new electricity generation in the world, trailing only onshore wind. Over the past decade the industry has grown at an average annual rate of about 28%.

The U.S. now has roughly 262 gigawatts of installed solar capacity—enough to power about 45 million homes, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association…. Solar is one of the fastest and least expensive ways to meet much of [increasing demand] and that advantage doesn’t disappear on July 5.

So what? The above statistic demonstrate how outsized subsidies (state-level too) propelled an economically incorrect energy into existence en masse. Bond incorrectly concludes:

All of this means solar is no longer a fragile startup industry. It is one of the most remarkable energy scale-ups in modern American history. The industry simply hasn’t fully accepted that reality…. After decades of public support, policymakers aren’t sending the solar industry to its funeral. They’re celebrating its graduation.

This is a strange article. Yes, solar costs have come down (as have other energy technologies). Yes, solar was enabled by special government favor. But no–solar for the grid and at large scale is not competitive with natural gas combined cycle, as the current dash-for-gas demonstrates. In a recent news piece in the New York Times, “New Amazon Data Center Stokes Worry It Would Be the Most Polluting Power Plant in the U.S., Hiroko Tabuchi stated:

To avoid years of potential delays in hooking up to electrical utilities, data-center developers are increasingly choosing to build their own dedicated, on-site power plants instead. And gas-burning plants are usually the fastest and easiest to build.

To recap. The PR narrative is that solar is now cost-competitive. But behind the scenes, the lobbying frenzy by solar trade groups, led by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) nationally and in Texas, the Texas Solar Energy Society (TXSES), speaks for itself. It is continued subsidies or bust for the utility-scale solar industry.

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.
4.8 19 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
60 Comments
atticman
August 12, 2026 2:24 pm

If wind and solar were really cheaper and more efficient, power companies would have cottoned on to them years ago without need of bribes from virtue-signalling governments.

Bryan A
Reply to  atticman
August 12, 2026 3:52 pm

“Cheap Solar” actually doesn’t need subsidization… at all. Unfortunately “Cheap Solar” is like “Cold Fusion” (or any sustainable fusion on the market today) it simply does not exist!
The fallacy of “Cheap Solar” is what’s being peddled currently. Solar is costly relative to say Nuclear.
Solar only produces power at near nameplate capacity for 4 hours a day but the day has 24 hours so to produce nameplate for 24 hours you need to install 6 times that capacity and gather and store that power for when the sun is unavailable.
For example…
2,200MW of solar produces 2,200MW (at best for 4 hours 10am-2pm) when it can be directly utilized. But the world operates 24 hours a day so to guarantee 2,200MWh available for any 24 hour period you need to install 13,200MW of solar capacity plus 316,800MWh of battery storage.
Installing 13,200MW of solar costs Between $11.8B-$17.1B.with replacement every 15-20 years (more with storm damages) that same 2,200MW capacity costs $47.2B-$68.4B over an 80 year period (lifespan of nuclear) Plus the cost of Battery Storage.
The 2,200MW Nuclear plant (2 – 1,100MW generators) will cost $13.6B in the US or only $5.7N-$9.9B in Asia and will last 80 years … no batteries required.
So which is cheaper and exactly how “Cheap” is Solar???

Reply to  Bryan A
August 12, 2026 6:54 pm

Fun aside on ‘cold fusion’. It never was, but the hyped phenomenon actually exists. As the ww head of Mot strategy, I sent our #1 theoretical physicist to Pons/Fleischman’s Toyota funded French lab to investigate. He reported back was real, but not reliable.
Turns out isn’t cold fusion at all. Is a consequence of inverse beta decay, capture of ‘heavy electrons’ by protons to become neutrons. ‘Heavy electrons’ are just energetically boosted, so by E=MC*2 ‘heavy’. Gravitationally, the same as neutron stars. Energetically, caused by eforce amplification in misnamed cold fusion ‘fuel rod’ microfracture tips—hence the unreliability.
This understanding —Widom/ Larsen theory— resulted in reliable 2x lab scale energy production using high frequency radio waves as the heavy electron boost energy input. But not when lab scaled to 4x, when at least 7x would have been needed for reliable net energy production. I wrote it up as one of one chapter’s several energy examples in ebook ‘The Arts of Truth’.
Kind of like grid scale battery storage. Technically but not commercially feasible.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 12, 2026 7:56 pm

At least not yet … but … Who’s to say in 10 years or so 😉

Harry Durham
Reply to  Bryan A
August 13, 2026 4:30 pm

As a junior engineer with an almost-new BS in Nuclear Engineering, I was sent to a 6 week course in “Laboratory Management” to better equip me for running some classified projects. To meet the requirement for a research paper, I investigated the state of the art in controlled fusion. (We had reasonable success in generating un-controlled fusion.) I’m sure that you will be gratified to know that based on the best estimates of classified and public research “experts” in the field, it was confidently projected that we would reach scientific break even within 15-25 years, with almost certainly reach engineering breakeven in 20-30 years.

I got an “A” on the paper…in 1975.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 13, 2026 6:05 am

Battery technologies are always the promised land, but…
There are only so many elements and compounds that can be used in ion-based electrochemical cells.

Can there be newer and better? Of course.

Will the future reveal the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything? We know the answer: 42. Problem is, we do not know the question.

Iain Reid
Reply to  Bryan A
August 12, 2026 11:17 pm

Bryan,

if only solar advocates and those that mandate it could do arithmetic.

Even with such an astronomical capacity of solar and battery, it doesn’t help the fact that solar is not suited for grid supply as it lacks inertia, adverse weather significantly reduces output so even with such huge outlay in cost you still cannot rely on it, so back up is necessary.

It is too silly for words to use solar on any grid.

Bryan A
Reply to  Iain Reid
August 13, 2026 5:34 am

Yep, Solar is really only good for three things

Powering a small usage home “Off Grid”Powering a desktop calculatorRecharging batteriesEven the first option, powering a small use home off grid, is still basically just the last option … Recharging Batteries

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Iain Reid
August 13, 2026 6:07 am

“Even with such an astronomical capacity of solar and battery, it doesn’t help…”
… when the sun is not shining on it.

Grid stability is an engineering challenge.
SV is a physics challenge.
Batteries are both physics and engineering challenges.

I’ll take the engineering challenges.
Physics tends to be heartless when one tries to pick a fight.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bryan A
August 13, 2026 6:01 am

“Cheap Solar” actually doesn’t need subsidization… at all.”
True enough.

Control the language, control the ideas.

“Cheap Solar” … simply does not exist!

Absolutely correct.

Every fuel used in energy production starts out free. Wind, sun, petroleum, coal, nuclear, hydro-electric, natural gas are all free. We do not buy any of those from Mother Nature (aka Gaia).

The costs are soup to nuts, getting the fuel converted into useful form and delivering it where needed.

Petey Bird
Reply to  Bryan A
August 13, 2026 8:19 am

Your 24 availability calculation shows how poor solar power is.
Is it even possible to calculate the design and cost for a one year available solar system?
Even in the south? How about north of fifty? The redundancy would have to be huge.

Randle Dewees
Reply to  atticman
August 12, 2026 7:54 pm

Cifford Simak wrote a fun scifi story called “The trouble with Ants” (1951). Basically, it has a threshold premise – give an ant colony a break from seasonal hardships and they will advance their society. In the story ants become very technologically advanced and take over the world. Basically, ants developed a positive gain. It’s a silly premise of course, unless tropical ants are just really dim.

I think if solar actually had a positive gain we’d see it in action – there would be solar powered industry making … more solar. But it just isn’t happening.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  atticman
August 13, 2026 5:57 am

Absolutely.

A free market supply and demand is the only true democracy. People vote with their dollars.

If those obscenities were as economical and profitable as claimed, one would have to stand in a line that goes around the block to buy stock.

Eng_Ian
August 12, 2026 2:36 pm

Solar is most probably the cheapest form of electrical generation.

As long as you want DC power and are willing to accept it only when the sun is shining.

Now all we need is for the demand to adjust to the supply constraints.

The problem of course is not the issue of whether or not the demand can adjust, it’s the stupidity of those in government and their advisors who insist that it must and that anyone who doesn’t is a denier, or worse.

It might be useful for some, but you can’t make steel from ore using it and you can forget about glass or anything with a sizeable kiln, like bricks or tiles. And transport, well that will be interesting, waiting overnight for your 5 hours of charging to commence only to discover that today is another cloudy day.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  Eng_Ian
August 12, 2026 3:35 pm

“cheapest” is a baseless assertion. Give the evidence and include the cost of all the apparatus involved in collecting and storing and distributing solar radiant energy and the market conditions for consuming direct current electrical power

Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
August 12, 2026 3:45 pm

Not to mention all the ecological damage by converting farms and forests to industrial solar. And loss of wildlife habitat and aesthetic ugliness of solar on the landscape.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
August 13, 2026 7:42 am

Don’t forget food production. Mad Ed’s idiocy could lead to 25% of the UK’s farmland being taken out of production and his successor is likely going to go even further.

Bill Kotcher
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
August 13, 2026 8:36 am

in stating, cheapest, they ignore slave child labor in many of the supply chain countries. They then ignore all the money the Regimes pour into their industries that build that solar panel.

Reply to  Eng_Ian
August 12, 2026 3:39 pm

Nor can you use it to grow silicon crystals for new solar cells…

Does this make me a “denier”?

Reply to  karlomonte
August 12, 2026 4:05 pm

Makes you a “realist”… the very opposite of a “denier™”.

Bryan A
Reply to  karlomonte
August 12, 2026 4:11 pm

For that you need Coal to purify the silica! Without Coal, Solar PV can’t exist.

Reply to  Bryan A
August 12, 2026 4:21 pm

Also required are some very toxic chemicals to wash out any impurities.

Reply to  Eng_Ian
August 12, 2026 4:09 pm

NOT powered by solar..

comment image

Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  Eng_Ian
August 12, 2026 10:53 pm

Here’s what it requires for solar power equipment to run a home and shop for two weeks of overcast winter skies in North Idaho. https://youtu.be/ccBM0iSvqIc

Total cost was $50,000, three years ago. Cost to bring power to the property was $20,000 plus connecting it up, plus the never ending cost for the electricity. Going off grid solar was a good decision in their case. Any time power was out in town, they still had power.

Since getting the installation finished, they didn’t have to do any maintenance, other than seasonally changing the tilt of the solar panels.

They also installed more solar panels on the west side of the “barndominium” as an awning for the upper level deck, built a equipment storage building with solar panels, and a 20 foot container tiny home, with its own solar power.

They also added a propane backup generator as a backup to the military surplus diesel generator, and they bought the big propane tank rather than leasing or renting it.

And they just sold the property so they didn’t get to use it long enough to pay back the invested cost by not having to pay that never ending electricity bill. But the new owners I bet are enjoying not having a power bill.

Derg
Reply to  Gregg Eshelman
August 13, 2026 12:40 am

Omg $70k for solar. How many years would it take to make that up?

What a waste of capital

Reply to  Derg
August 13, 2026 6:30 am

Nope. Greg got it wrong. It cost $50k to buy and build but the cost to bring power to the property was $60k (not $20k) so solar was the obvious and definitely cost effective choice.

The amount of power they have for their $50k is way overkill for normal use but they’ve allowed for much greater needs in the future including the workshop with welding.

starzmom
Reply to  Gregg Eshelman
August 13, 2026 5:34 am

A friend installed solar a number of years ago. Between multiple subsidies and grants, his $350,000 solar installation cost him between $50,000 and $100,000 (it has been a long time and some numbers elude me now). At the time, his electric bill for his house (big) and farm (also big) was about $1000. He essentially used the grid as a battery–he fed into it in the sunny daytime, and drew from it at night. He figured his payback was going to be 3-5 years. I haven’t asked how it has worked out. But the only way it made sense was getting the grants and subsidies. Without those, it didn’t work out.

Petey Bird
Reply to  starzmom
August 13, 2026 8:33 am

If he had to pay the grid to take his surplus it would be a lot worse.

Reply to  Petey Bird
August 13, 2026 8:50 am

Individuals don’t typically pay for surplus energy when the price goes negative. At least not in Australia. I doubt you’ll find anything like those subsidies anywhere today.

starzmom
Reply to  Petey Bird
August 13, 2026 8:58 am

As I recall, the meter ran backwards, essentially, when the system generated a surplus, and forwards when he was drawing from the grid.

Reply to  starzmom
August 13, 2026 11:39 am

That’s right in principle. But smart meters aren’t that simplistic. Backwards reduces the chargeable cost to the consumer.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Gregg Eshelman
August 13, 2026 6:12 am

That was people making choices, aka liberty and freedom, and did so without other people’s money (aka tax payer government subsidies).

The opposition is primarily to government mandates and command economics.

Petey Bird
Reply to  Gregg Eshelman
August 13, 2026 8:31 am

I am curious about where they get the free diesel and propane. Idaho is pretty far north.
I suspect that they would run on generators half the year.

Reply to  Petey Bird
August 13, 2026 8:45 am

Watch the video. They wouldn’t need to run the generators at all as the solution was way more than they needed…unless he was running the workshop and welding.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Eng_Ian
August 13, 2026 6:08 am

Turn off your electrical devices during the solar eclipse is the best offered solution.

Petey Bird
Reply to  Eng_Ian
August 13, 2026 8:27 am

There is cost, and then there is value. In Europe surplus solar energy has negative pricing.
You have to pay to get rid of it between nations.
Most western nations force utility operators to buy it at a fixed price. It is mostly worthless.

August 12, 2026 3:17 pm

“…enough to power about 45 million homes…”

How many “steel mills” is that? (Did someone mention “24/7”?)

Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
August 12, 2026 4:07 pm

“…enough to power about 45 million homes…””

Or NONE.. for about 2/3 of the day !

Bryan A
Reply to  bnice2000
August 12, 2026 8:00 pm

Powers 22M homes from 8am-10am
Powers 45M homes from 10am-2pm
Powers 22M homes from 2pm-4pm
Powers Zero homes from 4pm-8am
Remind me, when is Peak Demand again?

Erik Magnuson
Reply to  Bryan A
August 12, 2026 9:36 pm

In California, peak demand is typically 7PM. Which, of course, makes your point.

Bryan A
Reply to  Erik Magnuson
August 12, 2026 11:13 pm

Ayup. And you can easily halve/quarter those numbers in Winter and at latitudes higher than 50°(N/S)Lat with numerous Summer days also far reduced.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bryan A
August 13, 2026 6:15 am

You failed to calculate the 24 our average number of homes. 🙂
(22×2 + 45×4 + 22×2) /24 = 11M (11.167 calculated)

Bryan A
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
August 13, 2026 8:17 am

But unfortunately Solar doesn’t deliver an averaged generation at any time (except when Nature decides to deliver the “free fuel”). Only a 2 hour ramp up, a not constant 4 hour peak and a 2 hour fall off with a guaranteed 16 hour of Absolutely Nothing

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bryan A
August 13, 2026 9:52 am

That is quite true.

But using the same marketing techniques and language any claim of powering more that 11M homes is bogus to the point of lying.

August 12, 2026 4:20 pm

Story Tip.

Yet another study linking warming to reduced cloud cover…… not CO2.

Another New Study Links Modern And Past Global Warming To Natural Changes In Cloud Clover, Not CO2

GeorgeInSanDiego
Reply to  bnice2000
August 12, 2026 7:16 pm

“Two-thirds of the global warming since 2001 is sulphur dioxide reduction rather than carbon dioxide increases.”
-Peter Cox, Professor of Climate System Dynamics at the University Of Exeter
Due in large part to the adoption and mandating of Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel Fuel for vehicles and heavy equipment, and Very Low Sulphur Fuel Oil for ships.

Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
August 12, 2026 10:01 pm

Due in large part to the adoption and mandating of the various clean air acts starting in the 1950s.

Hmmm, didn’t the IPCC claim that global warming became detectable in the 1950s?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
August 13, 2026 6:20 am

Not arguing SO2 has an effect, disagree but not going to debate the “2/3s” guess.

Eliminating particulate carbon (aka smoke) had much to do with it, too.

There is a full spectrum of other factors that contribute one way or another.

My point?

The is no single control knob.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bnice2000
August 13, 2026 6:17 am

Anyone with eyes, or who has ever been outside, has experienced the change in temperature when clouds pass over.

The the CO2 to temperature “climate models” have to parameterize clouds is proof positive the models are less that worthless.

Bob
August 12, 2026 4:29 pm

Let us say they are right and solar is cheap. I don’t care how cheap it is if it isn’t producing power because it is cloudy out or surprise the sun has gone down it is completely worthless.

August 12, 2026 4:43 pm

The filthy manufacture and disposal of solar panels

The mining, acid leaching, high tonnage coal use for heat treatment and smelting with associated fumes and silicosis disease from dusts and much more makes solar manufacturing one of the filthiest manufacturing processes ever. At the end of their short life, it costs 3x more to recycle than landfill, so recycling is nearly non-existent. The toxic heavy metals used in parts of the panels leach out over time.

The first step in cleaning silica to produce metallurgical grade silicon is to rinse it with a mixture of one part acid to one part water. This process is called acid leaching and is used to remove impurities such as iron, aluminium, and calcium from the silica. The purified silica is then heated with carbon in the form of coal or charcoal in an electrode arc furnace at a temperature of 1500-2000°C to produce metallurgical grade silicon that is 98% pure.

The hydrometallurgical purification method is done with different types of acids as solvents to refine MG-Si. Some of these acids are hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, sulfuric acid, and nitric acid. These are often used in combination with each other as a solvent for purification of MG-Si can be used. These are of used then dumped in toxic lakes.

The majority of impurities contributing to this absorption band are entirely eliminated after the third leaching.
Note: Yes, three (3) separate leaching steps! Toxic acids at each step.

Waste
Due to the rapid growth in manufacturing in China and the lack of regulatory controls, there have been reports of the dumping of waste silicon tetrachloride. Normally the waste silicon tetrachloride is recycled but this adds to the cost of manufacture as it needs to be heated to 1,800 °F (980 °C).

Lark
August 12, 2026 5:49 pm

It is the cheapest energy source …in the Socialist sense, where anything you can make others pay for is counted as free.
(And when the media say it’s simultaneously nearly-free and subsidy-requiring, that’s clearly the definition they’re using.)

Cost of storage, backup, management, connections, blackouts — free.
Environmental damage in manufacture, construction, operation and disposal — free.
Land use, bird and bat deaths, palm-greasing, politics, bureaucracy — free.
(And if you are a social parasite who considers any of the above costs to be benefits, better than free.)

August 12, 2026 6:40 pm

In the lead picture, all that destruction will have created shards of glass and other material that will be impossible to remove from the soil.

The land has been rendered totally useless for livestock, and probably crops, for decades. !

Reply to  bnice2000
August 13, 2026 11:47 am

I assume this was some sort of sarcasm? If you can’t tell an AI picture from reality then life is going to increasing be less nice to you.

August 12, 2026 9:01 pm

Story Tip.

The High Arctic is cold .. 36 of 41 days from July 1 in the DMI High Arctic have set new daily cold means.

comment image

Denis
August 13, 2026 2:46 am

It would have been informative if this article pointed out the reasons that solar is expensive despite its low generation cost.

heme212
Reply to  Denis
August 13, 2026 6:02 am

because generation cost is only one small item. Installation costs are high. land footprint huge. The electronics wear out and remain expensive. batteries also wear out and remain expensive. the sun doesn’t shine 24/7 so a backup power supply is still needed. Occasional hail storms wipe out installations (see scottsbluff, NE), panels never put out more than 80% of their rated wattage.

those are the big ones.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Denis
August 13, 2026 6:26 am

Small nit. It is not low generation cost.
It is low/zero fuel cost.

Words matter.

Funny that renewable in the context of electrical generation means never having to replenish fuel.

However, the earth turns and the solar “fuel” disappears and is replenished the following dawn.
Therefore solar voltaic is not renewable.

However, the wind dies down to zero and the WTG “fuel” disappears. It is replenished when weather conditions develop that are favorable to wind flowing.
Therefore wind turbines are now renewable.

Sparta Nova 4
August 13, 2026 5:53 am

That photograph absolutely demonstrates just exactly how “safe and effect” are SV farms.

August 13, 2026 6:13 am

Or anything good should not need subsidies.

You can see how it happens. You are opening a small shop. You mortgage your house. Lease the premises. Stock it. Open it. After a few weeks, you realize that it is not making enough to pay its way. You consider opening longer hours, but the extra wages will not be covered by the extra sales you make.
You look around, and you discover solar subsidies. Arr, that’s what I can do, you think.

Your selling pitch is to say that you open for 8 hours a day. But costs are such that you need income for 24 hours a day. If you can be subsidized, your 24-hour income would cover it, and you would make a profit.

You develop a plan. You tell everyone that your store is a safe place on the way home from two schools, so it needs to be kept funded.

You place a few hundred notes in some brown envelopes and drop them into the hands of a few politicians. The law is quickly changed, and you are now subsidized 24×7 even though you are open and selling for only 8 hours per day.

Sounds familiar?