Posted on 12/15/2025 5:06:56 AM PST by MtnClimber
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.
Oh, yes.
Door #3, hydroelectric.
Washington State has hydro power like the Grand Coulee dam on the Columbia.
Hydro electric power is the least expensive long term. Meaning, once you build the dam.
Maybe once every few decades you replace the turbines. This is also why aluminum is made in WA. Cheap, reliable electricity.
The first hydro electric power plant was designed and built by Nickoli Tesla(alternating current)and George Westinghouse at Niagara Falls, NY. It continues to make very cheap power because the Great Lakes continue to get plenty of water flowing down hill to the ocean.
This is also why Quebec hydro(St Lawrence River) has more power than they will ever need. So they are building a transmission line from PQ through ME to get to the New England grid. Where they have closed nuclear plants in MA & CT and only want to replace them with solar panels and wind mills.
Texas has experienced large scale blackouts all occurring during cold weather extremes when the wind turbines were idled by lack of wind or freezing equipment and when fossil fueled backups were inadequate to meet demand.
I could never understand lying about Senator Joseph McCarthy when the truth was so devastating. Like now the way to deal with the Democrats is to “weaponize” DOJ by directing it to impartially enforce the law.
Solar panels are great for an off grid house.
It is not hard to build your own solar array.
There are dozens of videos on YouTube about people that have done it.
Most end up buying the panels, inverters and other equipment from Mission Solar because they make their products in the USA.
I considered doing it myself. I would NOT put them on my roof. I would build a freestanding array point due south and angled. I would have rented an excavator or ditch witch to bring the power line to my house. Then hired an electrician to hook everything up. NH has a NET METERING agreement with the Utility Eversource. That means they will pay you $.06/KWH you produce. Based on that I figured it would pay off within 5-7 years.
This all got VETOED by the boss who said I don’t want to look out the window at a bunch of ugly solar panels.
She used stronger words than that.
Ask an AI how much more magnetic field is in a neodymium magnet vs AlNiCo. Or trust me. It’s 10X.
That means 1/10th the electricity from non neodymium magnet-based generators vs neodymium based.
2024 US imports from China 7500 metric tons of neodymium magnets. 2024 US production of neodymium magnets — 0 tons.
For drones, range will be 1/10th. Ditto Tomahawks and the electric motor powered guidance fins. The battery dies much faster with an old style magnet. You can’t build new ones without total redesign, bigger batteries (and more weight so again, shorter range).
Pop on over to Google Earth and have a look at the gargantuan Chinese mining and processing complex at Baotou.
We have nothing. For about 10 years.
In that regard, there is a lurking cost of hydropower. The dams accumulate silt behind their face. At some point, the ability to produce power must be reduced. The solution would be dredging operations of unheard of proportions.
In that regard, there is a lurking cost of hydropower. The dams accumulate silt behind their face. At some point, the ability to produce power must be reduced. The solution would be dredging operations of unheard of proportions.
Which Is Cheaper To Produce Electricity, Wind, Solar Fossil Fuels, hydro, geothermal, nuclear, relative to amount of long term production steady output, efficiency, downtime, new construction, area of land waste disposal (including parts) , staff, maintenance (did I miss anything?), which is most ecologically friendly in modern construction regardless of location?
Its response,
For pure generation cost, new onshore wind and utility‑scale solar are usually cheapest per kWh today, but for steady 24/7 output and minimal ecological impact over the full life cycle, nuclear and (good‑sited) hydro and geothermal rank best; fossil fuels are generally more expensive long‑term once fuel and pollution are counted.i2massociates+2
Cost and steady output
Levelized cost (new builds, US, unsubsidized): Recent Lazard analyses show typical mid‑range LCOE roughly like this (very approximate): utility‑scale solar and onshore wind often in the $30–$60/MWh band, gas combined cycle in a similar or slightly higher range depending on fuel prices, while new coal and nuclear tend to be higher ($80+ and often well above $100/MWh for nuclear).lazard+2
Capacity factor (how steady they run): Nuclear has ~90–93% capacity factor, geothermal ~70%, hydro and wind often ~30–35% (site‑dependent), solar ~20–25%, gas combined cycle ~50–60%, coal ~40–50% in recent US data. This means a 1 MW nuclear plant produces about 3–4× as much annual energy as 1 MW of solar.statista+2
Land use, waste, and staffing
Land area: Solar and wind use far more land per unit of average output than nuclear or gas; large hydro uses vast land area (flooded reservoirs). Nuclear and gas plants have the smallest physical footprints per kWh; wind farms spread widely but allow other uses (grazing, crops) between turbines.rinnovabili+1
Waste:
Nuclear waste is tiny in volume but highly radioactive; it is heavily contained and managed, with very small mass per TWh.nrel
Fossil fuels emit huge diffuse waste (CO₂, particulates, NOₓ, SO₂, ash) directly into air and land—orders of magnitude larger climate and health impact per kWh than any other option.nrel
Wind/solar waste is mostly steel, concrete, glass, and some rare materials from panels/turbines and inverters; recyclable in principle but currently only partly recycled.
Staff/maintenance: Nuclear and coal plants are staff‑heavy and complex; gas CCGT moderate; wind and solar are relatively low‑staff once built, though turbines and inverters need periodic replacement. Geothermal and hydro are in between, with long‑lived civil structures but ongoing mechanical maintenance.i2massociates+1
Ecological friendliness (life‑cycle emissions)
Meta‑analyses and NREL life‑cycle studies find wind, solar, and nuclear all in the very low range of life‑cycle greenhouse gas emissions, typically on the order of a few to a few tens of grams CO₂‑equivalent per kWh (well under 50 g/kWh), versus hundreds of grams for gas and around 800–1000+ g/kWh for coal.journalistsresource+2
One synthesis gives representative medians: wind ≈ 10–30 gCO₂e/kWh, solar ≈ 20–50, nuclear ≈ 5–20, while coal is roughly 20× higher than these technologies; hydro is low‑carbon but can have higher emissions where reservoirs cause significant methane from biomass decay.carbonbrief+2
Non‑carbon impacts vary by siting:
Hydro can heavily disrupt river ecosystems and fisheries.
Wind can affect birds/bats if poorly sited.
Solar has land‑use and mining impacts but low operating pollution.
Nuclear’s main ecological risk is from rare accidents and long‑lived waste, not routine operation, which is very low‑emission.journalistsresource+2
Putting it together
If the metric is “cheapest per MWh for new capacity” in many modern grids, onshore wind and utility‑scale solar win, especially with subsidies—but they are intermittent and need backup/storage or firm capacity, which adds system‑level cost. For “most efficient, high, steady output with low lifetime ecological impact,” nuclear, geothermal, and well‑managed hydro come out strongest, with wind and solar excellent low‑carbon complements but not stand‑alone 24/7 sources. Fossil fuels remain dispatchable and flexible but are generally worse on both long‑run cost (once fuel and carbon impacts are counted) and ecology.statista+4
Table 5.6.A. Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State, September 2025 and 2024 (Cents per Kilowatthour)
Census Division
and State
September 2025 September 2024 September 2025 September 2024 September 2025 September 2024 September 2025 September 2024 September 2025 September 2024 New England 29.54 29.12 21.84 21.07 17.13 16.54 11.97 12.46 24.22 23.68 Connecticut 30.48 33.05 21.95 23.38 17.99 19.56 17.63 16.82 25.19 27.01 Maine 27.98 26.26 21.14 17.67 15.41 11.54 -- -- 22.67 19.85 Massachusetts 30.41 29.26 22.08 20.64 18.52 18.32 8.01 8.72 24.76 23.76 New Hampshire 27.82 24.93 20.81 19.94 16.00 15.65 -- -- 22.70 21.10 Rhode Island 28.30 28.71 22.43 22.42 19.53 20.45 23.55 23.08 24.51 24.78 Vermont 23.92 22.46 20.52 19.21 12.44 11.73 -- -- 19.74 18.63
- https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a
If all had gone according to plan, the Constitution pipeline would be carrying fracked gas 124 miles from the shale gas fields of Pennsylvania through streams, wetlands, and backyards across the Southern Tier of New York until west of Albany. There it would join two existing pipelines, one that extends into New England and the other to the Ontario border as part of a vast network that moves fracked gas throughout the northeastern United States and Canada. For a while, everything unfolded as expected. When the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the project in 2014, the U.S. was in the midst of a fracking boom that would make it the world’s largest producer of natural gas and crude oil... Yet the developers did not anticipate landowners, neighborhood residents, community leaders, and anti-fracking activists statewide forging a coalition to kill the pipeline. In a landmark defeat, New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation denied the project’s water-quality certificate in 2016, leading Williams to abandon it in early 2020.The defeat of the Constitution pipeline marked the start of an uncertain era for interstate pipelines in New York and beyond. The company behind the Northeast Energy Direct pipeline, which would have carried shale gas through New York into New England, abandoned the project just days before the state rejected the Constitution pipeline. In 2017, developers walked away from the Pilgrim pipelines, which would have funneled fracked oil from New York to New Jersey. In May, state officials denied a key permit for the Northeast Supply Enhancement pipeline, commonly referred to as the Williams pipeline, between New Jersey and New York City. - https://grist.org/fix/advocacy/how-activists-shut-down-key-pipeline-projects-new-york/Simply put, natural gas pipelines that could bring abundant gas supplies from Appalachia’s Marcellus shale region have been blocked at every turn over many years. ..All six New England states rank among the top ten highest electricity rates in the continental U.S...It’s also worth noting that a ban on LNG exports wouldn’t increase the amount of U.S. LNG available to the Northeast. That’s because the century-old Jones Act—which limits trade between U.S. ports to American-flagged ships only—effectively prohibits LNG imports from the Gulf Coast. Instead, New England pays top dollar for cargoes from Trinidad, Nigeria, and occasionally even Russia.-https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2022/02/18/northeast_pipeline_blockade_delivers_trifecta_of_bad_outcomes_dependence_on_fuel_oil_higher_prices_and_more_foreign_energy_imports_817354.htmlincreased natural gas pipeline capacity into New England, though clearly the most feasible solution to the region’s electricity shortages, is not going to happen.Political opposition is the reason, both in the New England states themselves but also in New York, through which most potential pipelines would have to pass. As it is, New York is starving itself of needed gas, and is even less likely to agree to serve as a conduit through which gas moves on to New England states. - https://cei.org/blog/more-new-england-natural-gas-pipelines-needed-but-unlikely/;
Thanks for pointing out the silting problem of hydropower. I hadn’t considered that. Any ideas on the costs and frequency to do so? I imagine it’s case by case, so any ideas on the averages?
This is the thing grok did subtracting subsidies from the cost analysis. I stated subsidies are the cost because the money comes from the taxpayer/consumer.
I don’t understand most of the answers to my questions but on all questions the answer was wind turbines. I hope you or someone can ask the same questions and find the holes because no way wind turbines including offshore wind could be sustainable including the plans for California to be green by 2035
I sell power to the grid. I have to pay some extra fees to do so. Thus I net about $100/year from selling power to the grid. The main benefit of my solar is reducing how much power I pull from the grid to begin with. My payback period is early 2032 -- 11 years after I installed the first part of the solar system to play with it for a year, or 9 and a half years after I added onto it based on the math of studying it for a year. That assumes a 3% inflation rate on the energy costs I avoid, no payback for selling power to the grid (in case I decide to switch that off), and the interest I pay on the low fixed-rate loan I took out to buy and install the solar and do other energy upgrades to the home. If I keep selling power to the grid, count it as gravy on the top.
And you hit the nail on the head with a lot of us buying Mission Solar because they're made in the U.S. I bought mine before the Inflation Raising Act changed the solar incentive to expect made in the USA. I simply like supporting US manufacturers. The same for my Sol-Ark inverters being made in the U.S. Now that the OBBB took away the solar tax credit beginning 2026, I fully expect the prices to go down. The tax credit artificially inflates prices just like everything else the govt "helps" us with.
Unfortunately, interest rates aren't as low as they were when I took out my loan. So it'd be harder for someone to replicate what I did, which is replacing sky high energy costs with a loan payment.
Well, it looks like what I have long suspected may be true. Someone(s) in the alternate industry energy business may have fudged on the truth just a little. Fortunately I am in a part of the country as shown on the map to be one of the lower energy cost areas and even it is none too cheap. From the map it looks like part of the east coast, Calif., & a couple other areas are getting royally “violated”. Now, considering what we pay & what I have learned about this area, I am not exactly certain that we aren’t paying a little bit of a premium as well, as they do not break down our light bills as to whether part of it is not for “green energy” as well. I do know that if if you must pay for more than one source of electrical energy that it is naturally going to cost more. I also know that if we try to look up our actual prices per KWH, it is deceiving as we pay more than one rate figured into the total. That in itself is deceptive as they will advertise for the consumer only the lowest part of the total rate costs.
No ideas, because I have not pursued the subject beyond just knowing it can be a problem sometime. The people in charge should at least come up with a plan.
I think we can rest assured that the powers that be will NOT choose for the lowest possible consumer rates.
Still, I think how much wind/solar are used to generate your power has little to do with what you pay. For example, my local electrical co-op has its own crews and infrastructure, but it buys it's power from two bigger providers. There have been years they were the lowest cost per KWH in the nation. Yet, they can sell me power cheaper than I can buy it directly from the bigger providers.
Might point out that gas power plants are extremely efficient in terms of land use. Thousands of acres for wind, hundreds of acres for solar, versus maybe 20 acres for a gas plant.
Also omitted from these "analyses" about wind power is the maintenance costs. The wind turbines are usually installed in hostile environments like deserts, mountain passes, off shore, etc. These locations require nearly constant maintenance to keep the rotating components clean and lubricated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.