Today's IQ Test: Which Is Cheaper To Produce Electricity, Wind/Solar Or Fossil Fuels?

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.

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 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.

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.

Joseph McCarthy was an enemy of Communism. He should have been lionized in American history, not attacked and dismembered by it.

The Left were the ones primarily infiltrated by the Communists during that time frame. He exposed it, and they went to war on him, all the way up to Truman himself. Disgusting.

Most people don't know that about Truman.

I know this is long, but I think it provides some KEY context in two areas currently of concern to us: First, the machinations we see today on the part of the Left and how they relate to the current sets of Leftist scandals running the gamut from the Russiagate through the , and secondly, the obfuscation, behind the scenes manipulating, and outright lying on the part of the Left, and how it shows the Left of 2025 is the much the same in any ways to the Left of 1953. As it turns out, much more amenable to open violence. Sadly.

(NOTE: If this is too long to take the time and read or absorb, I won't be offended...:). I occasionally post things like this for anyone who shows an interest in it, so even an isolated piece of information can be very useful to you, if that is all you get out of it.)

Also, it both allows us to show both how McCarthy was unfairly demonized (he should be a celebrated American hero) and Truman was propagandized by the Left as an amazing Cold Warrior who fought Communism at every turn.

I hope you can take the time to read this somewhat long explanation to have some more context on McCarthy, Truman, and the Left in general. Hope this is interesting and helps. Much is taken from books I have read such as "Witness" and various books on Venona, but primarily from M. Stanton Evans in his landmark book . His viewpoint is interesting, because he is one of the few writers on events relating to McCarthy who was not only there and reporting at the time (albeit a cub reporter) and saw events with his own eyes, but did original research on the events, not simply regurgitating from what other people with a specific Leftist agenda have written and published.

I used to admire Truman, but his conduct with respect to the issue of Communists in the US government (State Department) in general and Joseph McCarthy in particular has prompted me to lose 90% of the respect I may have held for him.

There were two things in particular, that really disgusted me. (From the explanations provided by M. Stanton Evans in his landmark book ):

The lesser of those two things that bothered me were Truman's treatment of Harry Dexter White who in 1946, Truman appointed as the top American presence to the International Monetary Fund, which was a big deal at the time.

Harry Dexter White had been a top aide to the Treasury Secretary Morganthau, was a key figure in big global groundwork laying activities at the time, and was key to putting people in various posts in Treasury and other departments.

He was also a key spy in a Soviet spy ring, identified first to the FBI by Whittaker Chambers, later identified separately by Elizabeth Bentley to the FBI when she came clean, and lastly, by the Venona decrypts when the Cold War ended.

The entire matter came to light in 1953 when normal Americans wondered how someone like Harry Dexter White could have risen to the position he had held and it blew up into a political scandal complete with political hearings. Truman openly lied about how it happened.

First Truman said the FBI failed to inform him that Harry Dexter White was a spy.
- There were apparently many things that would royally piss off FBI Director Hoover, but one in particular was saying he was not thorough and failed to do his job. In this case, Hoover made himself available to testify (unasked) in front of the Senate Hearings in 1953, and produced carefully archived memos from the FBI to the White House, complete with custody chains, to show that not only had the Treasury and Truman Justice Department been told via multiple detailed and specific memos, the Truman White House been notified several times (INCLUDING A PERSONAL LETTER FROM HOOVER TO TRUMAN) beginning 6 months before Truman appointed Harry Dexter White to the International Money Fund in April 1946.
Second, Truman said that once he found out, he took prompt and effective action against Harry Dexter White.
- Simply not true. President Harry Truman never, EVER did anything to publicly reveal, limit promotion or fire/prosecute Harry Dexter White.
Third, Truman said once he knew Harry Dexter White was a spy, he allowed the appointment in 1946 to go through so "he could keep an eye on him and cooperate with the FBI in its investigation".
- Hoover was visibly angered at this open lie by Truman. From the testimony in front of the Senate where he notably addressed this specifically:
  
  "...At no time was the FBI party to any arrangement to promote Harry Dexter White, and at no time did the FBI give its approval to such an agreement..." and went out of his way to further note that "White's move to the IMF impeded the FBI inquiry as the Bureau's investigative powers didn't extend to global bodies [such as the IMF]"
- To disgust me even more, Truman personally wrote a letter of congratulation to Harry Dexter White after his promotion, and a full six months after being first notified by the FBI of the security issues with Harry Dexter White. In this "flowery" letter where then President Truman expressed regret Harry Dexter White was leaving Treasury, he said:
  
  "...my regret is lessened...in the knowledge that you leave the Treasury only to assume new duties for the government [at IMF]...In that position you will be able to carry forward the work you so ably began at Bretton Woods [My note: no doubt hand in hand with another known spy Alger Hiss in their instrumental efforts to create the United Nations!] I am confident that in your new position you will add to the distinction of your already distinguished career with the Treasury..."
One might ask themselves, what should I make of that letter from a man who has been personally delivered a letter six months prior from then Director Hoover DIRECTLY addressed to then President Truman which explained in depth the serious security concerns Hoover felt about this Soviet Spy in the high levels of the Treasury Department?

The thing that DID bother me the MOST about Truman was his shameful behavior regarding the investigation by Senator McCarthy into the security risks at the State Department and the handling and access to the State Department Security Files.

As McCarthy knew (and was subsequently verified by Venona decrypts time and time again) the State Department in the 1930's through 1950 was riddled with Soviet agents. In his attempts to clean them up, he attempted to obtain access to the security files of State Department employees, which were both physically kept and maintained by the security team employed by the State Department itself.

Or so he and many others thought.

During the Senate Tydings Committee Hearings in the Summer of 1950 McCarthy and his committee requested delivery to them for their review the security files on specific employees at State (AS WAS BOTH THEIR JOB AND RIGHT TO DO, THAT RIGHT BOLSTERED BY A MANDATE FROM THE SENATE IN FULL TO DO) and they got a song and dance, first from Tydings, then from the Truman White House.

McCarthy was having great difficulty getting cooperation from State. This was in 1950, and McCarthy suspected that the files being examined by Senators on the committed had things removed that should not have been since they could see references to documents in the files that were missing from the files.Their suspicions dated back in 1947, where they had proof that someone at the State Department was scrubbing the files on people, illegally removing material from files outside the normal procedures that audit handling, so they asked the FBI examine the files.
- And here is the part that really burns me the most: Leading up to the kerfuffle with the files, the Truman White House vacuumed all the relevant State Department Personnel Security files and had them brought over to the White House where he isolated them, sequestered them, and refused to release them. Truman did this.
  - First, Truman refused to release the files to the Senate Subcommittee.
  - Second, he would only release summaries to the committee, not the files themselves.
  - Third, from President Truman's Legal Team (as relayed to Mickey Ladd at the FBI):
    - If they insist on viewing the raw files, they will only be able to do it in the White House, in the direct presence of Truman himself
    - The Senators will be forbidden from taking any notes whatsoever during these viewing sessions under the watchful eye of Truman himself.
    - Legal Counsel for the committee or its members will not be allowed to be present.
  - I have to defy ANYONE to read this section above, and not come to the conclusion there was a deliberate, orchestrated, and in your face obstruction of the investigation by the Senate Subcommittee into these matters. It wasn't Executive Privilege. It was the equivalent Andrew Jackson's famous quote about his intent to ignore a Supreme Court decision: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

As you can see, I believe that Truman was far, FAR more interested in protecting the interests of the Democrat Party in general, and his administration's conduct in particular than it was in protecting the National Security of The United States. To him, it was preferable to have Soviet agents burrowed into the decision making apparatus of our national institutions such as the State Department and the Military (see the 1954 Army-McCarthy Hearings for more evidence of this truth). I have, over the years, come to see him as primarily a political hack similar to the majority of politicians we see today in the "deep state" which I have come to accept as well.

I have to disagree with the entirety of your post.

I should point out that, it was General Marshall that McCarthy went after (who was the Secretary of State when we "Lost China") He didn't accuse Marshall of being a Communist directly, but inferred so strongly that his actions were serving the interests not of the American Citizenry but of other interests around the globe, that the accusation was made.

If you are interested, you can download the eBook of McCarthy's ghostwritten book here: EBOOK LINK: America's Retreat From Victory-The Story of George Catlett Marshall

I also dictated this audiobook version of that, if you are interested, it is a free download: AUDIOBOOK LINK: America's Retreat From Victory-The Story of George Catlett Marshall

As for Eisenhower, I lost respect for him as well. He was part of what we would call today the "Deep State", and he went after McCarthy as well, because he thought problems of Communist infiltration of our government should have been handled by...the government. But he and his administration did what all Deep State governments do-he did nothing, absolutely nothing about it. It was far more important to protect the appearance of the American Government of which Eisenhower was the leader when he became President. If you look at Eisenhower's record in the military, it was to protect the Army against all criticism. He believed, and became intractable when it was attacked politically. So, he and his administration finished the job started by Roosevelt and Truman, and swept it all under the rug.

And in the end, he did far more good than harm.

McCarthy rang the bell about Communists in the government WHEN NOBODY ELSE WAS DOING IT, and paid for it with his reputation and eventually, his health when the government was weaponized against him in conjunction with a hostile media.

Before McCarthy arrived on the scene in conjunction with the preceding HUAC which McCarthy had nothing to do with, Americans viewed their fellow Americans who dabbled in Communism as eccentrics, prone to harmless youthful political explorations which were largely viewed with a degree of tolerance, in the full expectation that they would "grow out of it". After McCarthy took his stand, it became publicly disreputable to associate with or dabble in Communism. That gave us 10-20 years to set things right, and it isn't McCarthy's fault that people and our own government didn't listen to him. Leftists and Marxists of all stripes began to ooze into the public light in the late Sixties and early Seventies, where it lost the stigma. Look where we are today. We have open Marxists at all levels of our governments, Federal, State, and Local, and none of them are stigmatized for it. Obama was an open Marxist and proud of it.

It isn't McCarthy's fault. He took the bullet for ringing the bell. I venerate him for doing just that. And I wholly disagree that McCarthy was anything comparable to Marjorie Taylor Greene. She is nothing compared to him.

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.