I’ve always looked at it this way. Any new power source will cost so much to build. You have to have reliable backup sources for the “green energy” projects. There may be times when power production will have to come only directly from conventional power plants; if there is no wind & no sunshine. Since you would have to rely directly on conventional sources, why not build that only, thereby saving what what would be spent on solar & wind which can only be intermittent at the best. Seems to me that total expenditure for power sources would be less if only spent on the reliable conventional plants. It has served well with few problems in the past. States that insist on utilizing “green energy” to depend on are going to be stuck with high priced energy from nearby states(if it is even available) when their wind & solar both fail.
Excellent article. Even Michael Moore thinks Green energy is a scam, see his documentary “The Planet of the Humans”
What you say makes sense, but the main power source these days is natural gas. The thing is gas plants are pretty cheap to build and keep running, but fuel costs are high.
A plant that costs $500 million to build can burn a $1 billion in fuel per year.
It can make a lot of sense to spend $500 million on the gas plant and $500 million on wind turbines next door. The wind will be intermittent, but if it defers only half the fuel cost you’ve broken even in a year.