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.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Manhattan Contrarian Ping
And the costs of getting rid of the wind and solar generators, plus the spent batteries, is never included in these comparisons. What do you do with a 90’ blade when it is worn out? What about these thousands of spent blades and solar collectors that are just sitting there, taking up space and looking UGLY? The Government (Meaning us) will have to clean up these messes soon. There is no way solar and wind compete if they don’t have the subsidies.
I’ve discovered a really cheap way:
Just cover the entire planet in shag carpet and we all scrub our feet across it at the same time...................
The cheapest would be any production method that doesn’t involve Democrat graft & corruption.
Um, no.
The ‘iq’ test fails when it poses a rhetorical question.
Thus, this can only be directed at both apologists & believers, neither of which group will accept the premise to violate their ‘religion’.
More evidence of the ‘true pandemic’...
I asked grok this very question the other day. The machine said per kwh it’s Wind turbines. Not nat gas, mini nukes, clean coal or a combo, nope all wind turbines. It’ll be cheaper, grok said so.
“I asked grok this very question the other day. The machine said per kwh it’s Wind turbines”
I have read where a wind turbine can never make back the energy it takes to create it.
When you meet a person who realizes that the entire Democratic agenda, be it “renewable energy”, defund the police, globalism, socialism, the celebration of homosexuality and all its permutations, etc etc is all meant to destroy the American nation, then you have met a person with a high political IQ.
You can’t store sun or wind to use during power spikes. You can stockpile coal.
This one really made me sit up: “LCOE” is the thoroughly fraudulent “levelized cost of electricity” measure that simply excludes all the ancillary costs of running a grid on renewables..."
That's just stupid. I read that and thought "Who would be stupid enough to swallow that as a metric", and then, about a half a second later realized "Oh. Wait. They don't care at all if anyone does or doesn't swallow it."
They are simply throwing the lie out there, knowing full well the metric is fraudulent, and just letting the lie go around and around and around and around the world, over and over again, knowing the truth is never going to get its pants on. This lie will be read by millions of people all over the world, and perhaps 5-10% of them will view that lie of a conclusion critically. And a very, very minute fraction of that 5-10% is going to say anything to anyone. It will be parroted in schools and colleges to minds of mush, it will be used by politicians to create "green" policy.
The example of how the Left works when it want to use lies to achieve its goals is their treatment of Senator Joseph McCarthy in books written since the early Fifties is illustrative. There is very little "original research" in the books about Joseph McCarthy. Almost all the books vilify him, and almost all the books that slander him with lies and deception do so by referencing earlier books that lie about him, and so on. It is a literary form of the Russian Matryoshka dolls that next inside each other. Nobody ever traces the references to references to references to original research. Nobody will ever get sued, sanctioned, or punished in any way for creating and disseminating those lies. So the Lie becomes the Truth.
And so it is with "green energy". This is an outright fallacious representation using deliberately deceptive measures. This type of analysis will end up on documentaries, television panel discussions, high school and college courses on environmentalism, and in Congressional studies.
They have done the calculus, concluded that the small, isolated cries of "Fraud!" will be swept away in the tsunami of information that sweeps across the consciousness of people every day.
And the Left will tell any lie they deem necessary to advance their goals, because they feel with a religious fervor that they are in the right on this, and any means is justified by the ends.
If the article takes twenty paragraphs for an answer, I’m not going to believe it anyway.
Y’all should probably realize long about now that none of those sources of energy are going to become electricity without Chinese neodymium magnets.
US import of these were 7500 metric tons last year from China. Import totals are down about 40% for this year. There was no signed agreement about neodymium out of the trade meeting in Korea.
I thought it was interesting that Texas and Iowa are maxed out in solar generation.
“Ooh, ooh, ooh! Call on me!”
Lies, lies, and more lies. There is absolutely no contest. Fossil fuels are by far more efficient, more cost effective, less invasive, and more reliable than any other source of energy except maybe hydro. Leftist loonies don’t talk about the pollution from mining materials for solar, the 700 gallons or more of oil necessary to lube wind turbines that has to be changed. Oil leaks? You bet. Blades need to be sprayed with an anti-freeze before a snow or ice storm. Where does the residual go? How many birds including eagles die? What a complete fraud.
I get the point you make, but...there ARE options for storage of wind and solar energy for usage when there is no wind or no sun, or to draw on when the grid usage goes up.
The problem is, those “storage” options are prohibitively expensive. Granted, if one uses the fallacious and deliberately deceptive LCOE that gets around this annoying issue of affordability (by simply excluding costs like backup, storage, and extra transmission) then...TAH DAH! The “affordability” of those solutions become moot because they have simply done a prestidigitator’s trick to hide the main issue of solar and wind “affordability” from the consciousness of the Rubses.
If you don’t see those costs, then...they just aren’t there. Nice.
So, you can’t “stockpile” sun or wind for when they aren’t there, but you CAN produce energy from them while they ARE there and “stockpile” that energy in the form of electric storage systems like large battery arrays, but...it just can’t be done on a large enough scale with bankrupting us even further.
I think you would agree with it, your tagline indicates you would. Read it to the end, and I think you will agree. It is an excellent article and supports your view of energy, if I interpret your tagline correctly.
You are correct, and that is the elephant in the room.
The term “LCOE” mentioned in the article is nothing but unicorn farts.
All correct.
The most fundamental issue of all of them is: without a huge influx of transmission infrastructure, energy storage arrays, backup fossil fuel generators ready to jump into production at a second’s notice, and all the rest of that expensive pap, solar and wind power are incompatible with the current iteration of the energy grid that expands and contracts on a second by second basis, a grid that must by nature operate in a level fashion by having energy providing sources shut down to stop the flow into a grid that is already too full of unused energy, or have energy dumped into the grid if the demand is too high.
Solar and wind, without gargantuan influxes of money and infrastructure (apart from the already expensive wind turbines and solar panel farms) simply cannot live as a vital part of the currently constructed grid. They are fun “nice to have” things, like making hay when the sun is shining, but as a vital adjunct, they are useless.
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.