Davin News Server

The Real Cost of Wind and Solar
By Norman Rogers

The main problem with either wind or solar is that they generate electricity erratically, depending on the wind or sunshine. In 
contrast, a fossil-fuel plant can generate electricity predictably upon request. Blackouts are very expensive for society, so 
grid operators and designers go to a lot of trouble to make sure that blackouts are rare. The electrical grid should have spare 
capacity sufficient to meet the largest demand peaks even when some plants are out of commission. Plants in spinning reserve 
status stand by ready to take over if a plant trips (breaks down). Injecting erratic electricity into the grid means that other 
plants have to seesaw output to balance the ups and downs of wind or solar.

Adding wind or solar to a grid does not mean that existing fossil fuel plants can be retired. Often, neither wind nor solar is 
working and at those times a full complement of fossil fuel plants, or sometimes nuclear or hydro plants, must be available. Both 
wind and solar have pronounced seasonality. During low output times, as for summer wind, the fossil-fuel plants are carrying more 
of the load. Of course, solar stops working as the sun sets.

Wind behaves erratically hour to hour. Even though the Texas 18, 000-megawatt system has thousands of turbines spread over a wide 
area, the net output is erratic changing by thousands of megawatts in a single hour. These shifts must be balanced by fossil-fuel 
plants slewing their output up and down to compensate and keep load matched to generation.

Even very sunny southwest cities have 50 or more cloudy days per year, stopping or reducing solar generation. Wind turbines are 
very sensitive to wind speed. A 10% change in wind speed will change power output by 30%, amplifying the erratic nature of wind.

The big picture is that when wind or solar is added to a grid it is supplemental power. No coal or gas plants are eliminated. 
Those plants have to stay in place to handle periods when wind and solar are not producing electricity. This does not stop claims 
that wind or solar is replacing fossil fuel, but it is fuel that is replaced, not fossil-fuel plants. When wind or solar is 
producing, the fossil fuel plants are throttled back and they use less fuel. If, for example, a coal plant was closed when wind 
was added to the grid, the safety margin would be compromised.

Viewed from the effect on the economy, adding wind or solar electricity provides the benefit of reduced fuel consumption in 
backup fossil fuel plants. This saving in fuel amounts to about $15 per megawatt hour, the cost of natural gas to generate a 
megawatt hour of electricity. The cost of coal is similar. The backup fossil-fuel plant still has to have its full staff and may 
have more costly maintenance due to the up-down style of operation forced by the introduction of erratic energy. If the renewable 
energy costs more than $15 per megawatt hour, then it is not competitive. Wind or solar power actually costs around $80 per 
megawatt hour.

How can I claim that wind or solar cost $80 when power purchase agreements at $25 per megawatt hour are often touted in the 
press? Even at $25 the wind or solar is far from competitive. The gap between $80 and $25 is accounted for by subsidies. The $10 
difference between $25 and $15 is also a subsidy because the purchaser is paying $25 for the electricity that could be generated 
in a backup fossil fuel plant, that already exists and that must exist, for $15. What are the subsidies that lower the $80 cost 
to the publicized $25?

The biggest and most important subsidy is not an explicit subsidy but a mandate. Thirty states have renewable portfolio 
standards. These are laws that require the utilities to supply a certain percentage of renewable power. For example, California 
has a law that 60% of its power must be renewable by 2030. The consequence of the mandate is that the utility has to grant 
whatever terms are required to convince investors to build the renewable power plants. In practice this results in the utility 
promising to purchase all the power generated for 25 years at a fixed rate. The contract is signed before a shovel of dirt is 
moved. Forcing utilities to buy renewable power puts the suppliers of renewable power in an advantageous position. The subsidy 
that reduces the cost from $80 to $25 are federal explicit subsidies, better financing, and lower required rate of return that 
results from having a 25-year contract in hand from a credit worthy utility. There is a federal tax credit that pays up to 30% of 
the plants cost. Additionally, there is a tax subsidy called tax equity financing that allows a highly taxed partner to the 
investor to divert money from the federal treasury to the project. This subsidy depends on special depreciation rules enacted by 
congress to subsidize renewable energy.

Wind or solar does not use fuel. The cost of the electricity is mostly determined by the capital cost amortized over the life of 
the plant. That in turn depends on the interest rate or discount factor. That factor is dramatically better due to the 25-year 
contract. If you take away the subsidies, renewable electricity, wind or solar, will cost about $80 per megawatt hour. Such 
comparisons are still dubious because there are no unsubsidized, utility-scale wind or solar plants. No utility would buy $80 
renewable electricity to replace $15 fossil fuel electricity. A stand-alone, enterprise wind or solar plant would be a huge 
economic failure because there would be no market for overpriced electricity. The entire renewable electricity industry is 
actually a government boondoggle. Neither, is renewable electricity an economic method for reducing CO2 emissions as has been 
made clear by the most important proselytizers for global warming such as Climate Scientists for Nuclear.

=====

May:

Cold Sweeps Japan After Historic Winter Snow

Record May Snow Slams Goose Bay

Concordia At -106.1F

Antarctica Had Far Less Sea Ice Just 1,000 Years Ago

Snow And Record May Lows Hit Europe

No May Trend

-100F Returns To Antarctica

May Frosts Persist In Europe

Mumbai Logs Coldest May Temp Since Records Began (In 1881)

Volcanoes That Changed The Modern World

NOAA Pulls Plug On "Billion Dollar Disasters" Database

Mumbai Coldest May Temp Since 1985

Tasmania Sees Snow As Cold Front Grips SE Australia

Atlantic Cools Sharply As Global Temperatures Dip

Another New Study Blows Hole In Antarctic Warming Claims

Snows and Sub-Zero Lows Sweep Europe

Ice Recovery At Both Poles

UK Carbon Prices Soar

A Scholarly Takedown Of The Net-Zero Agenda

Mt. Hutt Sees Record Early May Snowfall

Cherry Blossoms In The Snow

NH Snow Mass

Cold US

Greenland Ice Gain At 8-Year High

Another New Study Finds Antarctica Is Gaining Ice

Japan's Summer-Only Ski Resort Opens With Record Snowpack

Historic May Snowfall Hits Moscow Region

Snow Returns To UK

100 Years of Spanish Rainfall Data Destroys The Climate Narrative

UK Weather Data Is Broken

No Warming Across The High Southern Latitudes

Heat Hysteria: A Manufactured Crisis Built On Asphalt

Was It Earth's Internal Heat That Drove Recent Ocean Warming?

Taiwan Shivers Through Cold Spring

Russia Slammed By Record Late-Season Snowstorm

Upper Midwest Still Frozen