George Rebane

James Freeman in the 23jul25 WSJ writes a telling article on the intended confusion that surrounds ‘sustainable energy’ costs – i.e. the comparison of wind, solar, and hydro to fossil fuels.  The latest pile of steaming bullshit was regurgitated by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres in an AP interview as reported here.  I am going to freely cut and paste purloined snatches from Freeman’s paywalled article.

“Backers of inefficient and unreliable energy production used to say that wind and solar breakthroughs were just around the corner. But one can use this argument to secure government subsidies for only so many decades before taxpayers start asking why they have to support an infant industry that’s older than they are. These days it’s become more common for environmentalists to assert that the future has arrived and alternative energy is now dirt cheap. This ought to make it even harder to explain why government support should continue, but it also may create the misimpression that the massively expensive wind and solar experiment is finally working.”

According to Guterres, “over 90% of new renewables worldwide produced electricity for less than the cheapest new fossil fuel alternative.”  His confused copy continued with “emphasizing his desire for central planning. He called for ‘new national climate plans to go all-out on the energy transition’ and said, ‘Governments must aim to meet all new electricity demand with renewables.’ ”

“But if renewables are clearly better — and in fact unstoppable (since cheaper) — why does government need to plan or aim for anything—won’t producers and consumers choose such energy sources on their own?

“According to an energy cost report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) – Around 91% of the utility-scale projects commissioned were more cost effective than fossil fuel alternatives. … Renewables continue to prove themselves as the most cost-competitive source of new electricity generation. On an LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) basis, 91% of newly commissioned utility-scale renewable capacity delivered power at a lower cost than the cheapest new fossil fuel-based alternative.”

LCOE – here’s where the lightly read are taken for a ride.  Levelized cost comparisons assume that wind and solar are always available as are nuclear and fossil fueled power generators.  When intermittency is accounted for, the cost of ‘clean energy’ systems skyrockets without bound, since all require fossil fuel power and expensive battery back-ups to make continuous electric power a reality.  And all of that is super expensive compared to cheap fossil and nuclear alternatives.

“The inherent intermittency of wind or solar reduces the physical and economic value of that power capacity relative to traditional generating resources because either sufficient reserves or storage must be maintained to meet demand when wind and solar generation are unavailable. Thus, just reporting total wind and solar capacity misleads (even if unintentionally) because it does not account for the adequacy of the electrical energy generated to meet demand and the actual costs to do so.”

From a new National Center for Energy Analytics report we learn – “The inherent intermittency of wind or solar reduces the physical and economic value of that power capacity relative to traditional generating resources because either sufficient reserves or storage must be maintained to meet demand when wind and solar generation are unavailable. Thus, just reporting total wind and solar capacity misleads (even if unintentionally) because it does not account for the adequacy of the electrical energy generated to meet demand and the actual costs to do so.

Advocates of solar and wind power often claim that a combination of solar capacity with battery storage can supply the majority of electricity needed and do so less expensively than using conventional plants. However, all the studies making such claims have two key flaws.

First, they focus on average electricity demand, rather than what it takes to meet peak demand on the hottest summer days and coldest winter days and the variability over several decades (the period for which grids are designed to serve). For example, New York State’s electric load averaged 17 GW for all hours in 2024; but the summer peak exceeded 31 GW, almost double the average demand…

Second, simplistic forecasts all overlook the guaranteed occurrence—as meteorological records show—of extended wind or solar droughts, i.e., multiple continuous days, even weeks, of either clouds or wind lulls that will necessitate astonishing quantities of storage.”

Sustainable green energy has not arrived and may never do so once fusion and geothermal power comes online.  And all that gives lie to the clean power propagandists who unabashedly continue to support massive government subsidies to keep the wind turbines spinning and solar panels illuminated.

[24jul25 Update]  A new tranche of Newsom lies, this time about ‘Clean Energy Powers California’s Economic Growth’  was also published, perhaps cynically, alongside the above article by James Freeman.  In it Newsom claims that “more than two-thirds of the state’s electricity is from sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal.”  This is a lie, or at least patently misleading.  In 2024, only 57% of California’s in-state electricity generation came from renewable sources.  Gavin implies that this satisfies the state’s total electricity consumption, when it does not – “In California, renewable and clean resources are our primary source of grid energy.”   In fact, California still needs to import about 30% of its electricity consumption.  This means that only 57% of the remaining 70% is generated internally from renewables, making the actual fraction of California’s electricity from renewables to be less than 40%.

Newsom goes on to lie about how renewable energy is the cheapest, is a big jobs contributor, and a major contributor to the state’s economy.  The facts tell a different story.  It is absolutely the most expensive form of energy and still needs to be heavily government subsidized and its use mandated by the gun.  And California’s energy costs, the nation’s highest due to absolutely idiotic public policies foisted by our Democratic super majority, have actually driven out business and middle-class workers seeking greener pastures elsewhere – the state’s population has shrunk enough to lower our representation in Congress.

Our governor concludes his perfidious post by making patently false claims about climate change as the cause of our high-cost wildfires.  Many of these caused by poorly maintained electrical transmission lines poorly maintained by our cooperatively corrupt public utilities.

[3aug25 update]  In the 31jul25 edition of the newspaper WSJ’s Kim Strassel presents a cogent and compact summary (here) of the resurgence of climate science under Trump to counter the years of climate hysteria foisted by the Left that has led to legions of damaging public policies across our land.  Of course, the home of the champion idiots on the issue is Sacramento.

The Energy Department recently issued the report, ‘A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate’ to the howls from the lamestream media led by the NYT.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, in an opening letter, notes “Climate change is real, and it deserves attention.”  The report goes on to provide “a holistic picture of the messy reality of climate research—its many areas of uncertainty, disputes and unknowns. Most people never hear about this complicated debate, since only a subset of scientists with the “correct” views are given voice. … Here are a few noncontroversial findings from the report—based on peer-reviewed literature from recent years—that might surprise Times readers. Global warming has risks, but also benefits, including greater agricultural productivity. We still don’t know the extent to which human activity plays a role in warming, given natural variability, data limitations, uncertain models and fluctuations in solar activity. Models predicting what is to come remain all over the map. U.S. historical data doesn’t support claims of increased frequency or intensity of extreme weather. Climate change is likely to have little effect on economic growth. U.S. climate policies, even drastic ones, will have negligible effect on global temperatures.”

For years these pages have presented the science-based arguments to counter the claims of the climate (nee global warming) warriors.  The cited Energy Department report confirms these posts, as does the latest and much heralded IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) AR6 report which buries its admissions of climate science deficiencies and uncertainties in the seldom-read body of the voluminous tome.  I strongly recommend the short executive summary of the Energy Department's report to RR readers.  It concludes with “U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.” (emphasis mine)