Solar and Wind Grid Load Increases Electricity Prices
The fallacy of low-cost solar and wind power
Tucos’s Child Preface
I don’t do social media per se, but I do monitor multiple news organizations and postings over multiple media types including X. Recently I came across Chris Martz on X, who has posted some interesting short articles that are elegant in their simplicity and have accessible technical descriptions.
Chris describes himself as: Meteorology student. Climate + energy. Python programmer. Weather guesser. When I see writings that teach well, it suggests to me some mastery of a subject. So without further adieu, I reprint below a post from Chris which illuminates the two following points :
International pricing data reveals that the larger share of solar photovoltaic (PV) and/or wind connected to the grid, the higher electricity prices are.
For every six units of “renewables” added to the grid, less than one unit of fossil fuels comes offline.
Solar and Wind Grid Load Increases Household Electricity Prices
Above: Occam’s Razor strikes again. The brutal simplicity of this plot derived from public data puts in the stake.
“Net zero” scammers tell us that solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels.
Their simple-minded reasoning is that it costs nothing for companies to harness energy from the sun or wind, and is cheap to convert that into electricity and then transmit it to households whose owners foot the bill. But, this is only a half truth.
International pricing data reveal that the larger share of solar photovoltaic (PV) and/or wind connected to the grid, the higher electricity prices are. So, what do renewables advocates get wrong?
Well, it turns out the calculations of electricity prices on a kilowatt-hour (KWh) basis you see generally will only consider times when solar and wind technologies are optimized. Under favorable weather conditions (e.g., clear skies and/or windy weather), it is true that solar and wind will produce electricity for much lower cost than fossil fuels. However, sunlight is not always reaching the ground, and the wind does not always blow hard enough to propel the turbine blades in order to generate electricity. Once you consider load balancing costs associated with renewables' intermittency, property taxes due to large land requirements and utility returns, all of that gets passed down to the consumer and ultimately makes solar and wind technologies more expensive than fossil fuels (e.g., Idel, 2022).
https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035…
Above: aftermath of a hail storm in the midwest. For more Hailish readings see:
Intermittent Wind and Solar are Unable to Contribute Much to the Grid
What's more, solar and wind's lack of dependability means that they are simply supplements to existing energy sources. So, in essence, more electricity is being consumed because they are not replacing fossil fuels at scale. According to Rather & Mahalik (2023), for every six units of renewables added to the grid, less than one unit of fossil fuels comes offline.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10098-023-02689-8…
That isn't an energy transition. And one cannot really be possible unless our world leaders get serious about deploying more nuclear power. There are no “high-solar / wind, low-cost” nations. The figures don't lie, but liars can figure.
My rates for electricity have radically increased with the wind and solar additions the grid - and ERCOT is part of the problem with wind and solar generators being the other part. They’ve worked together and the result is higher cost and no improvements in grid reliability.
Chris is a wonderful follow on X