Tag: solar power

The Green Lobby’s Dishonest Crusade for Solar and Wind

You wake up to an alarm, flick on the light, brew coffee, and drive to work. Every step requires energy – the stuff that shares the coin of physical reality with matter, the E in E = MC2.  It keeps homes warm, food fresh and economies running. 

Supplying 80% of the world’s primary energy, coal, oil and natural gas make up the lifeblood of modern civilization. Yet, there continue to be calls for the abandonment of these fuels without any feasible, scalable replacement in sight. 

It is dishonest for “green” lobbyists to claim that electricity from wind and solar can replace fossil fuels, when currently most of the energy used in the world is not even in the form of electricity.

Electricity represents only about 20% of global final energy consumption. That means four-fifths of the world’s energy use comes from fuels that power ships, planes, trucks and industrial furnaces. Oil fuels vehicles, natural gas provides heat for homes and industry, and coal is critically important for the manufacture of steel from iron.

Demand for hydrocarbons is expected to exceed that of electricity for many decades.

You’ve probably heard it before: “Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels.” This is a falsehood supported by a misleading metric – the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). When Mark Twain spoke of “lies, damn lies and statistics,” he had LCOE in mind.

LCOE purports to present an apples-to-apples comparison between various energy sources. However, the measure is meaningless because it ignores key costs such as those of providing backup power to compensate for the intermittency of solar and wind. Something must be available to step up when the wind and sun are not available for power generation.

While it may be true that sunshine and wind are “free,” converting them to a form of energy that works with modern power grids and integrating them into the 24-hour operation of electrical systems supplying millions of customers is difficult and expensive. 

A 2022 study by Robert Idel exposes LCOE’s flaws.

First, LCOE assumes constant output, but solar and wind produce only 20%-30% of their designed capacity, compared to 80%-90% for plants running on coal, natural gas or nuclear fuel.

Second, integrating solar and wind requires expensive infrastructure, including new transmission lines between population centers and remote industrial installations of wind turbines or solar panels or to natural gas plants standing by as backups. 

Third, LCOE ignores more subtle but, nonetheless, important operational considerations. For instance, as the output of solar and wind rises and falls with changes in the weather or daily westward progression of the sun, fossil fuel plants must ramp up or down, reducing efficiency and raising costs.

The rosy numbers of LCOE don’t reflect the reality of electricity bills. In California, where so-called renewables make up more than 50% of electricity generation, residential rates hit 30 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2023 – more than double the U.S. average.

Higher energy prices infiltrate every corner of life – manufacturing, logistics, heating, cooling, farming, data storage and more.

Keep reading

Blue states with net-zero emissions goals consider nuclear as hopes for 100% wind and solar fade

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), Monday directed the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to develop and construct a nuclear power plant of not less than one gigawatt. The new plant was needed, Hochul said in her announcement, in order “to support a reliable and affordable electric grid, while providing the necessary zero-emission electricity to achieve a clean energy economy.” 

It was a surprising announcement for a state that closed and dismantled the Indian Point nuclear power plant only five years ago. The consideration of nuclear in the energy mix is part of a pattern seen in other blue states committed to eliminating electricity generated from fossil fuels. California has now delayed the closure of its only nuclear power plant, and Michigan is looking to restart a previously shuttered nuclear power plant. 

In all three cases, it appears that the states are coming to grips with the reality that intermittent wind and solar backed up by short-duration, expensive grid-scale batteries won’t be enough to supply the power needs of the state, especially as AI places more demands on the grid. Still clinging to the hope of a fossil fuel-free grid, these states are looking to nuclear as a more politically tenable option. 

Keep reading

Wasting Away In Wind-And-Solarville

While green advocates commonly use the terms renewable, sustainable, and net zero to describe their efforts, the dirty little secret is that much of the waste from solar panels and wind turbines is ending up in landfills.

The current amounts of fiberglass, resins, aluminum and other chemicals—not to mention propeller blades from giant wind turbines—pose no threat current to local town dumps, but this largely ignored problem will become more of a challenge in the years ahead as the 500 million solar panels and the 73,000 wind turbines now operating in the U.S. are decommissioned and replaced.

Greens insist that reductions in carbon emissions will more than compensate for increased levels of potentially toxic garbage; others fret that renewable energy advocates have not been forthright about their lack of eco-friendly plans and the technology to handle the waste.

“Nobody planned on this, nobody had a plan to get rid of them, nobody planned for closure,” said Dwight Clark, whose company, Solar E Waste Solutions, recycles solar panels. “Nobody thought this through.”

The discussion about what to do with worn-out solar and wind equipment is another topic usually elided in Net Zero blueprints, which often focus on the claimed benefits of projects while discounting or ignoring the costs. As RealClearInvestigations previously reported regarding the lack of plans for acquiring the massive amounts of land for solar and wind farms needed to achieve net zero, the math can get fuzzy, and the numbers cited most frequently are those rosiest for renewables.

“They’ve been either silent, or incoherent—or just hand-wave that we should recycle all this stuff without telling us how,” said Mark Mills, executive director of the National Center on Energy Analytics. In the headlong effort to make solar and wind seem as inexpensive as possible, they have not included fees that address the eventual cost of disposal, which could leave taxpayers holding the bag.

Keep reading

Wind and solar can never be a meaningful power source, and they are more expensive

The subsidised wind and solar chickens are coming home to roost: power prices are rocketing out of control in any jurisdiction attempting to run on sunshine and breezes. Adding mega-batteries only makes matters worse. With the ever-present threat of total blackouts, rent-seekers and their propaganda machines are still attempting to deflect and bury what occurred in Spain and Portugal last month, but the mob always works you out.

Which brings us to this week’s roundup.

First up, Guy Mitchell taps into the laws of physics – the very same immutable laws that mean dilute, diffuse weather and sunshine-dependent wind and solar can never amount to meaningful power generation sources. Ever.

Read: The Achilles Heel of Wind and Solar, American Thinker, Guy Mitchell, 15 May 2025

Meanwhile Down Under, hard-pressed households and embattled businesses are being lined up for another 10% hike on what are already the world’s highest power prices and, as the team from Jo Nova explains, the worst is yet to come.

Read: Bang! Price bomb sinks Transmission lines: Plan B says let’s pretend cars, home solar and batteries will save “Transition”, Jo Nova Blog, Jo Nova, 27 May 2025

In this two-part essay, Russ Schussler places focus on how subsidised and intermittent wind and solar have totally wrecked once orderly power markets and why you pay the ever-increasing and exorbitant price for that entirely deliberate destruction.

Read: Why “cheaper” wind and solar raise costs. Part I: The fat tail problem, Climate Etc, Russ Schussler, 13 May 2025

Read: Why “cheaper” solar raises costs. Part II: The hidden costs of residential solar, Climate Etc, Russ Schussler, 22 May 2025

In this video, David Turver takes a look at the same phenomenon in the UK – where colossal subsidies to wind and solar are driving out cheap and reliable gas-fired power and, you guessed it, consumers are paying the price.

Keep reading

‘Cheap’ solar and wind is a lie, green countries pay more!

Ask families in Germany and the UK what happens when more and more supposedly “cheap” solar and wind power is added to the national power mix, and they can tell you by looking at their utility bills: It gets far more expensive.

The idea that power should get cheaper as we get more green energy is only true if we exclusively used electricity when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing.

But modern societies need power around the clock. When there is no sun and wind, green energy needs plenty of backup, often powered by fossil fuels. What this means is that we pay for not one but two power systems.

And as the backup fossil fuel power sources are used less, they need to earn their capital costs back in fewer hours, leading to even more expensive power.

This means real energy costs of solar and wind are far higher. One study looking at China showed that the real cost of solar power on average turns out to be twice as high as coal, while a peer-reviewed study of Germany and Texas shows solar and wind are many times more expensive than fossil fuels.

Keep reading

China’s Solar Firms Face Potential Tax Credit Freeze Under House ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Chinese clean energy companies would be excluded from tax benefits they enjoyed under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), should the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, currently considered by the U.S. Congress, become law.

The act, a budget reconciliation package aimed to implement President Donald Trump’s policy agenda, was passed by the House of Representatives early Thursday by one vote. China solar importers are asking the Senate to change course in their version of the bill.

The IRA, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022, is often dubbed the “Green New Deal.” It provided tax write-offs to clean energy producers and manufacturers, primarily of EV batteries, battery storage, solar, and wind.

For China, the IRA was mostly a solar story.

China is the world’s No. 1 solar manufacturer. Its solar companies account for eight out of the top 10 globally, according to researchers at Photovoltaic Brand Lab.

Since the law, no other country has invested more in solar projects in the United States than China.

Keep reading

Chinese ‘Kill Switches’ Found in US Solar Farms

Chinese ‘kill switches’ have been found hidden in American solar farms, prompting calls for Ed Miliband to halt the rollout of renewables over security concerns. The Telegraph has the story.

On Thursday, the Energy Secretary was urged to impose an “immediate pause” on his green energy blitz to review whether UK solar plants are also at risk.

The components found in the US included cellular radios capable of switching off the equipment remotely, raising serious concerns about grid security, according to Reuters.

They were found inside power inverters manufactured by unnamed Chinese companies.

Power inverters are the key links between solar or wind farms and the rest of the power system, converting their electricity so the wider grid can use it.

One source told Reuters that compromising such equipment would give Beijing the ability to inflict blackouts on the West, claiming it would create “a built-in way to physically destroy the grid”.

China has dismissed the claims as a smear. But the discovery has sounded alarm bells within the US Government and is likely to prompt a similar scramble in Britain.

Andrew Bowie, the Shadow Energy Minister, on Thursday said the “worrying revelations” should spark serious concern for Mr Miliband and called for an urgent investigation.

He said: “We were already aware of concerns being raised by the Ministry of Defence and the security and intelligence services surrounding possible monitoring technology on Chinese-built wind turbines – but given the dominance of China in solar, these developments are equally if not even more worrying.

“Ed Miliband’s Made in China transition – clean power at the expense of everything else – is a threat to our national security and makes a mockery of his claims on energy security.

“It is essential that an immediate pause and review is carried out to ensure the safety and security of our energy system.”

One industry source on Thursday said that British solar farms used inverters from a variety of sources, including Chinese, American, German and Israeli suppliers.

A UK Government spokesman said: “We would never let anything get in the way of our national security, and while we would not comment on individual cases, our energy sector is subject to the highest levels of national security scrutiny.”

Keep reading

Rogue communication devices found in Chinese solar power inverters

U.S. energy officials are reassessing the risk posed by Chinese-made devices that play a critical role in renewable energy infrastructure after unexplained communication equipment was found inside some of them, two people familiar with the matter said.

Power inverters, which are predominantly produced in China, are used throughout the world to connect solar panels and wind turbines to electricity grids. They are also found in batteries, heat pumps and electric vehicle chargers.

While inverters are built to allow remote access for updates and maintenance, the utility companies that use them typically install firewalls to prevent direct communication back to China.

However, rogue communication devices not listed in product documents have been found in some Chinese solar power inverters by U.S experts who strip down equipment hooked up to grids to check for security issues, the two people said.

Over the past nine months, undocumented communication devices, including cellular radios, have also been found in some batteries from multiple Chinese suppliers, one of them said.

Reuters was unable to determine how many solar power inverters and batteries they have looked at.

Keep reading

Texas Bill Would Require Solar Power Plants to Have Gas and Coal Backup

A bill working its way through the Texas legislature has caused some double takes with language that requires solar plants to provide power in the dark.

State bill S.B. 715 passed the Senate this week, and if adopted by the Texas house it would require any renewable power providers to buy backup power, typically from coal or gas plants, the Hill reported.

Texas consultant and energy expert Doug Lewin wrote in his analysis of the legislation that the measure would require solar plants to buy backup power to “match their output at night — a time when no one expects them to produce energy and when demand is typically at its lowest anyway.”

Double takes aside, the legislation is part of three Republican bills advancing through the state legislature that could offset Texas’ green energy progress and give fossil fuels an advantage in the state’s energy market, Reason reported. Texas generates the most renewable energy in the nation.

The bill is supported by a conservative think tank called the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which argues traditional power sources are still needed to make up for the unpredictability of wind and solar power. As Breitbart reported, Texas faced power shortages and rolling blackouts in 2021 as cold weather and ice froze the state’s wind turbines.

A state business lobby group disagrees, evoking the same fear of blackouts. The Texas Association of Business (TAB) predicted the measure would lead to unpredictable supply, costing the state $5.2 billion more per year and individual consumers on average $225 more per year in power costs. In addition to cost increases, the TAB analysis asserted, Texans would also face a higher risk of blackouts in the heat of summer or in future ice storms.

Keep reading

UK government plans to mandate new homes have solar panels and also plans to block sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface; the two do not go together

The UK’s Future Homes Standard aims to ensure that new homes built from 2025 produce 75-80% fewer carbon emissions compared to homes built under the current Building Regulations. It will require new homes to have very high levels of energy efficiency and low-carbon heating systems, ensuring they contribute to the UK’s net-zero carbon emissions target.

The standard includes specific performance requirements for building elements like external walls, roofs, floors, windows and doors, as well as minimum efficiencies for heating systems, ventilation and lighting.  It also demands that people’s homes be adorned with solar panels.

“The so-called Future Homes Standard regulations is due to be unveiled ‘soon’, billed as ensuring that properties are ‘highly efficient’ and do not have fossil fuel boilers by 2030,” the Daily Mail reported.  “The latest version of the blueprint could see four-fifths of new homes required to have solar panels covering 40 per cent of their footprint.”

A Ministry of Housing spokesman said, “Through the Future Homes Standard we plan to maximise the installation of solar panels on new homes, as part of our ambition to ensure all new homes are energy efficient, and will set out final plans in due course.”

This mandate is expected to add between £3,000 and £4,000 to the cost of building a home.

Meanwhile, war criminal and former Prime Minister Tony Blair has said that the government’s net zero targets are “unrealistic” which has caused the Labour Party to descend into bitter infighting, with some Members of Parliament and unions urging a re-evaluation of net zero policies while others are defending them.

A day after issuing his comments, Blair, who has advised Sir Keir informally, backed down and insisted he supported Labour’s plan to reach net zero by 2050.

Blair wasn’t criticising the false “climate change” premise on which net zero policies are built. He merely criticised the current net zero approach as “doomed to fail” and called for a pragmatic “reset,” arguing that people in developed countries are unwilling to make financial sacrifices and lifestyle changes when their impact on global emissions is minimal.

Keep reading