• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

‘Grading The Grid’: Proof That Wind And Solar Are Disastrous Energy Choices

by Jason Hayes, Timothy Nash
March 22, 2024, 2:10 PM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 5 mins read
A A
2
Share on FacebookShare on XwitterShare on Linkedin

wind farm sunForget the “science is settled.” With energy policy, settling on the best energy sources is more important.

Unfortunately, the debate over energy is dominated by agenda-driven outbursts and misleading statistics, from activists and governmental officials alike. That’s why we released a comprehensive report card that reviews every major energy source’s benefits (and limitations).

We’re “grading the grid,” so lawmakers and regulators don’t enact policies that are doomed to fail. [emphasis, links added]

Our analysis, the first of its kind, takes a holistic look at America’s eight most important energy sources: natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, coal, petroleum, geothermal and hydroelectric.

Most analyses look only at one or two factors with each energy source – usually cost. By contrast, we look at five key factors: reliability, feasibility, technological innovation, environmental and human impact, and cost. We assigned a one-to-10 score in each category, averaging them for a letter grade.

We conclude that natural gas is the best energy source – and the only one to get an A. Its reliability and feasibility are high because natural gas plants can be ramped up and down to meet changing demand and are easy to build.

At the same time, it gets a high grade for environmental and human impact, with ongoing innovation making natural gas cleaner with every passing year.

And natural gas gets the highest grade for cost, because, when all associated costs are factored in, it’s our most affordable energy option.

What about coal and petroleum, the other traditional fossil fuels? They get, respectively, 80% and 70%. While it is reliable, petroleum has lower feasibility and higher costs, with little demand for increased use.

As for coal, it’s still broadly affordable, reliable, and innovative (which helps lower its environmental impact). But it’s becoming less feasible, especially because of government policies.

Coal produces a smaller share of U.S. electricity every year, and absent a major shift in policy, that declining trend is all but certain to continue.

What about nuclear? It gets a B+, with a score of 88%. It has the best environmental and human impact, since it’s completely clean and is seeing significant technological innovation. It’s also tied for being the most reliable since nuclear plants can run uninterrupted for years at a time. 

Nuclear energy’s small drawbacks are feasibility and cost, yet neither is inherent. Government policy has dramatically increased nuclear energy’s price tag (mostly during construction), while regulatory pressure makes it harder to bring to market.

With a policy change, nuclear power could compete with natural gas for the highest grade.

Then there are the four main renewables – hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, and solar. 

Hydroelectric gets a B-, with 80%. That includes a perfect 10 for reliability since it can generate power on demand. It also gets high marks for cost, innovation, and environmental impact.

Yet hydroelectricity falls short of market feasibility. The easiest dams to build went up decades ago in the locations where big dams can be located. It’s hard to envision a dramatic expansion in hydroelectric power.

As for geothermal, it gets a D+. While clean, it requires unique geographical conditions, making it hard (and expensive) to spread.

Finally, there’s wind and solar. Both get failing grades: 56% and 58%, respectively. While an “F” may surprise some, the grade reflects the nature of our holistic review, which looks beyond headlines to hard data.

Much of the praise for wind and solar comes down to cost, with the federal government labeling them the most affordable energy sources.

Yet federal estimates only look at the cost of new electricity generation, ignoring the more affordable generation that comes from existing plants that have paid off their construction costs.

Nor does the federal government analyze the full cost of wind and solar, which involves taxpayer subsidies, not just utility rates. We estimate that when everything is accounted for, wind power can cost as much as 500% more than federal estimates.

Wind and solar also get low grades for their environmental and human impact. While the energy they produce is referred to as renewable, they both require massive increases in mineral extraction. 

Their manufacture also relies on forced labor (such as the Uyghurs in China) and even children (such as de facto slaves in Congo). They require significant land use, threatening wildlife and huge swaths of nature.

Finally, they’re inherently unreliable, since the wind isn’t always blowing, nor the sun always shining. As many parts of the U.S. are learning, more wind and solar power means more blackouts.

Energy policy should be based on facts, not hopes and dreams. Our study shows that the best way to pursue a cleaner future – one that’s economically affordable, reliable, and clean – is to double down on natural gas and nuclear.

The worst path is more solar and wind, yet that’s the road that policymakers have chosen. By choosing energy sources that get failing grades, policymakers are setting America itself up for failure.

Read more at Fox News

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Skype
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky

Join our list

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related Posts

Extreme Weather

Climatologist Rebuts ‘Hottest Year Ever’ Claims: ‘Not Even Close’

May 16, 2025
Bipolar

Antarctic and Arctic Ice Trends Defy Climate Models And Dire Predictions

May 16, 2025
Energy

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Presses Officials On RGGI Carbon Tax

May 16, 2025

Comments 2

  1. Steve Bunten says:
    1 year ago

    To have a stable grid you need a large base load generation with other plants that can be brought up and down quickly for the marginal demand. The first is best provided by nuclear and coal plants while natural gas does the latter. Natural gas may be cheap but an unmentioned issue with that source is a plant cannot store a large amount of gas onsite so needs a continuous supply in the gas lines. That’s not the case with nuclear (the fuel is in the reactor for years) or coal which has a weeks supply onsite with continuous delivery of train-loads.

    But the key thing is that wind and solar (along with batteries for backup cannot be produced at the quantity and cost necessary to provide backup power) are unreliable and you can’t install enough of them to run a reliable grid no matter how many billions of dollars are spent on subsidies.

  2. David Lewis says:
    1 year ago

    The climate change movement will do the same with the facts in this article as they do with everything else that doesn’t support their agenda. They will ignore the facts.

    Basing energy policy on hopes and dreams is what has been done when nuclear plants were shut down. The plan wasn’t to replace nuclear with more fossil fuels, but they thought it could be done with wind and solar. This was really true with Germany. However, renewables were not up to the task.

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • city summer sunClimatologist Rebuts ‘Hottest Year Ever’ Claims: ‘Not Even Close’
    May 16, 2025
    Media headlines say it's the hottest year ever—but the real climate story gets buried under data tricks, historical erasure, and narrative control. […]
  • Antarctica sea lionsAntarctic and Arctic Ice Trends Defy Climate Models And Dire Predictions
    May 16, 2025
    New data shows Antarctic ice is growing and Arctic sea ice has stabilized—raising serious questions about climate models and mainstream climate claims. […]
  • power lines electricityPennsylvania Supreme Court Presses Officials On RGGI Carbon Tax
    May 16, 2025
    Pennsylvania's high court grilled state officials about whether the money it wants to collect from the RGGI pact constitutes a fee or a tax. […]
  • german wind farmGerman Wind Slump Triggers Energy Losses, Industry Turmoil
    May 15, 2025
    Germany's wind power output plunged in 2025 as wind speeds hit a 50-year low, slashing profits and sparking doubts about energy reliability. […]
  • Geothermal PlantGeothermal Gold Rush: U.S. Digs Deep To Power the Future
    May 15, 2025
    America is racing to unlock geothermal energy using shale-era tech — and it could power AI, homes, and industry while cutting reliance on China. […]
  • mississippi floodingDebunking The Weather Attribution Theater Playbook
    May 15, 2025
    The media exaggerates climate change flooding in the Mississippi Valley, ignoring peer-reviewed science for so-called attribution science. […]
  • the climate change graph that liedExposed: The Global Warming Graph That Duped The World
    May 15, 2025
    This viral video exposes the truth behind the iconic climate change graph used to justify extreme policies and global warming panic. […]
  • gov kathy hochulTrump Dismantles Biden’s Climate Legacy While New York Chases Green Delusions
    May 14, 2025
    As Trump unravels Biden’s costly climate agenda, New York doubles down on its net zero fantasy despite no federal backing and no workable plan. […]
  • Hurricane WindsThe Media Hype Extreme Weather—But Data Tells A Different Tale
    May 14, 2025
    Despite rising alarm over extreme weather, Americans are safer than ever from natural disasters thanks to better forecasting, buildings, and tech. […]
  • gavel earth money courtTrial Lawyers To Swamp Louisiana Energy Sector With Climate Lawfare After Chevron Verdict
    May 14, 2025
    A $745M verdict in Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish kicked off a wave of lawsuits that could gut the state's energy sector under the guise of eco justice. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email either instantly or daily. Check your Junk folder for any verification emails upon subscribing.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books We Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch