Solar panels and wind turbines are making electricity significantly more expensive, a major new study by a team of economists from the University of Chicago finds.
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) “significantly increase average retail electricity prices, with prices increasing by 11% (1.3 cents per kWh) seven years after the policy’s passage into law and 17% (2 cents per kWh) twelve years afterward,” the economists write.
The study, which has yet to go through peer-review, was done by Michael Greenstone, Richard McDowell, and Ishan Nath. It compared states with and without an RPS.
It did so by using what the economists say is “the most comprehensive state-level dataset ever compiled” which covered 1990 to 2015.
The cost to consumers has been staggeringly high: “All in all, seven years after passage, consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy,” they write.
Last year, I was the first journalist to report that solar and wind are making electricity more expensive in the United States — and for inherently physical reasons.
Solar and wind require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining, I noted.
And unreliability requires solar- and/or wind-heavy places like Germany, California, and Denmark to pay neighboring nations or states to take their solar and wind energy when they are producing too much of it.
My reporting was criticized — sort of — by those who claimed I hadn’t separated correlation from causation, but the new study by a top-notch team of economists, including an advisor to Barack Obama, proves I was right.
Previous studies were misleading, the economists note, because they didn’t “incorporate three key costs,” which are the unreliability of renewables, the large amounts of land they require, and the displacement of cheaper “baseload” energy sources like nuclear plants.
The higher cost of electricity reflects “the costs that renewables impose on the generation system,” the economists note, “including those associated with their intermittency, higher transmission costs, and any stranded asset costs assigned to ratepayers.”
But are renewables cost-effective climate policy? They are not. The economists write that “the cost per metric ton of CO2 abated exceeds $130 in all specifications and ranges up to $460, making it at least several times larger than conventional estimates of the social cost of carbon.”
Michael Shellenberger was Time Magazine’s “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award Winner, and President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization.
Read more at Forbes
The issue isn’t just when the wind stops blowing but the variability of the wind speeds which causes a constant change in output. And that has to be dealt with by the grid with changes in output from the gas-fired plants (nuclear and coal output can’t be changed as quickly). Especially as these so-called renewables become a bigger percent of our electricity the stability of our grid will become increasingly difficult.
The fact that renewable energy drives up the cost of electricity is a complete non-issue to its advocates. They have clearly shown that they don’t care about the middle class, poor, or elderly.
The unreadable nature of renewable energy means that double the cost of equipment is required since they have to have enough to support the grid when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. The article pointed out that this extra capacity is normally natural gas. It doesn’t make sense to use nuclear as a back up because it can go 24/7 without carbon dioxide emissions. He mentioned batteries as back up power but that isn’t an option. Southern Australia’s $50 million battery only had enough capacity to run their grid for a few minutes.