Policymakers and green energy advocates insist wind and solar are the future—cheap, clean, and limitless. The reality is far different. These sources displace some fuel costs but deliver no on-demand power. [some emphasis, links added]
They force utilities and ultimately ratepayers to maintain a full-time, reliable system while subsidizing a part-time, weather-dependent one. The result is double the capital expense for half the reliability, a financial blunder on a national scale.
Consider land use alone. A recent analysis of “reliable” solar measured by accredited capacity during peak demand, not optimistic annual averages, reveals a footprint far larger than claimed.
In the MISO grid, serving about 44 million people in the center part of the country, solar now requires 19.29 acres per megawatt of accredited capacity during peak demand, balloons to 257 acres by 2030, and 579 acres by 2043.
Why? Solar often doesn’t produce electricity when it is needed, and when they do make electricity, they overproduce the needs of our grids. This is the reason more land and panels are needed as more is added to our grid.
That is nearly 20 times more land than a comparable natural-gas plant.
To meet even half of America’s 2025 electricity demand of roughly 2,215 terawatt-hours, the U.S. would need approximately 1,000 gigawatts of installed solar capacity with a realistic, perhaps optimistic 22-25% capacity factor.
The capacity factor is how much electricity they actually produce, not the nameplate value, which is what they produce under ideal conditions when the sun is just right. When they are new and clean.
That translates to roughly 2.5 billion standard 400-watt panels and 8 to 10 million acres of dedicated land, roughly the size of Maryland, under optimistic estimates.
When reliability and peak performance are factored in, as the study shows, the actual acreage required explodes far higher, devouring farmland, wildlife habitat, and rural landscapes that multiple-use industries depend on.
Wind fares little better. Meeting the same half-demand target would require roughly 700 gigawatts of installed capacity at a 35% capacity factor—demanding approximately 175,000 large modern 3-5 MW turbines.
While direct turbine footprints are smaller, the sprawling spacing requirements (so they don’t steal each other’s wind) still consume tens of millions of acres across the Midwest and Great Plains.
Both wind and solar increase temperatures. The very thing they are meant to prevent. There is a Harvard study that tells us that our temperature would increase by a half-degree with the massive build-out of wind turbines.
And solar panels temperatures can reach 36° above ambient temperatures, raising air temperatures above them by as much as 7° on sunny days.
So we are warming the earth to cool the earth to save the earth with wind and solar.
Worse still is the storage problem. Solar and wind vanish at night, during calm periods, or under clouds. A week of national backup power, enough to bridge typical weather lulls, would require about 85 terawatt-hours of battery storage.
At current utility-scale costs of roughly $150 per kilowatt-hour, that alone would cost $12.8 trillion. Contrast this with an estimated cost of $5 trillion to replace our entire generation with natural gas generation.
Once this nightmarish wind, solar, batteries, and transmission wires are built, we will need to replace the wind turbines and solar panels every 20-25 years.
Is this what they mean by a circular economy? A never-ending treadmill of rebuilding. Contrast that with natural gas, coal, and nuclear plants lasting 40 to 80 years on a much smaller footprint.
Add the price of the turbines, panels, transmission lines, and the full conventional fleet that must remain on standby, and the economics and the economy collapse. Ratepayers end up paying for two complete power systems: one reliable and always ready, the other intermittent and expensive.
It is the energy equivalent of a family buying an unreliable part-time second car that only runs when the sun shines or the wind blows. They still need the dependable family sedan for daily life, yet they’re now saddled with two sets of payments, insurance, and maintenance.
Household transportation costs skyrocket while reliability is worse because their part-time car can stop at any time. The same dynamic plays out nationally: wind and solar do not replace fossil or nuclear plants—they duplicate them at enormous extra cost.
America’s energy future demands honesty, not slogans. Wind and solar may have niche roles. Pretending they can shoulder the grid’s burden without massive, hidden subsidies and land grabs is a costly mistake.
We should reject the fantasy and invest in truly reliable, dispatchable power that keeps the lights on 24/7 without bankrupting families or sacrificing productive land. The alternative is energy poverty caused by climate policies supported by propaganda dressed up as progress.
Read more at RealClearEnergy
Wind and solar are best for the end user, such as a small island or boat. Regardless, the cost per kilowatt hour is very high, which is the business of the user.
“Once this nightmarish wind, solar, batteries, and transmission wires are built, we will need to replace the wind turbines and solar panels every 20-25 years.”
Actually the half-life is closer to 10–12 years as the turbines wear out and the solar panels also decline in electricity production, begin two leak heavy metals into the ground, crack, or suffer weather damage. Also, both wind and solar are seriously NOT recyclable, high maintenance (even solar panels need to be kept clean), and very expensive for what they are meant to do.
Reliable power would consist of base-load coal and/or nuclear plants plus where available hydro power which provides the bulk of the needed electricity. The rest would be provided by natural gas plants that would be used for the variable power needs. The only place for solar is for those ubiquitous stand-alone lit signs and other similar uses.