You're kidding, right? Solar and Wind's Hidden Price Tag: Why Cost Isn't the Whole Story

[NNadir]

We hear all the time that wind and solar are "the cheapest sources" of energy.

As I asked sometime ago, quoting an academic, "why then are people building gas and coal plants?"

LFSCOE: The True Cost of Solar and Wind Energy in Texas and Germany in Answer to the Question...

Although I am not in "the trade" I subscribe to the trade magazine Power, which doesn't repeat the question, but reasserts the answer:

Solar and Wind’s Hidden Price Tag: Why Cost Isn’t the Whole Story

Some excerpts:

Solar and wind power have become increasingly cost-competitive over the past decade, prompting claims that they are now the cheapest sources of new electricity. Federal and state incentives have accelerated this transformation, leading to a massive expansion in U.S. renewable installations. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) most recent monthly report, more than 1,100 new wind and solar facilities are planned by 2030. The EIA further projects that wind and solar will account for 80% of all new electric generating capacity through 2035. These projections seem to validate the idea that renewables can economically meet rising electricity demand driven by economic growth, artificial intelligence (AI), and data centers. But this apparent success story may be masking a fundamental flaw in how energy sources are measured and compared.

The issue lies in how government data treats a megawatt of solar or wind power as equivalent to a megawatt from natural gas or coal. This comparison is misleading. Unlike traditional power plants that can generate electricity on demand, wind and solar only produce power when conditions are favorable—when the wind blows or the sun shines. This intermittency creates two major challenges that aren’t reflected in official projections.

First, grid operators can’t rely on wind and solar to consistently meet electricity demand during peak times. Second, the true costs of these resources are higher than reported because the grid requires backup power and additional infrastructure to manage variability...

... Real-world conditions are already exposing the limitations of current models. A heat dome that enveloped large parts of the U.S. in June 2025 revealed vulnerabilities in the operational and trading strategies of utility-scale solar projects. According to Solargis, a solar data and software provider, aging assets and inaccurate models left U.S. solar projects exposed in merchant markets, where extreme heat drove real-time prices above $2,000/MWh.

“Elevated ambient temperatures in areas led to module temperature derating, reducing actual energy output,” Solargis reported. This effect was especially pronounced in older plants with outdated inverter technology. The company noted that conventional forecasting models often fail to capture the impact of extreme weather variability on solar performance, leaving operators exposed to financial risk...

...“If I had to use LCOE [levelized cost of energy], I would certainly not use EIA’s assumptions that all resources have 30-year lives,” Lesser told POWER. “For wind/solar, I would include the cost of backup needed to firm those resources. That would first require estimating the quantity of battery storage required to compensate fully for multiple cloudy days and multi-day wind droughts, and then adding that cost to the LCOEs of wind and solar...

”

My objection to the solar and wind fantasy is not that it is "too expensive" although at times it clearly is. It in effect raises the cost of reliable energy by disallowing those plants from generating revenue without reducing O&M costs. My objection is environmental. Solar and wind depend for their existence on dangerous fossil fuels. Hence they're dirty forms of energy, environmentally unacceptable. The purpose of the reactionary solar and wind industry has never been about addressing the problem of attacking fossil fuels. It has always been about attacking the only real alternative to fossil fuels, nuclear energy.

The recent expensive and dangerous day long collapse of the electrical grid in Spain and Portugal was filled with denials that solar and wind had anything to do with it. Instead the blame was placed on thermal plants, since there weren't enough of them with turbines operating to absorb voltage fluctuations, which is something which turbines do.

Huh?

Really?

Why weren't the turbines operating? Therein lies the cause and cost.

Have a pleasant Sunday evening.