Let me start with what this column is not. It is not a denial of climate change. Some people think that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are an existential threat. Others believe there have been varying temperature levels throughout the earth’s history and there is nothing to worry about. I fall somewhere in between. Nor am I suggesting that there is not a place for wind and solar power.
What I am disputing is the idea that wind and solar are feasible replacements for coal and natural gas as sources for our base power. The federal and state governments are spending billions of dollars annually to subsidize a move away from fossil fuels and toward renewables. At face value, it seems like a good idea. Yet, digging just a little deeper shows that increasing our reliance on wind and solar power will result not only in a waste of your tax money, but consumers will end up paying more for less reliable electricity and the environment won’t be better off.
(A point of clarification: hydroelectric power is also considered a renewable. Hydroelectric is awesome, but moving bodies of water can’t be harnessed in all places and thus it can’t meet all our electricity needs either.)
The key to understanding why wind and solar power is not the answer is some basic knowledge about how electricity works. You cannot store electrons at scale. Electricity must be used at the instant it is generated. Utility companies must constantly monitor and predict electricity usage to ensure the supply meets demand at all times.
An obvious but vital point: the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. These energy sources simply cannot be relied upon when you need them the most. Thus, every single wind or solar power installation has to have a back-up source, usually fossil fuels. That means if your objective is to have 25% of your electricity come from renewable sources, you must maintain 125% of the needed electric capacity. Wind and solar advocates claim those sources are cheaper, but that’s only looking at part of the equation. The total cost of an electric portfolio with wind and solar power is more than one without.
The renewables proponents’ solution to these basic realities is batteries. Just store up reserve electricity when it’s windy and sunny to use for the times it’s not. Unfortunately, battery technology isn’t anywhere close to satisfying the demand that would be required. Maybe there is a massive technological leap just over the horizon, but wouldn’t it make more sense to wait for those advancements to occur before spending all those billions?
Many states are going farther than that. Thirty have established Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), requiring a minimum percentage of electricity that must come from renewable sources at some point in the future. Ten states have set their RPS at 100%, to be achieved in the next 25 years. This is pure fantasy. Some states are exacerbating the situation by requiring more electric vehicles (EV). Again, looking at only half the picture, EV’s have zero emissions on the road. Yet, they create more demand for electricity generation which as a practical matter means using fossil fuels.
The irony in this green energy push is that wind and solar aren’t all that good for the environment. It is true that the United States has led the world in the reduction of CO2 emissions over the past decade, but that decrease was not due to increased use of renewables. It was caused by a shift from coal to cleaner burning natural gas, made possible by fracking. Wind and solar’s positive effect on air quality is nominal; however, their impact on the land is quite harmful.
The lifespan of wind turbines and solar panels is not that long, about 25 years. Wind turbine blades are made of fiberglass which can’t be recycled. These huge blades end up in landfills. Yet, at least they don’t contain toxic chemicals like solar panels that have the potential to seep into groundwater. Furthermore, solar panels (as well as batteries) are composed of rare earth metals which must be mined in other parts of the world with fewer environmental protections. Miners in the Congo employ child labor for this dirty work, and China is suspected of using for ced labor.
We actually already have a viable, proven electricity source that works in all kinds of weather, day or night, and would reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere if we expanded its use. Nuclear power has a much smaller footprint, produces zero emissions, and its waste is manageable. instead, Congress seems inclined to continue subsidizing a transition to less reliable, more expensive, less environmentally-friendly wind and solar power. Sadly, more and more states will experience blackouts like California and Texas due to over-reliance on these undependable sources. Maybe then Americans will finally push back.
Respectfully…
PJM