Taxpayer subsidies haven’t led to cost or performance improvements in wind and solar power for Americans
Despite constant claims that solar and wind are the most affordable forms of electricity, governments worldwide had to invest $1.8 trillion in the green transition last year.
President Biden justifies spending billions on green subsidies by stating that “Wind and solar are already significantly cheaper than coal and oil.”
However, the notion that wind and solar are the cheapest options is a misconception promoted by green lobbyists, activists, and politicians globally.
The massive subsidies required prove this claim is deceptive.
Wind and solar energy generate power only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, requiring a backup system during the rest of the time, making their electricity costs extremely high.
Currently, global electricity production still heavily relies on fossil fuels, and at the current pace, it will take a century to eliminate them entirely from electricity generation.
While countries like China, India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh are increasing their solar and wind power use, their reliance on coal remains much higher.
China generated more additional power from coal than solar and wind combined last year. India generated three times more from coal, Bangladesh 13 times more, and Indonesia an astonishing 90 times more.
This reveals that reliability is a crucial factor, and if solar and wind were genuinely cheaper, these countries would be investing more in them.
The typical method of calculating solar costs overlooks their unreliability, as is the case for wind energy too.
When considering the cost of reliability, solar’s expenses increase significantly. Biden’s Energy Information Administration puts solar at 3.6¢ per kilowatt-hour, but including reliability costs makes solar the most expensive energy source.
The need for battery storage when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing contributes to this cost increase.
Research indicates that Germany faces a “wind drought” each winter when wind turbines produce minimal power, requiring extensive battery use. This underlines the need for greater storage capacity.
A study in the United States suggests that achieving 100% solar or wind energy with sufficient backup would demand three months’ worth of electricity storage, far beyond the current capacity.
Expanding battery storage to this extent would be extremely costly and unsustainable economically.
The global cost of acquiring sufficient batteries would equate to 10 times the global GDP, with recurring costs every 15 years.
Another reason the claim of solar and wind being cheaper overlooks the expenses associated with recycling spent wind turbine blades and solar panels.
Improper disposal of these components results in environmental harm, with toxic chemicals leaking into soil and water supplies.
Studies suggest that recycling costs alone double the true cost of solar energy.
To combat climate change effectively, increased investment in low-CO₂ energy research and development is crucial. Only through technological advancements and breakthroughs can low-CO₂ energy sources become more cost-effective than fossil fuels.
Until then, claims that fossil fuels are economically outmatched remain wishful thinking.
Bjorn Lomborg is President of the Copenhagen Consensus and Visiting Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. His latest books include “False Alarm” and “Best Things First.”
