Gas and Nuclear Outperform Wind and Solar

Robert Bryce notes that there’s an increasing backlash against solar and wind energy projects in which lately the rejections and restrictions have been piling up so quickly that it has been difficult to keep track of them all. ⁽¹⁾

As the Washington Times recently put it: “Steep increases in energy bills are leading consumers in Democratic-led states to question renewable energy policies that have failed to deliver more reliable, less expensive heat and electricity.” The Caller adds: “BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, historically a supporter of green energy initiatives, acknowledged that wind and solar alone can’t reliably keep the lights on without major breakthroughs in storage and wrote that it’s necessary to be clear-eyed about our energy mix.

Despite at least $5 trillion in subsidies for green technologies, including direct payments, tax credits, investment credits, and state subsidies, with no scrutiny of Environmental Impact Statements taken from tax dollars, only 2% of the fossil fuel reduction has been realized. Wood and biofuel are renewable but not clean. Wind and solar are proving to be hugely expensive, and it is difficult to integrate that unreliable electricity into the national grid. ⁽²⁾

The narrative has been shifting on the true cost of wind and solar for some time. Many people in the industry understand that normal LCOE (Levelized Cost of Energy) values are insufficient to judge the full cost of these technologies. Unfortunately, renewable energy advocates still tout LCOE values as gospel to perpetuate the myth of cheap wind and solar, and there are still plenty of policymakers who buy into it. ⁽³⁾

Modern society requires energy that is affordable and available on demand. Environmental concerns are also very important. Together, affordability, reliability, and cleanliness form the three pillars of ideal energy policy.

Two new analyses evaluate competing electrical power sources and produce an affordable, reliable and clean scorecard. The two analyses, one published by Northwood University and the Mackinac Center and the other by The Heartland Institute, independently reach near-identical findings. ^(4,5)

Both analyses find natural gas is the most affordable, reliable, and clean electrical power source. Not far behind natural gas are nuclear, hydro, and coal. Lagging at the bottom of the affordability scorecard are wind and solar power.

Despite some claims that wind and solar are less expensive than conventional power, the opposite is true. Wind and solar benefit from far more subsidies than other power sources, which merely shift their high costs to taxpayers rather than directly to customers’ electricity bills. Also, the intermittent and often unpredictable nature of wind and solar power impose substantial costs on the grid, requiring other power sources to frequently ramp up and down—quite inefficiently—to cover for the variability pf wind and solar. Finally, wind turbines and solar panels must often be built far from population centers, requiring extensive networks of transmission wires to deliver power to customers. ⁽⁶⁾

Natural gas is easily the lowest cost electrical power source, with coal the second most affordable. Natural gas also scores very high for reliable high-volume power production, as do nuclear and coal.

Taking all the above factors into account, a peer-reviewed analysis of full-system levelized costs of competing power sources shows wind power is seven times more expensive than natural gas power and solar power is ten times more expensive. That explains why most of the world, and nearly all the developing world, is building natural gas, coal and nuclear power plants rather than wind and solar power facilities.

Perhaps the most noteworthy findings of the two independent analyses are the poor environmental performance of wind and solar power. Wind and solar, like hydro and nuclear are emissions free. However, wind and solar score quite poorly regarding many other important environmental factors. Wind and solar require disrupting and developing far more land and ecosystems than other power sources. Wind and solar generation directly kill far more animals than other power sources, including many protected and endangered species. The mining of toxic and rare earth minerals for wind turbines and solar panels is enormously and uniquely harmful to water and soil health. ⁽⁶⁾

New England Example

The true cost of wind and solar in New England is not competitive with that of natural gas. This is especially true for offshore wind, which according to modeling, is twelve times more expensive than combined cycle natural gas in the region. ⁽⁷⁾

The costs incurred in the New England Decarbonization Plans are driven by a massive buildout of solar panels, offshore wind turbines, on-shore wind turbines and transmission lines, in addition to the costs associated with higher taxes, generator profits and the cost of building battery storage facilities to provide power when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing.

Compliance with the New England Decarbonization Plan would cost $815 billion through 2050. New England families would see their electric bills increase by an average of nearly $99 per year. Commercial businesses would see their costs increase by $489 per year. Industrial customers would see their electric bills increase by an average of almost $5,280 per year. In the end, the idea that New England can use policies based on net zero promises to heat and power the region is a dangerous and unserious proposition concludes a 104 page report! (8)

Nuclear Power

The big winner in a free enterprise system is nuclear technology that produces continuous, uninterruptible, and emissions free electricity. Despite crushing regulations, a licensing process that approves almost no innovations, and their competitors’ enjoying at least two orders of magnitude more subsidies for renewables, nuclear power is still cost-competitive with other forms of electricity generation. ⁽²⁾

This is despite nuclear power being the safest industry in the US and the world and the cheapest way to produce power on a level, the free enterprise economic model. It is cleaner than renewables, which require exotic minerals and metals mined in developing countries. It provides baseload power like natural gas and coal and has already been proven commercially for seven decades.

Nuclear takes the least amount of land, uses the least amount of earth’s natural resources, has lifetimes up to three times that of renewables (80 years vs. 24 years), and is competitive in cost even though it pays for all its clean-up and disposition costs up front. (2)

References

1. “Lashing Your Own Back,” climatediscussionnexus.com, April 9, 2025
2. Ronald Stein et al., “Demand in US electricity elevates risk of wind/solar and highlights need for nuclear power,” cornwallalliance.org, April 18, 2025
3. Mitch Rolling and Isaac Orr, “Wind and solar up to 12 times more expensive than natural gas in New England,” energybadboys.com, December 21, 2024
4. James Taylor, “Affordable, reliable, and clean: an objective scorecard to assess competing energy sources,” heartland.org, April 21, 2025
5. Jason Hayes and Timothy G. Nash, “Grading the grid”, Mackinac Center, Northwood University, static1.squarespace.com, March 27, 2024
6. James Taylor, “Affordable, reliable, clean scorecard: natural gas tops wind, solar worst,” highlandcountypress.com, April 25, 2025
7. Mitch Rolling and Isaac Orr, “Wind and solar up to 12 times more expensive than natural gas in New England,” energybadboys.com, December 21, 2024
8. Isaac Orr et al. “The staggering costs of New England’s green energy policies,” September 2024, yankeeinstitute.org.