Don't buy eco lie$ on fossil fuels
Hidden costs of wind, solar power
DESPITE us constantly being told that solar and wind are now the cheapest forms of electricity, governments around the world needed to spend $1.8 trillion on the green transition last year.
“Wind and solar are already significantly cheaper than coal and oil” is how President Biden conveniently justifies spending hundreds of billions of dollars on green subsidies.
Indeed, arguing that wind and solar are cheapest is a meme employed by green lobbyists, activists and politicians around the world.
Unfortunately, as the huge subsidies show, the claim is wildly deceptive.
Wind and solar energy only produce power when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. The rest of the time, their electricity is infinitely expensive and a backup system is needed.
This is why global electricity remains almost two-thirds reliant on fossil fuels — and why we, on current trends, are an entire century away from eliminating fossil fuels from electricity generation.
It is often reported that large, emerging industrial powers like China, India, Indonesia and Bangladesh are getting more power from solar and wind. But these countries get much more additional power from coal.
Reliability matters
Last year, China got more additional power from coal than it did from solar and wind. India got three times as much, whereas Bangladesh got 13 times more coal electricity than it did from green energy sources, and Indonesia an astonishing 90 times more.
If solar and wind really were cheaper, why would these countries miss out? Because reliability matters.
The cost of solar and wind is typically measured when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, ignoring their unreliability.
Biden’s Energy Information Administration puts solar at 3.6 cents per kilowatt hour, just ahead of natural gas at 3.8 cents. But if you reasonably include the cost of reliability, the real costs explode — one peer-reviewed study shows an increase of 11 to 42 times, making solar by far the most expensive source of electricity, followed by wind.
The enormous, additional cost comes from the need for storage. Electricity is required even when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, yet our battery capacity is woefully inadequate.
Research shows that every winter, when solar contributes very little, Germany has a “wind drought” of five days when wind turbines also deliver almost nothing. That suggests batteries will be needed for a minimum of 120 hours — although the actual need will be much longer, since droughts sometimes last much longer and recur before storage can be filled.
A new study looking at the United States shows that to achieve 100% solar or wind electricity with sufficient backup, the US would need to be able to store almost three months’ worth of annual electricity. It currently has seven minutes of battery storage.
Just to pay for the batteries would cost the US five times its current GDP. And it would have to repurchase the batteries when they expire after just 15 years.
Globally, the cost just to have sufficient batteries would run to 10 times global GDP, with a new bill every 15 years.
Toxic green detritus
The second reason the claim is false is that it leaves out the cost of recycling spent wind turbine blades and exhausted solar panels. Already today, one small town in Texas, Sweetwater, is overflowing with thousands of enormous blades that cannot be recycled.
In poor countries across Africa, solar panels and their batteries are already being dumped, leaking toxic chemicals into the soil and water supplies. Because of lifetimes lasting just a few decades, and pressure from the climate lobby for an enormous ramp-up in use, this will only get much worse.
One study shows that this trash cost alone doubles the true cost of solar.
If solar and wind really were cheaper, they would replace fossil fuels without the need for a grand push from politicians and the industry.
If we want to fix climate change, we instead must invest a lot more in low-CO₂ energy research and development. Only a significant boost in research and development can bring about the technological breakthroughs that are needed — in reducing trash, in improving battery storage and efficiency, but also in other technologies like modular nuclear that will make low-CO₂ energy sources truly cheaper than fossil fuels.
Until then, claims that fossil fuels are already outcompeted are just 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.”