Wind and Solar Require Massive Subsidies

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It is difficult to fully itemize the subsidies provided for wind and solar energy. Many subsidies are hidden in the tax code or are an indirect consequence of the privileged treatment given these sources of electricity.

A fundamental difference between wind and solar and traditional energy sources is that wind and solar are intermittent and erratic. The weather affects both wind and cloud cover. The sun sets every night, turning off solar generation, often just when demand peaks. In winter, solar generation drops -- dramatically in areas with heavy winter cloud cover.  Wind and solar are dumb electricity.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/wind_and_solar_require_massive_subsidies.html

A few quote from article:

Building a new wind or solar generating plant does not result in the retirement or replacement of other generating plants in the electrical grid. The rest of the grid still has to be present to provide electricity when wind and solar are not generating. Even the massive and diverse Texas wind energy complex frequently experiences spells of very low output of less than 5% of capacity.

A kilowatt hour of wind or solar costs seven cents to generate, but its economic value is two cents for the fuel saved in the backup plants. So five cents per kilowatt hour is the subsidy that society pays for generating electricity in this fashion.

Since it costs far more to reduce the fuel consumed than it is worth, wind and solar make absolutely no sense. Neither is a cost-effective method of reducing CO2 emissions. If you justify the subsidy as an expense to reduce emissions, you find that it costs more than $100 per metric ton of CO2 emissions avoided.

[Bigun]

A few quote from article:

Building a new wind or solar generating plant does not result in the retirement or replacement of other generating plants in the electrical grid. The rest of the grid still has to be present to provide electricity when wind and solar are not generating. Even the massive and diverse Texas wind energy complex frequently experiences spells of very low output of less than 5% of capacity.

A kilowatt hour of wind or solar costs seven cents to generate, but its economic value is two cents for the fuel saved in the backup plants. So five cents per kilowatt hour is the subsidy that society pays for generating electricity in this fashion.

Since it costs far more to reduce the fuel consumed than it is worth, wind and solar make absolutely no sense. Neither is a cost-effective method of reducing CO2 emissions. If you justify the subsidy as an expense to reduce emissions, you find that it costs more than $100 per metric ton of CO2 emissions avoided.

 

[MajorClay]

Yes they do