The Real Cost of Electricity: Why Wind and Solar Are Driving Up Bills

For years, we've been told that wind and solar power are the cheapest sources of electricity—cheaper than fossil fuels, coal, or natural gas. Politicians, international agencies, and environmental groups repeat this mantra endlessly, claiming that a rapid transition to "renewables" will lower energy bills while saving the planet. Yet real-world data from across the United States tells a starkly different story: states pushing aggressive wind and solar mandates are seeing electricity prices skyrocket, while those relying on reliable fossil fuels keep costs low.

The fundamental issue is straightforward. Wind and solar are **intermittent**—they generate power only when the wind blows or the sun shines, which is far from 24/7. To keep the lights on during calm nights or cloudy periods, grids need backup from dispatchable sources like natural gas plants, massive (and expensive) battery storage, or expanded transmission lines. These hidden costs—often ignored in rosy projections—turn "cheap" renewables into an expensive duplicative system. You're paying for wind/solar **plus** the reliable backup, instead of just one efficient system.

This isn't theoretical. A December 2025 report from the Institute for Energy Research (IER), titled "Blue States, High Rates: Electricity Prices—Elections Have Consequences," compares states aggressively pursuing renewables with those sticking to fossil fuels. The results are damning for the renewable push.

Consider California and New York, self-proclaimed "climate leaders" with heavy investments in wind, solar, and mandates to phase out fossil fuels:
- California's electricity rates are among the highest in the nation, often double the U.S. average (around 30-32¢/kWh residential in late 2025, vs. a national average of ~16-18¢/kWh).
- Policies like renewable mandates, net metering subsidies for rooftop solar, and nuclear plant closures have intentionally driven up costs.
- New York's rates are similarly elevated, about 58% above the national average in early 2025 data.

In contrast:
- Louisiana (73% natural gas) had the third-lowest rates in 2025.
- Florida (75% natural gas, importing it despite no local production) delivered power 2% below the U.S. average.
- Kentucky (67% coal, 26% natural gas) had rates 21% below average—the lowest east of the Mississippi.

These divergences aren't accidents; they're direct results of policy choices. States avoiding aggressive renewable mandates and CO2 reduction targets keep bills affordable for families and businesses.

Yet politicians and advocates keep peddling outright lies. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), a UN-affiliated body, claimed in its 2024 report (released July 2025) that 91% of new utility-scale renewable capacity was cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives—based solely on **Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)**. LCOE calculates the average cost per unit of electricity over a plant's lifetime but conveniently excludes critical grid-level expenses: backup generation, storage, transmission upgrades, and the inefficiency of ramping fossil plants up/down to accommodate intermittency.

Critics rightly call LCOE "fraudulent" for renewables because it assumes constant output (ignoring low capacity factors of 20-35% for wind/solar vs. 80-90% for fossil/nuclear) and ignores system-wide costs. When consumers pay their bills, those ancillary costs are included—and they're massive. Environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund echo IRENA's claims, insisting wind/solar plus batteries are "cost-effective." Media outlets pile on, touting renewables as "quick and cheap."

This deception is dangerous. Newly elected New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill won in November 2025 largely by promising "affordable" electricity through more wind and solar. She campaigned on expanding community solar and integrating more renewables, framing them as the path to lower bills amid voter anger over soaring rates (New Jersey saw a 21% residential price hike from 2024-2025). Her chances of delivering? Near zero, based on evidence from California and New York. Pushing intermittents without reliable backup will only exacerbate costs.

To be thorough, some states with high renewable penetration—like Texas and Iowa—maintain below-average prices. Texas leads in wind generation, Iowa gets over 60% of its electricity from renewables (mostly wind). But both retain full fossil fuel backup, avoiding the full costs of eliminating dispatchable power. They've arguably hit a "practical maximum" for intermittents; further aggressive pushes to phase out fossils would likely spike rates dramatically.

As demand surges—from data centers, electrification, and manufacturing—relying on weather-dependent sources risks blackouts and higher costs. Real affordability comes from reliable, dispatchable energy: natural gas, coal where viable, and nuclear. Politicians lying about "cheap renewables" aren't just wrong—they're burdening households with higher bills for ideological reasons. Elections have consequences, indeed. Voters deserve honesty: wind and solar aren't saving money; in many cases, they're the reason bills are rising.

If you find value in this censorship-proof, ad-free public service, consider helping:
Bitcoin address: bc1qq7tnet6ys0dkvl336v8d0prqnmvk9zzj2dxpqe

What do you think about this article?

Name
Comment *
Image