The answer is they aren’t cheaper. 
Energy Talking Points
Substack writer Alex Epstein has a great post on The “Levelized Cost of Energy” Scam.
If you ever hear anyone favorably compare solar and wind to coal, gas, or nuclear by citing a low LCOE—“Levelized Cost of Energy”—you are being scammed.
You’ve heard it over and over: “Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels.”
You might suspect something is wrong here, because if solar and wind were so cheap their developers wouldn’t always be asking for subsidies, or claim the sky is falling when subsidies are taken away.
The suspicious claim that “Solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels” is usually justified using an intimidating-sounding metric called LCOE: “Levelized Cost of Energy.”
In a 2020 report, the International Energy Agency used LCOE to claim that “renewable” energy costs are now “competitive” with fossil fuel costs, and that onshore wind is the cheapest source of electricity in most countries.
In a 2023 article titled “The Clean Energy Future Is Arriving Faster Than You Think,” the New York Times used LCOE to claim that solar and wind are somehow cheap while coal, gas, and nuclear are somehow expensive.
LCOE absurdly equates the value of reliable electricity and unreliable electricity
- Imagine there were a metric called LCOB—Levelized Cost of Babysitters—that compared the cost of different babysitters in your neighborhood.
But there was a catch that made it useless: the organization collecting the metric allowed totally unreliable babysitters to qualify.- Imagine that unreliable babysitters sold themselves by saying: We have the cheapest LCOB—we only charge $15/hour, while reliable ones charge $20.
Obviously that would be a scam because in practice if you pay for an unreliable babysitter you also need to pay for a reliable one.- Whether you’re comparing babysitters or sources of electricity, reliability is table stakes.
And yet LCOE—Levelized Cost of Electricity—popularized by the firm Lazard, explicitly excludes “reliability-related considerations”
- By allowing unreliable electricity to qualify as “electricity” or “energy,” LCOE wildly understates the cost of solar and wind. In reality, solar and wind need life support from reliable sources.
The cost of using them is the full system cost, including life support cost.- The full life-support cost of solar and wind includes the dispatchable power plants that accommodate solar and wind’s unreliability—and the high-density long-distance transmission wires needed to connect faraway solar and wind to nearby grids—and various grid-stabilizing expenses.
- Solar and wind’s life-support costs are large and increase with the percentage of solar and wind use.
References
New York Times – The Clean Energy Future Is Arriving Faster Than You Think
Guardian – Wind power is cheapest energy, EU analysis finds
IEA – Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020
If Wishes Were Fishes
All of the above are scams. If wind and solar were cheaper they would not need subsidies and we would have more wind and solar power.
Q: But isn’t China expanding solar?
A: Yes, but China does not care about costs, has a perfect high altitude location, and is not subject to ridiculous US tariffs on solar panels.
Hydropower may be cheaper. And China is again a perfect example.
Hydropower Electricity
On July 23, 2025, SCMP reported China is building the world’s biggest hydropower dam.
On the eastern rim of the Tibetan plateau, China envisions a future powered by the roaring waters of the Yarlung Tsangpo, also known as the Brahmaputra. The river will be the site of a mega dam – the world’s most ambitious to date – that promises to bring clean energy, jobs, infrastructure and prosperity to the region.
How big is the mega dam?
The dam will be situated in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo, where a section drops 2,000 metres (6,562 feet) over a 50km (31 miles) stretch, creating immense hydropower potential. The dam is reportedly located in Medog, a remote county in the city of Nyingchi in the Tibet autonomous region.
When completed, the project will overtake the Three Gorges Dam as the world’s largest hydropower dam. It could generate three times more energy with five cascade hydropower stations – an estimated annual capacity of 300 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, more than Britain’s total annual power output.
It is estimated to cost around 1.2 trillion yuan (US$167 billion), dwarfing many of the biggest infrastructure undertakings in modern history at around five times the cost of the Three Gorges Dam and even more expensive than the International Space Station.
But not all hydropower is unproblematic. Lake Powell and Lake Mead in the US are problem examples.
Dams silt up, US water rights are an issue, and water replenishment is an issue. The Brahmaputra damn has none of those issues.
I discussed hydropower on October 27 in Why China Is On a Pace to Win the AI Race
China has three big advantages over the US: cheap electricity, an open source model, and fewer capital needs.
Electricity Costs Are Soaring and AI Will Make Matters Worse
Please note Electricity Costs Are Soaring and AI Will Make Matters Worse
Electricity demand for AI data centers is soaring. The result won’t be pretty.
We should take advantage of cheap hydropower in Canada and be grateful for Canada’s ability to produce steel and aluminum cheaper than we can.
Instead, Trump proposes to make aluminum, copper, and steel manufacturing great again with 50 percent tariffs.
Related Posts
February 11, 2025: Trump’s Steel Tariffs Now Will Work as Good as the First Time
Q: How’s that? A: Very poorly.
September 6, 2025: Trump’s Aluminum Tariffs Seriously Backfire Already
Tariffs did not and will not bring production back to the US.
NIcole Foss on renewables https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx3thvrUuI_5ymb91Kl-vFjQjf45WrTzKr
I’m not sure the use of LCOE makes the price comparison a scam. Fact is apparently (according to these sources) that wind and solar is cheaper. However, that cheap price comes with a cost: unreliability. So while you cannot move the full system to wind and solar, parts of the supply can be shifted to profit of the lower costs. If we need to consider the costs of the full system, including externalities such as the ones you describe with dams, then the same goes for coal / oil / nuclear, which also has clear additional costs in terms of pollution, mining damage, waste etc. If we were to add that, LCOE might be even better for wind and solar.
Why then, isn’t there more of it? Well, could an administration that purposely kills projects to produce these types of energy, and which subsidizes oil, at least play a role there? I would think so.
Alex Epstein is a shill for the oil business, so, it’s not surprising that he has an article up on substack that denigrates renewables (competition to the oil business).
That being said, wind, solar, and battery backups have exploded in Texas (a state completely controlled by republicans) in the last 5 years.
Does that mean that gas power plants are going away? Of course not! Yes, you do need backup and “peakers”. But, Texas is big enough that if the wind isn’t blowing or the sun not shining in the Permian Basin and Panhandle areas, it is in Corpus Christi. This same concept is true all over the country. Imagine having wind and solar assets all across the country, interconnected, as well as battery storage.
And “the price” of the wind and sun is always the same, never depends on foreign suppliers or the whims of geopolitics.
Lastly, while we have chosen to let the supply chains for the components of wind and solar be from cheap foreign sources (mainly China), we can incentivize that to be local (Tariffs anyone?) and create our own renewable energy superpowers.
Then, with the USA having so much (not all!) home grown renewable energy, all of our excess oil and gas can be exported to countries willing to pay a premium for it
Solar is blowing the roof off of new generation because it is wildly cheaper than coal and oil. Batteries are now cheap enough so that most new solar installations are perfectly stable 24 hours a day. Nat gas gives a run for the money but has a significant problem: it has been abnormally cheap due to it being a byproduct of fracking. But as the government fights to lower gasoline costs, fracking becomes less profitable. Less of it happens, less nat gas gets produced, and nat gas prices increase. That instability and risk causes fewer nat gas plants to get built. So the share of solar+batteries increases. The free market hates risky long-term investments, so solar is the easy winner.
Correct.
Exactly. The price of oil and gas can vary widely. While the sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow, when they do, they are “free”.
Imagine when people compare these costs versus when nat gas is $6, or around twice as much as it is now!
A coal plant I worked at decades ago converted to natural gas this year. In 2024, coal to natural gas conversions powered 13 million houses. Natural gas has half the emissions of coal.
Installing solar panels is relatively fast but most solar cells and panels are imported from China. Building MSR takes time, but they last for decades
There is only one MSR in the world today. An experimental test unit in China. Only time will tell if it will be useful.
China is also working on commercial SMRs like everyone else. But no one can make them work at a low enough price to be worth it.
So China is building 30 conventional nuclear reactors to supply 30 GW of power.
In comparison, the US is not building any conventional nuclear reactors right now.
Another huge lie by the authorities. Forcing wind farms down peoples’ necks, and ugly solar power arrays all over the place.
Too bad there is no viable alternative. In 2024 we added 31GW of solar, 3GW of wind 3GW of gas and 1 GW of nuclear electricity generation.
In 2025 there will be 0 new nuclear. And we will add another 4GW of gas generation.
I wonder where we will get the other 40-50 GW of new power that we need? Any suggestions?
As a resident of Massachusetts I agree wholeheartedly that we should take advantage of cheap Canadian Hydro. The dams have already been built so whatever environmental damage resulting from those dams will not be undone.
The problem is that enviros and naturalists are blocking power lines from being constructed through the White Mountains of NH. As an avid hiker I myself have no problem with it. In fact I’m more upset with the wind turbines I now see being erected in the White Mts.
We already take advantage of cheap Canadian electricity by importing cheap Canadian aluminum.
From copilot:
In 2024, the U.S. imported approximately 2.7 million metric tons of aluminum from Canada, requiring an estimated 40 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity—equivalent to 40,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh).
Here’s a breakdown of the numbers and context:
🇺🇸 U.S. Aluminum Imports from Canada
• Volume: 2.7 million metric tons of aluminum imported from Canada in 2024
• Share of U.S. Consumption: This accounted for over half of total U.S. aluminum consumption, which was around 5 million metric tons
• Type of Aluminum: The bulk of this was unwrought aluminum, used in automotive, aerospace, packaging, and construction sectors
⚡ Electricity Required for Production
• Energy Intensity: Producing 1 metric ton of aluminum requires approximately:• 15,000 kWh in Canada
This is roughly 4.5× the annual output of the Hoover Dam, or enough to power 460 data centers or the entire state of Nevada for a year C.
🇨🇦 Why Canada Is Strategic
• Low-Carbon Advantage: Canada’s aluminum is primarily produced using hydropower, making it significantly lower in carbon emissions compared to coal-powered smelters.
• Infrastructure & Reliability: Canada offers world-class smelting infrastructure and stable supply chains, making it a cornerstone of U.S. aluminum sourcing
My question for you MIsh:
If gas, coal or nuclear generation were cheaper than solar and wind, why are we building so little of them?
And yes, they all receive subsidies as well.
I would remove all subsidies
But I don’t call the shots
I will try again. Assume no subsidies for any form of electricity generation.
With no subsidies, what type of electricity generation will dominate?
The answer is mostly solar and wind. Because they are the cheapest and quickest to build. Natural gas would be a distant second. Nuclear an even more distant third.
This is exactly what is happening in the US and all over the world. Solar and wind domination will continue.
And they will continue for the rest of this decade, and probably the next decade as well.
But I thought Trump killed solar & wind?
The reasons solar is dominating is because it has a lower upfront cost & is widely scalable across in key states like TX & CA. Most importantly, the battery backup has matured & come down in price sufficiently to make solar very compelling.
What would be great is for companies to come up with engineered solutions that let companies easily deploy solar to existing commercial & industrial roofs. They may be out there nowadays, but I’d love to see local codes adopt requiring every new building have solar & batter installed locally to meet a minimum % of expected demand.
At some point, it will give way to nuclear in terms of capacity installed. I’d peg that in about 10-15 years.
“ But I thought Trump killed solar & wind?”
Nope. I don’t know anyone who has said that Trump KILLED solar and wind. Do you always exaggerate like that?
However, Trump is TRYING to do that. And he has had some success in doing so already. Several wind projects have been delayed, or cancelled as a result. Which is why projections for new wind generation have declined for this year and the next few years. His limited success means that we will have less electricity generation than planned. And the resulting higher prices.
From copilot:
President Trump has enacted multiple regulatory and tax policy changes that significantly hinder new wind and solar installations, especially on public lands and through federal incentives.
Here’s a breakdown of the key impediments:
🛑 Tax Credit Restrictions
• Termination of key tax credits: The Trump administration’s new tax law ends investment and production tax credits for solar and wind projects that begin producing electricity after 2027.
• Stricter eligibility rules: Treasury guidance redefined what qualifies as “beginning construction,” making it harder for developers to claim credits. Previously accepted steps like spending 5% of project costs or starting physical work may no longer suffice.
• Legal uncertainty: Clean energy advocates argue these changes contradict congressional intent and may face legal challenges.
🧱 Permitting Barriers
• Permit pauses on public lands: All new wind and solar projects on federal land—both onshore and offshore—have been paused since Trump took office.
• Retroactive permit revocations: In at least one case, the administration revoked an already-issued permit for a solar or wind project.
• Expanded review requirements: New Department of the Interior rules add layers of permitting complexity, slowing or stalling projects even on private land that requires federal approval.
🏞️ Land Use Restrictions
• Federal land deemed “inefficient”: A new memo labels wind and solar as “highly inefficient uses of Federal land,” and proposes permitting only projects deemed the “most appropriate” compared to alternatives.
• Elevated scrutiny: Wind and solar projects now face a higher level of review, increasing delays and uncertainty.
—-
Too bad that there is no viable alternative to more wind and solar power. So the more success Trump has in slowing their development, the less electricity we will have available, and the higher prices will go for consumers.
I’m pretty sure you said a few months back after the BBB passed that Trump was going to kill solar & wind.
Now, I guess that morphed into just “slow their development”.
No worries!
Nope. Feel free to go back and look up what I actually said. Then you can apologize to me.
I am getting tired of you putting words in my mouth to suit your narrative. A very annoying habit of yours.
I said Trump is doing whatever he can to try to stop wind and solar; including cancelling permits on federal land. I never said he had magically managed to stop ALL renewables.
Many states and private companies will continue to build renewables because they are the best option available. Including many red states.
How is kill different from stop without play semantics?
I’m totally okay with annoying the hell out of you, so someone holds you accountable for all of your anti-Trump rants.
You’re a smart guy, especially about energy, but you said what your said, PapaD.
Cheers!
My favorite topic: energy. And in particular, electricity.
LCOE or VALCOE are relatively simple ways to compare the cost of producing electricity. They are not perfect, but they are a reasonable starting point. And like all stats and data, they are subject to interpretation. Which means they can be used to support a variety of positions; ranging from “renewables will save us” to “renewables are a scam”. Neither is true.
What is clear to me, is that:
1. The world will always demand MORE energy. More energy is required for continued economic growth and increases in living standards.
2. Increasingly, more and more of this energy will come in the form of electricity as we electrify more of our economy (AI, Data Centers, Crypto, EVs, etc).
3. We need ALL forms of electricity generation. Saying NO to nuclear , NO to natural gas generation, NO to coal, NO to hydro dams, or NO to renewables are equally stupid statements. There is no point deliberately limiting your options.
4. Which forms of electricity generation are used depends on what resources are actually available and what their costs are. For example, there are not a lot of hydro dams sites available, as most of them have been developed already. Some countries have a lot of coal and gas, but others have none. Some places get more sun and wind than others.
5. All over the world, solar and wind are currently dominating new generation. This is because solar and wind are the cheapest and quickest way to add new generation. To say that solar and wind are a scam is simply not true. From a copilot search:
In 2024, the U.S. added approximately 56 GW of new electricity generation capacity. Solar dominated with 30.8 GW, followed by batteries (13 GW), wind (3.1 GW), natural gas (2.4 GW), and nuclear (1.1 GW). Other sources like hydro, biomass, and geothermal contributed marginally.
Here’s a detailed breakdown of utility-scale capacity additions by generation type:
🇺🇸 U.S. Electricity Generation Additions in 2024 (in GW)
Generation Type Capacity Added (GW) Share of Total
Solar 30.8 55%
Battery Storage 13.0 23%
Wind 3.1 6%
Natural Gas 2.4 4%
Nuclear 1.1 2%
Hydropower 0.2 <1%
Biomass 0.05 <1%
Geothermal 0.03 <1%
Coal + Oil + Other ~0.05 <1%
🔍 Key Highlights
• Solar accounted for 81.5% of all new capacity, continuing a 16-month streak as the top source of new generation.
• Battery storage nearly doubled from 2023, with 13 GW added—critical for integrating intermittent renewables.
• Wind additions declined for the fourth consecutive year due to supply chain and permitting challenges.
• Vogtle Unit 4 (1.1 GW) was the only major nuclear addition, marking a rare expansion in U.S. nuclear capacity.
• Natural gas additions were modest, reflecting a shift toward carbon-free sources despite its role in grid reliability.
🧠 Strategic Takeaway
This data reinforces the U.S. trend toward rapid solar and battery deployment, with firm capacity (nuclear, gas) growing slowly.
6. There is nothing wrong with adding more gas or nuclear generation. But we are not. If gas and nuclear could be done faster and cheaper, we would do it.
7. This new generation story is being replicated all over the world. Here are China’s numbers
In 2024, China added a record-breaking 429 GW of new electricity generation capacity. Solar dominated with 277 GW, followed by wind (79 GW), thermal (54.1 GW), hydro (14.4 GW), and nuclear (3.9 GW). Over 87% of new capacity was zero-emissions.
Here’s a detailed breakdown of China’s utility-scale capacity additions by generation type:
🇨🇳 China Electricity Generation Additions in 2024 (in GW)
Generation Type Capacity Added (GW) Share of Total
Solar 277.2 65%
Wind 79.3 18%
Thermal (Coal + Gas) 54.1 13%
Hydropower 14.4 3%
Nuclear 3.9 1%
Total 429.0 100%
🔍 Key Highlights
• Solar additions alone exceeded the entire global total for 2022, with 277 GW added—60% of global solar growth.
• Wind capacity grew 5% year-over-year, with China contributing ~60% of global wind additions.
• Thermal additions declined 7% year-over-year, but still added 54.1 GW—mostly coal, with ~20% gas peakers for grid flexibility.
• Hydropower rebounded, growing 79% year-over-year to 14.4 GW.
• Nuclear capacity surged 184% from 2023, adding 3.9 GW.
• Zero-emissions sources made up 87% of new capacity, reinforcing China’s dual-carbon goals.
🧠 Strategic Takeaway
China’s 2024 buildout dwarfs U.S. additions (56 GW) and reflects:
• Unmatched deployment velocity—solar and wind added 356 GW vs. 34 GW in the U.S.
• Grid flexibility strategy—thermal and hydro still play balancing roles.
• Industrial leverage—China’s dominance in solar and battery manufacturing drives cost and export advantages.
Great reply. One small correction, batteries did not contribute to generation as batteries do not generate electricity.
Agree. As I stated, that was from CoPilot. When I present numbers myself, I don’t count battery storage as generation. Though more battery storage certainly helps with the intermittent nature of renewables.
Questions:
How much are the subsidies / credits for any of them?
How much of their decommissioning / residual liabilities find their way to everyone else?
In all these arguments, one thing is never mentioned: how much US government gives subsidies to oil/coal industry. Based on Environmental and Energy Study Institute annually about $20 Billion is given as subsidies to oil and coal industry in tax breaks and land lease. BTW this has been going on for decades: there is no stopping the subsidies since it is deemed “matured” to stand alone. When a solar project received 30% tax credit as emerging energy technology to give push to off ground, usual “capitalist” some chants usual “no free government money” song. US is capitalist system? Give me a break. BTW I have solar installed, and received 30% tax credit (not free money, it is deducted from tax I owed). One of the reasons I did is rolling black outs in CA due to wild fires. Once the grid is shut down, I cannot use the electricity I generated from panels since it would electrify the grid. Now have a battery and I don’t worry about blackouts: I island my house when grid goes down and use electricity I generated from solar in my house. Can you put a price on that?
Costs.
Costs are tricky. The DoD budget leaves a lot of costs outside the budget.
[DoE nukes and garbage; VA; Secret budgets; cross subsidies from other programs; Debt Service; trillions in spending that somehow don’t land up in the accounting].
The tired trope about subsidized solar always leaves out the immense amounts of preferential subsidies enjoyed by energy companies and investments globally, about 10× what goes into renewables, according to international agencies.
It is actually very hard to determine the cost of something outside of regulation, tax breaks, cheap land grants, forgiven bankruptcies, environmental clean-up, taxes and royalties, etc.
Solar is not unreliable, it is intermittent.
But all energy sources are within certain rather predictable envelopes.
It ain’t a particularly new discovery that the sun don’t shine at night.
There is fail-over on the grid all the time, maintenance, unexpected accidents.
The whole grid is continuously a dynamic balancing act between only partially predictable demand & supply. Pumped water storage to even out daytime and nighttime demand predates solar and wind generation.
Sooner or later mankind must be weaned from finite energy sources, and it is wise not to wait until it is too late. Future generations will rue us for just burning up valuable stocks of materiel inputs.
We do. Solar & Wind energy have increased exponentially the past 4 decades.
That doesn’t mean much when you compare that to countries like China at 10x the rollout.
We will fall further behind with the current politics of denying climate change exists and promoting coal, of all things
If you really want to discuss the cost of energy sources honestly you have to recognize the elephant in the room which is climate change. But it’s not even mentioned here.
Climate change is real. But the world will do almost nothing about it because that would require worldwide cooperation. Which is almost impossible to achieve.
The world will do something about it. It’s just like saying an overweight person will never do anything about it. They will, they’ll either address the issue, or they’ll pay for it down the line. It has a price whether or not they actively work to mitigate the issue.
Many countries, states, municipalities, businesses and individuals will do “something”, but most of it will involve mitigation to reduce the impacts of climate change on them personally.
What they will NOT be able to do is work together with everyone else in the world to prevent the continued climb in atmospheric greenhouse gasses which is still accelerating.
The U.S. can’t accept cheap solar and wind energy because China is leading these fields, just as it is leading in electric vehicles and battery technology.
The case is politicised and raise the tariff up to 145%.
But there are other problems such as unreliability ( day and night, no wind ), infrastructure development, battery storage, current fossil fuel businesses to be wound down etc to be sorted out over time.
I don’t think your argument of reliability holds much. When you consider that the rest of the planet is rolling out these highly unreliable and inconsistent methods of energy generation staggering rates… It’s just possible that you are wrong.
You see, what we’re doing here is creating and solving problems all at the same time. Look at how much battery energy storage has advanced and it’s only just reaching market.
Once upon a time, cars were a bad idea because the dirt roads went to mud in heavy weather – so they started paving roads. Problem solved.
You still need to charge the wonder batteries.
8000 tons of batteries to keep 50 MW data center (or anything else) running through a 15 hour winter night.
Then the next day you need 50 MW to keep the data center running and enough extra panels to recharge the battery.
https://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.aspx
see the bouncing green line. Two days of neither wind nor solar. Light up the ICE! The data must flow!
Top European countries by percentage of electricity from solar and wind:
It means solar and wind are reasonably reliable. I don’t hear major problems.
How much are they subsidized?
Don’t you need to distinguish between solar and wind?
Is wind more reliable offshore Europe than in the US?
From copliot:
Fossil fuels receive significantly more subsidies than renewables in the U.S.—about $35 to $52 billion annually for fossil fuels versus roughly $15 to $20 billion for renewables.
💰 U.S. Fossil Fuel Subsidies
• Direct federal subsidies: Estimated at $35 billion per year, including tax breaks, royalty relief, and production incentives A.
• Broader estimate (including externalities): Up to $760 billion annually, factoring in unpriced pollution, health impacts, and climate costs A.
• Key mechanisms:• Intangible Drilling Costs (IDCs): Allows oil and gas firms to deduct exploration expenses.
• Percentage Depletion Allowance: Lets companies deduct a portion of revenue based on resource depletion.
• State-level exemptions: LNG plants in Texas and Louisiana often receive property tax breaks A.
🌞 U.S. Renewable Energy Subsidies
• Annual federal support: Estimated at $15–20 billion, primarily through tax credits and grants B.
• Inflation Reduction Act (IRA): Originally extended renewable tax credits through 2032 or until emissions drop 75% from 2022 levels.
• Recent cuts (2025 GOP legislation):• Phases out tax credits for solar, wind, and other low-carbon sources earlier than planned.
• Eliminates consumer incentives for EVs and home energy upgrades B.
⚖️ Comparative Takeaways
Category Fossil Fuels Renewables
Direct Federal Subsidies $35–52 billion/year $15–20 billion/year
Broader Economic Impact Up to $760 billion Lower external costs
Policy Trend (2025) Boosted by GOP bill Facing subsidy cuts
And this:
As of 2025, the U.S. renewable energy sector employs about 3.56 million people, while the fossil fuel sector employs roughly 1.3 million. Renewables now account for over 42% of all U.S. energy jobs.
👷 U.S. Energy Sector Employment Snapshot (2025)
Sector Jobs (2025) Share of Energy Jobs
Renewables 3.56 million 42%
Fossil Fuels ~1.3 million ~15%
Total Energy ~8.5 million 100%
Sources: U.S. Energy & Employment Report, Clean Jobs America
🔋 Renewable Energy Jobs
• Includes solar, wind, hydro, battery storage, energy efficiency, and grid modernization
• Grew 3x faster than the rest of the U.S. economy in 2024
• 82% of all new energy jobs in 2024 were in clean energy A
• Fastest-growing roles: wind turbine technicians and solar PV installers
🛢️ Fossil Fuel Jobs
• Includes oil, gas, coal, and related extraction and refining
• Employment has been relatively flat or declining due to automation and market shifts
• Concentrated in states like Texas, Louisiana, and Wyoming
⚠️ Policy Headwinds
• Recent federal rollbacks (2025) have led to:• Cancellation of $22B in clean energy projects
• Potential loss of 830,000 clean energy jobs due to subsidy cuts and regulatory hurdles A
Trump is selling NG to the EU, India, Japan… Do we have enough for AI and our needs.
NG doesn’t generate electricity on its own. You need the equipment and the installations, which we lack.
Since climate change isn’t real, there’s really no incentive in this country to expand green power generation. Meanwhile we can no longer afford green energy because of tariffs and AI is sucking up capacity.
Ah but does not oil gets subsidies also. Everyone has a hand out to the gov ment
Between 11AM and 4PM solar gets priority at the expense of NG, Coal, nuke, hydro…Solar clogs the system at peak prices. The rest, in the back of the line, are losing money. They are an expensive redundancy doing nothing all day. When solar charges GEV batteries, during peak time, solar efficiency drops below 50%. Since solar isn’t reliable there is a need the rest. What will happen to an AI center getting its energy from the wind and GEV batteries, if the wind dies.
If the wind dies, the AI will get dumber. It will start saying things like “Russia’s full-scale unprovoked invasion …”
There is another issue. With electric power generated via rotating equipment, there is huge momentum holding the alternating current at constant cycles per second. Wind and solar do not contribute to that feature. It was reported somewhere in Europe where wind and solar are significant contributors, that regulating alternating current frequency was becoming a bid concern for providers.
Denninger did a recent dissertation on this topic, specifically about the principles of flywheels.
I’m surprised that it is a big concern for providers. This has been a problem with a solution since the beginning of AC power generation being interconnected. Since the 19th century.
Yes, the solution is rotating mass as in generator rotors and the turbines driving them.
Inverters don’t have rotating mass. They have software with time lags. When things got out of phase in Spain down went the grid.
Mish’s “you need fossil backup therefore renewables aren’t cheaper” argument is misleading because it mixes two different cost questions.
Lazard (LCOE v17) — a private investment bank — shows that the cost of producing a new MWh from new solar or onshore wind is often lower than from new fossil. That’s a valid marginal-generation comparison.
Mish instead jumps to the 100% renewables end-state where firming/storage dominates. But most grids aren’t remotely at that penetration — and backup already exists. So he is pricing the final system transformation and using that to deny today’s marginal cost advantage.
FTAOD – this is an economics argument not a green argument. There is also a political argument that once installed, renewables are less likely to be manipulated by politicians.
LCOE does not ignore reliability issues. LCOE uses total production. Intermittent generation from wind and solar have less total production than so called reliable generation. As a result, they have less production available to amortize total cost. Low LCOE is not a mirage. It works. Its real. Wind and solar are cheaper than thermal power plants. Have a nice day!
The bastards are cutting down forests to put up these things. They were never meant to be used this way. Solar is a very inefficient way to produce electricity.
What is the answer to Solar Cost – Trump Tariffs vs Fossil Fuel? Is he just making one more expensive so we go after the oil and gas controlled by his donor buddies?
Trump’s vengeful145% tariff on Chinese solar should not be ignored entirely when comparing costs.
[ED: conditional apology if my search for tariff mention missed a mention, looked fairly carefully!]
C’mon Mish, you supposedly do economic analyses. Why rely on (at least this one weak) supposed argument of the author of “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”?
The entirety of his ‘research’ on why LCOE should not be utilized is based upon ‘reliable’ vs. ‘nonreliable’ energy sources. Seeing as how renewables were never supposed to be considered baseload energy source, reliability is a weak argument.
But even if you like that ‘argument’, you should also consider the opposite marginal cost (MC) theory which economists analyze more. Renewable energy is oftentimes at 0 or even negative MC: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/australia-offer-three-hours-free-solar-per-day-millions-2025-11-04/
Users have to switch their behaviors of course to utilize that, but THAT is why renewables will be a big part of any energy future. Obviously renewables require fixed costs (that is why LCOE is appropriate for one methodology of comparison), but ‘free’ at the margin is the selling point.
Those who don’t want to use renewables can keep complaining about their ‘average’ and ‘reliable’ fossil-fuel-based energy costs increasing (as you’ve written about lately)
Also Germany is building a concrete gravity battery to store renewable energy for use during times when renewables are not generating.
In China they are building one, and talking positively about it. In the USA? They are building one in Texas while all oil men piss on renewables to keep their shell game going for a few more decades.
gravity battery: https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/two-massive-gravity-batteries-are-nearing-completion-in-the-us-and-china
We should stop reading what USA experts tell us and go ask China.
Their first answer might be like: Lower your 145% tariff or else build more of it yourself at scale instead of bombs for Taiwan, Venezuela, Syria, Gaza, Kiev, etc.
Agree. What’s never mentioned here are the trillions in fossil fuels subsidies. How are those accounted? When a 1000 mile pipeline is proposed “eminent domain” is one giant subsidy to the company putting that in.
People act as if the fossil fuel industry just magically built everything on their own with out subsidies, support, etc. Tariffs on solar panels are one huge subsidy for fossil fuels.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/11/03/chinas-new-auction-system-drives-steep-solar-price-declines/
How does Trump suddenly appear when talking about the Democrats green energy agenda?
OT.
https://wolfstreet.com/2025/11/03/us-governments-net-cash-from-tariffs-jumps-to-record-32-billion-in-october/
The comments are good too.
Bwahahaha. 2 downvotes for a link to a good article and comments. Louuuzerrrrz.
? Because you didn’t put it in your words. LOL
Because our racists billionaire rulers stop us from importing cheap live saving Chinese solar panels.
145% tariff on Chinese solar does the talking for you
Interesting take, but ignores nuclear in the energy source conversation.
We are just a couple of breakthroughs (yah, I know that has no definitive timeline) from nuclear power being the answer, and that will know no geographic boundaries.
Compared on an “apples to apples” basis, so-called “renewables” are in no way cheaper, even with subsidies. A conventional gas turbine power plant can supply its full rated power output 24/7/365. Renewables cannot do that with existing storage technology.
If someone disagrees with the above statement, then please point me to an installation of solar/wind and storage, currently in operation, that can provide its full rated electrical output 24/7/365. I would love to see a link.
Solar and wind are clearly not baseload technologies. Why conflate them as such ?
Is that a link to dispute Steve P?
What a strange (and nonsensical) comparison.
Point us to a reliable source that highlights how many gas (or coal) turbine power plants run at “full rated power output 24/7/365”. Practically none. Those power sources are called baseload for a reason. They are constructed (at high cost BTW) to be able to run at full power for very short periods when all its customers all use high amounts of electricity simultaneously (ex – peak A/C usage on the hottest afternoon in August in sunshine states) to avoid painful blackouts.
Renewables were never purported to perform that same function, so again a nonsensical comparison.
Even baseline is not 24/7/365.
The last energy crisis in Texas was largely the result of missed deadlines on nuclear plant maintenance. All plants have downtime, sometimes unexpectedly.
Not only that, baseline power must be augmented by peaking plants.
And thermal plants waste a lot of energy because they cannot be turned up or down very quickly. All the cooling is also very wasteful, would be better if you could capture it for process heat or municipal heating.
I live in New Mexico, and the powers that be here are 100% sold on solar/wind/”renewables”. We just follow whatever CA is doing, about 6 months afterwards.
You are spot-on with your comment and query.
Steve: 41% of US electricity generation already comes from natural gas for many of the reasons you state. Yet we are not adding much new gas generation each year.
There are many reasons for this. Lack of pipeline infrastructure. Gas sources are not always near where generation is needed. And most recently, a lack of available gas generation turbines (2-4 year wait list).
Same goes for nuclear. We are not adding much. The 1.1 GW Vogle unit that came online in 2024 took 15 years to build and cost $15 billion. No new units are planned anywhere in the US.
If we want a lot more electricity, we need to use solar, wind and battery. Because they are readily available and nothing else is.
You are 10yrs late on this recognition!