by Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler)
In Part 1, we showed how wind and solar’s low costs over 80% of the time are overwhelmed by expenses at peak times such that they offer no cost advantages to the generation mix. Residential solar follows a similar pattern: it seems affordable for homeowners, but raises system costs through rate structures that over-incentivize adoption. Generous subsidies, like retail-rate net metering, drive excessive solar growth, risking grid stability and shifting costs to non-solar customers that are often less affluent. Less generous rates for residential solar slow adoption, but better align solar adoption with grid needs, ensuring fairness and sustainability.
The Economic Problem: Cost-Shifting Through Rate Structures
It’s hard to understand why many don’t see the unfairness in rate structures, as similar arrangements would seem absurd in other industries. Imagine hotels required to keep rooms ready for all customers (at standard rates) just in case they “might” want them. Worse, during low occupancy, hotels must send guests to customers’ Airbnb properties whenever there are excess rooms. Or consider pizza chains forced to buy excess pizzas from restaurants during slow hours while supplying low-cost pizzas during peak hours and covering all pickup and delivery costs. In all of these cases, the major problem is that large infrastructure investment is required that will sit idle most of the time and receive inadequate compensation from the beneficiaries.
How Residential Solar Rate Structures Work
Residential solar systems, typically tied to net metering, let homeowners generate and sell power in ways that appear cost-effective:
- Serving own needs: Solar panels produce during sunny, low-demand periods (e.g., midday spring), letting homeowners avoid utility charges. These charges are usually a flat rate based on average costs. (Note: The utility backs them up when panels don’t produce enough electricity.)
- Selling excess power: Surplus power goes to the grid, with net metering crediting it at rates varying by state. Typically, these payments exceed the energy’s value to the utility during low-demand periods.
- Hard Times: At night, on cloudy days, or during peak demand (e.g., summer evenings), panels produce little. Homeowners buy grid power at flat rates, which don’t reflect the high costs of peaking plants.
Rate structures today vary to the degree to which they subsidize residential solar. Below are general categories of rate structures, ordered by levels of subsidies, from high to low.
- Retail-Rate Net Metering: Credits residential solar at full retail rates (~$0.20–$0.42/kWh, e.g., Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island). Yields high returns for residential solar (20–50% ROI) and encourages rapid adoption (e.g., Hawaii’s 30% penetration, ~200,000 homes).
- Partial Retail/Hybrid Net Billing: Credits at 50–80% of retail (~$0.10–$0.20/kWh, e.g., Connecticut, Vermont, Maryland, Minnesota) support moderate adoption of residential solar (e.g., Vermont’s 8% penetration, ~15,000 homes) with less cost-shifting.
- Net Billing at Avoided Cost: Lower credits (~$0.05–$0.08/kWh, e.g., California’s NEM 3.0, Arizona, Arkansas) slow growth.
- Wholesale/Avoided Cost Rates: Minimal credits (~$0.03–$0.07/kWh, e.g., Alabama, South Dakota, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky) yield low penetration (0.02–1.2%, ~270–10,000 homes), reducing subsidies and
Initially, solar power rate structures used retail-rate net metering. Lower subsidies could not attract sufficient participation. Since participation was low initially, the small subsidies from the overwhelmingly large group of non-participants were not significant. As more customers adopt solar, the economics change. California’s experience highlights the unsustainability of this approach. California now on version 3.0 of its net metering approach, which pays only for avoided costs for new customers. Retail-rate net metering became unsustainable as participation levels increased.
This chart shows the relationship between higher credits and the resulting penetration of residential solar for a sampling of states.
Of course, higher subsidies correlate with greater participation. California NEM 3.0 looks like an outlier, but it must be understood this participation rate was built not on the NEM 3.0 rate structure. The big base they have of residential solar was built on legacy policies, and viability today is supported by the area’s high retail rates and grandfathering of existing residential solar customers under the old tariffs.
In a 2015 post, I discussed various approaches to cost sharing for residential solar. It’s worth reviewing at this time as it provides additional coverage on the topic at hand. In that piece I noted that the models with the least subsidies still only required residential solar users to pay the incremental costs they incur, not shared system costs. Should residential solar customers help with basic system costs? The answer becomes increasingly important with high levels of residential solar. Responsibility for the basic system costs becomes attributable to fewer and fewer customers. Unfortunately, those footing the bill are disproportionately less affluent consumers who are most burdened by increasing energy costs.
The economic toll of overly generous rates:
- Lost Revenue: Utilities need steady charges to cover fixed costs (grid lines, backup power). Solar homeowners avoid these during low-demand periods, reducing revenue.
- Overpaid Purchases: High credits for low-value power strain utility budgets.
- Fat Tail Costs: Peak periods drive high costs (peaking plants and transmission and distribution expansion). Non-solar customers face 1-2% rate hikes in high-solar areas, per National Renewable Energy Laboratory studies.
Generous rate structures, like retail-rate net metering, fuel excessive solar adoption, raising costs and inequity. Less supportive rates, like California’s NEM 3.0 or South Dakota’s wholesale rates, reduce uptake, which is proper when solar outpaces system needs.
Early net metering aimed to boost solar, but its costs—shifted expenses and grid risks—are now evident. Regulators, prioritizing green energy, often mandated generous rates, as in California’s NEM 1.0/2.0, which achieved 25% penetration before NEM 3.0’s lower rates slowed growth. Fair pricing proposals are often labeled as anti-renewable, stifling reform.
A common justification is that subsidizing residential solar will lower prices and increase affordability. What goes unrecognized is that the cheaper residential solar becomes, it exacerbates unsustainable rate designs as fewer non-solar customers remain to support the system.
A Path Forward
Residential solar programs rely on structures that overpay for power and undercharge for grid use. Better designs would reduce incentives and align adoption with grid economics. Potential options for improving solar tariffs include:
- Time-of-Use Rates: Credit solar at market value less during the mid-day and charge more for peak power. This slows adoption, as seen in California’s NEM 3.0 (80% installation drop).
- Pay Avoided Costs: unlike time-of-use rates, avoided costs could be set at average rates to avoid costly metering and complexity.
- Grid Access Fees: Fixed fees ensure solar homeowners pay for reliability.
- Peak Demand Charges: Bills based on peak usage reflect true costs.
These options promote equity, reducing subsidies from non-solar customers to wealthier adopters. The key is recognizing cost differentials between what solar customers receive and what they provide. Fewer incentives mean less solar, which is proper when it drives costs, as in states like Alabama (0.7% penetration). Political pressure to support solar will resist such efforts.
Wrapping Up
Poor rate designs hide solar’s true costs, making it seem affordable while raising electricity rates for all. Retail-rate net metering drives excessive adoption of solar, shifting costs to non-solar customers. Less supportive rates, like avoided costs or California’s NEM 3.0, slow solar growth, aligning it with grid needs. This ensures fairness and avoids cost spirals. A sustainable energy supply requires pricing that reflects true costs, ensuring affordability for all.
Future posts will focus on utility economics, discuss problems with energy markets and delve into many of the often-ignored unaccounted costs associated with wind and solar. For example, many assume the grid is easier to operate when part of the load base meets its own needs. In reality, residential solar burdens system operators, increasing complexity and costs of stabilization efforts. In Australia, a renewables leader, operators see a need to switch off rooftop solar during stressful periods to maintain system stability. Look for follow-up posts in the coming weeks.
Much has been written about roof top solar electricity but none by an experienced engineer. It is not economical because costs are shifted from the buyer, the home owner, to others, via public debt. The profit goes to the deal maker e.g. subsidies, rebates, write -offs, etc. The only rational, honorable, energy deal is a stand alone system, separated from the grid, with the cost of engineering, construction, operation, and maintenance carried by one party, the home owner, a micro grid. It was the utility in olden days.
The key risk- cost decisions are off normal events and the consequences to reliable electricity, e.g storm damage, Improvement repair, e.g. reroofing, insurance of a dangerous process, injury to third parties and commitment to stay off the grid in the future. The grid is planned, years into the future, for supply and loads.
It will result in a lower standard of living, e.g. no heat in a New England sub zero blizzard, three feet of snow cover and a downed tree on your roof. Back ups last minutes or hours, at very high cost.
Who pays?
Today’s decisions vary by state but are not sustainable. The grid will collapse, during an off normal event, for several reasons, as the percentage of solar supply increases. The grid was expensive to develop because it was made to be tough and survive, using graceful degradation design. Take great damage and come back with thousands of hard men in bucket trucks. That is now left to Harry Homeowner, with roof top solar.
“The Big Beautiful Bill” phases out renewable subsidies by some amount–I’ve not reviewed the specifics yet–but the ramification for the renewable narrative, as being “cheaper”, may increasingly become muted because of 1) the Bill, and 2) the demand for energy from the technological revolution. New tech is hungry for energy, it can no longer wait for evolution.
The Bill must pass first, of course.
“The Big Beautiful Bill” phases out renewable subsidies by some amount–I’ve not reviewed the specifics yet–but the ramification for the renewable narrative, as being “cheaper”, may increasingly become muted because of 1) the Bill, and 2) the demand for energy from the technological revolution. New tech is hungry for energy, it can no longer wait for evolution.
The Bill must pass first, of course.
There is nothing beautiful, helpful, or constructive with that bill being proposed.
Imp, congratulations for having an infection called the collectivist opinion; that you accuse Russ of having a political agenda is too rich.
The nation needs to double energy throughput to address the requirements of the technological revolution, specifically AI, but including other technologies, i.e., crypto—this boost in energy capacity needs to happen now. There’s no way in hell that low tech solar and wind can be the nations point of the spear energy solution going forward, they’re ineloquent, sprawling niche solutions incapable of advancing culture and technology, much less providing stability to the grid.
A new generation of low carbon footprint NG power plants will front run this technological expansion because these solutions can be brought online relatively quick. New generation nuclear will follow. The grid must also be expanded, and strengthened—which is happening now.
‘It’s hard to understand why many don’t see the unfairness in rate structures, as similar arrangements would seem absurd in other industries.’
“Nothing will satisfy us but a broad victory,” Clarence Darrow said, In the Scopes trial, “to prove that America is founded on liberty and not on narrow, mean, intolerable and brainless prejudice of soulless religo-maniacs.”
Here’s where the federal bill currently stands relative to renewable subsidies:
https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2025/05/high-level-overview-of-certain-provisions-impacting-renewable-energy-incentives-in-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-draft-legislation/
California has a very big “Duck Curve” problem as they have excessive solar generation during the day and high demand in the evening when its no longer generating. It would make sense to encourage solar generators, roof top or otherwise, to have storage capacity to sell the power when it had greater value. The stored power could be sold back to the grid at wholesale prices at the time of sale or used by the homeowner in the case of roof top solar. It would be a much more equitable way to compensate solar generators. Homeowners could maximize their savings if they used the power they generate.
More equitable too if solar generating homeowners used stored power to charge their EVS at night instead of plugging into the legacy power generation system (and in addition, paid their share of road taxes that are collected on the sale of every gallon of gas).
If anyone is to receive special treatment, diamond lanes should be reserved for single occupant drivers of gas- guzzling muscle cars in as much as they pay more than their fair share to build and maintain the roads.
Sean
In parts of Australia over the summer months, it isn’t a duck curve, it is a canyon. Below zero grid demand. They have to switch off grid solar and wind, but keep on subsidised gas turbines at minimum load to maintain inertia. So rooftop solar is subsidised and the GTs are subsidised to fix the problem solar causes. That is the definition of insanity isn’t it?
Then when the sun goes down, they have to rapidly ramp up all the thermal plant including diesel engines to fill the demand. That mode of operation increases the unreliability so outage probability goes up. Even if it doesn’t, the price that has to be paid for power regularly goes to over $1,000/MWh.
Those price spikes, covered by the euphemistic term variability, together with constrained on plant, are why their domestic power charges are so high. Industries get subsidies as otherwise they would be uneconomic.
The energy paradigm for feeding the technological revolution is new NG to 2030; an anticipation for new nuclear fission post 2030—and perhaps fusion (the wild card) in the relative near future beyond 2030. There are dozens of companies competing on these new nuclear technologies, they’re somewhat of a longer-term play; including supporting technologies, such as recycling nuclear fuel.
Sorry, you’re about a decade behind the times — states serious about solar and other renewables have been going big on battery storage and other kinds of storage that entirely moot your points. I wrote this piece recently for UtilityDive showing how CA and TX and both, through very different markets, pursuing battery storage in a very big way, making blackouts a thing of the past and with power much cheaper than the status quo. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/california-texas-blackouts-energy-storage-trump-renewable-energy/742229/
That’s great news indeed! They just need to do it without Federal money. We need to pay down the deficit. If “green” energy is all that great, it will happen without subsidies.
Tamlyn says in the article that Texas is a free market without incentives for specific sources of generation on the grid and the result is still a build out of storage on the grid.
What you are describing is not showing up in the EIA.gov grid monitor. At least not in the description that you have provided.
Secondly, the grid monitor shows fossil fuel generation covering the vast majority of the cost of maintianing stability.
Third as penetration increases, and the cost of stability & reliability go out the window as fossil fuels no longer cover those costs.
Tamlyn has selective amnesia. For example, in her enthusiastic essay she ignored Sept. 2024 in southern CA; though amazingly found the evidence she wanted in Oct. 2024.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-09-09/socal-residents-losing-power-amid-summer-heat-wave
Per “Field of Dreams—build it and they will come”; like fusion, we ain’t there yet.
New tech demands energy now, it can no longer wait for evolution that’s perpetually declared as being right around the corner.
Tamlyn – I’m curious as to what you think the point of this posting is? Changing the topic to blackouts and claiming that planned costly batteries will make the system more reliable doesn’t change any of the cost concerns raised in this post. It actually make this post more relevant. There are reliability concerns with inverter based generation which are different than the intermittency problem that batteries address. I think sometimes it’s good to talk about one thing at a time. This post is on cost.
My point to you is that if you want to promote batteries, wind and solar you should work to understand and engage with valid concerns around them such as the cost concerns discussed here . Thinking other issues mute these concerns long term is self defeating. Red herrings only motivate the already committed.
Tamlyn
You look like a person who has no real experience in actual grids with experience limited to reading PR releases. Advocates are invariable that.
What is the operating cost of battery storage at the multi GWh level? California would need 700 just for a day’s storage to back up the unreliables. Find out that cost and amortise the battery capital cost over a 10 year life.. Hint- pumped hydro storage is an order of magnitude cheaper. And what will those costs of running the storage do to power bills? That is why batteries are just a boutique solution pushed by people that don’t know what they are talking about.
Moss Landing anyone?
Pingback: Why “cheaper” solar raises costs. Part II: The hidden costs of residential solar – Climate- Science.press
For all those advocates of domestic solar, if it so good, why does it need to be subsidised, even in places like Arizona? This is at a Federal and State level. Though I do note the utilities there have realised the folly of nett metering but still offer net billing.
https://www.energysage.com/local-data/solar-rebates-incentives/az/
Batteries are also subsidised. but apparently only at a Federal level.
If domestic solar with batteries is so good, its advocates should be off-grid so they aren’t sponging off the infrastructure. Then they can have their own microgrids to show us unenlightened ones how reliable, good and cheap they are. If their claims that it is economically viable are right, it wouldn’t need subsidies.
From Chris link
“The average Arizona solar shopper will save $3,082 on solar panels with rebates and incentives.”
Chris – Also worth noting and easily understood by those of us that understand the supply and demand curves-
Those rebates , incentives, tax credits, etc. all artificially shift the demand curve upward with the bulk of the shift resulting in an increase in the market equilibrian price approximately equal to amount of the tax credit/ rebates
Joe
Yes as well as lifting the cost of the goods, it also lifts the price paid by the customer to buy the product. The economics is totally distorted.
Trump Signs Executive Orders to Usher in a Nuclear Renaissance, Restore Gold Standard Science
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/05/president-trump-signs-executive-orders-to-usher-in-a-nuclear-renaissance-restore-gold-standard-science/
Europe’s Renewables Grid Upgrade Has a Multitrillion-Dollar Price Tag
An unprecedented investment is needed to refit fossil-era grids for renewables and surging electrification. Analysts warn the cost will fall on consumers.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/business/europes-renewables-grid-upgrade-has-a-multitrillion-dollar-price-tag-5858310
https://www.eca.europa.eu/ECAPublications/RV-2025-01/RV-2025-01_EN.pdf
While I am not a greenhouse gas AGW adherent whatsoever, this article grossly underestimates the cost savings of solar and the necessity of net metering. While it is true only 1 in 5 homes truly qualify and thus benefit from solar: Southern exposure of the inverter, little to no trees over the roof, and assessments of indidual home kWh usage + applicances load are contextual, the claims made by Russ are beyond wrong and absurd in general.
What I mean by in general is we can all find examples of less than honest solar companies or individuall field sales consultants who exaggerate or misrepresent a solar design or total average savings from net metering, but if done reputably by a solid solar company and sales person then the subsidies and net metering are 100% going to save customers money.
While low cast days and cold days can reduce total energy yield of solar photovoltaic cells they actually become more efficient in colder weather, and there are also various back up batteries one can purchase. Cooler temps reduce internal resistance of Photovoltaic cells and they still work reasonably well on low cast days for residential locations. Now, if you were to argue the low cast weather in general in say Germany has affected their solar project I would say the engineeing has shown that to be true in general.
Solar is not going to replace/supplant all other energy sources but it is a very viable source of energy in general and cost savings provided the user properly qualifies.
I worked in the solar industry for years while earning my degrees so I know the ins and outs, good, bad, and ugly working for 2 major solar companies as well as the physics, engineering, and technology behind it by education in addition to working with it.
While you are an engineer, Mr. Schussler you appear more motivated by poltics than real-world engineering/technology applications.
Jacob
You might have qualifications and know a lot about solar but you have no understanding of how a grid works and how the subsidies have distorted the market so much that it threatens the edifice. That is what PE wrote about.
And if solar is so good, why did Spain have a blackout? That was directly caused by all the solar plants on the grid.
Dr. Jacob. What cost estimates of savings did the article provide and what real world appplications dispute them?
Secondly, not sure why you might think accusations of politics can be directed towards me moreso than yourself. Mostly I worked for member owned Cooperatives. My primary goal all my worklife has been to meet the energy needs of the consumers/customers/owners we served as best we could. If home solar were a win-win, I would have and eventually will love it. Rural Cooperatives have their roots in democratic politics. Now a lot of crazy energy ideas are strongly supported by the left. Republican-Democrat, Liberal-Conservative – for electricity I don’t care so much, I like what’s honest and what works. Can’t say my favored candidates with energy line up with my favorite candidates on all other issues. hard to chose between them some times. But politics doesn’t change physics, facts, rate impacts…… And I speak on those with my best understandings of truth.
I will suspend judgment on any political motivations for now since to not do so would make any dialogue moot.
To answer your questions let me go through a few direct quotes from your article:
1.) “Hard Times: At night, on cloudy days, or during peak demand (e.g., summer evenings), panels produce little. Homeowners buy grid power at flat rates, which don’t reflect the high costs of peaking plants.” Generally not true; while there are use cases where this occurs, this statement is a broad overgeneralization. The panel production will still on average be good during these times and cost savings averages up monthly and annually. In cold weather panels actually become more efficient even if producing less power.
2.) “Lost Revenue: Utilities need steady charges to cover fixed costs (grid lines, backup power). Solar homeowners avoid these during low-demand periods, reducing revenue.” Sometimes yes and this has been a back and forth between comanies in NY like PSEG on Long Island, However, as energy companiens invest more in updating the grid and solar compamies expand nattery backup initiatives this is becoming less of an issue.
3.) Your chart needs some data/evidence to fact check. I cannot tell how accurate it is here. What data/calculations led you to these figures?
Some recent data analysis and numbers found here:
https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy25osti/91888.pdf
Contradict some of the claims made in this post and call into doubt others.
Highlight for discussion:
“In recent years, some states and electricity regulators have replaced net metering with alternative
compensation structures. Alternative structures implemented to date have reduced PV bill
savings relative to net metering, and there is evidence that these rate revisions have curbed PV
adoption in certain cases (Muro and Saha 2016; Gagnon et al. 2017; Barbose 2024). Proponents
of these revisions have argued that net metering can increase the electricity rates of customers
without PV. According to our estimates, by the end of 2023, the share of households living in net
metering states had fallen to around 57%.
In this report, we analyze the relationships between state PV deployment levels, potential
electricity rate impacts on PV nonadopters, and the timing of revisions to net metering policy.
We do not explore the impacts of the revisions on electricity customers or on residential PV
deployment levels.”
You can scroll down from there to see the relevant charts and quant analyses.
Just to clarify: impossiblegracefully22de1258c6 is still Jacob; I am sure you can infer, but my accounts names became mixed up somehow.
Time does not permit me to fully address as the arguments lack coherence. I’ll take a stab at some main things
Critique: 1) “Hard Times: At night, on cloudy days, or during peak demand (e.g., summer evenings), panels produce little. Homeowners buy grid power at flat rates, which don’t reflect the high costs of peaking plants.” Generally not true”
Response:
This is about rates. Rates are approximation of costs that on the average recover full costs. The rate reflects a component for energy and peak demand costs. Customers with average energy usage will have the costs collected for both energy and peak demand costs. Customers who use more energy than typical uses will probably overpay for peak demand. Those who use less than average will not pay a full share of peaking costs. If residential solar provides a lot of your energy and you only pay the rates at lower participation levels, even if your demand needs are a little less, you will not contribute your proportional cost for peaking plants needed. The better the solar panels are at producing energy the bigger the problem becomes.
Critique 2) “Lost Revenue: Utilities need steady charges to cover fixed costs (grid lines, backup power). Solar homeowners avoid these during low-demand periods, reducing revenue.” Sometimes yes
Response – Once again my statement is about a rate thing. Batteries make the situation worse
Critique 3.) Your chart needs some data/evidence to fact check. I cannot tell how accurate it is here. What data/calculations led you to these figures? …you go on to say some analysis contradicts
Response- No idea what you mean by “calculated values” and accuracy They are the tariff rates paid for solar. . If there is a rate that is wrong, please tell me. The chart merely shows that those who pay more for solar generation injected into the grid have greater participation rates and those who pay less have lower participation rates. I can’t imagine why that would even be controversial to you unless you misunderstand what the chart is. I didn’t go through the entire document line by line, but any calculations it has on the value of solar has nothing to do with the chart. It’s not a chart of cost/benefits but of participation by tariff rate.
Lastly the point that PV is getting better for customers does not address the issues I am talking about here. Througout the posting is the idea that better perforance by home soalr and better revenue for residential solar customers generally comes at a cost to non-participants. The better deal residential solar becomes the less of them there will be to support the system.
Unless I am totally misundertandning you, it seems your arguement has this form: The post said something negative about solar. Dr jacob says something positive about solar but not directly connected to what the post is talking about. Therfore Dr. jacob will conclude the post is wrong.
Mr. c6: Speaking for myself, the fact that you have multiple accounts and can’t seem to keep them straight shores up your credibility.
Paul – your comment is the classic three blind men and the elephant.
You have taken some very good factually correct data, and then incorrectly used to erroneously arrive at in incorrect conclusion on a different topic. As pointed out to another commentator, its the total costs that matter. The cost of electric generation from renewables may be less expensive, but that doesnt mean total cost costs of a reliable grid is less expensive.
The important thing is to understand the whole, not just the pieces.
Chris,
cherry picking incidents is not going to win the argument; all grids and energy delivery systems fail at times; no exceptions.
I note that Spain is now dispatching off solar plants and running the more expensive gas turbines.
https://archive.is/qsmpT#selection-1793.0-1796.0
Now why would that be? Could it be that the ENTSO panel has already determined in their preliminary findings that it was the inherent instability of solar that caused the crash? Those sub-synchronous oscillations were the harbingers and the event log confirmed it.
I note the final sentence in the Bloomberg article from the Deputy PM “Nobody saw it coming,” she said. On the contrary, a whole lot of people saw it coming. The decision makers just didn’t want to listen. After all, what would grid engineers who have spent their careers in the industry know?
Chris – the article is heavy on “the more costly combined gas generation”, while completely ignoring its total costs that matter.
Chris
“I note the final sentence in the Bloomberg article from the Deputy PM “Nobody saw it coming,”
It could be that’s because they are living in an alternate universe out Utopian way.
Many of these kinds of discussions surrounding AGW issues involve Utopian views of the world.
You are correct about failures, but the severity and frequency of blackouts is a lot more likely with inverter-based power because of its inherent flaws. That is what PE is warning about. Spain wasn’t the reason for his article, it is just the one that people with the attention span of goldfish know about as it is still in the media. The preliminary reports coming out of the grid investigation indicate solar was a lot more culpable than the politicians let on. There were fundamental issues that would need megabucks to even partially solve.
I could have also chosen a number of other incidents where the inverters crashed their generation, but in those cases, the grid was saved because of the inertia of thermal plant. However, near misses are ignored (who knows about Odessa in 2021 and 2022) because they don’t inconvenience people. That inertia and grid ancillary services are what the solar and wind do not have. How many blackouts have to occur before people realise the folly?
The old system had its faults, but the replacement is both more costly and much worse. The wasted investment in the unreliables would have been a lot more productively spent reducing the risk of those grid failures.
Russ, I’d like your views on the Three Mile Island/Constellation restart, please. I see drawbacks and shedding of tears:
1. TMI is only one reactor, which has to be refueled about once every 24 months. What will Microsoft do for energy then? They will have to draw from a possibly already overloaded grid and if that goes down…
2. Like it or not, we are daily becoming more dependent on the cloud. Many businesses will not function without it. Yes, when TMI is out of service Microsoft can share the load among several other data centers, or even rent capacity from a competitor. Still there is a fair possibility of glitches and even a small disruption will cause chaos and reputational damage.
3. Another option is a backup gas turbine plant which will have to be pretty mighty, and which only operates in earnest once in two years. Why not go straight for the gas turbines?
The benefit of being a pessimist is that you are seldom proved wrong.
“Why not go straight for the gas turbines?”
Because expansion of gas turbines for base load and AI will dramatically shorten the lifetime of the remaining nonrenewable fuel source. And, of course, there is the increase in environmental and climatic damage.
And those nonrenewable resources comes with a lot of ‘side effects’ that will last decades and cost billions of dollars to remediate.
May 22, 2025
‘The biggest US oil field is at risk of poisonous water leaks’
https://www.deccanherald.com/business/the-biggest-us-oil-field-is-at-risk-of-poisonous-water-leaks-texas-regulators-3552845
“Producers began injecting more water into shallow rock formations roughly five years ago after pumping it deep below the surface was found to trigger earthquakes. But the volumes are now so large that the dirty water is breaching wells and causing the ground to swell and rupture, threatening to contaminate drinking supplies for people and livestock.”
Oh No! Contaminating the water supply for people, farmers and livestock!
Not to worry, Just pass a law declaring it’s okay to dump fracking waste in to our rivers.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/19/texas-legislature-produced-water-legal-protections-oil-gas/
“House Bill 49, says that after an oil company agrees to sell the water for beneficial use by someone else, it is generally not liable if there are consequences later on. Neither are the companies treating the water. The bill also protects landowners who pay to treat the water and sell it, including in cases of personal injury, death, or property damage.”
Nuclear is very vulnarable to a drone’s accidents.
jack – even though the first article mentions fracking water, the description of the issue deal with the injection of the salt water back into the formation. That is saltwater that has been in the formations for a few millienums, not from fracking water.
Jack – you should also note – the second article you cited is from the Texas Tribune which has a very poor track record of accurate reporting. They were pathetic on their reporting of the Feb 2021 texas freeze.
Hey Mike, I am not familiar with any of the particulars there. I would hope they could schedule refueling and maintenance in slack times when arrangements could be made for replacement generation, unless there are constraints I’m not aware of. The gas turbine with 24 hours doesn’t control costs so well, they need maintenance too and gas interruption is a serious concern most places.
Pingback: Why “cheaper” solar raises costs. Part II: The hidden costs of residential solar | Last Chance For Freedom
Steam turbines are the most efficient!
Lack of inertia for solar inverters are a real issue to be sure and some upgrades to the grid and co generation may still be needed. No energy source is a complete “win-win.”
@christos Vournas, steram turnbines are highly efficient, but with their own challenges.
Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.
“some upgrades to the grid and co generation may still be needed.” That should read major, expensive upgrades are needed and thermal generation has to be supplied at additional cost unless the consumers want a 3rd World electricity supply.
|The Holocene glacial retreat is a geographical phenomenon that involved the global retreat of glaciers (deglaciation) that previously had advanced during the Last Glacial Maximum. Ice sheet retreat initiated ca. 19,000 years ago and accelerated after ca. 15,000 years ago. The Holocene, starting with abrupt warming 11,700 years ago, resulted in rapid melting of the remaining ice sheets of North America and Europe.|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_glacial_retreat
“The early Holocene sea level rise (EHSLR) was a significant jump in sea level by about 60 m (197 ft) during the early Holocene, between about 12,000 and 7,000 years ago, spanning the Eurasian Mesolithic.[1] The rapid rise in sea level and associated climate change, notably the 8.2 ka cooling event (8,200 years ago), and the loss of coastal land favoured by early farmers, may have contributed to the spread of the Neolithic Revolution to Europe in its Neolithic period.[2]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Holocene_sea_level_rise
Christos you touch on an important factor to humanity that this thread about Electric power is, IMO, either ignoring or is buried deep in our subconscious.
The 8k2 event is far from evident. But the 4k2 event is all around; in the scientific research and widely in our religious/cultural beliefs (particularly the biblical Deluge; with proof). The 4k2 event was an earth obliquity change, similar to the earlier 3550bce (the Mesopotamian flood) and the 4375bce (??).
Those are earth changes as the earth works its way through the inter-glacial period. At none of those times did humanity rely on electricity. Electricity was around only in these last 100yrs.
So now we think we can rely on the god ‘AI’ to save humanity (from itself?). AI relies on electricity, so first it should support itself.
I think the planets apex predator (humans) will survive another plant obliquity change and if another one is due we will know before it happens. Not so with galactic gamma ray bursts which could sterilize all life on the planet.
Earth hit by gamma rays from exploding star 2 billion lightyears away…
Nov, 2023
In a worst-case scenario, the science team say a strong gamma-ray burst could damage the ozone layer, allowing ultraviolet radiation from the Sun to reach Earth’s surface.
This may have been the cause of mass extinction events in Earth’s history.”
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/earth-hit-gamma-rays-grb-221009a
Thank you, jacksmith4tx.
I think the ozone doesn’t protect life on Earth, because ozone is like it is not there – it has a so much small presence – it cannot stop anything.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The ozone layer was discovered in 1913 by French physicists Charles Fabry and Henri Buisson. Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body with a temperature in the range of 5,500–6,000 K (5,230–5,730 °C), except that there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere. Eventually the spectrum of the missing radiation was matched to only one known chemical, ozone.[3] ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
“Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body”
“It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere. ”
It was deduced, and it was a mistake, because sun doesn’t emit as a perfect black body. Because there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum.
Jack:
Few (comparatively) survived the 4k2 event. Biblical and Hindu material is even more extreme on that matter. Presently the settled side of science does not accept the concept of large obliquity swings. Let alone know beforehand. Hopefully that may change.
However that still leaves the high risk of total reliance on electricity unsettled. The exponential curve never had a safe ending. Mass extinction may have one of several natural sources. Coming from a E-gen background, — we are adding a home-made one.
For comparison, the trace gas CO2 content in atmosphere is ~ 420 ppm ( ozone is 0,3 ppm, ozone layer peaks at 8 to 15 parts per million of ozone, 8 to 15 ppm ).
How this low concentration of ozone is possible to absorb anything? Because it is asserted – since ozone at 8 to 15 ppm does those absorption wonders, then CO2 at ~ 420 ppm should moreover perform absorption wonders!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Take a class in, or read a book on, molecular spectroscopy. Your intuition, as usual, is terribly and laughably wrong.
Consider a drop of food coloring in a liter of water (0.005%).
Thank you, B A.
“Christos,
Take a class in, or read a book on, molecular spectroscopy. Your intuition, as usual, is terribly and laughably wrong.
Consider a drop of food coloring in a liter of water (0.005%).”
–
A drop of food coloring in a liter of water (0.005%). Yes, it is some 50 ppm.
Interesting:
“Air weighs 0.0012929 gram per cubic centimeter or 1.2929 kilogram per cubic meter, i.e. density of air is equal to 1.2929 kg/m³. In Imperial or US customary measurement system, the density is equal to 0.080713 pound per cubic foot [lb/ft³], or 0.000747344 ounce per cubic inch [oz/inch³] ”
Water weights 1 ton per cubic meter.
Air is very thin, and CO2 is a trace gas in a very thin air.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This video details the arguments to use in a court of law to expose the climate change hoax. It is long but it creates the arguments that easily expose the hoax in common sense language and arguments. Please share this video with the lawfirms that may be involved. Also, share it with anyone you know that believes this man made global warming hoax.
https://app.screencast.com/ZMpNTvkLD7DDJ