Everything in this thread by @jacob_mays is correct (and also calmy and clearly articulated). Contrary to @ShellenbergerMD's thesis, there are no physical reasons why wind or solar power must increase electricity costs.
Michael's first (of two controversial) posts on renewables driving up electricity costs forbes.com/sites/michaels… contains several grains of truth (eg the declining value of wind/solar as they scale) but it doesn't connect the right dots either.
Michael misses the main obvious reason why wind or solar *may* have driven up electricity rates in some places (eg Germany, Denmark, California): while renewables have gotten MUCH cheaper in the last few years, they are subsidy independent in few places and only recently...
...and the cumulative cost of subsidies for "above market" renewables supported over the last decade (usually via long term PPAs, feed-in tariffs or other subsidies still being paid for) is the main reason they contributed to higher prices in e.g. Germany, Denmark, California.
This has not been universally true. The greatest cumulative cost has been born by those states and nations that were first movers and early market opportunities for wind and solar. Without their policy investment, wind & solar would not be as cheap as they are today.
The value deflation effect Michael describes in his post IS relevant going forward. It means declining costs of wind & solar will chase declining value. If the latter outpaces the former, scaling them may require perpetual subsidy, a point well articulated by many in recent years
And he is also right that comparing wind and solar to say nuclear on cost alone is misleading, a point I stress all the time ("it's like comparing bananas and burgers"). They play very different roles in power systems and deliver very different value.
The contrary is also possible however: wind and solar cost declines could outpace declining value in many locations in the world. @vsiv's Taming the Sun is all about ensuring that happens for solar. In those case, wind or solar would lower electricity costs.
Circling back to this thread: In sum, where @ShellenbergerMD is right is that breathless headlines about wind or solar being the "cheapest electricity sources in the world" are true but context free unless they consider the *value* and not just the cost of these resources.
He is also right that value deflation means subsidy independence is a moving truck for wind and solar as their value drops as they reach greater market share. We may have to keep subsidizing them if we want to drive renewables further than their "natural" share in the energy mix.
Where @ShellenbergerMD is wrong however is in claiming there is any physical law necessitating that renewables increase electricity costs. That claim is misleading and counterproductive to efforts to accelerate decarbonization of power systems today.
Wind & solar arent sufficient to cost effectively decarbonize power generation on their own. Firm low carbon resources, including potentially (but not exclusive) new nuclear, are key to reaching zero carbon at low cost. Understanding the economic limits of wind/solar is important
But wind & solar are doing & will continue to do the majority of the legwork in decarbonizing electricity in the next decade. Disparaging renewables at every chance is not the way to build support for nuclear or other resources needed to complement them and complete the job. /End
*whoops, that was supposed to say moving target. Nice autocorrect Google. I guess a moving truck is not a bad metaphor either.
