Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, July 15, 2025

The law that President Trump signed on July 4 ending tax incentives for wind and solar projects is expected to drive up electricity bills across the U.S., with some of the sharpest increases in Republican-led states, according to Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan think tank.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The Republicans' Big Ugly Bill will raise electricity costs and kill 1.75 million jobs by wiping out clean energy investments. On today's Democratic Daily Download, @repscottpeters.bsky.social explains why we must build a clean, affordable, and reliable energy future - not tear it down.

[image or embed]

-- House Democrats (@housedemocrats.bsky.social) Jul 10, 2025 at 2:07 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Let them eat coal!" - all Trumpers everywhere

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2025-07-15 01:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That shift will hit hardest in states that don't have their own policies to drive renewable energy development,

Renewables don't make energy cheaper.

#2 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-07-15 09:06 PM | Reply

Let's swap OUT the last of the incandescent bulbs for LEDs. You will notice the lower difference on your next utility bill!

#3 | Posted by john47 at 2025-07-15 09:53 PM | Reply

Renewables don't make energy cheaper.

#2 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Idiot. Of course it does. Who told you that?

The cost of solar energy has significantly decreased in recent years, making it a highly competitive and often the cheapest option for new electricity generation in many regions.

#4 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-15 11:27 PM | Reply

In addition cheap solar power allows expensive gas generators to idle down during the day. Solar panels have caused what is known as a "duck curve" in energy usage because solar (and wind) produce so much more energy during the day.

en.m.wikipedia.org

#5 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-15 11:31 PM | Reply

@#4 ... The cost of solar energy has significantly decreased in recent years ...

The generation of the power may be less expensive, but then there are things like transmission costs, and what happens when clouds occur.

OK, for the former ...

The place where, e.g., solar power can be generated may not have transmissions lines in the area. Stated differently, let's supposed for the purpose of this hypothetical argument that I have installed a multi-gigawatt solar generation farm on my property? How would I feed that power into the feeble power lines that feed my property? That's the big issue with these new power technologies.

a.k.a. the power grid don't do there.

And now to the latter...

When clouds occur or the winds diminish, there is a need for backup power, a.k.a. batteries. Batteries that have a finite lifetime. So that is an added expense to the cost of renewal power, a cost that may not always be taken into account.

One view ...

(con'd)




#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-15 11:44 PM | Reply

(continued from #6 because of the 4k character limit ...)

Low-Energy Fridays: If renewable energy is cheaper, then why don't we use it exclusively?
www.rstreet.org

... The fundamental assertion behind many climate protests and activism is that decision-makers do not do enough. Often, the specific claim is that an apparent solution"transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy"is being sidelined or that decision-makers are under the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists.

As is often the case, this isn't the full story. An appreciation for the economic impacts of time and location can help us understand why renewable energy is not the global norm despite its low cost.

Yes, renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels"but there are caveats. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), the lifetime average per megawatt hour cost, is $23.22 for conventional solar power and $31.07 for onshore wind. (To be clear, these are the subsidized costs; the unsubsidized costs are $41.22 and $50.87 respectively.) Natural gas and coal plants, categorized as "thermal plants" because they produce electricity from heat, have a higher LCOE. Natural gas has a relatively low LCOE of $42.72, while coal's is much higher at $89.33. When comparing the LCOE of these technologies, simplistic analysis would conclude that because renewable energy is cheaper, everyone should use it. Such logic informs increasingly prevalent clean electricity mandates. However, the LCOE ignores basic economic realities that can better determine which energy resources are optimal.

The cheapest renewable energy sources"onshore wind and conventional solar"are not always available. Obviously, solar power only generates electricity when the sun is out. But when the sun is out, solar always produces essentially free electricity, whereas a gas or coal plant can generally produce power at any time but incurs a fuel cost.

The problem is that we still need electricity even when the sun isn't shining. In fact, the capacity factor"the percentage of a resource's production as a function of its size"is only 23 percent for solar and 33 percent for wind. In general, as long as fuel is available, thermal power plants can produce electricity to match demand throughout the year even if some plants aren't called on often.

This means to act as a direct substitute for fossil fuels; renewable energy requires storage technology to make electricity available when customers demand it, not just when it's convenient to produce. Battery storage costs are falling but still expensive relative to other options, and applications are limited depending on how long a battery can provide electricity before needing to recharge. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates an LCOE of $36.27 for solar and battery hybrid facilities. ...



OK, probably not the most unbiased source (understatement), but you should see the picture ...

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-15 11:46 PM | Reply

When clouds occur or the winds diminish, there is a need for backup power, a.k.a. batteries.

On an industrial scale, you need fossil fuel generators for backup. You don't need to run them all the time, but they need to be available with the wind/solar arrays can't meet demand. Alberta does this.

#8 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-07-15 11:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#8 ... On an industrial scale, you need fossil fuel generators for backup. ...

Agreed, 100%.

But then there is also the issue that the current power grid may not go to the places where solar power is generated.

The current power grid was designed for the current power plants, not future power-generating areas.

And then, throw in the huge power needs of AI data centers.

Meta is building AI data centers in tents and isn't slowing down -- Zuckerberg reveals plans for 'several multi-GW clusters,' including one called Hyperion that's almost as big as Manhattan
www.tomshardware.com

And, fwiw, GW in the above headline means gigawatts.

Where is that power going to originate?


#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-15 11:57 PM | Reply

Six big ideas to help avoid a U.S. electricity crisis (April 2025)
news.stanford.edu

... Energy leaders recently gathered at Stanford to discuss ways to quickly expand the U.S. electricity supply and infrastructure to meet growing demand. A new report summarizes their key ideas for policymakers. ...

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-16 12:00 AM | Reply

It's so cheap to burn fossil fuels there's not much market incentive to improve and invent technology to store the notoriously not-available-all-the-time -- because unlike humans they are connected to the rhythms of life and as such won't ever naturally produce a 24x7 McDonalds -- green energy sources of hydro and wind and solar. Only geothermal is always there but you can't replace Three Mile Island with it.

Carbon tax is the easiest policy fix. When we monetize it, we have invented all kinds of tools that work very effectively to maximize value for the money.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-16 12:04 AM | Reply

But then there is also the issue that the current power grid may not go to the places where solar power is generated.

Certainly. That infrastructure needs to be updated. Power in Canada is (historically) mostly hydroelectric and nuclear. Prairie provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan have been replacing coal and oil fired plants with wind and solar using the same grids, but converting the old plants to natural gas for backups. There are a lot of infrastructure upgrades in the works to connect the wind/solar inputs to the "Grid". I'm a bit on the fence about solar, but wind certainly generates a lot of power when there is, well, wind.

#12 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-07-16 12:09 AM | Reply

@#11 ... It's so cheap to burn fossil fuels ...

But, is that only because the whole power-generating infrastructure has been designed, built and optimized for that purpose for decades?

OK, let's imagine a different scenario, where solar and wind power are the entrenched power generating technologies.

And this new upstart, called fossil fuels, appears.

How might that have transpired?

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-16 12:12 AM | Reply

That already did transpire when steam overtook sail on the seas.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-07-16 12:17 AM | Reply

@#14 ... That already did transpire when steam overtook sail on the seas. ...

But what about the power grid?


That's the nub of the question I am trying to get to ...

Does the current power grid have the necessary capacity to channel the power generated by solar energy into the power the power grid that serves all of the United States (less Texas, btw).


The current answer is a resounding "no."

The current power grid was set up for sources like Three Mile Island.


(and I do note that Microsoft is working to fire up Three Mile Island once again)

Three Mile Island nuclear plant will reopen to power Microsoft data centers (September 2024)
www.npr.org



#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-16 12:26 AM | Reply

@#12 ... Certainly. That infrastructure needs to be updated. ...

But, who pays for that update of the infrastructure?

#16 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-16 12:28 AM | Reply

The Great Grid Upgrade
www.nationalgrid.com

...

The Great Grid Upgrade is the largest overhaul of the electricity grid in generations, connecting more clean, secure energy to power the things we love.

Here you'll find answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about The Great Grid Upgrade.


Your questions about the upgrades

Why does the country's electricity grid need to be upgraded? ...


But that site seems to be the UK ...

But, imo, same problem.


#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-16 12:32 AM | Reply

But, who pays for that update of the infrastructure?

Ultimately, I'd guess the end users, unless they use a LOT. If they use a LOT, then other end users.

#18 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-07-16 12:34 AM | Reply

@#16 ... Ultimately, I'd guess the end users, unless they use a LOT. If they use a LOT, then other end users. ..

Yeah, that's what I have been seeing.

The power companies trying to saddle home electric consumers with the cost of providing power to power-hungry AI data centers in their local towns.

Who's really paying AI's power bill? (April 2025)
www.latitudemedia.com

... As data centers push load growth to historic levels, new research reveals how utilities and developers are inking secret deals. ...

This week, Ari Peskoe, Director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School, joins us to talk about the new report he co-authored, "How utility customers are paying for Big Tech's power."

This hidden cost transfer is just one front in a broader battle over energy regulation. At the federal level, the White House is making an unprecedented grab for control over FERC, the independent commission governing interstate energy markets.

Meanwhile, another executive order gives the Department of Energy extraordinary authority to force struggling coal plants to stay open regardless of economics -- creating what critics describe as a consumer-funded bailout for uneconomic generation. ...

#19 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-16 12:51 AM | Reply

The power companies trying to saddle home electric consumers with the cost of providing power to power-hungry AI data centers in their local towns.

It's probably not just local. Utilities have always used a "the more you buy the lower the rate" model. Of course, power hungry uses will look for the best local advantages before they build.

#20 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-07-16 01:02 AM | Reply

@#20 ... Utilities have always used a "the more you buy the lower the rate" model. ...

Yeah, but the "the more you buy, the less it costs" mantra does not take into account the upfront cost of building the infrastructure to provide those high-usage users with their cheap power.

OK, let's say I want to build a new Sam's Club in your t
own to provide cheap goods for its residents.

Who should pay for the cost of building that store?

Everyone in town?

Or just the customers who partake of the store?


#21 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-16 01:10 AM | Reply

This is great news.

Then when electric companies report higher earnings.

Trumpers can brag about how great Trump's economy is!

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-07-16 01:17 AM | Reply

does not take into account the upfront cost of building the infrastructure to provide those high-usage users with their cheap power.

No, it does not.

Who should pay for the cost of building that store? Everyone in town?

I'm assuming that a power utility would spread it out over their entire coverage area.

#23 | Posted by REDIAL at 2025-07-16 01:27 AM | Reply

@#23 ... I'm assuming that a power utility would spread it out over their entire coverage area. ...

That appears to be what is occurring.

And the residential customers in that coverage area seem to be quite concerned about paying for major, costly changes that they do not need or want.

At this point, I would agree with those customers. The AI data center should solely pay for the full cost of the infrastructure improvements needed by the data center.


#24 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-07-16 01:49 AM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort