Currently, the variable output of wind and solar is counteracted by fossil-fired, CO2-emitting, quick-reacting power plants. Some people want to replace such power plants with large-scale battery systems to reduce CO2 emissions. This article presents an analysis that shows, using such batteries systems for counteracting, and storing electricity, even for one day, has a very high owning and operating cost, even with 50% subsidies.

NE has variable weather conditions, with frequent periods of very little wind, even offshore, and very little sun, which means wind and solar power, already highly variable 24/7/365, is frequently minimal, throughout the year.

This analysis shows the cost of battery systems, if they are used to store electricity for a W/S-lull lasting one day. 

In this analysis, we ignore hydro, for simplicity.

As part of our analysis, we assume, at some future date:


- CO2-emitting power plants will be shut down, such as fossil fuel, wood burning, refuse burning, etc.

- Nuclear plants, once shut down, will not be replaced

- Existing hydro plants, about 7% of NE annual generation, will remain.

- Wind and solar installed capacity, MW, will be sufficient to provide 100% of average daily demand each day of the year.

NOTE: This analysis uses average values, for simplicity. A more exact analysis would use hourly or 15-minute values. Whereas it would be more difficult to understand by non-technical people, the outcome would be nearly the same.

A Wind/Solar Lull Lasting One Day in Winter in New England

If such a W/S lull occurs, batteries will make up the electricity shortfall

We assume, at some future date, NE has installed:

60000 MW of solar, which produce an annual average of 8700 MWh/h, at capacity factor = 0.145

60000 MW of onshore and offshore wind, which produce an annual average of 21000 MWh/h, at CF = 0.35

During a W/S lull, we assume the production will be only 10% of these values during winter, which frequently has days with very little wind, and snow on most panels

We assume the average electricity fed to the grid is 21000 MW on a January day, and during that entire day the average W/S output fed to the grid is 0.1 x (21000 + 8700) = 2970 MW.

W/S electricity shortfall is 24 x (21000 - 2970) = 432720 MWh

Batteries are rated as providing a level of power for a period of time, or MW/MWh, delivered as AC

Our required battery capacity is (21000 - 2970) MW/(432720 MWh/0.49)

There are some system design factors that reduce rated capacity, but we will ignore them, for simplicity

Tesla recommends not charging to more than 80% full, and not discharging to less than 20% full
That means the recommended maximum delivered electricity is 0.6 of rated capacity.

We assume the battery is 75% full, at start of lull, and is drawn down to 25% full, in 24 hours, i.e., 0.5 of rated capacity is drawn out of the battery, if we are lucky.

But that 0.5 “in battery” must be reduced by 1%, due to stepup transformer loss, i.e., 0.49 is fed to HV grid

NOTETesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve, in Australia. They had to add Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and decided to add more Megapacks to increase the rating of the system. In the article, the Hornsdale graph of operating conditions confirms:

1) The about 20% round-trip loss, explained below

2) The output reduction, due to rapid aging

Battery System Loss: There is about a 20% round-trip loss, from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid

That means, of the electricity taken from the HV grid, about 10% is lost to recharge the battery to desired levels, then, upon discharge, another 10% is lost, before feeding to the HV grid.

This article is a good source of information

Capital Cost: All-in, turnkey capital cost of Tesla, Megapack-based system = 432720/0.49 x 1000 kWh/MWh x $575/delivered kWh as AC, 2023 pricing = $508 billion

Double that amount, if the W/S lull lasts two days.

W/S lulls of 5 to 7 days are not uncommon in New England, throughout the year

Dealing with such multi-day lulls will require batteries costing about $2.5 to $3.6 trillion, just for New England!

Those capital costs can be reduced by extreme “demand management”, including rolling blackouts and complete blackouts, often practiced in Third World countries.

Imports from nearby states is not an option, as those states face similar wind/solar/battery challenges.

NOTE: Until about 2020, various people claimed future utility-grade battery system costs will be as low as $250/delivered kWh

If that were still the case, the battery cost would be about $508 x 250/575 = $221 billion, for a one day lull

During 2021, 2022, 2023, Tesla, Megapack-based, battery-system turnkey costs have been increasing to about $575/delivered kWh

Because of continuing high inflation, high interest rates, high materials, energy and labor prices, etc., battery costs likely will not decrease for some years.

Remember, these battery systems last only about 15 years, and age at about 1.5%/y during that time, if properly operated. Aging increases the loss percent, and reduces the delivered electricity quantity 

The recurring replacement cost, about every 15 years, will bankrupt New England

Recharging the Batteries: There must be enough W/S capacity, MW, plus favorable wind and solar conditions, to recharge the batteries to about 75% full, in 3 days, in anticipation of a second lull, which could happen a few days after the first lull.

The battery charging occurs, while the battery performs normal battery services, such as:

1) Counteracting the W/S-up/down output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 

2) Providing electricity during low-W/S periods (such as minor lulls), and during high-W/S periods, when wind turbine rotors are feathered and locked.

We assume weather conditions have significantly improved to increase the W/S output from 2970 MW (during the lull) to 30000 MW (immediately after the lull), which is 9000 MW in excess of the 21000 MW demand.

W/S electricity available from HV grid for charging is (30000 - 9000) MW x 72 h x 0.35 lifetime CF = 226800 MWh, which loads 0.9 x 226800 = 204120 into the battery, which provides  0.9 x 204120 =  183708 MWh to the HV grid

Even with our optimistic assumption of “3 windy/sunny days after the lull”, the MWh fed to HV grid is significantly less than the required 432720 MWh to recharge the battery

That means at least 432720/183708 = 2.4 times the 120,000 MW of W/S systems is required to recharge the battery in “3 windy/sunny days”, after a one day lull

Most rational people have to come to the conclusion, the wind/solar/battery/EV, etc., route will lead to bankruptcy.

A much better approach would be, continue using our God-given abundance of fossil fuels, enjoy the beneficial aspects of increased CO2 (increased flora and fauna), while building more nuclear plants, which reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions

NOTE: US leads call to triple nuclear power at COP28.

Grid Flexibility Wall and Tripling World Nuclear Electricity

Just about every grid operator has made hour-by-hour, or 15 minute-by-15 minute “what if” calculations regarding more and more wind and solar on the grid.

Up to about 10% W/S, most grids can handle the variable, intermittent output, because they have enough reserve capacity of steady electricity sources, including imports from other grids, plus there is demand management, curtailment, etc.

When you get to 20%, things are very dicey. You need more and more storage, but that is unaffordable, even by the folks in Dubai

Only a few countries, such as Germany, Ireland, UK are over 20%, but all of them have connections to grids with hydro plants with huge reservoirs, and/or pumped-storage hydro plants, such as French, Spain, Norway, Sweden.
More and more interconnection with HV DC lines, to reduce line losses, has been the name of the game in Europe

If all these countries go to 25 to 40%, and not have more storage, they will hit the flexibility wall.
All that has been known for some years.

Finally, Brussels has realized, and is admitting, you can’t get “there”, whatever “there” is, without nuclear

So, Kerry calls for a tripling of nuclear by 2050, which is physically undoable. 

The expanded nuclear would be only 11% of the world total electricity production in 2050, which is grossly inadequate to stay away from the flexibility wall. See Appendix 6

I was involved in the engineering and construction of some nuclear plants in the 70s and 80s.
They were quickly built, with little government regulation, and with low inflation and low financing cost, but were grossly under designed

Major necessary changes were made to existing plants in the 70s, 80s, and 90s
That is true for France, etc., as well.

Three Mile Island: One of the units of Three Mile Island was started in late 1978. The core melted in early 1979, due to a lack of cooling water. The other unit, with upgrades, operated 40 years.

The plant was designed in the early 1970s, was still partially under designed in 1979

To-day, such "low-cost/quick-build" is not possible, because of 1) redundancy and fail-safe interlocks, 2) increased complexity, not obvious to lay people, 3) regulatory delays, 4) legal challenges, etc.

Getting government approvals is very slow

The plants are much more expensive, but they are much safer, just like cars. 

The tripling nuclear Kerry proposed is likely doable in command economies, such as China, Russia, South Korea, etc., which can build 4800 MW plants in 5 to 6 years, but not in US/EU economies, which take 10 or more years

See articles for more detail:


World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind Bust Continues


Wind/Solar/Battery/EV Bubble Crashing

Take a look at iShares Global Clean Energy ETF versus the Nasdaq... Whoops! 

Exchange Traded Funds, ETFs, for renewables were down about 40% this year, while the NASDAQ was up about 40%





Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine


World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021


During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW

Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%

At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%


Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!


Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.


Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:


1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and

2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.


Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)

See below Norwegian floating offshore cost of $8,300/installed kW


Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in specialized ships, also designed and made in Europe, then unloaded at the Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging area, then barged to specialized erection ships, for erection of the floating turbines by specialized cranes, also designed and made in Europe


About 300 Maine people would have pre-assembly/staging/erection jobs, during the erection phase

The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships

About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs during the 20-y electricity production phase


The projects would produce electricity at about 40 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 20 c/kWh, with subsidies, the wholesale price at which utilities would buy from Owners (higher prices after 2023)


The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies


The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government 


The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to all the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024

The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.

The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment


NOTE: The above electricity prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:


Natural gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh

Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh

Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh


Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Additional Gridwork on Shore


A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. 
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to the New England high voltage grid. 
The onshore grid will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.


Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People


Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies, but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy.

Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.




Floating Offshore Wind in Norway


Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company

Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.

The existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, will provide the other 65%.

The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365

The generators will provide almost all the electricity during low-wind periods (such as minor lulls), and during high-wind periods, when rotors are feathered and locked.

The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = $8,300/kW. See URL

That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher

The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites


The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies 

In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.

Workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.


Floating Offshore Wind in Maine


If such floating units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of:


1) the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus

2) the additional $300 to $500 million capital cost of any onshore facilities for storing/pre-assembly/staging/barging to sites

3) A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 500 to 1000 feet. 

The cables would need some type of flexible support system
All the cables would be combined into one cable to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles




Offshore Wind


Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out
All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See offshore wind costs/kWh in article


World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues


US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals

1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the posse of extremists in the US government 
2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disconnected-from-markets UK government


Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about 9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See article


NOTE: During an interview, a commentator was reported to say” “renewables are not always reliable” 
That shows the types of ignorami driving the bus



Levelized Cost of Energy by US-EIA

Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to exist on the grid.

With increased W/S percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny.

Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies
The various LCOE adders start at about 8% W/S on the grid, and become exponentially greater, with increased W/S on the grid

The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems

Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.

Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.

The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.

W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies

W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without the last four freebies. See list.


1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project owning and operations cost,

2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S to load centers

3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365 

4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,

5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced







Batteries Far from an Economic Alternative to Power Plant Fleets


Turnkey capital costs of large scale-battery systems are $575/installed kWh; based on 2023 pricing of Tesla-Megapack systems. See article

With 6.5% money on a 50% bank loan, and 10% for owner return on a 50% investment, and 19% loss from HV grid to HV grid, and 15-y life:

At 10% throughput, the delivered electricity cost is about 184.5 c/kWh, no subsidies, about 92.3 c/kWh with 50% subsidies, on top of the 6 c/kWh cost of the electricity drawn from the HV grid to charge the batteries

At 40% throughput, about 23.1 c/kWh, on top of the 6 c/kWh


Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) HV grid to HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites.
NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80%  full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging


NOTE: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.





Solar is in a Downturn, Similar to Offshore Wind

SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand. 


Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit


SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance


The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%




Miscellaneous Articles


World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues






Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion


Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe


Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise


EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK


U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing


Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars


Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia


The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up


Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea


Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit


IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK


UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased










Nuclear Plants by Russia


According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW

Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022

Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.

The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.


Nuclear Plants: A typical plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each


In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW, 

The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.

As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less then US/UK/EU


In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom


Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures


Nuclear vs Wind: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions

They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years

Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France


Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and near CO2-free
They have about 0.45 CFs, and last 20 to 25 years
They require a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, plus major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, plus a lot of area.


Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.

American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the website, told TASS.


Tripling Nuclear? During COP28 in opulent Dubai, Kerry called for the world to triple CO2-free nuclear, from 370,200 MW to about 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.


Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants

That means, plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.


New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would be 11% of the 2050 world electricity generation. See table

Existing nuclear: If some of the older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, that nuclear would be about 5% to the world total generation in 2050

Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation.

Total nuclear would be about 16%, and would have minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050. 

Infrastructures and Manpower: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.



Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022


Proposed tripling


Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050


New Nuclear, MW






New Reactors, rounded






New nuclear production, MWh, 2050


Conversion factor



New nuclear production, TWh, 2050



World total production, TWh, 2050





Electricity prices vary by type of customer


Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.

In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1

The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:


Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh

Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh

Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh

Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh


Electricity prices vary by locality


Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from 39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2. 

Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.

1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.
2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.

Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the Electric Power Monthly, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.



In the US, the cost of electricity to ratepayers ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.

US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y

With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,

US ratepayers would pay: two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y
Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented

NOTE: All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars






Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.

Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.

The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.

If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.


Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.


Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.

There is no escaping of this reality, except in green la-la-land.



Views: 297


You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on November 28, 2023 at 6:10pm


Here we talking about the religion called "kumbaya, feel-good Green", propounded by the heavily subsidized Net Zero nuts, who usually know nothing about engineering and energy systems, and yet, they have all sorts of opinions they talk about to each other and the Media, but that engineering professionals find off-the-charts non-sensical

Comment by Penny Gray on November 28, 2023 at 5:51pm

Brilliant, as always, Willem Post.  As I sit here next to an LED powered lamp, with yet another plate of turkey pie in my lap, I am pondering if I have enough energy in my battery bank to finish a movie I started last night.  These are the short, dark days of winter nobody likes to talk about.  The energy from solar is very low but I don't need much and the wood stove is keeping me warm. I'm not complaining only own behalf. I chose this path because I live way out in the boonies. But how long will ALL of Maine's wind turbines keep one high-rise building in Boston powered in winter?  And this includes heat, light, cooking with microwaves and electric stoves, hair dryers, movies, elevators, vacuum cleaners, etc.  How much are we in Maine sacrificing to keep one high-rise in Boston totally green?  


Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power


Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT


(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.”

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service