Pre-Election Special SALE: 60% Off VIP Membership
BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules on Whether Virginia Can Remove Non-Citizens From Voter Rolls
Tim Walz's Gaming Session With Ocasio-Cortez Was a Trainwreck
Oregon Predicates Request to Judge on Self-Delusion
GDP Report Shows Economy 'Weaker Than Expected'
How Trump Plans to Help Compensate Victims of 'Migrant Crime'
NRCC Blasts the Left's Voter Suppression Efforts in Battleground Districts
Watch Trump's Reaction to Finding Out Biden Called His Supporters 'Garbage'
26 Republican AGs Join Virginia in Petitioning SCOTUS to Intervene in Voter Registration...
There Was a Vile, Violent Attack in Chicago, and the Media's Been Silent....
One Red State Just Acquired a Massive Amount of Land to Secure Its...
Poll Out of Texas Shows That Harris Rally Sure Didn't Work for Colin...
This Hollywood Actor Is Persuading Christian Men to Vote for Kamala Harris
Is the Trump Campaign Over-Confident?
Is This Really How the Kamala HQ Is Going to Respond to Biden’s...
Tipsheet

Are Wind and Solar Energy 'Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels'?

Townhall Media

Last week, touting his plan to supposedly boost America's beleaguered economy, President Joe Biden recited a much-repeated myth about the cost of so-called clean energy on the 2024 campaign trail, claiming it's "cheaper" to go green with wind and solar.

Advertisement

CLAIM: "Texas has the significant—highest number of wind and solar facilitates, I think, of any state in the nation! And it's cheaper than fossil fuel!" Biden asserted during an Aug. 15 speech on his "Bidenomics" policies plan in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where GOP presidential primary contenders are set to battle it out at the Republican National Committee debate Wednesday.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott "wants to shut them down," Biden alleged. "Isn't that enlightened?"

FACTS: Center for Industrial Progress president Alex Epstein, who advocates for the expansion of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas, breaks down the cost comparison in an Energy Talking Points article from mid-July. "Observe that 'solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels' is usually invoked, not to encourage competition but to justify coercive government policies to punish fossil fuel use and favor solar and wind," Epstein says of why we should be suspicious of the broad claim that Biden regurgitated.

Advertisement

Wind-and-solar advocates were hellbent on demanding billions of dollars in subsidies under the mislabeled "Inflation Reduction Act," though they're supposedly cheaper forms of energy. Epstein notes: "If they're cheaper, why do they need coercive policies to throttle their fossil-fueled competitors (e.g., opposing fossil fuel investment, production, and pipelines) and reward solar and wind?" Products that are truly cheaper than their counterparts don't need preferential treatment or incentives to be bought.

In reality, solar and wind can't outcompete fossil fuels, or compete at all, in a vast majority of cases, Epstein writes, so that's why climate-change alarmists resort to rallying for "massive government favoritism" and rhetoric that employs over-generalizations.

Advertisement

Epstein characterizes the "fallacy" that opponents of fossil fuels oft-use as a "false generalization," which takes something that's true in rare circumstances and falsely generalizes it to all scenarios. Advocates against fossil fuels take rare-usage cases in which solar and wind are, or might be, cheaper in a small fraction of situations, then falsely generalize that they're always cheaper, albeit they're typically costly, unreliable, or impossible replacements. "For the overwhelming majority of the world’s energy needs, solar and wind are either completely unable to replace fossil fuels or far more expensive," Epstein assesses.

Most modern-day machines rely on the direct burning of fossil fuels, instead of electricity, because of cost-effectiveness. Oil is highly concentrated yet stable as an energy source, meaning it's unique for powering transportation. Meanwhile, airplanes and cargo ships don't have realistic electric alternatives. (Solar-and-wind sophists dishonestly promote battery-powered aircraft and boats as tried-and-true options, ignoring that they're incapable of cost-effective transcontinental flights and long-distance travel.)

Location also affects the cost of energy. Solar and wind are highly location-sensitive. Lacking the reliability and versatility of fossil fuels, solar and wind perform best in consistently sunny (desert-like settings) and windy (open plains) areas. Moreover, sunlight and wind aren't portable fuels. Transporting solar- and wind-powered electricity from source to consumption tends to require pricey far-away transmission lines, which are difficult to develop, that lose a significant amount of energy over distance.

Advertisement

RATING: Biden's claim that wind and solar energy are "cheaper than fossil fuel[s]" is FALSE. Cheap, abundant, and reliable, fossil fuels remain superior for loads of non-electricity uses, such as heavy-duty transportation and industrial-process heat.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement