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.
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?"
BIDEN: "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!" pic.twitter.com/TwDoDWZRSJ
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) August 15, 2023
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.
I never did understand their arguments.
— Proper Memes = = (@ItsPropaPanda) August 18, 2023
"Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels!"
If that's so, then why:
1. Do they need any subsidies?
2. More renewables we have, more expensive the electricity gets? pic.twitter.com/GY2JMmEfs1
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.
“That solar and wind aren’t actually cheaper than fossil fuels should be obvious from the fact that despite enormous cultural and political hostility toward fossil fuels that makes fossil fuels artificially expensive, fossil fuel use is still growing.”https://t.co/cp0HCDiq03 pic.twitter.com/beuJgwLKMq
— Alex Epstein (@AlexEpstein) August 18, 2023
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.
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