Background:
“Critics have long claimed that variable renewables are too unreliable: The wind doesn’t always blow, and the sun doesn’t always shine. But evidence shows that intermittency concerns are now generally unfounded. Ten proven carbon-free balancing methods already make high-renewable grids reliable and economic in many countries. One of those methods, batteries, costs 96% less today than it did in 2010. BloombergNEF finds that battery-firmed solar and wind deliver steady power more cheaply than any new fossil or nuclear plants, and many operating ones. That’s why three-fourths of India’s new firm capacity today is solar-plus-storage.
If markets, and not mandates, determine the outcome, the conclusion is already clear. Gas, coal, and nuclear are too slow, too costly, and too risky to anchor the next wave of U.S. power demand. The only technologies that scale quickly enough, cheaply enough, and reliably enough for AI already dominate global additions. Policy will now decide whether Americans will enable the new energy system or protect the old — and whether they’ll pay for stranded gas plants or profit from the cheapest and most secure electricity in history.”
From Canary Media:
*Lovins, Amory B. and Locke, Justin. (2026, March 2). AI: Does not compute: Building fossil-fuel infrastructure to power data centers is a poor bet. Renewables are by far the cheaper, faster choice.
Sources:
*Al Mubarak, F., Rezaee, R., & Wood, D. A. (2024). Economic, Societal, and Environmental Impacts of Available Energy Sources: A Review. Eng, 5(3), 1232–1265. [PDF] [Cited by]
“The impacts that the available energy sources have had on society, the environment, and the economy have become a focus of attention in recent years, generating polarization of opinions. Understanding these impacts is crucial for rational evaluation and the development of strategies for economic growth and energy security. This review examines such impacts of the main energy resources currently exploited or in development, including fossil fuels, geothermal, biomass, solar, hydropower, hydrogen, nuclear, ocean, and wind energies on society through analysis and comparison. It is essential to consider how high energy demand influences energy prices, the workforce, and the environment and to assess the advantages and disadvantages of each energy source. One significant finding from this review is that the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) may vary substantially depending on the energy source used and show substantial ranges for different applications of the same energy source. Nuclear energy has the lowest LCOE range whereas ocean energy has the highest LCOE range among the nine energy sources considered. Fossil fuels were found to have the most substantial societal impacts, which involved on the positive side providing by far the largest number of jobs and highest tax revenues. However, on the negative side, fossil fuels, biomass, and nuclear energy sources pose the most significant health threats and social well-being impacts on communities and societies compared to other energy sources. On the other hand, solar, ocean and wind energy pose the lowest risk in terms of health and safety, with solar and wind also currently providing a substantial number of jobs worldwide. Regarding environmental consequences, fossil fuels generate the highest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and have the highest adverse impacts on ecosystems. In contrast, nuclear, ocean, solar and wind energies have the lowest GHG emissions and low to moderate impacts on ecosystems. Biomass, geothermal and hydropower energy sources have moderate to high ecosystem impacts compared to the other energy sources. Hydropower facilities require the most materials (mainly concrete) to build per unit of energy generated, followed by wind and solar energy, which require substantial steel and concrete per unit of energy generated. The lack of substantial materials recycling causes associated with solar and wind energy sources. All the energies that use thermal power generation process consume substantial quantities of water for cooling. The analysis and comparisons provided in this review identified that there is an urgent need to transition away from large-carbon-footprint processes, particularly fossil fuels without carbon capture, and to reduce the consumption of construction materials without recycling, as occurs in many of the existing solar and wind energy plants. This transition can be facilitated by seeking alternative and more widely accessible materials with lower carbon footprints during manufacturing and construction. Implementing such strategies can help mitigate climate change and have a positive impact on community well-being and economic growth.”
*Stringer, T., Joanis, M. & Abdoli, S. (2024). Power generation mix and electricity price. Renewable Energy, 221, 119761. [Cited by]
“Electricity prices are influenced by the composition of the power generation mix. Firms that operate in sectors that are energy-intensive, such as manufacturing, metallurgy or oil and gas, are vulnerable to variations in electricity price. Everyday citizens, faced with increasing costs of living, also experience a strain on their finances when electricity prices rise. As many countries move towards a net-zero energy transition, energy policy enacted to change the power generation mix of electricity markets is under increased scrutiny. Little research has evaluated both the effect of all modes on electricity price and the interactions between the modes in the context of a competitive electricity market. Using hourly data from the Canadian province of Ontario between 2015 and 2022, we examine the effect of the variation in outputs of the different modes of electricity generation in a competitive electricity market. We find that increased solar and wind electricity production induces lower electricity prices.”
Other source:
Meet the power plant of the future: Solar + battery hybrids are poised for explosive growth
Questions? Please let me know (engelk@grinnell.edu).
