This article (and Meredith's book, which I have read) makes several excellent points. Let me make a few additional points that might help refine the discussion.
1. Renewables aren't inherently harmful to the grid, and in fact provide some benefits. But they need to be carefully integrated into the grid based on sound engineering fundamentals, not hope, as you say. I like PJM's Electric Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) approach, which considers the total amount of renewables PJM can support without jeopardizing reliability, and also considers the declining benefits of adding additional renewables to the grid.
2. The real problem hasn't been caused by adding renewables, but by prematurely retiring conventional generation capacity and attempting to replace it with renewables, which can't replicate the support the retired capacity provides to grid reliability.
3. I think another complicating factor has been the unexpected growth in demand over the last 2-3 years, caused by the need to supply electricity to data centers. Before then, the growth in demand on the grid was relatively flat, and the grid's capacity adequacy was more manageable.
I explained these points in more detail in my March 21 post on my Substack (Explaining the Grid), entitled "What is the Real Problem With Renewable Solar and Wind Generation?" Some of my other posts also address the resource adequacy problem.
IMO renewables are a costly distraction. Their inherent intermittency requires that other capacity be built to back up the renewables. Once that capacity is constructed one ends up with two underutilized generating assets and a much more complex grid to support. If you really want net zero get good at building nuclear power affordably & predictably - others have done so.
I agree that affordable nuclear would be great, but guess what? We don’t have that now. Hopefully we will in the future but it isn’t happening any time soon. And renewables provide more benefits than just no carbon emissions (although we can’t ignore that benefit ). Once constructed they generate electricity practically for free. In most of the country we can add more renewables without adding more conventional generation, but we have to retain existing generation capacity and avoid over reliance on renewables.
We actually do have affordable nuclear, or at least know what it takes to get there, it’s probably the easiest problem to solve from a technical perspective. Start with permitting reform, where we don’t spend 10 years litigating every site before construction begins. Replace LNM with something that recognizes that natural background radiation exists, humans have coevolved with it and reducing plant radiation exposure well beyond the natural background makes no sense. Commit to building many multiples of a proven plant design such as the AP1000 (China is building 16), this minimizes nonrecurring engineering costs, allows a supply chain to develop, build efficiency gains from learning curve and operations benefits from common training, spare parts and upgrades over time.
Adding more renewables requires significant investments in the grid to gather the renewable power from wherever it was produced plus more investments in storage. And then one faces curtailment, when generation exceeds demand - what gets curtailed and how are the owners compensated? Common practice is to give priority to renewables and curtail fossil / nuclear generation, with the cost of curtailment being added to the price of the renewable power. And many generating resources were not designed for the on / off operation this scenario requires, a 2.5GW thermal plant near us is about to undergo a $100M+ refurbishment to in part address the stress from repeatedly cycling the plant between full and no output. And curtailment costs are significant, including the personnel who are staffing the plant, maintenance of the plant, capital & depreciation costs plus the profits the operator lost from not selling power.
Re: costs and LCOE - The Levelized Cost of Electricity is the most cited metric for comparing w/s/b costs to fossil fuels and nuclear and purports to show that wind and solar are less expensive. However, LCOE ignores natural capacity factors, storage and backup costs, and system integration/infrastructure expenses. A more appropriate measure is FCOE (Full Cost of Electricity) which includes all the invisible infrastructure required to make wind, solar, and batteries “work.” FCOE clearly shows that wind and solar are far more expensive than fossil fuels or nuclear. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/08/06/why-is-cheap-electricity-so-dmn-expensive/
Don’t forget the economic life of a fossil plant is 50+ years, nuclear is 60-70 years. Renewables upon the other hand are maybe 20-25 year for the panels and turbines, 10-12 years for batteries. So you get to recapitalize the renewables several times over the life of a fossil or nuclear plant. And the real kicker is - most of the energy used to produce, install, maintain & recycle the renewable hardware is fossil based. In an all renewable scenario one would seem to end up on a treadmill where much of the energy produced gets consumed building more renewable energy hardware.
I just posted an article describing the NRC’s proposed new rules eliminating the LNM and otherwise streamlining the licensing process. Check it out at Explaining the Gris
Correct. I cover that point in my long reply to Matt below. I think 20-25 years is generous, especially for wind turbines if for no other reason than the bearings wear out. Here is a link from IER - https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind-turbines-and-solar-panels-are-aging-prematurely/ As I tell anyone who will listen, and even those who won't, wind and solar can't replace or even reduce fossil fuel use - if anything, they increase the need for them since they can't produce enough energy to power the machinery used in their production starting with the massive amount of mining required to extract the minerals used using a lot of very heavy fossil fuel powered machinery. Here is an interesting video that captures the absurdity. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1315198317261137
That certainly is a good path, and in fact the NRC has issued three proposed changes to its rules in the last eight days that would implement the changes you suggest. My only point is that, even with these changes, we are 10 years or more from getting significant new nuclear capacity constructed, and there is no guarantee that it will happen even then
I just posted an article about the NRC’s proposed revisions to its rules intended to streamline the licensing process and making construction less expensive. Check it out at Explaining the Gris
I disagree with points 1 and 2, and to a lesser degree with 3. The grid operates at a frequency of 60hz which is maintained by reliable power sources and spinning reserves. When you add weather dependent and therefore unreliable, intermittent and variable energy sources to it, maintaining a steady frequency becomes more complicated. A small amount of wind or solar can be absorbed, but it comes with added expense, not least of which is the land requirement.
Wind turbines and solar panels require orders of magnitude more area than fossil fuel or nuclear power plants. For example, the 1200 MW nameplate Bridge City gas plant in Texas sits on about 26 acres and generates electricity 24x365. The Blevins 270 MW nameplate solar complex sits on 2300 acres (over 3.5 square miles) or 88 times larger than Bridge City with a nameplate capacity less than 1 quarter. To get to the same nameplate capacity, Blevins would be over 15 square miles or 352 times the gas plant. Capacity factors for solar vary by location, but roughly 25% is the maximum capacity factor (which frankly is generous and in New York state, it is far less). Therefore, for the solar plant to produce the same amount of electricity as the gas plant, 4 times the land area for solar equivalent nameplate is required – or over 60 square miles or 1408 times the land required for the gas plant. And the solar complex still does not generate any electricity from dusk to dawn so another power source is still required increasing overall system cost and environmental impact. In fact, solar only produces near name plate from 10-2 during the time of the year when the sun is directly overhead on clear cloudless days where the temps don't exceed 77 degrees. https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/sunblock-the-global-fight-to-save and https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/a-few-graphs-say-it-all-for-renewables/ and https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/solars-land-use-problem-is-much-worse
Based on what you say I don’t understand why you disagree with my point number 2, which is that we should be building more conventional generation, not retiring it. And I am not sure why you would disagree with my first point, which is that renewables need to be carefully integrated into electric systems consistent with sound engineering principles.
My point is that renewables - a better name is unreliables - should not be part of the energy mix at all - no amount of careful planning and engineering can overcome their inherent unreliability - they only add cost and complexity because they can't produce electricity reliably, there are no benefits. Roof top solar or over parking lots is fine as long as the panels are not connected to the grid - but even that is, IMO, a waste of money and resources. As to cutting co2 emissions - so what. Co2 is plant food and a gas of life - without it, everything on planet earth dies, and if you want a greener planet, you want more, not less. It is not a climate control knob. Also, wind and solar are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave starting with the massive amount of mining required to extract the minerals needed for their production.
Realities of Fossil Fuels vs. Wind, Solar and Batteries
1. Solar panels, wind turbines and batteries (w/s/b) do not magically appear out of thin air. A lot of fossil fuels are burned to produce them for mining/processing of raw materials in multiple countries around the world (many with little to no environmental controls or labor laws), transport to/from manufacturing facility, coal powered fabrication process mostly in China, site preparation, life cycle maintenance and ultimate decommissioning and disposal – with the disposal component another looming environmental disaster. Each step requires the use of very heavy fossil fuel powered machinery given that neither wind or solar can produce enough energy to power the machinery used to produce them. Wind and solar are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave. They don’t replace fossil fuels, they only increase the need for them. Neither wind or solar can provide baseload or dispatchable energy since the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine and you can't command them to do so when demand spikes. https://manhattan.institute/article/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-a-reality-check and https://www.facebook.com/reel/1225185639676254 and https://www.facebook.com/reel/1422269982842914
2. Wind turbines and solar panels ONLY generate electricity, but CANNOT make any of the products or transportation fuels that get made from fossil fuels that support:
4. Wind turbines and solar panels require orders of magnitude more area than fossil fuel or nuclear power plants. For example, the 1200 MW nameplate Bridge City gas plant in Texas sits on about 26 acres and generates electricity 24x365. The Blevins 270 MW nameplate solar complex sits on 2300 acres (over 3.5 square miles) or 88 times larger than Bridge City with a nameplate capacity less than 1 quarter. To get to the same nameplate capacity, Blevins would be over 15 square miles or 352 times the gas plant. Capacity factors for solar vary by location, but roughly 25% is the maximum capacity factor (in New York state, it is far less). Therefore, for the solar plant to produce the same amount of electricity as the gas plant, 4 times the land area for solar equivalent nameplate is required – or over 60 square miles or 1408 times the land required for the gas plant. And the solar complex still does not generate any electricity from dusk to dawn so another power source is still required increasing overall system cost and environmental impact. In fact, solar only produces near name plate from 10-2 during the time of the year when the sun is directly overhead on clear cloudless days where the temps don't exceed 77 degrees. https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/sunblock-the-global-fight-to-save and https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/a-few-graphs-say-it-all-for-renewables/ and https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/solars-land-use-problem-is-much-worse
5. Utility scale lithium-ion batteries require an enormous amount of raw materials and consume an enormous amount of energy to produce. For example, 1-ton utility-scale battery has a storage capacity of around 100 kWh and requires ~ 70 tons of mined and processed raw materials to be manufactured. This is the energy equivalent of about ~40 kg of coal or ~20 litres of oil. That battery would power all of Berlin for about 30 minutes (assuming 2 GW peak power) or all of Germany for just under a minute (at peak power of 80 GW). To produce that battery requires 450 GWh of energy just to be manufactured including the energy required for metals and materials. That’s ~450 times more energy input than its rated storage capacity. Batteries are also not an energy source - they are a storage device that must be charged just like a gas can that needs to be filled. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/08/20/the-battery-storage-delusion-what-35-million-tons-of-industrial-effort-buys-you/?fbclid=IwY2xjawRpnn9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeHMU38LwTM8mQRlrJLdDqV90CRWD7akOxhsxc2cY66QDDhIQgQEKHkfxUWpw_aem_bCX9MXNBoCOqLA0tLTRrpQ
6. The Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) is the most cited metric for comparing w/s/b costs to fossil fuels and nuclear and purports to show that wind and solar are less expensive. However, LCOE ignores natural capacity factors, storage and backup costs, and system integration/infrastructure expenses. A more appropriate measure is FCOE (Full Cost of Electricity) which includes all the invisible infrastructure required to make wind, solar, and batteries “work.” FCOE clearly shows that wind and solar are far more expensive than fossil fuels or nuclear. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/08/06/why-is-cheap-electricity-so-dmn-expensive/
9. Transitioning from fossil fuels to wind, solar and batteries is a physical impossibility and the push to do so will result in serious economic and environmental damage while posing a serious threat to national security.
You are correct. Unreliables are parasitic and if we continue down the path of states like CA, NY, IL, NJ and all of New England, there will be sustained power outages - and if they happen in winter, they could be deadly. A couple more links for you. I don't know if you will take the time to read the links I posted, but you should. Here are a couple more. https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/wind-and-solar-are-parasites-on-the and https://substack.com/home/post/p-202585357
Look, you make some good points, and you obviously have the wrong idea about me. If you looked at my Substack, you would see that I similarly write about the operational challenges raised by renewables as well as the potential, even the likelihood, of blackouts in the near future.
But the fact is that today there is about 375,000 megawatts of renewable capacity installed on the US power grid and in 2025 those facilities generated almost 20% of all electricity produced on the grid. Whether or not you like them, and you obviously don’t, that ship has left the dock. As a result, I don’t find extended rants about how bad renewables are to be particularly relevant and after a while they aren’t very interesting either. I would much rather consider how the renewables we have and are getting can be integrated into the grid without affecting reliability and where the grid should go from here.
Excellent article, the people that are responsible for the decision making concerning sound grid operations should definitely take your words to heart. Playing green virtue games is going to cause a lot of discomfort at a minimum, but lots of deaths could happen with a major blackout to a highly populated area like Bronx NYC.
NY Gov. Cuomo can close the Indian Point nuclear power plant effecting 3 million households, and he bans fracking (like it's some catastrophic event that will destroy the state). Meanwhile, wind turbines have blades collapsing into the ocean, whales are washing up on shores and there is a shortage of land mass to cover the dream of solar farms far and wide. The NY Governor is buying natural gas from PA, but refuses to drill for oil and gas due to the horror of fracking. So, PA is producing from the Marcellus Shale which extends under NY so the NY reservoir is being drained by PA development. But, we'll give the millions in revenue to help reduce our billions in deficits go to PA since NY can't abide the decision to actually develop its own resources.
It is absurdity at its finest. But, instead of laying out the facts and reversing course from the bad decisions made by every Democrat who is driving NY into the ground, all you hear is every excuse in the book. But if you bring up the cost and unreliability of wind and solar, the pushback is based on emotions and irrationality. But, like CA, NY is a one party state and so, it will continue like the EU and UK to keep the lights on with a wing and a prayer.
NY sounds like the UK -- the UK has stopped development of its area of the North Sea but purchases oil and gas from Norway which draws from fields adjacent to the UK area! Currently, the data center is the main excuse for grid strain and higher prices, but those problems were there before the data centers. Net zero climate policies and their political champions are the main culprit here -- the good news is that it can be fixed if people get involved.
Great article but I do have one quibble. "Wind and solar are good energy producers but poor capacity resources without massive overbuild or backup". Wind and solar are NOT good energy producers which is why they need massive overbuild and (not or) backup. Wind capacity factor may be between 30-35% but solar capacity factor comes in much lower - about 11% based on this 15 year analysis of wind and solar in the EU+UK which also shows significant variations by year for offshore wind but relatively flat production at around 20% for onshore wind. https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/a-few-graphs-say-it-all-for-renewables/
This is a good, brief summary of the book. I read Shorting the Grid last year, and was impressed. The author provides a tremendous amount of detail. It was very educational regarding the inner workings of the RTO "markets" and a good amount of technical content as well.
I have been studying all things energy, as a hobby, starting when gasoline broke $4 a gallon in about 2008. I thought that there must be more going on than what the evening news programs were telling me. So, going into the book, I had a good idea about the some of the complexities of the electricity business, but this book was amazing. It opened up a window into the utility business that I had not found elsewhere. Having consumed many books, posts, articles and podcasts about energy, as far as I can tell this book is a unique product, and very valuable to anyone who wants a better understanding of the electric grid.
I hate to say this, but I have spent a bit a time looking at this blackout in the Bronx, and I don't think it had anything to do with net zero policies or strain put on the system by intermittent renewable resources. The New York ISO that manages the operation of all generation facilities in New York. It is the New York ISO, not ConEd, that would decide to initiate a blackout in New York City if not enough electricity was being generated. I looked at the New York ISO website, and it did not indicate that there was a shortage of electricity being generated on July 2, the day of the blackouts. I then looked at the article linked in your post, in which ConEd says it cut the power to protect its equipment. That equipment almost certainly was a transformer or distribution wires owned by ConEd. If the cut had been because of generation facilities being taken offline, that would have been reflected on the New York ISO. I also looked at the NERC 2026 summer reliability assessment for New York, which indicates that New York should have sufficient reserves to meet its demands this year, even in very hot weather.
I agree with you in general that the grid's reliability is threatened because of insufficient capacity reserve margins. But I don't think that is what caused the blackouts in the Bronx on July 2.
Thank you Matt for your thoughtful comments. I appreciate you looking into the specifics. You're right that the Bronx actions on July 2 were local Con Edison steps -- voltage reductions and targeted outages to protect their own distribution equipment (transformers, cables) from heat overload. NYISO didn't declare a system-wide generation shortage that day.
That being said, the tighter overall picture matters. Thinner system reserves and the shift away from dispatchable sources due to net-zero decarbonization policies make the entire grid—including Con Ed’s aging distribution assets—more brittle during extreme heat or extreme cold for that matter. Local problems that a more robust system might absorb now trigger these protective measures to prevent wider failures. The system is no longer robust because reliable dispatchable power, like that from the Indian Point nuclear power plant (2000MW) and other coal and gas/oil plants (2400MW), have been retired (4.4GW) with only 2.9GW added and that is mostly from intermittent solar. For decarbonization and stability, the NYISO solution is to import electricity from Canada through interconnections. Is this the best approach for energy security?
You're correct that reserve margins are perhaps not the direct cause of every transformer issue, one must acknowledge, however, that the capacity margins have shrunk almost in half from 17% to 9%. This helps explain why these localized events are occurring more often under heat stress; there's not enough of a buffer to protect the equipment from overload. Con Edison is investing billions to upgrade some of the equipment, but rapid demand growth and the infrastructure decarbonization transition are testing limits—and they're often forced to prioritize net-zero-related components over pure reliability needs where it matters most.
I appreciate the arguments you bring to the conversation!
Thanks. I totally agree with your concerns. I just think this particular incident had more to do with ConEd’s aging distribution system than a shortage of electricity production.
> *dispatchable* plants—*coal*, hydro, *nuclear*, and later natural gas [emphasis added]
Mistakes like this hurt your credibility, in what is otherwise a fairly informative article. Coal and nuclear are generally baseline or at best, in modern designs, load following.
Dispatchable means power on cycle, on voltage, on amperage and on demand.
The renewables (wind and solar) are parasitic, requiring conventional generators to convert “free” electricity into usable energy. This discrepancy is never mentioned but conventional generators pay their own grid costs plus the grid and utility costs unreliable sources of electricity require
Excellent article, and I can not wait to hear your interview with Meredeth! I have dubbed her "A National Treasure" as she is a leader we need to listen to!
This article (and Meredith's book, which I have read) makes several excellent points. Let me make a few additional points that might help refine the discussion.
1. Renewables aren't inherently harmful to the grid, and in fact provide some benefits. But they need to be carefully integrated into the grid based on sound engineering fundamentals, not hope, as you say. I like PJM's Electric Load Carrying Capability (ELCC) approach, which considers the total amount of renewables PJM can support without jeopardizing reliability, and also considers the declining benefits of adding additional renewables to the grid.
2. The real problem hasn't been caused by adding renewables, but by prematurely retiring conventional generation capacity and attempting to replace it with renewables, which can't replicate the support the retired capacity provides to grid reliability.
3. I think another complicating factor has been the unexpected growth in demand over the last 2-3 years, caused by the need to supply electricity to data centers. Before then, the growth in demand on the grid was relatively flat, and the grid's capacity adequacy was more manageable.
I explained these points in more detail in my March 21 post on my Substack (Explaining the Grid), entitled "What is the Real Problem With Renewable Solar and Wind Generation?" Some of my other posts also address the resource adequacy problem.
IMO renewables are a costly distraction. Their inherent intermittency requires that other capacity be built to back up the renewables. Once that capacity is constructed one ends up with two underutilized generating assets and a much more complex grid to support. If you really want net zero get good at building nuclear power affordably & predictably - others have done so.
I agree that affordable nuclear would be great, but guess what? We don’t have that now. Hopefully we will in the future but it isn’t happening any time soon. And renewables provide more benefits than just no carbon emissions (although we can’t ignore that benefit ). Once constructed they generate electricity practically for free. In most of the country we can add more renewables without adding more conventional generation, but we have to retain existing generation capacity and avoid over reliance on renewables.
We actually do have affordable nuclear, or at least know what it takes to get there, it’s probably the easiest problem to solve from a technical perspective. Start with permitting reform, where we don’t spend 10 years litigating every site before construction begins. Replace LNM with something that recognizes that natural background radiation exists, humans have coevolved with it and reducing plant radiation exposure well beyond the natural background makes no sense. Commit to building many multiples of a proven plant design such as the AP1000 (China is building 16), this minimizes nonrecurring engineering costs, allows a supply chain to develop, build efficiency gains from learning curve and operations benefits from common training, spare parts and upgrades over time.
Adding more renewables requires significant investments in the grid to gather the renewable power from wherever it was produced plus more investments in storage. And then one faces curtailment, when generation exceeds demand - what gets curtailed and how are the owners compensated? Common practice is to give priority to renewables and curtail fossil / nuclear generation, with the cost of curtailment being added to the price of the renewable power. And many generating resources were not designed for the on / off operation this scenario requires, a 2.5GW thermal plant near us is about to undergo a $100M+ refurbishment to in part address the stress from repeatedly cycling the plant between full and no output. And curtailment costs are significant, including the personnel who are staffing the plant, maintenance of the plant, capital & depreciation costs plus the profits the operator lost from not selling power.
Re: costs and LCOE - The Levelized Cost of Electricity is the most cited metric for comparing w/s/b costs to fossil fuels and nuclear and purports to show that wind and solar are less expensive. However, LCOE ignores natural capacity factors, storage and backup costs, and system integration/infrastructure expenses. A more appropriate measure is FCOE (Full Cost of Electricity) which includes all the invisible infrastructure required to make wind, solar, and batteries “work.” FCOE clearly shows that wind and solar are far more expensive than fossil fuels or nuclear. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/08/06/why-is-cheap-electricity-so-dmn-expensive/
Don’t forget the economic life of a fossil plant is 50+ years, nuclear is 60-70 years. Renewables upon the other hand are maybe 20-25 year for the panels and turbines, 10-12 years for batteries. So you get to recapitalize the renewables several times over the life of a fossil or nuclear plant. And the real kicker is - most of the energy used to produce, install, maintain & recycle the renewable hardware is fossil based. In an all renewable scenario one would seem to end up on a treadmill where much of the energy produced gets consumed building more renewable energy hardware.
I just posted an article describing the NRC’s proposed new rules eliminating the LNM and otherwise streamlining the licensing process. Check it out at Explaining the Gris
Correct. I cover that point in my long reply to Matt below. I think 20-25 years is generous, especially for wind turbines if for no other reason than the bearings wear out. Here is a link from IER - https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind-turbines-and-solar-panels-are-aging-prematurely/ As I tell anyone who will listen, and even those who won't, wind and solar can't replace or even reduce fossil fuel use - if anything, they increase the need for them since they can't produce enough energy to power the machinery used in their production starting with the massive amount of mining required to extract the minerals used using a lot of very heavy fossil fuel powered machinery. Here is an interesting video that captures the absurdity. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1315198317261137
That certainly is a good path, and in fact the NRC has issued three proposed changes to its rules in the last eight days that would implement the changes you suggest. My only point is that, even with these changes, we are 10 years or more from getting significant new nuclear capacity constructed, and there is no guarantee that it will happen even then
50 years of demonizing nuclear in favor of useless renewables has led to this point.
Nuclear is only expensive because that was the plan.
We can fix it or continue wasting money.
It will happen eventually no matter what renewables advocates state so we need to start today.
Everything else is a waste of oxygen.
I just posted an article about the NRC’s proposed revisions to its rules intended to streamline the licensing process and making construction less expensive. Check it out at Explaining the Gris
I disagree with points 1 and 2, and to a lesser degree with 3. The grid operates at a frequency of 60hz which is maintained by reliable power sources and spinning reserves. When you add weather dependent and therefore unreliable, intermittent and variable energy sources to it, maintaining a steady frequency becomes more complicated. A small amount of wind or solar can be absorbed, but it comes with added expense, not least of which is the land requirement.
Wind turbines and solar panels require orders of magnitude more area than fossil fuel or nuclear power plants. For example, the 1200 MW nameplate Bridge City gas plant in Texas sits on about 26 acres and generates electricity 24x365. The Blevins 270 MW nameplate solar complex sits on 2300 acres (over 3.5 square miles) or 88 times larger than Bridge City with a nameplate capacity less than 1 quarter. To get to the same nameplate capacity, Blevins would be over 15 square miles or 352 times the gas plant. Capacity factors for solar vary by location, but roughly 25% is the maximum capacity factor (which frankly is generous and in New York state, it is far less). Therefore, for the solar plant to produce the same amount of electricity as the gas plant, 4 times the land area for solar equivalent nameplate is required – or over 60 square miles or 1408 times the land required for the gas plant. And the solar complex still does not generate any electricity from dusk to dawn so another power source is still required increasing overall system cost and environmental impact. In fact, solar only produces near name plate from 10-2 during the time of the year when the sun is directly overhead on clear cloudless days where the temps don't exceed 77 degrees. https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/sunblock-the-global-fight-to-save and https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/a-few-graphs-say-it-all-for-renewables/ and https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/solars-land-use-problem-is-much-worse
Based on what you say I don’t understand why you disagree with my point number 2, which is that we should be building more conventional generation, not retiring it. And I am not sure why you would disagree with my first point, which is that renewables need to be carefully integrated into electric systems consistent with sound engineering principles.
My point is that renewables - a better name is unreliables - should not be part of the energy mix at all - no amount of careful planning and engineering can overcome their inherent unreliability - they only add cost and complexity because they can't produce electricity reliably, there are no benefits. Roof top solar or over parking lots is fine as long as the panels are not connected to the grid - but even that is, IMO, a waste of money and resources. As to cutting co2 emissions - so what. Co2 is plant food and a gas of life - without it, everything on planet earth dies, and if you want a greener planet, you want more, not less. It is not a climate control knob. Also, wind and solar are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave starting with the massive amount of mining required to extract the minerals needed for their production.
Realities of Fossil Fuels vs. Wind, Solar and Batteries
1. Solar panels, wind turbines and batteries (w/s/b) do not magically appear out of thin air. A lot of fossil fuels are burned to produce them for mining/processing of raw materials in multiple countries around the world (many with little to no environmental controls or labor laws), transport to/from manufacturing facility, coal powered fabrication process mostly in China, site preparation, life cycle maintenance and ultimate decommissioning and disposal – with the disposal component another looming environmental disaster. Each step requires the use of very heavy fossil fuel powered machinery given that neither wind or solar can produce enough energy to power the machinery used to produce them. Wind and solar are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave. They don’t replace fossil fuels, they only increase the need for them. Neither wind or solar can provide baseload or dispatchable energy since the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine and you can't command them to do so when demand spikes. https://manhattan.institute/article/mines-minerals-and-green-energy-a-reality-check and https://www.facebook.com/reel/1225185639676254 and https://www.facebook.com/reel/1422269982842914
2. Wind turbines and solar panels ONLY generate electricity, but CANNOT make any of the products or transportation fuels that get made from fossil fuels that support:
• Hospitals
• Airports
• Militaries
• Medical equipment
• Telecommunications
• Communications systems
• Space programs
• Appliances
• Electronics
• Sanitation systems (water/sewage treatment)
• Heating and ventilating
• Transportation – vehicles, rail, ocean, and air
• Construction – roads and buildings
https://blackmon.substack.com/p/ronald-stein-and-mike-ariza-the-nine?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=712558&post_id=205674014&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=kv2ig&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
3. Fossil fuels are also used to produce synthetic fertilizers which greatly enhance crop production. Oil derivatives are also the basis for over 6000 products used in everyday life. In effect, there is not one thing in our lives that we eat, drink, wear, walk on, use or otherwise consume that is not 100% dependent on fossil fuels. https://www.americaoutloud.news/modern-society-runs-on-refined-oil-products-can-california-keep-ignoring-reality/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
4. Wind turbines and solar panels require orders of magnitude more area than fossil fuel or nuclear power plants. For example, the 1200 MW nameplate Bridge City gas plant in Texas sits on about 26 acres and generates electricity 24x365. The Blevins 270 MW nameplate solar complex sits on 2300 acres (over 3.5 square miles) or 88 times larger than Bridge City with a nameplate capacity less than 1 quarter. To get to the same nameplate capacity, Blevins would be over 15 square miles or 352 times the gas plant. Capacity factors for solar vary by location, but roughly 25% is the maximum capacity factor (in New York state, it is far less). Therefore, for the solar plant to produce the same amount of electricity as the gas plant, 4 times the land area for solar equivalent nameplate is required – or over 60 square miles or 1408 times the land required for the gas plant. And the solar complex still does not generate any electricity from dusk to dawn so another power source is still required increasing overall system cost and environmental impact. In fact, solar only produces near name plate from 10-2 during the time of the year when the sun is directly overhead on clear cloudless days where the temps don't exceed 77 degrees. https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/sunblock-the-global-fight-to-save and https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/a-few-graphs-say-it-all-for-renewables/ and https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/solars-land-use-problem-is-much-worse
5. Utility scale lithium-ion batteries require an enormous amount of raw materials and consume an enormous amount of energy to produce. For example, 1-ton utility-scale battery has a storage capacity of around 100 kWh and requires ~ 70 tons of mined and processed raw materials to be manufactured. This is the energy equivalent of about ~40 kg of coal or ~20 litres of oil. That battery would power all of Berlin for about 30 minutes (assuming 2 GW peak power) or all of Germany for just under a minute (at peak power of 80 GW). To produce that battery requires 450 GWh of energy just to be manufactured including the energy required for metals and materials. That’s ~450 times more energy input than its rated storage capacity. Batteries are also not an energy source - they are a storage device that must be charged just like a gas can that needs to be filled. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/08/20/the-battery-storage-delusion-what-35-million-tons-of-industrial-effort-buys-you/?fbclid=IwY2xjawRpnn9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeHMU38LwTM8mQRlrJLdDqV90CRWD7akOxhsxc2cY66QDDhIQgQEKHkfxUWpw_aem_bCX9MXNBoCOqLA0tLTRrpQ
6. The Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) is the most cited metric for comparing w/s/b costs to fossil fuels and nuclear and purports to show that wind and solar are less expensive. However, LCOE ignores natural capacity factors, storage and backup costs, and system integration/infrastructure expenses. A more appropriate measure is FCOE (Full Cost of Electricity) which includes all the invisible infrastructure required to make wind, solar, and batteries “work.” FCOE clearly shows that wind and solar are far more expensive than fossil fuels or nuclear. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/08/06/why-is-cheap-electricity-so-dmn-expensive/
7. Data shows that wind and solar life spans are far shorter than advertised meaning that they will need to be replaced more frequently or discarded earlier than projected adding to the effective operating and disposal cost. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/wind-turbines-and-solar-panels-are-aging-prematurely/
8. Contrary to the claims re: social costs of carbon, fossil fuels have enabled people to live longer, healthier, more comfortable lives. Infant mortality dropped. Women didn’t die in childbirth at the same rates. Food became more plentiful, clean water more reliable, heat more accessible, and medical care more effective. Nearly every measurable improvement in human well-being since 1850 can be traced back to the power of coal, oil, and natural gas. And no matter how fervently activists try to paint fossil fuels as the villain in their climate morality play, they remain the reason billions are alive and thriving today. https://irrationalfear.substack.com/p/how-fossil-fuels-doubled-human-life?r=kv2ig&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_id=97757_v0_s00_e232_tv2_tp1_a1demoo4qyk3vl&fbclid=IwY2xjawRpnzlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEe4E1t_0avKJ45hpsLQPy68BJ9rODii59ASCFxIKW_ZEsygJROjtjSRC2REGY_aem_ih7XgBUNFCMh7yVv5HkHpA
9. Transitioning from fossil fuels to wind, solar and batteries is a physical impossibility and the push to do so will result in serious economic and environmental damage while posing a serious threat to national security.
Wow, you really don’t like renewables. I’m not sure there is much I can add to what I have already said
You are correct. Unreliables are parasitic and if we continue down the path of states like CA, NY, IL, NJ and all of New England, there will be sustained power outages - and if they happen in winter, they could be deadly. A couple more links for you. I don't know if you will take the time to read the links I posted, but you should. Here are a couple more. https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/wind-and-solar-are-parasites-on-the and https://substack.com/home/post/p-202585357
And, another re: power outages. https://blackmon.substack.com/p/tammy-nemeth-sweating-in-the-dark
Look, you make some good points, and you obviously have the wrong idea about me. If you looked at my Substack, you would see that I similarly write about the operational challenges raised by renewables as well as the potential, even the likelihood, of blackouts in the near future.
But the fact is that today there is about 375,000 megawatts of renewable capacity installed on the US power grid and in 2025 those facilities generated almost 20% of all electricity produced on the grid. Whether or not you like them, and you obviously don’t, that ship has left the dock. As a result, I don’t find extended rants about how bad renewables are to be particularly relevant and after a while they aren’t very interesting either. I would much rather consider how the renewables we have and are getting can be integrated into the grid without affecting reliability and where the grid should go from here.
Excellent article, the people that are responsible for the decision making concerning sound grid operations should definitely take your words to heart. Playing green virtue games is going to cause a lot of discomfort at a minimum, but lots of deaths could happen with a major blackout to a highly populated area like Bronx NYC.
NY Gov. Cuomo can close the Indian Point nuclear power plant effecting 3 million households, and he bans fracking (like it's some catastrophic event that will destroy the state). Meanwhile, wind turbines have blades collapsing into the ocean, whales are washing up on shores and there is a shortage of land mass to cover the dream of solar farms far and wide. The NY Governor is buying natural gas from PA, but refuses to drill for oil and gas due to the horror of fracking. So, PA is producing from the Marcellus Shale which extends under NY so the NY reservoir is being drained by PA development. But, we'll give the millions in revenue to help reduce our billions in deficits go to PA since NY can't abide the decision to actually develop its own resources.
It is absurdity at its finest. But, instead of laying out the facts and reversing course from the bad decisions made by every Democrat who is driving NY into the ground, all you hear is every excuse in the book. But if you bring up the cost and unreliability of wind and solar, the pushback is based on emotions and irrationality. But, like CA, NY is a one party state and so, it will continue like the EU and UK to keep the lights on with a wing and a prayer.
NY sounds like the UK -- the UK has stopped development of its area of the North Sea but purchases oil and gas from Norway which draws from fields adjacent to the UK area! Currently, the data center is the main excuse for grid strain and higher prices, but those problems were there before the data centers. Net zero climate policies and their political champions are the main culprit here -- the good news is that it can be fixed if people get involved.
Great article but I do have one quibble. "Wind and solar are good energy producers but poor capacity resources without massive overbuild or backup". Wind and solar are NOT good energy producers which is why they need massive overbuild and (not or) backup. Wind capacity factor may be between 30-35% but solar capacity factor comes in much lower - about 11% based on this 15 year analysis of wind and solar in the EU+UK which also shows significant variations by year for offshore wind but relatively flat production at around 20% for onshore wind. https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/a-few-graphs-say-it-all-for-renewables/
This is a good, brief summary of the book. I read Shorting the Grid last year, and was impressed. The author provides a tremendous amount of detail. It was very educational regarding the inner workings of the RTO "markets" and a good amount of technical content as well.
I have been studying all things energy, as a hobby, starting when gasoline broke $4 a gallon in about 2008. I thought that there must be more going on than what the evening news programs were telling me. So, going into the book, I had a good idea about the some of the complexities of the electricity business, but this book was amazing. It opened up a window into the utility business that I had not found elsewhere. Having consumed many books, posts, articles and podcasts about energy, as far as I can tell this book is a unique product, and very valuable to anyone who wants a better understanding of the electric grid.
Can't wait to hear the podcast!
I hate to say this, but I have spent a bit a time looking at this blackout in the Bronx, and I don't think it had anything to do with net zero policies or strain put on the system by intermittent renewable resources. The New York ISO that manages the operation of all generation facilities in New York. It is the New York ISO, not ConEd, that would decide to initiate a blackout in New York City if not enough electricity was being generated. I looked at the New York ISO website, and it did not indicate that there was a shortage of electricity being generated on July 2, the day of the blackouts. I then looked at the article linked in your post, in which ConEd says it cut the power to protect its equipment. That equipment almost certainly was a transformer or distribution wires owned by ConEd. If the cut had been because of generation facilities being taken offline, that would have been reflected on the New York ISO. I also looked at the NERC 2026 summer reliability assessment for New York, which indicates that New York should have sufficient reserves to meet its demands this year, even in very hot weather.
I agree with you in general that the grid's reliability is threatened because of insufficient capacity reserve margins. But I don't think that is what caused the blackouts in the Bronx on July 2.
Thank you Matt for your thoughtful comments. I appreciate you looking into the specifics. You're right that the Bronx actions on July 2 were local Con Edison steps -- voltage reductions and targeted outages to protect their own distribution equipment (transformers, cables) from heat overload. NYISO didn't declare a system-wide generation shortage that day.
That being said, the tighter overall picture matters. Thinner system reserves and the shift away from dispatchable sources due to net-zero decarbonization policies make the entire grid—including Con Ed’s aging distribution assets—more brittle during extreme heat or extreme cold for that matter. Local problems that a more robust system might absorb now trigger these protective measures to prevent wider failures. The system is no longer robust because reliable dispatchable power, like that from the Indian Point nuclear power plant (2000MW) and other coal and gas/oil plants (2400MW), have been retired (4.4GW) with only 2.9GW added and that is mostly from intermittent solar. For decarbonization and stability, the NYISO solution is to import electricity from Canada through interconnections. Is this the best approach for energy security?
You're correct that reserve margins are perhaps not the direct cause of every transformer issue, one must acknowledge, however, that the capacity margins have shrunk almost in half from 17% to 9%. This helps explain why these localized events are occurring more often under heat stress; there's not enough of a buffer to protect the equipment from overload. Con Edison is investing billions to upgrade some of the equipment, but rapid demand growth and the infrastructure decarbonization transition are testing limits—and they're often forced to prioritize net-zero-related components over pure reliability needs where it matters most.
I appreciate the arguments you bring to the conversation!
Thanks. I totally agree with your concerns. I just think this particular incident had more to do with ConEd’s aging distribution system than a shortage of electricity production.
Meanwhile back at the Pfizer Building, New York Town is falling down, falling down, falling down...
Yeah, that's not really the reason ConEd cut power, see my piece on Sunday....
> *dispatchable* plants—*coal*, hydro, *nuclear*, and later natural gas [emphasis added]
Mistakes like this hurt your credibility, in what is otherwise a fairly informative article. Coal and nuclear are generally baseline or at best, in modern designs, load following.
Dispatchable means power on cycle, on voltage, on amperage and on demand.
The renewables (wind and solar) are parasitic, requiring conventional generators to convert “free” electricity into usable energy. This discrepancy is never mentioned but conventional generators pay their own grid costs plus the grid and utility costs unreliable sources of electricity require
Excellent article, and I can not wait to hear your interview with Meredeth! I have dubbed her "A National Treasure" as she is a leader we need to listen to!