Solar & Wind Electric Plants Cost 2x-4x More than NatGas to Build

EIAAs you may have noticed, in today’s lineup of stories MDN covered news about two different natural gas-fired electric plant companies and the plants they are building in the northeast. Gas-fired plants are not only springing up everywhere in the northeast, but across the country. Why? Because a) Obama’s war on coal has forced many coal generating plants to close, and b) shale gas has made clean-burning natural gas as cheap as, sometimes cheaper than, burning coal to produce electricity. But coal and natgas aren’t the only sources that produce electricity. Solar, wind, biomass and others are also used to produce electricity. Radical environmentalists, who frankly don’t think for themselves and live in a false bubble, pretend that solar and wind could, “if we only had the will,” take over all electric production in this country. What a lark. There’s a reason natural gas is becoming the dominant fuel to produce electricity in this country–it costs less. Our favorite government agency, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is fresh out with an analysis of how much it costs to build new electric plants. Guess which source is the cheapest? Yep–natural gas. And guess which sources cost two-to-four times as much to build as natgas? Yep–wind and solar. Which is why the radicals want to force natural gas into oblivion. Their preferred sources just can’t compete economically…

Please Login to view this content. (Not a member? Join Today!)
You do not have permission to view the comments.

Please Login to post a comment