By Dr. Timothy G. Nash and Jason Hayes
Activists and politicians are pushing Western society to give up reliable energy sources like fossil fuels and nuclear power to pursue their goal of a renewable energy future. However, our research shows that there is a great deal of work to be done before wind and solar are ready to take a primary role in providing electricity to the United States.
Northwood University’s McNair Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy partnered to produce an energy report card that grades the grid by reviewing how well eight major energy sources can meet the needs of our energy-hungry society.
We reviewed natural gas, coal, petroleum fuels, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and geothermal. We analyzed each energy source’s reliability, environmental and human impacts, costs, technological innovation, and market feasibility. We ranked these factors for each source on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest). We then arrived at a final overall grade for each energy source.
Coal received a B- due to its low cost, the availability of technologies to address its environmental impacts, and its consistent reliability. It was downgraded due to its higher environmental impacts and decreasing market viability. Coal’s problems, however, are primarily policy-based. Governments, special interests, and utilities are forcing a shift away from this reliable fuel to meet increasingly strict net zero mandates. Petroleum fuels received a C- because they fill a niche market, have higher costs than gas, and have little potential for growth.
Nuclear followed closely behind natural gas with a B+ because of its rock-solid reliability and safety record, as well as its minimal environmental impact. Nuclear slid down in the ranking because of its higher construction costs and lower market feasibility, both of which are driven by deliberate policy decisions rather than inherent conditions. If policymakers and regulators would lighten their regulatory restrictions, nuclear would be competing with natural gas for first place.
On the “renewables” side, hydroelectric received a B- thanks to its consistent reliability and ability to generate electricity when it is needed (rather than when the weather cooperates). Hydro’s reduced environmental impact, relatively low costs, and innovation also helped it to score well. Hydro was downgraded because its market feasibility is restricted by the limited potential for new developments. The big hydroelectric dams were built by government agencies decades ago. The logistics and permitting fight associated with siting a new, large hydro project would be considerable.
Geothermal received a D+. While it is a clean energy source, and there are some promising examples of enhanced geothermal development, its growth is heavily limited by cost and geography.
Wind and solar received failing F grades. While both are extolled by government and special interests as environmentally friendly alternatives, they require mining vast quantities of minerals and metals like lithium, cobalt, copper, and rare earth elements. Much of the mining and refining of these critical minerals is done in developing nations, where lax environmental and labor regulation allows the impacts of their development and manufacture to be offshored and ignored by advocates.
We also reviewed the claim that wind and solar should be considered “renewable” or clean. The industrial operations and energy sources required to manufacture, transport, install, and maintain these technologies are compounded by short life cycles and a growing push for “repowering” in as little as ten years. Consequently, these resources are anything but renewable, and their intermittent nature entails backup power from reliable sources like natural gas.
We also discuss the reality that a modern, power-hungry, industrial society cannot reasonably expect to replace conventional power plants with wind and solar without doing serious and potentially fatal harm to the electric grid. Our grid was built around steady, reliable power from nuclear, coal, and natural gas plants — not the unpredictable surges and deficits of weather-dependent renewables.
Grid operators across the country are raising alarms that premature plant closures and overreliance on wind and solar are jeopardizing electric reliability. We explain that battery backup cannot address this growing reliability crisis. Ignoring these warnings and forging ahead with a rushed, politicized energy transition will put American families and businesses at severe risk of higher prices, less reliable service, and potentially crippling electric service outages.
Policymakers should pursue a balanced energy strategy prioritizing the reliable and affordable power sources our society needs. Forcing an extreme renewable overhaul based on dubious claims of environmental benefits is a recipe for energy insecurity and economic hardship.
Editor’s note: This piece was featured in the March/April 2024 When Free to Choose, Northwood’s signature publication promoting free enterprise.
About the authors
Dr. Timothy G. Nash is Vice President Emeritus; Director of The McNair Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship; and the McNair Endowed Chair in Free Market Economics at Northwood University. Jason Hayes is the Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a nonprofit research and educational institute that advances the principles of free markets and limited government.
