T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
Wind is cheaper than natural gas even if subsidies are accounted for. Commercial solar installations are comparable to natural gas.
Neither desirable nor really true...
Wind and solar are heavily subsidized. Neither is cost effective without sustained subsidies but those have to come from somewhere so that's just cost shifting to make wind and solar look better.
Solar isn't competitive commercially against any other generation system period.
To get a kilowatt-day of power out of a solar array you need to install about 5 kw of capacity and have about 3 kw of storage capacity on top of that. The alternative is duplication of generation systems with the second being natural gas, oil, etc., to provide power when the sun goes down.
So, either you build roughly five times the generation capacity you need (maybe more), have 60% of that capacity in a storage system like batteries, pumped hydro (means upping the generation system to about 8 times the capacity you need because now you have to run pumps all day), some other system that stores energy for when the sun isn't shining, and have to install a 'stupid' grid (it isn't smart if it bankrupts the nation to build it), to move power around because some of the time you'll be overproducing for demand...
Solar is singularly the most inefficient and costly means to generate electricity there is.
The solution is nuclear backed by natural gas and going to either hydrogen or ammonia as a portable fuel using fuel cells. Solar and wind are losers and always will be.