No civilised country has ever powered itself entirely with wind and solar; no country ever will. And yet the grand wind and solar ‘transition’ – being peddled by rent-seekers and crony capitalists – is still taken as an article of faith by the naïve and gullible.
What is evident is the direct and unassailable relationship between intermittent wind and solar, rocketing power prices, load shedding and, ultimately, mass blackouts.
In this piece from September last year, Isaac Orr, Mitch Rolling and John Phelan rich precisely that conclusion in relation to plans by Governor Tim Walz to permanently unhitch Minnesota from reality and reason.
The High Cost of 100 Percent Carbon-Free Electricity by 2040
American Experiment
Isaac Orr, Mitch Rolling, John Phelan
12 September 2022
The 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2040 mandate proposed by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz would cost the state $313.2 billion through 2050 and lead to devastating blackouts.
Governor Walz’s Proposal would commit the state to obtaining 100 percent of its electricity from carbon-free energy sources by 2040, but his proposal would not legalize the construction of new nuclear power plants in Minnesota or allow the hydroelectric electricity generated in Canada that Minnesotans already purchase to count as “carbon-free.” As a result, the Walz Proposal is essentially a wind, solar, and battery storage mandate.
We also investigated another scenario, called the Lower Cost Decarbonization (LCD) Scenario, that uses new nuclear power plants, coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) equipment, battery storage, and Canadian hydro and found that this suite of technologies would reduce emissions for a much lower cost.
This report is the most robust modeling on the true cost of attempting to power our state using wind turbines, solar panels, and battery storage technology. Our study finds:
- Minnesota electricity customers will see their electricity expenses increase by an average of nearly $3,888 per year, every year, through 2050.
- The Walz Proposal would reduce the reliability of the grid by making the state more vulnerable to fluctuations in output from weather-dependent energy sources like wind and solar.
- Shockingly, Minnesota would experience a devastating 55-hour blackout in late January if wind and solar output is the same as it was in the year 2020, and electricity demand was the same as 2021.
These are just a few of our findings. By contrast, embracing a diverse portfolio of reliable technologies, including new nuclear power plants, coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration equipment, battery storage, and large hydroelectric power facilities in Canada, would reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the electricity sector by 98 percent. This portfolio would cost $224 billion less than the Walz Proposal and not cause blackouts.
STOP THESE THINGS 
These studies are interesting but I wonder whether they give too much ground to climate alarmism, as though we really need to reduce emissions. I appreciate that the climate science debate can’t be won in public due to the prevailing scientific illiteracy and there is another way to go.
First consider standing at a stall in the street with a sign “Let me tell you why you don’t have to worry about CO2 emissions”. The great majority of people will hurry past and the others will stop to abuse you for being a climate denier. Change the sign to read “Let me tell you why your electricity bills are going through the roof and what should be done about it.” This is something that concerns people, or it soon will, and many will stop to listen, even if some of them abuse you when they find out the prescription.
The point is that when people are interested enough to pay attention we can talk in language that most people can understand, backed up with solid information from official sources. We can explain that the grid needs continuous input to meet demand, we can explain that there are wind droughts that break the continuity of the wind power input and, with a lot more words, we can explain that pumped hydro and batteries are not feasible storage solutions to bridge the gaps during nights when the wind is low.
The thing is to give people a firm grip on the Iron Triangle of Power Supply.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/02/the-iron-triangle-of-energy-realism/
Then they can see through the nonsense that is constantly fed to them by RE zealots and incompetent or corrupt journalists and commentators. And what they really understand, they can pass on to other people. Make the Iron Triangle go viral!
And there is more. When we get credibility and a profile by making sense about energy, we can return to the climate debate, drawing on that credibility and profile to get a hearing, not on the science but on aspects that people can understand without much scientific knowledge. For example, the unequivocal benefits of warming since the Little Ice Age, or even since the Industrial Revolution. The plummeting graph of climate-related deaths over the last 100 years. The catastrophic environmental impact of carbon-mitigation policies. The fact that extreme weather events show no upward trend over several decades of official records. The failure of the German “energiewende.” You can read all about it here😊