Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles

Across the US, EVs beat hybrids and gas in life cycle emissions study - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45016172 - August 2025

Vehicle Lifecycle Emissions Calculator - https://vehicle-emissions-calculator.vercel.app/

Firstly, as a return on capital spent, I'm seeing a return of 16% per annum. As electricity prices increase, that trends up.

Secondly we're purchasing about 66% less energy annually. In summer months around 85% of daily (electrical) energy use is self-generated. Most of our annual grid consumption occurs during 2 months in winter. (We still produce then, but not enough to run our electric heating.)

Next year I'm switching to an EV, which can be charged from my current excess (unused) daytime generation for approx 9 months in the year.

I can't speak to grid-scale costs, but for me anyway, generation cost is 0. (Capital cost was real, but return on capital is 16% and rising, which is better than my retirement account.)

So, if you want to reduce your energy costs, self production is the best route. If you can't do that, then it's unlikely that you (as the consumer) will benefit much. The supplier will likely supply at market rates (set by the most expensive source) and the gap is their profit not yours.

We may in future move to a pricing model that favors cheap electricity during the day, and more expensive at night, but at least where I am that's not a thing yet.

So, generally speaking, it's a lot cheaper to use electric over gasoline for transport. Electric from solar is cheaper to produce than burning fossils. Whether that translates into cheaper for you though depends on market forces. If you're in the US, we'll, good luck with that. It seems to me that suppliers in the US price based on what the consumer will pay, and less on input cost.

Of course all my numbers will vary a lot based on location. YMMV.

Energy costs in NYC are double the national average, and little of that has to do with energy production and a lot to do with living in a place with extreme energy demands and infrastructure needs. And of course taxes. If energy prices in NY are driving you to the brink, you'll get a nice discount by living literally anywhere else.

Storage in China is now down to $51/kWh and can piggy back on the grid infrastructure for a solar project amplifying its usefulness.

https://www.ess-news.com/2025/06/26/china-energy-engineering...

Current cost: ~$140–$200 per MWh discharged (Latest Lazard LCOS reports). Price will get cut in half when sodium batteries production ramps up over next few years. Solar + Battery and Wind + battery is the cheapest form electricity outside of hydro.

> As someone who lives in New York City and is drowning in inflated energy bills, lacking any engineering explanation why my residential electricity $/MWh is triple that of Beijing, I am sick and tired of phony academic papers such as this that begin with a conclusion and work backward to fabricate extremely misleading arguments.

Majority of electricity cost is delivery not generation. In NYC, you have an aging electrical system that needed to be replaced 20 years ago. Then the billions spent to harden to system from global warming effects like Hurricane Sandy. Most of Coned electricity is natural gas and natural gas prices are up 50% compared to last year(August 2024 prices compared August 2025).

Did you miss that overall it's still cheaper?

There's nothing stopping us from using solar and nuclear as a baseline and firming/peaking with the cheapest fossil fuel. And given the cost reduction in batteries that's been going on, I doubt fossil fuel peaking will still be the cheapest in the next few years.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/15/in-japans-ageing-co...

https://theconversation.com/when-a-countrys-towns-and-villag...

https://old.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/bcnga2/japan_populat...

(utility scale solar generators typically have a 35 year lifetime, so in areas of Japan where you’re not cutting down forests, it makes sense to build where depopulation is occurring in a “last person out shut off the light” sort of way before the rural community goes extinct)

For combustion engines, a drop in efficiency increases your daily cost, and the carbon footprint.

For solar, it simply means a lower maximum energy storage per day, which implies a higher initial outlay. The "wasted" sunlight doesn't cost anything.

> Because of the wind’s intermittency and high variability, they do next to nothing to reduce the need for other fuels.

They then (correctly) point out that while wind on its own obviously doesn't work, it is still valuable as part of a grid system (with other sources of power).

Note that what they say (i.e. "as with solar energy, complete reliance on wind energy would pose intermittency challenges") is not agreeing with the statement, as the statement is that it does "next to nothing" and their argument is that it does a lot, when combined with other power sources.

As with solar energy, complete reliance on wind energy would pose intermittency challenges. However, wind, solar, and storage together can provide the majority of the country’s electricity without compromising reliability

The false claim they're rebutting is that because wind is unreliable, we shouldn't deploy wind turbines for clean energy generation. They stipulate that it is a great part of a package of renewables.