The Biden administration’s “Net Zero” carbon plan set for accomplishment by 2050 is predicated upon the assumption that America can transition away from hydrocarbons, which currently provide about 80% of our electricity, by increasing the 3% we get from wind and solar combined . . . with the vast majority of that from renewable friendly breezes.

Image: Creative Commons under Unsplash

For starters, try to forget for a moment that wind and solar are unreliable, intermittent, weather-dependent sources that can’t be scheduled to provide power when needed most — like maybe to recharge a gazillion new government-mandated electric vehicles on windless nights.

Instead, let’s first consider what such dependence will cost us in dollars and cents.

Take this lesson from Germany, with the highest installed wind power capacity in Europe and among the highest electricity prices worldwide, recently worsened by imported oil shortages triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Last month, and despite large subsidies, Munich-based Siemens Energy, one of the world’s top wind manufacturers, told the German government that it needed another $16.9 billion in state loan guarantees to rescue the company from mounting financial losses – about $4.8 billion this year – resulting from a “substantial increase in failure rates of wind turbine components.”

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, Siemens has a “backlog of orders from wind developers chasing government subsidies,” but due to financial problems, can’t secure necessary bank credit financing.

Failures to provide government bailouts, they warn, will endanger Germany’s economy and national security.

In addition to Russian control of their oil and gas lifeline, German leaders also worry about China’s cheap coal-powered wind industry monopoly, which currently boasts 10 of the world’s 15 largest turbine manufacturers that can sell them at half the price of European makers.

Germany’s not alone in this gusty rude awakening.

RWE, one of the largest U.K. power generators, told the British government last month that its payments to wind developers would have to rise 70% if it wanted more projects built.

And we don’t need to look to Europe for such costly lessons.

In September, large offshore wind developers unsuccessfully pleaded with New York’s Public Service Commission to increase contractual payments by an average of 48% to cover unbudgeted costs.

New developers are also reportedly mulling over whether to cancel projects without securing federal bailouts.

The world’s largest offshore wind developer, Denmark’s Orsted, along with U.S. governors in the Northeast, are lobbying the Biden White House to boost subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act to cover 50% of wind project costs.

Orsted’s CEO Mads Nipper warned, “It’s very simple.”

Taxpayers and electricity customers will inevitably have to pay more to support wind energy.

“And if they don’t, neither we nor any of our colleagues are going to build more offshore.”

In his April 22, 2022, Earth Day speech in Seattle, President Biden said he had “made it clear to [his wealthy] friends up in Nantucket and that area” that they were to drop their objections to offshore wind farms then planned for the Martha’s Vineyard area.

Lowering his voice to a whisper for dramatic effect, Joe claimed to have told them, “I don’t want to hear any more about you don’t like looking at [wind turbines]. They’re pretty.”

Among those who objected was his “climate envoy,” former U.S. presidential candidate and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who hadn’t been the least bit enthusiastic about having a 24-square-mile, 130-turbine offshore Cape Wind development that would have supplied 75% of the Nantucket, Cape Cod, and Martha’s Vineyard electricity clutter his panoramic view or interfere with his windsurfing.

Among other Cape Wind opponents were former Sen. Ted Kennedy and Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney who cited environmental impacts and economic concerns about project damage to local tourism.

Many self-proclaimed environmentalists, in fact, aren’t all keen on wind turbines. A Sierra Club official described them as giant “Cuisinarts in the sky” for bird and bat slaughters.

During his Earth Day speech, President Biden made a big point in touting his administration’s crackdown on cement, a substance he said was responsible for 8% of the world’s carbon emissions.

Biden said: “I set new standards for cleaner cement. Cement is an incredible pollutant.”

Not mentioned was that constructing and replacing each wind turbine consumes about 50,000 tons of concrete, 30,000 tons of iron ore, and 900 tons of non-recyclable plastics for the huge blades, which will wind up in landfills.

Yes, and those wind turbines are also short on longevity and long on maintenance.

A major 2012 Edinburgh University study of nearly 3,000 on-shore British wind farms found that the turbines have a very brief 12 to 15-year operating life, with lifecycles due to saltwater deterioration for off-shore installations even less.

In addition, let’s not forget that wind (and solar) intermittency requires access to a second-by-second “spinning reserve,” or “shadow capacity,” (typically natural gas, coal, or hydropower generator turbines), which enables utilities to balance power grids when wind conditions aren’t optimum . . .  which is most of the time.

This requires inefficiently throttling the fossil-fired turbines up and down … like driving a car in stop-and-go traffic.

When peak loads exceed supplies, such as during hot summer days when demands for air-conditioning are highest, bad things quickly happen, necessitating automatic or manual interruption of loads (blackouts) to protect grids.

In summary, any breezy fantasy that an unlimited, free, and clean alternative to carbon-cursed fossil-fuel sources is blowing by with scant appreciation is exceedingly naïve and misguided.

This piece originally appeared at Newsmax.com and has been republished here with permission.