In other words, you can pretty much ignore where the electricity comes from and EVs are still better than gas cars for the environment.
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/
After reading Claim 11, starting on page 29, where the authors state that:
>unsubsidized solar energy is now generally cheaper than fossil fuels; and
> solar energy compares favorably in terms of levelized cost (total lifetime energy production / total lifetime cost)
The authors build this argument over three pages, including several charts, citing a Lazard paper that prices solar at $60/Mwh vs gas combined cycle at $70/MWh. But only in the last paragraph do they concede that when you include the cost of intermittency (firming), solar is only cheaper than gas peaking plant cost ($168/MWh).
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.
I don’t care how my energy is generated. I strongly prefer it comes from sources that pollute less. But that preference is miles behind the priority for cheaper energy.
Bullshit research like this, written by attorneys, including arguments like claim 11 which tries to hide the fact that solar only produces energy during daylight, annd does not account for storage/firming costs are not helping move our national energy dialog forward.
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.
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.
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).
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.
https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/nem/?range=7d&...
I'd also reccomend having a look at David Osmond's projections, where he looks at if we scaled up storage, wind and solar, by a few factors how close we would get to 100% stable and renewable.
https://bsky.app/profile/davidosmond.bsky.social/post/3lyhcq...
There are plenty of false claims about solar, wind and EV and they are worth debunking.
But there are also a few topics for which the real answer is much more nuanced (for instance claims #9, #12 and #13), where the claim itself is way exaggerated but there are still significant challenges to address, and treating those the same way you treat blatant bullshit is damageable, because of course opponents are going to exploit these to discredit the paper altogether…
I wish academics could be a little more level headed an avoid taking needlessly polarizing takes like that.
If you don't like something, being told it's good for you doesn't magically make you like it.
There are concerns landslides due to reduced water storage functionality, and emotional antipathy at having their hometowns' mountains covered with solar panels.
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)
jamezzzboy•1h ago
aaronbrethorst•1h ago
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.
vlovich123•1h ago
Reason077•56m ago
The fact that wind alone can't get us to a 100% renewable grid isn't a valid argument to not build wind power. Solar and wind are the cheapest and fastest technologies available today to expand energy production while reducing carbon emissions.
mikeyouse•54m ago
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/07/21/china-switches-on-its...
https://www.energy-storage.news/powerchina-begins-constructi...
Reason077•50m ago
To further put this into perspective, the United States had 239 GW of total installed PV capacity at the end of 2024. China is now adding more solar every 6 months than the US has installed ever.
defrost•52m ago
Relative to the US, sure, call it 'hard' if you like.
Relative to China's total energy demand and current supply build out, coal still dominates (albeit near peak use in China and predicted to fall within a decade), renewables are where the bulk of growth and new generation is at, nuclear following a post Fukishima 'stumble' is planned to expand over the next decade, by 2035, to account for 10% of electricity generation (up from sub 2% now).
10%, perhaps even 15%, of total generation leaves a lot of slack that china plans to address with solar, wind, storage, HVDC transmission, etc.
Reason077•1h ago
I agree this one is poorly worded.
sealeck•1h ago
> 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.
scblock•1h ago
danpalmer•59m ago
IMTDb•39m ago
And assuming you can find those opposing wind trends not too distant from each other how reliable is that (anti)correlation.
bluGill•2m ago