MISO's Existing Nuclear, Natural Gas, and Coal Plants are Way Cheaper than New Wind and Solar
Introducing the Existing Power Plant Cost Database
Good morning to all of our Energy Bad Boys family. In response to a large influx of new readers, we’d like to take this opportunity to roll out the red carpet for our new subscribers and establish some expectations and ground rules.
Energy Bad Boys is an energy-focused publication, not a climate-focused publication. We write in-depth, data-driven articles about the cost and reliability attributes of various electricity generation technologies, but don’t dig into externalities, etc. If this is your cup of tea, we’re happy to have you and look forward to fruitful discussions in the comments section. If this is going to bother you, then we wish you happy reading elsewhere.
The Data Don’t Lie
During the debate on ending subsidies for wind and solar in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), wind and solar advocates argued that wind and solar energy are significantly cheaper than coal or natural gas-fired power plants.
But real-world utility data show they couldn’t be more wrong.
Mitch dug through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Form 1 data for the ten largest investor-owned utilities in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) regions, accounting for 63 percent of energy sales in 2024, and we found, unsurprisingly, that these plants produce electricity for a much lower cost than new wind turbines or solar panels.
The graph below compares the average cost of existing nuclear, natural gas, and coal plants in the MISO region in 2024 to unsubsidized, new-build wind and solar facilities. As you can see, existing nuclear was the lowest cost, followed by gas steamers, coal, and natural gas combined cycle plants.
The existing nuclear, coal, and natural gas plants are incredibly affordable because they have already paid off almost all of their upfront capital costs, and utilities no longer earn much in the way of a rate of return on these depreciated assets. This means the existing plants are some of the lowest-cost, most reliable plants on the entire MISO system.
It’s also important to keep in mind that these are just the average costs for these resources, and some facilities, especially existing coal facilities, could operate at even lower costs if they were utilized more often, which would spread the fixed costs of generating electricity over more megawatt hours, thus reducing their per-unit price.
Rather than rehashing our previous critiques of the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), we decided the best way to add value to this conversation would be to publish the LCOE of existing thermal plants in the MISO region so you can show the wind and solar boosters the error of their ways with our Existing Power Plant Cost Database.
Eat your heart out,
.Enjoy the data!
Excellent analysis. It destroys the argument that shutting down existing dispatchable fossil-fuel based power and replaced with "cheap" wind an solar is propaganda, not engineering an economics. reality. The "lower cost" meme is the deceptive argument that LCOE advocates always bring up. However, on a system basis, their argument gets even worse. The reason that expensive peaking power is required is that coal and gas-based plants must be run at lower, inefficient rates due to the existence of solar and wind being allowed into the grid on an "as-available" basis rather than as "as needed" basis. Underutilized dispatchable power must be maintained as our society requires 100% system reliability. These "reliability" costs are socialized and all always pushed onto unknowing grid customers. A truly free-market approach would require wind and solar to pay these increased system costs, but the well-funded renewable lobbies always seem to spread enough money around and use deceptive arguments (eg - LCOE's) to convince enough gullible politicians to maintain the status quo playing field which is heavily tilted towards renewables. And electricity prices keep going up as renewables are added. Doesn't this fact alone destroy the LCOE argument?
Well done, Isaac and Mitch, this is really relevant and important factual data that should make our leadership sit up and take notice. However, the arch cynic in me says that these so-called ‘leaders’ will look at the report with eyes fully shut. They just don’t want to know anything that doesn’t suit their ideological delusions. Any ideas on how we can change this malaise, and actually achieve some constructive outcomes from our efforts?