New Study: A Wind-Solar-Battery Grid Would Cost PJM Ratepayers More Than $4 Trillion, Six Times the Cost of Natural Gas and Nuclear
-6%20(9).png)
An analysis by the National Center for Energy Analytics of the nation’s largest grid finds a renewables-only system is physically implausible, cost-prohibitive, and inefficient at reducing carbon emissions.
[Washington D.C. – July 9th, 2026] – A new study from the National Center for Energy Analytics (NCEA) finds that powering America’s largest electric grid primarily with wind, solar, and battery storage is “physically implausible, cost-prohibitive, and unjustifiable based on goals to reduce CO2 emissions.” The research publication, Batteries and the Grid: Hype, Hope, and Economic Reality, was authored by energy economists Jonathan Lesser, PhD, senior fellow at NCEA, and Mitchell Rolling, visiting fellow at NCEA and director of research at Always On Energy.
Despite rapid growth in battery deployment, the study notes that all U.S. grid-scale batteries combined could meet average national electricity demand for only about 15 minutes—far short of the storage needed to backstop an intermittent grid.
The authors modeled PJM Interconnection—the nation’s largest grid operator, which services more than 67 million people across 13 states and the District of Columbia—using PJM’s own long-term demand forecast through 2045. They compared three ways of meeting that demand: First, a renewables-only (RO) grid of wind, solar, batteries, and existing nuclear, with all coal and gas retired; second, a natural gas and nuclear (NGN) grid; and third, an NGN+B scenario that adds batteries to gas and nuclear to cover peak demand.
Key findings:
- A $4 trillion cost. Over 20 years, a renewables-only grid would cost PJM ratepayers more than $4 trillion, roughly six times the cost of a natural gas and nuclear grid, even after accounting for fossil fuel savings.
- Wind and solar require 10 times the capacity. To cover the intermittency of wind and solar, including multiday wind and solar droughts, the renewables-only grid would need about 10 times more total generating capacity by 2045 than gas and nuclear.
- Storage capacity remains tiny relative to domestic demand. At the start of 2026, every grid-scale battery in the U.S. combined could supply only about 15 minutes of average national electricity demand.
- The transition would cost thousands of dollars per ton of CO2, far above the federal government's own social cost of carbon (about $180/ton in 2025 to about $320/ton in 2045). On a cost-benefit basis, the approach fails.
- A massive land footprint. Building the wind capacity alone would require an area nearly 20% larger than all PJM states combined.
- Over 1.5 billion tons of raw materials mined and processed for batteries, much of it sourced overseas under weaker environmental standards.
According to data from the study modeling PJM demand through 2045, the total 20-year cost to ratepayers varies significantly by scenario:
- Renewables Only (wind, solar, batteries + existing nuclear): $4.02 trillion
- Natural Gas + Nuclear: $668 billion
- Natural Gas + Nuclear + Batteries (for peak demand): $768 billion
“The physics and arithmetic simply don’t support the promises being made about a wind, solar, and battery grid,” said Jonathan Lesser, PhD, senior fellow at NCEA and the report’s lead author. “When you model it honestly against real demand, you find a system that costs at least $4 trillion through 2045, requires 10 times the capacity, and still can’t guarantee the lights stay on due to the inherent intermittency of wind and solar.”
The study warns that if policymakers and regulators “refuse to recognize these physical and economic realities, they will continue to impose significant harm on consumers and the economy, while providing few benefits—if any.”
To learn more, read the full report here.
About the National Center for Energy Analytics
The National Center for Energy Analytics is a think tank devoted to data-driven analyses of policies, plans, and technologies surrounding the supply and use of energy essential for human flourishing. Through objective analyses of energy policies and their implications, NCEA aims to inform policymakers, industry leaders, and the public on critical energy issues.
More insights
.jpeg)
-9.png)
-2.png)
New Report Suggests Electrification Mandates Worsen Energy Affordability, Power Access, Economist Jonathan Lesser, PhD, urges policymakers to adopt a more rational planning framework
NCEA finds mandates to electrify the economy while rationing energy use may deepen the affordability crisis and restrict power access.
-9%20(1).png)
-9%20(2).png)
