Monday, April 27, 2026

Net Zero: The Eco-Suicidal Luxury Values-based Economy Killing Green Energy Con Continues in Maryland

Google AI on the Green Energy Lobby's RIDICULOUSLY COSTLY Legislative Goals:
Maryland's legislative goals, primarily driven by the Climate Solutions Now Act of 2022, mandate a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2006 levels by 2031 and net-zero emissions by 2045. Key energy targets include 50% renewable energy by 2030, 8,500 megawatts of offshore wind by 2031, and 3,000 megawatts of energy storage by 2033.

Key Legislative Goals and Targets
  • Emission Reductions: Reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 60% (from 2006 levels) by 2031 and achieve net-zero economy-wide emissions by 2045.
  • Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS): Requires 50% of electricity consumed in Maryland to be generated from renewable sources by 2030.
  • Offshore Wind: The POWER Act sets a goal of 8,500 megawatts of offshore wind energy capacity by 2031.
  • Energy Storage: The Energy Storage Act aims for 3,000 megawatts of energy storage capacity by 2033.
  • Clean Energy Transition: The state is moving toward 100% clean electricity by 2040, incorporating advancements in technology.
  • Transportation and Buildings: Implementation of Advanced Clean Cars II (100% EV sales by 2035) and electrification of buildings, including high-efficiency heat pumps.

Usage Examples and Legislative Implementation
 
  • Climate Pollution Reduction Plan: A roadmap published in 2023 to achieve the 2031 goals.
  • Community Solar: A pilot program for community-based solar projects was made permanent to increase access to renewable energy.
  • Tree Planting: A mandate to plant and maintain five million trees by 2031, focusing on urban and underserved communities.
  • Grid Modernization: The 2024 Energy Storage Program supports integrating these technologies into the electric grid.
Synonyms and Related Policy Terms
  • Climate Solutions Now Act (CSNA): The landmark 2022 legislation setting the 60% reduction goal.
  • Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS): The policy requiring utility companies to purchase renewable energy.
  • Net-Zero Plan: Often used to describe the 2045 climate goal.
  • Clean Energy Jobs Act/POWER Act: Policies accelerating wind and solar deployment.
  • Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets: The overarching phrase for Maryland's climate strategy.
Recent reports indicate that as of early 2026, Maryland is projected to achieve a 42% reduction by 2031, falling short of the 60% goal and highlighting the need for accelerated action.

Google AI on Actual Costs above the allocated $1 billion per year:

Maryland's Climate Pollution Reduction Plan estimates that achieving an equitable transition to a clean energy future requires roughly $1 billion in annual public sector investment. However, projections indicate that the total economic cost to achieve net-zero emissions by 2045—including private investments in buildings, vehicles, and the energy grid—will likely exceed this figure significantly. 
Building Decarbonization Cost: A 2023 memo estimated the total cost to decarbonize Maryland buildings at $15.3 billion. Another estimate suggests high-electrification scenarios for buildings could cost $7.7 billion to $14 billion annually. 
Total Economic Impact (2025–2034): Some analyses estimate that the required energy transition, including building performance standards and electric vehicle adoption, could increase energy bills for Maryland households by roughly $810 million in 2030, rising to over $1.5 billion in higher energy costs by 2035. 
Revenue Generation: To meet the estimated costs, proposed climate legislation is designed to raise roughly $1.25 billion per year through new funding sources. 
Alternative Estimates: Some estimates indicate that the total cost for building decarbonization could reach $15.2 billion total from 2025–2040, which would equate to roughly $1 billion per year, but these figures often represent just a portion of the total economy-wide investment.

The State's Low-Ball Estimate of $1 billion a year  for Net Zero in 2045 (a total of $20b) is RIDICULOUS.  The AI's keep fixating on this number:  

Google AI:

Based on 2026 industry estimates, the cost to build 32 gigawatts (GW) of utility-scale solar capacity in Maryland would likely range between $25.6 billion and $48 billion, based on an estimated installation cost of $0.80M to $1.50M per megawatt (MW)(Wind Capacity would Cost MUCH MORE x3)

However, this figure represents only construction costs and does not include the significant additional investments required for transmission upgrades, grid interconnection, or land acquisition, which are often underestimated and can substantially increase total project cost
Capacity vs. Energy: The 32 GW figure likely refers to nameplate capacity rather than sustained output, as solar and wind have lower capacity factors (15-30%) (So multiply this number x3-6)
Note: The 32-gigawatt figure is consistent with the massive new data center-led demand described in 2025/2026 PJM capacity discussions, which is pushing up local energy costs.

 ...and none of the above cost estimates include land acquisition or infrastructure improvements (ie energy storage/ batteries) that would double the installation costs (for a 4 hour capacity, at a minimum)  PS - Nights last more than 4 hours (solar problem).

11 comments:

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

g00gle AI: Green energy is highly viable and increasingly dominant, with wind and solar now often cheaper than fossil fuels. Over 90% of new renewable projects are more cost-effective than new fossil fuel alternatives, making them essential for a net-zero future by 2050. While intermittency remains a challenge, advancing storage technologies are improving reliability.

Anonymous said...


Under Joe Biden, the illegals rush into our country, and flooded our country with MURDERERS, RAPISTS. and DRUG DEALERS WITH THE DEMENTED President allowing it 100 Percent and Wouldn’t stop it from happening.
BUT WHEN DONALD TRUMP WAS ELECTED EVERYTHING CHANGED INCLUDING THE RETURNING OF ILLEGALS. TO WHEREVER THEY CAME FROM

Joe Conservative said...

lol! Remove taxpayer (and grid storage) subsidies and the nonsense above reveals itself.

ps- Wind only works when it blows. Solar only works on a clear sunny day. The rest of the time its' soley a depreciating asset.

Joe Conservative said...

...like most people, you ignored the AI's "caveat"...

"While intermittency remains a challenge, advancing storage technologies are improving reliability."

...and succumbed to the AI's programmed sycophancy.

-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...

from Google AI:

When accounting for the total cost of energy storage to provide 24/7/365, "firm" power (dispatchable at any time), the landscape in 2026 shows that while solar and wind have the lowest generation costs, they require significant, expensive storage additions to compete with traditional baseload power.

As of early 2026, fully installed turnkey battery storage systems (BESS) generally range from $360 to $690 per kWh for commercial-scale projects.

Here is a breakdown of how energy sources compare when including 24/7 storage costs:

1. Renewables + Battery Storage (Solar/Wind + BESS)
Cost Trend: Renewable energy remains the cheapest to generate, with utility-scale solar around /MWh and wind /MWh. However, when paired with 4-hour battery storage, the Levelized Cost of Storage (LCOS) for 24/7 availability rises significantly.

24/7 Feasibility: Requires massive overbuilding of generation plus huge battery capacity (roughly 10x generation and 300x storage for high penetration).

2026 Outlook: Battery costs are falling, with utility-scale storage falling to below /MWh in some markets. However, fully providing 24/7 power remains expensive compared to hybrid systems.

2. Natural Gas (Bridge Fuel)

Cost Status: Frequently acts as the most competitive 24/7 backup source. It offers low capital cost and high flexibility to cover when renewables are not producing.


In other words, you need the gas system alone... anything else merely ADDS to the cost of generating the needed power)

2026 Outlook: Natural gas prices are expected to rise due to demand, but it remains a staple for grid balancing.

Storage Cost: None required (fuel is stored, not the electricity).

3. Nuclear Power

Cost Status: High capital cost for construction but low operating costs and high capacity factors (24/7 inherent).

Comparison: Nuclear is often considered too expensive to build from scratch compared to current renewable + storage scenarios, though it provides superior, reliable, carbon-free, baseload power without needing battery storage.

4. Advanced/Thermal Storage

Alternative: Systems like thermal energy storage (using molten salt) combined with solar PV are becoming more competitive, promising 24/7 power without the extreme overbuilding needed for battery-only systems.

Summary of 24/7 Energy Cost Drivers (2026)

Storage Economics: In 2026, 4-hour battery storage systems are increasingly competitive, with utility-scale systems dropping rapidly to roughly /MWh.

Grid Costs: Integrating renewables requires substantial infrastructure investment—up to /MWh in extra costs for balancing in some regions.

Real-Time Price: While solar/wind are cheap to build, their variable nature makes 24/7 costs high. A combination of renewables + natural gas is currently often the most economic 24/7 approach in many areas.


Actually, Natural gas without adding construction costs for ANY renewables makes the most practical sense.

-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...

Reference

Every time you build a "cheap" wind or solar plant, you ALSO need to build a "gas peaking" plant for when the wind isn't blowing or sun shining. So you should add in the "gas peaking" plant to every solar or wind plant to allow it to be viable 24/7/365.

In other words, the cheapest option is to just build natural gas plants.

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Your "reference" says what you claim with your comment is incorrect.

Joe Conservative said...

lol! Your AI generated response said that your refutation was incorrect.

Joe Conservative said...

Renewables require 100% "peaking" storage capability in addition to their "cheaper" installation costs (which you exclude from your calculations).

The Prophet Dervish Z Sanders said...

Minus: ol! Your AI generated response said that your refutation was incorrect.

wtf? No it didn't. it said "while intermittency remains a challenge, advancing storage technologies are improving reliability". You don't understand what "advancing storage technologies are improving reliability" means? You think that means reliability will never be improved?

Minus: Renewables require 100% "peaking" storage capability in addition to their "cheaper" installation costs (which you exclude from your calculations).

Required according to who? You add "required" to increase the cost and make renewables too expensive to consider implementing. We are a long way off from 100 percent renewable energy production. So WHY act as if we'd need 100 percent peaking storage capacity capability immediately (or ever) to work toward the goal of using more renewable energy? Because we don't.

Joe Conservative said...

What do you think "Peaking" is? The energy is stored in the NATURAL GAS pre-energy conversion, not post-facto "electricity". That's what "hyrdo" is as well. It's stored "Potential" energy, not kinetic energy or in the converted form (ala "batteries"). The day you perfect graphine capacitors will be the day "renewables" achieve viability (although even their LCOS storage costs need to be INCLUDED in the calculation of base production costs for wind and solar). Hydro simply reconverts the produced kinetic energy back into potential energy by pumping the water back up into the reservoir with any excess energy available in the moment (rather than shutting the plant down) off-peak.