Solar power has reportedly become very cheap now, allegedly cheaper than natural gas.

The price of onshore wind is coming down as well. But two things make me question how cheap they really are.

First, unlike dispatchable sources of energy like natural gas, hydro, etc., as we become more dependent on wind and solar we require more energy storage to back them up for the times when there isn't enough wind and sun. Shouldn't that cost be lumped in to get the real cost of wind and solar power (and sometimes it is, by objective analysts, but not often by advocates).

Second, while we never overproduce electricity with natural gas because it would be costly to waste fuel and we have the ability to turn it off or down, we can overproduce solar and wind energy due to our inability to control the weather, and at those times that extra energy gets wasted ("curtailed," or not sent to the grid). Is the estimated cost per kilowatt hour based on how much energy those sources can produce, or on how much of the energy we actually can use? I think it's the former, but the latter would be a more accurate accounting, and show a higher price.

I try to be cautious about over-learning. Just the fact of writing and rewriting a particular claim can reinforce one's belief in it and make it harder to reassess one's position. But, still, the more I study energy, the more dubious I become that it makes sense at all to develop an energy system--the backbone of the modern economy and human well-being--on energy sources we can't control, hoping that we can be clever enough to time-shift energy demand and production efficiently and effectively to overcome that lack of control.