"Renewable" Energy = EXPENSIVE Energy

The Wisconsin Public Service Commission pushes "renewable" energy.

Wisconsin Electric rates have increased by THREE HUNDRED PERCENT since 2000.

Gee.  Is that just co-incidence?

Nope.

 ...The effort to increase the percentage of electricity generated by intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar inevitably brings about large increases in the actual price of electricity that must be paid by consumers. The price increases grow and accelerate as the percentage of electricity generated from the intermittent renewables increases toward 100 percent.  These statements may seem counterintuitive, given that the cost of fuel for wind and solar generation is zero. However, simple modeling shows the reason for the seemingly counterintuitive outcome: the need for large and increasing amounts of costly backup and storage – things that are not needed at all in conventional fossil-fuel-based systems.  And it is not only from modeling that we know that such cost increases would be inevitable.  We also have actual and growing experience from those few jurisdictions that have attempted to generate more and more of their electricity from these renewables.  This empirical experience proves the truth of the rising consumer price proposition.

In those jurisdictions that have succeeded in getting generation from renewables up to as high as about 30% of their total electricity supply, the result has been an approximate tripling in the price of electricity for their consumers. The few (basically experimental) jurisdictions that have gotten generation from renewables even higher than that have had even greater cost increases, for relatively minor increases in generation from renewables. ...

Think those batteries in Kenosha County will help? Read the REST of the linked essay.

OR, you could read this item:

...Researchers with the National Center for Energy Analytics set out to find out if it’s possible to power the grid with wind, solar and batteries. Their report, which was released Thursday, casts considerable doubt on renewable energy proponents’ promise that batteries can resolve the problems of intermittency with wind and solar. 

“This study demonstrates that a wind-solar-battery policy to meet electricity demand is physically implausible, cost-prohibitive, and unjustifiable on the basis of goals to reduce CO2 emissions,” the report concludes. ...

Really?  How "unjustifiable" is it?

...To compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar under the renewable-only scenario, the analysis found, PJM* would need to add roughly 10 times the total generation capacity by 2045 than would be needed under the natural gas and nuclear scenario. That extra capacity would not only serve daily and seasonal variations in supply and demand, it would accommodate days in which there’s little to no wind or sunshine. 

The study also found that to pay for this ideal net-zero grid with no new nuclear facilities, ratepayers served by PJM would need to fork over $4 trillion over the next 20 years. That figure accounts for savings on fossil fuels. ...

(*PJM = Pennsylvania, Jersey, Maryland, D.C. )

First things first!  Get rid of all the members of the Public "Service" Commission; then find people who understand reality as opposed to "dream world" energy scenarios.  Dump the idiocies pushed by the Failed Obama/Biden/Evers/Doyle administrations.

Then build nukes and coal plants.