Large scale wind and solar power makes no economic sense. From Norman Rogers at americanthinker.com:
If the official definitions of renewable energy were logical, renewable energy would be defined as energy that does not emit CO2 and that is not using a resource in danger of running out anytime soon. But the definitions written into the laws of many states are not logical. Hydroelectric energy is mostly banned because the environmental movement hates dams. Nuclear is banned because a hysterical fear of nuclear energy was created by environmental groups. Both nuclear and hydro don’t emit CO2. Hydro doesn’t need fuel. Nuclear fuel is cheap and plentiful. A large number of prominent global warming activists, such as James Hansen, Michael Shellenberger, and Stewart Brand have declared that nuclear is the only solution for the crisis that they imagine is approaching.
For those of us who don’t take global warming seriously, there is nothing wrong with using coal and natural gas to generate electricity. The CO2 emitted helps plants to grow better with less water, a great help to agriculture.
In approximately thirty states that mandate renewable energy, the only scalable forms of renewable energy allowed are wind and solar. California mandates that 60% of its electricity come from renewable energy by 2030. Nevada mandates 50% by 2030. There are other types of official renewable energy, but they can’t be easily scaled up. Examples are geothermal energy, wave energy, and garbage dump methane.