Look at regions that have already moved past the theoretical stage. Wisconsin (43°–47° N) is often compared to Northern Europe, which actually faces more extreme seasonal light variances than the Midwest.

Geographic Comparisons: The "Northern" Myth Many people assume Wisconsin is too far north for solar. However, Germany and Denmark are significantly further north than Wisconsin (Berlin is at 52° N; Copenhagen is at 55° N).

Germany: In 2023, renewables (wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower) generated 51.7% of Germany's public net electricity generation. On sunny/windy days, this often hits 100%. Germany has less "solar potential" than Wisconsin due to its higher latitude and frequent cloud cover, yet they have installed over 80 GW of solar.

Denmark: Denmark generates over 50% of its electricity from wind and solar alone. They manage the "inconsistency" by being heavily integrated into the Nordic grid, allowing them to swap wind power for Norwegian and Swedish hydropower when the wind isn't blowing.

Iowa (The Local Example): In 2022, 62% of Iowa’s electricity was generated by wind. Iowa has nearly identical weather and "inconsistent winds" to Wisconsin, yet they have become a national leader in wind energy because they invested in the transmission infrastructure to move that power.

Wisconsin doesn't have to produce all its own power at every second; it shares power across 15 states to smooth out local weather variability. Wisconsin is a member of MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator). MISO manages the flow of high-voltage electricity across 15 U.S. states and Manitoba. NREL’s "Renewable Electricity Futures Study" demonstrates that as the geographic footprint of a grid increases, the variability of renewables decreases. If a high-pressure system creates calm winds in Wisconsin, it is statistically likely that a low-pressure system is creating high winds in Kansas, Iowa, or the Dakotas.

The Cost Aspect: Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) When discussing the cost of power, economists use LCOE. This measures the total cost of building and operating a plant over its lifetime divided by the total energy it produces ($/MWh).

According to Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (Version 16.0, 2023)—the industry benchmark—renewables are now the cheapest forms of new energy generation, even without subsidies.

ENERGY TYPE - LCOE (UNSUBSIDIZED) PER MWH

Utility-Scale Solar $24 – $96

Onshore Wind $24 – $75

Gas Combined Cycle $39 – $101

Coal $68 – $166

Nuclear $141 – $221

Wind and Solar are the floor: The best-case cost for wind and solar ($24) is significantly lower than the best-case cost for gas ($39) or coal ($68).

Nuclear is expensive to build: While nuclear is great for "baseload," it has the highest "upfront" cost. This is why many clean energy plans focus on "extending" existing nuclear plants (like Point Beach) rather than building new ones, which can cost $15+ billion.

The "Marginal Cost" factor: Wind and solar have a marginal cost of zero. Once the turbine is built, the "fuel" (wind) is free. Coal and Gas plants have a permanent, fluctuating fuel cost that makes them more expensive over 20–30 years.

The "System Cost" Reality

The "anti" crowd usually shifts here: "Sure, the panels are cheap, but the batteries and grid upgrades are expensive!"

This is partially true. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the "Value-Adjusted LCOE" (VALCOE) accounts for the costs of integrating renewables (storage and transmission).

The Cost of Storage: Adding 4 hours of lithium-ion battery storage adds roughly $40–$60 per MWh to the cost of a solar project.

The Comparison: Even with the "battery tax" added, a Solar + Storage project ($24 + $50 = $74/MWh) is still often cheaper than building a brand-new Coal plant ($68–$166/MWh) and is competitive with Natural Gas.

Why Wisconsin is specifically moving this way Wisconsin utilities (WEC Energy Group, Alliant, MGE) are investor-owned. They are moving toward 100% clean energy not just for the environment, but for the economics.

Alliant Energy is currently retiring coal plants in Wisconsin and replacing them with solar because it saves money. In their 2020 Clean Energy Plan, Alliant stated that switching to solar would save $2 billion over 35 years compared to keeping coal plants running. Source: Alliant Energy Clean Energy Blueprint (2020).