Imagine a world where your power goes out every time the sun sets or the breeze dies down—sounds terrifying, right? That's the core debate sparked by a controversial statement from the U.S. Energy Department on social media, claiming wind and solar power are basically useless without constant wind or sunshine. But here's where it gets controversial: Is this just a political jab, or a genuine misunderstanding of modern energy tech? Stick around, because most folks miss how storage and smart integration actually make renewables a game-changer.
Posted on December 24, 2025, at 9:08:57 PM, and updated at 11:27:11 PM, this fact-check dives into the U.S. Energy Department's bold claim about renewables. President Donald Trump has repeatedly voiced his dislike for wind power, labeling it unattractive, pricey, and downright ineffective. On at least five occasions, he's slammed windmills publicly—once in remarks during a Social Security discussion, again on his Truth Social platform, in a radio interview, at a cabinet meeting, and in a podcast chat. His administration has acted on these views: The Transportation Department pulled the plug on $679 million in federal funds earmarked for offshore wind projects, and the Interior Department halted construction on a nearly complete wind farm off Rhode Island's coast.
Adding fuel to the fire, the U.S. Energy Department jumped into the fray with a September 5 post on X (formerly Twitter). They declared, "Wind and solar energy infrastructure is essentially worthless when it is dark outside, and when the wind is not blowing." It was a stark assertion that quickly drew backlash. The next day, X's community notes—a user-driven fact-checking feature—pushed back, emphasizing that batteries enable energy storage for use when generation isn't happening.
Energy specialists I reached out to echoed this sentiment, explaining that renewables can indeed be preserved for later use. They highlighted additional perks, like the absence of carbon emissions once these systems are up and running. "It's akin to claiming a commercial jet is pointless when it's grounded," remarked Severin Borenstein, who leads the Energy Institute at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business. "Clearly, no capital asset runs nonstop. The real question is if the benefits during operation offset the upfront costs."
Even Elon Musk, Tesla's founder and X owner, chimed in sarcastically on the post: "Um … hello?" He linked to an article about one of his company's battery innovations. When I contacted the Energy Department for comment, they didn't respond.
And this is the part most people miss: How do we actually stash away power from wind and solar setups? For newcomers to the energy world, it's not as simple as flipping a switch—renewable sources like solar panels and wind turbines produce electricity on the fly, but they don't inherently hold onto it. That's where extra tools come in.
Batteries are a top choice, as the X community notes pointed out. "We have more and more accessible and budget-friendly battery options, both for homes and large-scale grids," explained Christopher R. Knittel, an energy economics professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management. "This means we can bank daytime solar energy and tap it later at night or during high-demand moments." Severin Borenstein added that this practice is already common in places like California and Texas, where stored renewables play a big role in keeping the lights on.
Another clever method involves using wind or solar to pump water uphill into a reservoir. When energy is needed, the water rushes down, spinning turbines to generate power—a technique called pumped hydro storage. Kenneth Gillingham, an economist at Yale's School of the Environment, described this as harnessing gravity for a reliable backup. However, these storage solutions add expenses, potentially making wind and solar less competitive overall. As Peter R. Hartley, an energy policy expert at Rice University, noted, batteries are great for short-term fixes but not as efficient for long-haul storage, like bridging entire seasons.
But here's where it gets controversial: Even sans storage, are wind and solar truly worthless? Experts argue no—they bring undeniable advantages to the energy landscape, far beyond just being eco-friendly. Take New England, for instance, where natural gas is heavily used for heating in winter, leaving less for electricity. Without alternatives, prices could skyrocket. "Renewables help lighten the load during many daytime hours," Gillingham said, "stopping utilities from resorting to costly fuels like fuel oil or diesel." Christopher Knittel echoed this, pointing out that solar often aligns with peak afternoon electricity demands, when prices are at their highest, effectively cutting costs by replacing pricier fossil fuel sources.
In fact, several states have woven wind and solar deeply into their energy plans. By May 2025, Texas generated about one-third of its electricity from renewables excluding hydropower—think wind and solar. California topped that with just over half, while Iowa led with around two-thirds. Across the nation, that figure hovered at about 14%. "Wind and solar aren't 'worthless' when conditions shift," Knittel summarized. "They're crucial to our grid, providing clean, high-value power when available, and with today's storage tech, we can access it even on cloudy, still days."
Wrapping up the fact-check, PolitiFact evaluated the Energy Department's claim: "Wind and solar energy infrastructure is essentially worthless when it is dark outside, and when the wind is not blowing." While it's true that wind farms go quiet without moving air and solar panels produce nothing in the dark, these sources still hold merit during downtime through storage options like batteries or reservoirs. When active, they seamlessly meet real-time demands, bolstering the energy supply in states such as Texas, California, and Iowa. We rate this statement False.
For more context, attorneys general from over a dozen states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration this Thursday, challenging the cancellation of $7 billion in funding aimed at making solar energy more affordable nationwide.
© 2025 Copyright Capitol Broadcasting Company
What do you think—does the Energy Department's post reflect a fair critique, or is it unfairly dismissing renewables? Is Trump's stance on windmills more about aesthetics than economics? Share your thoughts in the comments below; I'd love to hear agreements, disagreements, or even your own takes on balancing green energy with reliability!
