It's half accurate. The investment firm Lazard has a nice report[1] on comparing U.S. energy costs by source. Here's the costs in the U.S. (without counting su

It's half accurate. The investment firm Lazard has a nice report[1] on comparing U.S. energy costs by source. Here's the costs in the U.S. (without counting subsidies): * Wind: $ 32/MWh * Solar: $ 43/MWh * Natural Gas: $ 52/MWh * Coal: $ 65/MWh * Geothermal: $ 82/MWh * Biomass: $ 82/MWh * Nuclear: $ 97/MWh * Solar+Storage: $ 119/MWh * Diesel: $ 212/MWh Also, and you can get to about 50% penetration of non-dispatchable sources before you have to start adding storage[2]. So renewables are currently cheaper than natural gas for half the electricity, then more expensive for the other half. As storage gets cheaper and the likelyhood of a carbon tax increases, the expectation is that renewables + storage will likely get cheaper than natural gas in the next 5 years or sooner[3]. So, the claim is half accurate in theory, but actually fully accurate in practice since by the time we reach 50% renewable penetration, storage will be by far cheap enough to take up the other half. [1]: https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-... [2]: https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~vsmith/docs/renewables_sgc_2013.pdf https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~vsmith/docs/renewables_sgc... [3]: http://powerledger.io/energy-disruption-solar-plus-storage-cheaper-grid-2017-2/ http://powerledger.io/energy-disruption-solar-plus-storage-c...