Traditionally, energy generation has been centralised. With the advent of decentralised sources, notably solar and wind, a new element has emerged: their non-firm nature, which contrasts sharply with centralised generation.
In practice, anyone looking at the "whole picture" will find that the volume of investment per unit of power delivered in this new scenario has increased significantly compared to the previous one.
The justification is simple and even irrefutable. In centralised generation, there is investment in the value chain of the electricity sector. In distributed generation, it is practically double if the "whole" is considered.
This is simply because non-firm generation necessarily requires that the value chain be sized to meet loads when non-firm generation is not "present," for example, at night, on days without sun, or with low or no wind.
This means that the total capital expenditure for non-firm energy is much higher than for firm energy. And there's a significant aggravating factor: these "extra" investments in the value chain are borne by everyone, even those who don't directly "benefit" from non-firm sources.
To make matters worse, the widely used argument that solar and wind energy are "cleaner" runs into a contradiction because the "life cycle emissions cost," considering firm and non-firm sources together as it should be, results in a MUCH higher cost than that of centralised generation.
It's high time to objectively do the calculations looking at the "whole picture," as proven engineering practices recommend.