Do solar plants require backup from fossil fuels? 15%

By Sue Bin Park19% Skeptical Science19%

8/3/2026, 3:10:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 14.7% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 410 faulty-reasoning hits from 361 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 24.2% and a BS Rank of 15% (24,426 of 28,433 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 85.90% of the article peer group.

Solar plants require backup, but it doesn’t have to be from fossil fuels. 
A combination of renewables, energy storage, and long-distance transmission can reliably power the majority of the U.S. without relying on coal, oil, or natural gas, as one 2017 research paper describes. 
Renewables like wind can generate under cloudy conditions, while surplus solar from brighter weather can be stored in utility-scale batteries for rainy days. 
Additionally, transmission from neighboring regions can assist solar capacity drops. 
The Department of Energy and Princeton have outlined decarbonization scenarios projecting expansion of solar and decrease in fossil fuels while maintaining reliability. 
Analysis of real-world outcomes has found that renewables growth has actually outperformed projections. 
California is an example of improving reliability while transitioning from fossil fuels to solar. 
From 2015 to 2025, in-state generation saw a jump in solar reliance from 8% to 27%, while natural gas dropped from 60% to 36%. 
This Fact Brief is responsive to conversations such as this one. 
The Colorado Sun partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs  bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. 
Read our methodology to learn how we check claims. 
Sources 
Get Fact Briefs in your email twice a week. 
Sign up here. 
Let us know what you want fact-checked by submitting a tip! 
Please note that claims that are partially true or false cannot be checked. 
In addition, we are unable to check claims for which there are no credible, available sources to verify or dispute them. 
☀️ READ MORE 
Does Colorado law allow immigration arrests at courthouses? 
Can landlords in Colorado wait up to 60 days to return security deposits? 
Is it legal to store an unsecured handgun in a car in Colorado? 
References: 
The Electricity Journal Reliable integrating variable renewables: Moving grid flexibility resources from models to results 
The Alliance for Climate Transition Institute Solar energy requires 100% fossil fuel backup 
Princeton University Net-Zero America 
University of Virginia Decarbonization by 2050: Are We on Track? 
California Energy Commission CA Electric Generation 2001-25 
California Energy Commission California Energy Leaders Report Progress on Grid Reliability Ahead of Summer 2026 
MIT The Future of Energy Storage 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.2%Sue Bin Park: 4.7%The Colorado Sun: 1.3%Confirmation Bias12.2%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Sue Bin Park: 1.9%The Colorado Sun: 1.8%Availability Heuristic3.9%This article: 10.2%Sue Bin Park: 2.6%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic10.2%This article: 3.6%Sue Bin Park: 0.9%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Hindsight Bias3.6%This article: 2.8%Sue Bin Park: 0.7%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias2.8%This article: 2.2%Sue Bin Park: 0.6%The Colorado Sun: 3.1%Framing Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.7%Sue Bin Park: 8.6%The Colorado Sun: 3.4%Optimism Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 4.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.6%Sue Bin Park: 1.7%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%Recency Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.7%Sue Bin Park: 7.3%The Colorado Sun: 2.4%Appeal to Authority14.7%This article: 2.2%Sue Bin Park: 0.6%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%False Dilemma2.2%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.9%Sue Bin Park: 1.9%The Colorado Sun: 1.8%Hasty Generalization3.9%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.2%Sue Bin Park: 2.6%The Colorado Sun: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.2%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.6%Sue Bin Park: 1.7%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Composition/Division6.6%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.4%Sue Bin Park: 1.6%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.4%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.6%Sue Bin Park: 0.9%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Special Pleading3.6%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.6%Sue Bin Park: 0.9%The Colorado Sun: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice3.6%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sue Bin Park: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Sue Bin Park: 3.6%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.1%

361 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers26%attributed speech267writer words
Selected voice

Department of Energy

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words23% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%Department of Energy: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%Department of Energy: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.