Right, but non-monetary negative outcomes are swept under the rug.

It costs nothing for fossil plant operators to pump carbon and sulphur into the atmosphere; that's why it takes regulation to make them install scrubbers. Scrubbers help, but don't prevent the outcome.

The outcome can be measured in human deaths and loss of arable land. That cost is hidden.

The "free market" is a grim joke while these costs can be ignored.

I mean, if the choice is expensive electricity and rolling blackouts because the entire country relied on unreliable sources of energy, I'd take the former. The best energy source is one that's robust and dependable, not one that's theoretically cheaper in some ideal circumstances.