Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Germany does the same thing. Areas with alternative power production need a "flood plain," a grid with the capacity to take up excess power irregularly. That's an imposition on the less used grid and if everybody were producing alternative juice it would have nowhere to go unless even more money were spent on a redundant grid.
Germany does the same thing. Areas with alternative power production need a "flood plain," a grid with the capacity to take up excess power irregularly. That's an imposition on the less used grid and if everybody were producing alternative juice it would have nowhere to go unless even more money were spent on a redundant grid.
The problem is the unreliability of sun & wind.
That happened in January and February in Southern California. Capacity is measured at system peak, which is during the summer. California is a net importer of electricity.
Current capacity of Photovoltaic panels increases in Winter. They produce more current at colder temps. There were parts of my system that were designed for -30F operating characteristics.
Current capacity of Photovoltaic panels increases in Winter. They produce more current at colder temps. There were parts of my system that were designed for -30F operating characteristics.
Insolation is lower in winter though so energy output drops.
What Guido is apparently unaware of is that air conditioning load drops dramatically in winter so Southern Californians use less electricity. You can shut down fossil fuel plants, but pv produces when the sun shines. You have to sell it somewhere so Arizona gets a deal. Chump change.
Insolation is lower in winter though so energy output drops.
What Guido is apparently unaware of is that air conditioning load drops dramatically in winter so Southern Californians use less electricity. You can shut down fossil fuel plants, but pv produces when the sun shines. You have to sell it somewhere so Arizona gets a deal. Chump change.
The point that is being missed is that industrial production of electricity via solar & wind requires an extraneous grid on which to dump excess electricity in times of over-production and a conventional source of power to maintain adequate supply for demand in times of under-production.
It's just not ready for prime time and would not even exist if it weren't for govt mandates and subsidies. It's a boondoggle.
The point that is being missed is that industrial production of electricity via solar & wind requires an extraneous grid on which to dump excess electricity in times of over-production and a conventional source of power to maintain adequate supply for demand in times of under-production.
It's just not ready for prime time and would not even exist if it weren't for govt mandates and subsidies. It's a boondoggle.
We have such a grid. For very modest investment we can make it much more robust. Trade always enhances the value of a commodity product. It is true for wheat as well as electricity.
I suppose it all depends on what the ultimate goal is.
The climatologists are telling us that CO2 emissions need to go to zero ASAP, since CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for millennia. If that is the case, then token decreases of emissions aren't going to be enough. We need "deep" decarbonization.
It looks like we are going to be stuck with using petroleum for ships, trucks, and airplanes; but the electricity could be completely decarbonized by switching to nuclear.
Mass adoption of wind and solar will reduce carbon emissions, but we would still be stuck with all of those natural gas plants for backup generation. It will be expensive to build a whole new power system of wind and solar on top of the existing conventional power system, without being able to retire much of the existing conventional capacity (since it will be needed for backup generation).
The endgame of a "wind and solar" decarbonization strategy is high electricity costs and modest emissions reductions.
I suppose it all depends on what the ultimate goal is.
The climatologists are telling us that CO2 emissions need to go to zero ASAP, since CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for millennia. If that is the case, then token decreases of emissions aren't going to be enough. We need "deep" decarbonization.
It looks like we are going to be stuck with using petroleum for ships, trucks, and airplanes; but the electricity could be completely decarbonized by switching to nuclear.
Mass adoption of wind and solar will reduce carbon emissions, but we would still be stuck with all of those natural gas plants for backup generation. It will be expensive to build a whole new power system of wind and solar on top of the existing conventional power system, without being able to retire much of the existing conventional capacity (since it will be needed for backup generation).
The endgame of a "wind and solar" decarbonization strategy is high electricity costs and modest emissions reductions.
climatologist tell us no such thing. Dishonest posters make up all sorts of stuff that isn't true and then hope the sheeple will believe.
I know Jim Hansen. He says we should phase out our coal-fired generation by 2030 and stabilize CO2 at 350 PPM.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
