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.
I agree with your scenario for more populated areas but in a rural town like the one I live in it would be nice to be independent, however, I do agree with you. To make it as efficient as possible, once your batteries are at full capacity and you are still able to generate power it would be nice to send it elsewhere to where it was needed instead of having it go to waste. Would be especially beneficial if your system was down for maintenance for a length of time and you needed power. This way you could receive others excess.
Most of my experience is with rural electrical systems. Many of those are cooperatives so connecting to the grid is just really a joint effort with neighbors.
But such a system is obviously not 100% wind and solar.
Until we have an economical way to store colossal amounts of electricity, a 100% wind and solar electricity system is not feasible.
100% renewable is certainly feasible, but we are years away from anything approaching that so "full speed ahead with renewables" is both prudent and responsible. More technological opportunities will evolve over time. When Ford first started mass producing cars we didn't have nearly enough roads or gas stations.
100% renewable is certainly feasible, but we are years away from anything approaching that so "full speed ahead with renewables" is both prudent and responsible.
Germany added a large amount of wind and solar capacity to their grid, but they pay 3 to 4 times more for electricity compared to the average American. Is it prudent and responsible to make electricity 3 to 4 times more expensive? Everyone will have to eat the cost of higher electricity: manufacturers, single moms on welfare, old people living on social security, hospitals, small businesses, etc. The cost of almost everything will go up, there will be far less disposable income, and many jobs will be lost due to the economic contraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
More technological opportunities will evolve over time. When Ford first started mass producing cars we didn't have nearly enough roads or gas stations.
False analogy. There was plenty of petroleum in the ground to make asphalt and gasoline. Economical grid-scale electricity storage technology, on the other hand, does not exist.
Germany added a large amount of wind and solar capacity to their grid, but they pay 3 to 4 times more for electricity compared to the average American. Is it prudent and responsible to make electricity 3 to 4 times more expensive? Everyone will have to eat the cost of higher electricity: manufacturers, single moms on welfare, old people living on social security, hospitals, small businesses, etc. The cost of almost everything will go up, there will be far less disposable income, and many jobs will be lost due to the economic contraction.
False analogy. There was plenty of petroleum in the ground to make asphalt and gasoline. Economical grid-scale electricity storage technology, on the other hand, does not exist.
Germany is Germany. It isn't a model for the United States. We have utilities pushing 20+% renewables and they are cost competitive. The cost of wind and pv is dropping dramatically. PV modules have dropped from $7+/ watt to less than $1/watt.
And there is a lot more wind and solar insolation than there ever was petroleum. We don't need much storage, though it would be useful. There are renewable portfolios that are 24/7.
You guys don't seem to be catching on-- alternative power plants still need coal & gas fired plants on stand-by for back up due to the unreliability of sunlight & wind. Germany's big switch to alternative actual produces more co2 now than before the switch.
Also, to put things in better perspective, alternates in the US now produce less than 2% of our energy. Our automotive use of fossil fuel roughly equals our use of electricity. Therefore, we would have to build about 100x more alternative plants than we now have in order to meet all energy needs AND we'd still have to run coal/gas fired plants for energy security.
Germany is Germany. It isn't a model for the United States.
So wind and solar are somehow much cheaper to install here than in Germany? What makes the economics of wind and solar fundamentally different here than in Germany? In sunny Hawaii, they have installed a lot of solar, but it only makes sense there because fossil fuels are very expensive (fuels have to be imported from halfway across the Pacific). Electricity in Hawaii is 3 to 4 times the average cost on the US mainland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
We have utilities pushing 20+% renewables and they are cost competitive.
What kind of renewables? Wind and solar, or hydro? Hydro is often considered renewable and has always been economical. Can you give an example of a utility company that meets 20% of it's demand with wind and solar, that is also cost competitive? I'm talking actual generation, not merely "nameplate capacity."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
The cost of wind and pv is dropping dramatically. PV modules have dropped from $7+/ watt to less than $1/watt.
Yes, the costs have come down substantially but wind and solar are still several times the cost of conventional generation on an "apples to apples" comparison. It's not fair to compare a dispachable coal, gas, hydro, or nuclear plant to a wind or solar farm that requires 100% backup capacity for periods without sun and wind. Proponents of wind and solar like to do the shady accounting trick of ignoring the cost of intermittency. Another accounting trick is using nameplate (maximum) capacity of wind and solar plants instead of actual average power output which is much lower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
And there is a lot more wind and solar insolation than there ever was petroleum.
True, but in the economics of energy, energy density is more important than total energy. A big problem with wind and solar energy is low energy density: the energy is spread out over vast areas. That means we need big solar and wind farms to produce meaningful amounts of power. Fossil fuels like petroleum have much higher energy density, so we can get a lot of power out of a relatively small power plant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
We don't need much storage, though it would be useful. There are renewable portfolios that are 24/7.
Wind and solar are not available 24/7. Solar suffers from a phenomenon known as "night," and large high pressure systems can create nearly calm winds over half the country. Either storage or conventional backup plants are needed. The end result is much higher electricity costs, because we effectively have to maintain TWO electricity systems: one that works during abundant sunshine and wind, and another that works on windless nights.
Yes, the "backup system" has already been built, but the owners of those plants weren't planning on losing market share to wind and solar, so they price of electricity generated by those plants will have to rise to compensate. Otherwise those plants would have to shut down...they aren't going to run in the red.
Then you have the cost of building vast solar and wind farms. We'd essentially be building a whole new fleet of power plants that aren't even necessary from a purely economic perspective. That's not going to be cheap.
The bottom line: adding solar and wind to the grid will only increase the cost of electricity, unless solar and wind become so cheap that the fuel savings from fossil plants is enough to offset the added costs from the wind and solar.
I really like the idea of solar. But haven't we had the government subsidizing it for, what, 40 years? Some legislatures have mandated percentages of production be renewable, no matter the economics. Yet, we're far from ready to abandon even a quarter of fossil generation last I read.
Is it possible that government is in the way? There are a lot of bright would-be billionaires out there. Maybe the government could offer money incentives to achieve certain things if it must involve itself.
Not only have many governors and mayors across the US stepped up to fill in the gap in the Paris Climate Agreement, many have also committed to powering their entire communities with renewable energy.
Interestingly enough, not all of these people are making this decision for climate reasons. Many are doing this purely for economic reasons, as their communities are currently subjected to high energy prices.
Why does the reason/motivation behind this choice matter? Cheaper and better for slowing climate change seems like a win-win to me. Conventional primary energy resources can't get much cheaper over time, but renewables can.
Why does the reason/motivation behind this choice matter? Cheaper and better for slowing climate change seems like a win-win to me. Conventional primary energy resources can't get much cheaper over time, but renewables can.
The ends does justify the means in this case.
But I think the reasoning can matter because pf how the renewable energy initiative can be marketed to different segments of the population. For those people who are climate change deniers, it would be hard to market renewable energy to them on the basis of helping the planet. And therein lies the idea of pushing renewable energy for the economic benefits.
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.
