1 billion dollar solar energy ponzi scheme (heaters, stove, cost, electric)
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.
They do when it comes with hefty government incentives.
You can't get more incentives than with nuclear and it's doing nothing. Incentives for wind are expiring, but it will continue to grow. It's economic with incentives in many areas already.
It takes a trivial amount of land. The farmers love wind because it allows them to continue farming and get a second revenue stream.
It's not trivial, it's a heck of a lot of the great plains that are dotted with wind farms. Regardless though, the growth in renewables can only occur because natural gas peaker plants allow for the variable rate of renewable energy to be balanced to the grid electric demand.
…. Quite a few US utilities have 15-20% renewables in their resource mix and are adding more.....
We've been over this before: utility companies are regulated by the states and usually their profit is dictated by the regs-- X% profit above and beyond expenditures...By massively increasing their expenditures by pouring capital into wind/solar installations, they increase their total profits. That's their incentive, not engineering or environmental considerations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
It takes a trivial amount of land. The farmers love wind because it allows them to continue farming and get a second revenue stream.
Not all that clear.
There are some theoretical benefits to crop production by having the turbines provide turbulence in the micro-climate, it hasn't translated into improved yield due to the land kept out of production by the base & maintenance roads. https://www.agupdate.com/agriview/ne...40803121f.html
But soil compaction reduces over-all fertility in the plot, and the economic benefit of leasing land to the power company accrues to the owner of the land, who more often than not, is not the farmer working the land and gets no benefit. https://www.masterresource.org/linow...-crop-farming/
It's not trivial, it's a heck of a lot of the great plains that are dotted with wind farms. Regardless though, the growth in renewables can only occur because natural gas peaker plants allow for the variable rate of renewable energy to be balanced to the grid electric demand.
If you look at those wind farms on the great plains, you'll see that the farmland is still in production. The actual amount of land encumbered is trivial.
The fact that renewable resources need backup is neither significant, nor unusual. All generation requires backup, as you know. In addition, simple cycle gas turbines are cheap and easy to site. If you want to see a nightmare backup situation review TVA's shutdown of its entire nuclear resource in the 80s. That won't happen with wind or solar.
The fact that renewable resources need backup is neither significant, nor unusual.
It is significant because the more renewable on the market necessarily increases the amount of under utilized capital investment in conventional facilities. If you can supply 100% of the grid with renewable under ideal weather conditions your capital investment into guaranteed power from conventional capacity remains unchanged.
It is significant because the more renewable on the market necessarily increases the amount of under utilized capital investment in conventional facilities. If you can supply 100% of the grid with renewable under ideal weather conditions your capital investment into guaranteed power from conventional capacity remains unchanged.
No one in the utility community is suggesting 100% renewables. It's also pretty clear you don't understand how reserve requirements are calculated.
No one in the utility community is suggesting 100% renewables.
It doesn't matter if it's 1%, 10%, 50% or 100%. You still need guaranteed power for whatever percentage it is and as the amount of renewables increase the capital investment in that guaranteed power necessarily becomes more under utilized.
No one in the utility community is suggesting 100% renewables. It's also pretty clear you don't understand how reserve requirements are calculated.
The only thing that's clear is that you've got this square peg and you're insisting it'll fit the round hole, no matter how much damage it causes to do it.
It doesn't matter if it's 1%, 10%, 50% or 100%. You still need guaranteed power for whatever percentage it is and as the amount of renewables increase the capital investment in that guaranteed power necessarily becomes more under utilized.
That is just incorrect. Utilities operate with 15-20% reserve margins.
The only thing that's clear is that you've got this square peg and you're insisting it'll fit the round hole, no matter how much damage it causes to do it.
It's happening as we speak and everyone's lights are still on.
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.
