Thanks. I hoped no one on Free Republic was stupid enough to believe that you could store that much power in batteries.
The problem with all of the alternate sources is that they are without fail far more expensive than “fossil” fuels and far less efficient.
Is there a place for some of them? Probably, but not in the macro scale they are proposing. Destroying farmland with solar panels and turbines only hurts our future.
I recently ordered a truck cap with an integrated rooftop tent for my wife and I to go camping and overlanding. I’m considering installing a solar panel on the roof to power some lights and a small refrigerator. Micro use of those technologies works just fine.
On the flip side, I have a utility trailer I use for my job. It has a large power inverter and a Marine battery. In the winter I have a small space heater. If I’m not plugged into the grid, the battery last mere seconds when the heater turns on.
Batteries are, at the moment, about 6-7% the work-unit efficiency of hydrocarbons in its energy potential. Maybe it’s a little bit more since I last looked at the numbers because there has been developments over the years, but it isn’t anywhere near the work-unit efficiency of a gallon of gas.
But that doesn’t other sources aren’t useful. They may be useful in taking the workload of some of the process that still needs to be primarily fueled by hydrocarbons.
The example I gave earlier in the thread is electric generators that are fueled by solar and/or windpower. Sure, the generators will not run your house all the time. However, maybe there is enough sunlight and wind power that can be stored so these generators can be used once a month. Lowering your powerbill by 3-4%, or better, can probably help over the years.
None of these things is a complete solution, but together they could be a good change.