Posted on 09/29/2020 8:36:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
The main problem with either wind or solar is that they generate electricity erratically, depending on the wind or sunshine. In contrast, a fossil-fuel plant can generate electricity predictably upon request. Blackouts are very expensive for society, so grid operators and designers go to a lot of trouble to make sure that blackouts are rare. The electrical grid should have spare capacity sufficient to meet the largest demand peaks even when some plants are out of commission. Plants in spinning reserve status stand by ready to take over if a plant trips (breaks down). Injecting erratic electricity into the grid means that other plants have to seesaw output to balance the ups and downs of wind or solar.
Adding wind or solar to a grid does not mean that existing fossil fuel plants can be retired. Often, neither wind nor solar is working and at those times a full complement of fossil fuel plants, or sometimes nuclear or hydro plants, must be available. Both wind and solar have pronounced seasonality. During low output times, as for summer wind, the fossil-fuel plants are carrying more of the load. Of course, solar stops working as the sun sets.
Wind behaves erratically hour to hour. Even though the Texas 18,000-megawatt system has thousands of turbines spread over a wide area, the net output is erratic changing by thousands of megawatts in a single hour. These shifts must be balanced by fossil-fuel plants slewing their output up and down to compensate and keep load matched to generation.
Even very sunny southwest cities have 50 or more cloudy days per year, stopping or reducing solar generation. Wind turbines are very sensitive to wind speed.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
If wind and solar can be used to fill up banks of batteries that can then release power to the grid at a consistent rate, then they might make some sense.
Of course the thousands of dead birds, bats, and desert tortoises might still disagree.
Here’s a great summary of why “green energy” will be an expensive failure. Anything published by this author is extremely informative
Its a long read, but worth it.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible
We live in a competitive world.
Even our “friends” compete with us.
They benefit when we get wound around the axle over things like this.
Findings
The wind generator was only 30% effect compared to it’s maximum rating.
A fossil fuel plant needed to be idling 24 hours a day to address wind generated power downs. Note you cannot just start a fossil fuel plant when needed, it can take one to two days to light off and get up to generating.
There was no reduction in green house gases
Solar cells have about a one percent reduction in output each year.
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the lifespan of wind turbines is about 20 to 25 years. In Iowa, wind turbines are reaching the end of their lives even faster as MidAmerican Energy plans to repower turbines constructed in 2004, merely 14 years after they were installed.
So what about replacement costs for the gee wiz green energy?
Don’t try using logic and scientific facts with the envirowackos. It’s a religion.
Save
Questions:
HOW do you make steel without fossil fuels?
How do you make glass without fossil fuels.?
I remember an episode of This Old House where Tom Silva was touring a glass company & then a window company to show how windows are made today to be energy efficient.
IIRC, the glass company person said it takes 2200 degrees to melt the silica into glass.
Ain’t going to do that with wind or solar power.....
bttt
It would be interesting to see what the cost in energy to make solar panels, batteries, and wind mill turbines is and see what the actual production of electricity is.
IOW, find out if it doesn’t take more energy to make them then they can produce in their lifetime.
And not forget to add in the cost of retiring and disposing of them when they wear out.
I’ll bet they use more than they would ever make.
What about disposal of the toxic materials for end of life? Where are those going to be stored?
The magnificent historic seaside vistas off the coast of southeastern Massachusetts have been blighted by these monstrosities.
Continuous power sources are...continuous. Usually built well beyond current demand, they can meet any demand load indefinitely for years/decades to come.
Green power demands buffering ... and buffers can run out. Storing electricity on a large scale is EXPENSIVE, and the more storage capacity is implemented, the greater the overall (linear) cost - with decreased usage for that extra capacity.
1-2 standard deviations for statistical coverage is reasonable. But then planners must recognize that greater deviation from norm still happens, that running out of power means NO power until weather improves (days? weeks?), and that paying 10x for an urban power storage system just to cover a once-per-decade (or whatever eventuality) weather event makes the green power system intolerably expensive.
Relentlessly continuous power sourcing is important. Do not underestimate how limited power storage systems are. Batteries are EXPENSIVE, a significant linear cost to cover an exponentially unlikely - but still probable - event.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379
This is an extensive German study pertaining solar cells.
The summary - solar cells in Germany and Switzerland are net energy sinks. Over their lifespan they consume more energy than they ever deliver. In the USA it is little better, but still - the solar cell net energy contribution is either negative or minusculary positive.
Note: It takes a lot of energy to make, deliver, install and maintain solar cells. That’s why nowadays the solar cells are all made in China, where they can build cheap coal fired power plants to supply needed energy to make solar cells.
Think of our power supply needs like a cake. All wind and solar can ever hope to be is the frosting.
The dead animals and burnt birds over solar collectors can’t complain. They’re dead.
The problem with storage systems (which could be batteries, super-capacitors, flywheels, compressed air storage, or pumped storage) is that you have to buy TWO complete power plants — the solar or wind power plant and the backup power plant for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
Roughly speaking, that means your power generation equipment costs TWICE as much as a conventional fossil or nuclear plant.
In reality, solar and wind plants cost quite a bit more than fossil or nuclear. AND the backup plants cost more than the conventional plants, too. So, your complete capital cost for renewable PLUS backup is OVER THREE times the price of conventional.
So the solution is NOT just getting better and less costly battery technology. You will ALWAYS have to buy TWO complete power plants with renewables.
The one clean energy source the left does not talk about is Hydroelectric, especially in the west.
California has a mountain range to the east with a lot of valleys and rivers. A few dams could provide not only electricity but store water for when there is a drought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.