Posted on 05/19/2021 4:12:19 AM PDT by MtnClimber
A note of thanks to Francis Menton who allows his entire articles to be posted as long as there is attribution and a link. Much appreciated.
A good reminder that even the WSJ can only use the “journalists” on offer from the US “journalism” schools. It long ago became worth reading only for the (usually but not always) conservative opinions and editorials.
You need to subsidize stuff that doesn’t work.
If it worked, it wouldn’t need to be subsidized.
Why are we pushing an energy “solution” that doesn’t work?
“solar panels at any location in the northern hemisphere will produce less power in the winter than in the summer.”
That’s true, but this article also ignores that power consumption is lower in the winter.
Looking at the Southwest, the only part of the country solar is truly useful, solar production is about 25% lower in January than it is in June. But consumption is about 30% lower when comparing those same months.
Because it "feels" good/right. This isn't about science or math or fact, it's about feeling. Virtue signaling is social cancer.
That was true 10 years ago, but now even without subsidies nothing is cheaper than a mix of solar, wind, and natural gas.
If it’s actually the cheapest solution then why the HELL is it getting a subsidy??
It is not cost effective. People who say it’s cheap are either dishonest or uninformed.
Wait, I thought it was:
"Where the days are longer
The nights are stronger
Than moonshine"
Someone clearly lied!
You got that right!!!
How much does solar generate in terms of total energy production in the Southwest, percentage wise?
If you want to get rid of fossil fuels for electrical generation there is only one solution, nuclear power.
Tell that to those of us that froze our butts off here in SE Texas when the wind farm could not keep up with demand.
Last year solar provided about 10% of power in the Southwest, up from almost nothing 10 years ago.
The growth is accelerating. 10 years from now it will be providing 25 to 30% of power needs.
Peruse later.
Where are the raw materials to come from, how much diesel fuel to mine them, and what about the ecological impacts of the mining operations? The beings in the UAPs watching us must be laughing their reproductive parts off at our insanity.
Hard to believe growth will be accelerating at the same time population growth and a greater use of electrical vehicles will place additional demands on the system. Nuclear seems the way to go.
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=AZ
, but this article also ignores that power consumption is lower in the winter.
.......do you mean to infer that the further north you get, that there is no need for heat in the winter. The Southwest uses electricity for cooling in summer, less so,in winter. Surely, you don’t live in anywhere that has cold winter. Less power from the sun, and less heat from the sun, at the same time.
I would love if someone came up with a way for nuclear to make sense, but the economics are hard. It’s not just that the cost is high, but a new plant is a multi-billion dollar investment that takes 20 years to get built.
If I’m running a utility, I’m going to pick a collection of smaller, faster, low risk projects over a new reactor every time.
OTOH, reaching that magic 10% in solar/wind begins to add its own costs to maintaining a stable power system. We’ll see how well it continues to increase.
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.