I believe that solar power is the future - though it’s LONG in the future. We have a lot of work to do on it; but our great-grandchildren may be very happy for it.
I work in the electrical utility industry, although its way up here in Alaska, I’d like to think I know a little bit about so-called renewables.
I have never spoke to a single person, even a few old-school curmudgeons, that are for “clean, renewable” energy. The problem is the cost and reliability. Green power is neither cheap, nor reliable at this time. It all requires the backup of coal and various forms of gas to back it up and smooth it out.
Some day we may be able to figure out a way to make green power cost effective and reliable. We are no where close to that point.
"solar facilities in Mississippi only generated about 22 percent of their potential output in 2021, which means utility companies would need to install 450 megawatts (MW) of solar to generate 100 MW of electricity, on average, over the course of a year, requiring a huge overbuild of capacity to get the same annual energy output."This is naive. You cannot just quadruple your solar plant size because you still generate ZERO power at night. You need either a 1) electricity storage system or 2) a backup fossil or nuclear plant the same size as your solar plant.
Either way, you have to buy TWO power plants whereas before you only had to purchase ONE power plant. So you have doubled your capital costs AND doubled your fixed maintenance cost (costs that you incur if you run the plan or not). Large-scale storage does not exist yet except as pumped hydro. Batteries will never be a storage system for solar plants because of their staggeringly high price.
So the situation is far worse than author Orr says.
The other fallacy in green energy is that end-of-life costs are conveniently ignored and not accounted for. The cost of demolishing a fossil-fuel fired power plant is low. The cost of demolishing a nuclear plant is high and spent-fuel storage is a difficult problem. But the green zealots just totally ignore the demolition costs of solar and wind plants.
The Pacific Northwest has the potential for massive hydro power projects which would provide gargantuan amounts of clean carbon-free energy. Such projects also provide water for cities and farms. But ya know … but … but … the widdle fishies 'n' stuff.
And in our area...they’re killing off farmlands
In my energy law class, several students were doing research on various forms of clean energy and many of us were unable to find sources on the exact actual cost of solar and wind without subsidies. The closest I found was about $86 per MWH, much more expensive than other sources. I don’t this comparison really includes the extra taxes and environmental permits and other such costs that are tacked on to coal and natural gas.
What about solar panels on individual homes? Any better?
All true. Great article. We have huge coal reserves and should be burning it super cleanly to make electricity. We used to burn more but natural gas has been replacing it. We need natural gas to make fertilizers and for our chemicals industries.
Unfortunately the anti-CO2 cult has too much wacked out power.
Anything that needs a federal subsidy to exist...
Results may vary.
I live in the north of England; this month has been overcast most days and of course it’s January so I can’t expect my domestic setup to be hugely reliable.
Having said that, 53.76kWh of my consumption for the month has been powered by solar. Right now it’s so dim I need the house lights on and it’s only generating 4% of what it could be generating.
But the plant is set up for 5kWp, with the house only using 2kWp at the most peak of times. So actually it’s covering almost 20% of my current consumption. That alone is ofsetting the bill to the point where my monthly spend is down to where it would’ve been in pre-Ukraine invasion prices if I didn’t have the setup.
Based on those numbers, and knowing I’ll be exporting as much as I use between end of March and beginning of November, my solar setup will have completely paid for itself by the end of next year. (Electricity costs have more than doubled since I had it installed 3 years ago).
Nobody, as far as I know, has ever claimed that a single source of 'renewable' energy such as solar will be the future. I've never seen any reasoned objection to a diversified energy budget, in which a range of 'renewable' technologies complement, without wholly replacing 'non-renewable' sources. Diversification is prudent in all forms of investment, including this one.
When these hidden expenses are accounted for, it becomes obvious that solar is much more expensive.
I won’t matter the climate control cult that’s selling the idea will have made billions it’s all that matters.
In the 1920’s someone was selling something guarantied to kill fly’s (two bricks) made good money at it too.
Speaking of solar...
See the NTSB and NYSP are now involved. The story should finish disappearing down a memory hole shortly.