None of this is difficult to work out. Building even more renewables capacity will not help: even ten or 100 times the nominally-necessary “capacity” could never do the job on a cold, windless evening.
Only one thing can save the day for the renewables plan. Reasonable cost, large scale energy storage, sufficient to keep the lights on for several days at a minimum, would solve the problem.
OK, so obviously that does it. It proves that climate change science was wrong. Yay!This article does a good in laying out the problems faced by Wind and Solar power.
The wind and solar power myth has finally been exposed
I am not sure where you get that?OK, so obviously that does it. It proves that climate change science was wrong. Yay!
Did you know getting a heavier than air machine to fly is impossible? Man on the moon? Impossible! Getting my drift?I am not sure where you get that?
It does speak to our future plans of energy sustainability, that Wind and Solar cannot get us there without
massive energy storage.
Quite a few things are possible, getting 100% duty cycle energy coverage from a non 100% duty cycle source,Did you know getting a heavier than air machine to fly is impossible? Man on the moon? Impossible! Getting my drift?
I am not sure where you get that?
It does speak to our future plans of energy sustainability, that Wind and Solar cannot get us there without
massive energy storage.
I suspect everything in a solar panel could be recycled, I think Solar has more of a chance than wind, simply becauseI'm more excited about solar more than wind. But solar needs a program where solar panels can be effectively recycled. That's not a sexy subject and there's little funding in that area.
Why does there have to be a choice?I suspect everything in a solar panel could be recycled, I think Solar has more of a chance than wind, simply because
of the limits of material science for the tall delicate wind turbines. A different design might be less efficient, but more robust.
No, I just think we need to be realistic on our path towards sustainable energy.You seem to like, promote, defend, and bring to attention anything that seems to undermine green energy science and technology, and continuously promote skepticism towards it.
Just seem too consistent a general theme in all your posts to not suggest a strong underlying agenda to impede and sabotage the technology and promote popular skepticism. Why?
There does not but if the current flavor of wind ends up costing more than it earns it will be discontinued.Why does there have to be a choice?
No, I just think we need to be realistic on our path towards sustainable energy.
The article is correct, in that we cannot achieve our objectives without massive energy storage.
In fact the energy storage really needs to be seasonal to take advantage of the surplus periods,
such that Spring and Fall Surpluses can cover Summer and Winter demands.
Sustainable energy is a very real problem, Human Caused climate change not so much.Why? I thought you didn't even think we had any reason to be worrying about "sustainable energy" because climate change is all wrong.
OK. But something tells me there is more to all this. Far more.
Just look at the inflammatory title of the article: "The wind and solar power myth has finally been exposed".
I mean, seriously? "Myth"? Just because the technology may not yet be fully mature? It sounds like the underlying agenda of the article (and yours) is far more than just bringing to everyone's attention that " we cannot achieve our objectives without massive energy storage."
I just want to know why. Because this is ridiculous.
Sustainable energy is a very real problem, Human Caused climate change not so much.
As for the article's title there is a myth that if we simply built enough wind and solar capacity that it would cover our energy demands,
and this is simply not true without energy storage.
Sorry, the scientific organizations do not count, only the peer reviewed publications from actual scientist,Every single scientific organization on the planet disagrees, and we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
So what are you recommending?
The CO2-eq increase from 1900 to 2019 is ~315 ppm to 500 ppm,The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–201911 is 0.8°C to
1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C. It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C, other
human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C,
How is that different than what we are doing? Doesn't mean we stop further research and efforts.As for what I am recommending, we need to acknowledge that poor duty cycle electricity has less intrinsic value
than on demand electricity, and consider the full range of options for energy sustainability.
In the US it might be as simple as a national unified grid attach law, that compensates home generators
for their surplus at a realistic value that both homeowner and grid operator can live with.
We are doing the best we can with what we have. It's a direction in which we need to move. Still wouldn't call any of it "myth" though just because we are not at the destination right now.We also need to acknowledge that any carbon neutral methodology of storing energy moves us towards net zero,
not just the technologies popular with Green supporters. Nuclear, hydrocarbon energy storage, etc.
I like home solar, but you cannot start with your expectation that it will cover the electricity demands of the home for 364.5 days a year.How is that different than what we are doing? Doesn't mean we stop further research and efforts.
A home with solar panels is going to be cleaner probably about 364.5 days out of the year, battery power notwithstanding. Not too shabby, I would say.
Home generators? Are you talking about gas-operated, or solar panels?
We are doing the best we can with what we have. It's a direction in which we need to move. Still wouldn't call any of it "myth" though just because we are not at the destination right now.
I like home solar, but you cannot start with your expectation that it will cover the electricity demands of the home for 364.5 days a year.
Home generators are anyone who inputs electricity into the grid for compensation, Solar, Wind, micro Hydro, etc.
Do you really think we are doing the best we can, by creating programs like net metering, that are untenable?
It is because solar only generates power for about 10 hours per 24 hour day.If you live in AZ or something, not too far off the mark.
If the grid providers are OK with it, I don't see the problem. Why do you think it's a problem?
It is because solar only generates power for about 10 hours per 24 hour day.
Who said the grid providers are ok with net metering? They are pushing back everywhere they can. 1:1 net metering sucks the profit out of the sale of electricity, and has the potential to run the grid operators out of business.
You are missing the point, what is generated during the day, no matter how much cannot cover the night hours at all without energy storage.That's more than enough for most households, for most days of the year. Not bad.
Maybe. Maybe not. It's an evolving landscape. There are a lot of ideas and proposals on the table and being discussed and considered. No one wants to see them go out of business.
Net Energy Metering (NEM) | How It Works, Benefits, & Drawbacks
This article explains net energy metering (NEM); learn how it works, as well as the benefits and drawbacks.www.carboncollective.co
What is YOUR proposal?
You are missing the point, what is generated during the day, no matter how much cannot cover the night hours at all without energy storage.
Don't worry so much.The market has a way of sorting all this out. It's an evolving situation. We shall see.The ideas and proposals all come back to reducing the credit per kWh of surplus given, because the initial plan cannot be supported.
It is really difficult to back out of what people are used to, but the value of each surplus kWh is likely slightly below the wholesale price.
Note I said without energy storage!Not really- depends on when nightfall is, what season it is, and what you are doing through the night.
"For context, the average American home uses about 30 kWh of electricity each day. So if you have a standard battery with around 10 to 20 kWh of stored capacity, the electricity stored in your battery would only be able to power half of the typical home for a whole day, or the entire consumption for half of a day."
How Long Do Solar Batteries Last?
The typical solar battery stores between 10 and 20 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, while the average home uses about 30 kWh per day.news.energysage.com
Don't worry so much.The market has a way of sorting all this out. It's an evolving situation. We shall see.
None of that changes the fact that the current climate change is caused by humans, and potentially catastrophic- enough that every little bit helps.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?