4 ms·

Solar is unreliable and the push for policies favoring wind and solar contribute to Texas Grid Blackouts. It really is amazing how much power, influence, and pr

Solar is unreliable and the push for policies favoring wind and solar contribute to Texas Grid Blackouts. It really is amazing how much power, influence, and profits this movement have achieved.

kaliszad 5y ago
Extraordinary claims should be well supported. Please provide reliable sources for your claim. At least the last TGB was due to unusually cold weather, bad preparation for frozen gas pipes etc. If the "renewables" contributed anything, from what I remember, it would be perhaps a rounding error. Solar and wind is not as reliable as a coal fired plant but you also don't have to continuously supply coal and it is not that bad as you would imagine either. Yes, it demands more planing, sensors detecting the conditions a good grid, perhaps some short term storage and longer term demand/ production adjustments. The great thing is, you can shut of a solar or wind power plant in probably minutes and it costs you nearly nothing (besides lost opportunity). Try that with a coal fired plant or nuclear power plant. You can also build solar and wind in places, where you wouldn't want a coal fired or nuclear power plant. From what I can see, solar and wind seems to be the more economical way overall. It isn't perfect now and we have to have other sources in the mix but longer term I don't really see a reason, why most of the planet couldn't use solar, wind, water dams, geothermal etc. with some sort of smart energy storage or better demand/ production shaping for most of our energy needs, especially if we end up paying less for the same service level.
- runbathtime 5y ago
  It wasn't a rounding error, the wind wasn't blowing, which is the problem with these renewables, they don't work when the wind doesn't blow. If you are really open to a different framework for analyzing energy policies, I recommend The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein.
  - kaliszad 5y ago
    Thank you for the book recommendation. I don't know if it is still as relevant, when it was written in 2014. The situation changed dramatically, the International Energy Agency (IEA) writes in the report https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020?mode=overview https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020?mode=o... "Supportive policies and maturing technologies are enabling very cheap access to capital in leading markets. With sharp cost reductions over the past decade, solar PV is consistently cheaper than new coal- or gasfired power plants in most countries, and solar projects now offer some of the lowest cost electricity ever seen." The agency even reconsidered estimates for the future, estimating more usage of solar, because it trends cheaper than previously thought. The Internation Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) supports these findings: https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewa... Certainly the electric grid in the USA is in an unfortunate position because it is not so well connected, looking quite island-like. There is a great need for much higher long distance energy transfer capacity and better interconnects. We know, that the wind doesn't blow constantly and can quite reliably predict it days in advance/ can also apply statistics. It is a factor in planing from the start, else you cannot calculate the return on investment and will not get financing. With storage or enough transmission capacity, you can work around this problems and flatten the peaks and valleys in production or demand. The central limit theorem is your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem if you have enough independent sources (which you create by having long distance transmission capacity or vast storage capacity basically). Also, in some rather remote parts of the world, solar and wind (and perhaps micro dams) is the only way you can generate electricity economically. This doesn't only concern islands and "third world" countries but also remote parts in the USA.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  At least with nuclear, I believe we can store the reactor energy in molten salt which can then be used later to turn turbines. So you can effectively shut down electrical energy production without entirely losing out on opportunity. Of course, you can only shut off production for so long or eventually you will run out of salt mass to store heat in (or storage capacity for the molten salt), but I’m guessing this isn’t a problem in practice? > From what I can see, solar and wind seems to be the more economical way overall. My biggest concern is the storage. We still haven’t fleshed that out very well, and until we do we’ll probably be pretty dependent on fossil fuel plants. I really wish we’d build more of these latest generations of nuclear plants (much safer, better storage) if only to diversify our energy sources and provide some extra capacity for stretches when renewable production is low and also to maintain our nuclear competency until we are really in the clear with respect to energy demand. I’m not a nuclear purist; I’m just nervous about putting all of our eggs in the wind and solar baskets.

Solar is unreliable and the push for policies favoring wind and solar contribute to Texas Grid Blackouts. It really is amazing how much power, influence, and profits this movement have achieved.

kaliszad 5y ago

Extraordinary claims should be well supported. Please provide reliable sources for your claim. At least the last TGB was due to unusually cold weather, bad preparation for frozen gas pipes etc. If the "renewables" contributed anything, from what I remember, it would be perhaps a rounding error. Solar and wind is not as reliable as a coal fired plant but you also don't have to continuously supply coal and it is not that bad as you would imagine either. Yes, it demands more planing, sensors detecting the conditions a good grid, perhaps some short term storage and longer term demand/ production adjustments. The great thing is, you can shut of a solar or wind power plant in probably minutes and it costs you nearly nothing (besides lost opportunity). Try that with a coal fired plant or nuclear power plant. You can also build solar and wind in places, where you wouldn't want a coal fired or nuclear power plant. From what I can see, solar and wind seems to be the more economical way overall. It isn't perfect now and we have to have other sources in the mix but longer term I don't really see a reason, why most of the planet couldn't use solar, wind, water dams, geothermal etc. with some sort of smart energy storage or better demand/ production shaping for most of our energy needs, especially if we end up paying less for the same service level.

runbathtime 5y ago
It wasn't a rounding error, the wind wasn't blowing, which is the problem with these renewables, they don't work when the wind doesn't blow. If you are really open to a different framework for analyzing energy policies, I recommend The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein.
- kaliszad 5y ago
  Thank you for the book recommendation. I don't know if it is still as relevant, when it was written in 2014. The situation changed dramatically, the International Energy Agency (IEA) writes in the report https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020?mode=overview https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020?mode=o... "Supportive policies and maturing technologies are enabling very cheap access to capital in leading markets. With sharp cost reductions over the past decade, solar PV is consistently cheaper than new coal- or gasfired power plants in most countries, and solar projects now offer some of the lowest cost electricity ever seen." The agency even reconsidered estimates for the future, estimating more usage of solar, because it trends cheaper than previously thought. The Internation Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) supports these findings: https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewables-Increasingly-Beat-Even-Cheapest-Coal-Competitors-on-Cost https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/Jun/Renewa... Certainly the electric grid in the USA is in an unfortunate position because it is not so well connected, looking quite island-like. There is a great need for much higher long distance energy transfer capacity and better interconnects. We know, that the wind doesn't blow constantly and can quite reliably predict it days in advance/ can also apply statistics. It is a factor in planing from the start, else you cannot calculate the return on investment and will not get financing. With storage or enough transmission capacity, you can work around this problems and flatten the peaks and valleys in production or demand. The central limit theorem is your friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem if you have enough independent sources (which you create by having long distance transmission capacity or vast storage capacity basically). Also, in some rather remote parts of the world, solar and wind (and perhaps micro dams) is the only way you can generate electricity economically. This doesn't only concern islands and "third world" countries but also remote parts in the USA.
throwaway894345 5y ago
At least with nuclear, I believe we can store the reactor energy in molten salt which can then be used later to turn turbines. So you can effectively shut down electrical energy production without entirely losing out on opportunity. Of course, you can only shut off production for so long or eventually you will run out of salt mass to store heat in (or storage capacity for the molten salt), but I’m guessing this isn’t a problem in practice? > From what I can see, solar and wind seems to be the more economical way overall. My biggest concern is the storage. We still haven’t fleshed that out very well, and until we do we’ll probably be pretty dependent on fossil fuel plants. I really wish we’d build more of these latest generations of nuclear plants (much safer, better storage) if only to diversify our energy sources and provide some extra capacity for stretches when renewable production is low and also to maintain our nuclear competency until we are really in the clear with respect to energy demand. I’m not a nuclear purist; I’m just nervous about putting all of our eggs in the wind and solar baskets.