3 ms·
The point, in this particular subthread, is that wind is so inexpensive so there's no problem if we have to "dump" a lot of unused power windy day. And we can h
by Ma8ee 4y ago
The point, in this particular subthread, is that wind is so inexpensive so there's no problem if we have to "dump" a lot of unused power windy day. And we can have enough wind so even when it delivers say less than 50% of max, it will be enough. And windy days with a lot of extra capacity, we make hydrogen (or pump mass to higher elevation where practical), even though the efficiency isn't particularly good. When the energy we put in is for free, it doesn't matter that the efficiency is 30% or even 20% for the full cycle.
And this can't be said for nuclear power. It's so expensive to build and run, so it has to run most of the time to make a profit. And this will of course be problem when it sells it output on the same market as wind, where many days the cost of electricity is almost zero.
- teddyh 4y ago> The point, in this particular subthread, is that wind is so inexpensive so there's no problem if we have to "dump" a lot of unused power windy day. Fair enough. > And windy days with a lot of extra capacity, we make hydrogen (or pump mass to higher elevation where practical), even though the efficiency isn't particularly good. From what I understand, those are not worth the cost. Is is even remotely feasible to even produce, let alone build, enough solar and/or wind electricity production plants which give enough hydrogen to be able to handle the world’s energy needs? Even in places with extended periods without sun and wind? Until that is true, nuclear seems to be the only alternative left which is not oil, coal, or natural gas. (Left out is hydro, which, from what I understand, is already built everywhere it can be built.)