4 ms·

> What do you mean by unreliability? I'm referring to the fact that the wind is not reliable or even predictable. The sun is more predictable, but weather can

> What do you mean by unreliability? I'm referring to the fact that the wind is not reliable or even predictable. The sun is more predictable, but weather can greatly affect solar power generation. It is nice that the sun is up during part of daily peak demand and is strongest during the season when AC is heavily used. But IIRC peak demand happens several hours after solar panels are generating peak energy. > You only hit problems when you are no longer burning fossil fuels and so have no more to turn off. And that's a good problem to have. The point is that if you are looking at the cost of building a solar or wind farm you have to account for the fact that you cannot shut down another power source one-for-one. If you have to pay for the new source and keep the old source online then the new source is by definition not the same price as the old source.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> But IIRC peak demand happens several hours after solar panels are generating peak energy. No, peak 'net demand' happens later, because solar has reduced the actual demand peak. This is like saying "eating food just made my hunger peak later" > If you have to pay for the new source and keep the old source online then the new source is by definition not the same price as the old source. Yes, but the old source likely has high fuel costs, so when you stop burning the fuel, you not only save carbon and pollution, you save money. This isn't particularly complicated.
- crackercrews 4y ago
  Your first claim seems plausible, but apparently is wrong. Peak demand appears to be after noon all over. In some places it's several hours after. [1] Your second point doesn't make any sense because the cost of fuel is already factored into the original analysis that supposedly equates the cost of renewable and non-renewable energy generation. If you want to mention that cost again, then I would mention again that supply crunches raise the cost of construction of solar and wind farms. All of these costs were already accounted for so it doesn't make sense to bring them up again. 1: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    The grid reported peak doesn't include home rooftop or other behind-the-meter solar, that's why the California grid demand peak has shifted later over the last few years, as well as (but not as much as) the net peak that doesn't count the utility scale solar. You can also choose when you want the peak to occur to some degree, by positioning your panels in both location and direction. Semi-random alignment combined with solar noon happening over a hour for a timezone means the 'peak' is often rounded and flattened, and shifted in the direction of the solar compared with the load. e.g. if you have a coastal area with demand on the coast and utility solar mostly inland, then you get a different timeshift between load and supply depending on where the coast is positioned in a West-East direction. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue regarding price, but since renewables are cheaper than even running existing fossil fuel plants, I'm not sure it matters.
    - crackercrews 4y ago
      Imagine a salesman comes to your door selling residential cellular internet. He says it will cost the same as your existing wired internet, and will offer the same speeds. The benefit is that it will have a lower carbon footprint because the ISP's power is provided exclusively by wind and solar. The downside is that it will only run when there is wind power or solar power available. Would you make the switch?
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        We dont need weird analogies, We're rolling out renewables across the world, at an astounding pace because its cheaper and better, and continues to get cheaper and better.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> But IIRC peak demand happens several hours after solar panels are generating peak energy. No, peak 'net demand' happens later, because solar has reduced the actual demand peak. This is like saying "eating food just made my hunger peak later" > If you have to pay for the new source and keep the old source online then the new source is by definition not the same price as the old source. Yes, but the old source likely has high fuel costs, so when you stop burning the fuel, you not only save carbon and pollution, you save money. This isn't particularly complicated.

crackercrews 4y ago
Your first claim seems plausible, but apparently is wrong. Peak demand appears to be after noon all over. In some places it's several hours after. [1] Your second point doesn't make any sense because the cost of fuel is already factored into the original analysis that supposedly equates the cost of renewable and non-renewable energy generation. If you want to mention that cost again, then I would mention again that supply crunches raise the cost of construction of solar and wind farms. All of these costs were already accounted for so it doesn't make sense to bring them up again. 1: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  The grid reported peak doesn't include home rooftop or other behind-the-meter solar, that's why the California grid demand peak has shifted later over the last few years, as well as (but not as much as) the net peak that doesn't count the utility scale solar. You can also choose when you want the peak to occur to some degree, by positioning your panels in both location and direction. Semi-random alignment combined with solar noon happening over a hour for a timezone means the 'peak' is often rounded and flattened, and shifted in the direction of the solar compared with the load. e.g. if you have a coastal area with demand on the coast and utility solar mostly inland, then you get a different timeshift between load and supply depending on where the coast is positioned in a West-East direction. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue regarding price, but since renewables are cheaper than even running existing fossil fuel plants, I'm not sure it matters.
  - crackercrews 4y ago
    Imagine a salesman comes to your door selling residential cellular internet. He says it will cost the same as your existing wired internet, and will offer the same speeds. The benefit is that it will have a lower carbon footprint because the ISP's power is provided exclusively by wind and solar. The downside is that it will only run when there is wind power or solar power available. Would you make the switch?
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      We dont need weird analogies, We're rolling out renewables across the world, at an astounding pace because its cheaper and better, and continues to get cheaper and better.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]