2 ms·

> What do you propose should be done for places that aren't windy, or times when there's no wind? Power is easy to move using transmission lines. For example,

> What do you propose should be done for places that aren't windy, or times when there's no wind? Power is easy to move using transmission lines. For example, the Pacific DC Intertie is over 846 miles (1,361 km) long. It moves 3.1 GW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie Path 27 is 488 miles (785 km) and carries 2.4 GW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_27 Wind farms can be located as optimally as possible and the power transported where needed. Storage, both at the plant and along the transmission path if necessary. Not only does storage make power availability more constant, it can act as an aggregator and repeater. Bring in power from a thousand miles away to a storage station. Do so from multiple wind farms. Store the power and deliver it another thousand miles away to wherever it might be needed. I think the concerns about optimal wind farm location have been obsolete for a very long time, particularly as storage options improve in cost and performance.

midoridensha 4y ago
Storage is science fiction. We don't have the technology to store grid-scale power. Power isn't "easy" to move with transmission lines: there are significant losses for long lengths. 3.1GW is nice, but the US's current generation capacity is roughly 3 orders of magnitude greater than this. The cost for Path 27 alone was $5.5B. Building just the transmission lines for what you describe would cost trillions, and that doesn't include the wind turbines. What you describe isn't feasible.
- robomartin 4y ago
  > Storage is science fiction. We don't have the technology to store grid-scale power. That's not true. We haven't built it yet. That does not mean it is fiction. We don't need it today. > Power isn't "easy" to move with transmission lines: there are significant losses for long lengths. Except for the few people who live off-grid, every single person on this planet is getting their power through transmission lines. Of course there's loss. So what? That's the way physics works. > 3.1GW is nice, but the US's current generation capacity is roughly 3 orders of magnitude greater than this No. Current generation capacity is 1,200 GW. Don't hand-wave to add drama. There's a huge difference between "rough" and "way off". > Building just the transmission lines for what you describe would cost trillions Well, yes. And that's what those proposing a transition to full electrification have to contend with and justify. I am not justifying any of it. I am simply proposing that grid-scale solar does not seem to compare well with grid-scale wind. That's all. Don't go somewhere I am not going. > What you describe isn't feasible. Technically, it is absolutely feasible. I am even suggesting the wind-only option might be far more realizable than the wind + solar version of Tesla's Master Plan 3. Financially? Well, Tesla's plan claims we need about ten trillion. You are welcome to argue against that plan if you'd like. I am not making a financial argument here other than to point out that I think wind would cost significantly less. Here's a beautiful map of current wind generation resources. We could do a lot more than this: https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#3.94/38.94/-93.1 https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#3.94/38.94/-93.1 BTW, here are wind resources across the US according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/images/US_wind_resource_map-large.jpg https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/images/US_wind_reso... Interesting thing is that power is proportional to the cube of wind velocity. A little more wind makes a lot more power. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is-harnessed.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is...

midoridensha 4y ago

Storage is science fiction. We don't have the technology to store grid-scale power. Power isn't "easy" to move with transmission lines: there are significant losses for long lengths. 3.1GW is nice, but the US's current generation capacity is roughly 3 orders of magnitude greater than this. The cost for Path 27 alone was $5.5B. Building just the transmission lines for what you describe would cost trillions, and that doesn't include the wind turbines. What you describe isn't feasible.

robomartin 4y ago
> Storage is science fiction. We don't have the technology to store grid-scale power. That's not true. We haven't built it yet. That does not mean it is fiction. We don't need it today. > Power isn't "easy" to move with transmission lines: there are significant losses for long lengths. Except for the few people who live off-grid, every single person on this planet is getting their power through transmission lines. Of course there's loss. So what? That's the way physics works. > 3.1GW is nice, but the US's current generation capacity is roughly 3 orders of magnitude greater than this No. Current generation capacity is 1,200 GW. Don't hand-wave to add drama. There's a huge difference between "rough" and "way off". > Building just the transmission lines for what you describe would cost trillions Well, yes. And that's what those proposing a transition to full electrification have to contend with and justify. I am not justifying any of it. I am simply proposing that grid-scale solar does not seem to compare well with grid-scale wind. That's all. Don't go somewhere I am not going. > What you describe isn't feasible. Technically, it is absolutely feasible. I am even suggesting the wind-only option might be far more realizable than the wind + solar version of Tesla's Master Plan 3. Financially? Well, Tesla's plan claims we need about ten trillion. You are welcome to argue against that plan if you'd like. I am not making a financial argument here other than to point out that I think wind would cost significantly less. Here's a beautiful map of current wind generation resources. We could do a lot more than this: https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#3.94/38.94/-93.1 https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#3.94/38.94/-93.1 BTW, here are wind resources across the US according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/images/US_wind_resource_map-large.jpg https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/images/US_wind_reso... Interesting thing is that power is proportional to the cube of wind velocity. A little more wind makes a lot more power. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is-harnessed.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is...