4 ms·

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

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...

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...