Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Solar can make financial sense at the micro level because individuals don't have to contend with the enormously difficult problem of balancing power supply with demand in real time.
When you factor in the hugely difficult problem of exactly matching power production with power demand by the second at both macro and micro levels, the unpredictability and utter lack of control of solar creates a huge problem; one that cannot currently be solved without extreme engineering and expense.
Hawaii is already having problems with neighborhoods that produce too much solar from individual homeowners. If infrastructure isn't built to handle it, then it creates problems.
It might make economic sense to do macro solar up to some relatively low total percent of power production (perhaps 20% or so), but it's not a solution. It's not even half of a solution. So far the evidence seems to suggest solar isn't even economical in regions with excellent sunshine, because those places that have implemented it have among the highest utility rates. Wind seems to be more economical than solar.
As I've said before if solar or wind is cheaper than conventional power generation, then my utility would invite me to pay less for "green energy". As it is, the utility asks just the opposite; for me to pay more for solar or wind power. Anyone saying solar or wind is cheaper (at the macro level) is misinformed at best, or peddling a lie for nefarious purposes at worst.
|
My electric COOP sells solar electricity only in 200-kWh/blocks.I've never used 200-kwhs/month,so that plan didn't work out for me.
For a penny a kWh more,I can,and did subscribe to a wind energy option.So instead of 12-cents,I pay 13-cents/kWh and there's no minimum purchase involved.
By switching to all-LED lighting,even with the higher rate,my electric bill never went up.Painless!