Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4
If wind and solar are really cheaper then why does china (where most of the worlds solar panels are made) open a new coal plant almost weekly?
If solar is cheaper then why is only something like 0.2% of electricity in the United States generated with solar.
If solar is cheaper why are the utilities getting so much "other people's money" to put up solar?
Aerohead pays 1 cent a kwh more for "wind power". If it's cheaper why is he paying more?
The observation doesn't support the statement.
Maybeyou are only looking at installed watts of capacity?
|
The whole world told them it was okay to do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to solar's contribution to the mix,I believe that we need a clarification on the EIA data.
It appears that for fossil-fuels,they are listing energy 'inputs' rather than net outputs.
This doesn't affect renewables,as they do not reflect entropy in the same manner as fossil-fuels or even nuclear.
A coal-fired power plant requires 3.21847 times more Btus into the boiler than it gets out of the generator.
A 1-TW plant consumes 3.2-TW of energy to produce it.
Depending on how you spin the numbers,you could be over rating the capacity of the powerplant by a factor of over three.
And I think that this is exactly what the EIA is doing.
If so,then to keep the same level of intellectual dishonesty,you'd have to call a 2-MW wind turbine a 6.43695-MW turbine.
And the contribution of renewables would have to inflate to 36.6905-Quads for 2017,quite a bit different than 11.14.
It looks like intentional obfuscation,or at least intellectual laziness.
Like saying that Jane Russel wore an A-cup.