Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Wind on average shuts down several times daily, and if not shut down, operates at diminished capacity for long periods of time. Solar shuts down a minimum of once per day, and too suffers from diminished capacity depending on weather.
A few examples of plants shutting down is not indicative of a systemic problem. If it were a serious problem, we would see nuclear power diminishing rather than growing faster than solar/wind. We would also see lower capacity factors rather than the very steady 80%+ over the past 2 decades.
Wind capacity factor may be improving, but that has more to do with it being very poor to begin with ~30%.
It's silly to imply that what we need to implement today is technology we hope will be developed in the future. We can only implement what is available today while still hoping for improvements in the future. To say that RE storage might be technically feasible and cost effective in the future doesn't give us direction on what to build now.
|
The United States didn't have it's first wind farm until 1980.Those early turbines were miniscule by comparison to today's state-of-the-art.
Nuclear facilities are rated in the 1,000-MW range?
I don't think anyone's under the illusion that renewables will supplant more 'conventional' power generation in the near-term.
Climate-wise,it needs to happen as fast as it can.
Grid-scale storage is cost-effective today,if referenced to 'reality' pricing.Of course it will struggle competitively,as long as 'conventional' sources continue to use Earth as a sewer.The implication that today's storage was not 'cost effective' would fail upon examination of the facts.
Under a strict legal interpretation,it's technically a violation of the US Constitution to operate any fossil-fuel power-plant today.Those who do it would be defined under US law as 'public enemies'.That goes for any Congressperson,Supreme Court Judge,or President,party to the crime.