Wind Power Milestone Reached!

Actually, solar power systems are not economical even with subsidies. Solar panels and batteries do not last forever. Wires in panels break, water seeps in, things hit them and crack the cover. Batteries need to be replaced roughly every 7 years depending upon discharge cycles and depth, standard practice is to start replacing them at 3 years. Lightning damages inverters and charge controllers.

And power from utilities has been cheap. You never recover your investment in a home solar power system. That's why in 2008 obama said coal and oil based electricity rates would have to "skyrocket".

And I am a big proponent of solar and wind, I've seen it used very effectively in places where they were the only option. I love the fact that solar and wind generate power at the point of use, no distribution grid required. And solar and power means you can generate your own power independent of the government.

But its not cheaper than oil, coal, or nuclear.

 

Your anecdote is meaningless.

The UK has an installed capacity of 14.4 GWatts of Wind Power and is one of the best locations in the world for the use of wind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_Kingdom

And as I mentioned earlier wind power costs are now on a par with fossil fuels.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-costs-drop-as-fossil-fuels-increase-iea-says

 

So you can't back up a single one of your allegations?



Have a nice day!

 

If you have curiosity and initiative you can educate yourself. If not I can't do anything about that. Germany elected to phase out nuclear after Fukushima.

 

The area in which I live is one of the best windsurfing areas in the world.

The UK gets ~10% of it's power from wind - it's required by law.

From your article the cost of solar is ~ 2X that of fossil fuel electrical generation. The UK has reduced economic growth for no benefit in terms of global average temperature.

 

Wind and solar have their niche but you can't run an economy on them exclusively. If additional electrical energy is required for a nation to grow and the decision is made to use solar or wind a matching fossil fuel capacity must be also added to cover the time when solar or wind are not available.

Agreed. Solar panels on homes is the worst way to utilize solar energy.

 

Whatever disinformation sources you are using on the internet are your problem.

Your bogus allegations about Germany obviously stem from those disinformation sources.

The FACTS are that since Germany decided to phase out nuclear plants in 2011 it has effectively reduced the number of planned coal plants by 6! Only two coal plants have actually come on line after 2011 but they were commissioned in 2005 and 2006 so they don't count as being part of the nuclear phase out. Germany had 20 coal plants under planning and construction in 2011 and it has CANCELLED 6 of those 20 plants. That means it is phasing out BOTH nuclear AND coal.

https://energytransition.org/2013/04...lear-phaseout/

That probably explains why you are unable to provide any sources for your disinformation based allegations.

Have a nice day!

- - - Updated - - -

Yet more baseless allegations with zero substantiation.

 

There back up power and peak load power available in all electric power networks and had been from the very start of power networks long before wind power came on line.

There is some very interesting systems one I find interesting are generators power by jet engines that are able to put out an amazing amount of power.

Not economical compare to other sources but as a means of keeping the grid up they can not be match.

 

Not much effort ^^.

https://cna.ca/news/germany-replaces-nuclear-coal-ghgs-skyrocket/

https://carboncounter.wordpress.com...ear-phaseout-is-leading-to-more-coal-burning/

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/france-germany-turn-coal/

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/france-germany-turn-coal/

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/on_the_road_to_green_energy_germany_detours_on_dirty_coal/2769/

 

What you fail to grasp and or admit here is the required redundancy with wind and or solar power. They are both dependent on weather conditions so you are forced to absorb the cost of those power plants AND the cost of the traditional power plants for instantaneous backup power. This added cost has to be added to the price of the electricity or paid for in some sort of tax scheme but somehow it has to be funded.

 

Are you implying that if the winds not blowing in half of Scotland the other half can produce the extra power needed to run the entire country?

 

I live in an off grid solar home and I can confirm that it's very expensive to be your own power company. People on grid don't realize how cheap mass produced electricity really is. Having said that I do rather enjoy turning on the morning news and hearing about all the people with no power due to the latest wind, ice or heavy snow event. Being self sufficient is priceless.

 

Hood River?

 

Still not reading what people write I see.

As I told you ... the reason that ...

... are false, have nothing to do with climate science.

You demonstrate the truth of this. It's too bad that you don't care why these 3 statements are false.

"There must be a back up source of power equal to the maximum grid requirements."

No ... the only place where this is true is in vital power systems (i.e. a nuclear submarine) where they have 100% redundancy for reliability. In the real world there is some degree of backup capacity but it is nowhere near 100%. Much better to disperse the generation sources so all are not lost at once and vary the type of generation to meet certain demand needs. Your assumption that wind and solar are either "all on" or "all off" is absurd.

"The addition of wind capacity adds to the cost of electricity with no benefit."

If the addition of localized wind or solar helps to offset demand charges it is a direct benefit that pays for itself.

"Adding additional capacity which is used on an intermittent basis must add to the price of electrical power."

Gas turbine plants fill exactly the niche you describe and yet they do not add to the consumers price of electric power.

 

Hmm and the early deaths cause be burning coal and the cost of treating lung diseases have been figure in?

 

You do know that whatever means you employed at your base plants you are sill going to need fast ramping up plants to act as a type of flywheel for the network?

That cost had been there since the 1900s or so.

Then even coal plants you need the constant on time delivery of coal mainly by trains as the coal store on sites is only good for very short time period.

Trains can be effected by weather or accidents or strikes or.............

 

Sherman Island County Park near Rio Vista CA.

http://rvwa-siko.com/windsurfing/

 

How many have actually died from FPM2.5 from coal fired electrical generation plants in developed countries in the last 10 years ??

 

The back up capacity in the context of the OP is the power generation capital equipment available 24/7/365.

All capital equipment used by an utility company adds to the price of electricity. Econ 101.

In the case of the UK there is no global warming benefit to the use of the solar and wind equipment. And there is no economic benefit as well because the price of electricity increases as the amount of capital equipment investment increases. Again Econ 101.

 

Wind and solar need an entire backup system ready to go at a moment's notice. It could be equated to owning two homes side by side but only living in one at a time with both being maintained, heated cooled, cleaned, taxed etc etc. Kind of spendy

 

Do you windsurf? I always stop and watch when I drive down the Columbia gorge,looks fun!

 

No - we go down and watch sometimes. The parasailers are nuts - they get up ~ 50 ft in the air. It's spectacular.

 

Thank you for proving my point that all you have are disinformation sites. Yes, you obviously didn't make any effort at all to verify the data and compare it to the facts that I provided.

The reality is that Germany has decided to build 6 LESS coal plants than it had planned before it decided to transition from nuclear power.

https://energytransition.org/2013/04/germany-builds-minus-six-coal-plants-after-nuclear-phaseout/

 

What you fail to recognize are the OPERATING COSTS involved!

What is the cost of fossil fuel over a ten year period to operate a coal fired plant?

What is the cost of wind over a ten year period to operate a wind farm?

As far as dependency on weather conditions goes that was addressed earlier by siting the wind farms in areas of constant winds and having plants in different areas so that there are always electricity being generated somewhere and fed into the grid.

Unless the wind stops blowing everywhere there will be power generated from wind turbines. When you turn on the light it doesn't matter if the electricity came from off the coast of England, Scotland or Ireland. The same thing applies in America where it doesn't matter if the electricity comes from a wind farm in NY, TX or CO.

Wind energy works because the wind blows and when it does produce electricity it doesn't produce any pollution.

What is the cost of cleaning up pollution from coal mines?

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.WHcT3xt97SE

Who is going to be paying for cleaning that up?

 

There is enough wind worldwide to power the planet's energy needs at least twice over.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/september/wind-world-demand-091012.html