Wind Power Milestone Reached!

Who says so???? You?

 

There is no one who claims a solar and wind system can supply 100% of the electrical energy on a national scale.

 

But it can, and has been done100% renewable.

 

Which nations have done so ??

 

Even the DOE doesn't agree with you here. We have vast stretches within our nation (The US) that don't have sufficient wind to justify it's use as a powersource that we could rely on.

We can site sources all day. At some point, you have to understand that sometimes, the wide doesn't blow. And then what? What battery capacity are you willing to fall back on?

 

Iceland , Norway , Paraguay , and many others getting close.

 

Where? And I hope you aren't talking about the few hours on a windy, sunny spring day that it occurred in Germany.....

 

Those countries are producing the majority of their electrical power from solar and wind with no fossil fuel (or other 24/7/365 sources) ?? What's the source for that ??

 

Source, please, not just liberal imagination. It's interesting if Norway if involved, because Norway is making the money to build renewables by selling oil. Iceland has geothermal energy, which works for Iceland, but almost nowhere else in the world is the geology appropriate for it.

 

Those back up systems can not be coal or nuclear also as it take too must time to get them online with the needed head of stream beside being way too costly.

Before high power jet turbine generators the back up was a whole large group of diesel generators.

 

The overwhelming capacity of most nations energy grids are fossil fuel fired. They must throttle up and down as the intermittent solar and wind generation is added to the grid.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%_renewable_energy

 

Why is this ^^ posted ??

 

Scotland is part of the UK power grid.

- - - Updated - - -

You have failed to prove that the current grid requires 100% redundancy and therefore failed to prove that it is necessary to do so for wind power alone.

- - - Updated - - -

You have not established that there is any need whatsoever for a "redundant grid".

- - - Updated - - -

Onus is on you to quote those "references" and prove that they are germane to the point that you are failing to make.

 

Nonsense! You are fallaciously assuming that those additional costs are not providing a single cent of benefit.

Let me put your bogus claim in perspective. Assume that you have 2 gas guzzling vehicles that your family drives every day and that they get 10 mpg on average and combined they drive 100 miles per day. Then you go out and trade in one of your gas guzzlers for a hybrid vehicle that gets 50 mpg. You are still doing a 100 miles per day but now half of that cost is reduced because you are getting 50 mpg instead of 10 mpg for the 50 miles that are driven in the hybrid vehicle.

Explain why only the cost of buying the new hybrid must be counted but not the daily benefit of using far less fuel for the same amount of miles traveled every day?

 

Thank you for proving my point that Germany has decided to INVEST in a lower cost future energy program by paying for it now instead of later.

Yes, it does cost money to move towards more energy efficient sources but it will pay off in the long run when Germany is no longer held hostage to fossil fuel special interests.

And yes, Forbes is one of those disinformation sources that only focuses on short term profits for greed obsessed shareholders instead of what is in the best long term interests of We the People.

 

Does the wind suddenly stop blowing everywhere across the entire nation?

Has anyone notified the national weather institute of this happening?

Or are there decades worth of data on average wind speeds in areas where wind farms are installed and engineers who have done the math and accountants who have figured out the cost/benefits and decided that it is feasible and cost effective to use wind power on a large scale to provide power to the national grid on a regular basis?

 

Funny stuff - too bothered to actually read the links which you said that you did ??

- - - Updated - - -

They provide no benefit in the reduction of global warming.

 

BZZZT Wrong!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%_renewable_energy

 

More funny stuff. How much economic damage and poverty will the German energy policy do. The price of industrial electrical energy is 4X and domestic electrical energy is 3X that of the US. Solar and wind have nothing to do with efficiency. Fossil fuels are inexpensive and available 24/7/365. The German energy policy is resulting in reduced economic growth. Imagine a monthly electric bill tripling - for example from $150 to $450 per month ($1800 to $5400 per year). What does that do to the budgets of people living on ~ $40k per year ??

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing there ^^ in terms of the reduction in global warm measured in deg C in the year 2100.

 

More fallacies and nitpicking science denial on your part.

Prove that the cost of electricity in Germany for the average household tripled.

 

Read the links you claimed to have read.

 

Why don't I read FACTUAL links instead?

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power

So where is your imaginary TRIPLE increase in the cost of electricity for Germans?

A 68% increase over 18 years (1998 to 2016) is an average 3.8% per year.

Once again the FACTS prove that your bogus allegations can only be based upon disinformation sources.

 

Great site exposes German weakness.

http://energypost.eu/german-conundrum-renewables-break-records-coal-refuses-go-away/

 

You missed this glaringly obvious point!

Germany coal plants are in deep trouble because renewables have lowered the cost of production of electricity to levels where fossil fuels are no longer profitable. The phase out of nuclear plants is all that is keeping those coal plants alive. When German renewable sources achieve their goals the fossil fuels will be a shrinking sector.