Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Pop_Rivit
Guess who just proved he doesn't have a clue about clean energy in Germany (or elsewhere for that matter)?
...
There is a solid chance that within the next decade Iowa will cease burning coal completely, at the same time producing enough clean energy to be a net exporter to states to the east. So when you ask the question
what nice clean source of electric power are they going to use you can just look to the Midwest and find the answer.
And this comment makes it clear that you do not understand how electrical distribution and generation works.
Yes, notionally the lowest impedance path for the wind generated in Iowa is the local Iowa homes and businesses. But unless Iowa is investing in SUBSTANTIAL energy storage systems, that capability also gets idled and arbitered even at rates up to ca. $10/kWh (yes kWh) due to the latencies and throttlability of other resources.
Further, just because Iowa stops burning coal, doenst mean that Iowa doesn't get its grid stabilized by coal and other types of resources from other states to net balance on the grid. What happens when the wind stops blowing? If there are TW worth of wind installed beyond anticipated load, maybe there's always a chance that some wind is blowing... But that's far from the model that utilities use to generate. And when the wind stops blowing, power plants just don't throttle up GVA/TVA in a matter of seconds to meet load. Therein lies the problem, and why wind must also be dispatched and controlled/throttled by the interconnects and part of the arbitrage formula.
Others on here can talk to how it all works better than I can, but irregular, stochastic sources, must be balanced by other base load plants and/or storage. Im all for renewables, but the chest thumping doesn't necessarily reflect accuracy in how everything works all the time...
And for the record Im in no way anti-renewables. They are quickly becoming a cost-effective generating scheme and I welcome them. It WILL reduce coal use substantially, and the ramp-up/down means a lot less coal burnt slightly less efficiently. But someone still pays to keep these assets online, and dealing with variables in load due to stochastic sources like wind... Coal, NG, oil, etc.
Well stated.
Installed wind turbine costs have increased 65% during the last decade, contradictory to statements made by those pushing so-called "renewable" energy.
A 2-Megawatt wind turbine now costs 4.5 million per unit on average.
Neither solar nor wind can replace a conventional power plant because of the intermittent nature of their energy.
And no one has taken into account the land areas required:
A conventional power plant occupies 1-4 sq. km, A Solar energy plant requires 300-400 sq. km, and lastly, a Wind turbine farm requires 800 to 1000 sq. km.