Forbes: If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?

[Antiboyscout]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... d406631dc6

"The reason? Their fundamentally unreliable nature. Both solar and wind produce too much energy when societies don’t need it, and not enough when they do."

[LittleRaven]

Yup. Solar and wind are awesome, but until we develop a better form of energy storage, they aren't ever going to be more than a small part of the picture.

[Admiral X]

We need better development in battery technology so we can store the energy that's made better. Also, thorium reactors.

[LittleRaven]

Thorium reactors would be nice, but better batteries would be the next leap forward for our civilization.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

lol@ Frobes

[Antiboyscout]

Follow up
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 5d459d1b07

"Renewables advocates know that had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants, instead of renewables and the grid upgrades they require, the two places would be generating 100% of their electricity from clean, zero-emission energy.

They know that Germany today spends nearly twice as much as France for electricity that produces ten times the emissions per unit of energy because France receives 75% of its electricity from nuclear while Germany is phasing nuclear out.

And they know that, after investing $33 billion over the last decade to add more solar and wind to the grid, France had to use less nuclear and more natural gas, resulting in higher electricity prices and more carbon-intensive electricity."

[Darth Wedgius]

Most of the time with these things in the US, pumped hydroelectric storage is used instead of batteries. You pump water up when you have excess power, and run it through turbines when you need the extra juice. It has a 70% to 80% round-trip efficiency, not too far from current battery round-trip efficiency. But it's easier to set up in areas with different elevations near each other and available water for obvious reasons.

Better batteries would be great, both for power storage and for better electric vehicles. If we had an effective room-temperature superconductor (one that works at room temperature temperature and has a high critical magnetic field) we'd have a better battery and better power transmission, but as long as I'm just wishing we might as well have fairies to turn generators.

[Antiboyscout]

Most of the time with these things in the US, pumped hydroelectric storage is used instead of batteries. You pump water up when you have excess power, and run it through turbines when you need the extra juice. It has a 70% to 80% round-trip efficiency, not too far from current battery round-trip efficiency. But it's easier to set up in areas with different elevations near each other and available water for obvious reasons.

Better batteries would be great, both for power storage and for better electric vehicles. If we had an effective room-temperature superconductor (one that works at room temperature temperature and has a high critical magnetic field) we'd have a better battery and better power transmission, but as long as I'm just wishing we might as well have fairies to turn generators.

For wind maybe. Solar demands solar intensity. Solar intensity demands no clouds. No clouds means no rain. No rain means no water. The best land for solar in the US is the american south west. very dry. As for wind, the best place in the US is the midwest prairies. Flat and dry.

[Robovski]

Accumulators are great where you can have them, much like hydroelectric solutions they require specific circumstances. Power transmission losses means the best we can really do is generate power on a more regional basis when it comes to scale of things like generator plants or accumulators and why we can't just store all the solar and wind being generated when we don't need it but they are at efficient output. You can spread out the storage of power if we have each home with a generation system also have a battery storage and an inverter system (AC power after all), but that is expensive and lots more invested in batteries which still kinda suck. That or we change our expectations from electricity, because we've gotten real used to power at the flick of a switch 24/7.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

This article showed up on my timeline.

The takeaway btw for anybody interested is that oil teams up with renewable firms and environmental organizations to disenfranchise nuclear development in order to inhibit market takeover.

Follow up
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 5d459d1b07

"Renewables advocates know that had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants, instead of renewables and the grid upgrades they require, the two places would be generating 100% of their electricity from clean, zero-emission energy.

They know that Germany today spends nearly twice as much as France for electricity that produces ten times the emissions per unit of energy because France receives 75% of its electricity from nuclear while Germany is phasing nuclear out.

And they know that, after investing $33 billion over the last decade to add more solar and wind to the grid, France had to use less nuclear and more natural gas, resulting in higher electricity prices and more carbon-intensive electricity."