Tweet
Re: Where is the CRASH!
We delude ourselves by believing that ANY energy source, including fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro, solar and wind, are as cheap as their proponents make them out to be. The real economic issue remains "How much of a society's resources should be devoted to delivering usable energy to its citizens, and in what form [heat, electricity, stored] should that energy most effectively be delivered.
And you are absolutely correct...there is no one "right" answer, or even one single answer period...
Originally posted by we_are_toast
View Post
Sorry, but these arguments only hold water if you take a snapshot of today and believe we have an infinite amount of fossil fuels, that can be accessed cheaply, forever into the future. ALL energy in the very near future will be expensive. The only questions are; which ones may likely experience supply shortages and price boom/bust cycles? There is no question that looking out a decade and more, that solar/wind will be far more reliable and considerably cheaper than almost all fossil fuels.
The implication that more power plants will be necessary because of wind and solar, is a bit ridiculous. We will continue to need fossil fuel power plants at the rate we would if we had no wind and solar, but they will operate far below the average capacity they currently operate at. Yes, it will make them more expensive, but it will be far, far, cheaper than being deluded into believing that fossil fuels will be the same price as now, and even available, well into the future.
People often simply don't understand the concept, or often simply misrepresent the concept of Alt-E. Alt-E doesn't mean 100% wind or solar, everywhere, all the time. It means a wide variety of energy sources, wind/solar/methane/non food ethanol/methanol/biomass/nuclear... and fossil fuels as we transition to a non fossil fuel economy. To pick one Alt-E source in a location that isn't suited for that source, and then criticize the entire source as a failure reflects either a very low knowledge of the diversified Alt-E concept, or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Here's the 1st backup that will be used to improve the cost effectiveness of intermittent power sources.
The implication that more power plants will be necessary because of wind and solar, is a bit ridiculous. We will continue to need fossil fuel power plants at the rate we would if we had no wind and solar, but they will operate far below the average capacity they currently operate at. Yes, it will make them more expensive, but it will be far, far, cheaper than being deluded into believing that fossil fuels will be the same price as now, and even available, well into the future.
People often simply don't understand the concept, or often simply misrepresent the concept of Alt-E. Alt-E doesn't mean 100% wind or solar, everywhere, all the time. It means a wide variety of energy sources, wind/solar/methane/non food ethanol/methanol/biomass/nuclear... and fossil fuels as we transition to a non fossil fuel economy. To pick one Alt-E source in a location that isn't suited for that source, and then criticize the entire source as a failure reflects either a very low knowledge of the diversified Alt-E concept, or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Here's the 1st backup that will be used to improve the cost effectiveness of intermittent power sources.
And you are absolutely correct...there is no one "right" answer, or even one single answer period...
Comment