Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Y'all know this, right?
doogie
Member Posts: 15,072
in Tug Tavern
That the true cost of solar and wind power has been underestimated?
http://www.theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/2409208/researchers-underestimating-cost-wind-solar
http://www.theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/2409208/researchers-underestimating-cost-wind-solar
Comments
-
So lets just do nothing then.
-
Agreed.
-
What are YOU doing Hondo? You like to dodge this question.2001400ex said:So lets just do nothing then.
-
advancing propaganda, of course
-
This article actually does a good job of framing the issue in a nonpartisan way. This shit always gets boiled down to some binary argument that renewables are either good or bad and you have to pick a side based on your political affiliation.
In some places wind and solar make economic and physical sense (Hawaii) and in other places they don't (Seattle). Technology could change this if large scale economic battery storage gets figured out or if the cost of small scale residential PV + storage comes down or becomes more efficient. Until that happens you need natural gas to make up the differnece when the sun isn't shinning or the wind isn't blowing. -
Hydroelectric is 1 cent per KW to generate. Nuclear is slightly more and completely safe with the correct reactor.
Why any option besides these two are ever talked about is crazy. -
There isn't very much untapped conventional hydro potential in the US. It's also more expensive than 1 cent per kWh to generate hydro. BPA sells wholesale for like $35/MWh ~ 3.5 cents/kWh and they own huge dams, that were built decades ago and are mostly depreciated.Mosster47 said:Hydroelectric is 1 cent per KW to generate. Nuclear is slightly more and completely safe with the correct reactor.
Why any option besides these two are ever talked about is crazy.
Nuclear isn't cheap either because of all the regulation and NIMBY surrounding it. Read up on WPPSS if you want to know why people don't build more nuclear. Nukes generate a shit load of electricity but they cost a fortune to build and if the load growth isn't there to support it then it turns into a massive boondoggle. Also Obama screwed th pooch by shutting down Yucca. -
Nukes should be a viable alternative offered to the lefties when they want to blow up dams so the salmon and Sherman Alexie are happy.Mosster47 said:Hydroelectric is 1 cent per KW to generate. Nuclear is slightly more and completely safe with the correct reactor.
Why any option besides these two are ever talked about is crazy. -
Nuclear power is a no-brainer by almost any measure.
Therefore, we won't go that route.
We do shit like that.
-
Mid-C doesn't trade at $35/Mwh in futures, it hardly reaches $30, and drops to $17 in spring. With California adding more and more solar, there is less demand served by expensive fuels, and in turn less of a demand for NW electricity, though plenty still heads south.RedRocket said:
There isn't very much untapped conventional hydro potential in the US. It's also more expensive than 1 cent per kWh to generate hydro. BPA sells wholesale for like $35/MWh ~ 3.5 cents/kWh and they own huge dams, that were built decades ago and are mostly depreciated.Mosster47 said:Hydroelectric is 1 cent per KW to generate. Nuclear is slightly more and completely safe with the correct reactor.
Why any option besides these two are ever talked about is crazy.
Nuclear isn't cheap either because of all the regulation and NIMBY surrounding it. Read up on WPPSS if you want to know why people don't build more nuclear. Nukes generate a shit load of electricity but they cost a fortune to build and if the load growth isn't there to support it then it turns into a massive boondoggle. Also Obama screwed th pooch by shutting down Yucca.
