I can’t wait until they makes these no cost, low-maintenance, and self-replacing. Oh man, just think of how easy it would be to fix our climate issues!
I can’t wait until they makes these no cost, low-maintenance, and self-replacing. Oh man, just think of how easy it would be to fix our climate issues!
Only because it’s not being built, so really very very very misleading.
In sunny places like the southern parts of the USA, if you took the land footprint of a typical nuclear power station and covered it with solar panels with regular sized walkways in between, you generate pretty much the same power output, but with none of the toxic nuclear waste.
If you put a used EV battery under every 40-80 of them, now you have 24 hour instantly responsive power.
Onshore wind power is the cheapest way of generating electricity, by some margin.
Guess why we’re not doing all this. Is it the cost? Of course not! It’s far more expensive to build a nuclear power plant. Is it the output? Of course not! Is it the environmental impact? Of course not! Is it the political lobbying and online FUD from vested interests in the power industry? Bingo bingo bingo! Of course it is!
Get energy nearly for free from the sky? But then who would pay for the oil cartel’s overpriced energy?! Exactly. And there you have in one the reason we want this and the reason there’s so much right wing opposition to it.
I started playing around with solar just for hobbyist/emergency preparedness type stuff and it’s actually crazy how good and cheap the tech is now. With blackrock getting into the power grid business and datacenters driving up prices I’m considering investing in enough panels/batteries to run most of my daily power usage so the price hikes don’t hit as hard later on.
Sound plan. I wish I had done so a decade ago before the global price hikes by the oil industry.
The reason i discount solar is that, (i’m assuming) carbon capture requires equivalent amounts of energy that was produced by burning the hydrocarbons
This means, we would need to produce roughly double our current energy consumption (1x to continue current consumption, 1x to carbon capture at a rate comparable to historic carbon emissions)
Also, solar and wind are intermittent, and therefore not ideal for dealing with real-time grid demand. However, that may make them ideal for passive carbon capture
I think that’s a huge part of the long term solution: intentionally building overcapacity so that lower production days still produce enough energy to meet needs, but especially sunny or windy days have surplus that needs to be used. If the intermittent energy surplus meets a carbon-fixing method to consume that surplus energy, then we can have carbon capture without that energy use displacing a reduction of greenhouse emissions elsewhere.
Yeah carbon capture is nonsense and we just have to stop burning the carbon, it’s the only sane option.
Wind and solar is absolutely used note for grid, and increasingly. Whoever is telling you you can’t use them for grid is telling a bare faced lie. Onshore wind being the cheapest energy isn’t theoretical. It’s practical. It’s now.
I said
The grid has to meet demand in real time. You can’t make the wind start blowing within a few seconds to ramp up supply, and battery technology isn’t capable of storing enough juice to handle this either
That’s why the grid uses different power sources, each with different response times, each serving a different purpose
I never said solar and wind cannot be added to the grid
Australia installed battery farms made from of EV batteries to cope with the discrepancies between supply and demand.
You can’t turn the wind on when it’s calm, but you can turn wind turbines off, and solar still generates power on dull days, just less.
Oversupply of cheap clean green energy is the win. Right wingers can fuck right off with the coal firing.
Anyway, you could have written something more balanced from the start instead of leading with the contextless FUD like some maga nut or petrochemical shill would.