Getting Real on Wind and Solar

Washington Post ^ | April 24, 2009 | James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch

[reaganaut1]

Why are we ignoring things we know? We know that the sun doesn't always shine and that the wind doesn't always blow. That means that solar cells and wind energy systems don't always provide electric power. Nevertheless, solar and wind energy seem to have captured the public's support as potentially being the primary or total answer to our electric power needs.

Solar cells and wind turbines are appealing because they are "renewables" with promising implications and because they emit no carbon dioxide during operation, which is certainly a plus. But because both are intermittent electric power generators, they cannot produce electricity "on demand," something that the public requires. We expect the lights to go on when we flip a switch, and we do not expect our computers to shut down as nature dictates.

Solar and wind electricity are available only part of the time that consumers demand power. Solar cells produce no electric power at night, and clouds greatly reduce their output. The wind doesn't blow at a constant rate, and sometimes it does not blow at all.

If large-scale electric energy storage were viable, solar and wind intermittency would be less of a problem. However, large-scale electric energy storage is possible only in the few locations where there are hydroelectric dams. But when we use hydroelectric dams for electric energy storage, we reduce their electric power output, which would otherwise have been used by consumers. In other words, we suffer a loss to gain power on demand from wind and solar.

At locations without such hydroelectric dams, which is most places, solar and wind electricity systems must be backed up 100 percent by other forms of generation to ensure against blackouts. In today's world, that backup power can only come from fossil fuels.

[reaganaut1]

"Ignoring things we know" is the only way Dems can advance their agenda.

[ctdonath2]

One word: capacitors.

[thackney]

twelve words:

Not yet in existence to meet that level of demand and supply.

[stboz]

A second word: flywheels

[bboop]

They have not ‘captured’ the ‘public’s’ support — they are being crammed down our throats by a few folks who pretend to believe in them, for their own purposes.

[steelyourfaith]

Jason Lewis, substitute host for El Rushbo, August 11, 2008 on the E.I.B Network:

"The federal government has to subsidize windmill production through production tax credits of about 1.8¢ per kilowatt. Wind Farms also receive an accelerated depreciation. Wind farms are also land intensive. They produce a fraction of the energy of a traditional power plant but they require 100 times the acreage.

From the National Center for Policy Analysis: to produce a 1000 megawatt power plant a wind farm would require 192,000 acres or 300 square miles. A nuclear plant would need about 1700 acres (or 2.65 mi²), and about 3 mi² for a coal fired power plant. The transmission lines for the wind turbines would be massive, 12,000 miles just for the array."

 

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[ml/nj]

solar and wind energy seem to have captured the public's support as potentially being the primary or total answer to our electric power needs.

Because many of the public still believe in the tooth fairy.

ML/NJ

[Need4Truth]

Third word: recycled Prius batteries

[ansel12]

Wind Industrial sites are ugly and ruin the outdoors. Would the left allow this at ANWAR?

[bray]

The only power they really care about is political. This is just an ends to that means.

Pray for America

[Falcon4.0]

Even this article doesn't “Get Real” with the issue of Solar Energy. Solar Energy isn't “Clean”. Sunshine is clean.
Solar Energy take toxic materials to create electricity and it takes toxic materials to store the electricity. Do a search on “Deep Cycle Batteries”, the kind used for solar power. You’ll find out that they only last about as long as your car battery. 60 months and cost anywheres from $500 - $1000 a pop and you'll need about 10 of them.
Who's gonna recycle all of the lead and sulfuric acid. Solar panels have a life span as well and they also will need to be reclaimed to prevent they're toxic materials from entering the “Environment”. Who's eating that cost?

[ryan71]

Statists have always and will always “ignore what we know”. They’re statists.

[cookcounty]

Imagine.

In fifty years we could be discussing whether to allow lead mining in ANWR.

[rellimpank]

—fourth word for the first two: hogwash

[Tax-chick]

... by a few folks who pretend to believe in them, for their own purposes

Exactly. If they really believed it was important, they'd live off-grid, minimize their own energy usage, and so on. It's all just a sham.

[jveritas]

Damn the law of physics. It is all about feeling good for liberals, physics be damned.

[sevinufnine]

I am so glad to see you post this article. Only 2 wks ago, we had 2 men come to our property to discuss adding wind and solar to a home we wish to build and found we DID NOT need to be on the grid and could heat with wood/propane logs...and not even need a heat pump! No more electric or water bill as we’ll have well and septic, so we’ve made up our minds that spending 15-20K and be totally self-reliant is best way to go (besides, we’ll be nearly a mile off hard top road).

Even using a small unit that goes on top of your own home will help with your light bills. I am so looking forward to getting out of town and being in the woods away from the crazy folks...other than my husband and I ;>)

[OneWingedShark]

Solar needs to be at an efficiency of at least 70-80% to become cost effective.... recently they broke 10%.

[thinking]

Has anyone considered that wind generation “farms”, remove energy from the the natural wind flow currents, hence wind mills alter the local wind flow, and as such could/will change the local climate....

[meyer]

A third and more realistic word: Coal