Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Did you learn to read the stories you linked to?
I thought insults were your tools of trade, just responding in the manner that you seem to prefer when addressing people.
That was a genuine question!
Oh, OK, so was mine...and I think from the following that the answer was no.
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
In the UK, wind power has already just become cheaper than nuclear thanks to economies of scale and improved know how. The costs of alternative energy will keep on going down over time.
That's what I keep trying to explain to you people (or you, if this is your second incarnation).
1,000MW of traditional power can produce 1,000MW 24/7, 24,000MWh in a 24 hour period.
1,000MW of solar produces 6,000MWh in the same period.
1,000MW of ideally situated wind produces 8,000MWh in that period.
So to REPLACE 1,000MW of traditional power, you need 4,000MW of solar, or 3,000MW of wind...it's that simple...and then you need somewhere to stor it until it's used.
The lines "wind is cheaper than nuclear" are when wind is in the disruptive phase...yes, they put them in, and harvest the energy and revenue...and it's cheap.
But WHEN (not if) they have to replace traditional power, they can't be cheap. You HAVE TO install multiple times the nameplate rating of the technology ousted, and store the energy until needed.
that is exactly why I say that on windy sunny days, off peak will be midday, and midnight charging will be very expensive. I've spoke to market analysts and traders, and they agree with my assessment.
There will be no orderly transition,as the "step" change when the traditional power sources roll out has to be met with massive capital investment.
It's simple math, but it's the elephant in the room that certain groups who believe in unicorns refuse to see...and their media of choice fob it off as alarmist.