You are still not addressing the heart of the issue that I mentioned a couple times.
We need at least 10 times the amount of energy produced than what we put into producing it for our economy to thrive.
Solar and wind gives us just a 1.9 to 3.6 return.
It's a pipe dream, that's it. That's why CA cant provide the amount of energy it needs, why they had to implement rolling blackouts and why they are extending the shut down of other types of plants. It will never work.
Nuclear is the only option to get us off of fossil fuels.
Would you care to explain how these calculations of 1.9 to 3.6 return are obtained, Joe? Surely you know that I'm not the sort of person who blindly accepts a statement that supports a particular view, simply because it's linked to some study which is probably biased. Are these figures from the German study you referred to in a previous post,
but didn't provide the link to? Were the figures calculated decades ago when the manufacturing costs of solar panels were much higher?
There are frequent claims from 'climate alarmists' that the cost of electricity from solar and wind is now cheaper than the the same amount of electricity produced from fossil fuels, but those of us who are objective and unbiased realize that such calculations tend to ignore the additional costs of providing a continuous supply of electricity in regions where the sun is not shining, or the wind not blowing, at a particular time when the electricity is needed.
However, as I've mentioned before, there
are solutions to these problems that don't require expensive fossil-fuel back-up. These solution are HVDC transmission lines and battery storage. Research into these solutions continues, and I see no reason why eventually solar power alone, without subsidies, will be cheaper than the current energy from fossil fuels and nuclear power plants, taking everything into consideration, including the cost of recycling solar panels and the cost of safely disposing of the waste from nuclear power plants, and so on.
The following article provides an overview of HVDC.
https://medium.com/predict/future-of-electricity-transmission-is-hvdc-9800a545cd18"HVDC lines always deliver more of the power put into them regardless of the distance that the electricity travels, which is a significant factor in and of itself. But the big reason this is important is that it’s cheaper at longer distances over land and at very short distances underwater and underground. This means that it’s very useful for bringing electricity long distances from renewable locations, connecting islands to the mainland and even continents to one another potentially."This aspect of HVDC transmission being cheaper, even at short distances when underground, appeals to me greatly because of my appreciation of the beauty of the natural landscape. Overhead power lines are an eyesore, as well as windmills. I'd prefer a future which relies mainly upon solar power from rooftops and deserts.
Many houses in the suburbs of Australia have solar panels installed on their roofs, but usually only a fraction of one side of the roof is covered, representing one quarter of the total roof area, more or less.
There's no technological reason why future houses could not be designed with the entire roof area covered with solar panels. Refer attached images.
https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/11/everything-you-need-to-know-about-version-3-of-teslas-new-solarglass-roof-tiles/Imagine a future where it becomes the norm to include solar technology in the entire roof area of each and every building on the planet, and all solar farms are located in arid or desert regions where the land cannot be used for agriculture, and where the sun shines on most days. The power generated from such farms can be efficiently transported to the cities and other countries via underground HVDC cables that are not an eyesore.
It's not a pipe 'dream', Joe. The pipes are already a reality, containing HVDC transmission lines.
