EE_Bota
Elite Member
Don't confuse him with facts, his mind is made up!
I think he may be suspicious due to some of the half truths and falsehoods he has seen surrounding this issue, and I don't blame him. I only meant to correct a possible misinterpretation of the point being made.
So far as I know, wind is only plagued by the irregularity of the wind. Propellers work, gearboxes work, and rotary electric machines work. We should all accept that, and it is beyond debate in my opinion. Wind blows sometimes, and sometimes it does not, but studies are no doubt done to profile the expected output of the site.
Solar only works when the sun is shining, and it may be complimentary to wind in some cases, and in some cases it may not be. But since it starts as DC, some folks have storage. (I'm not instructing you, I am just going on the record with my opinion.)
The unpredictability of the weather conditions, the predictable night cycle, and the unpredictability of the wind leaves a requirement for other forms of generation, and these forms will likely be gas, coal, and nuclear.
I doubt any of us know it well enough to work out the economics of all of that from our own vantage point, though there are likely people who do know enough. But if we allow the free market to work, if then more and more wind and solar generation develops, it should be taken as sufficient indication that is is worthwhile from an economic viewpoint.
To me, it is just as simple as that. But (and there is always a but)
Where other money (mine) it put into it through the government, I will never know what to make of the proliferation of new sites, and I will never be able to take growth in the number of sites as evidence of economic viability.
I don't mind some support for a while, but I am not interested in a new "Amtrac" version of the electric grid.
I am willing to acknowledge that utility companies are local monopolies, and I don't expect free enterprise to compete with a monopoly. But we should work to make sure that the monopoly aspect only encompasses the power lines, and fight all monopolistic practices on the generation side. But (another one)
There is a tendency through ignorance to underestimate what the established generation actually does. It will never be tenable for utility company conventional generation to act as emergency backup for inconsistent technologies without those generators being adequately compensated for that role, nor should they have to handle and assure all the reactive power needs are met while others claim the proceeds of real power production.
Not everyone will know what I mean by that, but I expect you do, Rob, and since it is based in engineering truth and economic truth as well, I expect you will agree.