Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:the problem with the idea that 'everyone should go off the grid' is everyone or at least the vast majority still want grid service when their home system is offline for any reason. The more people who depart the grid the less incentive the grid owners have to maintain a large stable system with excess capacity. At some point it tips over into the grid producers and distributors losing money by staying in business.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
ROCKMAN wrote:Newfie - Yep, those cost factors in the link are interesting if correct;
"Across Europe, the price of building an offshore wind farm has fallen 46 percent in the last five years — 22 percent last year alone. Erecting turbines in the seabed now costs an average $126 for each megawatt-hour of capacity, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That’s below the $155 a megawatt-hour price for new nuclear developments in Europe and closing in on the $88 price tag on new coal plants, the London-based researcher estimates.".
Of course two important points: still a lot cheaper to build onshore...if you have the land. Of course we have plenty of suitable shore line in the US...just like there is around the North Sea. The problem remains NIMBYism. Except in Texas, of course. LOL.
Second they are comparing the offshore wind to building NEW sources from fossil fuels amd nukes. But if a country isn't expanding its electricity production capacity it's cheaper to maintain existing systems then replacing them. Again even though Texas had greatly expanded its wind power capapcity we haven't abandoned the fossil fuel sources...keeping them as backup and to handle the intermittency problem of wind and solar. That's a very different economic model the many countries face.
vtsnowedin wrote:I expect a fossil fuel plant that only gets used at night or on calm days is a lot more expensive to run then one that runs 24/7 or daily at optimum capacity during peak use hours. Tell the staff sorry guys don't need you today, the wind is blowing West of the Pecos"
But before we get there we have a lot of alt energy to build out for that first twenty five percent and we should press forward on that as it is twenty five percent we don't have to waste fossil fuels on or pollute with.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests