Why Renewable Energy Is Hopeless

[John Adams]

Why Renewable Energy Is Hopeless


At Watts Up With That?, Ed Hoskins spotlights the intractable problem with solar and wind power: much of the time, the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. This means that in practice, solar and wind facilities can produce only a small fraction of their nominal capacities. This chart requires a bit of study; for three countries, the U.S., Germany and the U.K., it contrasts the nominal (“nameplate”) capacity of wind and solar facilities with their actual production of energy:

In each case, the actual energy produced is only a small fraction of the rated capacity. It isn’t hard to understand why this is true:
 
[T]here is a major problem with these renewable energy sources. Their electrical output is not dispatchable. Their output is entirely unable respond to electricity demand as and when needed. Energy is contributed to the grid in a haphazard manner dependent on the weather, and certainly not necessarily when it is required.

For example solar power inevitably varies according to the time of day, the state of the weather and also of course radically with the seasons. Essentially solar power might only work effectively in Southern latitudes and it certainly does not do well in Northern Europe. In Germany the massive commitment to solar energy might well provide up to ~20% of country wide demand for a few hours on some fine summer days either side of noon, but at the time of maximum power demand on winter evenings solar energy input is necessarily nil.

Electricity generation from wind turbines is equally fickle, as for example in a week in July this year shown above. Similarly an established high pressure zone with little wind over the whole of Northern Europe is a common occurrence in winter months, that is when electricity demand is likely to be at its highest.

Conversely on occasions renewable energy output may be in excess of demand and this has to dumped unproductively. There is still no solution to electrical energy storage on a sufficiently large industrial scale. That is the reason that the word “nominally” is used here in relation to the measured outputs from renewable energy sources.
 
Wind and solar power are industries that are destined to remain in their infancy, if not forever, then certainly for the indefinite future.

[wmdn_bs]

It must really irritate you that renewable energy sources continue to expand, and become an ever larger portion of our energy sources every month.

[John Adams]

Yea like less that 2%....

How will solar or wind power an airplane doofus.....

[Byteryder]

u have missed the point,Wd.  The main problem with wind/solar power is it is not able to be stored or transported in an manner necessary to meet the variable demand of the usage needs.

Until we develop the technology to store generated power and the capact to transport that power across then nation it can never replace, to any great extent, the power generating/transport processes in place now.

[littleeye]

It would take 60 wind turbines per mile along the entire east coast to replace coal fired plants. This just to handle the current population along only the coastal states. This alone would be an a disaster for the ecology of the region and would kill millions of flying creatures every year.  Renewable energy is a joke. Nuclear energy is a proven source of clean and stable energy delivery. If global warming is so dire then nuclear is the way to go. Because global warming is a scam to redistribute wealth, tree huggers everywhere hate the nuclear option.

[John Adams]

The maple city moron is devoid of reality.....

[darkflower]

Nobody says it has to totally replace fossil fuel or nuclear.

As for summer day energy being wasted, those summer days are when the most electricity is used. Especially in places that get really cold in winter since they typically use gas rather than electricity for winter heating.

[sweetwater5s9]

Fossil fuels will be dominate for the rest of this century.   But a 2-5% additional energy source from wind and solar power will keep the enviros happy except for the killing of so many birds of prey and their ugly foot print on wildlife habitats....

[darkflower]

Wind is already 4% by itself. Hydro is even more. Solar is still low but on the other hand that means it has lots of room for improvement. They all can only get better. That is hardly hopeless.

[sweetwater5s9]

I wouldn't say it is hopeless just not a viable major source of energy in our lifetimes.

[darkflower]

It already is a major source.

And 20 years ago the internet was still so new you could buy a internet address phone book, a phone book (on paper) but with internet addresses instead of phone numbers. Long before google ever existed. 20 years ago many people did not even know what the internet was. The world can change a lot in 20 years. Guessing what will happen over an entire lifetime is impossible.

20 years ago the internet as we know it was just beginning.
30 years ago the net we know did not exist yet, and the pc was only just starting out.
40 years ago the very idea of a pc would have been far fetched. Something only seen on Star Trek. Along with communicators (cell phones) and tricorders (smart phones are heading there).

Wow. In 40 years something can go from very futuristic sci-fi to a fact of life.

[August West]

Birds come and birds go but mountain top removal is permanent. Here in Pa. we have 5,500 miles of streams polluted with acid mine drainage. The war on coal is long overdue.
http://mountainroadshow.com/gallery/index.html