Wind and solar are parasites. They can't exist without the fossil fuel energy sources handling the times when the wind doesn't blow and the Sun doesn't shine.
Like the employee who gets all the easy shifts and never works weekends.
Like the employee who gets all the easy shifts and never works weekends.
Like the controversy when traffic light bulbs were replaced and incandescent were phased away in favor of LEDs. In some places where it gets very cold they got obstructed by ice. Because incandescent bulbs were so inefficient and generated so much heat, they didn't have the same "problem". So, because they could not handle the few days where this was a problem (just because it's cold, doesn't mean ice will form there), people were arguing that they were a bad idea.
It didn't matter that for 300+ days they would save a lot of energy. It didn't matter that they were better (and in most locations this would never even be a problem in the first place). It mattered that they were different and had different issues that needed to be solved. In those places, having a different design (or adding a heating element, only active when temps were low) would solve the remaining problem.
I've seen this sort of thinking in corporate settings too. A vastly inferior solution stays in place because a new solution doesn't solve all problems people can possibly think of - even when the existing solution doesn't solve them either!
It boggles the mind.
What's worse is that he points out you could have a lighting system with integrated defroster that only gets turned on when it's super cold, and you're STILL using less energy overall.
2. The Sun always shines somewhere, the wind always blows somewhere. It's not just about your personal backyard, ironically named "learn_more".
3. We have the thing called The Grid™, and electricity transportation at far distances is very efficient. Building these long distance connections is cheaper than you'd expect.
Production from wind and solar is random and doesn't work without corresponding guaranteed (controllable) capacity, unless you are willing to accept so-called brown-outs and black-outs.
(Increasing installed capacity of these random generators is not a solution since it leads to situations where the production exceeds demand ... which puts very different demands on the infrastructure.)
The basic problem is that in order to provide reliable energy 365 days a year you need to account for the daily and \ seasonal variability of solar and wind. You have two options:
* maintain a duplicate fossil fuel backup system (fully maintained, staffed, and fueled) for those cold windless nights (so no longer cheaper)
* deploy a storage system that can effectively time shift energy created by solar and wind across entire seasons (also not cheaper nor demonstrated with current battery technology)
* suck it up when there is no sun or wind availableMy power utility in the Bay Area powers residential customers 100% on renewable energy. Commercial and industrial do have fossil fuels still.
> maintain a duplicate fossil fuel backup system (fully maintained, staffed, and fueled) for those cold windless nights (so no longer cheaper)
Guess what, this is needed even in a world that only fossil fuels are used. Energy demand is variable and we need peaker plants on standby.
> deploy a storage system that can effectively time shift energy created by solar and wind across entire seasons (also not cheaper nor demonstrated with current battery technology)
We already need some storage in the current grid until said peaker plants come online. Maybe it's not 'cheaper' but it's been demonstrated. California alone has 2239MW of stored power at the moment I'm writing this (check the California ISO).
I'm not entirely sure you are familiar with how power grids work.