2018-05-16 16:39:43 UTC
Good thing the media is starting to talk about the great disconnect
between the actual price of solar and wind power, and what green energy
advocates are claiming.
Every day the RE hype machine trots out stories about the amazing low
cost of wind and solar, and yet power bills continue to rise as more
windy turbins and solarious paneling gets added to a grid.
Either advocates are telling porkies, or journalists are naive dupes.
Probably a little of both, but people are catching on.
Wind and solar are seductive because the "fuel" is truly free, but what
bites proponents in the butt is translating that free fuel into a supply
of reliable power at the end where the consumer plugs-in.
When advocates claim wind and solar are cheap, what they are talking
about the basic cost of bulk production. If that were the whole
picture, they'd win their case, but the whole picture reveals that solar
and wind require considerable support from conventional generation to
make it work. Basically, the extra costs required to make them function
like a conventional power supply (including lots of conventional power),
more than offsets the fuel cost savings.
What you get in the end is a hybrid system with conventional generation
disfavoured, yet still critical to functionality. And because
intermittent RE is given preference, conventional is forced to run less
efficiently than what it is normally capable of.
The bottom line is that solar and wind can't stand on their own two
feet, and in spite of their ability to produce bulk power cheaply, the
costs of supporting them more than offsets the savings.