What's wrong with Wind and Solar?

[stvdv]

care to provide a link? Again, thank you in advance!

Didn't see one on the page

Sure...just 4 or 5 clicks

1) Click the link in the OP
2) Click title "What's Wrong with Wind and Solar?"
3) Click again on title "What's Wrong with Wind..."
Now you see a page with extra links
4) Click on the link below this text:
"To view the script, sources, quiz, visit"

Transcript is shown on TAB(Transcript)

I hope you find it, else let me know

 

[KW]

It's not that the video isn't factual, it is that it is only critical of wind and solar. Pointing out all the flaws of one and then presenting the alternative without critical consideration is one of the oldest propaganda methods ever.

Which point do you think is unfair?

 

[KW]

Can you summarise the main points? I'd be especially interested to understand what the alternative is to these renewable sources. Given that major European economies already get a large proportion of the their electricity from these sources, it seems odd to suggest they can't do the job.

Maybe these guys just need to get on a plane and catch up with the future?

It doesn’t make the point that these energy sources should be abandoned, it merely points out that they are not necessarily a replacement for fossil fuels.

 

[KW]

That makes sense.

 

[KW]

There is no doubt there is a cost with solar power and wind. And I think he is correct about most of it, would obviously need a more in depth analysis of it, because there might be other types of facts.

But his example in the end with the cost of making a oil drill compared to how much it cost to make a wind mill is kind of off I think. Because sure the oil drill might be cheaper and produce more "oil", but if the goal is to go towards clean energy, then clearly its less important how much oil etc. we can get if it end up with more pollution.

So I think the calculation is far more complicated than this, because he is correct that digging up all those rare earth minerals is not cheap and it causes a lot of pollution, but also I doubt that we have enough on Earth of effectively transit into something which is highly depended on these minerals.

Personally I don't know what the solution is.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Gas bad.
Until Russia says they might cut off gas.
Now gas good.

 

[exchemist]

It doesn’t make the point that these energy sources should be abandoned, it merely points out that they are not necessarily a replacement for fossil fuels.

You mean the problem of intermittency of generation? Yes that's perfectly true. Solar and wind can only replace about 50% of the electricity supply, I think it is, due to the difficulty storing large amounts of electricity (pumped storage, batteries). But if we can get to 50% that is a huge advance. And for the other 50% we need nuclear and some gas, at least for now, pending alterations in our consumption patterns and better means of storage.

But we are nowhere near the maximum feasible wind and solar capacity as yet, so the intermittency issue is not an argument for slowing down the conversion.

 

[KW]

You mean the problem of intermittency of generation? Yes that's perfectly true. Solar and wind can only replace about 50% of the electricity supply, I think it is, due to the difficulty storing large amounts of electricity (pumped storage, batteries). But if we can get to 50% that is a huge advance. And for the other 50% we need nuclear and some gas, at least for now, pending alterations in our consumption patterns and better means of storage.

But we are nowhere near the maximum feasible wind and solar capacity as yet, so the intermittency issue is not an argument for slowing down the conversion.

Did you watch the video? It’s just five minutes.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The argument in the video (I lasted a minute and didn't find it credible enough to give it more attention; Prager's name alone virtually assured me that it was not trustworthy; Prager University?) is that wind and solar capability is already nearly exhausted by showing what the maximum capture of these technologies is and indicating that they are already nearly that efficient. That's like saying that my factory is at 90% of its present maximum output, so it can't produce more. I'll let you decide for yourself why that's specious argumentation.

It doesn’t make the point that these energy sources should be abandoned, it merely points out that they are not necessarily a replacement for fossil fuels.

They have been in my home. In fact, my solar array captures more power than we can use, which goes to the utility enabling it to stop burning fossil fuels to power my home. This entire town could be powered with panels alone. From Solar and wind can meet world energy demand 100 times over.

"Huge falls in the cost of solar and wind power in the last few years have unlocked an energy reserve that can meet world demand 100 times over — and most is already economic compared with fossil fuels, finds a report from the think tank Carbon Tracker published today."

*************

Does this sound like a reliable source to get your science from?

"PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American 501 nonprofit advocacy group. The organization was co-founded by Allen Estrin and talk show host and writer Dennis Prager in 2009 to create videos on various political, economic, and sociological topics that promote an American conservative viewpoint."

 

[Father Heathen]

Agenda driven, oil lobbyists funded propaganda garbage.

PragerU

 

[Kenny]

Their estimates on how much power can be provided to a nation via wind and solar are not accurate.

"If future net-zero emissions energy systems rely heavily on solar and wind resources, spatial and temporal mismatches between resource availability and electricity demand may challenge system reliability. Using 39 years of hourly reanalysis data (1980–2018), we analyze the ability of solar and wind resources to meet electricity demand in 42 countries, varying the hypothetical scale and mix of renewable generation as well as energy storage capacity. Assuming perfect transmission and annual generation equal to annual demand, but no energy storage, we find the most reliable renewable electricity systems are wind-heavy and satisfy countries’ electricity demand in 72–91% of hours (83–94% by adding 12 h of storage). Yet even in systems which meet >90% of demand, hundreds of hours of unmet demand may occur annually. Our analysis helps quantify the power, energy, and utilization rates of additional energy storage, demand management, or curtailment, as well as the benefits of regional aggregation."

Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power worldwide | Nature Communications

Edit: Also note that CA ran on 95% renewable/green energy at one point last year.

California just hit 95% renewable energy. Will other states come along for the ride?

The point isn't that oil and gas is going away permanently or completely. But that we need better alternatives, that are renewable.

Wind turbine blades can be recycled for instance.

Fact check: Recycling can keep wind turbine blades out of landfills

California, the world's fifth-largest economy, hit nearly 95% renewable energy. Sort of...There are several caveats. For one thing, Saturday's 94.5% figure — a record, as confirmed to me by the California Independent System Operator — was fleeting, lasting just four seconds. It was specific to the state's main power grid, which covers four-fifths of California but doesn't include Los Angeles, Sacramento and several other regions. It came at a time of year defined by abundant sunshine and relatively cool weather, meaning it's easier for renewable power to do the job traditionally done by fossil fuels.

And fossil fuels actually were doing part of the job — more than the 94.5% figure might suggest. California was producing enough clean power to supply nearly 95% of its in-state needs, but it was also burning a bunch of natural gas and exporting electricity to its Western neighbors. It's impossible to say exactly how much of the Golden State's own supply was coming from renewables.

That said, what happened on Saturday is definitely a big deal.... The 94.5% record may have been fleeting, but it wasn't some isolated spike. Most of Saturday afternoon, the renewables number topped 90%, with solar and wind farms doing the bulk of the work and geothermal, biomass and hydropower facilities making smaller contributions. Add in the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant — which isn't counted toward California's renewables mandate — and there was enough climate-friendly power at times Saturday to account for more than 100% of the state's electricity needs...

The important thing now is making sure the puzzle pieces of the grid fit together on hot summer evenings, like the ones last August when insufficient supplies after sundown led to rolling blackouts.

 

[The Hammer]

California, the world's fifth-largest economy, hit nearly 95% renewable energy. Sort of...There are several caveats. For one thing, Saturday's 94.5% figure — a record, as confirmed to me by the California Independent System Operator — was fleeting, lasting just four seconds. It was specific to the state's main power grid, which covers four-fifths of California but doesn't include Los Angeles, Sacramento and several other regions. It came at a time of year defined by abundant sunshine and relatively cool weather, meaning it's easier for renewable power to do the job traditionally done by fossil fuels.

And fossil fuels actually were doing part of the job — more than the 94.5% figure might suggest. California was producing enough clean power to supply nearly 95% of its in-state needs, but it was also burning a bunch of natural gas and exporting electricity to its Western neighbors. It's impossible to say exactly how much of the Golden State's own supply was coming from renewables.

That said, what happened on Saturday is definitely a big deal.... The 94.5% record may have been fleeting, but it wasn't some isolated spike. Most of Saturday afternoon, the renewables number topped 90%, with solar and wind farms doing the bulk of the work and geothermal, biomass and hydropower facilities making smaller contributions. Add in the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant — which isn't counted toward California's renewables mandate — and there was enough climate-friendly power at times Saturday to account for more than 100% of the state's electricity needs...

The important thing now is making sure the puzzle pieces of the grid fit together on hot summer evenings, like the ones last August when insufficient supplies after sundown led to rolling blackouts.

The point I was making was it's possible, despite these set backs. And these set backs are being more and more.mitigated against, as we learn how to adjust our grid.

We are heading this direction. Now it's up to How we do it.

 

[Father Heathen]

Gas bad.
Until Russia says they might cut off gas.
Now gas good.

What a dumb oversimplication (but I guess some worldviews are based on dumb oversimplications.)
It's not "good". We have a dependancy upon it. We have to slowly transition away as abruptly ending usage wouldn't work.

 

[exchemist]

Did you watch the video? It’s just five minutes.

Nope, it's against my policy. It's a discussion forum, after all, and I find most videos tendentious, slow and annoying.

Was it not the intermittency issue then?

 

[KW]

Nope, it's against my policy. It's a discussion forum, after all, and I find most videos tendentious, slow and annoying.

Was it not the intermittency issue then?

That is mentioned, but not a major point.

 

[Kenny]

The point I was making was it's possible, despite these set backs. And these set backs are being more and more.mitigated against, as we learn how to adjust our grid.

We are heading this direction. Now it's up to How we do it.

I agree that we should continue forward....

As the video stated very well... we aren't there yet and vast improvements must still be made before we go "green". Currently, we aren't at that capacity and the mining of all the minerals needed, the lack of capacity to create enough batteries, the reality that even home solar systems don't break even is a good thermometer of where we are at... AT THE MOMENT! Not shouting.

 

[KW]

The argument in the video (I lasted a minute and didn't find it credible enough to give it more attention; Prager's name alone virtually assured me that it was not trustworthy; Prager University?) is that wind and solar capability is already nearly exhausted by showing what the maximum capture of these technologies is and indicating that they are already nearly that efficient. That's like saying that my factory is at 90% of its present maximum output, so it can't produce more. I'll let you decide for yourself why that's specious argumentation.



They have been in my home. In fact, my solar array captures more power than we can use, which goes to the utility enabling it to stop burning fossil fuels to power my home. This entire town could be powered with panels alone. From Solar and wind can meet world energy demand 100 times over.

"Huge falls in the cost of solar and wind power in the last few years have unlocked an energy reserve that can meet world demand 100 times over — and most is already economic compared with fossil fuels, finds a report from the think tank Carbon Tracker published today."

*************

Does this sound like a reliable source to get your science from?

"PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American 501 nonprofit advocacy group. The organization was co-founded by Allen Estrin and talk show host and writer Dennis Prager in 2009 to create videos on various political, economic, and sociological topics that promote an American conservative viewpoint."

Prager U relies on experts who are highly educated and experienced. Which presenter are you criticizing?

 

[The Hammer]

Prager U relies on experts who are highly educated and experienced. Which presenter are you criticizing?

Relying on any one source is bad either way.

 

[Heyo]

Which point do you think is unfair?

Since the video only has one point, I think that that is the unfair one.

 

[Kooky]

Prager University

They're no longer allowed to call themselves that, IIRC, since they are not an accredited university
(or, really, any kind of educational institution to begin with)