91–100 of 446 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's going to be dicey whether you can keep all the suppliers engaged with start / stops over 3 years.
From the piece: > Several of these projects are near completion and are likely to be done before any government appeal can be heard. Just gotta keep grinding towards success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
solar only runs during the day and when it is not cloudy, wind farms can run constantly with low weather impact multiple energy sources are what is important to make up for where solar falls short. sure solar is amazing, but it will never replace everything on its own
> solar only runs during the day and when it is not cloudy Solar PVC output directly and immediately correlates to sun landing on the panels. Solar thermal runs well into the evening, and its output is not impacted by the occasional cloud.
Then there’s the cost, which has not been good for CSP’s market share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no regime change coming when those in power run the elections, have already cheated in the past, and know that they are now untouchable.
States run the elections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solar and wind are good complements. Solar works during the day and best on clear, windless days. Wind blows best during the night and on cloudy, stormy days. Solar is best in summer and wind in winter. Wind also works better in some areas that don't have solar. UK has a lot of offshore wind, but less solar. The US Northeast has a lot of wind but lags behind on solar. Wind has dropped significantly in price over the…
I theory yes, but grid storage favors solar. Solar can be placed much closer to consumption, literally on the roof of the consumer. Wind exists in large farms away from cities. They are not perfect partners. The rich/old paticularly hate wind because they do not like looking at it. (The link to golf courses is not by accident. Wind farms and golf course tend to appear together due to them both gravitating towards are…
You are proposing something that sounds like killing the US wind industry and then simply bringing it back later. That probably would work well, especially when projects have development lead times of several to many years.
posted this at ars forum: (it should be clear I think it was a stupid move by the WH, but I am trying to think what might have "informed" it) Steelmanning the risks, its the link to mainland as a weakness in supply chain of power, compared to onshore sources possibly. But, the construction is in close water, well inside the exclusive economic zone. You would think passage of a craft capable of causing a power shock w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a linear relationship where you trade one for the other. You don't just get a more competent government by giving up freedoms.
There is a relationship here. It is not a perfect one, but it is real, and pretending otherwise just avoids the tradeoff. Take California’s high speed rail. Every individual has the right to object. No one wants an eyesore in their backyard. Everyone gets a hearing. Everyone gets a lawsuit. Everyone gets a veto in practice, if not in theory. The result is predictable. I will never see a functioning high speed rail sy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the piece: > Several of these projects are near completion and are likely to be done before any government appeal can be heard. Just gotta keep grinding towards success.
This will kill most future investment in offshore wind even if those projects are sucessful.
Don’t think in years, think in half decades and decades. This too shall pass.
https://ember-energy.org/data/china-cleantech-exports-data-e...