Most renewables aside from Hydro-Power are only really viable in getting a potential ROI, ie making back the cost of the material and installation, in a vanishingly small portion of the world.
There’s some utility in them as Emergency Power sources. And in small scale deployments. But they aren’t viable as a long term large scale societal solution.
And depending on the models and scale. It’s not unusual for the total cost in Energy to manufacture a Solar Panel or Wind Turbine. To eclipse whatever it could potentially generate assuming it meets its maximum operational lifetime in absolutely ideal conditions.
Truthfully, it's more of a "situational" thing. But here's my personal breakdown
Wind: Worthless as a power source, better off as a tourist attraction (old timey grain mills)
Solar: Worthless as a large scale power source, "decent" for off grid and emergency applications
Hydro: Not exactly the greatest source of power, but literally zero downsides, so there's no reason to NOT use it since not only does it produce power, but it also tends to act as water storage and produce industry in fish stocked reservoirs for fishing, tourism, etc. So pretty good power source, but can't compete with fossil fuels or nuclear in terms of sheer energy production
Geothermal: Honestly, the only one that even really qualifies as a legitimate power source. Get a big enough vein, and you can compete with coal plants. Only real problem is that traditionally, geothermal has been limited to places with already active sites. But the last 50 years of tech advancements and research has changed that, and now we have the ability to install geothermal pretty much anywhere on the planet. Most people think you have to dig down like, 100 miles to get a decent vein if you're not on a natural one. But realistically, there's already companies repurposing dead oil and gas wells into geothermal power plants. Likewise, there's also companies now that create small scale "modular" geothermal systems that can easily replace solar for personal and off grid use that require much lower drill depths and temperatures. So yeah, of all the "green" power sources, the only one I see with a legitimate future in the private sector is Geothermal. It'll probably start replacing solar and wind soon among off grid types, and then it'll just balloon from there. That being said it still won't replace fossil fuels since you can't make "stuff" from raw energy that it produces
In conclusion, wind sucks, solar is meh, hydro is ok, and geothermal is actually good but can't replace fossil fuels completely since oil and gas are also the source of like 90% of every polymer in existence currently
Well if you have a good storage system for energy with enough batteries and a wind turbine like a small personal wind turbine and you combine that with solar, generally speaking it works pretty good at keeping the lights on when you're off grid. Especially when you combine it with a diesel generator for emergencies. You don't need the best and latest and greatest technology, you just need the stuff that works
I have the list that was put out earlier...ALL of them were dependent on FEDERAL HAND-OUTS...if solar was soooooo GOOD, why did they take government handouts, ehhhhh???? It's NOT!!! a PIPE Dream!!!!
Part of the issue is government changing rules/regulations around solar in some states. California for example. It used to be that if your panels generated way power power than you used, that extra power would be sold back to the power company for credits, then when winter comes and your panels don't produce as much you use those credits for power and it evens out. I've heard that now when they buy back the power it's way below market rate, and when you want to use your credits in winter you're still hit with certain non-bypassable fees per kw/h.
In other words, prior if your panels covered 100% of your power usage, your bill was practically nothing (a smaller service charge). Now even if your panels cover all of your use, you still pay the power company like 5c/kwh or something.
It's no surprise that people don't want to buy panels when you still have to pay the power company. Anymore panels are really only useful if you're 100% off grid and combine them with batteries.
Most renewables aside from Hydro-Power are only really viable in getting a potential ROI, ie making back the cost of the material and installation, in a vanishingly small portion of the world.
There’s some utility in them as Emergency Power sources. And in small scale deployments. But they aren’t viable as a long term large scale societal solution.
And depending on the models and scale. It’s not unusual for the total cost in Energy to manufacture a Solar Panel or Wind Turbine. To eclipse whatever it could potentially generate assuming it meets its maximum operational lifetime in absolutely ideal conditions.
Agree, if you install your own battery system, you can have power when the grid is down.
But for energy infrastructure?? Nonstarter.
Plebbitimmigrant and ArmyLady are not only right on target, they have stated the truth better than I would have,
Truthfully, it's more of a "situational" thing. But here's my personal breakdown
Wind: Worthless as a power source, better off as a tourist attraction (old timey grain mills)
Solar: Worthless as a large scale power source, "decent" for off grid and emergency applications
Hydro: Not exactly the greatest source of power, but literally zero downsides, so there's no reason to NOT use it since not only does it produce power, but it also tends to act as water storage and produce industry in fish stocked reservoirs for fishing, tourism, etc. So pretty good power source, but can't compete with fossil fuels or nuclear in terms of sheer energy production
Geothermal: Honestly, the only one that even really qualifies as a legitimate power source. Get a big enough vein, and you can compete with coal plants. Only real problem is that traditionally, geothermal has been limited to places with already active sites. But the last 50 years of tech advancements and research has changed that, and now we have the ability to install geothermal pretty much anywhere on the planet. Most people think you have to dig down like, 100 miles to get a decent vein if you're not on a natural one. But realistically, there's already companies repurposing dead oil and gas wells into geothermal power plants. Likewise, there's also companies now that create small scale "modular" geothermal systems that can easily replace solar for personal and off grid use that require much lower drill depths and temperatures. So yeah, of all the "green" power sources, the only one I see with a legitimate future in the private sector is Geothermal. It'll probably start replacing solar and wind soon among off grid types, and then it'll just balloon from there. That being said it still won't replace fossil fuels since you can't make "stuff" from raw energy that it produces
In conclusion, wind sucks, solar is meh, hydro is ok, and geothermal is actually good but can't replace fossil fuels completely since oil and gas are also the source of like 90% of every polymer in existence currently
Well if you have a good storage system for energy with enough batteries and a wind turbine like a small personal wind turbine and you combine that with solar, generally speaking it works pretty good at keeping the lights on when you're off grid. Especially when you combine it with a diesel generator for emergencies. You don't need the best and latest and greatest technology, you just need the stuff that works
"Over 2023 and 2024 to date, 16 major solar companies have filed for bankruptcy, Solar Insure reported."
I have the list that was put out earlier...ALL of them were dependent on FEDERAL HAND-OUTS...if solar was soooooo GOOD, why did they take government handouts, ehhhhh???? It's NOT!!! a PIPE Dream!!!!
the green new scam
Solendra 2.0.....
EPA toxic waste site in calirado thanks to the halfrican. Though the execs made off with millions…
Part of the issue is government changing rules/regulations around solar in some states. California for example. It used to be that if your panels generated way power power than you used, that extra power would be sold back to the power company for credits, then when winter comes and your panels don't produce as much you use those credits for power and it evens out. I've heard that now when they buy back the power it's way below market rate, and when you want to use your credits in winter you're still hit with certain non-bypassable fees per kw/h.
In other words, prior if your panels covered 100% of your power usage, your bill was practically nothing (a smaller service charge). Now even if your panels cover all of your use, you still pay the power company like 5c/kwh or something.
It's no surprise that people don't want to buy panels when you still have to pay the power company. Anymore panels are really only useful if you're 100% off grid and combine them with batteries.
Call it what it is "battery powered"
And on the topic of correct designations, let’s all remember oil and gas are not ‘fossil fuels’…