Wind farms generate substantial quantities of power at like $0.04/kwh unsubsidized - they're in no way ridiculous. California generates well over 10% of their total electricity demand via wind, Texas is closer to 25% of their total demand (more than coal and nuclear combined). Hundreds of thousands of cheap, carbon-free GWh produced is an odd definition of "doing almost nothing".
ERCOT is generating 28.6% from wind in 2023. It is getting so high, that for the late night hours, demand is so tiny that some 5-10% of the wind energy goes nowhere -- a phenomenon called 'curtailment. The occurs because the baseload nuclear and the combined heat and power thermal generators are already operating at minimal levels, and supply way outpaces demand (usu. early in the wee hours of the morning).
EIA indicates that this curtailment will likely increase. For now, its about as much as a typical nuclear power plant generates.
They are ridiculous for a number of reasons, including the quantity needed and the storage problem. Neither are trivial issues to solve - making any stand-alone production numbers meaningless.
The obvious answer has been staring us in the face for decades. Yet... underinformed electorate continues to be unrationally scared, making it politically infeasible.
We could have been 100% "green" energy decades ago. Let that sink in... follow the votes.
Texas power has gone negative, CA has dropped to zero. That means power flowing on to the grid either has no where to go or is only being charged transmission fees (and those in CA are gonna be excessive).
Transmission and storage are big issues. But they are solvable ones. Storage can be localize and the grid can be upgraded (and needs to be).
Candidly we need to look for ways to decouple energy creation, storage and transmission from each other. How do I buy enoung fractional shares in creation and storage so I only have to pay the cost of transmission? How do I make my utility into an asset!
California also experiences rolling blackouts each summer - and lately turns off the power when it's too hot, wind blows too hard, wind doesn't blow enough, etc.
It's incredibly unreliable for biggest state in the union. But... we can sure pick a couple ultra-rare events and say "see, wind works" when it in fact does not.
We haven't had a rolling blackout since the early 2000 and Enron.
What we do have is decades of PGE not doing any work to maintain or upgrade their grid. Our power company is so incompetent it has a death toll.
Texas gets something like 24 percent of its power from wind. IT has now updated its rules to force all renewables to be ride through sources (this will add cost but it isnt going to slow things down).
Go take a deep dive into the numbers, you might be shocked at what you find.
If you were able to read the statement you would clearly see no such thing.
Erecting more and more wind farms to make you feel fuzzy at night is absurd. We have the solution - metaphoric you just doesn't want it because reasons.
Every one of these types of threads pulls out the pro-nuclear folks. I get that nuclear is really cool, but I don't get why anyone loves paying billions for projects that take 10+ years to complete. And sometimes they don't even complete! In the meantime you could've setup many different alternative energy solutions, not just wind, could've done it in the fraction of the time and probably under-budget.
>I get that nuclear is really cool, but I don't get why
Because nuclear will never happen for the exact reasons you stated, but if people think it's a viable option and argue for it, it can be used to delay renewable transition, so that legacy Oil and Gas based producers can reap their insane revenue for an extra few years. It's literally just a delaying tactic.
If nuclear was even remotely economically viable, it would be part of a robust future energy mix. People abandon nuclear because it's not worth the effort when you can literally place a glass panel in unused land and get 1 KW/m^2 for 20 years with minimal intervention. Nobody would have to "vouche" for nuclear if it was economically meaningful. Look at Texas; Politically and economically, you would expect it to be very against renewables, as Texas has always been a fuel behemoth, with significant amounts of it's political establishment literally being oil barons, and now with using wind turbines being """woke"""
But they are still building out wind energy like no tomorrow, because it's so goddamned cheap and profitable.
You know this is a really ironic response to this thread. Many of us wish nuclear power didn't take 10+ years to build, but it does. How long is it going to take to change people's minds about this topic? Maybe the same amount as it might take to change your opinion on alternative energy sources.
At least alternative energy has less NIMBY people and more willing to take a shot at it.
Social licensing costs are just costs and won't go away just because you really really dislike them.
Besides, even if you could wave a magic wand and delete such costs, like the Chinese government can with their top down control of planning and media, it's still worse, as their revealed preferences demonstrate with their acceleration of renewables build-out and slowdown of nuclear build-out.
