by WetEV (Posted Thu, 23 May 2013 23:43:29 GMT)
AndyH wrote:
WetEV wrote:
What I found was that a large network of wind turbines could be as available as an average coal fired or nuclear power plant, at three times the cost.
Cost? Is that with or without externalities? As for the rest - the appearance of a need for traditional baseload power is either a myth or an artifact of the way one looks at the problem.
Comparing wind power to wind power, so no difference between "with or without" externalities. The more available wind power needs to be, the more it costs. Using wind power as peak reduction is far more economical than trying to use it as baseload power.
AndyH wrote:
WetEV wrote:
Geothermal is great, where there is some. But mostly, there isn't enough to matter.
Geothermal could be a significant player because of the same horizontal drilling tech used before hydraulic fracturing. I'm pretty sure it's warmer underground nearly everywhere there are humans on the planet.
Geothermal can not be a significant player, other than locally. Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust.
No comments:
Post a Comment