Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (4570)	1/27/2009 5:34:55 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

That's true today, but maybe not so true in the future. Yes IT WILL BE, unless you can make the sun shine at night, or use moonlight. Because if, for example, we need 1 megawatt of BASELOAD power, you'll need to generate 2 MEGAWATTS in order to store one megawatt for nighttime distribution. So not only will you need TWICE (or at least 50%) of your peak generating capacity, you'll need to spend money STORING that excess power for nightime use. You cannot reliably run an economy on a technology that lacks the ability to produce CHEAP AND RELIABLE power 24x7x365. When comparable in cost to grid power, then I'm all FOR solar and wind for the purpose of reducing PEAK baseload power production requirements. But if it's going to cost more than nuclear, Nat Gas, or Coal, it's just plan economic NONSENSE to force consumers to pay more just to be "green". As I pointed out, the polls say that people are more worried about being employed and having money to feed and clothe themselves than they are about being green. So you'd better start thinking of solutions that permit people to be green in a manner that benefits their pocket book. Hawk