Gregory's Server@kate if wind is producing 40%, why aren't our bills 40% lower?! π
|
8 comments
 @wiredfire @meatlotion @kate also AFAIK worn out wind turbine blades are a pain to safely dispose of  @wolf480pl @meatlotion @kate Iβve heard that too. Seen the odd interesting project finding ways to re-use the blades as something else but thatβs going to be a growing issue that will need a sensible solution. Granted thatβs a small problem compared to storing nuclear waste or choking our atmosphere but still. @wiredfire @meatlotion @kate tbh I wouldn't be so sure vs nuclear waste - I'd expect them to be much smaller in terms mass and expecially volume, but I don't have the numbers at hand. @wolf480pl nuclear waste is physically going to be smaller most likely but much much harder to store safely. @meatlotion @kate Your bill reflect the operation of the electric grid and it's overall availability : Windfarms requires interconnections and compensating power sources to ensure the grid frequency stability and power delivery when the wind is not blowing. @meatlotion @kate Because auctions work to raise all prices to the price of the last most expensive generator that is currently in use, which is related to the relative inflexibility of energy demand. If demand is 30GW and 29GW is coming from renewables, that means the last 1GW is from gas. Why would you sell your cheap renewables for much less than the gas price in that situation (demand inflexibility means that you can only buy less renewables if you buy more gas). @meatlotion @kate This is somewhat simplified - energy pricing is extremely complicated, but you get the idea. |
@meatlotion @kate Wind turbines cost money to build and maintain, with ongoing investment needed to further expand renewable energy sources is why π