require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining, I noted.pay
Previous studies were misleading, the economists note, because they didn't"incorporate three key costs," which are the unreliability of renewables, the large amounts of land they require, and the displacement of cheaper"baseload" energy sources like nuclear plants.
It's bizarre that a publication with so much intellectual heft doesn't see the problem with flimsy analyses - like the attendant loss of reputation. 'Look everybody! I found a study that matches my preconceptions!' That's great, buddy. Let's put it up on the fridge, shall we?
Cute.
Do these 'key costs' apply to non-renewable sources as well? For instance, the land cost of a coal-fired plant should, reasonably, also include the land occupied by the coal mines that supply it, as well as the processing plants. Same for oil and nuclear power.
This child’s father nutted while hitting it missionary to create him. Unbelievable
2 cents per kWh increase after 12 years? You're going to have to write another article explaining to me how that's not worth it to continue having a habitable planet there Chief.
Cronyism makes the sun shine for only a few.
The sun comes up literallly every day
It’s not unreliable. It’s not entirely viable for some regions and for the places it’s not viable we will do some other alternative. But in a desert for example we should pursue almost strictly solar, near large bodies of water we pursue hydro, so on so on
Education Education Latest News, Education Education Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »