• AmoxtliOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Solar and wind have lower direct cost. When the wind does not blow, you get no electricity. When the sun does not shine, you get no energy. Nuclear power has the best capacity factor. It is the most reliable energy source. The indirect costs of solar and wind are their intermittency. Their intermittent issues cost money. For a company that promises to deliver electricity, and the wind does not blow? That cost money. If you have an abundance of electricity produced, and nowhere to send it, you lose money. In the case of California, they desperately jettison energy across to Arizona, while Californians pay for the expensive portion of solar energy. California has expensive electricity rates, on average double that of Texas, and has a greater percentage of energy produced from renewable sources than Texas, despite Texas consuming the most energy. That is an example of an indirect cost. To want more distribution paths for wind and solar, you need to build costly transmission lines that need to be replaced every 40 years. You need batteries to store oversupply for times of low supply, just to smooth out the price level across time. If you don’t have batteries for them, you need natural gas plants as back up. Nuclear energy has stability and reliability. With solar and wind, you get what you pay for, which is cheap, unpredictable, and unreliable energy.