Not reliable and creates grid instability. Same with wind. Neither is cheaper.
To add wind or solar requires a reliable backing source. Which means nuclear or fossil. Which means the real cost of wind and solar is always (wind or solar) + (nuclear or fossil). Except now you're demanding the backing remain unprofitable and mostly idle.
The result is adding wind or solar will only decrease grid reliability and stability and increase energy costs. Period.
Absolutely no sane person advocates for wind or solar at the grid level.
Not reliable and creates grid instability. Same with wind. Neither is cheaper.
To add wind or solar requires a reliable backing source. Which means nuclear or fossil. Which means the real cost of wind and solar is always (wind or solar) + (nuclear or fossil). Except now you're demanding the backing remain unprofitable and mostly idle.
The result is adding wind or solar will only decrease grid reliability and stability and increase energy costs. Period.
Absolutely no sane person advocates for wind or solar at the grid level.
Not to mention having to destroy hundreds of acres of land and displacing wildlife to build solar farms
Not to mention having to destroy hundreds of acres of land and displacing wildlife to build solar farms
(post is archived)