[Alupis]

Exactly right. Government subsidies makes a lot of things appear viable and/or affordable, when in reality they are not. Subsidies are bolstered by politics.

Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. Yet... they keep getting built because there's government money to be made. There's government money to be made because they give the appearance of "doing something, anything" while in fact doing almost nothing. Follow the votes...

[mikeyouse]

Wind farms generate substantial quantities of power at like $0.04/kwh unsubsidized - they're in no way ridiculous. California generates well over 10% of their total electricity demand via wind, Texas is closer to 25% of their total demand (more than coal and nuclear combined). Hundreds of thousands of cheap, carbon-free GWh produced is an odd definition of "doing almost nothing".

[powerbroker]

ERCOT is generating 28.6% from wind in 2023. It is getting so high, that for the late night hours, demand is so tiny that some 5-10% of the wind energy goes nowhere -- a phenomenon called 'curtailment. The occurs because the baseload nuclear and the combined heat and power thermal generators are already operating at minimal levels, and supply way outpaces demand (usu. early in the wee hours of the morning). EIA indicates that this curtailment will likely increase. For now, its about as much as a typical nuclear power plant generates.

https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/economic-data/energy/2....

[Alupis]

They are ridiculous for a number of reasons, including the quantity needed and the storage problem. Neither are trivial issues to solve - making any stand-alone production numbers meaningless.

The obvious answer has been staring us in the face for decades. Yet... underinformed electorate continues to be unrationally scared, making it politically infeasible.

We could have been 100% "green" energy decades ago. Let that sink in... follow the votes.

[zer00eyz]

>> including the quantity needed

Texas power has gone negative, CA has dropped to zero. That means power flowing on to the grid either has no where to go or is only being charged transmission fees (and those in CA are gonna be excessive).

Transmission and storage are big issues. But they are solvable ones. Storage can be localize and the grid can be upgraded (and needs to be).

Candidly we need to look for ways to decouple energy creation, storage and transmission from each other. How do I buy enoung fractional shares in creation and storage so I only have to pay the cost of transmission? How do I make my utility into an asset!

[Alupis]

California also experiences rolling blackouts each summer - and lately turns off the power when it's too hot, wind blows too hard, wind doesn't blow enough, etc.

It's incredibly unreliable for biggest state in the union. But... we can sure pick a couple ultra-rare events and say "see, wind works" when it in fact does not.

[zer00eyz]

> rolling blackouts each summer

We haven't had a rolling blackout since the early 2000 and Enron.

What we do have is decades of PGE not doing any work to maintain or upgrade their grid. Our power company is so incompetent it has a death toll.

Texas gets something like 24 percent of its power from wind. IT has now updated its rules to force all renewables to be ride through sources (this will add cost but it isnt going to slow things down).

Go take a deep dive into the numbers, you might be shocked at what you find.

[mikeyouse]

"Wind can't be the entire solution" is such a different statement than whatever this misinformed smug dismissal is trying to get at.

[Alupis]

If you were able to read the statement you would clearly see no such thing.

Erecting more and more wind farms to make you feel fuzzy at night is absurd. We have the solution - metaphoric you just doesn't want it because reasons.

[icehawk]

I'll totally admit wind farms make me feel fuzzy at night-- mostly because that's when they produce >50% of total power on the grid where I live.

[verall]

I think it's fun to imagine that this solution you're miming at is closer to soylent green rather than only-viable-through-subsidies nuclear.

[TheGRS]

Every one of these types of threads pulls out the pro-nuclear folks. I get that nuclear is really cool, but I don't get why anyone loves paying billions for projects that take 10+ years to complete. And sometimes they don't even complete! In the meantime you could've setup many different alternative energy solutions, not just wind, could've done it in the fraction of the time and probably under-budget.

[nerdbert]

They can be built much more quickly than nuclear plants and they take coal and oil out of furnaces right now, which is exactly what we need. That's nothing but good.

[cycomanic]

Seriously did nobody read the article?! The article was specifically about this question, windfarms generate all the energy they needed to make them in 2 years time. This is completely unrelated to government subsidies.

Sometimes I loose faith in humanity.

[thebruce87m]

> Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are.

What do you mean by this? My country is mostly powered by wind.

Edit: https://electricityproduction.uk/in/scotland/

[Gibbon1]

Couple of days ago I tried converting Britain's wind energy into equivalent barrels of oil per day.

Raw energy it's 130,000 barrels per day. But available energy it's around 350,000 per day. Britain's share of the North Sea oil is something like 1 million barrels/day. Excluding nat gas. That's down from 3 million/day 25 years ago. Notable oil production will continue to decline but wind energy will not.

I also calculated energy in watts per person and it's 130W/person.

[Alupis]

Scotland is microscopic in relation to the landmass and population that is the US. Yet... look at the sheer volume of wind turbines Scotland has to operate to get anywhere between 10% - 80% of their power generation, depending on the day and wind conditions.

You cannot build a reliable grid based on wind. It requires other non-temperamental energy sources to be available when the wind isn't blowing. Solar? What if it's an overcast day?

If you look at that chart - you'll notice Nuclear takes over the heavy lifting when necessary. So... why not just have a couple more nuclear plants and forgo the unreliable sources?

Using wind and/or solar does not automagically make your system better or more green. People have pigeon-holed themselves into a reality where only wind and solar are acceptable... and then we hide away the actual sources that provide the necessary backfill.

[ck425]

No one's suggesting 100% wind or solar but we can still improve the system with more. Plus both are incredibly quick to build compared to nuclear and fossil fuels, so if you're a country dependant on those (like the UK) it's one of the best ways to quickly improve your energy security.

[CyberDildonics]

Yet... look at the sheer volume of wind turbines Scotland has to operate

What 'sheer volume'? You didn't give any numbers or sources.

Here is some actual information:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/renewables-and-wind-power-...

" In 2022, almost 28 TWh of zero carbon electricity was generated by renewable wind in Scotland, representing 35% of all wind generation in the UK. This could power the equivalent of approximately:

a. 10 million households - over a third of the total households in the UK. b. 85% of total Scottish annual electricity demand."

It requires other non-temperamental energy sources to be available when the wind isn't blowing. Solar? What if it's an overcast day?

Good thing the entire UK is on a shared grid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_(Great_Britain)

Using wind and/or solar does not automagically make your system better or more green.

Why not?

People have pigeon-holed themselves into a reality where only wind and solar are acceptable...

Says who?

and then we hide away the actual sources that provide the necessary backfill.

What does this mean? People are happy that there are economically viable and scalable sources of electricity that don't burn oil and gas. Who is 'hiding' anything away?

[neilwilson]

The shared grid is struggling for capacity. There are insufficient north to south links because of political instability. All of which leads to excess curtailment.

Nothing is sadder than driving past locked off wind turbines that could be turning and generating green LPG or something, rather than being paid to stand idle.

[verall]

> What does this mean?

The powers that be are hiding our most renewable resource - ourselves. We just someone to make a tiktok dance out of jumping into the bioreactor and then we won't need any evil wind turbines or PVs anymore.

[pedroma]

I'm not sure the linked study has accounted for the energy required to acquire and operate the batteries used alongside these wind farms. But it would be interesting to see what percentage batteries factor into this equation. I would imagine it's massive.

[Alupis]

> I would imagine it's massive.

It has to be massive. There is no other way to manage a 70% production swing in as short as a couple minutes and not have the grid go dark. Which then begs the question of how green the batteries are over decades.

We've picked the least reliable energy source and intellectually anchored ourselves to it - then we don't talk about how we actually keep the lights on 24/7. It's kind of nuts.

[2024throwaway]

As nuts as just burning anything flammable we can get our hands on?

[pounderstanding]

Uranium deposits are relatively small. It will last 200 years or so.

[7952]

The main reason for subsidy is that the costs are all upfront and electricity prices are unpredictable. That is not a problem that is unique to wind, particularly in the climate change era. Systems like strike prices can be competitively priced and avoid overpayment.

Arguably the main problem is that countries take a natural monopoly and then try and treat it like a market. When a well run state company could invest with more certainty.

[rootusrootus]

> Subsidies are bolstered by politics.

That right there is irony.