Reply to post: Re: So in conclusion

Renewables are cheaper than coal in all but one US location

I could be a dog really Bronze badge

Re: So in conclusion

And, of course, while the renewables lobby are happy to use figures that include externalised costs to show that fossil fuels get massive subsidies, I've yet to ever see a renewables lobby puff piece that admits to the externalised costs of solar and wind. Specifically, you usually get "wind and solar are really cheap" - talking only about the direct costs as the lecky leaves their site. What they are happy to ignore are the massive costs imposed on all the rest of the system that has to fill in the gaps - you know, when the sun goes down, and the wind ain't blowing (the right sort of wind).

What I'd love to see would be a supplier offer a real green offering, and see what the take-up is. It would have to base supply on availability - so (for example) buy the output from specific sites and sell it, and only it, on. The catch being - if the wind isn't blowing right and/or the sun isn't shining, you have to reduce consumption, and if customers don't keep total demand below what the contracted sites produce, then some (or all) get turned off remotely. So yeah, have a cheap green wind based supply tariff - but the lights go out if the wind doesn't oblige.

I rather suspect that very few of the "all we need are more windmills and solar panels" brigade would buy into it.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon