Email check failed, please try again Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this:
Are market forces driving wind?
I just ran across this piece on wind subsidies from FactCheck.org. After falling all over itself trying to defend wind, it concludes with some quotes from an EIA analyst named Chris Namovicz:
In the end, only time will tell whether wind is viable without subsidies. As Namovicz emphasized in a phone interview, despite all the numbers and fancy analytics that people try to use, because the U.S. is currently providing a large subsidy to wind, it’s impossible to know the alternative.
“There are no facts without the subsidy, because we don’t have that data available,” he said. “Everything else is just analysis and economic modeling.”
Email check failed, please try again Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this:
If it’s to be a real climate energy solution, and not just a single card in a deck of 52, then we need to be able to cheaply drill to suitable rock in a wide variety of places not near faults or volcanoes or spreading zones (like Iceland). The rock porosity, bacteria fouling, and fact that after well used, the water temperature down there can be expected to degrade to some steady-state level, so that initial power figures are going to be on the optimistic side.
I do like high-grade geothermal. It satisfies pretty well the two safety criteria for climate solutions – (1) leave the surface in as pristine and life-friendly a way as possible, and (2) take the Earth system back to our ecologically optimal state with minimal hysteresis.