> Why not build wind where there are natural strong winds and solar where there is naturally a lot of sun?
The simple answer is: Because you don't need to do that.
You can build wind wherever it works best and will not be detrimental (from NIMBY to environmental factors) and deliver the power where needed.
How far can you go?
The UK are doing a project that will deliver power from approximately 4000 km away. In other words, if we limit ourselves to thinking about the US continental region, you could build a wind farm in California and deliver the power across the country to Maine.
Thankfully we don't have to go that far. We could build a bunch of wind farms in optimal areas and move power anywhere from there. My guess --and I have not done the research on this at all-- is that, at most, we would need to move power a few hundred miles from most sites.
> Solar is more modular - you can have one panel on a residential house, and you can have thousands of panels in a farm. But you can't have wind turbines in residential areas.
Absolutely correct. I happen to think that solar at homes and commercial buildings is a good path. This study, unless I am mistaken, is only about grid-scale technologies. My thinking at the moment is that, at grid scales, wind might be superior to solar by a serious margin and across a wide range of parameters.
Here's one: Nearly the entire supply chain for solar maintenance requirements is or will be in China. A heavy reliance on solar might be really bad strategic decision. It would create a never-ending dependency to China for the entire world. I don't think this is a good idea.
> Costs
I talk about this in one of my other answers. I don't think solar has an advantage here.
> We don't need a single 100% reliable source (none is), we need a clever combination of sources to achieve 100% together with the lowest total cost per energy unit.
Absolutely correct. Agreed. My argument is almost precisely in line with what you are suggesting here. Solar is 1.33 times more expensive for the same energy delivery. It requires over 5 times more land area. The factories required to build solar cost twenty times what wind factories will cost. Solar requires more than four times the battery storage systems when compared to wind (and can't deliver the same reliability at 4x). Etc.
I am thinking that we don't need a menu consisting of every single possible energy technology to make the transition to clean energy. Solar on homes and buildings is fine and very useful. Even some batteries at home might be a great idea. At grid scale? I don't know. Looking at the data I am starting to doubt that solar makes sense.
As I mentioned in another post, if we were to eliminate solar and make-up the difference with wind, you would need an area the size of Hawaii. Eliminate wind and make it up with solar, you need an area the size of 12 Hawaii's. That's should make anyone take a moment and ask: Wait, what?
Yes, other technologies are still required to get as close to 100% power availability as possible. My argument is that it might not be smart to use grid scale solar to do this.
The simple answer is: Because you don't need to do that.
You can build wind wherever it works best and will not be detrimental (from NIMBY to environmental factors) and deliver the power where needed.
How far can you go?
The UK are doing a project that will deliver power from approximately 4000 km away. In other words, if we limit ourselves to thinking about the US continental region, you could build a wind farm in California and deliver the power across the country to Maine.
Thankfully we don't have to go that far. We could build a bunch of wind farms in optimal areas and move power anywhere from there. My guess --and I have not done the research on this at all-- is that, at most, we would need to move power a few hundred miles from most sites.
> Solar is more modular - you can have one panel on a residential house, and you can have thousands of panels in a farm. But you can't have wind turbines in residential areas.
Absolutely correct. I happen to think that solar at homes and commercial buildings is a good path. This study, unless I am mistaken, is only about grid-scale technologies. My thinking at the moment is that, at grid scales, wind might be superior to solar by a serious margin and across a wide range of parameters.
Here's one: Nearly the entire supply chain for solar maintenance requirements is or will be in China. A heavy reliance on solar might be really bad strategic decision. It would create a never-ending dependency to China for the entire world. I don't think this is a good idea.
> Costs
I talk about this in one of my other answers. I don't think solar has an advantage here.
> We don't need a single 100% reliable source (none is), we need a clever combination of sources to achieve 100% together with the lowest total cost per energy unit.
Absolutely correct. Agreed. My argument is almost precisely in line with what you are suggesting here. Solar is 1.33 times more expensive for the same energy delivery. It requires over 5 times more land area. The factories required to build solar cost twenty times what wind factories will cost. Solar requires more than four times the battery storage systems when compared to wind (and can't deliver the same reliability at 4x). Etc.
I am thinking that we don't need a menu consisting of every single possible energy technology to make the transition to clean energy. Solar on homes and buildings is fine and very useful. Even some batteries at home might be a great idea. At grid scale? I don't know. Looking at the data I am starting to doubt that solar makes sense.
As I mentioned in another post, if we were to eliminate solar and make-up the difference with wind, you would need an area the size of Hawaii. Eliminate wind and make it up with solar, you need an area the size of 12 Hawaii's. That's should make anyone take a moment and ask: Wait, what?
Yes, other technologies are still required to get as close to 100% power availability as possible. My argument is that it might not be smart to use grid scale solar to do this.