drees wrote:Hydro has large environmental costs which is why many large dams are being dismantled on the west coast.
Dismantling the electricity solution with the lowest environmental impact per kWh and replacing it with production with about the highest impact is ludicrous.
drees wrote:Cherry picking a solar plant which would not be built today as an example of why solar is bad, is just that picking cherries.
Making straw man arguments about something I never said or implied is just that: a straw-man fallacy.
drees wrote:If you want to look at nuclear gone bad, there's plenty of examples of those - just north of here there's a plant called SONGS - mothballed because the utility and contractor made a critical mistake and so costly to fix that it was determined to be more cost effective to replace it with other sources of generation. So much for being too cheap to meter.
I never said nuclear was too cheap to meter. Another straw-man argument?
Regardless, nuclear power remains the safest form of electricity generation
drees wrote:As far as your earlier claims that nuclear power kills infinitely fewer birds that Ivanpah, that's almost certainly exaggerating - all human activity has an effect on wildlife. Never mind that buildings, cars and cats are the biggest man-made causes of avian deaths, but I don't see many people clamoring to dismantle those.
Ignore the massive environmental damage of Ivanpah if you must, but I will not.
drees wrote:"Baseload" is a myth since no power plant is 100% renewable. And the problem with large plants is that the effect of one going down is much more difficult to mitigate than distributed generation. Baseload is an old argument used to promote inflexible generators when what we need are flexible generators so we can integrate as much renewable energy as possible.
Actually, the myth is that the grid will be stable without baseload generators to provide spinning inertia. You don't have to take my word for it. Rather, you can look at what happens when grids loose their link to baseload. The massive power outage which took down the entire grid in South Australia is quite instructive.
Three things jump out at me:
1) Once the grid connections to other states were severed or weakened, South Australia's grid stability was greatly reduced
2) Large groups of wind generators dropping offline simultaneously was "the straw that broke the camel's back."
3) The failure which occurred in SA was predicted to happen by the grid operator, AEMO, in October 2014
, about two years prior to the event:
AEMO wrote:While these developments benefit SA and the NEM, having a high proportion of wind and PV generation can present a risk for SA if the Heywood Interconnector link to Victoria is disconnected at a time when all local conventional synchronous generators are offline. This occurs as wind and PV generators, by themselves, are not able to provide the required controls to ensure system security.
What you call a myth is the reality in South Australia.
Further reading:SA Blackout: Three towers, six windfarms and 12 seconds to disasterAnother Statewide Blackout: South Australia's Wind Power Disaster Continues
Again, eliminating affordable, environmentally-friendly, safe and effective baseload power generation with "solutions" which do not meet the requirements of the electrical grid is a foolhardy adventure.
Will we get there eventually? Sure. But let's take logical steps rather than foolish ones.