Hello Clean Energy Advocates, What Do We Do When the Wind Turbines are All Frozen?

SSG Samuel Kermon - The big issue I see with this debate is that it has evolved into an either/or argument. Either we fully embrace new technology and abandon fossil fuels, or we suppress the development of clean and renewable sources, while continuing to focus only on using fossil fuels. We can't do a complete changeover instantly, and we shouldn't suppress attempts at finding newer, cleaner, renewable sources. It's a shift over time, not a shift at one point in time (or even a refusal to consider shifting).

All electrical energy can be stored for a period and at what cost and for how long? There are tremendous ecological costs to producing storage batteries.

LTC Kevin B. - Thanks for the correction.

I personally believe "capacity constraints" equates to we aren't there yet. I'm hopeful we'll get there soon. But, I'm not betting the farm. If some entrepreneur can make a major break through in battery technology, he/she will be the next tech Billionaire. I think it will more than likely be decades, but the way thing go, it could be a couple years. I also doubt that chemical battery storage will be the long-term solutiion. chemical batteries have their own set of environmental problems.

There was a documentary series on Netflix a few years ago that looked at alternatives to chemical batteries. The 2nd in the series covered one of the Canary Islands, El Hiero. The Island was 100% dependent on diesel power generation. They came up with a clever "solution." The majority of the day wind energy provides more energy than they can use. So the excess energy was used to pump sea water to a series of reservoirs high in the mountains. When The wind was not adequate to meet the need, the reservoirs were opened and the sea water coursed through high velocity pipelines, to hydro electric turbines.

Theoretically it should have been more than adequate. However it turned out that geology was not on their side and a reservoir system that would have met the demand would also cause significant other environmental concerns, including major land slides into populated areas. It doesn't mean such a system can't work, just not there. Or not there UNTIL they solve the geology problem. But they are still able to meet about 40% of their demand shortfall during periods where the wind power is not generating a single KW.

I absolutely agree with your comment about it being a transitional process. But I believe market forces will produce better solutions faster than government mandated solutions. And I'm definitely not in favor of the government creating "artificial" scarcity of fossil fuels like it did with coal.

Maj John Bell - you express my view in a far more articulate fashion than I can.

"are either deniers or plain stupid".....those aren't mutually exclusive.

I know they aren't I was merely stating my opinion.

One week, one year, one decade, one century doesn't prove or disprove man-made climate change. The macro-cycles span hundreds of millennia, and this weeks weather is well within normal ranges for even a few decades.

But, if man can change the climate unintentionally, it is a short time before we can change the climate intentionally, and with beneficial purpose.

You do know that nuclear and hydroelectric power are not accepted as “green energy” by many in the green energy movement? It is impossible to build a nuclear reactor in America today. One being built in South Carolina was shuttered and the two being built at Plant Vogel have had major cost overruns. The main core for the two new Plant Vogel reactors are made in China. https://www.onio.com/article/environmental-cost-of-batteries.html

Truly said.