patrick.net

WookieMan says

Build it in Nevada and run wire to connect to the grid.

Yeah buddy, the Florida panhandle actually gets a grade of a B for solar energy versus a grade of an A for the southwest (Las Vega$, Phoenix, etc), which is the Saudi Arabia of solar power.

For commercially viable wind energy, sustained wind speeds of around 9 mph (or 4 meters per second) are typically needed. In the Florida Panhandle, average annual wind speeds are often below this threshold (e.g., Pensacola and Apalachicola typically range from 7.8 to 8.9 mph).

While taller (50 to 100 meters), more advanced turbines could potentially harness higher wind speeds at greater elevations, this technology is still being explored for the region.

Need more efficient wind turbines like use less friction bearings for the power generators, maybe even magnetic bearings. Just like we need more efficient solar energy.

Offshore wind is viable for the Florida panhandle as well as offshore wave generators, but then you have to account for hurricanes.

.

AD says

For commercially viable wind energy, sustained wind speeds of around 9 mph (or 4 meters per second) are typically needed. In the Florida Panhandle, average annual wind speeds are often below this threshold (e.g., Pensacola and Apalachicola typically range from 7.8 to 8.9 mph).

Yeah, we're higher than that. 7-8mph is the floor generally even at night. This spring the average has been probably 15-17mph with days averaging 20mph. Which is why we have some of the largest wind farms near me.

I'm in a town so don't notice it as much due to houses and trees, but with a high profile vehicle I'll drive and be like WTF it's windy. Wind looks cool at first when you see it, but it's ugly after a while. It does produce 24/7 here with varying rates of production except for the rare off day. They're always spinning and these are the big MF'rs.

My only beef is the power gets wired into different big cities including Chicago. We never have long power outages, but we get random 5-10 second outages as I think different generation of power takes over once every 3 months if something isn't producing. It's annoying, but outside of a tornado I don't think we'd ever lose power for more than 10 minutes. One of the few things IL does right.

WookieMan says

Yeah, we're higher than that. 7-8mph is the floor generally even at night.

right now its 15 mph at a heat index of 95 (85 degs, 73% humidity) in Panama City Beach

this system would be perfect year round in Panama City Beach if it is true that it can charge batteries at 5 mph , and its not just a trickle charge

AD says

It's CA so generally clear skies, but I don't buy the solar number. And no Nat Gas on the chart. Didn't CA have a leaky power plant with Nat. Gas? Is this just all non-CO2 producing electric. They all produce massive CO2 to create if that's the issues. I don't think it is. We need CO2. I mean do you want to breath? CO2 creates O2. We need more of it.

I've looked into solar a few times. Each time, for me, the problem seems that I just don't use enough solar to get the economies of scale to amortize the fixed costs. I run about 8 kWh / day with most of it after the sun goes down.

PG&E doesn't charge an infrastructure fee, but instead rolls those costs into a higher fee per kWh over and above the generation. For non-solar people that promotes conservation, as it increases the incremental cost. (i.e.: instead of $50/month + 12¢ kWh, where we could use lots of kWh for cheap, we now pay $0/month + 45¢ kWh, so every additional kWh is expensive.)

When solar started, solar people had a net of 0 kWh of generation from the power company and so paid for no infrastructure. As more and more homes went solar and paid for no infrastructure (while simultaneously using infrastructure 24/7 in either using power from the grid at night or putting power on the grid during the day) the remaining non-solar customers were forced to foot the entire infrastructure bill between fewer and fewer people. This was a virtuous cycle for the people pushing for solar. As more people went to solar, the non-solar people were also forced to go solar because of rising prices of sharing the infrastructure costs between fewer and fewer people remaining non-solar.

So, recently, credits for pushing onto the grid have been adjusted so that solar customers no longer have a free ride. You now get very little for pushing your generation onto the grid during the day but still pay for generation (and thus infrastructure) for taking energy from the grid at night. The main result of this is that new solar installations now come with batteries so that you aren't forced to sell your power back onto the grid at very low prices. I can't help but think this pricing scheme is resulting in needless battery installations just to dodge paying for infrastructure while simultaneously — again — forcing the non-solar customers to pay the entire cost of the infrastructure.

I think the (very inefficient and wasteful) end game is that people will go completely off the grid even in towns and cities where shared infrastructure would obviously be more efficient. Each home will have a large personal array of solar panels, a large personal battery, and a personal generator for periods of low generation days. As inefficient as that sounds, it'll be lower cost than participating in the incompetent and corrupt power company aided by the even more incompetent and corrupt government.

Eman says

heat pumps are only just getting started and will save oodles of energy for space and water heating and even clothes drying

If you're talking about reducing load on the electricity grid through efficiency, then I have to disagree completely. My old-fashioned natural gas heater, water heater, and dryer use very little electricity. And my car puts no load at all on the electrical grid (well, except for running the gas pump).