Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
First point is that the distinct 20% is not an entire renewable energy portfolio, and its not wind from a variety of distinct wind resources, its wind from a particular wind resource.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with 100% of power coming from a single wind resource and having everything else shut down.

Indeed, consider what happens if that gets pushed above 20%. At times, energy is available to be produced but not sold because the available harvest is above total energy requirement. That's cheap power, available to neighboring countries who can build the UHVDC grid to grid transmission to go fetch it.

And we want that.

And of course as the UHVDC grid to grid electricity superhighways are built, the volatility of the energy portfolio are reduced, since they can import during slow volatile renewable power production periods as well as export during high volatile renewable power production periods.

And we want that.

So, where's the problem? It seems the critique of the feed-in tariff system is that there are other policies that also ought to be in place, and if they were in place the whole transition would go more smoothly. Its hard to see why that critique would lead to abandonment of the feed-in tariff system.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Jan 6th, 2012 at 09:37:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display: