Science is real, even when you don't like it

Science is real, even when you don't like it. I appreciate the thought behind this, but it's absolutely the wrong approach to take. Our energy grid is not set up for distributed solar. In order to dramatically increase the amount of distributed solar, you first need to either build up a large amount of grid-scale energy storage infrastructure, or you need to repurpose nuclear plants so you can use them for frequency regulation.

Unfortunately, our grid has almost no energy storage infrastructure, and we're in the process of shutting down our last nuclear power plant, on the grounds that "nuclear power" sounds like "nuclear weapon" and nuclear weapons are scary. So that leaves natural gas and coal. Both of which (especially coal) pollute a lot when you use them for frequency regulation.

And that's not even touching on the effect this will have on housing affordability. We need to be making new homes less expensive, not more expensive. The higher the upfront costs to the builder, the more difficult is is for them to break even. This limits the number of places where it's economical to build new housing, expanding the already massive housing deserts in which essentially no new construction is taking place.

Right now, we need to be making badly needed investments in our grid so that we can begin the large-scale adoption of renewable energy. That means building energy storage infrastructure, like compressed air facilities, and breaking ground on new nuclear plants. (It also means legalizing fuel reprocessing, though that's something that needs to happen at the federal level.) We also need to be lowering the minimum cost per housing unit so that new construction can take place.

This does neither of those things.

"Why California rooftop solar requirement is not the right move for green energy"
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article210886434.html

Commenting on this Blog entry will be automatically closed on July 11, 2018.