More BS from the greenies...

[Not_A_Llama]

Solar has great potential in the areas where it makes sense, like the big, empty deserts of the world. In the most populated portions, not so much. If someone can solve the demand/production levelling issues, it might , make more sense. The big issue I have is that it doesn't make sense from an economic standpoint, and transmitting power from the areas of production to the areas of greatest consumption is horribly inefficient. Perhaps a decentralized power distribution system using something like Bloom Boxes, powered by natural gas would make more sense. Smarter guys than me, please chime in!

To be entirely fair, electric transmission is pretty efficient. I haven't looked at a tag in a while, but a hundred miles on a 345kV doesn't lead to more than a few percent loss.

The corollary, of course, is that nobody like electric generation in their backyard, be it fossil, renewable, or *gasp* nuclear. So really, you need to truck it into your population centers from the sticks, anyway.

I think in the next couple decades, you'll see solar come to be a large component of peak generation. Wind will fill in a big part of offpeak, particularly in winter. You'll need to have something sitting in the back to fill in the troughs. I had hopes that nuclear could be that, but Fukushima has dashed the possibility for maybe a generation. Fortunately, cheap natural gas has impelled a lot of marketplace participants to build very very large CC gas plants that spin up very quickly. They're perfect for that role.

Bloom boxes, Tesla Powerwalls, and rooftop solar are all potential elements of a more resilient/efficient/economical grid, but there's need for a more comprehensive discussion about policy to integrate these new resources onto a grid that is very old and very dumb.