SageBrush said:
RegGuheert said:
It seems you have missed the point. The point of claiming zero transmission losses is NOT to save 7%. The reason they claim zero transmission losses is to address the geography problem, which is a very big problem, indeed. IOW, generation does not happen when/where demand occurs.
IOW, the ability to transmit electricity efficiently over long distances is a large part of the RE solution. It may be snowing in New England but it is sunny a VHVDC distance away.
This is in large part why your doom and gloom stance and opinion that 6x over-building is completely wrong. The other key technology is off-shore wind.
Of course it's part of the solution, but it's not a cheap or quick one. Estimates I've read indicate we'd have to add about 40,000 miles of new transmission lines (and also the necessary interconnections to make a truly national grid) to get PV from the SW and wind from the plains to the coasts (we've got around 435,000 miles of U.S. transmission lines now). Doable but expensive and time consuming, as no one has ever said "please, please build transmission towers and lines across my land/within my sight", so by the time you deal with all the purchasing, permitting, court challenges etc., years have gone by and costs have risen accordingly. Just one of the more recent examples, in a relatively short line:
In Wisconsin, many oppose transmission line to bring western wind power
https://energynews.us/2019/01/22/mi...ransmission-line-to-bring-western-wind-power/