It'll take an "and" not "or" to build resilient energy security. Admire the Secretary's approach on his most recent discussion on energizing markets such as in Africa. These untapped frontiers may benefit immensely from an energy-mix for socioeconomic development in the interim while setting themselves up for baseload capacity in the near future. However, one has to admit that solar isn't up to the task of sustaining much growth. At 25-30% it's the lowest capacity factor of all energy sources while the power is often curtailed because it's least productive (off-peak) when needed most. We have lessons from Germany and California that you cannot stake your grid on solar even with storage. BESS make solar far less competitive. So we need to be honest with some of these sources. Solar is most valuable when used as an ancillary source to power balance of plant equipment such as lighting.
Geothermal presents the most potential in heating and cooling, not in power production. Reason is that your most productive wells are about 4800m (15,748ft) or more where you can tap between 100-150°C (212-302°F). This steam is low quality and cannot drive high capacity turbines to produce anything worthwhile. In addition pumping that steam from 15,748ft will consume around 11.2MW of rated power which when deducted from a generator, leaves little else.
In conclusion, your real contenders are onshore wind, LNG and nuclear because they are capable of power, co-generated process thermal applications and have reliable capacity factors. Traditional capacity of wind is between 40-50%, however it is a function of elevation. So therfore, at higher elevations wind can achieve close to baseload C.F.
We need an energy mix yes, but as the Secretary points out, "... provided they meet the practical needs of consumers" and practicality cannot be overstated.
It'll take an "and" not "or" to build resilient energy security. Admire the Secretary's approach on his most recent discussion on energizing markets such as in Africa. These untapped frontiers may benefit immensely from an energy-mix for socioeconomic development in the interim while setting themselves up for baseload capacity in the near future. However, one has to admit that solar isn't up to the task of sustaining much growth. At 25-30% it's the lowest capacity factor of all energy sources while the power is often curtailed because it's least productive (off-peak) when needed most. We have lessons from Germany and California that you cannot stake your grid on solar even with storage. BESS make solar far less competitive. So we need to be honest with some of these sources. Solar is most valuable when used as an ancillary source to power balance of plant equipment such as lighting.
Geothermal presents the most potential in heating and cooling, not in power production. Reason is that your most productive wells are about 4800m (15,748ft) or more where you can tap between 100-150°C (212-302°F). This steam is low quality and cannot drive high capacity turbines to produce anything worthwhile. In addition pumping that steam from 15,748ft will consume around 11.2MW of rated power which when deducted from a generator, leaves little else.
In conclusion, your real contenders are onshore wind, LNG and nuclear because they are capable of power, co-generated process thermal applications and have reliable capacity factors. Traditional capacity of wind is between 40-50%, however it is a function of elevation. So therfore, at higher elevations wind can achieve close to baseload C.F.
We need an energy mix yes, but as the Secretary points out, "... provided they meet the practical needs of consumers" and practicality cannot be overstated.