It is not viable, because renewables do not provide basic load for the grid. It is "stochastical" energy. There are no economical viable ways to store that "random" energy. There are several times in the year, where there is not enough wind and sun to feed the grid.

There are solutions being developed to store energy which will address the grid issue.

Existing solution is hydro storage. It's massive infrastructure and there is a long way to go.

Fusion power plants are also being developed. How is that an argument for anything?

Failing to provide details smells a lot like „wonder weapons will turn the war around“. There is currently no battery tech that is remotely economical, and other more obscure solutions haven’t made a lot of impact either, presumably for economic reasons too.

There isn't a lot of storage because there isn't a lot of surplus energy to store right now. It's more economical to build more generation capacity. But storage is really not hard: just store hydrogen. No magic technology is needed. You can buy Megawatt range electrolyzers today.

> seeing loads of wind turbines everywhere

The wind turbines are only there to hide the giant, coal-powered power plants that Germany had to restart because the tree-huggers who run that country decided to ditch nuclear.

I very much doubt the veracity of this article.

Ditching nuclear doesn't make wind less important for Germany. I also do hope that this situation also changes, nuclear > coal.

I don't doubt the veracity of the article. We've been seeing similar and growing numbers for years. I don't get the hate to wind and how energy generation can easily become a political subject.

Ah yes, notorious tree-hugger Merkel in 2011.

All kind of idiot (objectively) environmentalists were fighting against nuclear for decades in Germany and other countries. They weren’t the only factor but nuclear was already effectively dead by 2011 in Germany.

Merkel had no strongly held positions, that much we all know.

The US does invest in it, almost all new capacity added is renewables, has been for several years now, and this will not change unless something happens. The fastest grower is Texas of all places simply because it's really cheap.

Birds are not an environmental issue, it was just a made up talking point that was debunked. Windows and cars are responsible for an order of magnitude more bird deaths.

> Birds are not an environmental issue, it was just a made up talking point that was debunked. Windows and cars are responsible for an order of magnitude more bird deaths.

Can you share the reference? Thank you

https://www.energymonitor.ai/tech/renewables/weekly-data-how....

It references the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2021

edit: sorry, my bad, the data comes from elsewhere

Furthermore, offshore wind farms are great for birds. They provide more surface area for algae and other stuff to grow underwater, which then feeds to the rest of the ecosystem.

> Living in Germany is leaving any big city and seeing loads of wind turbines everywhere. I know very little of its economics, like that it typically takes 7 years to pay it back and lasts 20-25 years, but looks like a good way to generate renewable energy and will likely soon take Germany to 100%.

At the same time, no animals are living in and near wind farms. Plants that require pollination don't grow because no bees can live in or near wind farms. Building wind farms, also means less space to grow crops, so there will be a food problem. Wind turbines aren't producing energy when the wind doesn't blow.

Nuclear plants would have been a much better solution to the problem.

>>I know very little of its economics, like that it typically takes 7 years to pay it back and lasts 20-25 years

Are you talking money or energy? Energy takes about one year, not seven.