I don't disagree that there is abundant solar opportunity at the planet-level, but it's unrealistic to build infrastructure to funnel energy from eligible deserts to the rest of North America.
Here where the sky is cloudy as much as it is sunny, and clear even less, and where it snows, solar works but isn't reasonable to replace all power needs at an individual, county or state level. The logistics involved are much more complex than, say, having a few nuclear reactors in the state. Which work regardless of the weather.
HVDC transmission, pumped storage where the geography allows for it, and grid interconnectors allow for moving power between geographies. Seasonal deltas are solved for with overbuilding renewables and curtailment when there is oversupply.
If nuclear was easy, it’d be done, but it isn’t because it is the more complex, more expensive technology. The sun is free and requires no human management.
I cannot stress enough (as an armchair energy analyst who tracks renewables and energy storage manufacturing and deployment rates) how fast solar PV, wind, and batteries are being deployed.
It is done? It is easy? My power needs are completely served right now by hydroelectric and nuclear.
Just because you don't have nuclear reactors in your neighborhood doesn't mean they're more out of reach than solar. HVDC is already widely available. Grid interconnects are mostly political.
We looked at installing PV on a semi-remote home and it was not feasible. The roof was only large enough for a few panels and significant tree removal would've been necessary. The cost was prohibitive.
Existing nuclear is of course valuable as a zero carbon energy source, its new nuclear that can’t get built. We should continue to support existing nuclear as long as can be done safely so carbon intensive generation doesn’t fill in for those generators if they’re retired early (Illinois recently enacted policy to subsidize Exelon’s aging nuclear merchant fleet in the state so that generation wasn’t replaced with natural gas, for example).
> We looked at installing PV on a semi-remote home and it was not feasible. The roof was only large enough for a few panels and significant tree removal would've been necessary. The cost was prohibitive.
That particular home design-- its siting, dimensions, energy usage, etc-- were just not viable in a particular energy environment. That doesn't mean that grid detached PV isn't viable-- many parties use it today-- it means it wasn't viable for that design.
A mostly insulated home wouldn't be a viable design in the arctic but they're acceptable designs in places with mild climates.
As the energy landscape changes some designs and locations that were viable in the past won't be viable anymore. There is no natural law entitlement for a given set of choices to work out. :)
Here where the sky is cloudy as much as it is sunny, and clear even less, and where it snows, solar works but isn't reasonable to replace all power needs at an individual, county or state level. The logistics involved are much more complex than, say, having a few nuclear reactors in the state. Which work regardless of the weather.