The part that is really missing is storage at an competitive price. It's only the first about 25 % renewable that are easy, as this can work without much extra storage.
And you too can clean and polish the solar panels when it produced a sand storm on desert, because if the wind blow little strong ,the sand can scratch the panels you imagine a storm.
Just go and plant a tree.
Err no not really, the heavy inertia will stop gap the time between high demand and more power being put in by the energy source. The guy does not know what he is talking about.
Planting trees for fuel is not a horrible idea. Most of the time when wood is burned it is done in a very inefficient way. Just using the byproducts from manufacturing can generate a lot of energy from what was once wasted material.
However, it makes great sense to use waste wood and garbage to generate power.one just needs a LOT of it to fuel a power plant. The notion of harvesting trees solely for power generation is simply a bad, bad idea. The only exception to this may be eucalyptus in certain locales which is fast growing and has excellent heat value. Even that is a niche solution and not scalable to replace coal or nuclear.
I have seen a number of products for producing home heat from wood, from logs to sawdust pellets. For example I saw a wood burning boiler that provided heat for the home, hot water for the plumbing and heated an outdoor pool; all using a very modest sized log over several days time. I agree that using wood for a power plant would not be economical in the vast majority of cases. Heating with mains power is fairly inefficient most of the time when all things are considered. I recall antique stoves that would provide heat for cooking, heat the house and provide hot water. In regions where wood was scarce you found ways to be efficient. I think part of the answer is to have as many workable alternatives as possible and use what makes sense.
Planting trees for fuel is not a horrible idea. Most of the time when wood is burned it is done in a very inefficient way. Just using the byproducts from manufacturing can generate a lot of energy from what was once wasted material.
For solar, you can sometimes look to adjust the timing of tasks that can be done during peak sunlight. For example pumping water can be done during the day with reserves stored above ground. When needed in later hours you can use gravity feeds. If you don't "waste" the water you can repeat a cycle many times to reduce energy use.
These ideas are simple, and they work. They aren't widely used. Why? Is it a conspiracy? No, it is because they have problems of their own and for individuals and municipalities under existing cost structures they don't make sense.
I have seen a number of products for producing home heat from wood, from logs to sawdust pellets. For example I saw a wood burning boiler that provided heat for the home, hot water for the plumbing and heated an outdoor pool; all using a very modest sized log over several days time. I agree that using wood for a power plant would not be economical in the vast majority of cases. Heating with mains power is fairly inefficient most of the time when all things are considered. I recall antique stoves that would provide heat for cooking, heat the house and provide hot water. In regions where wood was scarce you found ways to be efficient. I think part of the answer is to have as many workable alternatives as possible and use what makes sense.
The process of converting electricity to heat (resistively) is very efficient, i.e. a very large percentage (most) of the energy is converted to heat. Converting coal to heat then converting the heat to electricity, then transmitting the electricity for long distances, then converting the electricity back to heat is inefficient and costly as you have gone though a number of conversions form one form of energy to another and their associated losses to create heat in your home.
The issue with biomass is getting enough biomass. Virtually every one I speak to who is outside the industry, grossly underestimates the volume of wood that is required to fuel a plant. Typically, it is a challenge to get enough fuel to fire a 50MWe net plant. It is only economical to source the fuel in a 50 mi radius. For a city that had a 1000MWe coal plant, it would obviously require 20, 50MWe plants to replace it. There is simply nowhere that I know of that this is possible without engaging in massive deforestation - or trucking in wood from such a distance that the power plant merely becomes a way to greenwash petroleum consumption.
Using wood pellets for home heating, in my opinion, is an excellent way to efficiently heat a space that is efficient, environmentally friendly (if the stove has a catalyst) and truly sustainable. The pellets are largely from wood waste from the forest products industry. In westernized countries, the forest products industry represents sustainable biomass use in that their aggressive replanting programs ensure a perpetual supply now. What is surprising is the amount of processing and capital equipment that is required to create the pellet, which is why pellets cost $200USD/retail instead of the $30/ton for wood chips that a power plant would purchase.
Enviva currently produces "about 2.3 million metric tons of wood pellets annually" without any deforestation.
The European price for wood chips for power plants is well over $100/ton:
http://ir.envivapartners.com/sites/envivabiomass.investorhq.businesswire.com/files/doc_library/file/Enviva_Investor_Presentation_Feb_2016.pdf
Fossil fuels will be with us for the foreseeable future. I wish they would get their act together on nuclear power plants. I think they could be part of the long tern solution if they would focus on things like standardization.