Energy transition

Re “Action on climate change” (Our Views, July 23) and “Sandbridge needs answers about wind plan’s potential effects” (Other Views, July 23): So you want action on climate change — here is the answer from Sandbridge regarding the energy from an offshore wind farm — “There has got to be a better way.” Another call for pixie dust as a solution.

This administration — which has no clue about how to implement a significant renewables energy program — will keep running into this problem. Any solution requires reliable baseload energy. The California wildfires pointed to that as did the energy crisis in Texas that froze some of the wind turbines.

Clearly, relying on one energy source is an insanity. We do that with a combination of natural gas and electricity, the latter derived now primarily by burning fossil fuels, which could be replaced by wind, sun or nuclear.

In the case of any of these, especially wind and solar, the users are usually far from the energy source. So, long distance transmission lines are needed.

Our alternating current system is too inefficient to do this, which is why power stations are located close to users. A direct current system is more efficient for this purpose.

Another consideration is energy storage when we use unreliable energy sources. Europe discovered this long ago. The wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t shine all the time. So, transmission lines and energy storage sites are critical to any energy solution employing renewables — not a few solar farms or wind turbines that may be lucky enough to find a home. Sadly, no one “in charge” of the required “action” has a clue.

— Jim Hurst, Williamsburg