Sources of Energy

The answer is self evident from the question.

It depends which is more reliable in your location and which has sufficient capacity.

London has not got enough sun shine, wind or potential energy as stored water for any of these to generate 300megawatts.

Texas has plenty of wind and solar. But we burn coal!

If you could vote a law that forces the owners of wind turbines to pay for the wind they get for free, a fee to the power distribution companies. The coal mines would be closed in two weeks and everyone would have wind turbines. It would simply be: if you don't help in making the electricity for the county, you will not get any.

It's a game of power: those who earn a lot of money on the generation of electricity do not want you to pick a cherry the falls of the tree. And strangly they are in power to guide the law in their favor.

"If you could vote a law that forces the owners of wind turbines to pay for the wind they get for free, a fee to the power distribution companies. The coal mines would be closed in two weeks and everyone would have wind turbines. It would simply be: if you don't help in making the electricity for the county, you will not get any."

Your logic is illogical. No one solution fits all locations! See Post #4

Here in East Tennessee an array of wind turbines on Buffalo Mountain generate power which is sold in blocks of 150-KwH for a surcharge of $4/block added to your electric bill. When the wind doesn't blow the turbines don't turn and NO output.

If as you indicate that wind turbines are such a good deal, why aren't the power generation and distribution companies falling all over themselves to put them up and make a fortune off the free wind under the current circumstances.

Of coarse it is illogical, the fact that altrnative power by individuals is blocked by monopolistic firms is also illogical.

Those firms know that they will have to split the cake in some years so they want to save as much as possible.

If the politicians would want alternative sourcing it would exist and be used. But they need the big cash for their political survival so they support the big cash.

Here in Europe power companies are fighting laws and government to get them installed. One secretary of state gives money to have nice studies on the possibilities and another signs rejections as it might disrupt birds and radar images.

Hydro would be the most reliable because you can evaluate the amount of water which is available and you may have enough water for a week, a month, or several months generation, it is more likely to be seasonally affected in the dry summer months. If you use a pumped storage system thereby recycling the water you can have a very secure supply.

Wind and solar are probably equally unreliable and can be affected on an hourly basis, solar is possibly the better of the two because as long as you are getting any light the cells will charge.

Wind is very unreliable it can only generate within a certain wind speed band, if the wind is too low the alternator has to disconnect and the same if it is too high, a wind generator also requires an electricity supply in order to work due to the excitation.

But operators are guaranteed a payment when they export whether the energy is required or not. In the UK this has led to excessive commercial exploitation and as the wind power is only efficient if generated at the point of use - greedy carpet bagger companies area attempting to build wind farms on the doorsteps of domestic properties.

The main issue with wind power is nobody is getting the benefit from it apart from these profiteering companies, the local people who have to put up with they noise of the turbines - yes they are very noisy at 60m high, do not get cheap electricity. Anybody wanting to subscribe to a green Tariff has to pay premium prices - a great advertisement for wind power.

Of course is beneficial to harness free energy but wind is unreliable and cannot replace power stations and the whole issue has been hijacked as commercial profiteering gimmick.

Hydro has the ultimate advantage of being able to respond to changes in demand in an almost moment-by-moment basis compared to solar or wind.

Both solar and wind have a far higher dependency on the local weather than hydro. Hydro is dependant on local water availability but hydro is also one of the cheapest methods of storing excess generating capacity.

If you are in an area of constant wind or constant sun then those two options are the best solutions for where you are. Anywhere else in the world they are relegated to secondary status but are a viable adjunct to hydro where excess capacity of the solar/wind is used to refill the hydro reservoir.