4 ms·

The following two twitter threads are more sober look at Solar and Wind. https://twitter.com/peterzeihan/status/989868124525809664?lang=en https://twitter.com/

The following two twitter threads are more sober look at Solar and Wind. https://twitter.com/peterzeihan/status/989868124525809664?lang=en https://twitter.com/peterzeihan/status/989868124525809664?la... https://twitter.com/peterzeihan/status/1074644971720986624 https://twitter.com/peterzeihan/status/1074644971720986624

shannongreen 8y ago
Those were just a list of obstacles, but there was no honest analysis to speak of despite the boast that he can 'do math'; e.g., the nonsense claims about transmission losses and that solar only makes economic sense in the 'ideal' locations.
philipkglass 8y ago
More "wrong in a gloomy way" than "sober" IMO. He initially says that 500 miles is the limit for practical long distance power transmission. Transmitting power more than about 500 miles means a load loss of ~10%. The dots on the map represents cities. If the dots aren’t close to a red zone, transmission lost kills solar as a useful input. That's not true. Siemens quotes losses of 9.4% on a 800 km line for high voltage AC systems, but corresponding DC systems lose 6% at 500 kV or only 2.6% at 800 kV [1]. Look at this list of HVDC projects and sort tables by by Total Length: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects There are many projects over 805 km (500 miles). The 1362 km Pacific DC Intertie has connected Northwest hydropower to Los Angeles since 1970. In the second thread he also says "no generation >1k miles from metro regions" (1600 km). I'm not sure why he doubled this "limit" but it's still too low. Brazil already has 2 HVDC lines longer than that. India has 2 under construction. China has 4, with another under construction. He's wrong when he says "lithium [battery technology] does not charge or discharge fast enough." Compared to what, magic? It's faster than any other mainstream battery technology. It's far faster than combustion based peaking generators. That's why it got its utility market start in frequency regulation applications. He's wrong about other things too, but it takes a lot longer to refute a Gish Gallop than to dump one out on Twitter. According to his bio he has a couple of books published, and he makes good-looking graphics, so I'd be trying to muck out the Augean stables with a teaspoon here. [1] https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2012/energy/2012-07-wismar/factsheet-hvdc-e.pdf https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2012/energy/201...

shannongreen 8y ago

Those were just a list of obstacles, but there was no honest analysis to speak of despite the boast that he can 'do math'; e.g., the nonsense claims about transmission losses and that solar only makes economic sense in the 'ideal' locations.

philipkglass 8y ago

More "wrong in a gloomy way" than "sober" IMO. He initially says that 500 miles is the limit for practical long distance power transmission. Transmitting power more than about 500 miles means a load loss of ~10%. The dots on the map represents cities. If the dots aren’t close to a red zone, transmission lost kills solar as a useful input. That's not true. Siemens quotes losses of 9.4% on a 800 km line for high voltage AC systems, but corresponding DC systems lose 6% at 500 kV or only 2.6% at 800 kV [1]. Look at this list of HVDC projects and sort tables by by Total Length: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects There are many projects over 805 km (500 miles). The 1362 km Pacific DC Intertie has connected Northwest hydropower to Los Angeles since 1970. In the second thread he also says "no generation >1k miles from metro regions" (1600 km). I'm not sure why he doubled this "limit" but it's still too low. Brazil already has 2 HVDC lines longer than that. India has 2 under construction. China has 4, with another under construction. He's wrong when he says "lithium [battery technology] does not charge or discharge fast enough." Compared to what, magic? It's faster than any other mainstream battery technology. It's far faster than combustion based peaking generators. That's why it got its utility market start in frequency regulation applications. He's wrong about other things too, but it takes a lot longer to refute a Gish Gallop than to dump one out on Twitter. According to his bio he has a couple of books published, and he makes good-looking graphics, so I'd be trying to muck out the Augean stables with a teaspoon here. [1] https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2012/energy/2012-07-wismar/factsheet-hvdc-e.pdf https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2012/energy/201...