5 ms·

> solar needs the grid to be even close to viable This was true 20 years ago and will be laughable 20 years from now. > The only power generators that can do

> solar needs the grid to be even close to viable This was true 20 years ago and will be laughable 20 years from now. > The only power generators that can do that are ones that burn fossil fuels. Fossil fuel generators do NOT ramp up and down quickly. BTM and FTM battery storage solutions ramp up and down faster and are rapidly becoming cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternatives. > energy use in building panels and the number of rare earth materials each one needs, the problems with recycling them, and their land-use requirements and the environmental impact of that. Every one of these supposed drawbacks of solar also apply to generating power with fossil fuel. Fracking causes earthquakes in Oklahoma and wastelands in southeast New Mexico. Mountaintop removal for coal has probably permanently destroyed parts of PA, WV, VA, and KY. I won't argue that the issues you bring up aren't bad, they just lack context. In my view, human addiction to electricity is bad in all forms, but fossil fuels are clearly worse.

macspoofing 7y ago
>This was true 20 years ago and will be laughable 20 years from now. Will the sun start shining at night in 20 years? >Fossil fuel generators do NOT ramp up and down quickly. Natural gas ramps as quickly as it can. But let's assume that's true, that's not a point against me, it's a point against solar because then it means that solar is completely unworkable. >Every one of these supposed drawbacks of solar also apply to generating power with fossil fuel. No. Because we know we can power an economy with fossil fuels, and do it in any weather, day or night. >Fracking causes earthquakes in Oklahoma and wastelands in southeast New Mexico. Yes. Natural gas isn't great. >In my view, human addiction to electricity is bad in all forms, but fossil fuels are clearly worse. Right. That's why we need to get off fossil fuels. But you can't do that with solar or wind. Here's what works: Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal - that's basically it and the latter two need particular geography to be viable.
- gibolt 7y ago
  Storage costs are dropping rapidly. New batteries are nearly there for cost competitiveness. As the first generation of BEV batteries become 'spent', they will be reused in grid-scale applications. Space and weight are not a concern, and most will have ~70% of their original capacity. That accelerates quickly once Gen 2 batteries have hit end of life.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >Storage costs are dropping rapidly Read around, nobody actually believes Li-ion batteries can bridge the intermittency gaps of solar and wind. The production capacity may never be there and cost aren't there today and may never get there (cost for US to store 10-15% of excess summer energy to use in winter with Li-ion batteries would run tens of trillions of dollars). Li-ion batteries leak energy if you want to use them to store excess power for weeks (as you would have to). That's the problem. There isn't a battery technology now, or forthcoming.
    - mrep 7y ago
      Who in their right mind ever suggested such an obviously overpriced option when you can just build enough for peak and then shut them off during the off-season?
- mepiethree 7y ago
  > Will the sun start shining at night in 20 years? Do batteries stop working at night? > No. Because we know we can power an economy with fossil fuels, and do it in any weather, day or night. ...and irreparably destroy the planet by doing so > Here's what works: Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal I agree! But I think we are perfectly capable of utilizing these AND solar, wind, and storage?
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >Do batteries stop working at night? There is no battery technology (now or forthcoming) that can store enough energy to power a moderately sized city for a few hours, much less days or weeks. >..and irreparably destroy the planet by doing so I wasn't making a case for natural gas. I was a case that solar needs to be paired with natural gas. >But I think we are perfectly capable of utilizing these AND solar, wind, and storage? Why? If you're using nuclear and hydro, why bother with solar and wind? Here's a live view of the energy mix of my home province [1]. Almost all clean. Why bother with solar and wind? [1] http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html
    - mepiethree 7y ago
      Nuclear is great in your part of Canada, but where I live in California there are several advantages to solar... 1) solar is distributed. In the past couple years, California has had massive fires caused by transmission lines. Right now, millions of people are without power because the utility can't safely deliver electricity. Distributed solar obviates the need for huge transmission lines, and is more durable in a disaster. 2) utility scale solar is cheaper than nuclear here. 3) There are large earthquakes here that make it less obvious that we should run 70% of our economy on nuclear.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > Natural gas ramps as quickly as it can. But let's assume that's true, that's not a point against me, it's a point against solar because then it means that solar is completely unworkable. You're thinking about this wrong. If you want 100% generation from solar then you need a ton of storage, period. But who says it has to be 100% solar or 0? Take a look at the daily electricity demand curve. Lower at night, higher during the day. The (large) difference between the nighttime demand and the daytime demand? That's what you use solar for. Even if batteries are completely off the table, solar is still useful for that. And in that case your natural gas plants only have to run for a couple of hours between sunset and bedtime instead of all day long. We don't know if storage technologies are ever going to be cost effective enough to use 100% solar day and night. They're not right now, but they're also declining in price. If they get there, well, that's the end of the matter. If not, you use nuclear at night, supplement it with solar during the day and, in the long term, suffer the high cost of batteries for a couple hours around dusk, which is still a whole lot cheaper than needing enough of them to get you through the whole night. But you have a significant amount of solar in every case. And it can also take on close to 100% of the new load from charging electric vehicles simply by charging them while the sun is out.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >And in that case your natural gas plants only have to run for a couple of hours between sunset and bedtime instead of all day long. Right. So we agree, solar cannot remove carbon emissions. And I thought the entire point is to remove fossil fuels entirely from energy generation, not just reduce it. >you use nuclear at night It doesn't work like that. Nuclear can take days to ramp up and ramp down. Solar does not play well with nuclear. That's one problem. A more major issue is...if you're using nuclear, why the heck do you even need solar? This is the energy mix of my home province[1] - we're essentially fossil fuel-free because our energy mix is nuclear and hydro. There is no point in increasing investment in solar and wind. But we're doing it, not because it's good for reducing carbon emission, but because it's a fad. [1] http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
burmanm 7y ago
>> solar needs the grid to be even close to viable >This was true 20 years ago and will be laughable 20 years from now. So in 20 years the batteries are able to store half a year worth of electricity? That's quite a lot of MWh in your house. The whole world doesn't live at the equator.

macspoofing 7y ago

>This was true 20 years ago and will be laughable 20 years from now. Will the sun start shining at night in 20 years? >Fossil fuel generators do NOT ramp up and down quickly. Natural gas ramps as quickly as it can. But let's assume that's true, that's not a point against me, it's a point against solar because then it means that solar is completely unworkable. >Every one of these supposed drawbacks of solar also apply to generating power with fossil fuel. No. Because we know we can power an economy with fossil fuels, and do it in any weather, day or night. >Fracking causes earthquakes in Oklahoma and wastelands in southeast New Mexico. Yes. Natural gas isn't great. >In my view, human addiction to electricity is bad in all forms, but fossil fuels are clearly worse. Right. That's why we need to get off fossil fuels. But you can't do that with solar or wind. Here's what works: Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal - that's basically it and the latter two need particular geography to be viable.

gibolt 7y ago
Storage costs are dropping rapidly. New batteries are nearly there for cost competitiveness. As the first generation of BEV batteries become 'spent', they will be reused in grid-scale applications. Space and weight are not a concern, and most will have ~70% of their original capacity. That accelerates quickly once Gen 2 batteries have hit end of life.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >Storage costs are dropping rapidly Read around, nobody actually believes Li-ion batteries can bridge the intermittency gaps of solar and wind. The production capacity may never be there and cost aren't there today and may never get there (cost for US to store 10-15% of excess summer energy to use in winter with Li-ion batteries would run tens of trillions of dollars). Li-ion batteries leak energy if you want to use them to store excess power for weeks (as you would have to). That's the problem. There isn't a battery technology now, or forthcoming.
  - mrep 7y ago
    Who in their right mind ever suggested such an obviously overpriced option when you can just build enough for peak and then shut them off during the off-season?
mepiethree 7y ago
> Will the sun start shining at night in 20 years? Do batteries stop working at night? > No. Because we know we can power an economy with fossil fuels, and do it in any weather, day or night. ...and irreparably destroy the planet by doing so > Here's what works: Nuclear, Hydro, Geothermal I agree! But I think we are perfectly capable of utilizing these AND solar, wind, and storage?
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >Do batteries stop working at night? There is no battery technology (now or forthcoming) that can store enough energy to power a moderately sized city for a few hours, much less days or weeks. >..and irreparably destroy the planet by doing so I wasn't making a case for natural gas. I was a case that solar needs to be paired with natural gas. >But I think we are perfectly capable of utilizing these AND solar, wind, and storage? Why? If you're using nuclear and hydro, why bother with solar and wind? Here's a live view of the energy mix of my home province [1]. Almost all clean. Why bother with solar and wind? [1] http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html
  - mepiethree 7y ago
    Nuclear is great in your part of Canada, but where I live in California there are several advantages to solar... 1) solar is distributed. In the past couple years, California has had massive fires caused by transmission lines. Right now, millions of people are without power because the utility can't safely deliver electricity. Distributed solar obviates the need for huge transmission lines, and is more durable in a disaster. 2) utility scale solar is cheaper than nuclear here. 3) There are large earthquakes here that make it less obvious that we should run 70% of our economy on nuclear.
AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Natural gas ramps as quickly as it can. But let's assume that's true, that's not a point against me, it's a point against solar because then it means that solar is completely unworkable. You're thinking about this wrong. If you want 100% generation from solar then you need a ton of storage, period. But who says it has to be 100% solar or 0? Take a look at the daily electricity demand curve. Lower at night, higher during the day. The (large) difference between the nighttime demand and the daytime demand? That's what you use solar for. Even if batteries are completely off the table, solar is still useful for that. And in that case your natural gas plants only have to run for a couple of hours between sunset and bedtime instead of all day long. We don't know if storage technologies are ever going to be cost effective enough to use 100% solar day and night. They're not right now, but they're also declining in price. If they get there, well, that's the end of the matter. If not, you use nuclear at night, supplement it with solar during the day and, in the long term, suffer the high cost of batteries for a couple hours around dusk, which is still a whole lot cheaper than needing enough of them to get you through the whole night. But you have a significant amount of solar in every case. And it can also take on close to 100% of the new load from charging electric vehicles simply by charging them while the sun is out.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >And in that case your natural gas plants only have to run for a couple of hours between sunset and bedtime instead of all day long. Right. So we agree, solar cannot remove carbon emissions. And I thought the entire point is to remove fossil fuels entirely from energy generation, not just reduce it. >you use nuclear at night It doesn't work like that. Nuclear can take days to ramp up and ramp down. Solar does not play well with nuclear. That's one problem. A more major issue is...if you're using nuclear, why the heck do you even need solar? This is the energy mix of my home province[1] - we're essentially fossil fuel-free because our energy mix is nuclear and hydro. There is no point in increasing investment in solar and wind. But we're doing it, not because it's good for reducing carbon emission, but because it's a fad. [1] http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html http://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago

burmanm 7y ago

>> solar needs the grid to be even close to viable >This was true 20 years ago and will be laughable 20 years from now. So in 20 years the batteries are able to store half a year worth of electricity? That's quite a lot of MWh in your house. The whole world doesn't live at the equator.