6 ms·

I live in Scotland. We've gone from ~15% renewable electricity to >90%, replacing fossil fuels. When you're claiming that something can't possibly be done, whe

I live in Scotland. We've gone from ~15% renewable electricity to >90%, replacing fossil fuels. When you're claiming that something can't possibly be done, when it has already actually been done, it's hardly a surprise that no-one takes your argument seriously. Go look up a list of countries that have, say, >70% renewables and explain to me why they are managing something you claim is impossible.

phtrivier 6y ago
My first hunch would be to answer "importing", but it's not always possible to check. In the case of Scotland, is [1] giving a realistic view of Scotland (it mixes Scotland / England, so I can't really tell ?) At the time of reading, the mix (again, for GB) of consummed electricity is about 40% wind+solar, 30% gas, 10% whatever, 10% domestic nuclear, and 10% "electricity imported from France", wich is usually 70% nuclear. I'm writing this middle of the day, in March, so I assume the wind+solar part is working at a nice capacity (it would be much more unfair to compare it in the middle of the night.) So on a very first approximation that I'm really ready to dismiss based on more data, it seems that Scotland produces a lot of electricity from renewables (a good thing !), and consumes electricy made from a bunch of sources, some of which are not renewables. Is that fair ? Follow-up questions: are there countries that managed to ditch fossil fuels for their electricity production and to not rely on imports / neighboors without renewables ? The only examples I have in mind are those relying on hydro (Norway, Costa Rica, maybe ?) who were blessed with mountains. [1]: https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/GB https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/GB
- saalweachter 6y ago
  My vague understanding based on "stuff I've heard or read at various points" is that you can stuff up to like 80-85% wind+solar on a grid before you start having real problems with the fluctuations in production. If my vague recollections are recollecting something that was correct and not BS when I heard it, Scotland might be fine with it's ~17% nuclear, replacing the remaining 30% gas with more wind+solar.
LockAndLol 6y ago
Hmm.. How did Scotland solve storage? From what I can read in the BBC article (1) there's still lots of work to do: - cars still run on fossil fuels - heating accounts for 15% of emissions and uses gas - industries use fossil fuels to make materials If that were all to become electric, would renewables be enough? 1: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-51088089 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-51088089
- macspoofing 6y ago
  They didn't solve storage. They produce a lot of wind power at certain times that they can't use and that's where the 90% comes from. The actual consumption of renewables is on the order of 40%-50%. Not nothing, but not 90% ... not even close.
tatg 6y ago
Looking at [1]. I would say hydro-power and nuclear is a big reason. Some also have significant wind, but it is balanced by either gas, hydro or good interconnection with neighbours (who themselves are not always as "green". [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/ https://www.electricitymap.org/
HPsquared 6y ago
Fossil fuels need to be replaced in all their applications, not just electricity. Even taking the example of Scotland (which is a doing rather well in this regard) electricity is a relatively small portion of energy consumption. Heat and transport are the dominant areas, and both are still mostly fossil-based. https://www.scottishrenewables.com/our-industry/statistics https://www.scottishrenewables.com/our-industry/statistics
- addicted 6y ago
  So let’s take transport. We have electric cars on roads being sold in massive numbers. We don’t have cars with little nuclear reactors sitting inside them. So how is transport a good example of something that would somehow be better solved by nuclear than solar/wind?
  - HPsquared 6y ago
    My point was that the progress towards renewable/low-carbon energy is nowhere near finished yet. Something like an order of magnitude more renewable generation than what we currently have, still needs to be built if we want to truly replace fossil fuels. It's a counterpoint to the claim that the transformation has already been achieved.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      I think the claim was that the technology to enable the transformation has largely been achieved, not that it's been installed. But you're right, there's a great deal more the experience curves we're going to be able to go down, so the costs of renewables and storage should fall even more.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >So how is transport a good example of something that would somehow be better solved by nuclear than solar/wind? Cars will charge from the grid. Nuclear can output not only a lot of energy but output it at a const rate. Wind and solar cannot do that. There are times when wind isn't blowing and sun isn't shining. There are entire seasons when wind and solar output is lower. There are multiple years where wind output is lower. That variability also means you need to over build capacity. But even with that, you're still in trouble because there is no battery technology now, or coming out anytime soon, that can store enough energy (minimum of a few weeks worth) to bridge that intrinsic variability of daily, as well as inter and intra annual variability.
macspoofing 6y ago
>I live in Scotland. We've gone from ~15% renewable electricity to >90%, replacing fossil fuels. No you didn't. That number is a ratio between consumption (i.e. how much energy Scotland consumes from ALL sources) and renewable production, but it doesn't actually mean you consume 90% of renewable energy. In other words, if you overproduce in the afternoon but can't use that energy it counts to 90% even though that energy wasn't consumed. It's not nothing because it means you can export it but the real consumption of renewable energy is around 45% wind (solar is inconsequential), with Hydro and Nuclear at around 35%, and the rest composed of fossil fuels and trivial amount of biomass [1]. And let's not understate the geography of Scotland, one of the windiest countries in the world (or at least Europe), that makes wind extra viable. Great! I'm not against wind power. I'm against unrealistic expectations of what wind and (shudder) solar can actually do on a global energy generation scale. (Also, Scotland is a tiny region with a population akin to a city - it isn't a good model for anything on the global scale) >Go look up a list of countries that have, say, >70% renewables and explain to me why they are managing something you claim is impossible. Great idea. Go through the list [3] and you'll see that the >70% renewable in pretty much every case is a result of hydro power (or nuclear if you're talking about low carbon emissions). Hydro is great if you have the geography for it, but even Hydro is not good enough for many environmentalists. I know in the recent election (in Maine) the green party was against building transmission lines to import hydro power from Quebec [2] ... because why import hydro when you can power your state on good intentions. Crazy environmentalists are a huge hindrance to lowering emissions. [1]https://scotland.shinyapps.io/Energy/?Section=RenLowCarbon&Subsection=RenElec&Chart=ElecGen https://scotland.shinyapps.io/Energy/?Section=RenLowCarbon&S... [2]https://www.sunjournal.com/2019/12/04/green-party-calls-for-authorities-to-kill-1-billion-hydropower-project/# https://www.sunjournal.com/2019/12/04/green-party-calls-for-... [3]https://www.electricitymap.org/map https://www.electricitymap.org/map
- phaemon 6y ago
  > No you didn't. Yes, we did. Your nitpicking over the "right" way to count electricity generation and consumption doesn't matter: the graph you linked still shows around 12 percent fossil fuel generation for 2019, it's less now, and it's been replaced with renewables. Quibble over the figures if you like, but the trend is clear. > And let's not understate the geography of Scotland Yes, all countries have different strengths and weaknesses for renewable. And? > Also, Scotland is a tiny region with a population akin to a city Roughly the same population as the average US state. Anyway, what do you care about the "global scale"? The US is not a renewable energy role model to anyone. > >70% renewable in pretty much every case is a result of hydro power or... Hydro is renewable, so I don't get your complaint here > in the recent election (in Maine)...because why import hydro when you can power your state on good intentions. According to wikipedia, Maine gets 75% electricity from renewables, which is among the highest of any US state, so they seem an odd example to pick. What's more, with a population of just 1.34 million, Maine is clearly a complete irrelevance on a global scale, right?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

phtrivier 6y ago

My first hunch would be to answer "importing", but it's not always possible to check. In the case of Scotland, is [1] giving a realistic view of Scotland (it mixes Scotland / England, so I can't really tell ?) At the time of reading, the mix (again, for GB) of consummed electricity is about 40% wind+solar, 30% gas, 10% whatever, 10% domestic nuclear, and 10% "electricity imported from France", wich is usually 70% nuclear. I'm writing this middle of the day, in March, so I assume the wind+solar part is working at a nice capacity (it would be much more unfair to compare it in the middle of the night.) So on a very first approximation that I'm really ready to dismiss based on more data, it seems that Scotland produces a lot of electricity from renewables (a good thing !), and consumes electricy made from a bunch of sources, some of which are not renewables. Is that fair ? Follow-up questions: are there countries that managed to ditch fossil fuels for their electricity production and to not rely on imports / neighboors without renewables ? The only examples I have in mind are those relying on hydro (Norway, Costa Rica, maybe ?) who were blessed with mountains. [1]: https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/GB https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/GB

saalweachter 6y ago
My vague understanding based on "stuff I've heard or read at various points" is that you can stuff up to like 80-85% wind+solar on a grid before you start having real problems with the fluctuations in production. If my vague recollections are recollecting something that was correct and not BS when I heard it, Scotland might be fine with it's ~17% nuclear, replacing the remaining 30% gas with more wind+solar.

LockAndLol 6y ago

Hmm.. How did Scotland solve storage? From what I can read in the BBC article (1) there's still lots of work to do: - cars still run on fossil fuels - heating accounts for 15% of emissions and uses gas - industries use fossil fuels to make materials If that were all to become electric, would renewables be enough? 1: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-51088089 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-51088089

macspoofing 6y ago
They didn't solve storage. They produce a lot of wind power at certain times that they can't use and that's where the 90% comes from. The actual consumption of renewables is on the order of 40%-50%. Not nothing, but not 90% ... not even close.

tatg 6y ago

Looking at [1]. I would say hydro-power and nuclear is a big reason. Some also have significant wind, but it is balanced by either gas, hydro or good interconnection with neighbours (who themselves are not always as "green". [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/ https://www.electricitymap.org/

HPsquared 6y ago

Fossil fuels need to be replaced in all their applications, not just electricity. Even taking the example of Scotland (which is a doing rather well in this regard) electricity is a relatively small portion of energy consumption. Heat and transport are the dominant areas, and both are still mostly fossil-based. https://www.scottishrenewables.com/our-industry/statistics https://www.scottishrenewables.com/our-industry/statistics

addicted 6y ago
So let’s take transport. We have electric cars on roads being sold in massive numbers. We don’t have cars with little nuclear reactors sitting inside them. So how is transport a good example of something that would somehow be better solved by nuclear than solar/wind?
- HPsquared 6y ago
  My point was that the progress towards renewable/low-carbon energy is nowhere near finished yet. Something like an order of magnitude more renewable generation than what we currently have, still needs to be built if we want to truly replace fossil fuels. It's a counterpoint to the claim that the transformation has already been achieved.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    I think the claim was that the technology to enable the transformation has largely been achieved, not that it's been installed. But you're right, there's a great deal more the experience curves we're going to be able to go down, so the costs of renewables and storage should fall even more.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >So how is transport a good example of something that would somehow be better solved by nuclear than solar/wind? Cars will charge from the grid. Nuclear can output not only a lot of energy but output it at a const rate. Wind and solar cannot do that. There are times when wind isn't blowing and sun isn't shining. There are entire seasons when wind and solar output is lower. There are multiple years where wind output is lower. That variability also means you need to over build capacity. But even with that, you're still in trouble because there is no battery technology now, or coming out anytime soon, that can store enough energy (minimum of a few weeks worth) to bridge that intrinsic variability of daily, as well as inter and intra annual variability.

macspoofing 6y ago

>I live in Scotland. We've gone from ~15% renewable electricity to >90%, replacing fossil fuels. No you didn't. That number is a ratio between consumption (i.e. how much energy Scotland consumes from ALL sources) and renewable production, but it doesn't actually mean you consume 90% of renewable energy. In other words, if you overproduce in the afternoon but can't use that energy it counts to 90% even though that energy wasn't consumed. It's not nothing because it means you can export it but the real consumption of renewable energy is around 45% wind (solar is inconsequential), with Hydro and Nuclear at around 35%, and the rest composed of fossil fuels and trivial amount of biomass [1]. And let's not understate the geography of Scotland, one of the windiest countries in the world (or at least Europe), that makes wind extra viable. Great! I'm not against wind power. I'm against unrealistic expectations of what wind and (shudder) solar can actually do on a global energy generation scale. (Also, Scotland is a tiny region with a population akin to a city - it isn't a good model for anything on the global scale) >Go look up a list of countries that have, say, >70% renewables and explain to me why they are managing something you claim is impossible. Great idea. Go through the list [3] and you'll see that the >70% renewable in pretty much every case is a result of hydro power (or nuclear if you're talking about low carbon emissions). Hydro is great if you have the geography for it, but even Hydro is not good enough for many environmentalists. I know in the recent election (in Maine) the green party was against building transmission lines to import hydro power from Quebec [2] ... because why import hydro when you can power your state on good intentions. Crazy environmentalists are a huge hindrance to lowering emissions. [1]https://scotland.shinyapps.io/Energy/?Section=RenLowCarbon&Subsection=RenElec&Chart=ElecGen https://scotland.shinyapps.io/Energy/?Section=RenLowCarbon&S... [2]https://www.sunjournal.com/2019/12/04/green-party-calls-for-authorities-to-kill-1-billion-hydropower-project/# https://www.sunjournal.com/2019/12/04/green-party-calls-for-... [3]https://www.electricitymap.org/map https://www.electricitymap.org/map

phaemon 6y ago
> No you didn't. Yes, we did. Your nitpicking over the "right" way to count electricity generation and consumption doesn't matter: the graph you linked still shows around 12 percent fossil fuel generation for 2019, it's less now, and it's been replaced with renewables. Quibble over the figures if you like, but the trend is clear. > And let's not understate the geography of Scotland Yes, all countries have different strengths and weaknesses for renewable. And? > Also, Scotland is a tiny region with a population akin to a city Roughly the same population as the average US state. Anyway, what do you care about the "global scale"? The US is not a renewable energy role model to anyone. > >70% renewable in pretty much every case is a result of hydro power or... Hydro is renewable, so I don't get your complaint here > in the recent election (in Maine)...because why import hydro when you can power your state on good intentions. According to wikipedia, Maine gets 75% electricity from renewables, which is among the highest of any US state, so they seem an odd example to pick. What's more, with a population of just 1.34 million, Maine is clearly a complete irrelevance on a global scale, right?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]