5 ms·

>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

>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?
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >Your nitpicking over the "right" way to count electricity generation and consumption doesn't matter It matters. And it isn't a 'nitpick'. You honestly don't think it is worth clarifying what the 90% refers to because I can guarantee you that a lot of people who read your comment automatically assumed that Scotland consumed 90% of its energy requirements from renewable sources - which it did not.. not even close. It's also important for policy. You can setup a 1TW solar array, and it wouldn't be able to power one house at night. And that's the point here because we're trying to move from fossil fuels and the question is: can wind and solar do it? And the answer is no. Nuclear can do it. Hydro and geothermal can do it (but those are geography dependent). >The US is not a renewable energy role model to anyone. No. But Ontario is. We're one of the world leaders for carbon emissions from electricity generation and we are because of nuclear and hydro. France is ahead of Scotland too, and that's solely because of nuclear. >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. Again, not from solar and wind. It's hydro. Whenever these high numbers are mentioned it's always effin hydro. The policy here was extending hydro transmission and crazy people trying to block it (meaning that capacity would be replaced by natural gas, not wind, not solar because they can't). >What's more, with a population of just 1.34 million, Maine is clearly a complete irrelevance on a global scale, right? It is irrelevant. We can't scale hydro to that level globally.
  - phaemon 6y ago
    It is a nitpick. The fact is that even counting your way, it's around 10% from fossil fuels. That's been achieved without expanding nuclear capability. It is renewable that has replaced fossil fuels here. Yes, Scotland also exports renewable energy. That's a good thing. > can wind and solar do it? And the answer is no. Nuclear can do it. Can wind and solar and hydro and geothermal do it? The answer is Yes. There's no need for more horrifically expensive nuclear. > We can't scale hydro to that level globally. No-one's asking you to. If you're all renewable already, good for you. If you're not, get your own house in order before criticizing others. But stop claiming that what's already being done can't be done.
loonster 6y ago
I am curious why you dislike solar more than wind. Solar to me seems much more predictable. At smaller percentages it works well to handle peak AC loads. Larger percentages seem foolish to me.

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?

macspoofing 6y ago
>Your nitpicking over the "right" way to count electricity generation and consumption doesn't matter It matters. And it isn't a 'nitpick'. You honestly don't think it is worth clarifying what the 90% refers to because I can guarantee you that a lot of people who read your comment automatically assumed that Scotland consumed 90% of its energy requirements from renewable sources - which it did not.. not even close. It's also important for policy. You can setup a 1TW solar array, and it wouldn't be able to power one house at night. And that's the point here because we're trying to move from fossil fuels and the question is: can wind and solar do it? And the answer is no. Nuclear can do it. Hydro and geothermal can do it (but those are geography dependent). >The US is not a renewable energy role model to anyone. No. But Ontario is. We're one of the world leaders for carbon emissions from electricity generation and we are because of nuclear and hydro. France is ahead of Scotland too, and that's solely because of nuclear. >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. Again, not from solar and wind. It's hydro. Whenever these high numbers are mentioned it's always effin hydro. The policy here was extending hydro transmission and crazy people trying to block it (meaning that capacity would be replaced by natural gas, not wind, not solar because they can't). >What's more, with a population of just 1.34 million, Maine is clearly a complete irrelevance on a global scale, right? It is irrelevant. We can't scale hydro to that level globally.
- phaemon 6y ago
  It is a nitpick. The fact is that even counting your way, it's around 10% from fossil fuels. That's been achieved without expanding nuclear capability. It is renewable that has replaced fossil fuels here. Yes, Scotland also exports renewable energy. That's a good thing. > can wind and solar do it? And the answer is no. Nuclear can do it. Can wind and solar and hydro and geothermal do it? The answer is Yes. There's no need for more horrifically expensive nuclear. > We can't scale hydro to that level globally. No-one's asking you to. If you're all renewable already, good for you. If you're not, get your own house in order before criticizing others. But stop claiming that what's already being done can't be done.

loonster 6y ago

I am curious why you dislike solar more than wind. Solar to me seems much more predictable. At smaller percentages it works well to handle peak AC loads. Larger percentages seem foolish to me.