5 ms·

I work at a power company and while it can be cheap, in places like the Midwest, it's very unreliable. Solar? On average were budget for getting 10% max power g

I work at a power company and while it can be cheap, in places like the Midwest, it's very unreliable. Solar? On average were budget for getting 10% max power generation out of single sided panels and about 25% for double sided. Wind? Prone to malfunctions and can get wrecked during tornados. But on good days they do well. Aside from that, still very unreliable when you have 5mph winds on a Friday night when energy need is at its highest. Renewables got a long way to go. Storage is barely feasible right now and is the largest reason why it just can't work. This isn't a "Debbie downer" speaking here, these are facts. Green energy cannot support the infrastructure we've created right now. We could revert society to adapt to needing less power, but you're more likely capable of overthrowing the US government than have people be okay with using 30% if their max power usage nowadays.

bombcar 5y ago
Given that wind and solar are effectively “free” when they’re running I expect we will see energy usage climb to consume the available power.
adrianN 5y ago
You can generate at least 50% of the electricity with hardly any storage at all, more if you integrate heat and transportation in the network. The world is very far from the levels of renewables were storage is strictly necessary, which is why there is not very much storage being built right now. There is no real need to reduce energy consumption. We have plenty of space to build solar panels and wind turbines. But primary energy consumption will naturally go down a bit when you replace ICEs (30% efficient or so?) with EVs (80% efficient or so?) and oil and gas heaters with heat pumps (2 4 times as efficient). Of course electricity consumption will be way larger.
- xupybd 5y ago
  Are you sure about that we could get as high as 50% without storage? I was under the impression that storage is the crucial missing piece?
  - adrianN 5y ago
    My source is the German Wikipedia [1], that claims up to ca 60% with sufficient integration, and the fact that Germany managed 50% renewables in 2020 [2] without grid scale battery storage. To be fair, we could rely on the European grid to act as a sort of battery, which is why we managed such a high percentage with very little of the systems integration that the Wikipedia suggests one should do in this phase of the energy transformation. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende#Phasen_der_Energiewende https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende#Phasen_der_Energi... [2] https://strom-report.de/strom/ https://strom-report.de/strom/
sbierwagen 5y ago
>On average were budget for getting 10% max power generation out of single sided panels and about 25% for double sided. Well, yes. It's a panel that only generates power when sunlight is shining on it. When the sun goes down, solar stops producing power. Switching all power generation to PV solar is going to require massive overprovisioning. This has been obvious, and widely known, for decades. Cost-per-KWh is going to be widely variable during the day. This has also been known. Running an aluminum smelter at midnight is going to stop being economical. We can either do this, or pay to raise every building and road in Miami by 6 feet. One or the other.
sesuximo 5y ago
I think this is why some countries (China, Russia, and some EU countries) continue to invest in nuclear power for base load. Solar/wind power are great where they are viable, but that’s not everywhere (yet) Edit: to be fair, the US is still investing in nuclear just not at the “expansion” scale for the most part. Only one new reactor in construction rn.

bombcar 5y ago

Given that wind and solar are effectively “free” when they’re running I expect we will see energy usage climb to consume the available power.

adrianN 5y ago

You can generate at least 50% of the electricity with hardly any storage at all, more if you integrate heat and transportation in the network. The world is very far from the levels of renewables were storage is strictly necessary, which is why there is not very much storage being built right now. There is no real need to reduce energy consumption. We have plenty of space to build solar panels and wind turbines. But primary energy consumption will naturally go down a bit when you replace ICEs (30% efficient or so?) with EVs (80% efficient or so?) and oil and gas heaters with heat pumps (2 4 times as efficient). Of course electricity consumption will be way larger.

xupybd 5y ago
Are you sure about that we could get as high as 50% without storage? I was under the impression that storage is the crucial missing piece?
- adrianN 5y ago
  My source is the German Wikipedia [1], that claims up to ca 60% with sufficient integration, and the fact that Germany managed 50% renewables in 2020 [2] without grid scale battery storage. To be fair, we could rely on the European grid to act as a sort of battery, which is why we managed such a high percentage with very little of the systems integration that the Wikipedia suggests one should do in this phase of the energy transformation. [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende#Phasen_der_Energiewende https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende#Phasen_der_Energi... [2] https://strom-report.de/strom/ https://strom-report.de/strom/

sbierwagen 5y ago

>On average were budget for getting 10% max power generation out of single sided panels and about 25% for double sided. Well, yes. It's a panel that only generates power when sunlight is shining on it. When the sun goes down, solar stops producing power. Switching all power generation to PV solar is going to require massive overprovisioning. This has been obvious, and widely known, for decades. Cost-per-KWh is going to be widely variable during the day. This has also been known. Running an aluminum smelter at midnight is going to stop being economical. We can either do this, or pay to raise every building and road in Miami by 6 feet. One or the other.

sesuximo 5y ago

I think this is why some countries (China, Russia, and some EU countries) continue to invest in nuclear power for base load. Solar/wind power are great where they are viable, but that’s not everywhere (yet) Edit: to be fair, the US is still investing in nuclear just not at the “expansion” scale for the most part. Only one new reactor in construction rn.