4 ms·

I agree "storage" could be one of the candidates, but the OP does address that at all.

Retric 5y ago
He specifically mentions storage in several contexts. “You don't have to make the storage super cheap, you've got cheap power (see Fallacy 3) and you don't have to solve storing the power for weeks or months. All you have to do is suck up enough power at 2pm and sell it at 2am in order to turn power prices positive during the daytime.”
- glofish 5y ago
  but it is not a one of the fallacies, right? It would have been better if "storage" was one of the main titles instead you get:"Fallacy 2 - 100% Lemon or 100% Lime or Bust" I am not saying that the author does not make valid points, I am saying that the valid points get lost when titled with evident nonsense
  - Retric 5y ago
    Storage alone isn’t a fallacy. Digging into exactly how much storage is excessive would be another, but that’s a perfectly valid debate and not the root issue with the kind of nonsense people regularly bring up. Here’s one that seems to be about storage but is really a #2 example. It arbitrarily picks 50% solar 50% wind 0% hydro and then does a bunch of meaningless calculations as if that’s ever what people would build in the North East: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20022019/100-percent-renewable-energy-battery-storage-need-worst-case-polar-vortex-wind-solar/?amp https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20022019/100-percent-rene... The issue with that article isn’t storage it’s the energy mix used and the lack of excess production. As #1 points out you get to 100% not by building that in a day you build more storage, more wind, more hydro, and or more solar and then figure out what else is cost effective to add. Currently there is seemingly excess solar in California with prices going negative except unlike what’s mentioned people are actually still building solar because it’s cheap enough that even without selling in the middle of sunny days it’s still profitable. It’s really not obvious that that’s going to happen just running some
    - nicoburns 5y ago
      > Currently there is seemingly excess solar in California with prices going negative except unlike what’s mentioned people are actually still building solar because it’s cheap enough that even without selling in the middle of sunny days it’s still profitable. Yeah, and at least solar is really easy to turn off so you don't actually have to pay the negative price, you can take zero.

He specifically mentions storage in several contexts. “You don't have to make the storage super cheap, you've got cheap power (see Fallacy 3) and you don't have to solve storing the power for weeks or months. All you have to do is suck up enough power at 2pm and sell it at 2am in order to turn power prices positive during the daytime.”

glofish 5y ago
but it is not a one of the fallacies, right? It would have been better if "storage" was one of the main titles instead you get:"Fallacy 2 - 100% Lemon or 100% Lime or Bust" I am not saying that the author does not make valid points, I am saying that the valid points get lost when titled with evident nonsense
- Retric 5y ago
  Storage alone isn’t a fallacy. Digging into exactly how much storage is excessive would be another, but that’s a perfectly valid debate and not the root issue with the kind of nonsense people regularly bring up. Here’s one that seems to be about storage but is really a #2 example. It arbitrarily picks 50% solar 50% wind 0% hydro and then does a bunch of meaningless calculations as if that’s ever what people would build in the North East: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20022019/100-percent-renewable-energy-battery-storage-need-worst-case-polar-vortex-wind-solar/?amp https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20022019/100-percent-rene... The issue with that article isn’t storage it’s the energy mix used and the lack of excess production. As #1 points out you get to 100% not by building that in a day you build more storage, more wind, more hydro, and or more solar and then figure out what else is cost effective to add. Currently there is seemingly excess solar in California with prices going negative except unlike what’s mentioned people are actually still building solar because it’s cheap enough that even without selling in the middle of sunny days it’s still profitable. It’s really not obvious that that’s going to happen just running some
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    > Currently there is seemingly excess solar in California with prices going negative except unlike what’s mentioned people are actually still building solar because it’s cheap enough that even without selling in the middle of sunny days it’s still profitable. Yeah, and at least solar is really easy to turn off so you don't actually have to pay the negative price, you can take zero.