3 ms·

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%

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.

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.