3 ms·

Newer data says otherwise. https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/1452771074119135237 https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/1452771074119135237 And variability

by beders 5y ago

Newer data says otherwise. https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/1452771074119135237 https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/1452771074119135237 And variability is easy to deal with: overbuild and/or storage. Southern Australia shows how it is done.

rsj_hn 5y ago
> Newer data says otherwise OK, GLWT. > And variability is easy to deal with: overbuild and/or storage. Southern Australia shows how it is done. Australian energy is 72% fossil fuel, 11% hydro, rest solar and wind. https://www.worlddata.info/australia/australia/energy-consumption.php https://www.worlddata.info/australia/australia/energy-consum...
- cycomanic 5y ago
  He did say South Australia, which is investing heavily into renewables and battery storage. The thing is that Australia has a huge coal lobby (being one of the biggest producers in the world) and the current conservative government is essentially in bed with them. Incidentally Australia is also one of the biggest producers of Uranium.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    It's like California shutting down their nuclear plant. Well, OK it imports 30% of it's electricity from the rest of the grid already, so that can go up to 40%. Utah will add another gas plant, turn that on at night, and California can claim that it has replaced nuclear with solar. Both of them are pulling from the same grid and electricity is fungible. So adding unreliable renewables to a grid is not an impressive achievement as long as you have a reliable source on the same grid. This is why I asked for examples of countries. To switch entirely to wind or solar, you have to spend a lot on battery tech or other energy storage, and those costs dwarf the costs of the solar panels or wind turbines, and that is ultimately what determines whether something is feasible to scale up to the entire grid.
semi-extrinsic 5y ago
Your data actually directly disproves your argument. The highest number on that list which isn't hydropower or geothermal is 15% wind power in Scotland. Look, wind power needs to grow at an exponential rate the next decade in order to meet current projections for how much wind power we need. But it's not doing that, instead it's slowing down. The primary reason being wind power developers have for the last decade been just as bad as the fossile fuel industry when it comes to being a bunch of greedy a*holes that steamroll over local opinions, rights of indigenous people, and conservation of natural habitats. Did you know that 50% of the largest on-land wind park in Europe may need to be disassembled and removed? It was recently ruled by grand assembly in Norwegian supreme court that its construction violates article 27 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, i.e. it was found to be a violation of the fundamental human rights of the indigenous people.

by beders 5y ago

rsj_hn 5y ago

> Newer data says otherwise OK, GLWT. > And variability is easy to deal with: overbuild and/or storage. Southern Australia shows how it is done. Australian energy is 72% fossil fuel, 11% hydro, rest solar and wind. https://www.worlddata.info/australia/australia/energy-consumption.php https://www.worlddata.info/australia/australia/energy-consum...

cycomanic 5y ago
He did say South Australia, which is investing heavily into renewables and battery storage. The thing is that Australia has a huge coal lobby (being one of the biggest producers in the world) and the current conservative government is essentially in bed with them. Incidentally Australia is also one of the biggest producers of Uranium.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  It's like California shutting down their nuclear plant. Well, OK it imports 30% of it's electricity from the rest of the grid already, so that can go up to 40%. Utah will add another gas plant, turn that on at night, and California can claim that it has replaced nuclear with solar. Both of them are pulling from the same grid and electricity is fungible. So adding unreliable renewables to a grid is not an impressive achievement as long as you have a reliable source on the same grid. This is why I asked for examples of countries. To switch entirely to wind or solar, you have to spend a lot on battery tech or other energy storage, and those costs dwarf the costs of the solar panels or wind turbines, and that is ultimately what determines whether something is feasible to scale up to the entire grid.

semi-extrinsic 5y ago

Your data actually directly disproves your argument. The highest number on that list which isn't hydropower or geothermal is 15% wind power in Scotland. Look, wind power needs to grow at an exponential rate the next decade in order to meet current projections for how much wind power we need. But it's not doing that, instead it's slowing down. The primary reason being wind power developers have for the last decade been just as bad as the fossile fuel industry when it comes to being a bunch of greedy a*holes that steamroll over local opinions, rights of indigenous people, and conservation of natural habitats. Did you know that 50% of the largest on-land wind park in Europe may need to be disassembled and removed? It was recently ruled by grand assembly in Norwegian supreme court that its construction violates article 27 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, i.e. it was found to be a violation of the fundamental human rights of the indigenous people.