4 ms·

I agree about hypotheticals, and sadly I find that is usually the problem with this topic. Some people "know" why some thing will definitely work because they

I agree about hypotheticals, and sadly I find that is usually the problem with this topic. Some people "know" why some thing will definitely work because they ignore problems, and others "know" why something will not work because they don't realize the problems are solvable or even non-existent. Such as in your example - the three countries you mention are already (at least combined) self-sufficient in renewable energy. (Norway is a net exporter and covers the diesel generators some of the 50 000 people living in Greenland use). Not only that, but solar is totally feasible in all those countries. The notion that solar can't be used far north or far south is just not true. They even use solar power in Antarctica: http://www.antarcticstation.org/station/renewable_energies http://www.antarcticstation.org/station/renewable_energies

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Norway is a net exporter" Norway is powered 95% by hydro and Iceland by geothermal, so it says nothing about feasibility of wind / solar. Also being a 'Net Exporter' is not enough - Scotland is a net exporter of wind energy, but was actually only able to cover ~30% of it's own needs, because sometimes there is too much wind, and sometimes not enough. "Not only that, but solar is totally feasible in all those countries." Research station in Antarctica is not a suitable benchmark: if their setup produces electricity at £2/kWh, that's a great deal because their only alternative is shipping diesel thousands of kilometres at 50x the price. But charging even £1 for electricity in UK would have major repercussions. In the UK, during the summer there is 10x more solar irradiance than in Winter, Norway will be even more extreme. Anything is feasible if you invest enough, but you probably have to overbuild your renewables, and have cross-continent power transmission to even it out.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"Norway is a net exporter" Norway is powered 95% by hydro and Iceland by geothermal, so it says nothing about feasibility of wind / solar. Also being a 'Net Exporter' is not enough - Scotland is a net exporter of wind energy, but was actually only able to cover ~30% of it's own needs, because sometimes there is too much wind, and sometimes not enough. "Not only that, but solar is totally feasible in all those countries." Research station in Antarctica is not a suitable benchmark: if their setup produces electricity at £2/kWh, that's a great deal because their only alternative is shipping diesel thousands of kilometres at 50x the price. But charging even £1 for electricity in UK would have major repercussions. In the UK, during the summer there is 10x more solar irradiance than in Winter, Norway will be even more extreme. Anything is feasible if you invest enough, but you probably have to overbuild your renewables, and have cross-continent power transmission to even it out.