3 ms·
You seem to presuppose that we would need to build new fossil fuel generating capacity. When in fact it's already installed. And I'm not sure they would always
by benj111 4y ago
You seem to presuppose that we would need to build new fossil fuel generating capacity. When in fact it's already installed.
And I'm not sure they would always need to burn fossil fuels anyway. Coal fired power plants can burn wood, gas plants hydrogen or methane.
I don't really get the 2 grids thing either. Everything is being plugged into the same grid. Instead of replacing a coal fired power station, you just plug in a wind farm. We already have to maintain peaker plants now.
Yes if you had a grid that was as renewable heavy as we could make it, you would be factoring in the costs of these plants into running the grid. But currently most (all?) Countries aren't at that stage, and if/when it does get to that stage, those peaker plants will still have to compete against other forms of peak energy generation / storage.
- adrianN 4y agoI don't think there is enough wood to replace coal, so we'd probably need some new gas turbines. Remember that you need to be prepared for at least a couple of days of roughly zero renewable generation every couple of years. In many locations you have significantly reduced generation every winter. So you need to have sufficient backup capability available. I don't think today's battery tech scales to that amount of storage, so you'll likely have to rely on hydrogen or methane.
- benj111 4y agoThere's not enough wood to replace the coal we're using now, no. But if we are only talking about a fraction of today's usage that is doable.