4 ms·

No, you can't just "scale up" mining by a factor of 1000. And yes, that's the kind of increase we'll need to make storage systems viable. I don't think you full

No, you can't just "scale up" mining by a factor of 1000. And yes, that's the kind of increase we'll need to make storage systems viable. I don't think you fully appreciate just how massive an undertaking it is to provide the storage required to make intermittent sources viable. It's estimated it'll take 3 weeks of storage to make intermittent sources viable: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora... By comparison, the world uses 60TWh of electricity daily. There is no realistic plan to build this amount of storage. You have not, and indeed cannot, honestly make the argument that it's within our capacity to build storage at such a scale. Hence why you point to untested storage systems like compressed air or hydrogen electrolysis. We don't know that they will scale, since we have not attempted to build them at scale. You take this absence of evidence as proof that they will scale instead of recognizing it for what it is: and absence of evidence since hardly any of these storage systems have been built. This is your pattern of commenting: you concede that the storage systems that we have built at scale don't work. Then you point to the storage systems that we haven't built at scale and assume they will work at scales dwarfing anything we've built so far. We do not have the capacity to build storage to make intermittent sources viable. You just assume that every new and untested storage system will be super cheap even when it's built by the terawatt hour. And then you call people dishonest when the point out that you're the one being dishonest about our experience with energy storage.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Your cited link, is also cited in the paper. They said that with only solar, wind, and HVDC but no batteries you could get 80% renewable. Or, with 12hr of battery but no HDVC you could get 80% renewable. And, if you used only batteries, you could get the last 20%. Which, is pretty good? They're not recommending you ignore other technologies, they're just trying to establish rough costs for simplified models. They seem to think so back in 2018 anyway: > “The fact that we could get 80 percent of our power from wind and solar alone is really encouraging,” he said. “Five years ago, many people doubted that these resources could account for more than 20 or 30 percent.” >But beyond the 80 percent mark...Options could include nuclear and hydroelectric power generation, as well as managing demand.” Here's where it gets cited in the current work (footnote 275): > Critics of 100% RE systems like to contrast solar and wind with ’firm’ energy sources like nuclear and fossil fuels (often combined with CCS) that bring their own storage. This is the key point made in some already mentioned reactions, such as those by Clack et al. [225], Trainer [226], Heard et al. [227] Jenkins et al. [228], and Caldeira et al. [275], [276]. However, while it is true that keeping a system with variable sources stable is more complex, a range of strategies can be employed that are often ignored or underutilized in critical studies: oversizing solar and wind capacities; strengthening interconnections [68], [82], [132], [143], [277], [278]; demand response [279], [172], e.g. smart electric vehicles charging using delayed charging or delivering energy back to the electricity grid via vehicle-to-grid [181], [280]–[281][282]; storage [40]–[41][42][43], [46], [83], [140], [142], such as stationary batteries; sector coupling [16], [39], [90]–[91][92], [97], [132], [216], e.g. optimizing the interaction between electricity, heat, transport, and industry; power-to-X [39], [106], [134], [176], e.g. producing hydrogen at moments when there is abundant energy; et cetera. Using all these strategies effectively to mitigate variability is where much of the cutting-edge development of 100% RE scenarios takes place. > With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels. These critics are still questioning whether 100% RE is the cheapest solution but no longer claim it would be unfeasible or prohibitively expensive.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels E-fuels and "ptx" are ambiguous terms for energy storage. That plan is making the same allusions to storage systems that do not yet exist. What is "X"? Can it actually be built as cheaply as people promise? Until that's answered, this is just wishful thinking.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    If you are assuring us storage won't do it, the ambiguity doesn't matter, as it is on your plate to refute every last possibility. So step up and do you job and refute all possible interpretations of those terms. It's your responsibility to do so. You also have to refute all possible combinations of all the elements in the message you are responding to. But I assume you've done that, otherwise your assurance that 100% renewables can't work would be a lie.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      No, the burden of proof is one the one saying that X is a viable approach. You're asking people to prove a negative. Here's a thought: we don't need fission nor renewables nor storage. Fusion will give us unlimited cheap energy! Now you have to refute every possible implementation of fusion energy - even methods we haven't built or tested - otherwise you're lying. Step up and do your job refuting all possible implementations of fusion! This is the kind of logic you're making with energy storage, and it's faulty logic. If someone wants to claim the viability of fusion, they actually have to deliver a working fusion reactor and at a viable cost. It's not the burden of other people to disprove every possible implementation of fusion.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > Modern 100% RE scenarios often make wide use of power-to-X (PtX) technologies, in particular, power-to-heat [22] and power-to-hydrogen [23]–[24][25][26]. Where direct hydrogen cannot yet be used, such as in the chemical industry or for long-distance marine and aviation transportation, hydrogen can be further converted to synthetic electricity-based fuels (e-fuels) as chemically bound RE and such as e-methane [27], [28], Fischer-Tropsch fuels [29], [30], e-ammonia [31], [32], and e-methanol [33], [34].

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Your cited link, is also cited in the paper. They said that with only solar, wind, and HVDC but no batteries you could get 80% renewable. Or, with 12hr of battery but no HDVC you could get 80% renewable. And, if you used only batteries, you could get the last 20%. Which, is pretty good? They're not recommending you ignore other technologies, they're just trying to establish rough costs for simplified models. They seem to think so back in 2018 anyway: > “The fact that we could get 80 percent of our power from wind and solar alone is really encouraging,” he said. “Five years ago, many people doubted that these resources could account for more than 20 or 30 percent.” >But beyond the 80 percent mark...Options could include nuclear and hydroelectric power generation, as well as managing demand.” Here's where it gets cited in the current work (footnote 275): > Critics of 100% RE systems like to contrast solar and wind with ’firm’ energy sources like nuclear and fossil fuels (often combined with CCS) that bring their own storage. This is the key point made in some already mentioned reactions, such as those by Clack et al. [225], Trainer [226], Heard et al. [227] Jenkins et al. [228], and Caldeira et al. [275], [276]. However, while it is true that keeping a system with variable sources stable is more complex, a range of strategies can be employed that are often ignored or underutilized in critical studies: oversizing solar and wind capacities; strengthening interconnections [68], [82], [132], [143], [277], [278]; demand response [279], [172], e.g. smart electric vehicles charging using delayed charging or delivering energy back to the electricity grid via vehicle-to-grid [181], [280]–[281][282]; storage [40]–[41][42][43], [46], [83], [140], [142], such as stationary batteries; sector coupling [16], [39], [90]–[91][92], [97], [132], [216], e.g. optimizing the interaction between electricity, heat, transport, and industry; power-to-X [39], [106], [134], [176], e.g. producing hydrogen at moments when there is abundant energy; et cetera. Using all these strategies effectively to mitigate variability is where much of the cutting-edge development of 100% RE scenarios takes place. > With every iteration in the research and with every technological breakthrough in these areas, 100% RE systems become increasingly viable. Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels. These critics are still questioning whether 100% RE is the cheapest solution but no longer claim it would be unfeasible or prohibitively expensive.

Manuel_D 4y ago
> Even former critics must admit that adding e-fuels through PtX makes 100% RE possible at costs similar to fossil fuels E-fuels and "ptx" are ambiguous terms for energy storage. That plan is making the same allusions to storage systems that do not yet exist. What is "X"? Can it actually be built as cheaply as people promise? Until that's answered, this is just wishful thinking.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  If you are assuring us storage won't do it, the ambiguity doesn't matter, as it is on your plate to refute every last possibility. So step up and do you job and refute all possible interpretations of those terms. It's your responsibility to do so. You also have to refute all possible combinations of all the elements in the message you are responding to. But I assume you've done that, otherwise your assurance that 100% renewables can't work would be a lie.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    No, the burden of proof is one the one saying that X is a viable approach. You're asking people to prove a negative. Here's a thought: we don't need fission nor renewables nor storage. Fusion will give us unlimited cheap energy! Now you have to refute every possible implementation of fusion energy - even methods we haven't built or tested - otherwise you're lying. Step up and do your job refuting all possible implementations of fusion! This is the kind of logic you're making with energy storage, and it's faulty logic. If someone wants to claim the viability of fusion, they actually have to deliver a working fusion reactor and at a viable cost. It's not the burden of other people to disprove every possible implementation of fusion.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  > Modern 100% RE scenarios often make wide use of power-to-X (PtX) technologies, in particular, power-to-heat [22] and power-to-hydrogen [23]–[24][25][26]. Where direct hydrogen cannot yet be used, such as in the chemical industry or for long-distance marine and aviation transportation, hydrogen can be further converted to synthetic electricity-based fuels (e-fuels) as chemically bound RE and such as e-methane [27], [28], Fischer-Tropsch fuels [29], [30], e-ammonia [31], [32], and e-methanol [33], [34].