8 ms·

Nobody has done it. Nobody has put forth a credible theoretical model on how to do it. If you believe otherwise please show how it can be done. With details. Th

by u320 4y ago

Nobody has done it. Nobody has put forth a credible theoretical model on how to do it. If you believe otherwise please show how it can be done. With details. Things like frequency regulation, reactive power and all that stuff that makes the grid work. And include the economic calculations. The burden of proof is on you.

ben_w 4y ago
> Nobody has done it So? > Nobody has put forth a credible theoretical model on how to do it. HVDC global grid, mentioned loads of times on this forum. 60% antipodal loss with existing components that were optimised for much shorter connections, but even that loss is fine given how cheap optimally placed PV is. Cost about a trillion USD (ok) and a few decades of current global aluminium and copper production (meh), but that’s still absolutely in the realm of the “we could afford it, shame about the politics”.
- zetalyrae 4y ago
  A few decades of how much of the world's aluminium and copper production?
  - ben_w 4y ago
    100% for a few decades. Sorry, I thought was was implicit.
ncmncm 4y ago
> The burden of proof is on you. It is, in fact, not. And, you are no reliable judge of it. Your assessment will have exactly zero effect on how the transition to renewables plays out. Either we transition to renewables fast enough, or global civilization collapses first. Nobody can say which.
pfdietz 4y ago
Lots of people have put forward credible models of how to do it. The key is to include power-to-X to provide dispatchable demand and a buffer for rare prolonged outages of the renewable sources. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 > 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.

by u320 4y ago

ben_w 4y ago

> Nobody has done it So? > Nobody has put forth a credible theoretical model on how to do it. HVDC global grid, mentioned loads of times on this forum. 60% antipodal loss with existing components that were optimised for much shorter connections, but even that loss is fine given how cheap optimally placed PV is. Cost about a trillion USD (ok) and a few decades of current global aluminium and copper production (meh), but that’s still absolutely in the realm of the “we could afford it, shame about the politics”.

zetalyrae 4y ago
A few decades of how much of the world's aluminium and copper production?
- ben_w 4y ago
  100% for a few decades. Sorry, I thought was was implicit.

ncmncm 4y ago

> The burden of proof is on you. It is, in fact, not. And, you are no reliable judge of it. Your assessment will have exactly zero effect on how the transition to renewables plays out. Either we transition to renewables fast enough, or global civilization collapses first. Nobody can say which.

pfdietz 4y ago

Lots of people have put forward credible models of how to do it. The key is to include power-to-X to provide dispatchable demand and a buffer for rare prolonged outages of the renewable sources. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 > 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.