3 ms·

Well, if it's a wartime economy measure why care? As long as the average is good enough and you keep the most important consumers running. If we're talking pea

Well, if it's a wartime economy measure why care? As long as the average is good enough and you keep the most important consumers running. If we're talking peace time, then there's loads of strategies. For Finland, Sweden and Norway there's immense possibility of hydro power to simply switch it to be used in a more dispatchable manner than baselod. For less hydro equipped countries see this research. > *B. Dealing With Variability and Stability* > Much of the resistance towards 100% Renewable Energy (RE) systems in the literature seems to come from the a-priori assumption that an energy system based on solar and wind is impossible since these energy sources are variable. 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]–[282]; storage (battery, compressed air, pumped hydro)[40]–[43], [46], [83], [140], [142], such as stationary batteries; sector coupling [16], [39], [90]–[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. Variability, especially short term, has many mitigation options, and energy system studies are increasingly capturing these in their 100% RE scenarios. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910

ohgodplsno 4y ago
No biggie, just overbuild 3 times your capacity, replace all cars with electric cars (including the current ones that do not have this capacity), build storage (on the scale of which has never been seen before), make a miraculous, worldwide, no loss grid and use methods which have absolutely dreadful energy efficiency (P2G2P ? Hydrogen. Cool. I like losing 70% of my energy too) Needless to say, the sheer need for resources to build all this will make the current state of global warming and climate change look like child's play compared to earth after. Holy shit, how hard is it for zealots to understand and accept that our best, realistic solution to electrifying as much as possible is through a combination of nuclear and renewables, something that literally every competent actor has said time and time again ?
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Quite a lot of the things you list apply to nuclear electricity too. But you seem to be implying that those are renewable problems that nuclear doesn't have, and that adding nuclear to the energy mix will improve them. Can you explain how? Like, "pink hydrogen" is hydrogen made by electrolysis with nuclear power. You had a little rant about Green Hydrogen, so how does nuclear change that? What's wrong with EVs charged from nuclear? Does nuclear mean you don't need grid interconnects? Why do France and Germany trade energy back and forth then? I like nuclear as a tech. It's you that I have doubt about actually supporting it as it seems to just be a hippy-punching shibboleth for you. Are you really just arguing for fossil fuels?
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    Problem: we are using too many resources and causing climate change on a scale never seen before Solution: Build renewables on a scale never seen before, then do it again two more times, as well as once every ten years to replace the ones that failed. Do you see the slight problem? We do not have the resources for that. We cannot afford that. Is nuclear perfect? No. We have spent fuel (that hopefully we can figure out how to reuse, but for now, it's just waste buried deep), it's big, it's unwieldy. But it's reliable. Resources are both plentiful and we don't need that much. A whole lot of concrete (still much less that we would need to put wind turbines), fissile material that can be found pretty much anywhere, and a good bunch of pipes and various metals (infinitely less than what we'd need for solar or wind). I said green hydrogen was shit for storing energy, and so is pink hydrogen. But if that can make you happy, I'm more than willing to use whatever surplus we get from renewables to make hydrogen. I'd just rather we waste 70% of a small production, rather than 70% of all. What's wrong with EVs charged from nuclear? Everything. The only green car is a car that isn't manufactured. For most people (especially in europe), an EV will pretty much take 10 years before it offsets its CO2 emissions. Should we stop selling ICEs? Yes. Should we replace millions of existing cars with EVs? Absofuckinglutely not. Nuclear means you're less dependent on those interconnects. Which, you know, is a useful thing to be as a sovereign country. See: Europe and its dependency on gas. > Are you really just arguing for fossil fuels? Considering how happy fossil fuel companies are about renewables because it allows them to sell gas when it inevitably doesn't work for a day and you need something else to make up for it, you would do well to rethink your mindless support. Every 100% renewables plan is the equivalent of a spherical cow in a vacuum. We cannot mine that much. We cannot find that much space in ideal locations, nor maintain it. There is not a single mine in the world able to get the resources we need. Ignoring reality is all fun and games, and if we had infinite time in front of us, I'd be all okay with going full intermittent power. But we both know it's not the case. Pretending anything else is ignorance and optimism at best, and malice at worst. You need to learn compromise, and as it stands, we cannot afford not to.

ohgodplsno 4y ago

No biggie, just overbuild 3 times your capacity, replace all cars with electric cars (including the current ones that do not have this capacity), build storage (on the scale of which has never been seen before), make a miraculous, worldwide, no loss grid and use methods which have absolutely dreadful energy efficiency (P2G2P ? Hydrogen. Cool. I like losing 70% of my energy too) Needless to say, the sheer need for resources to build all this will make the current state of global warming and climate change look like child's play compared to earth after. Holy shit, how hard is it for zealots to understand and accept that our best, realistic solution to electrifying as much as possible is through a combination of nuclear and renewables, something that literally every competent actor has said time and time again ?

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Quite a lot of the things you list apply to nuclear electricity too. But you seem to be implying that those are renewable problems that nuclear doesn't have, and that adding nuclear to the energy mix will improve them. Can you explain how? Like, "pink hydrogen" is hydrogen made by electrolysis with nuclear power. You had a little rant about Green Hydrogen, so how does nuclear change that? What's wrong with EVs charged from nuclear? Does nuclear mean you don't need grid interconnects? Why do France and Germany trade energy back and forth then? I like nuclear as a tech. It's you that I have doubt about actually supporting it as it seems to just be a hippy-punching shibboleth for you. Are you really just arguing for fossil fuels?
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  Problem: we are using too many resources and causing climate change on a scale never seen before Solution: Build renewables on a scale never seen before, then do it again two more times, as well as once every ten years to replace the ones that failed. Do you see the slight problem? We do not have the resources for that. We cannot afford that. Is nuclear perfect? No. We have spent fuel (that hopefully we can figure out how to reuse, but for now, it's just waste buried deep), it's big, it's unwieldy. But it's reliable. Resources are both plentiful and we don't need that much. A whole lot of concrete (still much less that we would need to put wind turbines), fissile material that can be found pretty much anywhere, and a good bunch of pipes and various metals (infinitely less than what we'd need for solar or wind). I said green hydrogen was shit for storing energy, and so is pink hydrogen. But if that can make you happy, I'm more than willing to use whatever surplus we get from renewables to make hydrogen. I'd just rather we waste 70% of a small production, rather than 70% of all. What's wrong with EVs charged from nuclear? Everything. The only green car is a car that isn't manufactured. For most people (especially in europe), an EV will pretty much take 10 years before it offsets its CO2 emissions. Should we stop selling ICEs? Yes. Should we replace millions of existing cars with EVs? Absofuckinglutely not. Nuclear means you're less dependent on those interconnects. Which, you know, is a useful thing to be as a sovereign country. See: Europe and its dependency on gas. > Are you really just arguing for fossil fuels? Considering how happy fossil fuel companies are about renewables because it allows them to sell gas when it inevitably doesn't work for a day and you need something else to make up for it, you would do well to rethink your mindless support. Every 100% renewables plan is the equivalent of a spherical cow in a vacuum. We cannot mine that much. We cannot find that much space in ideal locations, nor maintain it. There is not a single mine in the world able to get the resources we need. Ignoring reality is all fun and games, and if we had infinite time in front of us, I'd be all okay with going full intermittent power. But we both know it's not the case. Pretending anything else is ignorance and optimism at best, and malice at worst. You need to learn compromise, and as it stands, we cannot afford not to.