4 ms·

> renewables account for 17% of EU's energy production That's yearly production. Solar has very poor seasonality, wind is not that bad is still nowhere close t

> renewables account for 17% of EU's energy production That's yearly production. Solar has very poor seasonality, wind is not that bad is still nowhere close to nuclear/gas, therefore capacity-wise these numbers are the floor, not the ceiling. To add on top of that Europe is migrating from nuclear in generation altogether :)

dmitriid 4y ago
Hehe, seasonality and load-following... Some other discussions on this topic have people saying things like "just build more solar and wind, build twice as much or however you need to sustain the energy". So, a 17% increase becomes a at least a 34% increase in required new energy... All these discussions (not just on HN, but in political contexts etc.) lack so much of long term vision and planning.
- friendzis 4y ago
  > So, a 17% increase becomes a at least a 34% increase in required new energy... With solar in particular, due to high seasonality we effectively have 3 solutions and none of them make much sense: 1. Install huge-ass batteries to hold "summer" energy for "winter". LCOE goes down the drain. 2. Install "winter" season capacity. In the summer you have overproduction, that in the long term noone wants to buy, because everyone is on solar. LCOE goes down the drain. 3. Install gas plant along solar for "winter" backup. Unit cost skyrockets due to low utilization, LCOE goes down the drain. You save some GHG per unit when "summer" generation is covered by PVs. This is not accounting that with non-dispatchable solar cost of balancing for the grid also goes up. It's not really long term planning per se. Renewables are expensive, period. There is almost zero actual political discussion on cheap energy vs renewable energy. If anything, this discussion is consciously dishonest: marginal cost of energy for producers is most often given as the true cost of renewables. And then we have efficiency. Wind energy is especially sensitive to location. As the best spots are gobbled up first (duh) the marginal efficiency of wind generation declines, which is to be expected. However, various analysts like Lazard give LCOE numbers based on existing averages, which cannot - by definition - be sustained.

dmitriid 4y ago

Hehe, seasonality and load-following... Some other discussions on this topic have people saying things like "just build more solar and wind, build twice as much or however you need to sustain the energy". So, a 17% increase becomes a at least a 34% increase in required new energy... All these discussions (not just on HN, but in political contexts etc.) lack so much of long term vision and planning.

friendzis 4y ago
> So, a 17% increase becomes a at least a 34% increase in required new energy... With solar in particular, due to high seasonality we effectively have 3 solutions and none of them make much sense: 1. Install huge-ass batteries to hold "summer" energy for "winter". LCOE goes down the drain. 2. Install "winter" season capacity. In the summer you have overproduction, that in the long term noone wants to buy, because everyone is on solar. LCOE goes down the drain. 3. Install gas plant along solar for "winter" backup. Unit cost skyrockets due to low utilization, LCOE goes down the drain. You save some GHG per unit when "summer" generation is covered by PVs. This is not accounting that with non-dispatchable solar cost of balancing for the grid also goes up. It's not really long term planning per se. Renewables are expensive, period. There is almost zero actual political discussion on cheap energy vs renewable energy. If anything, this discussion is consciously dishonest: marginal cost of energy for producers is most often given as the true cost of renewables. And then we have efficiency. Wind energy is especially sensitive to location. As the best spots are gobbled up first (duh) the marginal efficiency of wind generation declines, which is to be expected. However, various analysts like Lazard give LCOE numbers based on existing averages, which cannot - by definition - be sustained.