5 ms·

> Renewables have yet to demonstrate the ability to replace fossil fuels in any meaningful way. They seem to top out at 10-20% of the energy mix. Denmark has r

> Renewables have yet to demonstrate the ability to replace fossil fuels in any meaningful way. They seem to top out at 10-20% of the energy mix. Denmark has reportedly reached 53.3% of electricity consumption with wind and solar. "The first half of 2022 has been a record-breaking period for green energy production in Denmark. Danish windmills and solar panels produced 10,9 TWh in the first six months of the year – a significant 12% increase from the previous record from 2020. Another all-time high, the fraction of wind and solar power in the total electricity consumption was 53,3%." https://stateofgreen.com/en/news/green-danish-energy-production-at-a-record-high-in-the-first-half-of-2022/ https://stateofgreen.com/en/news/green-danish-energy-product... > France achieved net 0 many decades ago because they went all in with nuclear whereas their neighbors that went with renewables haven’t gotten anywhere close to that. Unfortunately even France no longer seems able to build new nuclear generation capacity at a reasonable cost. While wind, solar, and batteries get ever cheaper, nuclear has gotten more expensive over time. For what it's worth I used to agree with you that Nuclear seemed the only viable way forward, after reading https://www.withouthotair.com https://www.withouthotair.com. However much has changed over the past 14 years since it was published.

belorn 4y ago
Denmark reached 100% wind capacity in 2013, 9 years ago, and is today completely dependent on Norway and Sweden to supply hydro energy when demand exceed supply. Around 50% of the energy Denmark consume is from imports. Denmark wind and solar farms do sell a lot of energy to other countries when the weather is optimal, but when its not they have to buy that energy from somewhere. EU ruled a while back that the Swedish energy grid must sell energy to Denmark if there is available energy, and so the Swedish grid and the Danish grid is thus tied in a way that removes any distinctions between the two. Denmark is thus a terrible example of wind replacing fossil fuels, unless they suddenly would forgo imports and live with only having power 50% of the time. They are a great example of how you can invest in renewable energy as long the issue of grid stability can be solved through imports.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Denmark sounds like a big success story. You've got half of locally consumed energy being generated locally from wind and solar, and you're also sending renewable energy to other countries which reduces the amount of fossil fuel they have to burn. They should build even more so they can send even more and have an even bigger impact. And if their neighbors did the same thing and sent excess capacity to each other, then it'd all net off to not needing much storage at all. Maybe 10 percent of supply needs to be met with gas peaker plants when variability gets really bad, prior to storage solutions becoming cost effective. So this case study of Denmark shows there is little substance to the criticisms of renewables.
  - belorn 4y ago
    With about 50% average effectiveness, overcapacity is fairly simple to calculate. With 100% capacity you get what we have today, ie around 50% from renewables and 50% from imports. At 200% capacity you get 75% from renewables, 25% from imports. at 400% capacity you get 87.5% from renewables, 12.5% from imports. At 800% capacity you get 93.75% from renewables, 6.25% from imports. at 1600% capacity its 96.875% from renewables, 3.125% from imports (assuming that renewables can scale down to that low weather conditions). Obviously, running at high overcapacity results in significant less profits unless you can sell the overcapacity to other countries. When Denmark hit 100% wind capacity the growth of new wind halted dramatically down to basically the same as consumption growth. There is a limit on how much you can dump, i mean export, to other countries before there is no one willing to buy excess energy during periods of optimal weather conditions.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      This isn't the scaling law we'd see. Firstly, Denmark's renewables are largely wind. But wind and solar are negatively correlated. As they add more solar, the variability will cancel out. Secondly, variability is heterogeneous across geography. You're not building the second wind turbine in the same location as the first. As you connect countries up, or as you build in locations that don't currently have it, the variability cancels out. Denmark is tiny. If the EU takes it up as a project, significant amounts of variability cancelling will happen, as you mix offshore wind, onshore wind, and solar, across the continent. So, > 80% of EU's energy, from wind and solar, without any storage, should be achievable. > running at high overcapacity results in significant less profits Still better economics than nuclear. Even if you're at 3x overcapacity, it's still cheaper[1]. Not to mention you can sell most of that overcapacity (even to countries outside the EU) and get the money back, or convert it into green hydrogen and sell that. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

belorn 4y ago

Denmark reached 100% wind capacity in 2013, 9 years ago, and is today completely dependent on Norway and Sweden to supply hydro energy when demand exceed supply. Around 50% of the energy Denmark consume is from imports. Denmark wind and solar farms do sell a lot of energy to other countries when the weather is optimal, but when its not they have to buy that energy from somewhere. EU ruled a while back that the Swedish energy grid must sell energy to Denmark if there is available energy, and so the Swedish grid and the Danish grid is thus tied in a way that removes any distinctions between the two. Denmark is thus a terrible example of wind replacing fossil fuels, unless they suddenly would forgo imports and live with only having power 50% of the time. They are a great example of how you can invest in renewable energy as long the issue of grid stability can be solved through imports.

hackerlight 4y ago
Denmark sounds like a big success story. You've got half of locally consumed energy being generated locally from wind and solar, and you're also sending renewable energy to other countries which reduces the amount of fossil fuel they have to burn. They should build even more so they can send even more and have an even bigger impact. And if their neighbors did the same thing and sent excess capacity to each other, then it'd all net off to not needing much storage at all. Maybe 10 percent of supply needs to be met with gas peaker plants when variability gets really bad, prior to storage solutions becoming cost effective. So this case study of Denmark shows there is little substance to the criticisms of renewables.
- belorn 4y ago
  With about 50% average effectiveness, overcapacity is fairly simple to calculate. With 100% capacity you get what we have today, ie around 50% from renewables and 50% from imports. At 200% capacity you get 75% from renewables, 25% from imports. at 400% capacity you get 87.5% from renewables, 12.5% from imports. At 800% capacity you get 93.75% from renewables, 6.25% from imports. at 1600% capacity its 96.875% from renewables, 3.125% from imports (assuming that renewables can scale down to that low weather conditions). Obviously, running at high overcapacity results in significant less profits unless you can sell the overcapacity to other countries. When Denmark hit 100% wind capacity the growth of new wind halted dramatically down to basically the same as consumption growth. There is a limit on how much you can dump, i mean export, to other countries before there is no one willing to buy excess energy during periods of optimal weather conditions.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    This isn't the scaling law we'd see. Firstly, Denmark's renewables are largely wind. But wind and solar are negatively correlated. As they add more solar, the variability will cancel out. Secondly, variability is heterogeneous across geography. You're not building the second wind turbine in the same location as the first. As you connect countries up, or as you build in locations that don't currently have it, the variability cancels out. Denmark is tiny. If the EU takes it up as a project, significant amounts of variability cancelling will happen, as you mix offshore wind, onshore wind, and solar, across the continent. So, > 80% of EU's energy, from wind and solar, without any storage, should be achievable. > running at high overcapacity results in significant less profits Still better economics than nuclear. Even if you're at 3x overcapacity, it's still cheaper[1]. Not to mention you can sell most of that overcapacity (even to countries outside the EU) and get the money back, or convert it into green hydrogen and sell that. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth