3 ms·
> Variability is not an issue and it never was This is just... incorrect. Bare minimum, you need massive upgrades to the grid in order to be able to move powe
by slfnflctd 4y ago
> Variability is not an issue and it never was
This is just... incorrect. Bare minimum, you need massive upgrades to the grid in order to be able to move power around at night from places where the wind is blowing to places where it isn't (I've been told the wind is always blowing somewhere and it's always enough, but I'll believe that when I see it done at scale with no other power source). Keep in mind we'll likely be seeing a significant increase in night time power use to charge EVs as well.
In the absence of such grid capability (i.e. our situation today), on a windless night your renewable production is zero-- so you either need massive batteries, fossil fuels or nuclear.
Also, the fact that batteries have been getting cheaper isn't a guarantee this curve will continue, especially with lithium battery demand going through the roof and supply chain bottlenecks being likely. There are promising signs of lower costs with some of the larger, heavier battery types, but that's still in very early R&D stages and who knows how it will pan out.
If we're not adding more fission generation, I don't see how we can avoid burning a whole lot more fossil fuels for a longer time unless we make our peace with regular blackouts. Every other solution seems to involve banking on tech we don't have yet and don't know when or if we will.
- hackerlight 4y agoSee: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205318 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33205318 We may need some gas peaker plants to occasionally run in the short-term, but they wouldn't be a significant fraction of energy generation. And the implication of that isn't that renewables leads to more fossil fuel usage than nuclear. You've also go to factor in that we can build out renewables a lot quicker.