4 ms·
As long as you build 5-10x redundancy for solar/wind I don't see it, solar and wind are all over the place between the peak and valley outputs. Unless we find a
by stjohnswarts 4y ago
As long as you build 5-10x redundancy for solar/wind I don't see it, solar and wind are all over the place between the peak and valley outputs. Unless we find a "battery" storage technology that can smooth it out over say a couple of weeks, I don't think countries are going to go for it as the only grid power source. We have nuclear now, and climate change is a huge deal to solve, possibly end of human civilization huge. Note I didn't say solar and wind wouldn't be part of the mix,but as the sole source, it's not going to happen with a 10X or better leap in battery technology (energy density)
- psadri 4y agoHow about using solar/wind to synthesis hydrocarbon fuels and use that as the storage medium?
- kelseyfrog 4y agoWhere does your 5x-10x number come from? I sense that it's a guess, but the cool thing about stats is that we can actually find a redundancy ratio for a given probability of shortage.
- anton96 4y agoBecause at best, Renewables run at 20% percent of their installed capacity comparing to more 80% for nuclear.
- kolinko 4y agoYou are confusing efficiency with some other metrics. Solar is 20%, but there is no point comparing it to efficiency of gas or nuclear - it's apples to oranges.
- anton96 4y agoIt totally makes sense because you always compare price of installation against a certain installed capacity in TW. I was not speaking of the efficiency of transforming 20% of the sun energy into electricity.
- kolinko 4y agoSo what that 20% means in case of solar? Utilisation factor also doesn’t make sense - what matters is how many GWh you van get per dollar of installation, but you don’t measure this in %.