5 ms·

So germany massively scaled back their renewable rollout and this is bad because they built renewables? Then an unrelated rant about hydrogen. That definitely

So germany massively scaled back their renewable rollout and this is bad because they built renewables? Then an unrelated rant about hydrogen. That definitely convinced me. Good job, champ.

Kuinox 4y ago
> Then an unrelated rant about hydrogen. Isn't your miracle solution to storing energy, electrolysers ? I don't see how that unrelated. > So germany massively scaled back their renewable rollout and this is bad because they built renewables? Ah yes, of course the issue is they have gone fully with your idea it would had worked for sure! Or maybe their issue is a lack of cheap magical energy storage? Also, where do the energy come from, in your magical energy mix, for this month, for Germany? How many installed capacity do they need ?
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Storing energy in hydrogen definitely involves steam reformation. Well done. Very nice good faith response. Using gas for 500 hours a year while storage matures is definitely worse than using coal and sitting on your thumbs for 20 years while an EPR is built. Very nice non-cherry-picked example. > Also, where do the energy come from, in your magical energy mix, for this month, for Germany? How many installed capacity do they need ? To bring the locally consumed fossil fuels down to the same level as france's local fossil fuels + those imported from germany in this cherry picked unrepresentative month? About another 200-400GW nameplate at current calacity factors with a few hundred GWh of thermal storage, or roughly where they'd be if they hadn't had their rollout torpedoed in the early 2010s.
  - Kuinox 4y ago
    > Using gas for 500 hours a year while storage matures is definitely worse than using coal and sitting on your thumbs for 20 years while an EPR is built. Very nice non-cherry-picked example. You should be the last one speaking about cherry picking, or bad faith. Germany is ramping up coal while their renewable struggle to meet demand, currently running at 31GW of coal. France have less than 2GW of coal ?!? > Using gas for 500 hours a year This one is straight up a lie. Less than 50% of germany energy mix come from renewable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany#/m... 500h of gaz is so far from what is happening. > 200-400GW nameplate at current calacity factors Today at midday, solar+wind load factor is about 6%. Your 400GW of installed solar+wind doesn't cover half of what coal+gas currently produce, which is 42GW. Again there is a basic math issues in the solution you are proposing.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > Less than 50% of germany energy mix come from renewable. Then there's room for at least another 30% with no added storage. A fifth of that coal and gas is being exported to france. And you carefully avoided mentioning their gas. Very nice good faith discussion. You're definitely living in reality.
      - Kuinox 4y ago
        > Then there's room for at least another 30% with no added storage. It was midday, the added capacity you proposed doesn't cover half of what coal provide in the middle of the day, you wouldn't have spare energy to store. And the carbon footprint is still higher. > A fifth of that coal and gas is being exported to france. A tenth, see you speak about good faith and double numbers in your favor. > And you carefully avoided mentioning their gas You mentioned coal usage that was a lie, so I replied the real coal usage in France, which didn't have even the installed capacity to use the coal as you said. About 10GW was used when I wrote my comment, which make the carbon intensity at 165 egCO2 per kWh. It's 696 egCO2 per kWh for Germany. You seems to endorse using fossil as a backup source for renewable. Congratulations, that's exactly what want fossil fuel firms ! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-fuel-firms-accused-renewable-lobby-takeover-push-gas https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-f... > Very nice good faith discussion. You're definitely living in reality. > Using gas for 500 hours a year while storage matures is definitely worse than using coal and sitting on your thumbs for 20 years while an EPR is built. I don't know if you can make such statement when the reality you spew out is so far from what you even admit in your later comments. You keep saying I don't live in reality, have bad faith, or lie, but you are the one who double numbers, or even invent them in this conversation. You also are the one who have brough exactly 0 external sources through this conversation to backup your claims, well I understand it's complicated to do when you invent numbers as you go, but at least, show where your "reality" come from if it's not only in your head.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Do you get paid for this, or do you just hate your grandchildren?

So germany massively scaled back their renewable rollout and this is bad because they built renewables? Then an unrelated rant about hydrogen. That definitely convinced me. Good job, champ.

Kuinox 4y ago

> Then an unrelated rant about hydrogen. Isn't your miracle solution to storing energy, electrolysers ? I don't see how that unrelated. > So germany massively scaled back their renewable rollout and this is bad because they built renewables? Ah yes, of course the issue is they have gone fully with your idea it would had worked for sure! Or maybe their issue is a lack of cheap magical energy storage? Also, where do the energy come from, in your magical energy mix, for this month, for Germany? How many installed capacity do they need ?

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Storing energy in hydrogen definitely involves steam reformation. Well done. Very nice good faith response. Using gas for 500 hours a year while storage matures is definitely worse than using coal and sitting on your thumbs for 20 years while an EPR is built. Very nice non-cherry-picked example. > Also, where do the energy come from, in your magical energy mix, for this month, for Germany? How many installed capacity do they need ? To bring the locally consumed fossil fuels down to the same level as france's local fossil fuels + those imported from germany in this cherry picked unrepresentative month? About another 200-400GW nameplate at current calacity factors with a few hundred GWh of thermal storage, or roughly where they'd be if they hadn't had their rollout torpedoed in the early 2010s.
- Kuinox 4y ago
  > Using gas for 500 hours a year while storage matures is definitely worse than using coal and sitting on your thumbs for 20 years while an EPR is built. Very nice non-cherry-picked example. You should be the last one speaking about cherry picking, or bad faith. Germany is ramping up coal while their renewable struggle to meet demand, currently running at 31GW of coal. France have less than 2GW of coal ?!? > Using gas for 500 hours a year This one is straight up a lie. Less than 50% of germany energy mix come from renewable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany#/m... 500h of gaz is so far from what is happening. > 200-400GW nameplate at current calacity factors Today at midday, solar+wind load factor is about 6%. Your 400GW of installed solar+wind doesn't cover half of what coal+gas currently produce, which is 42GW. Again there is a basic math issues in the solution you are proposing.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > Less than 50% of germany energy mix come from renewable. Then there's room for at least another 30% with no added storage. A fifth of that coal and gas is being exported to france. And you carefully avoided mentioning their gas. Very nice good faith discussion. You're definitely living in reality.
    - Kuinox 4y ago
      > Then there's room for at least another 30% with no added storage. It was midday, the added capacity you proposed doesn't cover half of what coal provide in the middle of the day, you wouldn't have spare energy to store. And the carbon footprint is still higher. > A fifth of that coal and gas is being exported to france. A tenth, see you speak about good faith and double numbers in your favor. > And you carefully avoided mentioning their gas You mentioned coal usage that was a lie, so I replied the real coal usage in France, which didn't have even the installed capacity to use the coal as you said. About 10GW was used when I wrote my comment, which make the carbon intensity at 165 egCO2 per kWh. It's 696 egCO2 per kWh for Germany. You seems to endorse using fossil as a backup source for renewable. Congratulations, that's exactly what want fossil fuel firms ! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-fuel-firms-accused-renewable-lobby-takeover-push-gas https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-f... > Very nice good faith discussion. You're definitely living in reality. > Using gas for 500 hours a year while storage matures is definitely worse than using coal and sitting on your thumbs for 20 years while an EPR is built. I don't know if you can make such statement when the reality you spew out is so far from what you even admit in your later comments. You keep saying I don't live in reality, have bad faith, or lie, but you are the one who double numbers, or even invent them in this conversation. You also are the one who have brough exactly 0 external sources through this conversation to backup your claims, well I understand it's complicated to do when you invent numbers as you go, but at least, show where your "reality" come from if it's not only in your head.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Do you get paid for this, or do you just hate your grandchildren?