3 ms·

You do exactly what Australia is doing and build PHES and dispatchable loads like electrolysis for fertilizer and smelting as well as adopting EVs. Also your S

You do exactly what Australia is doing and build PHES and dispatchable loads like electrolysis for fertilizer and smelting as well as adopting EVs. Also your SA example is cherry picking a time when a bunch of transmission infrastructure has been destroyed because it was built to sub par standards and hit by a storm. When this happened last time there was only large centralised fossil fuel generation and there were weeks of blackouts and other problems. Seems like a pretty good case for more rooftop solar.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Unfortunately nobody has figured out how to deploy enough storage to make intermittent sources viable. Hence why plans for a renewable grid assume that compressed air, heated sand, or giant flywheels will deliver storage at orders of magnitude better than the existing battery and pumped hydro systems. Australia is not a big success story: Fossil fuels still comprise over 60% of electricity sources for Australia - it's no better than the USA. They are not using renewables for chemical and metallurgy industries. And this is despite Australia having some of the best weather and geography for solar power. Sweden is the country making the most progress into green hydrogen, but it's still experimental at this point. Sweden also gets 40% of it's electricity from nuclear and 40% from hydropower, too. It's hardly a poster child for the success of wind and solar over nuclear power. Intermittent sources need to be backed by a dispatchable source. For countries that don't have widespread hydroelectric potential like Sweden, intermittent sources are not viable except as a supplement to fossil fuels.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > Unfortunately nobody has figured out how to deploy enough storage to make intermittent sources viable. They're viable even without storage as evidenced by installing new capacity at a rate of net generation of about 20% of the entire cumulative nuclear fleet per year. And getting enough storage is well understood, it is just not a priority in most places until around 70% penetration and progress towards decarbonizing transport is met. > Australia is not a big success story: Fossil fuels still comprise over 60% of electricity sources for Australia - it's no better than the USA. They are not using renewables for chemical and metallurgy industries. And this is despite Australia having some of the best weather and geography for solar power. Australia has languished under a government that was openly hostile to renewables for years. South Australia has been operating at over 90% gross renewables for a week and this is after only a few years of large scale effort with insignificant storage and limited ability for interstate transmission due to storm damage. > Sweden is the country making the most progress into green hydrogen, but it's still experimental at this point. https://gh2.org/countries/sweden https://gh2.org/countries/sweden https://gh2.org/countries/australia https://gh2.org/countries/australia Looks like about the same level of investment for similar targets to me. Could it be that was another example of blatant lies? > For countries that don't have widespread hydroelectric potential like Sweden, intermittent sources are not viable except as a supplement to fossil fuels. Yes. 90% for a week right near the beginning of the transition is a 'suppliment'. Very sound conclusion from the evidence at hand. This constant lying must be exhausting. Just sell your coal shares.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Where are you getting the idea that 90% of South Australia's electricity is coming from renewables? Fossil fuels still account for ~35% of the state's generation [1]. You mention "for a week", so it sounds like this was under ideal conditions in the middle of the Australian summer. I could also cherry-pick data from the middle of winter to show a particularly bad week. The only state that has more renewable generation is Tasmania, and they produce it mostly through hydropower. Again, the constraints of intermittent sources energy continue to surface themselves. Australia has not found a way to escape this. > Looks like about the same level of investment for similar targets to me. Could it be that was another example of blatant lies? As per your links, Australia merely has targets while Sweden has actually produced and delivered green steel. In fact, again as per the link, Sweden has made the world's first delivery of steel produced without fossil fuels. I'm struggling to see how you conclude this is a lie when your own sources explain how Australia has no plants or production, while Sweden has actually produced green steel. 1. https://www.energy.gov.au/data/australian-electricity-generation-fuel-mix-calendar-year-2021#:~:text=Coal%20continues%20to%20dominate%20in,34%25%20of%20South%20Australian%20generation https://www.energy.gov.au/data/australian-electricity-genera....
    - trashtester 4y ago
      It should be said that until the entire European energy supply is carbon free, green steel is not only incredibly expensive, but also bad for the climate. It would be much better in both ways to feed that energy into the electric grid to replace fossil fueled power. Norway has a similar initiative to produce carbon free ammonium, but that, too, depends on dirt cheap electricity supply to be rational. https://www.horisontenergi.no/blue-ammonia/ https://www.horisontenergi.no/blue-ammonia/ In both cases, Hydrogen is used, and I suppose if large amounts of hydrogen becomes available and very cheap (for instance due to excess wind power supply), it _could_ be good to already have this tech available. But based on what I can see from electricity flows from Denmark and Germany to Norway, it is still very rare for the European grid to have excess power due to good wind conditions. https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/Market-data1/Power-system-data/Exchange1/NO/Hourly21/?view=table https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/Market-data1/Power-system-d... Norway can still absorb a lot more wind power on such days by temporary pausing hydro production. (Max hydroelectric electricity production in Norway is around 20GW, or about 4KW per capita).

Manuel_D 4y ago

Unfortunately nobody has figured out how to deploy enough storage to make intermittent sources viable. Hence why plans for a renewable grid assume that compressed air, heated sand, or giant flywheels will deliver storage at orders of magnitude better than the existing battery and pumped hydro systems. Australia is not a big success story: Fossil fuels still comprise over 60% of electricity sources for Australia - it's no better than the USA. They are not using renewables for chemical and metallurgy industries. And this is despite Australia having some of the best weather and geography for solar power. Sweden is the country making the most progress into green hydrogen, but it's still experimental at this point. Sweden also gets 40% of it's electricity from nuclear and 40% from hydropower, too. It's hardly a poster child for the success of wind and solar over nuclear power. Intermittent sources need to be backed by a dispatchable source. For countries that don't have widespread hydroelectric potential like Sweden, intermittent sources are not viable except as a supplement to fossil fuels.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Unfortunately nobody has figured out how to deploy enough storage to make intermittent sources viable. They're viable even without storage as evidenced by installing new capacity at a rate of net generation of about 20% of the entire cumulative nuclear fleet per year. And getting enough storage is well understood, it is just not a priority in most places until around 70% penetration and progress towards decarbonizing transport is met. > Australia is not a big success story: Fossil fuels still comprise over 60% of electricity sources for Australia - it's no better than the USA. They are not using renewables for chemical and metallurgy industries. And this is despite Australia having some of the best weather and geography for solar power. Australia has languished under a government that was openly hostile to renewables for years. South Australia has been operating at over 90% gross renewables for a week and this is after only a few years of large scale effort with insignificant storage and limited ability for interstate transmission due to storm damage. > Sweden is the country making the most progress into green hydrogen, but it's still experimental at this point. https://gh2.org/countries/sweden https://gh2.org/countries/sweden https://gh2.org/countries/australia https://gh2.org/countries/australia Looks like about the same level of investment for similar targets to me. Could it be that was another example of blatant lies? > For countries that don't have widespread hydroelectric potential like Sweden, intermittent sources are not viable except as a supplement to fossil fuels. Yes. 90% for a week right near the beginning of the transition is a 'suppliment'. Very sound conclusion from the evidence at hand. This constant lying must be exhausting. Just sell your coal shares.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Where are you getting the idea that 90% of South Australia's electricity is coming from renewables? Fossil fuels still account for ~35% of the state's generation [1]. You mention "for a week", so it sounds like this was under ideal conditions in the middle of the Australian summer. I could also cherry-pick data from the middle of winter to show a particularly bad week. The only state that has more renewable generation is Tasmania, and they produce it mostly through hydropower. Again, the constraints of intermittent sources energy continue to surface themselves. Australia has not found a way to escape this. > Looks like about the same level of investment for similar targets to me. Could it be that was another example of blatant lies? As per your links, Australia merely has targets while Sweden has actually produced and delivered green steel. In fact, again as per the link, Sweden has made the world's first delivery of steel produced without fossil fuels. I'm struggling to see how you conclude this is a lie when your own sources explain how Australia has no plants or production, while Sweden has actually produced green steel. 1. https://www.energy.gov.au/data/australian-electricity-generation-fuel-mix-calendar-year-2021#:~:text=Coal%20continues%20to%20dominate%20in,34%25%20of%20South%20Australian%20generation https://www.energy.gov.au/data/australian-electricity-genera....
  - trashtester 4y ago
    It should be said that until the entire European energy supply is carbon free, green steel is not only incredibly expensive, but also bad for the climate. It would be much better in both ways to feed that energy into the electric grid to replace fossil fueled power. Norway has a similar initiative to produce carbon free ammonium, but that, too, depends on dirt cheap electricity supply to be rational. https://www.horisontenergi.no/blue-ammonia/ https://www.horisontenergi.no/blue-ammonia/ In both cases, Hydrogen is used, and I suppose if large amounts of hydrogen becomes available and very cheap (for instance due to excess wind power supply), it _could_ be good to already have this tech available. But based on what I can see from electricity flows from Denmark and Germany to Norway, it is still very rare for the European grid to have excess power due to good wind conditions. https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/Market-data1/Power-system-data/Exchange1/NO/Hourly21/?view=table https://www.nordpoolgroup.com/en/Market-data1/Power-system-d... Norway can still absorb a lot more wind power on such days by temporary pausing hydro production. (Max hydroelectric electricity production in Norway is around 20GW, or about 4KW per capita).