4 ms·

I generalized. Over a broad time period (like a year), you can predict the wind production of a wind farm, but on a daily basis you cannot consider wind a relia

by Herz 4y ago

I generalized. Over a broad time period (like a year), you can predict the wind production of a wind farm, but on a daily basis you cannot consider wind a reliable source of energy. You can't make predictions today about the next day, and that makes wind a not very reliable source of energy if you have to run a country on it.... The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage, which is a lot of lithium, or energy mix with nuclear (imho, the most logical rational and economical way).

hutzlibu 4y ago
"The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage, which is a lot of lithium" You are maybe not aware, that for stationary batteries, there are way more options than lithium based. Natrium for example, is quite common, so you can make literal saltwater batteries.
- Herz 4y ago
  It is not all perfect, salt (molten) batteries have an operating range of about 300 degrees. In addition to having very long preparation times after discharge. If you don't use them in daily use they tend to discharge over time. And they have very low energy densities. We can wait for some scientific advances, but it is whishful thinking to hope that in a few decades they will invent the ultimate solution. Hydroelectric plants are the only large-scale storage, but they are highly dependent on the geology of the country. They are not a solution to seasonal storage. For me it is useless to go on all these big trips, the solution is very simple: mix of nuclear for base load, and renewable for peak.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    Hydroelectric plants are not, in fact, "the only large-scale storage". Numerous practical storage methods are being fielded, many suitable at any scale. Pumped hydro is not, in fact, "highly dependent on the geology of the country". It needs a hill. Hills are very, very common. I can see them in every direction, here. Maybe you can, too. A "solution to seasonal storage" is not, in fact, needed or useful. NG backup works and will continue working into the indefinite future. Renewables + some storage are good for baseline. NG is good to fill in lulls longer than storage covers. Nukes cost so many times more than all other alternatives, there is no legitimate place for it.
    - Herz 4y ago
      Yeah, if you want to destroy whole landscapes and ecosystems to do pumped hydro, you can. But then it also becomes a little embarrassing to call yourself an environmentalist. Simply put, you'd rather destroy dozens if not hundreds of square miles per industrialized country instead of a few nuclear power plants? And you also propose to continue to pollute with NG. Wow, do you even get paid to state such things? Lol "Nukes cost so many times more than all other alternatives, there is no legitimate place for it." Data? No because in one comment you talked about renewables, destroying km2 of land, building storage, and keeping NG (which a few billion per gas plant you pay them). I have the data (which are public on the various reports of international agency), but at this point I am curious to see how the fantasy story will turn out. At this point I wonder why you have such beliefs? Clearly you are not an environmentalist because you want to destroy whole landscapes, you don't care about polluting less because you proposed NG as a backup, what are you fighting for? That sounds like anti-scientific propaganda to me.
      - moloch-hai 4y ago
        Anyone obliged to invent falsehoods to make their case reveals they have no case. No one has ever suggested we "destroy whole landscapes" for solar. You made that up from whole cloth. Good day.
moloch-hai 4y ago
> The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage No one will deploy seasonal storage, so the point is moot. NG backup works today, and will continue working into the indefinite future. Chemical batteries are the most expensive of many storage alternatives, with advantages for very short-term use. Lithium is a poor choice for utility requirements, so its supply is irrelevant. There is no place for nukes, which cost radically more than all other alternatives, most especially for only intermittent use.

by Herz 4y ago

hutzlibu 4y ago

"The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage, which is a lot of lithium" You are maybe not aware, that for stationary batteries, there are way more options than lithium based. Natrium for example, is quite common, so you can make literal saltwater batteries.

Herz 4y ago
It is not all perfect, salt (molten) batteries have an operating range of about 300 degrees. In addition to having very long preparation times after discharge. If you don't use them in daily use they tend to discharge over time. And they have very low energy densities. We can wait for some scientific advances, but it is whishful thinking to hope that in a few decades they will invent the ultimate solution. Hydroelectric plants are the only large-scale storage, but they are highly dependent on the geology of the country. They are not a solution to seasonal storage. For me it is useless to go on all these big trips, the solution is very simple: mix of nuclear for base load, and renewable for peak.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  Hydroelectric plants are not, in fact, "the only large-scale storage". Numerous practical storage methods are being fielded, many suitable at any scale. Pumped hydro is not, in fact, "highly dependent on the geology of the country". It needs a hill. Hills are very, very common. I can see them in every direction, here. Maybe you can, too. A "solution to seasonal storage" is not, in fact, needed or useful. NG backup works and will continue working into the indefinite future. Renewables + some storage are good for baseline. NG is good to fill in lulls longer than storage covers. Nukes cost so many times more than all other alternatives, there is no legitimate place for it.
  - Herz 4y ago
    Yeah, if you want to destroy whole landscapes and ecosystems to do pumped hydro, you can. But then it also becomes a little embarrassing to call yourself an environmentalist. Simply put, you'd rather destroy dozens if not hundreds of square miles per industrialized country instead of a few nuclear power plants? And you also propose to continue to pollute with NG. Wow, do you even get paid to state such things? Lol "Nukes cost so many times more than all other alternatives, there is no legitimate place for it." Data? No because in one comment you talked about renewables, destroying km2 of land, building storage, and keeping NG (which a few billion per gas plant you pay them). I have the data (which are public on the various reports of international agency), but at this point I am curious to see how the fantasy story will turn out. At this point I wonder why you have such beliefs? Clearly you are not an environmentalist because you want to destroy whole landscapes, you don't care about polluting less because you proposed NG as a backup, what are you fighting for? That sounds like anti-scientific propaganda to me.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      Anyone obliged to invent falsehoods to make their case reveals they have no case. No one has ever suggested we "destroy whole landscapes" for solar. You made that up from whole cloth. Good day.

moloch-hai 4y ago

> The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage No one will deploy seasonal storage, so the point is moot. NG backup works today, and will continue working into the indefinite future. Chemical batteries are the most expensive of many storage alternatives, with advantages for very short-term use. Lithium is a poor choice for utility requirements, so its supply is irrelevant. There is no place for nukes, which cost radically more than all other alternatives, most especially for only intermittent use.