3 ms·

> Pretty much nothing in the renewable sector is a "viable business case" without some sort of government interference. While not 100% a flat faced lie, this

> Pretty much nothing in the renewable sector is a "viable business case" without some sort of government interference. While not 100% a flat faced lie, this is intentionally misleading. All energy production is heavily subsidised by the state, but of all methods of producing electricity as of Jan 23 2022, renewables are the cheapest. Issues with storage, human rights, environmental impact, are a mixture of lies and red herring. How many human / environmental tragedies resulted from fossil fuel extraction? People against battery storage don't actually care about that but they know that you do. "The card says moops"

nradov 4y ago
You're arguing against a strawman. No one is seriously against battery storage. But if you take a serious look at the raw materials and supply chain issues it seems unlikely that we will be able to build enough grid-scale storage in the next couple decades to maintain reliable power for heavy industry. Some other solutions will be needed. That probably means building other storage systems plus continuing to operate many fossil-fuel power plants (at least on an intermittent basis).
incrudible 4y ago
> All energy production is heavily subsidised by the state, but of all methods of producing electricity as of Jan 23 2022, renewables are the cheapest. That's not an honest assessment, because the major renewables are either geographically limited, or their production fluctuates heavily. To compare them against fossil or nuclear, we'd need to factor in the cost of the buffers, which completely changes the equation. If buffers + renewables were still cheaper, everybody would already be doing that and nothing else. People whose beliefs are challenged in this way tend to resort to conspiracy theories surrounding the fossil fuel lobby (disregarding the fact that renewables have a big lobby too). > How many human / environmental tragedies resulted from fossil fuel extraction? My point is purely economical. > People against battery storage don't actually care about that but they know that you do. I'm not against battery storage, but simple back of the envelope calculations show that production capacity is orders of magnitude away from solving just part of the problem (stabilizing the grid). Moreover, batteries do not last forever. It may well be the case that a combination of natural gas and renewables is the most effective option even from an CO2 perspective, especially if we have a way to turn surplus energy into negative CO2. Hydrogen happens to fit into that scheme, because natural gas plants can easily be converted to hydrogen plants. Then again, maybe there's a breakthrough in battery technology instead. You can't predict these things, it's therefore unwise to dismiss alternatives that don't check all the boxes of solarpunk fiction.

nradov 4y ago

You're arguing against a strawman. No one is seriously against battery storage. But if you take a serious look at the raw materials and supply chain issues it seems unlikely that we will be able to build enough grid-scale storage in the next couple decades to maintain reliable power for heavy industry. Some other solutions will be needed. That probably means building other storage systems plus continuing to operate many fossil-fuel power plants (at least on an intermittent basis).

incrudible 4y ago

> All energy production is heavily subsidised by the state, but of all methods of producing electricity as of Jan 23 2022, renewables are the cheapest. That's not an honest assessment, because the major renewables are either geographically limited, or their production fluctuates heavily. To compare them against fossil or nuclear, we'd need to factor in the cost of the buffers, which completely changes the equation. If buffers + renewables were still cheaper, everybody would already be doing that and nothing else. People whose beliefs are challenged in this way tend to resort to conspiracy theories surrounding the fossil fuel lobby (disregarding the fact that renewables have a big lobby too). > How many human / environmental tragedies resulted from fossil fuel extraction? My point is purely economical. > People against battery storage don't actually care about that but they know that you do. I'm not against battery storage, but simple back of the envelope calculations show that production capacity is orders of magnitude away from solving just part of the problem (stabilizing the grid). Moreover, batteries do not last forever. It may well be the case that a combination of natural gas and renewables is the most effective option even from an CO2 perspective, especially if we have a way to turn surplus energy into negative CO2. Hydrogen happens to fit into that scheme, because natural gas plants can easily be converted to hydrogen plants. Then again, maybe there's a breakthrough in battery technology instead. You can't predict these things, it's therefore unwise to dismiss alternatives that don't check all the boxes of solarpunk fiction.