3 ms·

I hear this a lot as some sort of criticism of solar & wind, but tbh, it isn't that different from coal, natural gas, and other addressable generation. A major

by _ea1k 4y ago

I hear this a lot as some sort of criticism of solar & wind, but tbh, it isn't that different from coal, natural gas, and other addressable generation. A major cost component is the reality that we have to build for the worst case. And worst case consumption is dramatically higher than the moderate case. I'd like to see the deep engineering analysis on the cost differences over 30 years with varying degrees of renewables in the mix.

BurningFrog 4y ago
Solar & wind do have more inherent variability. With fossil & nuclear power, an individual power plant can go offline for some technical issue, but they fail independently of each. Solar & wind production is correlated to the weather of the region. If there is no wind, all wind power production is affected. Solar has similar dependencies. This is all fine if you retain backup fossil or nuclear power, or built transmission lines or batteries. That's unfortunately not how the politics always work.
- _ea1k 4y ago
  > This is all fine if you retain backup fossil or nuclear power, or built transmission lines or batteries. That's unfortunately not how the politics always work. My statements were made with reasonable assumptions about sanity in policy decisions. You are correct that those aren't always reasonable assumptions. :) In my area, it isn't unusual to see relatively small utility solar on vacant land next to substations. Its cheap to build, transmission lines are low cost due to small distances, the land wasn't being used anyway, and its basically just demand reduction from a grid pov. I suspect that economics change when they start putting huge installs 100 miles from anything in a desert, but I don't live in California.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  There are several hundred GW worth of methane emitted from organic sources that need to be collected. Burning it reduces its net GWP to zero. Gas peakers cost a pittance to build or idle. There is also 500GW of existing hydro. There will also be large stores of hydrogen derivatives like ammonia because electrolysers can be used as seasonal arbitrage for easily stored intermediates. The only people who claim it is a problem are pro fossil fuel and pro nuclear reactionaries and shills.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    Sounds like you have decent plan. I could also come up with one. My point is that neither will be implemented.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      All of the things I mentioned are being implemented. More than likely $20/kWh batteries will make them obsolete before they're fully rolled out, but landfill and wastewater gas collection is necessary, as is green ammonia.

by _ea1k 4y ago

BurningFrog 4y ago

Solar & wind do have more inherent variability. With fossil & nuclear power, an individual power plant can go offline for some technical issue, but they fail independently of each. Solar & wind production is correlated to the weather of the region. If there is no wind, all wind power production is affected. Solar has similar dependencies. This is all fine if you retain backup fossil or nuclear power, or built transmission lines or batteries. That's unfortunately not how the politics always work.

_ea1k 4y ago
> This is all fine if you retain backup fossil or nuclear power, or built transmission lines or batteries. That's unfortunately not how the politics always work. My statements were made with reasonable assumptions about sanity in policy decisions. You are correct that those aren't always reasonable assumptions. :) In my area, it isn't unusual to see relatively small utility solar on vacant land next to substations. Its cheap to build, transmission lines are low cost due to small distances, the land wasn't being used anyway, and its basically just demand reduction from a grid pov. I suspect that economics change when they start putting huge installs 100 miles from anything in a desert, but I don't live in California.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
There are several hundred GW worth of methane emitted from organic sources that need to be collected. Burning it reduces its net GWP to zero. Gas peakers cost a pittance to build or idle. There is also 500GW of existing hydro. There will also be large stores of hydrogen derivatives like ammonia because electrolysers can be used as seasonal arbitrage for easily stored intermediates. The only people who claim it is a problem are pro fossil fuel and pro nuclear reactionaries and shills.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Sounds like you have decent plan. I could also come up with one. My point is that neither will be implemented.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    All of the things I mentioned are being implemented. More than likely $20/kWh batteries will make them obsolete before they're fully rolled out, but landfill and wastewater gas collection is necessary, as is green ammonia.