3 ms·

> These compromises actually have no serious penalties whatsoever BTW, it just requires a more complexity thinking process. Not entirely true, storage does cos

> These compromises actually have no serious penalties whatsoever BTW, it just requires a more complexity thinking process. Not entirely true, storage does cost money: https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/f65/Storage%20Cost%20and%20Performance%20Characterization%20Report_Final.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/07/f65/Stora... That said, as the tables in that report indicate its quite a complex topic. (By my back of the envelope maths switching UK to fully wind and storage would triple electricity prices)

_hypx 4y ago
Relative to the alternatives, it does not cost more money. You just need to accept the existence of hydrogen-based energy storage and perhaps synthetic fuels too. Cost will be the same or less as other energy storage ideas. And if you accept nuclear, you don’t even need much energy storage at all. Also, a big chunk of the “energy storage” solution is utilizing biofuels. Like in Germany where wood burning power plants are seen as green (hint: they’re not). Getting rid of this will be a huge boon. The compromise in question will have significant environmental benefits. It’s unfortunate that so many are blind to their own bad ideas and have not noticed the problems of biofuels.
- concordDance 4y ago
  I encourage you to do the maths on this a write it up in a blog post, it'll be enlightening :)
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Every back of the envelope calculation of this makes the same basic mistake of acting like every watt is sacred and that spending billions on barely used batteries to save 1 Watt every 5 years makes sense. It's just silliness disguised with maths. Which is excusable the first 10 or so times its done, but is getting old now.
- illiarian 4y ago
  What's really getting old is claiming renewables are cheap and easy to build while not calculating all the additional requirements that are needed to have a stable power supply such as overbuilding, storage etc.
  - myrmidon 4y ago
    That is a fair point, but what are you actually advocating for? Tainting public perception of renewables with cost-related FUD more strongly? IMO the need for storage and better grid connectivity gets brought up in every discussion about electromobility and renewable power already anyway, so everyone seems well enough aware of it. I'd also like to point out that glossing over this is SUPER comparable with assuming >80% capacity factors for nuclear plants which the anti-renewable crowd always eagerly does.
    - illiarian 4y ago
      > Tainting public perception of renewables with cost-related FUD more strongly? Or maybe bring actual discussions into public perception, and not just the unquestioned undebatable "renewable everything will solve everything by magic"? > so everyone seems well enough aware of it. Of course very few are aware of it. All the discussion is doe-eyed "we just need to replace everything with renewables". No one talks about the need to overbuild, and how much. Storage is assumed a solved issue even though it's not anywhere near the required scale.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      They might be aware of it, but actual data is always useful.

_hypx 4y ago

Relative to the alternatives, it does not cost more money. You just need to accept the existence of hydrogen-based energy storage and perhaps synthetic fuels too. Cost will be the same or less as other energy storage ideas. And if you accept nuclear, you don’t even need much energy storage at all. Also, a big chunk of the “energy storage” solution is utilizing biofuels. Like in Germany where wood burning power plants are seen as green (hint: they’re not). Getting rid of this will be a huge boon. The compromise in question will have significant environmental benefits. It’s unfortunate that so many are blind to their own bad ideas and have not noticed the problems of biofuels.

concordDance 4y ago
I encourage you to do the maths on this a write it up in a blog post, it'll be enlightening :)

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Every back of the envelope calculation of this makes the same basic mistake of acting like every watt is sacred and that spending billions on barely used batteries to save 1 Watt every 5 years makes sense. It's just silliness disguised with maths. Which is excusable the first 10 or so times its done, but is getting old now.

illiarian 4y ago
What's really getting old is claiming renewables are cheap and easy to build while not calculating all the additional requirements that are needed to have a stable power supply such as overbuilding, storage etc.
- myrmidon 4y ago
  That is a fair point, but what are you actually advocating for? Tainting public perception of renewables with cost-related FUD more strongly? IMO the need for storage and better grid connectivity gets brought up in every discussion about electromobility and renewable power already anyway, so everyone seems well enough aware of it. I'd also like to point out that glossing over this is SUPER comparable with assuming >80% capacity factors for nuclear plants which the anti-renewable crowd always eagerly does.
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > Tainting public perception of renewables with cost-related FUD more strongly? Or maybe bring actual discussions into public perception, and not just the unquestioned undebatable "renewable everything will solve everything by magic"? > so everyone seems well enough aware of it. Of course very few are aware of it. All the discussion is doe-eyed "we just need to replace everything with renewables". No one talks about the need to overbuild, and how much. Storage is assumed a solved issue even though it's not anywhere near the required scale.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    They might be aware of it, but actual data is always useful.