5 ms·

> Wind is great, and has been cheaper. Solar is overtaking though Understood and agreed. I am simply suggesting we might want to pump the brakes before jumpin

> Wind is great, and has been cheaper. Solar is overtaking though Understood and agreed. I am simply suggesting we might want to pump the brakes before jumping in head-first. Unless I am missing something very fundamental, wind, to me, is looking like a far better decision than solar. I am talking grid scale here, homes and buildings do benefit from solar and it's easy to deploy. Take a look at some of my other comments for additional perspective. One of the things that isn't in the Master Plan report is an analysis of current and future dependency on the Chinese supply chain for all of these technologies. Tesla has to tread lightly here, so, I understand. I have a sense that the world can easily do wind with minimal, if any, input from China. This, I think, is good. However, the real issue, in my opinion, is the operations and maintenance column. Deploying unimaginably large amounts of solar means that nearly 100% of that business will go to China. I am in manufacturing, have been all my life. One way or the other, we end-up in China. This also means that the entire world will forever be dependent on China for the ongoing maintenance of these systems. I can't even imagine what this means in dollars per year. I think I can say it could represent the single largest transfer of wealth into one nation in the history of civilization. I don't hate China at all. They've been very smart, worked very hard and, in about fifty years, achieved a transition from an agrarian economy to a technology superpower. This is remarkable. My comment about dependence on China is more about balance than anything else. We need to live in a world where, well, to put it concisely, no single society has the entire planet by the balls. That's where we are headed with China. I don't think that's a good thing at all. We need to develop other areas of the world so that other societies and cultures can benefit from international trade and elevate their standards of living. I have a feeling that mass world-wide reliance on solar will effectively shift an equally massive range of economic opportunity to China in more ways than we can imagine today. Wind, on the other hand, I think, can be made to be far more equitable. > One key point is that solar is very predictable and pairs well with lithium ion batteries that cycle daily to meet demand for most of the globe that doesnt have dark winters Yes and no. On the pairing with batteries. This is a study of 39 years of data from 42 different countries: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z Table 2 is very interesting (it take some effort to get comfortable with it). One of the interesting findings is that, after overbuilding both technologies by 1.5x, wind + 3 hours of storage gets you to 95% reliability (you only go dark 5% of the time). Solar, with the same three hours of batteries, only gets you to about 70%. Even if you bring solar to 12 hours of storage, you only get up to about 85% reliability. It is easy to understand why at a basic level: Solar is shut down half the time, when the sun isn't up. That's the baseline from which we have to start and make something that is as close to 100% reliable as possible. In other words, it's a losing proposition from the start. My argument is only about grid scale. Local power on top of a roof is a different story. You can't have wind turbines there, solar is the only option as a supplement for the grid. On that topic, I have noted elsewhere that I am not anti-solar at all. I am simply trying to understand if what I am observing in the data for grid scale systems is correct. I designed and built a 13 kW array on my property. Before installing this system I, as many do, saw solar in some idealized form. I guess I never gave it a second thought. Now, after many years of operating this system and viewing the data, I have a very different opinion. This speaks to your comment about solar being very predictable. My opinion matched yours before I had solar. Today, I would say, sure, only under perfect laboratory conditions. A friend of mine is considering an off-grid system (self sufficiency). He asked me for guidance on this based on my experience. Here's a quick explainer video I recorded for him. I didn't record this with the intent of making it a refined public presentation, keep that in mind as you watch it. The reality of solar, in this context, is likely to horrify most people who still hold an idealized view of the technology. Again, I am not saying it is a bad technology, I am simply suggesting we are not necessarily exposing the realities that a town or city might have to content with if solar is the predominant source of energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCyKqSmS33A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCyKqSmS33A

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> Solar, with the same three hours of batteries, only gets you to about 70%. Even if you bring solar to 12 hours of storage, you only get up to about 85% reliability. I can't quickly see it in their methodology, but this feels like it's just because of the capacity factor, based on equal capacity. You'd want to adjust for a fixed sum to spend, in which case I think solar would (these days and in sunnier places) go further. And continue to extend its lead in future.
- robomartin 4y ago
  I get your point. In fact, I think my argument aligns perfectly with the capacity factor. Have a look at Figure 12 of the Master Plan. The zoomed-in portion of the capacity factor very much tells a story that aligns with my observation. If you eliminated the solar curve completely and added a bit more wind, you'd have all the energy you need. And, relatively speaking, it would be very consistent, which is one of the reasons for which I think wind could be a superior choice. Remember, we can move power thousands of miles. Wind does not have to exist near to where the power will be consumed. I actually took the time to measure the areas under those two curves. The units don't matter (it was square cm, measured using Solidworks): Solar: 3212 Wind: 6570 Total: 9782 This is a measurement proportional to the energy produced during those days. If we completely eliminate solar and decide to produce the same amount of energy using wind, we would have to overbuild wind by 50%. That, I think, is a fantastic finding. Why? Because wind can deliver far greater availability with just 3 hours of storage. Solar requires well over 12 hours of storage (and overbuild) to deliver anything approximating what wind can do with less land, less batteries. Solar requires over 5x more land, 30% more in operating and maintenance cost (per installed MW) and 20x greater investment in factories. Put a different way: Even if you overbuilt solar by 10x, you would still, at best, have about 50% darkness (at night). Solar requires 100% backup at least half the time. Wind does not work that way, particularly if located in areas optimized for it. That's why I am asking myself this question. Solar at home, schools and businesses, sure, no problem. I have it. So should everyone else for whom it makes sense. Grid scale? I am not so sure. I am getting the sense wind is a far, far better option for grid scale. Once again, we should not discount the global supply chain realities. I would prefer if the energy supply chain of the future did not create a dependency on China for all maintenance from here to eternity. I think that's what we all walk into if we go solar for grid-scale energy. I have a feeling (not confirmed other than superficially) that wind provides the opportunity to globalize the supply chain and create a far more diverse distribution of wealth around the world as it pertains to building, supporting and maintaining wind power installations. That, to me, is very important. I don't think anyone is talking about this reality. I don't understand why.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> Solar, with the same three hours of batteries, only gets you to about 70%. Even if you bring solar to 12 hours of storage, you only get up to about 85% reliability. I can't quickly see it in their methodology, but this feels like it's just because of the capacity factor, based on equal capacity. You'd want to adjust for a fixed sum to spend, in which case I think solar would (these days and in sunnier places) go further. And continue to extend its lead in future.

robomartin 4y ago
I get your point. In fact, I think my argument aligns perfectly with the capacity factor. Have a look at Figure 12 of the Master Plan. The zoomed-in portion of the capacity factor very much tells a story that aligns with my observation. If you eliminated the solar curve completely and added a bit more wind, you'd have all the energy you need. And, relatively speaking, it would be very consistent, which is one of the reasons for which I think wind could be a superior choice. Remember, we can move power thousands of miles. Wind does not have to exist near to where the power will be consumed. I actually took the time to measure the areas under those two curves. The units don't matter (it was square cm, measured using Solidworks): Solar: 3212 Wind: 6570 Total: 9782 This is a measurement proportional to the energy produced during those days. If we completely eliminate solar and decide to produce the same amount of energy using wind, we would have to overbuild wind by 50%. That, I think, is a fantastic finding. Why? Because wind can deliver far greater availability with just 3 hours of storage. Solar requires well over 12 hours of storage (and overbuild) to deliver anything approximating what wind can do with less land, less batteries. Solar requires over 5x more land, 30% more in operating and maintenance cost (per installed MW) and 20x greater investment in factories. Put a different way: Even if you overbuilt solar by 10x, you would still, at best, have about 50% darkness (at night). Solar requires 100% backup at least half the time. Wind does not work that way, particularly if located in areas optimized for it. That's why I am asking myself this question. Solar at home, schools and businesses, sure, no problem. I have it. So should everyone else for whom it makes sense. Grid scale? I am not so sure. I am getting the sense wind is a far, far better option for grid scale. Once again, we should not discount the global supply chain realities. I would prefer if the energy supply chain of the future did not create a dependency on China for all maintenance from here to eternity. I think that's what we all walk into if we go solar for grid-scale energy. I have a feeling (not confirmed other than superficially) that wind provides the opportunity to globalize the supply chain and create a far more diverse distribution of wealth around the world as it pertains to building, supporting and maintaining wind power installations. That, to me, is very important. I don't think anyone is talking about this reality. I don't understand why.