8 ms·

The comment didn't say "90% solar", it said "90% renewables". That includes hydro and wind, which don't stop at night or in the winter.

tmikaeld 3y ago
Current and near-future grid cannot handle such a balance of renewables, especially hydro takes a lot of beating when the water level goes up and down constantly.
- delecti 3y ago
  Nobody is blind to the fact that the grid will need to be updated to be more flexible.
ekianjo 3y ago
Thats a myth. You cannot have baseline power with renewables only throughout the year. Hydro only works in very specific places and the same for wind.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  Why? Build more. Interconnect with HVDC.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Yes, you may need various kinds of storage as well, filled by renewables. E-fuels can be used to shift energy across seasons.
concordDance 3y ago
https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ Wind can be very low for days and low for weeks. Hydro is ecologically devastating and there aren't enough sites for it.
- awestroke 3y ago
  Unlike oil and coal which are very ecologically beneficial?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ComputerGuru 3y ago
    That's not a fair reply at all. If we don't care about the ecology, then we might as well just continue to use petroleum!
    - awestroke 3y ago
      Ecosystem damage from hydro is local, ecosystem from fossil fuel is global. We are heading for extinction as a species, and under such circumstances it makes sense to cause local ecosystem damage in the form of flooding.
      - ComputerGuru 3y ago
        > We are heading for extinction as a species, and under such circumstances [...] We absolutely are not headed towards extinction as a species. We are like cockroaches and the human species will survive. Using "oh no, the human race is dying out altogether and we must preserve it all costs" is a ridiculous argument. > [..] it makes sense to cause local ecosystem damage in the form of flooding. It isn't just the (risk of) flooding. It's hubris to believe we can actually foresee all the second-order ramifications from such large-scale terraforming projects. (Hydroelectric) dams have devastated the local wildlife, transformed the surrounding permaculture for the worse, and set off horrible chain reactions with devastating consequences for the local flora and fauna which have global ramifications down the line, as we are discovering today. Nothing happens in a bubble. This same argument was once made of fossil fuel emissions (when we thought that smog in the biggest industrial cities was our biggest problem and outsourcing them to developing nations was a great win-win /s). That obviously wasn't true. Why would you wish to repeat the same mistake?

tmikaeld 3y ago

Current and near-future grid cannot handle such a balance of renewables, especially hydro takes a lot of beating when the water level goes up and down constantly.

delecti 3y ago
Nobody is blind to the fact that the grid will need to be updated to be more flexible.

ekianjo 3y ago

Thats a myth. You cannot have baseline power with renewables only throughout the year. Hydro only works in very specific places and the same for wind.

dale_glass 3y ago
Why? Build more. Interconnect with HVDC.
pfdietz 3y ago
Yes, you may need various kinds of storage as well, filled by renewables. E-fuels can be used to shift energy across seasons.

concordDance 3y ago

https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ Wind can be very low for days and low for weeks. Hydro is ecologically devastating and there aren't enough sites for it.

awestroke 3y ago
Unlike oil and coal which are very ecologically beneficial?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ComputerGuru 3y ago
  That's not a fair reply at all. If we don't care about the ecology, then we might as well just continue to use petroleum!
  - awestroke 3y ago
    Ecosystem damage from hydro is local, ecosystem from fossil fuel is global. We are heading for extinction as a species, and under such circumstances it makes sense to cause local ecosystem damage in the form of flooding.
    - ComputerGuru 3y ago
      > We are heading for extinction as a species, and under such circumstances [...] We absolutely are not headed towards extinction as a species. We are like cockroaches and the human species will survive. Using "oh no, the human race is dying out altogether and we must preserve it all costs" is a ridiculous argument. > [..] it makes sense to cause local ecosystem damage in the form of flooding. It isn't just the (risk of) flooding. It's hubris to believe we can actually foresee all the second-order ramifications from such large-scale terraforming projects. (Hydroelectric) dams have devastated the local wildlife, transformed the surrounding permaculture for the worse, and set off horrible chain reactions with devastating consequences for the local flora and fauna which have global ramifications down the line, as we are discovering today. Nothing happens in a bubble. This same argument was once made of fossil fuel emissions (when we thought that smog in the biggest industrial cities was our biggest problem and outsourcing them to developing nations was a great win-win /s). That obviously wasn't true. Why would you wish to repeat the same mistake?