3 ms·

> But you can't run the grid on 50% renewables without solving storage. Counter-example: Brazil's national grid routinely runs on over 85% renewables with esse

by cesarb 3y ago

> But you can't run the grid on 50% renewables without solving storage. Counter-example: Brazil's national grid routinely runs on over 85% renewables with essentially zero storage (there might be a couple of experimental battery storage units, but if any they're much less than 1%; and all it has of pumped hydro storage is one partial preliminary study of possible locations).

chelical 3y ago
65% of Brazil's energy is coming from hydropower, which is extremely reliable, but geography dependent. When people make that statement, they're usually referring to wind + solar, which are intermittent.
XorNot 3y ago
This right here is an example of a lie of omission: over what time frame? With what renewable? Oh right - hydroelectricity. Providing 65% of it's total electricity.[1] Wind is 11% and solar is 2.5%. And they're also building a new nuclear reactor at their existing plant.[2] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angra_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angra_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- cesarb 3y ago
  > This right here is an example of a lie of omission: over what time frame? Sorry about that. It's the average over a whole week (I looked at the weekly bulletin of a random week from last month, but they're all similar). > With what renewable? Around 62% hydro, 22% wind, and 1% solar (we're in winter right now, so we have less solar and more wind; on summer we'd have more solar and less wind). > And they're also building a new nuclear reactor at their existing plant. And that reactor is the main reason I'm very skeptical of nuclear power: it's been under construction for nearly 40 years, and it's still not near done. All the parts have already been bought and have been stored on site for a long time; just the upkeep to make sure none of these parts degrades while under storage is already a high cost.

by cesarb 3y ago

chelical 3y ago

65% of Brazil's energy is coming from hydropower, which is extremely reliable, but geography dependent. When people make that statement, they're usually referring to wind + solar, which are intermittent.

XorNot 3y ago

This right here is an example of a lie of omission: over what time frame? With what renewable? Oh right - hydroelectricity. Providing 65% of it's total electricity.[1] Wind is 11% and solar is 2.5%. And they're also building a new nuclear reactor at their existing plant.[2] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angra_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angra_Nuclear_Power_Plant

cesarb 3y ago
> This right here is an example of a lie of omission: over what time frame? Sorry about that. It's the average over a whole week (I looked at the weekly bulletin of a random week from last month, but they're all similar). > With what renewable? Around 62% hydro, 22% wind, and 1% solar (we're in winter right now, so we have less solar and more wind; on summer we'd have more solar and less wind). > And they're also building a new nuclear reactor at their existing plant. And that reactor is the main reason I'm very skeptical of nuclear power: it's been under construction for nearly 40 years, and it's still not near done. All the parts have already been bought and have been stored on site for a long time; just the upkeep to make sure none of these parts degrades while under storage is already a high cost.