8 ms·

> Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. This isn't a big problem. Wind is neg

> Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. This isn't a big problem. Wind is negatively correlated with solar, and electricity can be sent across long distances (intra- or inter-country) with minimal loss, and overbuilding eliminates a lot of the variability issues. Variability across geographies and across modes cancels out. Nuclear is pretty good, but solar and wind is simply better. Way cheaper and quicker to implement, less resistance from NIMBYs who have an irrational fear of leaks, less valid concerns of enabling nuclear weapons proliferation, less technical know-how requirement. It's the most brain-dead obvious calculus if you know the actual facts, costs and trade-offs. And time is of the essence. Eliminating 80-90% of emissions in 4 years (with only solar and wind and without batteries, yes this is possible whilst being cheaper than nuclear) means less emissions than eliminating 100% of emissions in 20 years with nuclear.

WillPostForFood 3y ago
Wind is negatively correlated with solar Yes, but not strongly. It is definitely a problem, as seen in Texas on cold mornings where solar isn't getting much light, winds are still, and people need heat.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  Right, and that's why it's infeasible to get 100% from renewables without storage, but we're not going for 100%, we're going for 80-90%. The objective is to address climate change, and to do that we need to minimize the area under the curve of emissions from now onwards. Renewables in my view is more effective at achieving this objective (with the added bonus of being cheaper).
  - _ph_ 3y ago
    While in the long term we do have to achieve net 100%, the mid-term goal which is absolutely achievable with the current state of the marked is indeed 90%. While working towards that we can start to see which technology emerges to cover the last 10%. And probably there isn't a miracle technology needed, just plain improvements in the storage sector and a good mix of several approaches.

WillPostForFood 3y ago

Wind is negatively correlated with solar Yes, but not strongly. It is definitely a problem, as seen in Texas on cold mornings where solar isn't getting much light, winds are still, and people need heat.

hackerlight 3y ago
Right, and that's why it's infeasible to get 100% from renewables without storage, but we're not going for 100%, we're going for 80-90%. The objective is to address climate change, and to do that we need to minimize the area under the curve of emissions from now onwards. Renewables in my view is more effective at achieving this objective (with the added bonus of being cheaper).
- _ph_ 3y ago
  While in the long term we do have to achieve net 100%, the mid-term goal which is absolutely achievable with the current state of the marked is indeed 90%. While working towards that we can start to see which technology emerges to cover the last 10%. And probably there isn't a miracle technology needed, just plain improvements in the storage sector and a good mix of several approaches.