3 ms·
Wind and solar do not provide base load anywhere in the US without having to have battery backups. The fallback on all 3 of the major grids are coal and gas. I
by kortilla 3y ago
Wind and solar do not provide base load anywhere in the US without having to have battery backups.
The fallback on all 3 of the major grids are coal and gas. It’s not even close to a closing solution without them.
Maybe things are different in the tiny grids in Europe or people are getting really creative with accounting where they take renewable credits from other jurisdictions during excess and then use those to greenwash the fossil fuels they burn during deficits.
Either way, there is no large grid running without coal, gas, geothermal, nuclear, and/or hydro anywhere in the world. Even Hawaii’s tiny grid with its excess solar is backstopped by diesel/gas generators.
- pfdietz 3y ago> Wind and solar do not provide base load anywhere in the US without having to have battery backups. You're implying this is a showstopper. It's not. > Either way, there is no large grid running without coal, gas, geothermal, nuclear, and/or hydro anywhere in the world. "Nothing can ever been done for the first time." Why, oh why do you imagine this matters?
- kortilla 3y ago>You're implying this is a showstopper. It's not. It has been so far. Nobody has done it in a meaningful enough deployment to make a dent. My entire point is that we willfully did massive climate damage for 50 years to get to today because we didn’t want nuclear. We will still do damage for 20+ years because we’re still waiting on something to replace peaker plant load on solar/wind. People who pushed for solar/wind instead of nuclear are as much to blame for climate change as the fossil fuel junkies for the last 50 years of no effect. At least the fossil junkies didn’t righteously pretend to care.
- pfdietz 3y ago> It has been so far. Nobody has done it in a meaningful enough deployment to make a dent. Nobody has done it because nobody has HAD to do it. If you're still allowed to burn some fossil fuels, it's not necessary. This doesn't mean it isn't possible, and it certainly isn't strong evidence it won't be possible. And by "possible", I mean possible at an acceptable cost. Even you should agree it's possible at sufficiently high cost. I will add that no economy has been nuclear powered yet either (not even France, where most of the energy is still coming from fossil fuels, if one doesn't limit examination to just the grid.)