2 ms·
I mean, if you assume that the wind has never once blown at night in the history of the world then sure, you'd probably need something like 16 hours. But, if y
by pydry 2y ago
I mean, if you assume that the wind has never once blown at night in the history of the world then sure, you'd probably need something like 16 hours.
But, if you assume the existence of wind turbines (I hope that isn't too much of a stretch for you):
https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g...
>With that in mind, exactly one year ago I started running a simple simulation of Australia’s main electricity grid to show that it can get very close to 100% renewable electricity with approximately five hours of storage
- ClumsyPilot 2y agoAustralia is easy mode, good solar irradiance year round and deserts. Ofcourse you should use renewables where they are abundant. Germany has very few renewables, so do the math for them.
- ViewTrick1002 2y agoThe Swedish grid authority did it for Sweden. Came to the conclusions that a renewable system are way cheaper than a nuclear. Report in Swedish though: https://www.svk.se/siteassets/om-oss/rapporter/2024/lma_2024.pdf https://www.svk.se/siteassets/om-oss/rapporter/2024/lma_2024... Where will you move the goalposts now?
- LorenPechtel 2y agoYou need to provision for the worst case, not for the best case.
- pydry 2y agoWorst case scenarios can be provisioned for by storing and burning hydrogen. The roundtrip cost of electricity generated this way is expensive (it's ~50% efficient) but even then it is still cheaper than the cost of baseload nuclear power electricity. Give up already.