3 ms·

Modelling in Australia with simulations that multiply up current wind and solar (using real-time data of actual renewable generation) [1] showed that well over

Modelling in Australia with simulations that multiply up current wind and solar (using real-time data of actual renewable generation) [1] showed that well over 99% of demand can be delivered with only about five hours of storage, so we're not really talking about days. There will likely always be some gas peaking but we're talking less than a percent per year (maybe a few single digit percent in some places where solar isn't as good but still not much). 1. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for...

Manuel_D 2y ago
> Modelling in Australia with simulations that multiply up current wind and solar (using real-time data of actual renewable generation) [1] showed that well over 99% of demand can be delivered with only about five hours of storage, so we're not really talking about days. That's still a gap two orders of magnitude larger than existing standards: > Meanwhile, reliability standards in industrialized countries are typically very high (e.g., targeting <2–3 h of unplanned outages per year, or ~99.97%17). Resource adequacy planning standards for “1-in-10” are also high: in North America (BAL-502-RF-03)18, generating resources must be adequate to provide no more than 1 day of unmet electricity demand—or in some cases 1 loss of load event—in 10 years (i.e., 99.97% or 99.99%, respectively)19. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z Even leaving 1% of demand unfulfilled amounts to multiple orders of magnitude more frequent electricity production shortfalls. Figures like "fulfill 99% of electricity demand" might sound promising, until you compare against the standards of reliability modern society expects of the electrical grid. And that's in Australia, quite literally the best-case scenario for renewables. By comparison, in Germany even 12 hours of storage would only satisfy 80-90% of demand.
- notTooFarGone 2y ago
  The thing is you can calculate when there will be short falls and you can amount to that perfectly. We now know the weather pretty much 1 day before it happens. adjusting that 1% of course amounts to maintaining natural gas facilities but it's really not that big of a deal.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    Using natural gas means climate change still progresses. Not to mention you'll be paying all of the overhead cost of maintaining natural gas plants, but only use them for a fraction of the time. So net cost per watt hour will be very high.
    - notTooFarGone 2y ago
      And it will still be cheaper than any other alternative.
      - Manuel_D 2y ago
        Correct, continuing to emit fossil fuels is cheaper than decarbonization. But some of us are trying to stop, not merely delay, climate change.
rich_sasha 2y ago
Australia is a hot country, with lots of sunshine, lots of windy coast and not a lot of people per square mile. And peak demand (summer days for AC) corresponds for peak solar irradiation. Europe, for example, is the other way around for most of the above.

Manuel_D 2y ago

> Modelling in Australia with simulations that multiply up current wind and solar (using real-time data of actual renewable generation) [1] showed that well over 99% of demand can be delivered with only about five hours of storage, so we're not really talking about days. That's still a gap two orders of magnitude larger than existing standards: > Meanwhile, reliability standards in industrialized countries are typically very high (e.g., targeting <2–3 h of unplanned outages per year, or ~99.97%17). Resource adequacy planning standards for “1-in-10” are also high: in North America (BAL-502-RF-03)18, generating resources must be adequate to provide no more than 1 day of unmet electricity demand—or in some cases 1 loss of load event—in 10 years (i.e., 99.97% or 99.99%, respectively)19. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z Even leaving 1% of demand unfulfilled amounts to multiple orders of magnitude more frequent electricity production shortfalls. Figures like "fulfill 99% of electricity demand" might sound promising, until you compare against the standards of reliability modern society expects of the electrical grid. And that's in Australia, quite literally the best-case scenario for renewables. By comparison, in Germany even 12 hours of storage would only satisfy 80-90% of demand.

notTooFarGone 2y ago
The thing is you can calculate when there will be short falls and you can amount to that perfectly. We now know the weather pretty much 1 day before it happens. adjusting that 1% of course amounts to maintaining natural gas facilities but it's really not that big of a deal.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  Using natural gas means climate change still progresses. Not to mention you'll be paying all of the overhead cost of maintaining natural gas plants, but only use them for a fraction of the time. So net cost per watt hour will be very high.
  - notTooFarGone 2y ago
    And it will still be cheaper than any other alternative.
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      Correct, continuing to emit fossil fuels is cheaper than decarbonization. But some of us are trying to stop, not merely delay, climate change.

rich_sasha 2y ago

Australia is a hot country, with lots of sunshine, lots of windy coast and not a lot of people per square mile. And peak demand (summer days for AC) corresponds for peak solar irradiation. Europe, for example, is the other way around for most of the above.