[hfsp]

>even when backed by battery storage We have seconds of grid battery storage in the US.

>Solar and wind are the cheapest electrical generation technologies What do you think happens 90% of the time when solar & wind are not available in sufficient capacity? People shut off their lights, laundry machine, and heater/air conditioning?

[ravi-delia]

We absolutely do have far too little grid battery in the US, and we haven't installed enough solar to provide power for most of the day. How do you get from there to 'and therefore we should give up on making more'?

The person you replied to linked to something demonstrating that solar is cheap even when counting the cost of sufficient battery storage. Perhaps you disagree with that assessment? If so, the fact that sufficient green power hasn't been built isn't an argument against building more.

[hfsp]

How do you get to we should base our system on the failed Germany model? Do you want to pay ~triple the avg US price for electricity? What do you think happens to the not small segment of the population struggling to make ends meet?

The Germans invented a new term in the context of this issue - energy poverty.

Do you want to pay more for your electricity, produce more emissions so we can virtue signal that our electric production is solar & wind?

This approach means that you are depriving a billion people on Earth of reliable access to electricity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_a9RP0J7PA

>How do you get from there to 'and therefore we should give up on making more'? I do not claim this. I am stating facts in the face of unreliable energy dogma. Let the free market compete.

[ravi-delia]

Germany completely botched their distribution and storage systems, dropping clean nuclear without a plan in place to ensure that its replacement would work. The nation of Germany, however, did not invent the concept of installing solar panels, nor do they have a monopoly. I propose building more solar panels, ideally by subsidizing clean energy. What works best for that is, of course, best left to the market to decide.

Beyond that, why would adding more generative capacity deprive a billion people of electricity? Are you imagining that I think that tomorrow should mark the end of fossil fuels? Regardless of the fact that yes, non-emitting generation could provide power to just about everyone on Earth with capture to balance out the rest, that is just not what I was suggesting.

[VBprogrammer]

> The person you replied to linked to something demonstrating that solar is cheap even when counting the cost of sufficient battery storage

As far as I'm aware this is a purely theoretical analysis since the amount of batteries required is significantly more than current lithium battery production worldwide.

[toomuchtodo]

> the amount of batteries required is significantly more than current lithium battery production worldwide.

Indeed, hence why Tesla is building and consuming as many cells as possible. They are bootstrapping utility scale storage supply chains as part of their EV endeavors, and every cell they produce is sold. With that said, overbuilt renewables, renewable curtailment, and robust transmission infra (HVDC, interconnects, etc) will all be components of a clean energy grid.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/100-tesla-gigafactori... ("100 Tesla Gigafactories could power the entire world with sustainable energy")

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/tremendous-demand-for-stati... ("'Tremendous demand for stationary storage' outstrips Tesla's 2020 supply capability, Musk says")

[hfsp]

"Clean" energy is a fallacy, and a greens marketing ploy.

Solar, wind, batteries all have environmental costs, as do all other sources of energy & energy storage.

Unfortunately, hit pieces like the OP's share from the Guardian do not objectively compare benefits vs costs & risks.

[ravi-delia]

Absolutely, and that would have been an objection to the argument.