[Schroedingersat]

Read the article I linked. Then stop posting lies and long-winded demonstrations that you don't understand that weather can be anything other than 100% correlated over a region and is forecastable.

Then note w2e, hydro and other average-energy-limited dispatchable sources exist. A hydro system which can provide 100MW on average can provide 1GW peak. There are a few tens of GW of waste stream methane available in the US alone. It can be stored and burnt at any time to meet unshiftable demand.

Then note that dispatchable loads such as EV charging exist and exceed non-dispatchable ones. They make VRE easier to use, not harder as you claim.

Then note when pools are pumped, water towers are fied, thermal storage in buildings is charged, zinc refineries and so on are run. It's not done in the middle of the night in regions with thermal generation because people just love noise and graveyard shifts.

If you have 1 watt of constant load, 2 watts (average over 6 months) of dispatchable load, 2 net watts of solar (ie. 4 nameplate watts), long distance transmission, 2 net watts of wind, and 1 net watt of hydro and green fuel burnable in an OCGT, then you have plenty of power.

You're willfully ignoring systems and demand shifting and trying to claim only always-on thermal generation works. This is a lie.

Even assuming fossil fuel for the week a year the system has low output, a VRE dominated grid still cheaper and greener than alternatives and you still don't need to run your electrolysers or zinc refineries or arc furnaces or thermal storage heaters. And if you have a day warning the Al smelters can clear the lines too. This is done all the time in systems dominated by thermal generation to meet demand spikes. Claiming these loads need backup instead of being backup is a lie.

You're trying to pretend turning a fossil fuel generator for the non-dispatchable loads on ever eliminates any gains from the whole system just because it has the same power as the un-shiftable peak demand. This is also a lie.

You're trying to pretend that fixed loads are constant, so a power-limited thermal generator would need no storage or overprovision. This is also a lie.

You're trying to pretend weather events where there is zero wind or sun across a large region for over a day are common. This has never happened. This is a lie.

You're trying to pretend thermal generators never go offline in a correlated way so that any correlated downtime is exclusively VRE. This is a lie.

You're trying to pretend building a system that can eliminate 85-95% of emissions in a year or two for a tenth of the price and then startig on the boondoggle which eliminates 90% of emissions and exports the rest to Niger isn't the obvious and objectively correct answer even if your above lies were accurate.

[robomartin]

Wow, you have a consistent need to diminish and insult others. Remarkable.

You continue to resort to insulting me over many threads across many months. Any time there's a thread on a related subject you seem intent in demonstrating your ability to insult me.

I read the article. Of course I did. I read it a couple of years ago, or whenever it was published.

It actually supports my point!

    Solar requires the availability reliable power 
    for up to 100% backup.

That can be batteries, another solar installation a thousand kilometers away, wind, fossil, nuclear, a bunch of people pedaling power-generating bikes. Anything, really.

I am not saying solar or solar + wind are a bad idea, pointless or that we should not use them. Heck, I have made a non-trivial investment in solar myself. And one of the companies I own actually develops related technologies.

Once again, the very article you posted clearly states that the COMBINATION of solar and power in the US is, at best, ~ 88% reliable. Solar alone? Less so.

I can support my claims with actual data from my own solar array. I just visited a six million dollar installation in Singapore. The results are even worse.

Here in So. Cal, we are about to get hit with yet another large storm. All solar power will be reduced to nothing during this time.

I have no clue what your problem is. You are consistent in the use of insults in place of conversation, math and science. Lots of hand-waving. No substance at all. It's exhausting, really, but I am not going to allow you to bully me into discussing this perspective in the context of facts-based discussions.

If I am wrong, I am more than willing to be shown where, why and how. Always. My life and career has been about learning, constantly. That happens with respect and facts, not insults.

   EDIT:

Further to the article you seem to be leaning on. From figure 2, and using Photoshop to identify and match the color scale:

"Shading in each panel represents the 39-year average estimated reliability (% of total annual electricity demand met)"

https://i.imgur.com/9OMK9eZ.png

This shows that 100% solar (without mixing-in wind) in the US only has a reliability (% of demand met) of about 53%.

    Solar requires 100% reliable backup.

If we add 12 hours of storage (also in figure 2 of the article YOU provided):

https://i.imgur.com/ut52ZbI.png

Solar + 12 hours of storage gets up to only 82% reliability (% of demand met). In other words, cities go dark 18% of the time.

    Solar requires 100% reliable backup.

Even with the most optimal configuration (close to 50/50 wind and solar with 12 hours of storage), reliability comes up to about 86%.

    Solar requires 100% reliable backup.

If we overbuild both solar and wind, add 12 hours of storage and shift the mix to about 40% solar and 60% wind, we can get to about 95% of demand met. Solar alone, in this overbuilt scenario, would only be about 88%. So, we overbuild by 50% and only get about 6% better performance.

    Solar requires 100% reliable backup.

And, once again, these are numbers that are presented in terms of averages, which have almost nothing whatsoever to do with local realities. You cannot apply an average figure calculated from multiple averages to an entire country and conclude that those numbers represent local realities.

The fact that you have to use wind and storage to achieve performance above the 53% of demand achievable by solar alone fully supports the point I have been making:

    Solar requires 100% reliable backup.

I am eager to see what new insults you are going to use to divert from the inconvenience of having the article you provided actually support my point at every level. The suspense is truly riveting.

[Schroedingersat]

The usual motte and bailey nonsense. Look back at your words. You said it needs 100% backup and repeatedly affirmed you meant something with 100% of the output and 100% of the average output and that this made solar useless.

You're now trying to gaslight by saying you meant the whole system needs redundancy.

You're also somehow claiming that anyone advocating solar is advocating for zero wind. This is another unhinged lie.

[robomartin]

How do you power a city at night if all you have is solar?

Solar requires 100% reliable backup.

Batteries?

That's backup.

Oh, wait. The batteries need backup because they cannot be charged by a solar array that is sized to only fit the load. You need to oversize it. By a lot. In fact, you need to at least double your array size to charge batteries to be used at night.

In other words, backup for the backup.

Wind?

That's backup.

Hydro?

That's backup.

More solar from thousands of miles away where there might still be light?

That's backup.

Nuclear?

That's backup.

Gas/Coal/Fossil?

That's backup.

Oh, wait, here's Elon Musk talking about something you claimed to be a lie, when I said you need to overbuild solar arrays by 7x or more for continuous power. Here he is, less than two weeks ago:

https://www.youtube.com/live/Hl1zEzVUV7w?feature=share&t=121...

You need to 5x for continuous power, he says.

Oops.

It's also great that he mentions solar and wind can coexist. Some of backup can be co-located at some locations. Fantastic.

Please stop resorting to insults. Please? Insulting people does not change the reality around you. It never will.

Do the math and understand what you are talking about. Please.

Nobody is saying solar is bad or impossible to use. This interpretation you seem to prefer is entirely fabricated. My claim that solar requires 100% backup is --quite literally-- as true as day and night and as necessary as what happens with solar between day and night. That you continue to attack and insult me over this is difficult to understand.

BTW, he is not talking about weather effects and only thinking about local semi-ideal conditions. I'm sure that will be covered at some point. The multiple is much higher than 5x.

    Note to @dang, if you are reading this, please do not delete this thread.  

This person really needs to let the world know, in no uncertain terms, who he is. Deleting his relentless reach for insults and attacks would simply provide him with opportunities to do it again and again. If this is the person he wants to be, so be it. Please know it does not affect me and I will not descend to his chosen level of discourse. I will continue providing facts as I think them to be so for anyone to challenge respectfully. I actually want to know if I am wrong, because that is the only way one learns anything. However, this does not happen through insults. It happens in the context of a conversation based on mutual respect and a foundation had in the scientific process, with math and physics as very good starting points.

Hopefully there's a lesson here for others. Treat each other with respect and consideration. Do not react to someone who does not offer you the same. This is their overwhelming objective. To have to descend to their level. Don't do it. Poise in the face of adversity. That's the real proof of a person's character.

[Schroedingersat]

> Without going too deep: If you need 100% backup for solar, why use solar

This is where you started. Now you're doubling down on the gaslighting,

You were very explicit and batteries or a resilient VRE system with other renewables were notnl what you were talking about.

And you are consistently disrespectful, arrogant and condescending. The only person stupid enough to think the cry bully act will work is you. Thinking that your snide condescention is subtle is not the same as it not being blindingly obvious.

[robomartin]

> The only person stupid enough

Hmmm. OK.

It's nighttime, my solar array is making zero power right now. Thankfully I have 100% backup from the grid.

Regarding: "Without going too deep: If you need 100% backup for solar, why use solar"

Science and engineering are about always asking questions and challenging assumptions.

Is solar --which requires 100% backup-- better, the best, ideal?

Is it, really?

How about this. Let's use the article you posted to challenge what I've been saying [0]. You know, the one that backfired and actually supported my all my claims so far. Let's use it one more time. Maybe you are right and I am stupid.

Again, table #2.

My question was: Why use solar?

The table shows the "39-year average estimated reliability (% of total annual electricity demand met)".

In other words, what percentage of the time the lights in your town will stay on given a power generation and storage technology mix.

Here's what it says (comments mine):

    Without storage ($):
      Solar alone:  54%  (half the time you go dark)
      Wind alone:   82%  (wow)
    
    With 3 hours of storage ($$):
      Solar alone:  66%  (meh)
      Wind alone:   85%  (nice)
    
    With 12 hours of storage ($$$$$):
      Solar alone:  81%  (finally)
      Wind alone:   88%  (better)

    Overbuilt by 1.5x with just 3 hours of storage ($$$$):
      Solar alone:  70%  (meh)
      Wind alone:   95%  (double-wow)

Wind alone, without storage, is massively better at delivering reliable power than solar. The city goes dark 18% of the time, rather than 46% for solar.

If we just add 3 hours of storage, wind goes up a few percent, same for solar. Not too exciting.

The real find is what happens if we overbuild generation capacity by 1.5x and add just 3 hours of storage:

Wind goes up to 95% reliability, while solar only 70%.

95% RELIABILITY FOR WIND!

70% RELIABILITY FOR SOLAR!

That is a massive find, one deserving saying it out loud.

The city is dark only 5% of the time with wind, vs. 30% with solar.

Both require backup for the percentage they cannot deliver reliably. Wind requires massively less backup.

Is wind cheaper, simpler, easier to maintain over the long term? Not sure, I would have to do the math on that. The questions are compelling enough for me to explore further.

There's another element that is often not explored: Solar requires almost 100% reliance on China for the entire supply chain. Does wind technology inshore most of the supply chain? The world today is a nasty place. If the US, Europe and other regions can inshore manufacturing and technology, rather than send trillions of dollars to China, this would be a good thing, something worth pursuing.

So, again, I ask:

Given the above. Why use solar?

Your article, once again, supports my perspective.

> you are consistently disrespectful, arrogant and condescending.

You are confusing those things with stating what I know because I am sure of it. There is a difference. A professor isn't disrespectful, arrogant and condescending because she asserts what she knows to be true. Neither is a doctor, lawyer or, for that matter, an engineer.

I urge you to, once again, stop the insults, fire-up Excel and do some math before posting. I just used the numbers you provided to show that questioning solar as the best option likely has merit.

Open for discussion? Of course. Get to the point where you have done enough work to have a reasonable understanding of the subject matter. Then, use numbers. Not insults. Anyone would gladly have a conversation with you under those condition.

None of this means solar is useless and should not continue to scale. It does mean we really need to be objective and check our assumptions at the door. My guess is that, yes, of course solar is worthwhile and valuable. Yet, no, it is unlikely to be the best solution for everything. It needs backup, lots of it. It needs wind. Lots of it. And it probably needs fossil and nuclear generation to be able to deliver constant, consistent and reliable power.

Nobody is likely to install wind turbines atop their homes, so, yes, definitely, solar has a place, likely on our roofs. I would question solar at scale because wind looks to be massively better on first inspection. This needs a further look at the numbers and reality of wind.

I am being very patient here and trying to teach you a few things anyone would find valuable.

First, there's the matter of treating others with respect and learning to have a conversation. We all benefit from this.

Second, we have to be careful about our assumptions. We should not dismiss others because we don't like what they are saying. Above all, before aggressively challenging anyone, we have to do the work --which can be difficult and time consuming.

You have to keep in mind that someone with the scientific training who is presenting arguments based on math and physics like has devoted a non-trivial amount of time to understanding the problem. One cannot challenge someone coming from that perspective without doing the work first.

Third, don't take this discussion personally. I am simply trying to guide you into understanding that your approach isn't constructive and does not lead discovering the truth through dialogue.

Anyone can be wrong and anyone can be right. I've been in both those corners. Yet, we are never going to discover where we are if we decide to just slap each other silly. That's the opposite of constructive.

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z

[Schroedingersat]

Everybody here understands what a system is and understands how to do the math and what the tradeoffs are except you, chum. Your arrogance is still not a substitute for truth.

I notice you've backed off even further from your claims of needing 1200GW of inflexible thermal generation that isn't even useful for peaking (not that this will stop you from posting them again).

Here's yet another example in the comment chain:

> Sure, you did the math for local solar only.

> But if you add in existing hydro + nuclear, a good proportion of wind (which is more consistent and stronger at night), some good long distance interconnects, and a modicum of storage, the number comes out a lot smaller.

> Here's the math: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262545044/electrify/

> It comes up with a 20% overbuild.

Yet another example of someone pointing out your straw man. Then you arrogantly insulting them.

Everyone you're talking down to has either done the math, or read journals by competent people who have.