| > The intermittency is sufficiently predictable Is it? > that we know the overbuild requirement well enough for a variety of possible solutions Here's a quiet night from a few days ago. 0 solar production. https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396 --- start quote --- Germany's 66.5 GW of installed wind is only producing as much as the 3 reactors that turned off last night used to produce. 400% expansion of wind would only provide half present need! --- end quote --- > Yes. And the source for that claim is? > The fact I can say the same for the uranium mines needed for sufficient nuclear power, isn't an argument against nuclear power. You're trying to confuse fuel requirements with grid storage requirements. One we have. Other we don't, and almost no one talks about the cost and the requirements. See the quote and link above. > Because until we decide we want to electrify transport (it's mainly about that not about PV vs. Wind vs. Hydro), there hasn't been demand for that many battery factories. What does electric transport have to do with an absolute requirement for renewable energy sources to be backed up with grid-scale energy sources? > But in both cases, we know what to do, and how to do it. Ah yes. It's that emotionally charged magical thinking again. If we pretend that problems don't exist, they don't exist. Meanwhile, renewable energy is: - intermittent - is extremely slow to ramp up For both cases you need to have grid-scale energy storage to handle demand. And overbuild renewable storage in for cases when (not if) generation drops. And yet, no one talks about the cumulative costs for that (and the fact that we literally don't have storage on that scale). And yet, everyone is clapping each other on the back that hey, there's this Morocco-UK project that is 100% cheaper than nuclear be cause estimations have said so, and so much faster to build than nuclear even though even estimations say it'll take 10 years. |
Yes
> And the source for that claim is?
Prices on Amazon for even non-bulk purchases of batteries and PV. Even cheaper elsewhere.
> You're trying to confuse fuel requirements with grid storage requirements.
False.
I'm giving an analogy.
Uranium mines have a production rate.
Battery factories have a production rate.
Both are presently insufficient to be be 100% of global power.
This doesn't matter in either case.
> It's that emotionally charged magical thinking again. If we pretend that problems don't exist, they don't exist.
???
My emotion in this case is "boredom".
Boring is good. Nobody wants civil infrastructure to be exciting. Exciting is bad.
And AFAICT nobody is denying that e.g. PV needs sunlight. What we're doing is giving you the very solutions you're saying don't exist, even though you're almost certainly holding an example of it in your hand right now while reacting emotionally to the suggestion that there are other solutions besides nuclear.
> What does electric transport have to do with an absolute requirement for renewable energy sources to be backed up with grid-scale energy sources?
55kWh per car * number of cars >> multiple day energy use per person * number of people
> is extremely slow to ramp up
???
Newly installed nameplate capacity for PV last year is 286 GW. Even accounting for 10% capacity factor, that's quite nice. Then there's wind.