[Alupis]

Scotland is microscopic in relation to the landmass and population that is the US. Yet... look at the sheer volume of wind turbines Scotland has to operate to get anywhere between 10% - 80% of their power generation, depending on the day and wind conditions.

You cannot build a reliable grid based on wind. It requires other non-temperamental energy sources to be available when the wind isn't blowing. Solar? What if it's an overcast day?

If you look at that chart - you'll notice Nuclear takes over the heavy lifting when necessary. So... why not just have a couple more nuclear plants and forgo the unreliable sources?

Using wind and/or solar does not automagically make your system better or more green. People have pigeon-holed themselves into a reality where only wind and solar are acceptable... and then we hide away the actual sources that provide the necessary backfill.

[ck425]

No one's suggesting 100% wind or solar but we can still improve the system with more. Plus both are incredibly quick to build compared to nuclear and fossil fuels, so if you're a country dependant on those (like the UK) it's one of the best ways to quickly improve your energy security.

[CyberDildonics]

Yet... look at the sheer volume of wind turbines Scotland has to operate

What 'sheer volume'? You didn't give any numbers or sources.

Here is some actual information:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/renewables-and-wind-power-...

" In 2022, almost 28 TWh of zero carbon electricity was generated by renewable wind in Scotland, representing 35% of all wind generation in the UK. This could power the equivalent of approximately:

a. 10 million households - over a third of the total households in the UK. b. 85% of total Scottish annual electricity demand."

It requires other non-temperamental energy sources to be available when the wind isn't blowing. Solar? What if it's an overcast day?

Good thing the entire UK is on a shared grid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_(Great_Britain)

Using wind and/or solar does not automagically make your system better or more green.

Why not?

People have pigeon-holed themselves into a reality where only wind and solar are acceptable...

Says who?

and then we hide away the actual sources that provide the necessary backfill.

What does this mean? People are happy that there are economically viable and scalable sources of electricity that don't burn oil and gas. Who is 'hiding' anything away?

[neilwilson]

The shared grid is struggling for capacity. There are insufficient north to south links because of political instability. All of which leads to excess curtailment.

Nothing is sadder than driving past locked off wind turbines that could be turning and generating green LPG or something, rather than being paid to stand idle.

[verall]

> What does this mean?

The powers that be are hiding our most renewable resource - ourselves. We just someone to make a tiktok dance out of jumping into the bioreactor and then we won't need any evil wind turbines or PVs anymore.

[pedroma]

I'm not sure the linked study has accounted for the energy required to acquire and operate the batteries used alongside these wind farms. But it would be interesting to see what percentage batteries factor into this equation. I would imagine it's massive.

[Alupis]

> I would imagine it's massive.

It has to be massive. There is no other way to manage a 70% production swing in as short as a couple minutes and not have the grid go dark. Which then begs the question of how green the batteries are over decades.

We've picked the least reliable energy source and intellectually anchored ourselves to it - then we don't talk about how we actually keep the lights on 24/7. It's kind of nuts.

[2024throwaway]

As nuts as just burning anything flammable we can get our hands on?

[pounderstanding]

Uranium deposits are relatively small. It will last 200 years or so.