[sabaimran]

> The central finding is that a 15% increase in solar generation across the U.S. is associated with an annual reduction of 8.54 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2, a significant step toward national climate goals.

Whoa, that's really cool.

You can see the paper along with figures & regional breakdowns here: https://openpaper.ai/paper/share/1d0c6956-4820-4ee2-ac1e-12c...

[kumarvvr]

US Produced about 4.8 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 in 2024 ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide... )

The savings is minuscule. But important nonetheless. It just goes on to show how much more solar is required.

[bawolff]

Given that solar power is 4% of electricity generation, a 15% increase is like 0.5% percentage points in total. Roughly 30% of co2 is from electricity generation, the numbers all seem to make sense.

If you replace 0.5% of things that emit carbon with non-carbon sources it reduces carbon emissions by 0.5%.

[ViewTrick1002]

This falls for the ”fallacy” of primary energy.

We need vastly less total primary energy to run a 90-95% efficient BEV compared to a 20-30% efficient ICE.

That is excluding the entire very inefficient supply chain to refine and transport the fuel to the ICE.

[ben_w]

> We need vastly less total primary energy to run a 90-95% efficient BEV compared to a 20-30% thermally ICE.

While true, that requires actually transitioning to BEVs, which in turn requires having enough batteries to transition to BEVs.

Doing that in the USA is (~290M vehicles, say 60kWh each, ~= 17.4TWh) more than enough to provide the entire USA with several days worth of backup storage, even if the place somehow got a continent-wide version of a Dunkelflaute that wasn't merely "20% normal output" but "actually no output".

I am hopeful this will happen, but last I checked, it was further away than the PV itself is, what with the batteries needing replacement every few thousand cycles but the PV mostly lasting 25-35 years no problem.

[ViewTrick1002]

For the net zero scenarios by the IEA one of the areas that is ahead of the curve is batteries.

The global battery manufacturing capacity reached 3 TWh in 2024.

With say an average lifetime of 15 years getting a bit over 1 TWh of new batteries per year for the car fleet seems easily feasible.

Then please give us a source for regarding your continental dunkelflate doomsday scenario so we can make sure is a plausible scenario, and not made up scary numbers.

Of course ignoring that you assume that we need to charge every single car to 100% every day.

[ben_w]

> The global battery manufacturing capacity reached 3 TWh in 2024.

OK, that's better than I thought, I was led to believe it was 1 TWh in 2024.

> With say an average lifetime of 15 years getting a bit over 1 TWh of new batteries per year for the car fleet seems easily feasible.

I think that's optimistic; none of my (non-car) batteries have maintained significant capacity for that long. I think grid use will look more like phone or laptop use than like car use, with daily full cycles?

> Then please give us a source for regarding your continental dunkelflate doomsday scenario so we can make sure is a plausible scenario, and not made up scary numbers.

I think you're misunderstanding me on this. I'm saying it's good enough even for a very weird and unusual condition far in excess of the normal talking points.

> Of course ignoring that you assume that we need to charge every single car to 100% every day.

No? I'm saying I expect an average car to get a 60kWh battery pack, and that there are 290 million vehicles in the USA, and that this makes a combined manufacturing requirement of sustaining a capacity of multiply-those-numbers-together storage. This says nothing about how often that storage will normally get charged, and instead I was saying how long this could power the USA for if discharged in a very weird condition.

Actual power consumption of those vehicles is tiny, something like 80% of mean consumption (in places where shaded parking isn't the norm) could be supplied by requiring their surfaces to be covered in PV.

[jillesvangurp]

These kinds of arguments don't really add up if you use some system thinking and extrapolate from current trends.

First, the US isn't northern Europe (where solar energy is very popular regardless). Especially the southern half is more comparable to southern Europe or even North Africa. Places like Berlin are at 52 degrees latitude. You have to go deep into Canada to find cities at a similar latitude. Most of the US is below 49 degrees and gets decent amounts of sun. It's more than fine most of the year. If you regularly need to wear your sun glasses in January, you live in a place that can have solar power.

But sure, the Sun doesn't always shine and it gets grey and cloudy sometimes. Even in San Diego. But there are also wind, and batteries. And people always forget that you can use cables to move energy around as well. And a lot of cables aren't at their maximum capacities all of the time. So, they can be used to move energy around when it isn't needed and be used to charge batteries close to where it is needed later. San Diego is basically at the same latitude as places in Northern Africa that might end up supplying power via HVDC cables to Europe. The US can mix off shore wind on both coasts, solar across the south and its deserts with hydro in mountainous regions and lots of batteries. At this point very doable already and long term only getting more obvious to do as cost and efficiencies continue to improve.

Finally, modern batteries already last quite long. LFP and sodium ion are basically getting lifespans of 5000 or more cycles at this point. That's basically decades with normal usage and over a decade even with full daily cycling (which would be intensive usage).

Sodium ion means lots of dirt cheap batteries for storage and (small) vehicles. Basically it uses no rare materials and lasts a long time. It has the potential to decimate the cost of batteries from close to 100$/kwh to more like 10$/kwh by some estimates. At 10$/kwh, most house holds would be able to afford to have a mwh battery - enough to power an inefficient US household for a month. And a more efficient household throughout even the longest imaginable type of dunkelflaute. You can't quite get those yet of course but at this point we have some reason to be optimistic about this being possible mid to long term at least.

Add nuclear, hydro and geothermal to the mix and you have a lot of clean ways to generate and move around clean energy. That kind of system takes time to build but there really aren't a whole lot excuses not to.

This transition period has a lot of people looking in the rear view mirror being blind to the huge stuff that is clearly visible ahead at this point. There are a few wild cards that are interesting but not that essential. Like small reactors, fusion, etc. Nice but not really that essential.

The dunkelflaute is an interesting technical and infrastructure challenge that requires some out of the box thinking. But it's very solvable and it doesn't require any major new technology breakthroughs. We just need to do more of what we're already doing and preferably a bit cheaper. All very doable and within reach. And we have time to do it as our old infrastructure isn't magically about to disappear. Most of this stuff will be cost and economics driven.

Lots of countries that are ahead of the curve might be importing progressively less oil in the decades ahead. That means their trade balances shift and they start having economic growth and a competitive advantage.

IMHO countries that are lagging here will first fall behind, suffer the economic consequences for a while, and then fix it by compensating with massive investments. The US seems to be doing all the wrong things to set itself up for exactly that right now. Which is why I'm quite optimistic it will figure it out eventually.

[ben_w]

I think you're arguing against something I didn't say?

The tech is great. I'm usually the one defending it, even. But you do actually have to build the factories. Which we (humanity, I'm not American) are, as fast as we can, but that's the trend-line to look at, not what the tech can ultimately do.

I mean, to one of your points, I'm one of the few people here who keeps saying that if China wanted to make it a strategic goal, they have the manufacturing capacity to put in a genuinely global power grid with 1Ω electrical resistance for a fairly low material cost (few hundred billion), what a shame about the geopolitical realities getting in the way of this…

[burnt-resistor]

Gigatonnes for short, as used in climate sciences.

[Cheezmeister]

I mean it's five basis points, it ain't nothin.

Put another way, if I could grease the right palms to shave commensurate minuscule savings off of the budget of ICE, it'd pay off my mortgage. Twentyfold.

Back to greenhouse gases, I'm no climatologist, but isn't it plausible the difference could, for instance, make or break one catastrophic wildfire across the western seaboard of North America?

Beware of statistic thinking in a stochastic world.

[hawk_]

Fifty basis points.

[jebarker]

Seems odd to state a percentage increase in solar to obtain an absolute decrease in CO2.