Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

[Greg Locock]

You need a mix of renewables, and wind is indeed part of the solution. But you can have a wind drought across an entire continent for DAYS. Both Australia and Europe have had a multiday wind drought in the past couple of years. Germany is in the process of cutting down a 1000 year old forest to build a windfarm, while at the same time decommissioning 20 year old wind turbines because they are no longer economic.

So you need ten times more of everything, hence cover Spain or the Sahara in solar, it may be fairly useless in winter but it is predictably useless.

I have seen an estimate based on the weather in the USA that if you don't have fossil fuels or nukes then you need 30 days of batteries. If you get brave and go for 5 days then you need another 3 times as much renewables because you only get 2 days to recharge them, given typical weather patterns.

[Andres125sx]

You need a mix of renewables, and wind is indeed part of the solution. But you can have a wind drought across an entire continent for DAYS. Both Australia and Europe have had a multiday wind drought in the past couple of years. Germany is in the process of cutting down a 1000 year old forest to build a windfarm, while at the same time decommissioning 20 year old wind turbines because they are no longer economic.

So you need ten times more of everything, hence cover Spain or the Sahara in solar, it may be fairly useless in winter but it is predictably useless.

I have seen an estimate based on the weather in the USA that if you don't have fossil fuels or nukes then you need 30 days of batteries. If you get brave and go for 5 days then you need another 3 times as much renewables because you only get 2 days to recharge them, given typical weather patterns.

30 days of batteries? I´d love to see that estimation, and specially who did it

Who said nukes are not necessary, or that it will be easy or a quick change?

[Greg Locock]

I'll try and find it. The premise was, from memory, no nukes, no fossil fuels, actual weather for the last two years.

However I'd be far more interested in seeing your version of that from scratch, because I like seeing how unicorns work. And if you can't produce that for Europe then there is a great American word. Times crossword clue: Thump, with difficulty, 4-4.

[Greg Locock]

Here's one of them, it's even got a spreadsheet. Written by a retired professional engineer.

https://blog.friendsofscience.org/wp-co ... -USA-1.pdf

So, if you disagree and want to be taken seriously, repeat that work for your market of interest. If not, don't.

[Andres125sx]

I'll try and find it. The premise was, from memory, no nukes, no fossil fuels, actual weather for the last two years.

However I'd be far more interested in seeing your version of that from scratch, because I like seeing how unicorns work. And if you can't produce that for Europe then there is a great American word. Times crossword clue: Thump, with difficulty, 4-4.

My version of that is non existant, because I´m not a demagogue like those who brought up an unreal scenario with no nukes in the zillionth attempt to discredit renewables

Nobody said 100% of energy can be obtained from sun and wind, none with a brain at least, so setting up such an scenario is pure demagogy.

Curiously, people who think they´re smarter than the rest (you believe in unicorns, haha), are first to belive that demagogy and assume it´s real. The irony


Then we can talk about assuming actual cost of batteries for something wich could be achieved maybe in 3 decades if we are hiper-optimistic, probably more than 50 years if we´re more sensible

[Big Tea]

I'll try and find it. The premise was, from memory, no nukes, no fossil fuels, actual weather for the last two years.

However I'd be far more interested in seeing your version of that from scratch, because I like seeing how unicorns work. And if you can't produce that for Europe then there is a great American word. Times crossword clue: Thump, with difficulty, 4-4.

My version of that is non existant, because I´m not a demagogue like those who brought up an unreal scenario with no nukes in the zillionth attempt to discredit renewables

Nobody said 100% of energy can be obtained from sun and wind, none with a brain at least, so setting up such an scenario is pure demagogy.

Curiously, people who think they´re smarter than the rest (you believe in unicorns, haha), are first to belive that demagogy and assume it´s real. The irony


Then we can talk about assuming actual cost of batteries for something wich could be achieved maybe in 3 decades if we are hiper-optimistic, probably more than 50 years if we´re more sensible

Although I am behind you in this, it seems that unfortunately those who have influence with politicians, and often the politicians themselves fall into that group. Germany seem to be quickly heading that way, among others.

[Andres125sx]

Although I am behind you in this, it seems that unfortunately those who have influence with politicians, and often the politicians themselves fall into that group. Germany seem to be quickly heading that way, among others.

Of course, I completely agree. Politicians and demagogue should be sinonyms.

Not sure in Germany (I guess after Merkel you have lots of chances to be dissapointed with her sucesor) but in Spain it´s becoming outrageous. They´re all so demagogues and liars I´ve decided to ignore politics for my own peace of mind

But they manage our money and future, so not a good idea probably, if they can do whatever they want we´re done -o

All this thread is a good example, they´ve been ignoring renewables and climate change for decades... and now they overreact with absurd laws, stupid schedules... and people applaud...

My father has always said politicians are just a reflection of society. I agree with him, but that put us humans at the level of sheeps.

edit: Sorry for the rant

[Greg Locock]

Sorry, the scenario of no new nuclear power stations is exactly what is proposed for the USA, Australia, Germany, and we'll wait and see if team idiot in the UK follow along.

There's nothing to stop you adding nukes into that spreadsheet, they are just batteries that don't need to be charged.

So, I've done what you asked, now you do what I ask.

Propose an energy mix to zero emissions for the market of your choice.

<…>

[Greg Locock]

Germany knocking down old forests to build new wind turbines https://www.areweeurope.com/stories/wil ... e-appleton

Germany knocking down old wind turbines because they are uneconomic https://www.americanexperiment.org/mass ... -capacity/

They aren't necessarily good articles, there are pages of them.

[Big Tea]

Sorry, the scenario of no new nuclear power stations is exactly what is proposed for the USA, Australia, Germany, and we'll wait and see if team idiot in the UK follow along.

There's nothing to stop you adding nukes into that spreadsheet, they are just batteries that don't need to be charged.

So, I've done what you asked, now you do what I ask.

Propose an energy mix to zero emissions for the market of your choice.

Otherwise I'll give you the answer to the crossword clue.

The U.K P.M. has publicly stated they are needed, "We do need to go forward with more nuclear power. I do think it should be part of our baseload, a big part. And that's why yes, of course, we're looking at Wylfa and lots of other projects."

There is also a bill currently going through Lords to approve a more.
What happens between now and then though...

[Greg Locock]

Good, at least someone gets it. China does too, they are building 100, although not necessarily because they've suddenly converted to the "sky is falling" religion.

China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. 100 more with an anticipated capacity of over 100 GW, are planned by 2035. This will be close to half the world's nuclear capacity.

[hollus]

I have seen an estimate based on the weather in the USA that if you don't have fossil fuels or nukes then you need 30 days of batteries. If you get brave and go for 5 days then you need another 3 times as much renewables because you only get 2 days to recharge them, given typical weather patterns.

Why we are pretending to target 100% renewables is beyond me, it is a media disaster very difficult to explain, and it is probably stupid… we need to be targeting 400-500% renewables. (or add nuclear and gas).

My guess is that those 30 days of batteries come from having just enough renewables to cover demand in an average day. And calling that “100%”.
To make this the baseload you need so much extra that at 10AM of a cloudy and rainy February day, with 5km/h of wind, they are covering all the demand. And then batteries for the night and that pesky “no wind in the country for days”. I suspect by then you need 1 day worth of battery tops.
It might be called anti-economic to do that, and it won’t happen if profit is the only investment guide. (But no one is proposing 100% nuclear defining 100% as the 1 minute a year peak load).

If we are not interested in over-capacity and idle generators, well, then we have the 30-day battery or the current mix.

As a silly analogy, your car is designed with about 400-500% the capabilities is needs, in power, top speed, space, comfort, safety, durability, etc, even price! It can even handle that icy road where one should not be driving. That makes it convenient and versatile, with no range anxiety. It should not be such an alien concept.

[Andres125sx]

Sorry, the scenario of no new nuclear power stations is exactly what is proposed for the USA, Australia, Germany, and we'll wait and see if team idiot in the UK follow along.

Difference between no nukes as you said, or no new nukes as you´re saying now, is HUGE Greg

Even so I agree no new nukes is absurd, but no nukes at all as you were saying previously was idiotic. Nobody has ever said that, and considering unreal scenarios none mentioned ever is exactly what our demagogue politicians do to polarize people against the rest. That way they make people think the others are stupid or maniacs and anything must be done to stop them... anything... what give them a blank cheque to do any atrocity wich is their real goal, total power

<…>

[Greg Locock]

Given current policies in USA Germany and Australia they will have no nukes in 2050. Not no new nukes, no nukes.

[J.A.W.]

I have seen an estimate based on the weather in the USA that if you don't have fossil fuels or nukes then you need 30 days of batteries. If you get brave and go for 5 days then you need another 3 times as much renewables because you only get 2 days to recharge them, given typical weather patterns.

Why we are pretending to target 100% renewables is beyond me, it is a media disaster very difficult to explain, and it is probably stupid… we need to be targeting 400-500% renewables. (or add nuclear and gas).

My guess is that those 30 days of batteries come from having just enough renewables to cover demand in an average day. And calling that “100%”.
To make this the baseload you need so much extra that at 10AM of a cloudy and rainy February day, with 5km/h of wind, they are covering all the demand. And then batteries for the night and that pesky “no wind in the country for days”. I suspect by then you need 1 day worth of battery tops.
It might be called anti-economic to do that, and it won’t happen if profit is the only investment guide. (But no one is proposing 100% nuclear defining 100% as the 1 minute a year peak load).

If we are not interested in over-capacity and idle generators, well, then we have the 30-day battery or the current mix.

As a silly analogy, your car is designed with about 400-500% the capabilities is needs, in power, top speed, space, comfort, safety, durability, etc, even price! It can even handle that icy road where one should not be driving. That makes it convenient and versatile, with no range anxiety. It should not be such an alien concept.

It comes down to 'Who Pays?' - if built by 'private enterprise', the company shareholders will demand the
usual 'minimum outlay for maximum profit', so very little 'slack' is let into the system.

If taxpayers are putting out, then the typical 'wastage/writedowns/kickbacks' can be expected...
(Just look at the numbers of 'mothballed' super-expensive desalination plants built/not used).