F1technical.net

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2022, 00:19

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.

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2022, 12:48

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.

Andres125sx wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2022, 08:48

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2022, 12:48

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 wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2022, 18:13

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.

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2022, 23:37

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.

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2022, 00:19

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.

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2022, 23:37

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.

hollus wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2022, 08:15

Greg Locock wrote: ↑

06 Feb 2022, 00:19

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.