this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
394 points (94.4% liked)
Technology
59593 readers
3150 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Solar alone can't meet humanity's energy needs without breakthroughs in energy storage.
Most energy we use the grid for is generated on demand. That means only a few moments ago, the electricity powering your computer was just a lump of coal in a furnace.
If we don't have the means to store enough energy to meet demands when the sun isn't out or wind isn't blowing, then we need more sources of energy than just sun and wind.
There is a lot of misinformation being perpetuated by the solar industry to fool people like you into thinking all investments should be directed to it over other options.
Please educate yourself before parroting industry talking points that only exist to take people for a ride.
There is growing scientific consensus that 100% renewables is the most cost effective option.
Grid storage doesn't have the same weight limitations that EVs do, which opens up a lot more paths. Flow batteries, for one, might be all we need. They're already gearing those up for mass production, so we don't need any further breakthroughs (though they're always nice if they come).
Getting to 95% is surprisingly easy; there are non-linear factors at work to getting that last 5%, but you wouldn't need to use other sources very much at all. The wind often blows when the sun doesn't shine. We have tons of historical weather data about how these two combine in a given region, which means we can calculate the maximum expected lull between the two. Double that amount and put in enough storage to cover it. This basic plan was simulated in Australia, and it gets there for an affordable cost.
Then we can worry about that last 5%.
Nuclear advocates have been using the same talking points since the 90s, and have missed how the economics have been swept out from underneath them.
Supplying energy isn't only doing what's "cost effective." It's about meeting demand.
This is why when suppliers have difficulty meeting demand, prices go up.
If we only did what was the cheapest instead of what was required to meet demand, then our demands wouldn't be met and we would be without energy during those times.
Check the second link again. They were calculating how demand was met over time.
In Australia a mostly open, sparsely populated, continent sized island with vast amounts of sun wind and hydro, with people mostly gathered in a small band of the coast on one side (and still even then needed 1/3 of total generating capacity backed by fossil fuels).
It's great that oz can maybe get away with almost entirely renewable (maybe, that simulation is essentially just multiplying current generation by a large number, adding some storage and saying that mostly takes generation above demand, it doesn't do any sort of analysis of when where or how that energy is generated or makes its way to the sources of demand), but it's not a model for the rest of the world.