• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    More renewables.

    We’re at the beginnings of having useful levels of storage and can keep building out renewables while we develop storage. At the current rates of adoption, we’ll need true grid storage in about ten years.

    However, note that one option for “grid” storage is a battery in every home. Another is a battery in every vehicle. Neither is the best option but those are options we already know and just need to scale up

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Ok, you’ve added more solar panels and wind turbines.

      It’s nighttime. There isn’t much wind. An extremely common thing to happen I’m sure you’ll agree.

      There now isn’t enough power, places have constant blackouts, electricity prices skyrocket because demand far outstrips supply.

      Grid storage large enough to replace fossil fuels + nuclear is far, far, far, far further than 10 years off.

      I’ll ask again:

      • Nuclear base load that assists renewables

      • Continued fossil fuels for multiple decades that assists renewables, and hope that we can reverse some of the damage done in the meantime through some kind of carbon capture tech (unfortunately we can’t fix respiratory issues, strokes, and dead/extinct animals and plants after the fact).

      • Regular blackouts, energy rationing, but 100% renewable

      What do you choose? Saying that you’ll magic up some batteries in a capacity that currently isn’t possible isn’t an answer.

      I want 100% renewables too. Anybody with any sanity would. But it’s currently not feasible. Our choice is between having a fossil fuel base load or a nuclear base load. Other options aren’t available yet.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        And here’s the magic choice …… “time of use metering”. As we electrify everything and add “smart” controls, we can be much more dynamic with time of use metering to adjust the load.

        When the sun doesn’t shine at night, already has much lower electrical load than daytime. Early analog efforts at time of use metering tried to shift more load to the night so “base load” wouldn’t have to adjust, and max load wouldn’t be as high

        Now we can develop smart time of use metering to shift more load to “when the sun shines”. I’m not aware of anything to quantify this so let me just make shit up: if the load “when the sun doesn’t shine” is half what it is when solar is producing, that’s a crap load of grid storage or base load that magically never has to exist

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          That is not a solution. People still need to use electricity at night, and if pretty much all power comes from wind and solar, you’re really reliant on there being wind, and wind in the right direction.

          Energy tariffs that encourage/discourage energy use at certain times is helpful, but it’s very far from a silver bullet.

          • Renewables + nuclear

          • Renewables + fossil fuels

          • Renewables + frequent blackouts

          The above is all we can achieve in the short-medium term. I know what I’d pick.

          The third option wouldn’t even work, practically speaking. Any political party that instigates that would not be getting re-elected anytime soon.

          So for all practical purposes there’s only two options. And I would prefer nuclear over choosing to continue pumping out greenhouse gases and other particulate matter.