Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite a lot of people live in Texas and California where renewables are already pretty advanced, plus there's nuclear in the north, and they have hydro and grid connections with Canada who have even more hydro and nuclear so the USA should be easier. The US intends to hit this target (i.e. 95% carbon-free generation) in 8 years I think, with 100% and wider electrification of current fossil fuel uses in 2035 and it di…
The US is a lot more than just California and Texas. Where I live isn't anywhere close to being fully renewable. And home solar is much less economical than it is in California or Texas, largely due to having less sunlight.
A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage
271–280 of 365 posts
Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage
#272"in Australia" is an important qualification here. Australia has a very high ratio of available solar and wind energy to population. Not that getting Australia fully on renewables wouldn't be exciting. But it is definitely an easier target than say the US.
The US also has plentiful natural resources vs. population size. It seems that Europe would be the least naturally blessed considering high per capita energy use and less solar resources. China has a high population to support, but also owns all that renewables manuring capacity. Other countries do not have such large and energy intense populations.
Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage
#273"in Australia" is an important qualification here. Australia has a very high ratio of available solar and wind energy to population. Not that getting Australia fully on renewables wouldn't be exciting. But it is definitely an easier target than say the US.
It's not significantly easier than the US, which also has an embarrassingly large surplus of land for solar and wind.
Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
Energy prices everywhere are up. That is what happens when the global economy is bouncing back from a pandemic and one of the biggest energy suppliers in the world decides to embark on the first major land war in Europe in over 70 years.
So you're saying Russia made sunshine more expensive? Or did we secretly build nothing but gas power plants because renewable are so intermittent nothing else can be turned on and off fast enough, leading to rising electricity prices world wide even before the latest shock?
Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage
#275One thing I would love to see addressed in these kinds of analyses: the efficacy of strategic placement of solar. Electrical demand tends to peak slightly after sundown for much of the year. However, the sun obviously doesn't set at the same time everywhere. Darwin's sunset is currently an hour and a half later than Sydney/Brisbane. Could building more equatorial/western solar installations together with transmission…
Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Electrification has enormous potential to reduce grid cost, and overall energy cost, IMHO. This sounds a bit strange. I'm pretty sure that electric cars and replacing natural gas for heating will require quite significant investment in electric distribution infrastructure. Also, if you want to be able to transfer a significant fraction of power generated from wind and solar across the country, transmission capacity…
Most infrastructures are built to handle maximum load. If the load become nearly flat (by utilizing idle time) thanks to electrification, it makes easy to collect grid cost.
Batteries as part of the central grid can help, of course.
Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage
#277"in Australia" is an important qualification here. Australia has a very high ratio of available solar and wind energy to population. Not that getting Australia fully on renewables wouldn't be exciting. But it is definitely an easier target than say the US.
It's not even true "in Australia", given the South Australian government, famously pro-Tesla and pro-renewables, has been ramping up the production of NEW gas peaking plants and the refurbishment of old ones. Australia is doubling down on gas. 100% renewables is the fever pipe dream of a delusional environmentalist who ignores gas in the renewables equation (renewables and gas go together hand-in-hand, because batter…
Electranet, the South Australian transmission operator, commissioned four new synchronous condensors in 2021 in order to reduce the minimum number of gas turbines that must operate.
Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most infrastructures are built to handle maximum load. If the load become nearly flat (by utilizing idle time) thanks to electrification, it makes easy to collect grid cost.
The effect of a lot of renewables can be the opposite, though. When the wind is blowing, all consumers may want to charge their Tesla's at the same time, meaning that the grid wil experience even more spikey load patterns. Batteries as part of the central grid can help, of course.
Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage
#279> My simulation used the 24GW/120GWh of assumed storage and existing hydro to firm up the wind and solar and match demand. 120 GWh is not what most would describe as "little storage". The largest hydroelectric storage facilities in existence are in the single digit or low double digit GWh. And this is for a country with a relatively small population. > Both the hydro and storage were assumed highly flexible. Note tha…
The current pipeline of utility battery storage projects in Australia is estimated to be 26GW ( https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2021/11/03/australias-... ). Storage ratios of announced projects seem to range from 2 to 4, so that would be storage in the range of 52GWh - 104GWh - not quite up to the assumed mix in the model but not too far short either.
This is also a big simplification. While dams can just totally shut off the flow of water downstream, this has big ecological impact and also impacts availability of water in population centers that draw from the river. Most dams always release a minimum amount of water to ensure the river never runs dry. Much of his simulation has dams bottling up water for long stretches of time.
Did you miss the part where he imposed minimums on the hydro generation in order to keep it within historical limits:
However, to maintain consistency with historical generation,
hydro generation was also subject to the following constraints:
* Hydro generation was kept between 200 MW and 6,000 MW
* Weekly hydro generation was kept above 168 GWh
* Annual hydro generation was targeted at between 6% and 9%
of demand, though ideally closer to 15,000 GWh, or about
7.5% of demand.
I do however agree the hydro part is a little too oversimplified (going by what is in the article). A lot of Tasmania's hydro is run-of-river; the dam-based hydro systems can be very limited by weather-based issues (both too little rain, which hasn't been concern in the previous year due to a persistent La Nina, and too much, which limits how much can be discharged when downstream pondages are too full).Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage
#280One thing I would love to see addressed in these kinds of analyses: the efficacy of strategic placement of solar. Electrical demand tends to peak slightly after sundown for much of the year. However, the sun obviously doesn't set at the same time everywhere. Darwin's sunset is currently an hour and a half later than Sydney/Brisbane. Could building more equatorial/western solar installations together with transmission…
Transmission losses would eat any benefit, unfortunately. Of course, the author didn't model this at all. This is the problem with 99% of "actually we could totally rip out our entire infrastructure right now" posts - it's usually justified with crappy modeling that falls apart under slightly more scrutinizing consideration. Solar-only with low storage overhead might become more viable if we get room-temperature supe…