Using wind and solar sources makes one more dependent upon the weather. A paper earlier this year looked at the current European energy mix and how the grid would respond under different historical weather patterns.
Shortfalls vary by region. In cold-climate, low-wind capacity countries a shortfall is primarily demand-driven (e.g., increased heating needs during cold snaps). In warm climates, high wind capacity countries a shortfall is primarily production-driven (periods of low wind speed or “Dunkelflaute”).
Certain weather regimes are responsible for certain high-shortfall periods affecting fairly large areas. If one country is experiencing a shortfall, its neighbors are highly likely to be as well.
Using the 1962-63 winter patterns, the authors found that the persistent blocking conditions of that winter would lead to extreme and prolonged energy shortfalls across almost all of Europe.
The Net Zero idea is unworkable. Reducing fossil fuel consumption is a good idea but it has to be implemented gradually so as not to fall into the German self Inflicted energy Dunkelflaute
Gradually, maybe. But smartly is even more important.
I figure it can be done very easily. Solar+wind+nuclear with large banks of storage (batteries, pumped lakes, weights, whatever works) PLUS dispatchable natural gas generators. If you balance it correctly, you will generate during the day (solar), when the wind blows, and all the time (nuclear), and you will store the excess generated in your storage mechanism. Then when those things don’t happen for hours/days (no sun, no wind), you draw on the storage. And then when the storage starts running low, you crank up the nat gas generators. If you designed it well, you may only use nat gas a few days a year. And that’ll reduce emissions. And since you are only using a little bit, you won’t run out of nat gas for a long long time. Not only that, but overall there should be quite. bit of savings due to less “stuff” actually being burned, and thus also less “stuff” that needs to constantly be moved around from place to place.
As soon as someone says ‘it can be done easily’ I stop reading. Nothing is easy! And I don’t think there is any stomach for doing the hard things that need to be done. We need energy; we need energy now; we need energy in more places; and we need energy cheaper!
Agree! Utilities have been discovering that storage is more economical than peaker plants. Tesla storage is going gangbusters.
The Captain
This underrated Tesla business deserves more attention - and it’s not AI
The unit saw 44% revenue growth in the period to reach $3.4 billion, after deploying 12.5 gigawatt hours of energy-storage products last quarter and blowing past its previous all-time high of 11 gigawatt hours.
Probably better to say “it could be done easily”. A subtle, but significant, difference. In principle, it is easy. Politically, it will be extremely difficult for numerous reasons, not the least of which will be NIMBY.
We also need a grid that is not vulnerable to cyber-warfare. (I’m assuming you’re talking about the US…other nations have differing energy problems.)