Renewables surprisingly “on track” to meet net zero by 2050::undefined

  • @nyar
    link
    English
    111 year ago

    Nonsense.

    • BombOmOm
      link
      English
      341 year ago

      The core issue is grid-scale storage. Adding 10 or 30% renewables is easy and is where we currently are, getting to 100% means we need to solve that technology issue which we don’t currently have a solution to.

      Nuclear + renewable is the current way to de-carbonize the grid. Build both heavily until we solve the technological issue with grid-scale storage in the coming decades.

      • @LetMeEatCake
        link
        English
        131 year ago

        On the timescale of 27 years, grid-scale storage is going to be a complete non-issue. There’s already a decent amount of work being done at that level right now and battery tech has been improving at a consistent pace. Renewables can work quite well as-is with a good mix of location and source. Offshore wind is more consistent wind speeds, solar locations can mitigate light cloud coverage, solar output peaks during the times of greatest human use, and land based wind is typically dispersed over large areas.

        I’m a huge proponent of nuclear power, but as things stand it isn’t going to be necessary on these time tables. The value in nuclear is that it’s another thing we can build now without needing to wait ten years for battery prices to continue to decline or for manufacturing capabilities to ramp up. Building 10 GW of nameplate capacity wind+solar is great. Building 10 GW of nameplate wind+solar and 5 GW of nameplate nuclear is better! That’s the advantage of nuclear today, and we should fucking make use of it. That doesn’t make it mandatory in the long-term.

        • @eleitl
          link
          English
          -1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The only current storage technology cheap enough if you happen to have the nice problem of having to curtail renewable production during peak is water electrolysis – if you also happen to have the natgas storage and distribution infrastructure already in place.

          MWh and GWh scale battery infrastructure isn’t cheap at all. It will likely take a decade to have affordable 10 kWh scale domestic storage, and it will be most likely sodium, not lithium. 100 kWh scale, which is almost enough for seasonal demand levelling will still take pressurized hydrogen in cylinders.

      • @NewNewAccount
        link
        English
        111 year ago

        Couldn’t we pump water into dams during times of surplus and then drain the dams for hydroelectric when needed? Is that not feasible at scale?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          Not everywhere has the geography to dam and use water like so. But there’s other non-lithium energy storage methods in the works.

          Off the top of my head, concrete blocks, compressed air, liquid metal batteries, heat batteries, and flywheel based energy storage.

          There’s more too, if you’re curious.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          HVDC links between countries will also make renewable energy transmissible to places around the globe that need it, so sun shinning in one country can be transmitted to where the demand is.

      • @eleitl
        link
        English
        01 year ago

        Adding even 10% of renewables (minus biofuels since fake renewable) to primary energy use of major industrialized countries is by no means easy. Which is why world fossil fraction of primary energy use is nearly a constant.