Hugohase
- 0 Posts
- 13 Comments
52·1 year agoCarbon neutral has to mean carbon neutral, its rather easy. If you can’t achieve that then you can’t advertise with it.
1·1 year agoLet’s take Europe (because I’m familiar with the data in Europe). Much of the continent is very flat. Denmark, Southern Sweden, Netherlands, and Northern Germany, for example, cannot take advantage of hydro storage, and this comprised the largest storage component of the proposed solution.
But an additional effect you have when considering the whole of europe is interconnection. The geographic spread of renewables lowers storage requirements.
We need new battery technologies or other means of economical storage to make such a grid work in Europe. I suspect the numbers are similar in the U.S. Biomass and geothermal help close the gap, but not nearly enough.
The EU will use hydrogen, I am not a huge fan of that but it is what it is…
https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-systems-integration/hydrogen_en
As a sidenote, I don’t expect batteries to play a huge role in energy storage. Propably more frequency regulation and peak shifting and basically no long term storage.
But we will see…
One cannot prove a negative. Can you prove that god does not exist? Typically the burden of proof lies with the one making any positive claims such as you are.
Of course it would be possible to proof that something isn’t economicly viable exept in this case, because it is.
Here is a model of an economicly viable stand-alone system.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352152X22007836
The link above was about how insanely expensive Nuclear is compared to, well, everything else.
False. There is currently no technology which enables an economically viable solution for 100% renewable grids.
Do you have any proof of this other than your own conclusions? Because a lot of experts see this very differently.
It seems Denmark is doing fine at the moment, so I don’t really see your argument there.
By the way, the EU wants to develope hydrogen for long term storage.
If you want expensive, sure you can use nuclear.
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/
The first link about growing storage wasn’t enough? The storage problem is solved it’s just not necessary, at least not yet. Economics will kill nuclear anyway I am just showing why and how…
Maybe spend some time reading about the actual market situation.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/12/23/global-solar-capacity-additions-hit-268-gw-in-2022-says-bnef/
I think the scalability, in production as well as in installation, is the biggest plus for pv. You can build 0.25 kW PV or 1 GW. Nuclear reactors that are not even in the construction phase are, in my opinion, a waste of money and resources that could be invested in building renewables.
I mean fusion. It is just like advocating for NG as a bridging solution, true in theory, but at least three decades to late.
I find it astonishing that in 2023, when renewables are more ubiquitous and far cheaper than nuclear, there are still people who would advocate for an technological and societal inferior solution.
There just is no utopia possible if you enact right-wing politics.
Pronunciation, context and most importantly most of these sentences wouldn’t be used like that. (Except for “die spinnen”, i say that probably daily)