The military coup in Niger has raised concerns about uranium mining in the country by the French group Orano, and the consequences for France's energy independence.
⇒ (But at least we already have transmission tech, it is now just a question of materials and effort.)
So, assume that we have enough wind and solar that we can regularly produce 100% of demand from them. You can imagine peaks just touching the demand line at top demand.
(You could imagine more than that, but that would mean overbuilding, which hurts the economics quite badly while not making the end result much better.)
⇒ Now the volatile supply line has valleys between the peaks. If you integrate over time and place, the supply line covers about 40% of demand in this situation.
That is /very rough/ and depends on a lot of factors, but my point is the same if it were 30% or 60%: where does the rest come from?
- Transmission: as already mentioned, we know how to transmit electric energy, it’s just material and effort. This smoothes out the »place« dimension.
⇒ - Storage: obviously, we’d want to smoothen out the time dimension as well. This means adding storage that can meet 100% of demand as well (volatile sources frequently drop to 0), and feeding it with enough additional clean sources that it can fill every expected gap (and gap accumulation).
And here I’d like to repeat my point from before: the best (most effective) storage we have right now is pumped hydro, by far. And pumped hydro is not enough, by far.
⇒
⇒ - Backup. Of course, anything inherently CO₂-producing is out for this, and this includes gas, obviously, and biomass (maybe less obviously, but think about it). And that leaves?
So, this is my plan: keep building solar and wind till peak demand is sometimes met, build nuclear to replace all the fossil »backup«.
@MattMastodon@Sodis My thinking about biomass: if we don’t burn it, it will not be released as CO₂ to the atmosphere.
I guess the thinking about biomass was: if we only burned biomass, not fossil mass, then we’d have an equilibrium and no problem. But saying that biomass is net-zero gets it backwards. The CO₂ doesn’t care where it’s coming from. It is our task to produce as little CO₂ as possible. The goal is to get below the amount of CO₂ /captured/ by biological processes.
@MattMastodon @Sodis
⇒ (But at least we already have transmission tech, it is now just a question of materials and effort.)
So, assume that we have enough wind and solar that we can regularly produce 100% of demand from them. You can imagine peaks just touching the demand line at top demand.
(You could imagine more than that, but that would mean overbuilding, which hurts the economics quite badly while not making the end result much better.)
⇒
@MattMastodon @Sodis
⇒ Now the volatile supply line has valleys between the peaks. If you integrate over time and place, the supply line covers about 40% of demand in this situation.
That is /very rough/ and depends on a lot of factors, but my point is the same if it were 30% or 60%: where does the rest come from?
- Transmission: as already mentioned, we know how to transmit electric energy, it’s just material and effort. This smoothes out the »place« dimension.
⇒
@MattMastodon @Sodis
⇒ - Storage: obviously, we’d want to smoothen out the time dimension as well. This means adding storage that can meet 100% of demand as well (volatile sources frequently drop to 0), and feeding it with enough additional clean sources that it can fill every expected gap (and gap accumulation).
And here I’d like to repeat my point from before: the best (most effective) storage we have right now is pumped hydro, by far. And pumped hydro is not enough, by far.
⇒
deleted by creator
@MattMastodon @Sodis
⇒ - Backup. Of course, anything inherently CO₂-producing is out for this, and this includes gas, obviously, and biomass (maybe less obviously, but think about it). And that leaves?
So, this is my plan: keep building solar and wind till peak demand is sometimes met, build nuclear to replace all the fossil »backup«.
deleted by creator
@MattMastodon @Sodis My thinking about biomass: if we don’t burn it, it will not be released as CO₂ to the atmosphere.
I guess the thinking about biomass was: if we only burned biomass, not fossil mass, then we’d have an equilibrium and no problem. But saying that biomass is net-zero gets it backwards. The CO₂ doesn’t care where it’s coming from. It is our task to produce as little CO₂ as possible. The goal is to get below the amount of CO₂ /captured/ by biological processes.
deleted by creator