Germany Breaks A Solar Record — Gets 85% Of Electricity From Renewables on 30th April - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=OvB;52206824]I think the future will depend on solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear fusion with grid battery storage.[/QUOTE] The future depends on a synergy of energy sources relative to their geographical surroundings. Apparently I am a climate change denier and evil person for believing in this according to some posters here.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52206806]I am wrong for stating it in such a way, but it is a good rule of thumb unless a country has a huge geographical advantage to using such power sources. But most of the world isn't Norway or like it geographically and so it is an exception.[/QUOTE] That i agree with

[QUOTE=Tudd;52206833]The future depends on a synergy of energy sources relative to their geographical surroundings. Apparently I am a climate change denier and evil person for believing in this according to some posters here.[/QUOTE] I agree that there will be a mix of power sources. But I also believe we can eliminate fossil fuel power sources. Energy storage is required to do that, even if we go all in on nuclear because nuclear power plants are extremely slow at ramping up and down. I'm not sure we will see fusion anytime soon though.

If we could move to renewable and nuclear paired together, it'd be so nice. It's surprising how little land a nuke plant takes up compared to coal

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52206830]renewables have varying levels of output. if we consider a country as vast as the United States with all of its different geographies and climates and weather conditions, then localized shortages or surpluses won't matter too much if you have a decent national grid and infrastructure[/quote] Already in agreement with this statement. It truly depends if were talking about Rhode Island or the Nevada desert for implementing solar for example. [quote] as for smaller countries, then there's nothing stopping them from exporting during times of surplus and importing during shortages is there? [/quote] Actually if you read the articles relating to Germany, you would know that there is problems. Germany actually has to pay people/companies to offload during peak hours so it doesn't damage the grid, but the problem is that power can't be stored, so it gets also wasted alot of the time or can't be used during shortages. Not every country has nations surrounding it that need the power either or even exist to take it. Batteries on the scale of containing that power are currently not feasibly economically, despite Morgen repeatedly telling us about how R&D will get us there. Which is why it is still R&D and thus were not there yet. If were on the time table of near environmental catastrophe by climate change like the proponents for these renewable energies argue, you can see how I don't respect the, "We must invest in technologies that will take decades to be fully realized" approach to the environment. [quote] and yet you have the testicles to say "nuclear works, therefore it should be the primary source of power"?[/QUOTE] I don't think it takes huge testicles to realize how stable and huge nuclear is as a power source compared to wind and solar. Nuclear can be used in high-density/high consumption areas where wind and solar can't be implemented effectively and isn't exponentially cheaper in costs per gigawatt. This isn't to say a nation that can't maintain the infrastructure/radioactive waste or has to place a Nuclear Pant in a dangerous area should do it with blind zeal though. There are clearly problems with that, but Nuclear is by far a more realistic technology to power the world that exists now in an cost effective package.

It's worth remembering that with current energy solutions, we aim to generate the exact amount required at any given time (or as close to this as possible) to avoid wasting fuel or installing batteries. Renewable energy cannot function like that. They are either generating the entire time, or not at all. It'd require a bit of work to support, the infrastructure would need to be changed to handle everything obviously. Proper energy storage solutions would be needed, over-generation of energy would be required (but not really a problem as it wont require fuel, just leaving the equipment on and maintained). It's quite a shift over how we handle energy right now, but it's totally viable if we're willing to actually put the work in. Nuclear is nice and everything, but even modern reactors generate waste that we have to deal with, they cost a shitload to build and run (and no, removing regulations is not a solution to this if you care about any kind of quality), and replacing them with newer designs is also a fairly painful process thanks to decommissioning. A mostly renewable infrastructure with nuclear sitting in there picking up slack isn't a bad end result though.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52206863]Already in agreement with this statement. It truly depends if were talking about Rhode Island or the Nevada desert for implementing solar for example. Actually if you read the articles relating to Germany, you would know that there is problems. Germany actually has to pay people/companies to offload during peak hours so it doesn't damage the grid, but the problem is that power can't be stored, so it gets also wasted alot of the time or can't be used during shortages. Not every country has nations surrounding it that need the power either or even exist to take it. Batteries on the scale of containing that power are currently not feasibly economically, despite Morgen repeatedly telling us about how R&D will get us there. Which is why it is still R&D and thus were not there yet. If were on the time table of near environmental catastrophe by climate change like the proponents for these renewable energies argue, you can see how I don't respect the, "We must invest in technologies that will take decades to be fully realized" approach to the environment. I don't think it takes huge testicles to realize how stable and huge nuclear is as a power source compared to wind and solar. Nuclear can be used in high-density/high consumption areas where wind and solar can't be implemented effectively and isn't exponentially cheaper in costs per gigawatt. This isn't to say a nation that can't maintain the infrastructure/radioactive waste or has to place a Nuclear Pant in a dangerous area should do it with blind zeal though. There are clearly problems with that, but Nuclear is by far a more realistic technology to power the world that exists now in an cost effective package.[/QUOTE] Tesla looks to have sub $100 per kWh of storage for li-ion cells by 2020. That's down from ~$800 in 2010. It's already financially viable. R&D focus should be more on cycle life and less on cost at this point. Batteries don't need decades at this point. Let's not forget that natural gas power plants have an average cost of $1,488 per kW of capacity (according to the EIA) so you may well see battery sites cost less than natural gas peaker plants soon enough.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52206009]Clinton's emails I think [editline]9th May 2017[/editline] Seriously though, why are we not doing this... People can't be that awful to just not realize that every coal job has a new job in renewables, especially solar...[/QUOTE] people are that awful

[QUOTE=Tudd;52206766]I actually believe in climate change and pretty big on conservation. I just don't respect the Left's position and approach on the matter. Alot of it is backed on government subsidies that keep the downsides not obvious. The Right doesn't get it right alot of the time, and I don't respect them on the issue either, but they're the only ones who aren't totally ignoring Nuclear energy, or willing to fuck over local economies to implement power sources that can't work everywhere such as high-density/high-consumption areas.[/QUOTE] So because you don't respect the left's position on it you decide to support a climate change denier in government who's all for bringing back toxic fuels like coal, etc? That's potentially going to back out of the Paris climate change deal? Somehow I find that hard to believe. And I don't think you're telling the truth, in the slightest.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52205814][URL="http://reneweconomy.com.au/graph-of-the-day-germanys-record-85-renewables-over-weekend-60743/"]http://reneweconomy.com.au/graph-of-the-day-germanys-record-85-renewables-over-weekend-60743/[/URL] Still shitty nuclear places are being cut for coal plants, but I view this as a victory. Being able to at-least switch to almost complete renewable energy during the summer months would be great.[/QUOTE] Well let's hope they won't trash the grid of surrounding countries this time around.

Didn't Denmark or Sweden or somewhere around last year generate like 115% their required energy use with nothing but wind turbines? It was a particularly windy day IIRC

[QUOTE=AntonioR;52206144]LOL, so people started to turn off heating and it's still not warm enough to need cooling, basically the energy consumption went to a minimum and renewable sources could keep up with the low demand. Better than nothing, but a bit sensationalist.[/QUOTE] Real air conditioning is a rarity here, so the power consumption doesn't spike (that much) on hot days.