63
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 hours ago

I work in the UK energy sector, and that's definitely not true! About 1/3 of our energy comes from wind which is somewhat but mostly not stored.

Fossil fuels end up doing the work of balancing the grid during times when wind and solar are low. That's not ideal, but a world where fossil fuels are used to balance renewable provision is much better than a world where they're the primary energy source.

We're running out of time to prevent the worst effects of global warming, and any increase in renewables provides some mitigation to the impact. Very few, if any, countries are at the point where current battery tech should stop them increasing their renewables.

[-] Mihies@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago

Fossil fuels end up doing the work of balancing the grid during times when wind and solar are low. That’s not ideal, but a world where fossil fuels are used to balance renewable provision is much better than a world where they’re the primary energy source.

That's true, but only as long as your primary source/balancing source are fossil fuels. I can imagine a lot of them being burned during short and cloudy winter days + all nights in this scenario. If we want to avoid CO2 emissions, nuclear pps seems like the best choice today. But then we don't need nearly as much renewables. Tricky situation, even worse for countries without much wind.

I work in the UK energy sector, and that’s definitely not true! About 1/3 of our energy comes from wind which is somewhat but mostly not stored.

Yep, because you are still relaying on fossil fuels and can adjust their output quite dynamically. But the more renewables power you have, the more fossil fuels you'll burn when renewables aren't producing.

Makes sense?

[-] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 1 points 42 minutes ago

I agree with all of what you said, apart from "without storage renewables aren't that useful".

UK and USA are good comparatives here, where the USA has better nuclear provision, but on average very little renewables (approx 10%). The UK obviously burns more fossil fuels when renewables aren't used, but in spite of this still generates less than 1/3 of the co2 per KW overall as the USA (120g vs 390g).

So storage would be drive that down much further, but even without it, more renewables equals less CO2 overall in pretty much every real world case.

Data sources in CO2 per KW: UK: https://grid.iamkate.com/ USA: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11

this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
63 points (100.0% liked)

Green Energy

2132 readers
83 users here now

everything about energy production

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS