You pose a lot of question in your article that there are really well-documented answers to. For example, a primarily wind + solar grid can be cheaply constructed. I give a brief summary here: https://youtu.be/BgR0xCwVMQs?t=1198
A "quick" initial reply. So are you saying society is just stupid because we haven't build this wind + solar grid "cheaply?" Maybe it isn't so cheap or so simple as you say.
You point me to the video that starts off with the cost of wind and solar. True enough that the price has decreased considerably. Will it stay that way? To date we still need fossil fuels to build wind and solar, but more importantly we need rare earth metals. As with any non renewable source they will get more expensive as resources are depleted: https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary
"However, a concerted effort to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement (climate stabilisation at “well below 2°C global temperature rise”, as in the SDS) would mean a quadrupling of mineral requirements for clean energy technologies by 2040. An even faster transition, to hit net-zero globally by 2050, would require six times more mineral inputs in 2040 than today."
Cheap today doesn't mean cheap tomorrow. I think there are a lot of hidden costs in your calculations. At the moment solar and wind costs benefits from subsidies (as does oil and gas) and that they get first pick into the grid.
The video goes on to talk about a hybrid wind+solor+natural gas, which makes sense. But again some main issues. Estimating minimum energy by wind and solar is hard, really this is not trivial and again puts the estimates into serious question. We now need to talk about generalized extreme value distributions. This is much harder to get a handle on then averages. Again, a rosy prediction is given.
So how much natural gas has to be available to produce? Good question, but likely much more than suggested. The price for natural gas is given at current costs, but how expensive does natural gas get when a system gets used only part of the time? I'm guess it goes up because when it is needed it will be in high demand and someone has to pay for the partially idle system and just because the power station isn't that expensive we still need to keep natural gas extraction companies in business. We shouldn't assume current costs for future partial use.
As to batteries, again the concern there is that cost is underestimated and the challenges of making all those batteries speaks to cost and the ability to get all the materials.
Let me say that I'm not against adding solar and wind to the grid. The calculations in the video are really back of the envelope type of calculation and shouldn't be take too seriously. Sure, theoretically possible but leaves out all sorts of complications and scale up issues. Especially given that we have only managed about 5% of total energy from wind and solar so far. https://briefedbydata.substack.com/p/total-energy-by-type
So, in the end I take issues with your statement that "there are really well-documented answer to." What you provided was simplistic back of the envelope calculations and the energy system and economy are much more complicated and I would say that I've documented these at least as well as you have. What I'd really like is much better modeling that deals with the energy system, the politics of obtaining material and places to put solar and wind, along with longer term modeling including economics. I would like to see this and neither doom and gloom scenarios or overly optimistic scenarios.
I do appreciate your comment. You haven't sold me and I haven't likely sold you. Hopefully we both have more to think about on a future grid and will produce better arguments in the future.
Certainly converting our energy system to mainly renewables is a risk, although given the rate of innovation in the last decade, IMHO a small one. If the choice were between a risk and zero risk, then obviously you'd select zero risk. But that's not our choice. Rather, you need to compare the risk of the energy transition to the IMHO quite substantial risks of climate change, ocean acidification, air pollution, and political instability that fossil fuels bring.
My last paragraph: "To be clear, I’m not saying we shouldn’t add wind and solar capacity. What I would like to see is a more honest account of what wind and solar can provide and their costs, including eventual replacement. Research shows that we could, in theory, get enough power from wind and solar, but I think there are practical issues with storing power and having backup power to deal with the intermittent power generation at the top of the list. Also keep in mind that at the moment, Texas is really a best-case scenario."
The point isn't not to build out wind and solar, the point is to be more honest about the realities, technical, practical and political. Credibility is lost when solutions are overhyped. At the same time the doom and gloom catastrophizing of climate change is not working, and, in particular, isn't selling the public on wind and solar. Basically, better marketing is needed if climate activist really want change. I'll comment more on my next post including some thoughts on your death by a thousand cuts piece. Again, thanks for your comments.
Good point: wind and solar are long way from replacing fossil fuels for our electric needs. But isn’t it good that Texas can can burn up to to 50% less fossil fuels at least for a few hours on most days?
In general, I would say yes to this. My feeling is that diversifying electricity generation is a good thing and adding solar and wind achieves this plus lowers CO2 emissions. At the same time, I'd like some honesty in how viable wind and solar are. Another good question is how does moving our car fleet to electric impacts all of this? Thanks for the comment.
You pose a lot of question in your article that there are really well-documented answers to. For example, a primarily wind + solar grid can be cheaply constructed. I give a brief summary here: https://youtu.be/BgR0xCwVMQs?t=1198
A "quick" initial reply. So are you saying society is just stupid because we haven't build this wind + solar grid "cheaply?" Maybe it isn't so cheap or so simple as you say.
You point me to the video that starts off with the cost of wind and solar. True enough that the price has decreased considerably. Will it stay that way? To date we still need fossil fuels to build wind and solar, but more importantly we need rare earth metals. As with any non renewable source they will get more expensive as resources are depleted: https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/executive-summary
"However, a concerted effort to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement (climate stabilisation at “well below 2°C global temperature rise”, as in the SDS) would mean a quadrupling of mineral requirements for clean energy technologies by 2040. An even faster transition, to hit net-zero globally by 2050, would require six times more mineral inputs in 2040 than today."
Cheap today doesn't mean cheap tomorrow. I think there are a lot of hidden costs in your calculations. At the moment solar and wind costs benefits from subsidies (as does oil and gas) and that they get first pick into the grid.
The video goes on to talk about a hybrid wind+solor+natural gas, which makes sense. But again some main issues. Estimating minimum energy by wind and solar is hard, really this is not trivial and again puts the estimates into serious question. We now need to talk about generalized extreme value distributions. This is much harder to get a handle on then averages. Again, a rosy prediction is given.
So how much natural gas has to be available to produce? Good question, but likely much more than suggested. The price for natural gas is given at current costs, but how expensive does natural gas get when a system gets used only part of the time? I'm guess it goes up because when it is needed it will be in high demand and someone has to pay for the partially idle system and just because the power station isn't that expensive we still need to keep natural gas extraction companies in business. We shouldn't assume current costs for future partial use.
As to batteries, again the concern there is that cost is underestimated and the challenges of making all those batteries speaks to cost and the ability to get all the materials.
There is no mention of the seasonal differences as it is more than just daily intermittent. solar.https://briefedbydata.substack.com/p/seasonal-solar-electricity-generation
Our finite world gives good explanation of solar and wind modeling issues and I think the key here is trying to understand a bigger system and not just solar and wind: https://ourfiniteworld.com/2023/06/02/models-hide-the-shortcomings-of-wind-and-solar/
Let me say that I'm not against adding solar and wind to the grid. The calculations in the video are really back of the envelope type of calculation and shouldn't be take too seriously. Sure, theoretically possible but leaves out all sorts of complications and scale up issues. Especially given that we have only managed about 5% of total energy from wind and solar so far. https://briefedbydata.substack.com/p/total-energy-by-type
So, in the end I take issues with your statement that "there are really well-documented answer to." What you provided was simplistic back of the envelope calculations and the energy system and economy are much more complicated and I would say that I've documented these at least as well as you have. What I'd really like is much better modeling that deals with the energy system, the politics of obtaining material and places to put solar and wind, along with longer term modeling including economics. I would like to see this and neither doom and gloom scenarios or overly optimistic scenarios.
I do appreciate your comment. You haven't sold me and I haven't likely sold you. Hopefully we both have more to think about on a future grid and will produce better arguments in the future.
Certainly converting our energy system to mainly renewables is a risk, although given the rate of innovation in the last decade, IMHO a small one. If the choice were between a risk and zero risk, then obviously you'd select zero risk. But that's not our choice. Rather, you need to compare the risk of the energy transition to the IMHO quite substantial risks of climate change, ocean acidification, air pollution, and political instability that fossil fuels bring.
My last paragraph: "To be clear, I’m not saying we shouldn’t add wind and solar capacity. What I would like to see is a more honest account of what wind and solar can provide and their costs, including eventual replacement. Research shows that we could, in theory, get enough power from wind and solar, but I think there are practical issues with storing power and having backup power to deal with the intermittent power generation at the top of the list. Also keep in mind that at the moment, Texas is really a best-case scenario."
The point isn't not to build out wind and solar, the point is to be more honest about the realities, technical, practical and political. Credibility is lost when solutions are overhyped. At the same time the doom and gloom catastrophizing of climate change is not working, and, in particular, isn't selling the public on wind and solar. Basically, better marketing is needed if climate activist really want change. I'll comment more on my next post including some thoughts on your death by a thousand cuts piece. Again, thanks for your comments.
Good point: wind and solar are long way from replacing fossil fuels for our electric needs. But isn’t it good that Texas can can burn up to to 50% less fossil fuels at least for a few hours on most days?
In general, I would say yes to this. My feeling is that diversifying electricity generation is a good thing and adding solar and wind achieves this plus lowers CO2 emissions. At the same time, I'd like some honesty in how viable wind and solar are. Another good question is how does moving our car fleet to electric impacts all of this? Thanks for the comment.
Does Texas have any means for large-scale energy storage such as hydroelectric/pumped-storage?
I don't know what Texas has, but it is a good question that I should look into. Thanks.