Discussion about this post

User's avatar
G Wilbur's avatar

First, I want to compliment you on your work. It is one of the most succinct and readable analysis of evolving the grid. I invariably learn a lot and find this post to be a fantastic synopsis. Of course, there is always a but.

Carbon free can be even more ambitious since it is potentially encompassing NetZero which requires de-carbonization of other aspects of our energy usage. Have you ever written about the effect on grid size to replace fossil fuels in areas such as home heating, transportation and industry? Not being from Colorado I'm unsure the kinds of industries that might need to be retooled.

Expand full comment
New Thinks's avatar

Even your numbers are overly optimistic

1) Transmission and distribution costs are very high.

2) "You need to produce 3 - 4 times peak power at full use." More like 5X, but some people say 10-20X. Answer - we don't really know because no one has been dumb enough to try. Germany now has 82 GW of solar and 64 GW of wind. In theory that would generate 1.2 million GWH of energy per year, if they produced energy 24/7. Their annual demand is 109,000 Gwh. That is about 10X overbuild, by one measure, right? Yet they are nowhere near 100% wind and solar. Also, soalr and wind generation was down 31% on the year. This was the lowest wind power output in Germany since 2017—despite a 30% surge in wind turbine installations in the years since then. So, they keep building more and getting less for it. There are complex statistical reasons why this happens but suffice it to say they didn't think things out. It only has to happen once in a while for the whole system to go bankrupt.

3) "You need batteries that can provide 100% of power needs for 3 days. We can’t afford this." 10 days is more likely. Again, it depends on how frequent you want to have power outages. 10 days gets you to the same level of reliability we currently enjoy.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts