Energy department said wind and solar capacity is 'worthless' without sunlight or wind. Musk reminds DoE about batteries

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The Department of Energy, led by oil-and-gas veteran Chris Wright, claimed renewables are “worthless” without sun or wind, drawing widespread criticism and a viral two-word clapback from Elon Musk that pointed out the existence of massive energy storage projects that can continue feeding electricity into the grid.

President Donald Trump’s Department of Energy sparked backlash last week after posting on X that “wind and solar energy infrastructure is essentially worthless when it is dark outside, and the wind is not blowing.”

The message echoed recent remarks from Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a longtime oil and gas executive, who defended Trump’s claim that renewable energy is driving up electricity costs, though he acknowledged the picture is more complicated.

He also argued that wind and solar are “intermittent” and, without large-scale batteries, “worthless” when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Greater reliance on renewables, he added, effectively creates “a whole separate grid” that raises overall costs.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/energy-department-said-wind-solar-194157689.html

[OC375]

1. Supermassive Battery Fires You Can't Put Out

Great plan.

[Blues Heron]

3. Well it's a fuckload better than coal

[OC375]

4. Wind and Solar Are, Lithium Batteries Are Not

It can take days and 10s of thousands of gallons of water to extinguish just one runaway vehicle battery burning at 1200 degrees F. Of course, all that water runoff has (in additon to the carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide) polutants that are highly toxic like hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen cyanide in it. Not "The Earth dies in 100 years toxic", but "You die today" toxic. I'd rather wait on widespread mass storage of solar and wind until we have more sane storage methods. I wouldn't want my home anywhere near a municipal battery reservoir, but that's maybe just me?

[Blues Heron]

5. Even with an accidental fires it's better than coal because most of the facilities - wait for it- don't catch fire

Coal burns by design, but you knew that.

[haele]

6. There's a coal fire that's been burning under Centralia, PA since 1962...

They had to evacuate the town twenty years later.
It's still burning. 300 meters a year.
Gasoline fires can also smolder, there for a while, there were problems with Fords catching fire in garages due to design and production problem in the engine compartment, and, say - I haven't even started talking about the occasional gasoline refinery fire during the 1950's through 70's I remember while growing up in California back then.
So, yeah...all forms of energy are pretty much risky. Especially when the people running the energy markets prefer to follow the dictum of end stage capitalism -- "socialized risks and privatized profits,"

[OC375]

7. Frequency vs Severity

Always a tough call. Nuke plants don’t usually blow either. Chemical plants don’t generally release cyanide. Anyway, I’m not defending coal, and there are plenty of ways to make a megawatt. I just think widespread massive lithium storage is a stupid, shortsighted, “I knew I could, but didn’t consider if I should” solution. Actually, I wouldn’t want the medium-scale neighborhood UPS in my backyard either.

Coal occurs naturally. It isn’t designed, it just burns. But, you knew that.

[OAITW r.2.0]

2. Here's the problem.

As more residential customers add solar/wind, they are dumping excess power onto the grid. I give my local utility 500K watts of energy/month. For that privilege, I pay $35/mo. If solar/wind continue to increase market share, how will utility grids justify new gas/oil electrical generation?

[canetoad]

8. Anyone pointed out to him

That without sun and wind we have bigger problems than power generation?

[RandomNumbers]

9. There'd be no problem

because we wouldn't exist.