Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Intermittency Of Renewables?… Not So Much [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)19. Because he's dedicated himself to harassing me.
Pam/Greg has been kicked off the board once for his outrageous behavior, but he's dedicated himself to harassing me in an effort to make posting so disagreeable that I'll leave.
It isn't going to happen.
ETA: P/G claims to be a scientist, so here is a sample of the way he thinks. You decide if the values displayed are consistent with the values required for the pursuit of 'science'.
PawW/Dr.Greg's claim:
The California Energy Commission released a study that contradicts the contention that renewables are capable of totally replacing both nuclear and fossil fuels....the report states in one of the "key findings" on page 4 highlighted in bold:
If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy.
However, the report then says:
"Thus, development of a high percentage of intermittent resources would require concomitant development of zero-emisions load balancing (ZELB) to about (sic) these emissions and maintain system reliability. ZELB might be achieve with a combination of energy storage devices and smart-grid technology."
Making the complete quote this:
If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy. Thus, development of a high percentage of intermittent resources would require concomitant development of zero-emisions load balancing (ZELB) to about these emissions and maintain system reliability. ZELB might be achieved with a combination of energy storage devices and smart-grid technology.
Now I ask, is A even remotely similar to B when being used to support this claim?
"The California Energy Commission released a study that contradicts the contention that renewables are capable of totally replacing both nuclear and fossil fuels"
A:
If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy.
B:
If electric generation is predominantly intermittent renewable power, using natural gas to firm the power would likely result in greenhouse gas emissions that would alone would exceed the 2050 target for the entire economy. Thus, development of a high percentage of intermittent resources would require concomitant development of zero-emisions load balancing (ZELB) to about these emissions and maintain system reliability. ZELB might be achieved with a combination of energy storage devices and smart-grid technology.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112748437#post37
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Why are you arguing about a theoretical problem that could only possibly occur
BlueStreak
Jul 2013
#16
"no compelling reason ever to build (or extend) any nuclear or coal plant -- ever"
kristopher
Jul 2013
#44
The economics of storage systems get better as we shift to intermittent sources
BlueStreak
Jul 2013
#65
That 300% is a nonsense number, for a case that will never exist in the real world
BlueStreak
Jul 2013
#29