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]FBaggins
(26,737 posts)27. In fact you can't
If you actually read the "study" (really an exercise in backfitting) kris linked, they actually have to target closer to 300% in order to come close to meeting the demand. Not 105% or 110%. And even then... they really fail.
But it's wrong to say "it's no big deal" because the initial capital isn't something you can ignore. That's like saying that you can increase the reliability of a Yugo by buying three of them. So when one breaks down, you still have a working car available.
As you start to hit at the end of the post, the solution is more flexible demand and more robust storage systems... no dramatically overbuilding.
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