Hacker News Reader

> It is time we don't have anymore. We should now be focusing renewables and, more cruicially, storage.

You think that can be done faster than 10 years?

The UK managed something like 5% -> 25% renewables in the past 10 years; complete decarbonisation of electricity isn't really possible in 10 years, but I'm cautiously optimistic. Especially as the price has fallen so dramatically; large areas of the US are ripe for cheap solar.

As mentioned by topbanana you need storage for renewables. No good solution at the moment for that problem.

.. but we've already done that 5 to 25% increase. Without significant storage. Storage will be needed to get to 100%, but we've already displaced all the coal generation with renewables! (and, I admit, some gas)

Don't let the best be the enemy of the good. Keep expanding the renewables until 0-carbon moments are possible and curtailment starts to be a problem. Maybe 50%?

(or, in meme format: noooo, you can't just replace everything with renewables! haha wind turbine go brrr)

The 5% -> 25% was literally the easiest part. The big expensive downsides to renewables really aren't a factor. Intermittency is minor when you can fall back on 75%, if there's only 50% to fall back on that's a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com