We won't even focus on storing much of it but just build more and more.
The story on that is surprisingly positive, but it's quite easy to FUD by parties with a vested interest (carbon lobby, nuclear lobby) because some people will hear:
* "well, the sun doesn't shine at night. the wind doesn't always blow! check mate!"
E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37161473 (posted after I wrote this)
or, if it's aimed at a slightly higher intellectual level, things like:
* "pumped storage is a nice idea but realistically there just isn't enough space for all the pumped storage we need".
E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37161790 (posted after I wrote this)
* "we need 1-2 weeks worth of storage to deal with the inherent instability of wind/solar"
And they'll believe it because it all sounds plausible enough, even though it's wrong.
And then they'll repeat it all over hacker news lol...
Pumped storage and batteries for short term energy storage - hours to weeks. Australia is already building one pumped storage battery which should provide them with roughly 350GWh - roughly half of the short term storage they'd need if they had a 100% solar and wind based grid. With one plant. You can't do this in, e.g. Florida but the geography to build this is more than plentiful enough in most of the world (this topic is pretty well settled: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14555-y but for some reason people keep disputing it).
Hydrogen for seasonal storage - for weeks when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Roughly 2-3% of power will need to be stored this way on a 100% solar/wind grid. It's not efficient and expensive to generate hydrogen from electricity and then turn it back into electricity but still cheaper than generating and using nuclear power at the point of generation. It is cheap to store enormous amounts of power for long periods this way though.
- Ukraine conflict's impact on gas prices
- Cost of renewables from over 10 years ago when Germany jumpstarted the solar industry using subsidies.
- An ill-advised by highly popular switching off of nuclear plants. The Germans preferred higher energy prices now for less hassle and worries due to having Nuclear plants.
None of these points have any impact on the argument that solar is the clear winner of becoming the dominant energy source until 2050.
But it seems hardly replicable say in central Europe.
(I am speaking about central Europe or more specifically Poland)
In Europe there's some geography known as "the alps" which has been used for years this way by the countries surrounding it.
Poland's environmental record is atrocious on almost every level. I guess the coal lobby must run the government or something because nobody else in Europe that reliant on fuel that dirty. They're a model of how not to do anything right.
Well, that is hardly solution for Poland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power...
Though
> The plant takes advantage of the natural steep sand dune landform of eastern Lake Michigan
Which part is wrong? Except that we need more than 1-2 weeks worth of storage to rely on solar/wind as anything more than occasional addition.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/much-storage-needed-solar-wind-p...
"Graham says that the CSIRO modelling showed that at very high levels of wind and solar, a maximum of half a day’s average demand was needed for storage. In some areas of the grid, only around three hours might be needed."
Or:
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora...
The amount of short term storage to get a grid between 80-95% running on solar/wind is measured in hours.
Electrolyzing and storing hydrogen in an underground cavern can buffer the rest and be stored easily for years if necessary.
Which one of reports at linked http://www.energynetworks.com.au/projects/electricity-networ... is one that you refer to here?
For the second one - is "more responsive loads" code for "load shedding" which is code for brownouts and blackouts?
So what if we roll another Eyjafjallajökull in one part of the world, simultaneously with a war breaking out in another, and some large-scale maintenance ongoing in another part still, while everyone's grid is designed to keep "oh half a day's tops" and not a watt more, because ain't anyone gonna pay for it? With globally reduced capacity for, say, a week, that "half a day's average demand" worth of storage may start running dangerously low, and what then? Will we somehow scramble to fire up long-closed fossil fuel plants in that time?
The goal is to reduce Co2 emissions and replace fossil usage.
Well, empirically, we only observe that countries heavily relying on renewable (Denmark and Germany are the poster children) (i) have a much worse average CO2/kWh ratio, (ii) still need to import energy when, well, the wind does not blow and the Sun does not shine.
But feel free to elaborate on where this is wrong.
117 looks ok to me. They're probably one of the most improved countries in the world in the last 10 years, although overall France's is likely still lower thanks to all their 1970s nuclear power plants - decarbonizing decades before anybody gave a damn about global warming.
For reference Poland is at like 650. They use an ungodly amount of coal. Environmentally Poland are an absolute a disaster compared to every country in Europe (even poorer ones), but, they didn't shut down a couple of aging nuclear power plants so they're on the good side of the American nuclear power lobby and get relatively little stick.
> they're on the good side of the American nuclear power lobby and get relatively little stick.
I'm French, I don't care about American nuke power lobby – and frankly, given the pitiful state of electricity CO2/kWh in the US and how much coal is burned, it seems that this lobby must not wield that much influence.
Exactly why they haven't enraged the nuclear lobby. The nuclear lobby couldn't give a damn about the environment and neither does their supporters.
Surely california has tons of taxpayer money in excess what is preventing them to do all that?