I'm not saying this won't work this time, but again, I ask you how sanely can you propose a fully renewable model when countries with a lot more sun struggle to do the same ?
I wonder how can you be so sure of the solution you are "selling".
Ironically, on my own bus line, hydrogen bus doesn't have the best carbon footprint: https://www.airliquide.com/group/press-releases-news/2018-03...
No, the battery powered bus, charged with low carbon, nuclear energy has the lowest carbon footprint: https://imgur.com/a/fx5MiMp , because here, next to the Air Liquide Innovation pole, hydrogen is still made from hydrocarbons. Also these one were not paid with europe money, but the region.
Disclaimer: I own 14 shares of Air Liquide SA.
That definitely convinced me. Good job, champ.
Isn't your miracle solution to storing energy, electrolysers ? I don't see how that unrelated.
> So germany massively scaled back their renewable rollout and this is bad because they built renewables?
Ah yes, of course the issue is they have gone fully with your idea it would had worked for sure! Or maybe their issue is a lack of cheap magical energy storage?
Also, where do the energy come from, in your magical energy mix, for this month, for Germany? How many installed capacity do they need ?
Using gas for 500 hours a year while storage matures is definitely worse than using coal and sitting on your thumbs for 20 years while an EPR is built. Very nice non-cherry-picked example.
> Also, where do the energy come from, in your magical energy mix, for this month, for Germany? How many installed capacity do they need ?
To bring the locally consumed fossil fuels down to the same level as france's local fossil fuels + those imported from germany in this cherry picked unrepresentative month? About another 200-400GW nameplate at current calacity factors with a few hundred GWh of thermal storage, or roughly where they'd be if they hadn't had their rollout torpedoed in the early 2010s.
You should be the last one speaking about cherry picking, or bad faith. Germany is ramping up coal while their renewable struggle to meet demand, currently running at 31GW of coal. France have less than 2GW of coal ?!?
> Using gas for 500 hours a year
This one is straight up a lie. Less than 50% of germany energy mix come from renewable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany#/m... 500h of gaz is so far from what is happening.
> 200-400GW nameplate at current calacity factors
Today at midday, solar+wind load factor is about 6%. Your 400GW of installed solar+wind doesn't cover half of what coal+gas currently produce, which is 42GW. Again there is a basic math issues in the solution you are proposing.
Then there's room for at least another 30% with no added storage.
A fifth of that coal and gas is being exported to france. And you carefully avoided mentioning their gas.
Very nice good faith discussion. You're definitely living in reality.
It was midday, the added capacity you proposed doesn't cover half of what coal provide in the middle of the day, you wouldn't have spare energy to store. And the carbon footprint is still higher.
> A fifth of that coal and gas is being exported to france.
A tenth, see you speak about good faith and double numbers in your favor.
> And you carefully avoided mentioning their gas
You mentioned coal usage that was a lie, so I replied the real coal usage in France, which didn't have even the installed capacity to use the coal as you said. About 10GW was used when I wrote my comment, which make the carbon intensity at 165 egCO2 per kWh. It's 696 egCO2 per kWh for Germany.
You seems to endorse using fossil as a backup source for renewable.
Congratulations, that's exactly what want fossil fuel firms ! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-f...
> Very nice good faith discussion. You're definitely living in reality.
> Using gas for 500 hours a year while storage matures is definitely worse than using coal and sitting on your thumbs for 20 years while an EPR is built.
I don't know if you can make such statement when the reality you spew out is so far from what you even admit in your later comments. You keep saying I don't live in reality, have bad faith, or lie, but you are the one who double numbers, or even invent them in this conversation. You also are the one who have brough exactly 0 external sources through this conversation to backup your claims, well I understand it's complicated to do when you invent numbers as you go, but at least, show where your "reality" come from if it's not only in your head.
No I'm not getting paid. I'm just a software engineer working in logistics unrelated to the energy sector. I just showed that renewable is more important to you than reducing carbon emissions which shows who cares more about the future here in the conversation.
It was the time I wrote the comment, but it looks like it was "an exceptional month", and "cherrypicked". Of course, today is also cherry picked.
You could take today, load factors of renewables are about 8%. Ah sorry, it's an exceptional month ? What about last year ? Well, solar load factor had even lower load factor than this month, with a load factor of 1.5% over the month of december. Wind energy was, opposingly, great and worked with a 50% load factor. The solution you proposed, 400GW of solar, would not have helped.
> it proves you're using anything you can find to attack renewables and aren't remotely interested in truth.
Arent you bored to take my argument, ignoring it, and repeating it back to me ? At least you could have proposed less stupid solution than 400GW of solar, like 400GW of wind energy, which at least produce useful output in winter. But that would mean you would be informed and we wouldn't had this sad looking discussion.
Cya in another thread where you will spew your poison there once again.