You need more than that. My memory is that solar needs something like 16 hours of storage assuming perfect weather. And it gets much worse if you don't have perfect weather.

No you don't need more than that because electricity grids do not consist entirely of a single form of generation. Have you considered learning something about this topic before commenting?

Judging from their other comment I think they seem to be some kind of nuclear/anti-environmentalist zealot. In this comment they assumed wind power didn't exist. In the other comment they said that my current electricity tariff (3) would get people lynched and crater the economy rather than getting me to put my laundry, dishwasher and car charger on at a different time of day.

This kind of abject extremism is sadly par for the course on topics like this due to the kind of propaganda that the nuclear industry spews out. It generates zealots.

Have you ever looked at a graph of wind generation? There are periods of multiple days with minimal wind

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Profile-of-wind-power-ge...

If you disagree with the view that half a day of backup is reasonable, then provide a specific number and justification.

Yes, obviously I did because you responded to it below.

I find it amusing that when I cited a study that modeled exactly this scenario you poured scorn on it because it was modeled around a specific country. You didn't respond with actual figures demonstrating that this altered the results significantly, you just said "AUSTRALIA EASY MODE".

Seriously?

Yet the guy that presumed that the wind doesnt blow... ever? You didnt respond to that.

It's an interesting insight into the mind of a nuclear activist.

I'm certainly not anti-environment. It's just I recognize that the only path forward that is both possible and not horribly destructive is nuclear. The technology to make renewables practical simply does not exist even on the horizon. The storage problem is always handwaved away with "batteries" or "hydrogen"--the greens never do the numbers because that will expose the fact it doesn't work.

Renewables reduce oil and gas use. Period. You still need just as much generating capacity and you still release a lot of CO2.

And in that other comment what I said is that going pure renewable would get people lynched for how badly they wrecked the economy. The "green" approach is basically "pay no attention to the fact that the storage tech does not exist." In the real world we see it *increasing* emissions. (Shut down nuke, the load falls onto gas because it actually exists.) What would happen to our economy if power was dollars per kWh?? Because that's what it would take to ensure the lights always stay on in a pure renewable environment.

>The storage problem is always handwaved away

It's the exact opposite.

I actually provided a link to a model which explicitly calculated required storage using real production data.

Meanwhile, you said "16 hours! The sun doesn't shine at night!" and handwaved away the existence of wind turbines.

Renewables are intermittent and thus can only be used to offset capacity that can easily be throttled back. That's oil and gas.

Solar + wind + nuke, might as well simply use nuke for just about everything.

An environment with a bunch of renewables is effectively forced to use fossil fuel.

I mean, if you assume that the wind has never once blown at night in the history of the world then sure, you'd probably need something like 16 hours.

But, if you assume the existence of wind turbines (I hope that isn't too much of a stretch for you):

https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g...

>With that in mind, exactly one year ago I started running a simple simulation of Australia’s main electricity grid to show that it can get very close to 100% renewable electricity with approximately five hours of storage

Australia is easy mode, good solar irradiance year round and deserts. Ofcourse you should use renewables where they are abundant.

Germany has very few renewables, so do the math for them.

The Swedish grid authority did it for Sweden. Came to the conclusions that a renewable system are way cheaper than a nuclear.

Report in Swedish though: https://www.svk.se/siteassets/om-oss/rapporter/2024/lma_2024...

Where will you move the goalposts now?

You need to provision for the worst case, not for the best case.

Worst case scenarios can be provisioned for by storing and burning hydrogen.

The roundtrip cost of electricity generated this way is expensive (it's ~50% efficient) but even then it is still cheaper than the cost of baseload nuclear power electricity.

Give up already.