Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mrspidey80 t1_j4znsys wrote

Reply to comment by EbonyOverIvory in Germany says it is no longer reliant on Russian energy by scot816

That's bullshit. Renewables supported by Power-To-X
storage will work just fine.

−3

EbonyOverIvory t1_j4zoyay wrote

Okay, so now you need to build not only vast quantities of wind and solar plants in your ten year plan, but also energy storage.

Bear in mind that in the past twenty years, in the US, renewables have gone from providing a negligible portion of the total grid power to providing 20%, and that includes hydro power, which provides about 8% of that total.

So you’re looking at building out 4 times (being generous) what was built in the last twenty years in the next ten, plus massive amounts of storage.

Now I don’t disagree with that as a goal, but it’s probably going to be quicker to divest coal power by building nuclear plants, which can actually be built in five years, not ten. Small modular reactors could potentially be built in an even shorter time frame.

The main barrier to building them is backlash from the public due to misinformation about risks and pollution. So like I said at the start of this, advocate for nuclear power. It needs people championing it if we’re going to get off coal before we all burn.

But by all means, advocate for renewables also.

1

mrspidey80 t1_j4zz1ko wrote

You're forgetting that this kind of storage is basically gas tanks and pipes. We already have plenty of those. They just need to be repurposed and extended.

Also, we would not get a single new NPP up an running in 20 years, even if we tried.

−2

SaltyMudpuppy t1_j51v7sl wrote

Yea, this is nonsensical. The type of storage needed would be batteries, or something like molten salt. You can't store electricity in a fucking tank.

1