How to have an all-renewable electric grid

How to have an all-renewable electric grid
A wind farm in Texas, which got about 15% of its electricity from wind in 2017. Credit: Draxis/flickr, CC BY-ND

The main solution to climate change is well known—stop burning fossil fuels. How to do this is more complicated, but as a scholar who does energy modeling, I and others see the outlines of a post-fossil-fuel future: We make electricity with renewable sources and electrify almost everything.

That means running vehicles and trains on electricity, heating buildings with electric heat pumps, electrifying industrial applications such as steel production and using to make hydrogen (similar to natural gas) for other requirements. So the focus is on powering the with renewable sources.

There is debate, though, about whether fully renewable electricity systems are feasible and how quickly the transition can be made. Here I argue that feasibility is clear, so only the transition question is relevant.

Known technologies

My research focuses on the economics of renewable energy. To demonstrate feasibility and estimate cost of renewable electricity systems, researchers use computer models that calculate potential production from different technologies at each point in time, based on changing weather conditions. A model reveals which combination of electricity sources and has the lowest cost while always meeting demand.

Many studies demonstrate that fully renewable electric grids are feasible in the United States, Europe, Australia and elsewhere. My colleagues and I recently completed a on the island-nation of Mauritius. Islands are attractive places for initial renewable transitions because of their small scale, relative simplicity and dependence on imported fuels.

There are a number of ways to make renewable electricity: hydro, wind, , geothermal and burning various forms of biomass (plant matter), besides improving efficiency to use less energy. These are mature technologies with known costs.

How to have an all-renewable electric grid
Building large-scale renewable energy projects, such as this 550-megawatt solar plant in the Mojave Desert in California, leads to lower costs for energy produced. Credit: U.S. Department of Interior, CC BY-SA

Other possibilities include wave, tidal and concentrating solar power, where reflectors focus solar rays to produce power. While these may be used in the future, the need to address climate change is urgent, and in my estimation, the mature technologies suffice.

Opinions on nuclear energy run strong, which is another conversation. But models show that the United States does not need nuclear energy to retire fossil fuels.

The grid of the future

Renewable energy systems are location-specific: The best system depends on a location's resources (is it windy?), its temporal pattern (how often is it not windy?) and availability of complementary sources (is there hydropower for backup?). Despite this location sensitivity, studies in disparate places are finding similar results.

Having a diversity of renewable sources can reduce costs. In particular, solar and wind are complementary if the sunny season is not the windy season; models find that a combination of both is typically less expensive than either alone.

For most technologies, larger scale reduces cost. For example, in the United States, large-scale solar farms can be more than 1,000 times larger than residential rooftop systems and about half the cost. To minimize cost, we build large systems.

Because solar and wind conditions vary across the landscape, system costs fall as a production area grows, so there needs to be a robust electric grid to move electricity from places where there is supply to places of demand. We also need more electricity for applications like transportation that currently use fossil fuels. This means the grid must grow.

Studies show that running an electric grid with variable renewable energy will include not using, or dumping, some energy at times, a strategy that reduces cost compared to always storing surplus energy.

Still, some form of electricity storage is needed. Batteries work well for smoothing short-term fluctuations, but for storing energy for many hours or days, pumped hydroelectric storage is less expensive. Pumped hydro uses any extra energy in the grid to pump water uphill, and when energy is needed, the water runs back down to generate power in a turbine. The United States has some existing examples and many feasible locations. With grid expansion, storage may be located at a distance from users.

Hydroelectricity and biomass power are available on demand, so having these in a renewable electric grid shrinks the energy storage need and reduces cost. Both have environmental effects that must be managed.

Hydropower can alter local ecosystems. Burning biomass emits carbon dioxide, but a study I worked on shows that biomass emissions are reversible and are clearly carbon-preferable to fossil-fuel emissions. Sustainability also depends critically on management of biomass fields and forests; the human track record on this has not been stellar.

Renewable energy systems require land. A U.S. study shows that supplying all electricity from wind, water and solar would need 0.42% of land area, plus 1.6% of land area for space between wind turbines. Biomass energy requires much more land than wind or solar, so biomass must be a small part of the renewable energy solution.

Real barriers are political and cultural

A future renewable electricity grid with associated electrification may or may not reduce energy costs. But avoiding the worst effects of means quitting fossil fuels, whether or not this saves money. Still, the renewable transition will be faster and politically easier if it is less expensive.

How to have an all-renewable electric grid
Credit: The Conversation

In Mauritius, our study finds renewable electricity costs to be similar to present costs there, based on current capital costs for renewable energy. Some studies also find costs for future renewable electricity to be lower than present fossil-fuel costs, in the likely event that fall as we build more renewable energy systems and get better at doing it.

And that's it, from a technical perspective. A combination of and energy storage—the specific combination depending on local conditions and preferences—can supply all the electricity needed at an affordable price, and will reduce air pollution to boot.

But government policies are needed to make a transition to renewable energy. Climate change is an external cost—borne by society rather than by energy producers—so market forces alone will not make the transition. Besides putting a price on carbon (perhaps with dividends returned to the public), government could make it easier to build the needed infrastructure. And public support is needed: For example, public acceptance of transmission lines to move electricity from the windy Great Plains to city centers is another challenge for an all-renewable .

A project on the scale of transforming the system will create jobs – many jobs—which is perhaps the economic measure of most importance to the citizenry.

Research from me and others shows that fully renewable electric grids are feasible with current technology at current prices; barriers to using renewable are more political and cultural than technological or economic.


Explore further

How much energy storage costs must fall to reach renewable energy's full potential

Provided by The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.The Conversation

Citation: How to have an all-renewable electric grid (2019, August 22) retrieved 22 September 2019 from https://techxplore.com/news/2019-08-all-renewable-electric-grid.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
5 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 24, 2019
The main solution to climate change is well known—stop chopping down forests to make room for wind/solar(bird-choppers/land-intensive monstrosities backed up by coal/oil/gas/fracking to compensate intermittencies) and start building carbon-free nuclear power plants.
In world of limited Hydro, carbon-free nuclear is the only scalable way to stop Climate Change.
"The ones that went with nuclear and hydro decarbonized. The ones that went with wind and solar failed and keep failing."
"While nuclear and hydro are strongly correlated with decarbonization of energy at aggregated national levels, solar and wind are not."
"If you look at the energy profile of industrial nations with nuclear power, it dominates their zero emissions profile. Hydro carries a huge load too but it is not scalable. If you care about the environment, you can't hate nuclear power."
http://electricitymap.org

Aug 25, 2019
@Willie Ward.
start building carbon-free nuclear power plants.
We've been through all this before many times, mate. The consequential nuclear proliferation into tinpot dictatorships and terrorist hands/access of the by-products of so many nuclear reactors would be disastrous because the probability for accidents, as well as use for weapons by crazy/religious fanatic regimes/terrorists, would skyrocket. That is just what we don't need, as there have been, and probably will be, more than enough problems with the ageing nuclear power plants/waste we have now around the world. Be sensible, @Willie. There are sufficient heath/economic, security, sustainability and jobs-safety etc etc benefits to going green/safe renewables-w-battery-storage, even without taking into account the benefit of averting catastrophic/costly CO2-mediated climate transition events that we will not be able to absorb/afford or adapt to or recover from as a global human civilisation. Good luck to us all. :)

Aug 26, 2019
"...benefits to going green/safe renewables-w-battery-storage..."
"safe renewables"? Think again.
Much more people have died annually installing/cleaning up solar panels/windmills than in all civilian nuclear industry in 60 years.
Solar installations in 2012: 440 deaths;
Fukushima & Tree Mile Island: zero deaths from radiation exposure;
Chernobyl: <60 deaths(most not related to radiation).
http://en.wikiped...talities
http://pbs.twimg....cTCt.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....6Gz3.jpg
From 1945, >6x more people have died by pets than by nuclear weapons.
http://pbs.twimg....5K5n.jpg

"One of the standard arguments of those opposing nuclear power is that weapons follow. That's not supported by the facts."
http://uploads.di...4365.jpg
http://uploads.di...8710.jpg

Aug 26, 2019
@WillieWard.

Give it up, mate. The death/damage from nuclear radiation is 'insidious' and a 'silent killer' whose consequences may only show up much later and may be hidden among other possible factors leading to disease/death. This is now well known stuff; so your failure to acknowledge that as well as the deaths which occur sooner as a direct result of exposure during or immediately following a nuclear plant/waste accident/leak, is telling of your biased agenda and lack of honesty. Moreover, you also fail to realise that if the world started on a mass-building/proliferation of nuclear power plants (especially in tinpot dictatorships and crazy religious/terrorist nations) then the probability for nuclear waste and or fissionable material ending up in 'dirty bombs' and in outright 'fission bombs' (think North Korea, Iran etc) will SKYROCKET and YOU and YOURS may well be the ones paying the price if your current bias and lack of common sense prevails, @Willie. Good luck to us all. :)

Aug 29, 2019
...radiation is 'insidious' and a 'silent killer' whose consequences may only show up much later and may be hidden among other possible factors leading to disease/death...
People are more likely to contract cancer by installing/cleaning up solar panels/windmills than working at carbon-free nuclear power plants.
http://pbs.twimg....rdm5.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....2Mly.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....hblD.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....GPzT.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....sWhm.jpg
"no one has ever been injured from used fuel from a commercial nuclear power plant, let alone killed"

What about the wind/solar waste? Radioactive rare-earth metals, arsenides and other chemical carcinogens that never lose their toxicity with time.
"Every Wind Turbine and Solar Panel Built Today Will Be Scrap Metal by 2050" - Jun 2019
http://www.americ...tal-2050

Aug 29, 2019
@WillieWard.

Mate, it's easier to recycle materials from solar panels and wind farms; it only takes proper govt regulation. Whereas no amount of govt regulation can help recycle nuclear waste/irradiated steel etc. As for wind power towers becoming 'scrap metal', that's what we want! We can recycle them at end of life. As for cost of wind power, you are misinformed; the cost is reducing apace. And with increasing feasibility/availability/reliability/implementation of battery/storage systems, the cost of all renewables is reducing; and grid-balancing capability of renewables is getting even better than old coal 'base load' plants could manage. Give it up, @Willie. You are whistling against the wind; denying the evolving reality under your nose. Spend your time and intellect on helping humanity survive the next hundred years; instead of being an exploited 'weaponised stupid' for the Russian/GOP/Fossil lobby troll-factory funders who don't care about you or yours. Good luck. :)

Aug 30, 2019
...it's easier to recycle materials from solar panels and wind farms...
"it's easier to recycle materials from solar panels and wind farms" when you have fossil-fueled machines powered by cheap coal/oil/gas.
Solar and wind have low ERoI, not enough to manufacture/mine/transport/install/maintain/repair/recycle themselves, worse yet when batteries included. Intermittent renewables are parasites on fossil fuels.
Wind and solar only exist to steal taxpayers' money(through subsidies/tax incentives) and to favor coal/oil/gas/fracking over hydro and carbon-free nuclear, a crime in the face of Climate Change.

...the cost of all renewables is reducing...
If it were true, droves of people(including those who propagandize solar/wind) would be buying/installing solar panels/windmills/batteries to power their homes/electric cars and disconnecting from the grid.
But of course it's not true, because not even those who propagandize solar/wind buy/use these useless placebos.

Aug 30, 2019
@WillieWard.
it's easier to recycle materials from solar panels and wind farms
...when you have fossil-fueled machines powered by cheap coal/oil/gas.
Where do you live, mate; under a bridge without internet news/science access? You're out of touch with evolving reality re renewables/electric developments/implementations etc.
Solar and wind have low ERoI, not enough to manufacture/mine/transport/install/maintain/repair/recycle themselves, worse yet when batteries included.
Again, you're out of touch.
Wind and solar only exist to steal taxpayers' money(through subsidies/tax incentives) and to favor coal/oil/gas/fracking over hydro and carbon-free nuclear,...
And again, you're out of touch, mate.
the cost of all renewables is reducing
If it were true, droves of people...would be buying/installing solar panels/windmills/batteries to...
That's exactly what IS increasingly happening. :)

@Willie, try to catch up with what is happening now/near future. :)

Aug 31, 2019
...Where do you live, mate...
"Where do you live, mate"? You live in the "Land of Make Believe" where all solar panels/windmills are produced/recycled by Sunshine&Breeze unicorn-powered machines.

...try to catch up with what is happening now/near future...
In the near future, within ~15 years, most of current installed-capacity of wind/solar(bird-choppers/land-intensive monstrosities) will be just a bunch of junkyards that costed trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts/environmental damages with almost nothing to show at reducing emissions / dependence on coal/oil/gas, a sad reminder of the Green Insanity/Hypocrisy.
"ABC: Solar panels in Australia only lasting 3 to 9 years ABC"
https://www.youtu...lzUhitx8
"Solar panels don't last forever and degradation varies wildly, study says"
https://www.compu...dly.html

Aug 31, 2019
@WillieWard.

Now you're just lying/misrepresenting things, mate. The situation is the same as for any consumer product: BUYER BEWARE. The links you gave involve shoddy product and/or installation, not the actual potential of properly manufactured/installed solar power systems. And as for the lifetime/recycling aspect, that same consideration applies to all plant and equipment, be it coal power stations or renewables plant and equipment. So all you have is instances of bad/shoddy manufacturing/installation instances, not of properly manufactured/installed situations which are proving safer, more reliable and less costly in the long run than large, dangerous and dirty centralised nuclear/coal power industries. Give it up, mate; your twisting, biased, one-eyed equating of regulatory failures with industry failures in order to 'throw out the baby with the bathwater' is telling of the vested interests motives behind your internet activity re this subject. Not good. Do better. :)

Sep 01, 2019
"While we are extending the life of existing Nuclear plants to 60, 80 or even 100 years we are finding the life of solar panels is diminishing. I wonder if the Climate Lobby factored that in?"
https://www.green...climbing

Dangerous?
More people have died every year by installing/cleaning up solar panels/windmills than in all civilian nuclear energy sector in sixty years.

Dirty?
Solar and wind are "clean" if you don't care how solar panels/windmills/batteries/transmission lines are manufactured/mined/transported/installed/maintained/repaired/recycled / discarded.

You're attacking coal. Why don't you attack natural gas(fracking) too? Because intermittent renewables are parasites, cannot survive without fossil fuels.
"In REAL life, 100% renewables = 80% natural gas & 20% renewables. No wonder natural gas is the fastest growing fuel worldwide."
https://pbs.twimg...vpq7.jpg

Sep 01, 2019
@WillieWard.

You still don't get it, mate. Nuclear casualties will skyrocket if nuclear proliferation occurs, because the criminals and religious crazies will easily get their hands on nuclear weapons grade material as well as nuclear waste for 'dirty bombs'. So all your tortured statistics based on past experience are irrelevant. And the cost/maintenance/lifetimes/safety and ROI of solar/wind power materials/plant is improving all the time; whereas the same cannot be said for nuclear/fossil plant and equipment, let alone the damage from coal mining, transportation, storage, burning and waste products that all poison the land/water/air and are ever costlier to remediate, and, in the case of nuclear waste, prohibitively costlier/impossible. Wake up to what is evolving now instead of naively arguing based on old/irrelevant/twisted propaganda spiels fed you by vested interests who care nothing about the present/future health of you or yours, but only their OWN profit/power gains NOW.

Sep 02, 2019
'dirty bombs'?
Radioactive materials come from Nature.
Coal, fracking and renewables produce much more radioactive wastes.
"We Don't Mine Enough Rare Earth Metals to Replace Fossil Fuels With Renewable Energy" - Dec 2018
"Rare earth metals are used in solar panels and wind turbines... there's not enough to meet growing demand."
http://motherboar...e-energy
"..one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste.."

"One of the standard arguments of those opposing nuclear power is that weapons follow. That's not supported by the facts."
https://pbs.twimg...9Kay.jpg
Atomic weapons have prevented more wars than "good intentions". 'Peace is not the absence of weapons. Peace is the implausibility of war'.
By supporting intermittent renewables(backed up by coal/oil/gas to compensate intermittencies), faux-greens have caused much more fatalities.

Sep 02, 2019
@WillieWard.

We in OZ have one of the largest deposits of rare earth metal ore, and the increasing demand is making it more profitable to exploit it. So your 'spiel' there is out of date.

The radioactive products in coal ash is one more reason we should stop burning it for power which can be replaced by renewables. Thanks for acknowledging that at least.

Nuclear PROLIFERATION on the scale being proposed by nuclear interests/lobbyists has no precedent, so all your stats on PAST situation is irrelevant and dangerously naive. Get real.

Increasing back-up/smoothing etc via electric/hydro battery systems is outperforming the old fossil-based baseload systems. So you're 'spiel' is out of date there too.

Wake up, @Willie, the reality is passing you by. Get out more; actually look around; think and learn more; instead of posting such obviously stale, irrelevant 'spiels' that are futile against the evolving reality NOW.

Good luck to you, mate; and to us all. :)

Sep 03, 2019
The radioactive products in coal ash is one more reason we should stop burning it for power which can be replaced by renewables.
If you have cheap solar panels/windmills it's thanks to cheap coal.
http://pbs.twimg....NI97.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....rmat=jpg
http://pbs.twimg....U_jn.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....L1wh.jpg

Wake up, solar and wind are a joke at replacing fossil fuels; they can't manufacture themselves; they can't transport/install/maintain/repair/recycle/discard their components without fossil-fueled machines.
Solar and wind are parasites, cannot survive without fossil fuels.

"Climate change protesters admit using a diesel generator to power their stage" - Sep 1, 2019
http://pbs.twimg....rmat=jpg
https://notalotof...r-stage/

Solar and wind are useless placebos.

Sep 03, 2019
@WillieWard.

Mate, you are whistling against the wind with such strawmen arguments. You fail to allow for the transitional situation. Just like they still depended on horses while transition to motor cars/trains was complete, we'll still depend on fossil fuels vehicles/processes until current inevitable transition to renewables is complete. No-one in their right mind claims transitions are 'all or nothing' affairs. You also fail to realise that electrification of many things using renewables is already accelerating apace; one especially cheeky example is this:

https://techxplor...ing.html

Give it up, Willie. All your 'arguments' to date have been based on ill-informed and/or out-of-date 'spiels' from the vested interests you obviously work for as an internet dupe. Realise that while their 'thirty pieces of silver' may help pay your rent for now, the price you/yours may pay in the long run if your 'spiels' delay things is bad.

Sep 05, 2019
...still depended on horses while transition to motor cars/trains was complete...
Solar and wind are unable to replace fossil fuels even in small scale.
Try to replace horses by solar panels/windmills.
https://pbs.twimg...rmat=jpg

...you are whistling against the wind...
"Angry residents send German wind industry spinning" - Sep 5, 2019
https://techxplor...try.html
"The more you know about renewables, the less you like them. The more you know about nuclear, the more you like it. The only thing holding us back is ignorance, superstition and fear of the unknown."


Sep 06, 2019
@WillieWard.

Your linked article re German windpower only involves the regulation/implementation process, not the actual capability and desirability of wind power per se. Most of the 'blowback' is from selfish and/or rightwing types and political party who have vested personal/mercenary/political motives having nothing to do with the Germany Nation's future wellbeing. Then of course there is the solar/geothermal/hydro-renewables which will also continue to be taken up because of the long term economic/heath and national security benefits. Give it up, Willie; you're fast running out of arguments and obviously starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel for ever more trivial/misleading things to offer in support of your stance. Good luck to you and yours, mate; and to us all. :)

Sep 06, 2019
... will also continue to be taken up because of the long term economic/heath and national security benefits...
"economic/heath and national security benefits"?
"Green Energy Transition Is Destroying Germany's Competitiveness, CEO Warns"
http://thegwpf.co...o-warns/
"Wind farms may be contributing significantly to the 76% decline in insects in Germany"
"German wind turbine blades are so coated with dead insect biomass that they must be scrubbed twice a year"
http://www.forbes...inction/

"Europe's Biggest Economy Is Worrying About Blackouts"
http://bloomberg....oal-exit
"Germany faces growing calls to delay phase-out of nuclear energy" - Jun 2019
http://telegraph....-energy/

Sep 08, 2019
@WillieWard.

It's a case of 'lesser evil', mate. Climate Change consequences are shaping up as THE most costly, destructive and overwhelming peril humanity faces NOW and in near term. The choices have to be made despite the lesser evils that it may entail. Like amputating a finger to prevent losing your arm when gangrene sets in. Your piecemeal attacks have no real impact on the overwhelming necessity to transition away from total coal/oil dependence for ensuring humanity's continuing tolerable existence in a climate not too extreme for long term sustainability/survival. Not to mention the other reasons/benefits, like cleaner, safer, more affordable/sustainable environment re air/water, land/sea resources etc; and less internal combustion traffic noise and exhausts in our increasingly crowded/stressed cities. Give it up, mate; you are whistling against the inevitable winds of change re evolving technology and population needs for better environmental and health outcomes for all. :)

Sep 09, 2019
If Climate Change is a problem, intermittent renewables(wind&solar backed up by coal/oil/gas/fracking) are not solution.
In a world of limited Hydro, carbon-free nuclear is the only plausible solution.

Solar/wind is carbon-free and protects the environment?
Think again.
https://www3.nhk....000.html
https://twitter.c...89269505
"Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate – and the same is true for scooters and electric cars" - Aug 26, 2019
https://www.ecolo...ing.html
"Renewables are the fastest growing sources of electricity. Yet the increase in CO2 accelerates? When will people appreciate what's wrong here?"

Sep 09, 2019
@WillieWard.

Mate, the energy of the wind comes from the sun, so it's already within the Earth system. No additional energy is input by the wind turbines; it is extracted from the already existing energy in the sun-driven winds. And if CO2 emissions increase, then that energy cannot be lost to space anyway, regardless of whether we use part of it first via wind turbines. See? The problem is still in the CO2 increases, not in the manner in which we extract the solar energy already in the system (via wind turbines and/or solar panels). It should be dawning on you by now, Willie, that all these 'objections' and 'arguments' you keep offering are just plain lame; and miss the whole point about additional CO2 'lagging' heat loss to space beyond what was the case when CO2 in atmosphere pre-industrial revolution era was much less. Wake up, Willie; and stop being distracted/misled by patently joke/erroneous anti-renewables tripe. Good luck to us all. :)

Sep 10, 2019
"...the energy of the wind comes from the sun, so it's already within the Earth system..." since ancient times.
"You can't run an industrial i.e. "civilised" economy on "renewables". That's why we stopped using them about 200 year ago."
"Some people get overly excited with "renewable" energy, overlooking the fact that 200 years ago or so almost 100% of world energy was "renewable." As an example, here is the US."
http://pbs.twimg....SFhs.jpg

"...No additional energy is input by the wind turbines; it is extracted from the already existing energy in the sun-driven winds..."
"Sailing"
"The most expensive way to get somewhere for free"
http://pbs.twimg....0esc.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....bHLX.jpg
http://pbs.twimg....TAd0.jpg
"No country ever dragged itself out of agrarian poverty without an Industrial Revolution. And no Industrial Revolution was ever powered by sunshine and breezes."

Sep 12, 2019
@WillieWard.

All your 'arguments' and 'quotes' are outdated and erroneous due to the march of technology making renewables cheaper, healthier and in the long run more economic and sustainable and safer than what you espouse. Give it up, mate; and join the economic/technical/environmental/health realities of the 21st Century. Good luck to us all. :)

Sep 13, 2019
"...the march of technology making renewables cheaper..."
If by "renewables" you mean "natural gas" you're correct.
100% renewables = 80% natural gas + 20% intermittent renewables
Solar and wind are parasites, cannot survive without a host(a fossil-fueled grid). They are not sustainable without cheap coal/oil/gas/fracking.
"Natural gas and renewable energy work great on their own but better together. Kind of like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich." - ExxonMobil
https://thumbor.f....002.jpg

Sep 13, 2019
Give it up, @Willie. You're just twiddling around the margins of 21st realities white the real world moves on and adapts/builds towards the longer term more sustainable and more healthy future of humanity. Get real and do something more positive towards that end with what's left of your life. Good luck to us all. :)

Sep 14, 2019
In the real world you use tons of fossil fuels to power your life instead of your beloved sunshine&breeze unicorn energy.
"Before proposing 100% RE for the world, FIRST try it at your house. Buy panels & loads of batteries and disconnect from the grid. Start a blog and let us know how it's going, particularly during the dead of winter. Thanks."
https://pbs.twimg...blo5.jpg

Sep 14, 2019
@WilleWard.

Seems like you missed my post on Sep 03, 2019 above; wherein I pointed out:

"Just like they still depended on horses while transition to motor cars/trains was complete, we'll still depend on fossil fuels vehicles/processes until current inevitable transition to renewables is complete. No-one in their right mind claims transitions are 'all or nothing' affairs. You also fail to realise that electrification of many things using renewables is already accelerating apace; one especially cheeky example is this:

https://techxplor...ing.html

Give it up, Willie. All your 'arguments' to date have been based on ill-informed and/or out-of-date 'spiels' from the vested interests you obviously work for as an internet dupe. Realise that while their 'thirty pieces of silver' may help pay your rent for now, the price you/yours may pay in the long run if your 'spiels' delay things is bad."
Give it up, Willie. Good luck. :)

Sep 15, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more