Different climates and geographies, different solutions.
Japan, like the UK, have immense off-shore wind resources.
Japan is estimated at 600 GW and 40-50% capacity factor.
Current national budget is 1100 TWh a year.
Nothing a couple of HVDC lines cannot solve. Current state of the art is 6 GW. For context, a typical nuke plant is 2 GW while Fukushima at its peak was 4.7 GWDarthPuppy wrote: And some spots are going to have a real tough time with the switch. If someone can name a megacity without convenient access to ocean waves, good wind, geothermal or hydroelectic resources or lots of sun, getting that place 'greenish' is going to be a real challenge.
If windpower is the solution, HVDC lines are no solution for the times when the winds drop to 50% of historical values for months at a time like they have in Europe these last two summers.SageBrush wrote:Nothing a couple of HVDC lines cannot solve. Current state of the art is 6 GW. For context, a typical nuke plant is 2 GW while Fukushima at its peak was 4.7 GWDarthPuppy wrote:And some spots are going to have a real tough time with the switch. If someone can name a megacity without convenient access to ocean waves, good wind, geothermal or hydroelectic resources or lots of sun, getting that place 'greenish' is going to be a real challenge.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/new ... akthrough/
Wind Power Engineering wrote:The high-pressure system over Europe which has caused these anomalous conditions is expected to persist until October. These conditions follow another notable ‘wind drought’ across the U.S. in 2015, which had a widespread financial impact.
“The 2015 conditions caused many wind energy investors in the U.S. to think very seriously about how they could diversify their portfolios, not just geographically, but also by technology,” said Dr. Pascal Storck, Director of Renewable Energy, Vaisala. “This new data shows that large-scale anomalies are not a one-time occurrence, and it may be time for the European market to follow suit in thinking about how it can become ‘climate resilient’.”
I agree with that, if long term storage via H2, compressed air or what have you doesn't become commercially viable, although saving large hydro for those periods may be a better option, as the ramp rates of hydro are very high. Still, we probably don't have enough hydro storage to cover everything, and building significantly more runs into environmental effects. Ideally, we would have NG with affordable CC&S, but that's not looking too good at the moment.SageBrush wrote:Long(er) scale intermittency is indeed something to solve. Most of the solution is a wider connected grid. Other solutions are installations in non--homogenous climates. Just as a stable and rich environment requires diversity, so does clean energy.
Lastly, (and here I admit to being a tiny minority,) I think NG plants and gas options should be held in reserve through government ownership for corner cases. Their use will not be frequent enough to be profitable without gouging during shortages so public ownership makes sense. This is not so different than the oil reserve deposits that the US holds to smooth over oil shortages in the market.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace ... y-by-2045/California Goes All In -- 100% Renewable Energy By 2045
Either way, it’s best not to get too hung up on any particular technology or technique for reducing carbon. There’s no substitute for taking a holistic view of the energy system, balancing its various needs against the various technologies capable of meeting them. Always, it is outcomes that matter.