,
10 tweets,
12 min read
Read on Twitter
@gnievchenko @AdamBlazowski @s04paps @TheGreenParty oh I understood that point well enough… and it's a novel way to frame the situation. It's just that logically you should then take into account once built, that solar & wind don't actually replace fossil fuels, only fuel save. And only up to a point. 1/x
@gnievchenko @AdamBlazowski @s04paps @TheGreenParty Whereas a nuclear plant is a 1-for-1 replacement for a fossil fuel plant.
I'll cut to the chase for now, and come back in ~1 hour or so with some real world examples, but on "fuel saving" if you haven't read it, and it seems like you haven't this is the seminal work. 2/x
I'll cut to the chase for now, and come back in ~1 hour or so with some real world examples, but on "fuel saving" if you haven't read it, and it seems like you haven't this is the seminal work. 2/x
@gnievchenko @AdamBlazowski @s04paps @TheGreenParty This is from this paper: sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
(citizen-science version) dropbox.com/s/kj3ny5wk93bx…
and the tl;dr axios.com/no-carbon-powe…
…will be back in a bit 3/x
(citizen-science version) dropbox.com/s/kj3ny5wk93bx…
and the tl;dr axios.com/no-carbon-powe…
…will be back in a bit 3/x
@gnievchenko @AdamBlazowski @s04paps @TheGreenParty ok, first data point, and I'm not saying the United States has hit the limit of what wind & solar can contribute to decarbonisation; but the early estimates are that CO₂ emissions overall *and* in the power sector rose in 2018. Which is not great. 4/x
@gnievchenko @AdamBlazowski @s04paps @TheGreenParty This is the "fuel saving" phase of the transition; the key is when there isn't enough flexibility or spare capacity in the system to accommodate more wind & solar capacity while still driving down overall CO₂ emissions.
…this btw was in reference to this tweet: 5/x
…this btw was in reference to this tweet: 5/x
@gnievchenko @AdamBlazowski @s04paps @TheGreenParty (so I guess I've been blocked now, but I shall continue regardless… I think of twitter as just another one of the voices in my head anyway 😼)
A grid with no more "spare room" is exactly why South Australia is so important. CO₂ emissions attached. 6/x
A grid with no more "spare room" is exactly why South Australia is so important. CO₂ emissions attached. 6/x
@gnievchenko @AdamBlazowski @s04paps @TheGreenParty The eagle-eyed will notice from the data below (along with famous Elon Musk megabattery™ performance) that even when there is lots of wind & solar, gas is *still* burnt. This is because it must provide the system inertia to keep it from falling over. 7/x
@gnievchenko @AdamBlazowski @s04paps @TheGreenParty That would be falling over, again, as well.
aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/…
(and also aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/S…)
The key thing here is that we can come back in a decade, and SA's grid will fundamentally be no different to what it is today. Wind already gets curtailed at 1200MW output. 8/x
aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/…
(and also aemo.com.au/Media-Centre/S…)
The key thing here is that we can come back in a decade, and SA's grid will fundamentally be no different to what it is today. Wind already gets curtailed at 1200MW output. 8/x
@gnievchenko @AdamBlazowski @s04paps @TheGreenParty Adding more capacity will just create excess that needs to be exported, to Victoria where the near-geographic correlation will mean they don't need it at the time SA has that surplus. The existing interconnector already maxes out anyway at these times. 9/x
@gnievchenko @AdamBlazowski @s04paps @TheGreenParty Bottomline: this is the logical conclusion of the wind and solar, and gas mix. Stuck at ~300gCO₂/kWh, with no clear way to get lower emissions.
It would be nice if people could learn this lesson NOW. Wasting the next decade doing this the hard way, will be unfortunate. 10/10
It would be nice if people could learn this lesson NOW. Wasting the next decade doing this the hard way, will be unfortunate. 10/10
