,
12 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
So New South Wales then? What would it actually take to go all (or just almost mostly) wind, solar & storage?
Start with taking all the data for the first 5 months of 2019, every 5 minutes, and rearrange from highest to lowest. Here, & also with May data on timescale. #whtr 1/×
Start with taking all the data for the first 5 months of 2019, every 5 minutes, and rearrange from highest to lowest. Here, & also with May data on timescale. #whtr 1/×
Also, the load duration curve (with the contribution from non-hydro renewables in light blue) & some of the energy types in boxplot stats format.
Because that's just how we roll in these parts. 2/×
Because that's just how we roll in these parts. 2/×
Now double, then quadruple the amount of solar(both residential & utility) and wind output. First displace the fossil fuels that would have been used, and if excess put into storage for later use. And in the latter case we get some early excess renewables generation stored. 3/×
This is a simple model; it is just a thought experiment to see what quantities of wind & solar generation are required together with a "bucket" of storage, are required. There are tweaks that can be applied (redeploying hydro, curtailment, charging storage at non-zero fossil) 4/×
If you don't already, give @DavidOsmond8 a follow, he asks the same questions - gets interesting results - we don't agree about them, but the debate & ruthless pursuit to get at the crux of the matter (it's Deep Decarbonisation y'all) is what counts. 5/×
Now, ×10 wind & utility solar (keeping residential solar at ×4 …reasons in next tweet). Note importantly this first plot is *generation distribution*, not the load duration curve(also shown). Also the generation distribution plot is pre-storage redeployment. 6/×
So why limit rooftop solar? In NSW it is currently ~15% of housholds, so quadruple gets us to the 50-60% adoption rate. If it gets that high which is dubious anyway, it is not going any higher.
Because otherwise it breaks the Dx network. See👇7/×
Because otherwise it breaks the Dx network. See👇7/×
Back to the difference between standard load duration curve (peaks at nearly 15GW) and the generation distribution(peak ~20GW) plot above. See that when solar *and* wind are really pumping there is a big burst of output.
And if not co-located storage that means transmission. 8/×
And if not co-located storage that means transmission. 8/×
All this extra wind & solar, storage & those transmission lines take time to build. The argument against nuclear (it'll take 20-30 years) is rather incurious shall we say.
spoiler: if you think we'll have this sorted by 2030, sorry, not happening. 9/×
spoiler: if you think we'll have this sorted by 2030, sorry, not happening. 9/×
Some other reasons why we are going to take till 2050-ish (or however long it takes, because that's what it'll take): Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, etc.
So for you nukes are too hard people …what the hell? I mean seriously? 10/×
So for you nukes are too hard people …what the hell? I mean seriously? 10/×
Now because people tune in for the big scary storage number (you sick puppies😉), well ok then: ×12 wind, ×10 utility solar, ×4 rooftop solar
Basically we manage to get Feb thru to most of May fossil free. Note the May data(pre- & post- storage discharging). 11/×
Basically we manage to get Feb thru to most of May fossil free. Note the May data(pre- & post- storage discharging). 11/×
This requires *two* Snowy 2.0`s (350GWh). What needs much more attention though is that this major pumped hydro scheme will only have a 2GW output. And that's not going to be enough. 12/12
