On 02/12/2018 19:24, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 13:52:04 +0000, RJH wrote:

I don't think anybody of note is suggesting we go 'full green'
until this issue of variable demand/supply and storage has been solved.

It never will be. If you go 100% renewable, you will need electricity
storage to cover virtually 100% of demand for several days. In the
winter, that's somewhere around 40GW for say, arbitrarily, 5 days,
(although it could be longer), i.e. 4800 GWh.
The Tesla 'mega-battery', installed in Australia last year at a cost
of $66 million and hailed as being the biggest battery ever, has a
power output of 100MW and a capacity of 129 MWh, call it 0.13 GWh. So
you would need something close to 37,000 of those batteries to keep
the lights on in the UK for five days (4800/0.130), at a cost of $2442
billion. You could build well over 100 Hinkley-C nuclear power
stations for that, with a generating capacity vastly in excess of what
a totally carbon-free UK society would need.

Why is that from time to time, some fathead comes up with the same
belling-the-cat solution of lots more windmills, giant batteries, etc
etc, without apparently doing the sums required to see what it would
amount to or looking into feasibility?


Lefty****s Cant Do Sums,. They use a different side of their brains to
arrive at 'morally correct' solutions, not ones that will work, because
actually working is NOT THE POINT of letftard thinking

What counts is being IN The RIGHT, and that mean Being Left.


I also wouldn't want to live close to even one of the Tesla jobbies.
129MWh equates to 13,000 litres of oil-based liquid fuel. Imagine the
explosion if the ******* got an internal short.

Indeed.


--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.