"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 01/05/2019 13:06, Pancho wrote:
On 30/04/2019 15:51, John Rumm wrote:
On 30/04/2019 13:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pancho wrote:
The problem with solar in the UK is that it doesn't generate power
when
we need it most.

Then you adjust the output from the generators that don't come from
solar?

After all, no generator has a constant load 24/7.

Which basically means that all solar farms produce 80% (at best) of
their installed capacity from gas, and wind farms at least 50%. So if
you want "zero" net carbon, then neither is much use unless you can find
a way of storing 7TWh of energy!


That's not quite true.

Presumably you install wind and solar massive overcapacity.

Yup.

The gas backup only has to match capacity and only has to be actually
used when the actual generation from overcapacity wind and solar falls
below capacity.

Yup that's a fair - I was being sloppy with my terminology. You don't need
to backup all the installed overcapacity - just the actual proportion of
it that matches your maximum demand (and a bit).

Zero net is achieved by biomass and gas carbon capture.

In theory...

I'm not saying any of this is sensible, just theoretically possible.

Indeed. Many of the suggested fixes for storage etc are theoretically
possible and would work on small to medium scale. Its only when you try
scaling them to grid level they turn into staggeringly difficult problems
to solve and implement! Even if you manage to capture all the carbon from
burning gas (and keep in mind a significant contribution to the gas carbon
footprint is released in its extraction, transportation and storage, not
just when its burnt), what do you do with it then?

(to paraphrase harry "nobody knows what to do with the waste (CO2)")

Thats not accurate. We know what to do with limestone most obviously.