How Much Wind Power Would We Need?
By Paul Homewood
John Brown has sent me an analysis he has carried out of how much wind power capacity we would need to run the grid, assuming surplus wind is converted to hydrogen, which is then used to produce electricity in turn.
John has downloaded all of the BMRS data for last year, ie the wind generation and demand data at 5-minute intervals. His model then calculates how much wind capacity we would need to meet demand at all times of the year.
Demand averaged 29 GW last year, but this amount is incidental. Obviously even in a Net Zero future there will be other sources of power, such as nuclear. Equally demand will be much higher in years to come. But what the model enables us to do is to quantify how much wind capacity we would need for any given level of demand, assuming there are no other sources that can be switched on and off to cope with the intermittency of wind power.
The model comes up with the following calculations:
- Total demand – 262 TWh
- Actual wind generation in 2022 - 62 TWh
- Wind generation needed to meet demand – 370 TWh
In simple terms, we would need six times as much wind capacity as we have currently, which is about 28 GW. In other words, 168 GW, although this could change slightly according to the mix of on and offshore.
The reason why the total generation needed, 370 TWh, is so much higher than demand is the hopelessly inefficiency of the hydrogen process. John has assumed that electrolysers work at 52% efficiency, and that burning hydrogen in a thermal generator works at 40% efficiency. Both assumptions seem reasonable. In other words, the efficiency rate for the full cycle is 20.8%. In simple terms, you need 5 units of wind power to make 1 unit of power from hydrogen.
With this inefficiency, it is little wonder that making electricity from hydrogen is going to be ridiculously expensive, even before the costs of building and running electrolysers and new hydrogen power plants is are factored in.
The model assumes that we start the year with 20 TWh of hydrogen in storage – ie the amount of hydrogen required to generate 20 TWh of electricity. This was needed to ensure there was sufficient hydrogen to meet wind shortfalls. Even then, the hydrogen storage fell to 0.79 TWh at one time of the year. We would clearly need much in store to cope with the really still winters we get from time to time – maybe 30 TWh.
Others may be able to quantify this in terms of the volume of storage needed, but it seems to me to be colossal.
Based on the cost of Hornsea 2, £6 billion for 1.3 GW, John reckons we are looking at close to £1 trillion to build the wind capacity required, with a necessary safety margin built in. And remember that these wind farms will only last around 15 to 20 years, so the whole cycle will have to occur again and again.
And this just addresses current demand, which could double by 2035. Even allowing for a contribution from nuclear and hydro, we could still be looking at needing 500 TWh a year from wind power, meaning close to 400 GW of wind capacity. Put another way, we would have to start building wind capacity at a rate of 30 GW a year.
It ain’t going to happen!
FOOTNOTE:
If anybody would like a copy of the spreadsheet, you can contact John by email:
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Given current target of 50GW offshore wind by 2030 is never going to be achieved there is absolutely no way any attempt to supply our current electricity needs across the year is viable let alone any increase from electrifying other aspects of our lives. Im despairing how almost everybody is just burying their heads in the sand here with no mainstream political party telling the truth. By all means lets have a national conversation based on facts and let people decide whether they want to give up their current lives or not.
The best we can do is run a mixed system and at least reduce our fossil fuel consumption and we are probably close to optimum mix now an we would better off encouraging other countries to do the same.
“By all means lets have a national conversation based on facts and let people decide whether they want to give up their current lives or not.”
Can’t happen. UK information is controlled by cultural Marxists at BBC, Guardian, etc.
“The best we can do is run a mixed system and at least reduce our fossil fuel consumption”
What is “best” about that? Reducing your fossil fuel consumption accomplishes what?
“we are probably close to optimum mix now an we would better off encouraging other countries to do the same”
The empire is long gone. The world doesn’t need nor want your colonialism.
Slightly unfair last comment there I thought Gc. I’m sure NL doesn’t want to force anything on anybody. I digress, however from a more important point here about “optimum mix now”. The recent analyses by Pollack indicate that Britain has already attained the percentage of renewables “penetration” beyond which further increase in renewables is counter-productive economically (and that’s a huge understatement), for all the reasons discussed on this site like grid costs, battery needs, constraint payments and so forth. Whether the figures that Pollack came up with (for arguments sake, let’s say c20% to c25% of capacity) are very accurate or not, the analysis makes a lot of sense (to me at least) and it is a matter of shame for our political leaders that none are addressing this very important topic- i.e. when to stop. Starmer’s onshore wind and solar plans are as insane as the present government’s offshore wind plans on which Starmer seeks to build.
“…slightly unfair comment [about the world not wanting our colonialism]….”
Make it, “the world does not want your new religion” and it is spot-on.
This morning, the “Saudi Arabia of wind” was producing 0.77 gW of power from wind. This is about 1% of the real Saudi Arabia’s contribution to world power need (energy equivalent of oil and gas – daily production converted to power).
Instead of an “honest conversation” let the proponents of UK net zero prove their case beyond reasonable doubt under an English Common Law type system. That is
1. Show that UK net zero is part of a global net zero strategy. (It ain’t. Despite demands for significant emissions reductions this decade, the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2022 estimates 2030 GHG emissions will be 58 GtCO2e compared with the baseline 53.5 GtCO2e in 2017)
2. For the net zero estimates to be reviewed by actual professionals and signed off by them as being achievable based on a true and fair view of the evidence. That is by a professional accountant in membership with of one of four UK bodies. That professional being prepared to be cross-examined on their opinion.
” let the proponents of UK net zero prove their case beyond reasonable doubt … ”
The starting point is that the believers should prove that humans are responsible for dangerous climate change, otherwise there is no meaningful justification for Net Zero.
I disagree with this starting point. Before enacting policy there should be due diligence to make sure the aims are achievable. Global net zero is not achievable due to the constraints of the Paris Agreement. Under Article 4.1 there is a two track approach, with developing countries having no responsibility to even constrain their emissions growth. As this group has greater than 60% of all emissions it should have dawned on those advocating “saving the planet” that they have not the power to massive emissions cuts.
” Before enacting policy there should be due diligence to make sure the aims are achievable. ”
Why expend resource undertaking due diligence if the policy is pointless?
But have you factored in the rising cost of energy, because the cost of doing this, with the rising cost will be higher, because the cost is rising. And it will then feed back, and the costs will get even higher. And, have you factored in the cost of actual “NET ZERO”, where we cannot have any material from any source that uses fossil fuel. That then puts the cost of energy up even higher and so the cost of all these birdmindercs goes up, which means the cost of making the wind goes up, which means the cost of all the energy goes up.
Basically, the closer you get to actual “Net Zero”, the higher the price. And, your cost is only for electricity. Add in everything else, such as heating and transport, and start to see the costs escale.
Soon, everything everyone earns will be going on not yet “Net Zero” energy. Which means that the economy is starting to shrink. So, rather than energy costing more, your pay packet is worth a lot less, and you cannot afford so much.
Did I mention the cost of net zero food … yes growing food is a huge user of fossil fuels for fertilers, farm equipment, and petrochemicals. So, the cost of food is rising as energy rises … and soon all your budget is being consumed by food.
Did I mention the cost of buildings … because as the idiots in power try to push us to “Net Zero”, soon people won’t be able to afford the “Net Zero” materials, which now cost a lot lot more than now. So, forget about a 3bedroom house, you’ll soon be lucky if you have your own toilet and are not sharing. And, it just keeps getting worse, the more they push and …. and we NEVER get to Net Zero.
Mike Haseler, Finally I see another voice is pointing out the reflexive feed back of the higher (clean) energy costs back into the basic cost structure of the energy production. This is a bit like compound interest and will result in a substantially degraded standard of living. Why do economists not address this problem?
Because it does not fit the climate grift narrative, and to do so could mean the cancellation of your government “research” grant.
“NET ZERO”, where we cannot have any material from any source that uses fossil fuel. I’m having a lot of trouble with this one Mike. Most vehicles run on tyres which use butadiene, styrene and Carbon black, all from oil. Making tyres from hydrogen, nuclear power, wind, sun or hydro has got me beat.
Here is the obvious daft question ‘does the all-party ‘netzero’ policy mean no more tyres? Perhaps Rishee, Starmer or the street protestors could put me at ease, have they re-invented the wheel?
EVs, which are far heavier thanks to the massive battery, require even larger tires than ICE autos, so we will have to continue making them if we hope to get to the vaunted, NetZero.
What are the containers made of to store hydrogen? As it has the smallest size molecule leakage is the problem I’ve heard.
Supposedly salt caverns. There actually are some in use.
https://www.lindehydrogen.com/technology/hydrogen-storage
“wind farms will only last around 15 to 20 years”
Is it an optimistic estimate, a pessimistic estimate, or is it based on real data?
Well Wind Europe say 65GW of Europe’s onshore wind turbines need upgrades or replacement by 2028. Most of those will have been built this century..
15-20 years is about right. Offshore is too soon to know but it will not be any better. There is not end of data on wind turbine lifespan if you look. The main issue is the fluctuating stress loads. The stress load cycles are about 100 time greater than that of the loads on a passenger jet aircraft. The blades experience accelerating and decelerating loads on each revolution and the fluctuating wind speed plays havoc with the pitch control mechanism, which tries to maintain a constant speed. Then there is the load on the mast, also fluctuating. Add in the wind turbulance, icing and blade erosion due to dust/ ice and you have a perfect environment for a short lifespan.
Moreover the evidence is building that larger turbines will turn out to be less economic, precisely because of these issues shortening blade and hub life and the costs of maintenance including the use of highly specialised support vessels with enormous cranes. It also eats into capacity factors as turbines await the maintenance vessels.
Similar issues for tidal turbines limiting robust size to about 1MW made worse by the harsh underwater environment mean that they are unlikely to become economic.
But is storing hydrogen actually the plan ? Also wouldn’t they use it in fuel cells (70% efficient) rather than thermal generation (40% efficient) ?
On the other hand, this calculation is apparently based on current electricity demand (262 TWh = 29.9 GW for 24 hours on 365 days). In reality electricity demand will be somewhere between 2-3 times higher, in order to replace gas heating and fossil-fuel powered vehicles.
Hydrogen as a back up. In their dreams. 1 kg of hydrogen has a CV of about 38 kWh (HHV). At 40 % efficiency to electricity in an open cyle GT that equates to about 15 kWh. 1 million tonnes of hydrogen would equate to about 15 TWh. At NTP 1 kg hydrogen would occupy 11200 litres. You could compress the gas by burning more energy but to store pressurised hydrogen in volume would be severely limited and a challenge.. Large scale pressure vessels are extremely expensive which is why LNG is shipped as a liquid. Liquifying hydrogen is very not simple, and it requires a constant boil off and special metallurgy. Likewise high pressure hydrogen also requires special materials. Like most of these crackpot ideas they have been dreamt up by idiots who do not have the faintest idea of what they are talking about.
It is worth reminding oneself that so far electrolysers for hydrogen production have not been built at scale – not even a 100 MW has yet been built and proven. You will also require a huge flow of demin water.
I read the maximum for hydrogen is about 200bar. Rough operated originally at 240bar, and hydrogen has a third the energy density of methane, so the relative storage is just 5/18ths or 27.8%.
The decompression of Hydrogen is also not without serious problems given the Joule Thompson effect.
One also needs to look at PEAK demand. In the UK, peak electricity demand is now about 50 GW. Peak gas demand also happens at same time, and it is about 350 GW.
Any storage system needs to address the drawdown it will see during these cold periods. Not the average. Remember the statistician who drowned, while crossing a river with an a average depth of 3 feet….
“…the statistician who drowned…”
Unfair to statisticians. They are the ones who groan with frustration when non-statisticians – I am including most scientists – imagine they know more about statistics than they do. I will happily enter a (placid) river with an average depth of three feet, but that is because I can swim!
It’s still a fun quote.
Les Johnson : “One also needs to look at PEAK demand.” :
The analysis takes into account peak demand as it based upon real data for both demand and wind power (recorded every 5 minutes by Gridwatch) for a complete calendar year, namely 2022.
Thanks, John. I see it now. (5 minute average). I concentrated on the 29 GW average, and assumed the calculation was based on this. My mistake.
I did the storage calculations for two different round trip efficiencies. I chose 75% as representative of batteries and pumped storage, and a generous 36% (60% PEM electrolyser, 60% modern CCGT) for the hydrogen route for 2021, which is probably a more challenging year for low wind output. The result is in this chart.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZmrQw/1
In reality it overstates the storage requirement but understates the wind capacity requirement. That’s because it never makes sense to try to capture every MWh of surplus which would entail massive extra investment in grid capacity to shift the power to marginal electrolysers that only get used very rarely when the surpluses are at their largest. It’s much cheaper to invest in more wind capacity, and to throw away large chunks of surplus output. You can see how variation in wind capacity affects the size of surpluses, and how much the surpluses vary in this chart.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/nZM72/1
I explored the tradeoff between capacity and storage in this post at Euan Mearns’ Energy Matters site, looking at the case of Thursday Island in the Torres Strait.
https://euanmearns.com/wind-and-solar-on-thursday-island/
Of course for the UK solar is not much of an option, although adding some solar does help reduce the impact of low wind in summer.
IDAU: The paper in Energy Matters is well worth revisiting, with the Spanish Island that Roger used to cover too. Your suggestion of using this as an educational exercise was also really good: maybe at university level tho’ rather than schools!
Labour wants 60GW via the unicorn express. It turns out that their pet think tank advising them on policy is EMBER, previously Sandbag, and started by Worthington of Climate Change Act fame, and duly funded by the usual deep green suspects. Ben Pile reveals the details here
“And remember that these wind farms will only last around 15 to 20 years, so the whole cycle will have to occur again and again.”
I know this is a commonly stated theme. However, I wonder what is actually going on. A large wind facility near me has been operating for 17 years and seems to be fine. I suspect that it is properly serviced and maintained. This is a continuing cost usually not mentioned but may equate to the notion expressed in the quote above.
See “Wild Horse Wind” at the link below. On the second page, note the size, volume, and steel in the foundation.
file:///C:/Users/John/Downloads/099_Wind_Power_web%20(1).pdf
They give tours and I’ve been twice. Recommended. Check possibilities near you.
Onshore wind is subject to much less onerous conditions. No sea spray, lower extreme wind speeds in most cases, etc. It should be good for longer, at least so long as it isn’t too big.
I wonder as well. I know the earlier generators had short lives but they have improved their reliability even though the vanes have grown dramatically in size. Wild Horse is an on shore wind farm without the added salt water corrosion or wave problems. Here in CA there are several landlocked wind farms that continually have many generators down for maintenance and I have never seen all of them operating at the same time even in ideal conditions. My guess is at least 10% out of action due to mechanical problems.
“Seems to be fine” really us meaningless. You can’t see stress fractures or worn bearings. Things in constant motion under stress don’t last that long.
‘ . . . don’t last that long.”
Talk about meaningless!
In operation for 17 years — longer than the average auto on American roads. The place is owned and operated by a well-financed company with a maintenance operation on site. There are no non-functioning machines.
“In simple terms, you need 5 units of wind power to make 1 unit of power from hydrogen.”
(The word ‘equivalent’ is missing before ‘1’)
Strange new world. My brothers worked in Midlands motor manufacturing in the 60s and were forever being persued by time & motion experts to find out ways to make things (cars) more efficiently. Seems things have changed over the years….
As I keep saying, the interesting question is how this impossibility will manifest itself? Mere warnings and logic are clearly not sufficient. Price spikes might do it. When will they occur?
Related: https://www.cfact.org/2023/06/20/offshore-wind-costs-bound-to-go-up/
Time to repeal the laws, targets and the renewables demanded by Net Zero mandess.
Who are the incorrupt, brave politicos to do that, in the national interest?
The lunacy of the whole AGW scam is ruinous without any climate benefit.
We are nowhere near doing that. What we first need is a party to run that way. Germany and Holland both now have one, growing rapidly. The moderates will then shift that way to head them off. It could happen fairly quickly.
“…price spikes…”
Well, we have had one, but it was blamed on the war in Ukraine. Even that was not the real cause. If the government had retained all the coal-powered generators, together with a modest strategic stockpile of, say, 30 million tonnes of coal, we largely could have ridden out the price turmoil, and avoided some fiscal craziness.
Even when the war ends, I predict the official line on high-priced energy, for many years to come, will be ‘the lingering effects’ of the war. Or perhaps they will trot out ‘Brexit.’ Some people in Afghanistan still solemnly state that the backwardness of their country is the legacy of the destruction wrought by the Mongols in the 13th Century.
True, Dr Wojick. It will fail. We just don’t know what that will look like. We probably can’t imagine it, yet.
While the figures may be used for illustrative purposes I think that few take the option of using hydrogen to generate electricity. To the extent that hydrogen is taken seriously it is either as an alternative to natural gas in industrial and (just possibly) commercial/residential use. As Paul’s explanation shows, the round trip efficiency for electricity to electricity via hydrogen is simply too low quite apart from the capital costs involved. That option is a straw man which may be thought of as a way of making battery storage look reasonable.
The question of why politicians and others don’t challenge the realism of Net Zero from the power sector by 2035 is an interesting one. No-one that I know of has ever come up with a plausible route to that goal on the basis of *current* costs and technologies. The combination of intermittency of wind/solar generation plus storage costs means that any proposal rapidly run into silly numbers. What is more, the rates of construction and investment are so far above any historical experience that it is patently ridiculous to believe that they are likely to be achieved.
I vacillate between two possible explanations. The realpolitik option is that policymakers know perfectly well that it won’t happen but shrug saying that it won’t be their problem. The fantasy option, which probably overlaps with the former for the dumber policymakers, is that technological change plus falling costs will bail everything out. Cue large amounts of waffle about stretch targets and economies of scale. This view is underwritten by lots of people who want to capture chunks of money for their favourite ideas. I think of this as the smart phone or silicon chip model of the world. The fact that important new technologies take 40-50 years to be developed and deployed on a large scale is invariably ignored.
There are two linked points to draw from this. First, a complete of absence of accountability. Consider what might happen if every policymaker, including civil servants and quango officials, were told that they would be personally liable – up to the full extent of their personal and family wealth – for the consequences any failure to meet targets and other predictions – i.e. real and unlimited personal indemnity. So you go ahead with a commitment to Net Zero in the power sector by 2035 and anyone can bankrupt you if that doesn’t happen *at the costs which you promise*. That would stop a lot of the nonsense. Second, the almost complete absence of serious engineering expertise – again backed by personal accountability – in making and implementing most policies. For example National Grid has good engineers but few of them at the top. So NG just says that it will do whatever is asked so long as it is given enough money rather than pointing out that certain plans are ridiculous. What you get is a self-reinforcing bubble which no one pricks but no one takes any responsibility for delivering within a reasonable and fixed budgets. Look at the continuing saga of HS2 whose initial cost estimates were about as trustworthy as green men on the Moon.
I did like (well, all of your post, Gordon) especially the bit about those responsible for the strategy put their money where their mouths are. That would make for a few squeaky bums.
Excellent post
Gordon Hughes : “That option [hydrogen for energy storage] is a straw man which may be thought of as a way of making battery storage look reasonable.”
I agree entirely with your post except, FWIW, the same analysis using batteries as storage has the result that the cost of wind turbines will decrease to £750bn but I estimate the cost of the batteries, based upon the need for up to 30 TWhrs of storage and the cost of the Tesla 196 MWhrs installation at Pillswood was £75m, to be £11 trillion.
Yet “…. the hydrogen process. John has assumed that … burning hydrogen in a thermal generator works at 40% efficiency.”
1. So we’d need to start the year with (20/0.4 =) 50 TWh of hydrogen in storage to generate that 20 TWh of electricity.
2. Where would we store 50TWh or even 20TWh of hydrogen?
Hydrogen has only 30% the volumetric calorific value of natural gas (at the same pressure); and OFGEM reported Britain’s undeground natural gas storage capacity at approx 16.5TWh in Jan 2022, since then Rough reopened adding 9.35TWh at its reduced operating pressure.
Click to access GB%20Gas%20Storage%20Data%20January%202022.pdf
https://www.centrica.com/media-centre/news/2022/centrica-re-opens-rough-storage-facility/
We’ve approx 13.5TWh of LNG storage capacity. But for hydrogen to be stored in liquid form it needs far more cooling (to minus 253℃) vs (liquid) Nat Gas.
If you check out the chart I posted you will see I included curves for both the physical hydrogen in store (As hydrogen – orange curve) and the energy redeliverable from the stored hydrogen (yellow curve). The latter is for comparison with the pumped hydro/battery curve. Storage for them is usually quoted in redeliverable terms. For pumped hydro, that’s not too far from the truth: the hydro generation runs around 95% efficiency. It’s the pumping that saps the energy. For batteries the split is much more even, with inverter conversion taking a similar chunk each way.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZmrQw/1
UK AC frequency is 50Hz. (+/-2 iirc) The system needs generation with some inertia to maintain that. Windmills sense that frequency and match it with electronics (as does a solar panel array). The more that windmills feed in, the greater difficulty maintaining the Hz. Ultimately that fails and brown/blackouts result.
Mac,
the technical aspects of wind (and solar, wave and tidal) mean that the capacity of wind is purely academic. Even if the fantasy of sufficient capacity was built the grid still would not run on them.
As you mention inertia is one (frequency limits are + or – 0.5 Hz)
Wind and solar are asynchronous, so cannot be controlled which means that supply and load will not balance. (Imagine driving a car without a throttle, it is similar).
The grid needs reactive power which wind cannot provide, this reactive power keeps the voltage stable.
Another problem, I understand, is that due to the inverter generated electricity, i.e. synthetic, gives large and undesirable harmonics onto the supply which can damage equipment.
Intermittency is certainly a huge problem but overcoming that does not solve the other problems which are nearly as insurmountable.
Who advises politicians and how are they selected, it is about a year since I asked my M.P. that question and I’m still waiting for an answer.
Spot on Iain. The power quality from most solar inverters is well known to be basically crap. Here is an article euphemistically describing “mitigation” techniques. i.e. these units are not really up to current standards.
Click to access Harmonics%20in%20Photovoltaic%20Inverters%20&%20Mitigation%20Techniques.pdf
Astonishingly Ofgem is agreeing to lowering of standards to help out!
Regarding advisors, imagine you are a good engineer how do you get to earn more money? Become a manager? What if you would rather be an engineer – there is little improvement you can get. So those not very good at doing the real job either bocome engineering managers pushing paper around or “Advisors” to earn more money. Do they care whethter their advice works? Probably not as long as they get paid, after all a lot of people get promoted to the level of their own incompetence…the Peter Principle rules.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peter-principle.asp
The model as mentioned does not account for the increased use of electric vehicles and heat pumps in ongoing years. Add hydrogen fuelled cars and it’s even more.
Hydrogen is the smallest molecule and can leak from containers and during transfer. Liquid hydrogen boils at -253C while LNG is -162C and therefore needs more energy to store.
It is just pie in the sky and cycling CCGTs up and down constantly to account for wind variability increases damage to the gas and steam turbines.
Back when Scientific American was that, I recall having read that the theoretical max efficiency for photovoltaic was sth like 20%. This is ignoring the effect of, say, a hurricane hitting Puerto Rico.
As far as it goes, the analysis seems based on well-researched and quite reasonable assumptions. But to see the impact of full net zero it is likely a gross underestimate.
The analysis only looks at current electricity generation, whereas net zero looks at replacing all forms of energy production with renewable electricity.
Compare current electricity demand of 262 TWh with
Gas consumption 799 TWh (in 2022 with high gas prices – Energy Trends March 2023 – GOV.UK)
ICE car usage 55 TWh (30 million cars, 5500 miles pa, 3 miles/kwh)
HGV 70 TWh (275k drivers, ave 125k miles pa, 0.5 miles/kwh)
LGV say 30 TWh (1.5m vans, ave 20k miles pa, 1 miles/kwh)
Buses say 5 TWh
Total for conversion to electric 960 TWh
That is an additional 3.7 times current electricity demand.
Total Demand = 1220 TWh
Using John Brown’s uplift for hydrogen storage (370/262) gives 1723 TWh or 28 times as much wind capacity as we have currently. The reality is that only about 10 times is required for net zero as power consumption will be cut back as it will be unaffordable. This despite tens of billions spent nf energy saving in homes and the forced reduction in powered travel.
I have ignored air travel, and possibly other factors as well. I have aimed to be prudent in the estimates. Please update with better estimates.
“John reckons we are looking at close to £1 trillion to build the wind capacity required”
And add to that the costs to upgrade the electricity grid. It was not designed to handle large amounts of fluctuation electricity
But a Net Zero economy won’t have a trillion. Maybe not even a million.
It is a fantasy to think their new economy will have the largesse of the current economy.
This guy lost me at the mention of Hydrogen. When will people realize the chimera that is hydrogen is just a stand-in to keep the ridiculous “Green” nonsense discussion going. The technological problems associated with Hydrogen make it impractical at best, and utter nonsense at worst. Whom is going to build these magical plants that will turn ‘excess wind’ into H, and where are the grid-scale fuel cells that will turn it into usable electrical power? Hydrogen is best left to high school chemistry teacher demonstrations in lab class–every one loves that POP at the end.
Hydrogen is part of the Tesla Master Plan (see my post below).
Mr. Musk is a bought-and-paid-for CCP apparatchik and I place very little value on anything he has to say on this subject. Elon is a marvelous engineer, but also a victim of CCP Elite Capture.
This is something I would appreciate (analytical) comment upon. This is what you need to engage with, not the latest chap with a spreadsheet.
Tesla says that the renewables future will need $10 trillion of investment globally by 2050. But the alternative of continuing with fossil fuels will need $14 trillion of investment over the same period. Therefore the renewables pathway is actually cheaper.
Click to access Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf
Or look at this summary:
This is just the latest chaps with a spreadsheet. Such “studies” are two a penny. Start by comparing the work of Prof Michaux on resource availability with the assumptions made here. Compare current costs with the assumption made here: are the huge cost decreases assumed really realistic, or are they wishful thinking? How much work have they really done on looking at hourly supply and demand, especially on a global detailed basis? It looks pretty rudimentary to me, and thus quite inadequate to base decisions.
There are some very bold assumptions about capacity factors too. All par for the course in these kinds of “studies”. From Tesla’s point of view, all they need is to secure ongoing subsidies for their business. If this is enough to do that, it will have done its job.
One thing that occurred to me is, who is making this investment? Does the renewables investment estimate include that which must be made by households for heat pumps, insulation and EV charging facilities?
Trolls like you must enjoy reading fantasy twaddle. Or are paid to highlight it.
A nation reliant for electricity on bat chompers and Hydrogen.
Is in green lala land.
K. Y’all have it all wrong. Storage isn’t storage for outages. Storage is for arbitrage in volatile energy markets.
The owners of ‘storage’ will use it as soon as they see an acceptable profit. Then refill the tanks and wait for the next opportunity. They’re not going to let it sit in (leaky) tanks for six months waiting to save the grid. That’s not why they are investing their money in it; there would be no return on it if they did.
‘Storage’ has double-ought zero to do with grid backup. The renewables pushers act like it is, to get you to accept the unacceptable.