Scientist exposes anti-wind groups as oil-funded, now they want to silence him

Wind is only useful up to a point, once it gets above 20% of generation capacity ensuing grid stability becomes expensive either through huge price swings or grid level energy storage.

This talking point is years out of date. We’re doing grid-level energy storage already. Expect more.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-06/what-australia-can-le...

> For the first time ever, California's batteries took over gas as the primary source for supplying evening power demand in April, providing "akin to the output from seven large nuclear reactors" one evening, according to the New York Times.

Oil is only useful up to a point, once your planetary ecosystem starts to collapse it gets a lot more expensive

Sure you need baseload/storage as part of the mix - however where do you get the 20% figure from?

For the past year in the UK the average is ~30% generation from wind. https://grid.iamkate.com/

So seems it's possible. Swings in generation are dealt with via inter-country interconnects, pumped storage and gas turbine generation. Nuclear adds a steady base.

Finland at 24% and increasing steadily.

These batteries last a few minutes when they are fully charged. In the winter it's not unusual to have close to zero wind power for a few days and it could come after a few weeks of lower output, so they aren't fully charged.

You'll notice in your article they are almost always talking about power instead of energy because energy is the problem.

We still need about 100 - 1000x improvements to rely on batteries without reliable power plants, depending on how much the generation capacity is overbuilt.

It's fairly rare that there is no wind at all, especially at wind turbine height, and if you have 100 different wind farms spread out across different regions you'll usually have a decent amount of them producing at any given moment. We can also use batteries of various kinds to handle peaks and valleys, not to mention solar, hydro, nuclear and some gas to pick up slack when necessary.

I don't think anyone is expecting wind farms to supply anywhere near 100% of energy production. Probably not even 50%.

It's not out of date. BESS has different utility in different weather areas. Germany would need the equivalent of 20-30y of global bess deployments to ditch fossils, not considering realistic power transfer or weather forecast. That's why even their pro ren Fraunhofer ISE recommended gas expansion

The argument was about the cost, UK having highest prices on the continent (depending how you count subsidies for others) but 20% seems too low anyway. Normal plants are still fine at 60% cf

The oil stays cheap. It’s everything else that gets expensive.

If only we could model how frequently there was zero wind and whether that calculates with zero solar. Oh wait, we can, and we do. It's not even hard.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g...

In reality we will still have a lot of fossil generation which will make it 'easier'.

The UK has insane prices because of their refusal to do regional pricing to accommodate grid constraints. They'd rather pay wind farms to park their turbines, than to segment their grid pricing (i.e. make energy prices cheaper where there is a surplus of wind generation).

The UK's prices are a political choice due to the mapping of voters over the energy generation distribution.

Isn't regional pricing dangerous for industry if it's concentrated in wrong areas and moving it isn't easy?

The recent full blackout in Iberia was caused by renewables destabilizing the grid, and the fossil plants were cold so couldn't save the day. Having fossil plants is of no use if they were mandated by the government to turn themselves off.

It means that the industry has to actually follow economics, and build supply where the demand is.

The causes were complex interactions and the October report has not yet been released.

There are numerous camps with strong impassioned and conflicting arguments as to cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Iberian_Peninsula_blackou...

This is false. Take a look at Denmark. This argument was repeated there in the past for "above X", with X being 15%, 20%, 30%, 50%.

Curtailing renewbles due to grid constraints is usually a perfectly rational decision. New generation, new storage, new demand and new grid connections don't always happen on the same schedule.

Now, banning onshore wind in England for a decade when it was the cheapest source of energy available. That's just plain stupid (or a corrupt gift to your mates in gas companies).

We also have this rather unusual energy market where the price for energy is set by the supplier with the highest price necessary to meet demand at any particular time, and all the suppliers get paid that price. Most countries use a system where the suppliers get paid how much it costs for them to generate individually, and the users pay an average of that all.

Not necessarily disagreeing, but Denmark's grid is integrated with europe. If the rest of europe catches up with Denmark in wind power, that will definitely be a challenge, since wind speeds are correlated across the continent. Not unsolvable, but it's an issue for sure.

But it followed economics. What you are saying is that now you want to screw it, because moving industry/trained labor to other areas isn't a plug and play option- it's a huge investment which could lead to closures

No, most countries use the same merit order mechanism like UK. The difference is that in those countries gas peakers are competing with cheaper hydro (nordics), coal(Germany) or nuclear (france). UK nuclear is pretty small, so gas competes only with itself for setting the price.

The government, by saying that there was a single zone, despite the electricity not actually working that way (because interconnectors don't have infinite capacity), were defying economics.

By breaking the country in to zones, where the electricity that's bought can actually reach the users they then apply the actual economics of the system properly, and encourage suppliers to build where the demand can be satisfied by them.

But in the past it made sense to have a single zone- prices were similar. So industry developed where possible. Now what you ask is that due to the ren generation, the pricing should change, so that industry that was formed long before current ren push needs to restructure/move to more advantageous locations because otherwise it'll use competitiveness. If you are fine with such development and it's consequences, you could ask for such reforms.

Situation is very similar in Germany - most industry is concentrated in the south while most productive wind in the north. In the past it didn't matter since prices were similar with coal. But now, since you can't magically create wind in low wind/unproductive areas, the options are either split zones and kill part of industry, which Germany doesn't want, or to keep a single zone and build expensive transmission like sudlink.

That's true of all renewable energy sources. So we should take advantage of all of them, as much as is feasible.

The grid operator did release a report, and it stated that the problem was desynchronization of a solar farm, followed by more frequency destabilization as they tried to combat the first problem, followed by a panicked attempt to bring gas plants back online but they weren't available. They'd been switched off to make way for solar and would have taken hours to warm up.

The only sense in which there are conflicting arguments, is that the leftist Spanish government read the above report and concluded that it was the fault of the gas plants for not being available when they were needed. Because they were switched off. Because of their own policies. This is not an argument that deserves genuine consideration.

Not true. 100% variable renewable energy (VRE) grids are found to be economically viable almost anywhere on the planet.[1] These are grids which don't require any fossil fuel "firming".

From the IEA report: "Substantiated by in-depth case studies, this report infers that, almost anywhere on the planet, nearly 100% VRE power grids firmly supplying clean power and meeting demand 24/365 are not only possible but would be economically viable, provided that VRE resources are optimally transformed from unconstrained run-of-the weather generation into firm generation."[1]

However, propagandists routinely spread misinformation on firming. For example, they might cite the absolutely absurd LFSCOE which is funded by the energy sector's equivalent of the Center for Indoor Air Research[2][3][4].

[1] https://iea-pvps.org/key-topics/firm-power-generation/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

[3] https://www.desmog.com/2016/01/10/rice-university-s-baker-in...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Indoor_Air_Research

> Germany would need the equivalent of 20-30y of global bess deployments to ditch fossils

“In 2019, California had 770 megawatts of battery storage. Now, it's 14 times higher, at 10,383 megawatts, and by the end of this year, it expects to add another 3,800.”

We saw the same curve with solar and wind. 20-30 years worth today will be peanuts in the near future. You’ve outlined a very achievable goal.

If you sit down and think hard about it, I'm not sure you'll figure out a better system. It does make sense.

Or rather, build demand (move industry) where the supply is (Scotland)

If you think 2-3TWh for a single country, assuming ideal conditions and no demand growth is an achievable goal, welp