• Waryle
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Please provide those “studies and researches” that backup your claim, because a simple calculation shows that the world’s largest WWTP, Hongrin-Leman (100GWh in capacity and 480MW in power, over a 90km² basin) contains just 10% of the capacity needed and only 0.7% of the power required for a country like France to last a winter night (~70GW during ~14h of night).

    So we’d need “only” 10 Hongrin-Léman stations in terms of capacity, but 142 Hongrin-Léman stations in terms of power. In other words, we’d need to flood at best 8.5x the surface area of Paris, and at worst the entire surface area of the Île de France department, home to 12 million inhabitants. And that’s just for one night without wind (which happens very regularly), assuming we rely on solar and wind power.

    Then we need to find enough water and enough energy to pump it to fill the STEP completely in 10 hours of daylight, otherwise we’ll have a blackout the following night.

    Wind and solar power cannot form the basis of a country’s energy production, because they are intermittent energies, and the storage needed to smooth out production is titanic. These energies rely on hydroelectricity, nuclear power and fossil fuels to be viable on a national scale.

      • Waryle
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        That’s some nice fanfic you wrote but I don’t think we should base our real world decisions on your little ideas.

        Point the flaws in my logic, debate my ideas, or just leave. Don’t waste your time making another reply if you can’t keep respectful, I won’t bother reading it.

        It’s very easy to find this information so I can only assume you’re arguing in bad faith, but regardless, here are a few starting points for your research. You could also maybe just search it yourself instead of wasting my time and yours with your ridiculous example of a single hydroelectric dam.

        Asking for sources and data to support a disputed claim is the basis of scientific debate. Becoming aggressive and disrespectful after such a mundane request is much more revealing of who is debating in good faith here.

        https://www.brookes.ac.uk/about-brookes/news/2022/08/researchers-agree-the-world-can-reach-a-100-renewa

        Relevant critic here

        TLDR : The study does not support the claim made in the title. It just says that it will be economically feasible. When asked about if its physically possible, they just throw some vague techno-solutionism, and even admit that 100% renewable will may never be actually possible

        https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.apenergy.2020.116273

        A request must be made to access this article, I highly doubt that you made one and actually read that report, so I won’t waste my time either.

        https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-05843-2

        This report does not even relate to our debate at all, it theorizes multiple scenarios for 2050, does not tell if it’s feasible and how, and none of these scenarios are 100% renewables anyway. This is out of subject.

        I’m not going to bother to keep going, it becomes obvious that you just took random studies whose title seemed to support vaguely your points , hoping that I’m as bad-faith as you and I that I won’t open them.

        Your statements are based on void and you become aggressive when asked for explanations. I take back what I have above: don’t bother to answer at all, I’m just going to ignore you from now on.