Valuy@lemmy.zip to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-22 days agoAustralian leader warns people: "The months ahead may not be easy. Please consider using public transport"www.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square118fedilinkarrow-up1493arrow-down16cross-posted to: australia@aussie.zone
arrow-up1487arrow-down1external-linkAustralian leader warns people: "The months ahead may not be easy. Please consider using public transport"www.theguardian.comValuy@lemmy.zip to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · edit-22 days agomessage-square118fedilinkcross-posted to: australia@aussie.zone
minus-squareVibeSurgeon@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·11 hours agoThis is outdated - the LCOE of solar/wind+battery storage is lower than fossil methods of power generation.
minus-squareTeppa@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-23 hours agoHave a reputable citation? Here’s why renewables are expensive, which takes all costs into account for 100% uptime of power, without brownouts. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 Most studies ignore a lot of cost.
minus-squareVibeSurgeon@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·41 minutes agoThat study is a massive dumpster fire, and most certainly not a reputable citation
minus-squareTeppa@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-240 minutes agoDo you have a study then, dont just come and take a shit. I want the study to include storage, and maintenance obviously, and any backup power required for 100% grid reliability.
minus-squareVibeSurgeon@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·31 minutes agoYou’re trying to claim that a study based on the ERCOT numbers during the 2021 Texas winter storm is at all representative of anything. It’s worth nothing whatsoever.
minus-squareTeppa@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-221 minutes agoThe study included Germany too, did it not? The point of the study was including the effects of intermittency and non-dispatchability, which is what makes LCOE a flawed metric.
minus-squareVibeSurgeon@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·15 minutes agoThere’s little point discussing a study that is largely just pure fossil fuel industry propaganda
minus-squareTeppa@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-247 seconds agoAs opposed to green energy companies propaganda that rarely even mention the need for storage? Theres a tangible reason most countries arent fully moving to it for baseload power, its not a conspiracy. Heres a longer video on it if you can stomache the fact nuclear is better than solar/wind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifUaM7uwjqU
This is outdated - the LCOE of solar/wind+battery storage is lower than fossil methods of power generation.
Have a reputable citation?
Here’s why renewables are expensive, which takes all costs into account for 100% uptime of power, without brownouts.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035
Most studies ignore a lot of cost.
That study is a massive dumpster fire, and most certainly not a reputable citation
Do you have a study then, dont just come and take a shit.
I want the study to include storage, and maintenance obviously, and any backup power required for 100% grid reliability.
You’re trying to claim that a study based on the ERCOT numbers during the 2021 Texas winter storm is at all representative of anything. It’s worth nothing whatsoever.
The study included Germany too, did it not?
The point of the study was including the effects of intermittency and non-dispatchability, which is what makes LCOE a flawed metric.
There’s little point discussing a study that is largely just pure fossil fuel industry propaganda
As opposed to green energy companies propaganda that rarely even mention the need for storage?
Theres a tangible reason most countries arent fully moving to it for baseload power, its not a conspiracy.
Heres a longer video on it if you can stomache the fact nuclear is better than solar/wind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifUaM7uwjqU