You're not going to read them, so why bother since you live in a parallel universe. But if you wanted, you could ask your chatbot so you don't have to put the efforts to read anything.
You do realize that it’s quite telling that you still haven’t been able to point out a single of these ”falsehoods” nor been able to provide any factual information of your own?
> You do realize that it’s quite telling that you still haven’t been able to point out a single of these ”falsehoods” nor been able to provide any factual information of your own?
Brandolini's law. And I'm not going to spend any effort with someone who use "sources" they haven't even read…
> Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage?
I'm not afraid of them. I'm afraid of people making wrong decisions based on idealistic views of technologies.
Renewable (outside of hydro) are a very good complement to fossil fuels. And they are a key tool to half emissions from electricity production in most of the world where electricity production is mostly done through fossil fuels. And that's great.
But also that's it. They aren't going to carry the grid on their own, they aren't going to cure cancer or bring world peace.
I have read all the sources I linked. Well, to be perfectly honest, for the ENTSO-E final report I read the summary and the relevant sections and for the actual FERC regulation, rather than the news posts I used to find the true root source, I left it at the introduction which says "non-synchronous sources must provide reactive power as per this technical specification from Y date".
But that's of course not good enough.
But you know that I am right, which is why you're trying to avoid facing reality and pretending everything I say is false, rather than dare to face it.
The consensus among grid operators and researchers is that renewable grids are a solved problem. They’ve moved on to the implementation details instead. Reddit is firmly stuck in the past though.
But, if you are curious, the modeling lands on a combination of this depending on local circumstances:
- Wind, overbuilt
- Solar, overbuilt
- Demand response
- Long range transmission to smooth out variability
- Existing nuclear power (for the grids that have them)
- Exising hydro
- Storage
- In places with district heating: CHP plants running on carbon neutral fuels.
- An emergency reserve of gas turbines. Run them on carbon neutral fuel if their emissions matter.
Why do you want to waste tens of billions of euros on handouts per new built large scale reactor?
Love it. Keep ducking. Why are you so afraid? You still haven't pointed out a single falsehood.
Then you go link a seminar from unknown people in French as your source.
But I get it. You Frenchies truly are in the shit.
The new Greece of Europe economically with a spiraling debt being completely unable to reign it in. With a crumbling nuclear fleet you are unable to replace in time. Which renewables are already cratering the earning potential for.
The perfect solution to that of course is an absolutely stupidly large handout to new built nuclear power!
So go ahead. Link some internationally credible research telling me how wrong I am. You still haven't been able to do it, which is extremely telling,
Funny how random sources you haven't read from the internet are valid sources but a conference on the topic given in France's most prestigious academic place, conference which I followed, isn't because you don't like French people. Thanks for acknowledging I was right not to bother giving more material you wouldn't have read.
“On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog” as the saying goes, buy everyone knows you're a lame troll.
> "Random sources on the internet" = the pan European entity responsible for the largest grid in the world and FERC.
= a source that you picked at random without reading it (and which doesn't back your argument since it acknowledges the fact that renewable render the grid more vulnerable, but who cares about the facts).
> Why are you so afraid of renewables?
I'm not, it's a projection of your own fear of nuclear though. Scary atoms making up everything.
> When will France fix their economy by not wasting hundreds of billions on insane handouts and state capitalism?
It's funny because France has among the cheapest electricity in Europe and the nuclear operator have been forced to subsidize its competitor to compensate for the competitive advantage of NPP. (ARENH, but you're not gonna read about it either).
I just read enough of it to verify its accuracy as to the point I was making.
It also verifies that the US has required non-synchronous plants to manage this for the past decade. And for that matter, I just picked the US because it is well known jurisdiction. All reasonable grids, except Spain until after the blackout, have the same regulations in terms of managing reactive power.
Managing reactive power is trivial to do today. But since it is not free it won't be done unless if the grid operator requires it.
I have no fear of nuclear power. I always argue that we should keep our existing nuclear reactors around as long as they are:
1. Safe
2. Needed
3. Economical
In that order. The problem is wasting decades of opportunity cost and trillions on handouts to new built nuclear power when we still need to decarbonize industry, aviation, shipping, construction, agriculture etc.
And then you finish off by living on almost half a century old merits. Like I said, the French should keep the fleet around as long as the criteria I mentioned above requires it.
The problem is wasting hundreds of billions on handouts to new built nuclear power when renewables and storage are the cheapest energy source in human history.
Don't let the French pride make you become the next Greece.
But this is also wrong.