pull down to refresh

Not economics, but energy economics so I'll shove it here (#967373, #967468). (Plus, I'm Undisc's bitch and have no shame, so whatevs.)

"an underappreciated risk posed by forcing intermittent renewable energy sources onto pre-existing grids."

Doomberg brings the thunder. Fucking excellent! Traditional thermal generators are intrinsically better at this:
Large spinning turbines endow electricity grids with the inertia to ride out minor fluctuations in frequency, reducing the risk of butterflies causing hurricanes. Solar and wind offer no such insurance, relying instead on inverters to deliver product to market.
"The alternative no longer needs imagining."
Case closed; fossil fuels in, unreliables_ out.
The gaslighting(!) is pretty extreme, too:
I wrote "Lighting the Gas under European Feet: How Politicians and Journalists Get Energy So Wrong" a few years ago. Highly recommend, hashtag hubris; hashtag humility.

Plus a Trump-Saudi story about oil:
routinely boasts about affordable US gasoline on social media, and shows a keen understanding of the role abundant energy plays in catalyzing his envisioned manufacturing renaissance. The real mystery is why so many energy investors remain hesitant to believe him—or continue to underestimate his influence on markets.
I see decision making under conditions of scarcity. How is this not economics?
reply
then literally everything is.
IT'S OVER, STACKERS. ALL THE TERRITORY CONTENT SUBSUMED UNDER ~econ.
reply
Don’t say the quiet part out loud. This is a long game. Do you want to be executive editor of The Economist or not?
reply
OK: sowwie, boss.
reply
105 sats \ 1 reply \ @quark 1 May
To integrate renewables is a challenge but not impossible. It is just more expensive. It needs more batteries regulation stations to act as buffer and give more stable energy into the grid. And also it can be used to store capacity for periods where there is no sun/wind. It will all be ok.
reply
or we can just, you know, not do that...?
crazy idea, I know.
reply