Arguments
Sabin 33 #13 - Is solar energy unreliable?
Posted on 28 January 2025 by BaerbelW
On November 1, 2024 we announced the publication of 33 rebuttals based on the report "Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles" written by Matthew Eisenson, Jacob Elkin, Andy Fitch, Matthew Ard, Kaya Sittinger & Samuel Lavine and published by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School in 2024. Below is the blog post version of rebuttal #13 based on Sabin's report.
Complete reliance on solar generation, without other sources of power generation, energy storage, long-distance transmission, or other grid flexibility resources1 (Lovins 2017), would pose intermittency challenges. However, an increasing number of planned solar projects are set to include an energy storage component2, and solar, wind, and storage together can provide the majority of the country’s electricity without compromising reliability3.
When a local service area does face diminished solar capacity, for instance during a cloudy day, wind and other renewable sources, as well as battery storage and long-distance transmission that carries power from sunnier regions can supplement energy supply, ensuring a resilient grid4 (also Jacobson 2022). As a result, increased reliance on solar energy need not require the construction of new natural gas plants for backup5. The Department of Energy’s 2021 “Solar Futures Study,” for example, outlines three distinct decarbonization scenarios, each of which assumes both a massive increase in renewable energy generation and decrease in natural gas6. Under the “business as usual” reference scenario, natural gas, oil, and steam together decrease from roughly 39% of U.S. annual electricity generation in 2020 to roughly 31% by 2035/2036 and 30% by 2049/2050; under the same scenario, solar PV increases from roughly 3.4% in 2020 to 17.6% by 2035/2036 and 27.3% by 2049/2050. Under the two non-reference decarbonization scenarios assessed in the studies, natural gas, oil, and steam shrink to roughly 4.7%-5.2% of annual electricity generation by 2035/2036 and 0% by 2049/2050; solar PV, meanwhile, increases to between 36.9% and 42.2% by 2035/2036 and to between 40.1% and 44.8% by 2049/2050. Princeton University’s Net-Zero America study, which assesses pathways to achieving net-zero GHG emissions by 2050, likewise foresees significant reductions in fossil fuel consumption and generation, even when maintaining 500-1,000 GW of firm generating capacity to ensure reliability. Across the suite of assessed net-zero scenarios, the study assumes that all thermal coal production and consumption will cease by 2030, oil production will decline between 25% to 85% by 2050, and natural gas production will decline between 20% and 90% by 2050.
California has already increased solar energy generation while decreasing natural gas utilization. In 2012, solar PV and solar thermal together accounted for only 0.9% of California’s in-state electricity generation, while natural gas accounted for roughly 70%7. By 2022, solar had increased to 19.9% of California’s in-state electricity generation, while natural gas had decreased to 47.5%8. Significantly, even with this increase in solar reliance, California’s grid reliability remains near, or above, the national average9. Elsewhere in the United States, energy experts have asserted that Texas’s widespread adoption of solar generation helped prevent outages when electricity usage spiked during a recent summer heatwave10. And although the reliability of solar and wind energy was questioned following Texas’ widespread power outages in the winter of 2021, Texas’ grid failure was primarily caused by freezing natural gas infrastructure, rather than failures at solar and wind farms, though nuclear, coal, and wind also experienced disruptions at a smaller scale11 (also Busby et al. 2021).
Energy storage also will play an important role in achieving decarbonization while improving energy reliability. The DOE’s “Solar Futures Study” forecasts that an additional 60 GW per year of storage will be needed to achieve decarbonization6. Fortunately, research on storage technologies has experienced significant breakthroughs in recent years. For example, sodium-ion batteries have emerged as a possible alternative to lithium-ion batteries, with sodium a much more abundant and less expensive material12. Researchers are likewise developing more efficient utility-scale methods for storing solar energy13.
Other researchers have highlighted energy efficiency and grid flexibility mechanisms that can complement and support solar and wind without the need for fossil fuel backup or even bulk, utility-scale energy storage (Lovins 2017). These include integrative design practices to significantly reduce the energy demands of buildings and other sectors; demand flexibility and demand response mechanisms to compensate customers for reduced energy use during peak hours; and distributed thermal and electrical storage14 (also Lovins 2018).
Finally, while solar energy is intermittent, multiple studies have shown that the panels themselves are highly reliable—with appreciably low degradation and failure rates, thus rarely requiring repair or replacement (Jordan et al. 2017, Jordan et al. 2020). A National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study found that the median failure rate for panels installed between 2000 to 2015 was five out of 10,000 annually, a rate of 0.05% (Jordan et al. 2017). Researchers have described the failure rate of residential PV inverters as “acceptable, even good,” with an inverter typically needing to be replaced only once in the lifetime of a PV system.
Footnotes:
[1] Amory Lovins has identified eight “grid flexibility” resources that can substitute for bulk storage or fossil fuel backup: (1) efficient use, which reduces peak load; (2) flexible demand; (3) modern forecasting; (4) diversifying variable renewables; (5) integration with dispatchable alternatives and cogeneration; (6) distributed or managed thermal storage; (7) distributed electrical storage; and (8) hydrogen.
[2] Joseph Rand et al., Queued Up: Characteristics of Power Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection as of the End of 2021 at 13 (Berkely Lab 2022)
[3] Eric Larson et al., Net-Zero American: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts: Final Report, Princeton University, 247 (Oct. 29, 2021) at 88 (noting that, “[t]o ensure reliability, all cases maintain 500-1,000 GW of firm generating capacity through all years,” compared to 7,400-9,900 GW for wind and solar in net-zero scenarios for 2050).
[4] Robert Fares, Renewable Energy Intermittency Explained: Challenges, Solutions, and Opportunities, Scientific America (Mar. 11, 2015)
[5] The 2035 Report: Plummeting Solar, Wind, and Battery Costs Can Accelerate our Clean Electricity Future, U. Cal. Berkeley Goldman Sch. Pub. Pol’y, 4 (2020)
[6] U.S. Dep’t. Energy Solar Energy Technologies Office, Solar Futures Study, U.S. Dep’t. Energy Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, at vi, 179 (Sep. 2021) at 215
[7] California Energy Comm’n., Electric Generation Capacity and Energy (last visited March 25, 2024).
[8] California Energy Comm’n, 2022 Total System Electric Generation, (last visited March 25, 2024).
[9] California Public Utilities Comm’n, Electric System Reliability Annual Reports (last visited March 25, 2024). In 2020, five of California’s six investor-owned utilities had frequency of sustained outages below national average when including major event days; four of six had frequency of sustained outages below national average when excluding major event days; four of six had duration of outages below national average when including major event days; and four of six had duration of outages below national average when excluding major event days. “Major event days” consist of the worst 0.63% of outage events.
[10] See E&E News & Benjamin Storrow, Solar Power Bails Out Texas Grid During Major Heat Wave, Scientific American, June 26, 2023
[11] Adriana Usero & Salvador Rizzo, ‘Frozen windmills’ aren’t to blame for Texas’s power failure, Wash. Post, Feb. 18, 2021; Dionne Searcey, No, Wind Farms Aren’t the Main Cause of the Texas Blackouts, N.Y. Times, Feb. 17, 2021 (updated May 3, 2021)
[12] Karyn Hede, Longer Lasting Sodium-Ion Batteries on the Horizon, Pac. Nw. Nat’l. Lab’y. (Jul. 13, 2022)
[13] Robert Armstrong et al., The Future of Energy Storage: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, Mass. Inst. Tech. (Jun. 3, 2022)
[14] Amory B. Lovins & M. V. Ramana, Three Myths About Renewable Energy and the Grid, Debunked, Yale Env’t 360, Dec. 9, 2021
[15] Emiliano Bellini, Survey shows 34.3% failure rate for residential inverters over 15 years, PV Magazine, Feb. 8, 2023 (discussing Christof Bucher et al., Life Expectancy of PV Inverters and Optimizers in Residential PV Systems, Bern University of Applied Sciences, 2022).
Skeptical Science sincerely appreciates Sabin Center's generosity in collaborating with us to make this information available as widely as possible.
Dr. Andrew Dressler posted today on how any amount of renewable energy in your utility bill saves you money. His post is easy to read. It would be a good OP here at Skeptical Science.
At the end of the post he discusses why you hear all the time that renewable energy is expensive. He claims the fossil fuel industry is lying to try to protect their market share.
[BL] Reposted on SkS on January 29, 2025.
I've heard flywheels, synchronous condensers and grid forming inverters could be solutions, but I don't know how much we would need, how much they would cost, etc. for the critical service on the grid of synchronous inertia, see this post. Do you know the quantities and costs? This professional power engineer recommends to not exceed 30% of wind, solar and batteries for electricity generation on a grid https://www.linkedin.com/posts/cristian-paduraru-p-e-3434b23a_impact-of-ibrs-over-cct-study-by-gridx-activity-7324915294445936640-lx_r
Electricity grids must operate reliably 24x7x365 for modern societies to function. Electricity generators need to provide ancillary services such as black starts and synchronous inertia. Wind and solar are not capable of doing these on their own. BESS can do fast frequency response, but cannot assist with synchronous inertia. In 2021, Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported they expect BESS to provide 1 terawatt-hour of electricity generation globally by the year 2030 at a cost of $262 billion over this nine year period. The Volta Foundation reported that in 2024, BESS generated 0.363 terawatt-hours globally. In 2024, 30,000 terawatt-hours were consumed globally.BESS contributed 0.00121% of global electricity consumption in 2024. When can we expect for BESS to make a meaningful contribution, for example, at least 1% of global electricity consumption?
[PS] Links activated. Please learn how to do this yourself using the link tool in the comment editor. Our software does not automatically create links.
Tder2012 @2 :-
You ask: "When can we expect for BESS [battery storage] to make a meaningful contribution, for example, at least 1% of global electricity consumption?"
It won't happen by next year [2026]. Probably it will take decades ~ since it will require a much greater level of advance in battery technology & production economics.
Asking when it will happen, is a bit like asking the Wright Brothers when their amazing new-fangled flying machine would result in 1% of the world's population using aviation for routine transport.
But what are your own assessments of future developments?
I agree, when will wind, solar and batteries be ready to be deployed and be able to readily supply their share of critical and required services such as synchronous inertia is completely unknown, therefore extremely risky to go down this path, considering we are in a climate and energy crisis and emergency. I am curious why you would ask about my assessments of future developments, as I am not an expert and predictions are difficult, especially about the future. However, I will share some links, one by Nate Hagens youtube channel Net Zero and Other Delusions: What Can't, Won't and Might Happen and from Fourth Energy Transition, About and The Energy Seneca.
Tder202 @4 :-
Thank you for the video titled: "Net Zero and Other Delusions" by Nate Hagens.
In essence, he says that Net Zero [of fossil carbon emissions] cannot happen by 2050. I suspect that every realist would agree that such a target ~ in only 25 years' time ~ is completely impracticable, with today's politics & today's technology. (But is half a loaf not better than none?)
Perhaps possible by 2070 or 2080? That would require cheap & durable solar panels plus cheap & durable storage batteries. Even the pre-2050 invention of practical & economic Boron-Proton fusion generation of electricity . . . would take decades to roll out for worldwide usage.
Big advances in solar/battery manufacture are a very much better "Bayesian bet" (as Hagens would say).
And yet now is the time to roll up metaphorical sleeves and get to work on the future problems.
# So the question remains: Why is Nate Hagens such a hopeless pessimist? Is he the sort of pessimist who will refuse to plant a sapling for a shade-tree (while bemoaning today's lack of sufficient shade)??
.
btw, tder2012, if you have any influence with Nate Hagens ~ please ask him to shorten his 20-minute video down to about one-third the length (which would not degrade his message! ). There is an old ecclesiastical saying: "An excellent sermon should need less than 10 minutes to best deliver its message."
Tder2012 @4 :-
At risk of being a Cassandra, please allow me to say that your last two references ( 'About' and 'The Energy Seneca' both themselves linking to FOUTH TRANSITION LTD )
. . . are wordy but quite nebulous in actual content.
We Cassandras smell a grift.
Please keep your money in your wallet.
[ My apologies, Moderator ~
if you have time, please correct my typo in @6 :
"FOUTH TRANSITION LTD"
. . . should read "FOURTH TRANSITION LTD".
I would not wish keen investors to send money to the wrong LTD . ]
I feel we are in a climate and energy crisis and emergency and therefore, I feel all options should be on the table, should be considered. I have reviewed Fourth Transition and am not nearly ready to rule it out, I have been in direct communications with them. You are entitled to your opinion about them being a grift. After several discussions and readings, I have not yet formed an opinion on that. How do you feel about nuclear power? I don't see much support for nuclear power on this site. "Nuclear Energy Unveiled: Debunking Myths and Revealing Facts"
tder2012:
You need to find a more reliable source of information. In post 2 you claim:
"Electricity generators need to provide ancillary services such as black starts and synchronous inertia. Wind and solar are not capable of doing these on their own. BESS can do fast frequency response, but cannot assist with synchronous inertia."
Solar systems and batteries can be used for black starts already and can be used for synchronous inertia with proper inverters. In the past they have not been built with such inverters because they were not needed. As more wind and solar are implemented capable inverters will be deployed. It is deliberately misleading to claim that renewable energy cannot do something that was not needed in the past but where currently available inverters are capable of providing that service. The cost will be trivial.
It appears to me that your references completely leave out the cost of existing hydro. Hydro provides a significant source of on demand electricity and is the most flexible energy. Looking at the cost of 100% solar alone without taking into account existing hydro does not give an accurate idea of complete system costs.
Both Spain and Texas generate way more than 30% renewable energy. Many other countries generate as much as 100% renewable energy. Claiming that is not possible in your post 2 when it is already widely done is beyond misleading. It has been widely documented that Texas would have had blackouts in the past two summers without renewable energy.
Your post claiming high cost of LFSCOE (made on another thread) is simply fossil fuel propaganda. It has been known for years that the last 10-20% of renewable energy will be the most expensive. My link at post 1 of this thread documents how renewables save large amounts of money for the first 80% of generation and addresses the last 20%. It also demonstrates that fossil fuel interests lie and pay think tanks to produce "papers" that are simply false. Perhaps you would be interested in reading it.
We will see if LFSCOE is considered useful by anyone besides fossil fuel interests. The paper you linked was published in 2022 and Lazard has not implemented their analysis. Presumably Lazards experts would have made changes if they thought LFSCOE was a more accurate measure. I note that your link also claimed nuclear provides four times the financial benefits of renewables. It did not discuss the fact there is not enough uranium to generate a significant amount of power world wide.
I suggest you read Bryer et al 2022 and the references theirin for more accurate information. These papers actually calculate the full system costs of completely renewable systems. For example, Jacobson et al 2022 details all the solar panels, wind generators, batteries and other needed materials to generate 100% renewable energy. Jacobson does not find the cheapest route to 100% renewables since he does not use any thermal sources (like waste incineration). Since he considers all sources of renewable energy he does not grossly overestimate the cost of the last 20% of energy (although that is the most expensive energy).
I note that wind and solar compliment each other in 100% systems and result in much lower costs that wind or solar only. LFSCOE costs of solar only or wind only do not reflect 100% renewable system costs. Thermal baseload like nuclear do not compliment renewables and result in higher system costs.
tder2012:
There is a thread for nuclear energy on this site. Please post any comments on nuclear on that thread. If you read some of the previous comments you might find answers to some of your questions. I recommend Abbott 2012 (linked in the OP of the thread).
I don't read Jacobson. He gets debunked and stops with the scientific debate and then takes it to court and loses that as well. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/02/15/stanford-prof-who-sued-critics-loses-appeal-against-500000-in-legal-fees/ Bryer works closely with Jacobson, so I don't bother with him either. I have read their material over the years, for example, here is one on my blog from 2016 that my friend wrote https://tditpinawa.wordpress.com/2016/09/17/tim-maloneys-analysis-and-critique-of-100-wws-for-usa/. I believe science debates should stick to science debates. There are nine grids today that have achieved <100 grams of CO2 emitted per kilowatt hour, averaged on an annual basis that service at least 5 million people. They are Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and then there is Norway, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, France and Brazil. They have achieved this with either mostly hydro, mostly nuclear or mostly a combination of the two. "Your post claiming high cost of LFSCOE (made on another thread) is simply fossil fuel propaganda. It has been known for years that the last 10-20% of renewable energy will be the most expensive." You can state your opinions about propaganda all you like, how about showing the evidence in the real world, not just in Jacobson's spreadsheets, about the last 10-20% being the most expensive. Lazard didn't make changes, instead they are open about their limitations, as I quoted in a previous comment. Will Lazard scrap their limitations and instead do a complete study, as opposed to just points in time. I don't care so much about % of renewable energy, I care about CO2 emissions. Once Texas and Spain have achieved <100grams/CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour, averaged on an annual basis, then we'll talk. Texas is 292 and Spain is close at 112, but they are planning to shut down nuclear so their emissions are likely to rise, just like everywhere else that shuts down nuclear. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE/12mo/monthly Jacobson is a big proponent of Germany, but 345 for the last 12 months, their energy system is really struggling and due to high prices, their industrial and manufacturing are slowing down. "Let’s dive into one of the most ambitious (and chaotic) energy transitions in the world" Amory Lovins was awarded the German Order of Merit in 2016 for his influence on the German "Energiewende", maybe they jumped the gun a bit with this award.
tder2012:
It is not pratical to address many claims made at once (Gish Gallops). If you want to discuss renewables or nuclear there are OP's at SkS for that. Please address only one or two claims at once so that they can be resolved before moviing on to additional claims.
Citing a blog post from 2016 when wind, solar and batteries were way more expensive than they currently are while saying you will not consider current scientific studies makes for a difficult discussion at SkiS.
Feel free to address one claim at a time. My point in showing the 2016 post is simply this is at least how long I am familiar with Jacobson's work. Address only this point them from Lazard's 2024 LCOE+ report. Page 8 from https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf
"Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis. These additional
factors, among others, may include: implementation and interpretation of the full scope of the IRA; economic policy, transmission queue reform, network upgrades and other
transmission matters, congestion, curtailment or other integration-related costs; permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of complying with
various environmental regulations (e.g., carbon emissions offsets or emissions control systems). This analysis is intended to represent a snapshot in time and utilizes a wide, but
not exhaustive, sample set of Industry data. As such, we recognize and acknowledge the likelihood of results outside of our ranges. Therefore, this analysis is not a forecasting
tool and should not be used as such, given the complexities of our evolving Industry, grid and resource needs. Except as illustratively sensitized herein, this analysis does not
consider the intermittent nature of selected renewables energy technologies or the related grid impacts of incremental renewable energy deployment. This analysis also does not
address potential social and environmental externalities, including, for example, the social costs and rate consequences for those who cannot afford distributed generation
solutions, as well as the long-term residual and societal consequences of various conventional generation technologies that are difficult to measure (e.g., airborne pollutants,
greenhouse gases, etc."
tder2012:
I see that Lazard considers LCOE as the best way to compare different costs of energy. The quote you have seems to be a boiler plate discussion of the limitations of LCOE. All methods of evaluation have limitations, Lazard thinks LCOE is the best one. Utilities have to do more in depth evaluations of their current and future generation supplies so they have to consider additional data.
Of course Lazard thinks Lazard's LCOE is best, they should be very confident in their own work, but, as I highlighted from the 2024 Lazard report, Lazard acknowledges there are many omissions.
As I stated previously, breeder reactors are in operation today in China, India, Japan and Russia. One in Russia came on line in 1980.
tder:
reactor question replied to on the nuclear thread
"Many other countries generate as much as 100% renewable energy. Claiming that is not possible in your post 2 when it is already widely done is beyond misleading". Could you please name these "many other countries" and provide evidence to support your claims? Also, knowing that hydro is essentially tapped out, provide examples that don't use hydro, since going forward, hydro is likely not available very much as new electricity generation.
Since science is in the name of this site, I think it would be fair to ask for any evidence for your fossil fuel propagnda claim "Your post claiming high cost of LFSCOE (made on another thread) is simply fossil fuel propaganda" Is it Carl Sagan that stated "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
tder2012:
Your link at post 2 claiming that no more than 30% renewable energy should be used says:
"I was shocked when I've learned last week that most of the European countries have 50-80% of RE in the total generation mix." my emphasis
I suggest you read your own links more closely. Obviously systems with more than 30% renewable energy work and save billions of dollars. Occasionally there are problems that require new hardware and/or programming since the technology is only 10 years old. Our World in Data can give you exactly the percent renewables for most of the countries in the world and breaks down different renewables.
Jacobson only uses existing hydro. This was done about 10 years ago. I believe that all 100% renewable energy solutions do not use additional hydro. Are you suggesting all existing hydro should be removed? Read my links to you above. If you read more of the background material you will not ask questions about common knowledge.
I have been in this game for about 20 years. Over that time nuclear supporters like you have generated many false claims. For example when a paper was published with a single 1 MW wind turbine connected to a gas generator. It was then argued that more CO2 was emitted from the wind turbine. No-one has a grid with a single wind turbine. Experience in using wind turbines has shown that that analysis was completely false.
Your citation calculates the cost of a solar and battery system without using any hydro or wind. And they only use a very small grid (Texas and Germany). These are gross mistakes. The literature shows that it is much cheaper to have a larger grid than a smaller one. Most realistic analysis use all of North America as a grid.
Why analyze Germany alone when they currently are in a grid with the rest of Europe? Because you know in advance that it will be more expensive.
The analysis you linked is ignored for a reason. It is obviously junk science. A grossly too small grid and no existing hydro or wind. Texas will have to connect with the rest of the USA if they want cheap electricity. (Texans already pay a premium because of their small grid).
Just look at Europe: most of the countries have 50-80% renewables and they save money on their electric bills!
"I was shocked when I've learned last week that most of the European countries have 50-80% of RE in the total generation mix." Name the countries that are 50-80% of RE in the total generation mix, averaged on an annual basis. The quote you used is out of context, it is only for the specific time period for a few days last week. Name one country that has 50-80% RE, other than hydro, averaged on an annual basis and has achieved the Paris target of <100gramsCO2emitted/kwh, averaved on an annual basis, point it out here.
"Over that time nuclear supporters like you have generated many false claims." Point out any false claims I have made and back it up with numbers, data and evidence in full context.
"Why analyze Germany alone when they currently are in a grid with the rest of Europe? Because you know in advance that it will be more expensive." France is also on this same grid and their residential electricity prices are half that of Germany.
Tder2012 at 22
So now you are claiming that the numbers in your link are not reliabe and you want me to go to the Our World in Data link that I gave you and pick out a few of the countries that have over 30% renewables. Since you now say that your liink is unreliable, why should I believe anything you say or link??? It is your job to go to Our World in Data and look at the data there. Then you will know more of the background information that everyone informed knows. It is not my job to do your homework.
I note that in the first paragraph of your link the author says that he has had his head buried in the sand for ten years and does not know what everyone else knows about current world electrical systems. Why should I believe anything he says after that? Then he brings up a false claim from nuclear supporters that is ten years out of date and was never accurate. Get your act together.
tder2012 at 23:
You have made way too many false claims for me to list them all.
You claimed at post 16 "As I stated previously, breeder reactors are in operation today in China, India, Japan and Russia"
I showed that the reactor in Japan closed in 2010 clearly showing your post false. I note that none of the four sodium cooled reactors world wide are running as breeder reactors. One primarily generates weapons grade plutonium, one has not started yet and one is a burner reactor.
I showed that your claim of a maximum of 30% renewables is completely false.
tder2012:
Lithuania produces over 50% of electricity using renewable energy plus some hydro. Do your own homework. The first country I looked at.
I agree with the "do your own homework" part, but since this was so easy to do, I actually shouldered some of tder2012 homework:
From North to South:
-Norway: over 99% of electricity production from renewable, mainly hydro
-Sweden: more than 60% of electricity production from renewables, according to their official site
-Finland is not as performant but they are making progress, 43% production from renewables
-Denmark does well with between 79 and 81% in recent years.
- England lags a little but has made progress, reaching 51% of renewable electricity generation in 2023.
-Germany continues to progress 52.4 % in 2023
-Spain does surpirsingly well with 56% in 2024.
I could go on and on but it's becoming clear that the numbers from Michael Sweet were not fantasy. The E.U. as a whole has reached 50% in the first half of 2024. That is in spite of heavy reliance on fossil fuels from some members, especially the former soviet satellite nations. I'll add that I am not fundamentally opposed to nuclear, but the problems it poses must be acknowledged.
I stated "Name one country that has 50-80% RE, other than hydro, averaged on an annual basis and has achieved the Paris target of <100gramsCO2emitted/kwh, averaved on an annual basis". Sorry I should have stated "other than hydro AND nuclear" and services at least 5 million people. Norway is mostly hydro, so they shouldn't be on your list. Sweden gets electricity from hydro and way too much nuclear for you liking, so they shouldn't be on your list. Finland is way too much nuclear, so they shouldn't be on your list. Denmark's CO2 emission are too high, so they shouldn't be on your list. England's emissions are way too high and they get too much from nuclear, so they shouldn't be on your list. Germany's emissions are way too high (345, instead of 100, grams of CO2 emitted / kwh), so they shouldn't be on your list. Spain gets way too much from nuclear and is still over 100, so they shouldn't be on your list. Lithunania has a population of under three million and their CO2 emission are still above 100, averaged on an annual basis, so they shouldn't be on your list. Maybe pay far less attention to %renewables (ideally none) and instead of focusing on GHG emissions. So all the countries you listed actually don't qualify, but you did say "I could go on and on but it's becoming clear that the numbers from Michael Sweet were not fantasy." So you should go on and on, that is, unless you care more about %RE than GHG emissions. And use a proper source. https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/LT/12mo/monthly
"I am not fundamentally opposed to nuclear, but the problems it poses must be acknowledged" The problems are that nuclear is expensive because of irrational fear of radiation ("all radiation is dangerous", nonsense, read "The LNT Report" when it comes out in August) people conflate nuclear weapons, which require at least 80% enrichment of uranium, compared to nuclear energy with no more than 5% enrichment and others here. These points of misinformation have helped increase the cost of nuclear energy needlessly. Be sure to read this 400+ page pdf book "Why Nuclear Power has been a Flop" In the 70's when the hippies, musicians and actors got their way and nuclear power plants were stopped being build, they did nothing when coal plants were built instead. The scientists and engineers at the time wanted nuclear, but on this matter of science and engineering, society chose to listen to hippies, actors and musicians instead.
tder2012: I noticed that you did not include the country I identified which was Lithuania. An interesting mistake.
According to your link in April 2025 Lithuania got got 26.1% of electricity from wind, 16.6 % from solar and 6.9% from biomas for a total of 49.6% renewables not including hydro (hydro is small in Lithaunia). Eyeballing their yearly data I see that April had an unusualy large amount of gas usage and the entire yearly percentage of renewables was over 60%.
From the data at Our World in Data Lithuania produced 76% of electricity from renewables including hydro in 2023. They produced 3.8 TW from renewables and 0.5 TW from hydro so about 67% of all electricity was from renewables not including hydro in 2023. Undoubtedly that went up in 2024 as more renewables were installed.
They got zero nuclear. Most countries in the world get zero nuclear. Most countries get a significant amount of electricity from renewables.
I note that the 50-80% renewable number came from a blog that tder2012 linked to support his arguments.
You are correct, I didn't include Lithuania because I made a spelling mistake, apologies "Lithunania has a population of under three million and their CO2 emission are still above 100, averaged on an annual basis, so they shouldn't be on your list". How about we keep it extremely simple. Focus on any grid that meets the Paris climate target of <100grams of CO2 emitted/kWh, averaged on an annual basis that does not include any nuclear, at least 50% of electricity is generated by wind, solar, batteries on an annual basis and high emitting, high polluting, stinky biomass (IPCC says its lifecycle emissions range from 230 to 740 grams of CO2 emitted/kWh) and population is at least 2 million. I notice you don't discuss at all CO2 or GHG emissions, why?
Tder2012 @32 and prior :- You paint with too broad a brush.
Please put Lithuania aside, because a population of less than 3 million has no significance in any scenario whatsoever. Also, the Lithuanians speak a language so strange that even their neighboring countries can understand none of it.
Instead, we should keep it extremely simple, and consider only those national grids which generate >90 but <100 grams of CO2 emitted/kWh averaged on an annual or biennial basis. The grids should not include any nuclear or biomass-burning, nor hydro or geothermal or even tidal sources. Preferably also be 50-80% renewable.
If that does not advance the discussion in the right direction ~ then we should move the goalposts once again, into narrower territory.
Eclectic, put your sarcasm aside and tell us what you would really like to see. How about any grid <100grams of CO2 emitted/kWh, averaged on an annual basis and say what the top sources of electricity generation are. Michael Sweet and Philippe mentioned Luthuania, I responded. I say averaged on an annual basis because some like to point out when a grid hit a high % of a generation type for a few hours or days and don't mention other times when they don't. So keep it simple and include every hour of a 12 month period. So Eclectic, what would you like to see? Which do you prefer %RE or GHG emissions? I have made it clear I focus on GHG emissions as I have pointed out the Paris target of an electricity grid needing to be <100grams emitted of CO2/kWh, averaged on an annual basis. This site is excellent for grams CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour. (Although it is unavailble at this specific time I'm writing this) https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
Personally, I don't think that excluding hydro from the renewables makes sense. In fact, I think that stored hydro deserves to be further explored. I also don't think that skimping on safety for a nuclear power plant makes sense either. Nuclear is very expensive and takes a long time to deploy.
Tder2012 @34 and prior :-
Le sarcasme, moi?
Though maybe you mean a friendly chaff (without wheat).
# But perhaps looking at the Big Picture instead, you could abandon hope of the "nuclear solution" ~ 'cos it just ain't gonna happen in the foreseeable future of the coming decades. Sad, but there it is. Fission power for electricity has been hit with the Triple Whammy of hyper-costs, hyper-delays, and NIMBY-ism as well.
Solar has a better-than-sporting chance, with minor technological improvements in panels and sodium storage batteries. Together = reliability = the subject of this thread.
I agree nuclear is expensive and takes too long to deploy. Irrational fear of radiation and ornerous regulation are two of several reasons. Despite spending $trillions on wind, solar, BESS in the last quarter century, fossil fuel burning and GHG emissions continue to grow year over year unabated. So, unfortunately, low emissions sources of energy are doing a poor job at permanently displacing fossil fuel production, they are only energy additions. The book "More and More and More An All-Consuming History of Energy" clearly shows this, as does Our World in Data. We are in a climate and energy crisis and emergency, so all options should be on the table, this book is helpful "How We Can Make Nuclear Cheap Again"
At least nuclear has proven it can be a major contributor to meeting the Paris target of <100 grams of CO2 emitted / kWh on an annual basis. See France, Ontario, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden check here . Wind, solar and BESS (at least 30%) have never shown this. I don't include hydro because the planet is pretty much tapped out on convention hydro, besides it floods too much land and then think about all the concrete, steel, aluminium, etc and the forests that need to be hacked down for HVDC transmission lines. As for pumped hydro, it is at 142 GW of capacity globally and provides over 95% of global electricity generation from storage, but it is obviously geography dependent and when compared to global electricity production overall, pumped hydro is such a tiny contributor, it is hardly a blip. I could only find it in "global installed renewable energy capacity by technology" at Our World in Data.
A number of nuclear posts have been made on this thread. That is off topic and in the future it will be impossible to link your posts like the problem I have crrently in the nuclear thread. Please post nucear arguments in the nuclear thread so we can all follow.