Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DisasterousGiraffe OP t1_jamu86e wrote

This economic case for solar PV and wind turbines now makes the transition from fossil fuels inevitable, and as manufacturing capacity for solar pv and renewables is built the transition will become increasingly rapid.

"If you look at the total world economy, it’s just under $US100 trillion. So if this was spread out, say over 10 years, it would be 1 per cent of the global economy."


Scoobz1961 t1_jar4gy4 wrote

You left out the most important part of this plan, OP. Everybody knows that we have the capability to create huge amount of cheap energy. That hasnt been an issue for decades.

The problem is the grid stability and Elon's plan is for everybody to buy a tesla car and use that as a huge virtual battery to balance the grid. Now this is a logistic nightmare, economically unviable and maybe even plain impossible.

However if there is anything I want people to take away from this "plan". Its that Tesla is to profit big. As in BIG. As in becoming part of indispensable state infrastructure. The guy who owns Tesla came with a plan that will not only financially skyrocket Tesla, but make our civilization actually depend on it. That is the plan here.


Phssthp0kThePak t1_jas1abd wrote

Go further. Subsidizing putting batteries in cars, charged at night by natural gas, instead of on the grid to support solar, is completely stupid. If we are trying to avoid ecological catastrophe on a short timescale, how can such nonsensical, inefficient policies be not only tolerated, but even applauded?


ajmmsr t1_japf8d9 wrote

The USA uses about 100 Quad of energy per year, that’s 29PWh (peta Wh)

30TW 8760 hr/year = 26.2PWh per year at 100% capacity factor

What am I getting wrong here?


SandAndAlum t1_japly12 wrote

Order of magnitude error and a factor of 2-3 on topof that for work vs heat (if TW is net generation rather than peak). 30TW net is ten USAs of final energy, not one USA of primary energy.


ajmmsr t1_jaqr4hs wrote

TW is power so multiply by a time to get energy

Here’s my reference to USA energy

Don’t know what you mean by ‘net’


SandAndAlum t1_jaqrcr1 wrote

30 * 8.760 is 260 not 26.

Net implying average output over the year. Ie. A 3.3kW nameplate tilting solar system in California is 1kW net. Primary energy is input, final energy is what is achieved. A 25% efficient gas engine running on tar sand oil with an EROI of 3 needs about 6kW of primary energy for 1kW of output. The 500GW or so of primary energy powering US transport can be replaced by 100GW of electricity. Similarly 200GW of gas heating can be 50GW of electric heat pump.

If the 30TW is nameplate then the capacity factor cancels some of the waste heat, so it's merely 10x what the US uses not 30x.


ajmmsr t1_jaqs9iv wrote


Yeah 262PWh at 100% capacity factor

Since wind cf is about 30% That’s 78.8PWh of energy, so 2.7 times the USA energy.

No where in that article does it mention nameplate


SandAndAlum t1_jaqsy07 wrote

It's ambiguous then as to what cf they mean.

New western offshore wind is in the 40-50% cf range. EU solar is 13% so there's a big range there.

10TW net final energy to replace existing 18TW of world wide primary energy and cover some growth sounds pretty close to most ballparks so 30TW of 30% cf sounds reasonable.