8.5 was the scenario for what happens if humans keep accelerating their rate of petroleum extraction consistent with what we've done over the past century.
The IPCC is now saying it's "implausible" because that would create a situation where petroleum was significantly more expensive than renewables, and who would want to extract petroleum to create a power plant that was more expensive than a solar plant?
Grad-scale batteries (Li-ion, LFP, etc.) has changed that. Check out the Edwards & Sanborn solar/battery installation that's partially on Edwards Airforce base land.
Australia is another example where grid-scale storage plus renewables plus traditional energy sources have all been built out together to provide greater grid stability and cheaper costs.
It's not a green issue (solar panels, the batteries, rare earths, etc., are not exactly green!), but a cost and efficiency issue.
I installed solar panels on my house a bit shy of 10 years ago. I've seen roughly 80-90% of my electrical usage covered purely by my solar, and I've replaced several appliances with pure electric. I broke even around year 6-7. At some point I am planning to get a large Li-ion battery installed so I can flip a switch and go off grid if needed.
Parts of Australia have embraced renewables, specifically Wind & Solar. You can tell what % is W&S by how high their electric bills are. More W&S = higher bills. Why? Because when those don't work properly, which is often, they have to import electricity from neighboring districts. At the highest possible premiums since their W&S isn't working either!
They "plan to have" various "grid storage" eventually, but every time they field test these they are abject failures.
An example was a "pumped water" test site. They'd use excess W&S power to pump water from down low to up high, then send that higher water down to generate power when needed. Sounds great!
It cost (these numbers are iirc, of course, but not off by much) 3x as much as "estimated" to construct the test equipment. All their "estimates" turned out to have been made by policy makers, not engineers. The water turned out to be 2x as energy demanding to pump us as estimated, and produced 1/4 as much power when sent down.
Had the large-scale plan been carried out? Each gW/h would easily cost 20X the estimate and provide a few hours of back-up, not days! And this was one of the best sites available.
Seems like you might be talking about home rooftop panels. Large-scale power plants solve that problem by using thermal energy storage - usually molten salt.
If you're using molten salt anyways, have I got an idea for you: Thorium salt fission reactors! Nuclear is king: No emissions, high energy, high safety, low public health costs, reliable, 24/7 energy, all-seasonal, and long-lasting!
There are four scenarios: 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5.
8.5 was the scenario for what happens if humans keep accelerating their rate of petroleum extraction consistent with what we've done over the past century.
The IPCC is now saying it's "implausible" because that would create a situation where petroleum was significantly more expensive than renewables, and who would want to extract petroleum to create a power plant that was more expensive than a solar plant?
Someone who needed electricity during Winter or at night?
Grad-scale batteries (Li-ion, LFP, etc.) has changed that. Check out the Edwards & Sanborn solar/battery installation that's partially on Edwards Airforce base land.
Australia is another example where grid-scale storage plus renewables plus traditional energy sources have all been built out together to provide greater grid stability and cheaper costs.
It's not a green issue (solar panels, the batteries, rare earths, etc., are not exactly green!), but a cost and efficiency issue.
I installed solar panels on my house a bit shy of 10 years ago. I've seen roughly 80-90% of my electrical usage covered purely by my solar, and I've replaced several appliances with pure electric. I broke even around year 6-7. At some point I am planning to get a large Li-ion battery installed so I can flip a switch and go off grid if needed.
I agree Solarpanels make amazing sense for Australia (most electricity is used for AC)
But If you moved all the batteries from Australia to a Northern Hemisphere country like Ireland- it would power their grid for only a few hours.
Ireland can go many weeks without sunlight during winter…
I've spoken to several neighbours (Canada) and the break even point here is about 20 years.
And that's only because the government pays a massively inflated price for the power fed back to the grid.
Absolutely. I would not argue for largescale solar in Ireland! Wind, perhaps, but I find the turbines really obnoxious.
Parts of Australia have embraced renewables, specifically Wind & Solar. You can tell what % is W&S by how high their electric bills are. More W&S = higher bills. Why? Because when those don't work properly, which is often, they have to import electricity from neighboring districts. At the highest possible premiums since their W&S isn't working either!
They "plan to have" various "grid storage" eventually, but every time they field test these they are abject failures.
An example was a "pumped water" test site. They'd use excess W&S power to pump water from down low to up high, then send that higher water down to generate power when needed. Sounds great!
It cost (these numbers are iirc, of course, but not off by much) 3x as much as "estimated" to construct the test equipment. All their "estimates" turned out to have been made by policy makers, not engineers. The water turned out to be 2x as energy demanding to pump us as estimated, and produced 1/4 as much power when sent down.
Had the large-scale plan been carried out? Each gW/h would easily cost 20X the estimate and provide a few hours of back-up, not days! And this was one of the best sites available.
Seems like you might be talking about home rooftop panels. Large-scale power plants solve that problem by using thermal energy storage - usually molten salt.
If you're using molten salt anyways, have I got an idea for you: Thorium salt fission reactors! Nuclear is king: No emissions, high energy, high safety, low public health costs, reliable, 24/7 energy, all-seasonal, and long-lasting!
Sure, Thorium seems to have a lot of promise, although I've read that certain groups are really overhyping it past what it can actually accomplish.
Most experts think that our ultimate energy solution is going to have to be balanced and multi-sourced.
Cool, which cities are powered exclusively by solar/renewables?
Burlington, VT, Georgetown, TX, and Basel, Switzerland are powered entirely by renewables with an emphasis on solar.
The biggest renewable-exclusive cities are Oslo and Reykjavík, though in their cases it's mostly geothermal.