If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going, I suggest we tune down the ad hominem and change to a more productive tone. I’m tired of internet discussions working the way they do, but only the participants can change that.
I’d suggest lets focus on the topic of capacity factors first, since I’m under the impression, that that’s the biggest source of confusion/misunderstanding here and one that needs to be cleared for the whole topic to make any sense.
While I couldn’t track down a primary ressource for the graph you provided, I’m assuming it’s based on data from the United States, that is also presented here (admittedly in a much more cumbersome way):
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
While that might not be the exact source for the diagram you provided, the numbers come close enough, that I’d say it suffices as a base for discussion.
Now I haven’t had time to look into the data more, but my main criticism about using that data is, that all it does (and checking the source and methodology here just confimed my view here) is tell you about how things work in the status quo. Not necessarily a good indicator of the potentials of a grid with a different structure. Can we agree on that?
I’d like to leave it here for the time being.
I felt like I have to adress the bit about needing energy sources with a lower capacity factor, to go along with renewables, that was very poor wording on my part. But I feel like I’d derail the discussion, so I’ll explain myself later on.
If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going, I suggest we tune down the ad hominem and change to a more productive tone. I’m tired of internet discussions working the way they do, but only the participants can change that.
Funny how it’s always completely fine when people themselves go for the ad hominem, but when someone repays them in kind, we really need to tone it down.
You implicated that I was ignorant twice in your comment. Once where I supposedly didn’t understand the graph I provided and the other when you assumed I didn’t know the most basic high school chemistry and tried to mansplain that.
If you keep getting into discussions that go sour, maybe you can try to find the common denominator.
If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going
So no, it’s not about whether I intend to keep this discussion going, or factual for that matter. Stick to the facts and don’t assume the other person is a total moron and see where that gets you.
capacity factors first, since I’m under the impression, that that’s the biggest source of confusion/misunderstanding here
The confusion is entirely on your side. You don’t seem to understand what these numbers mean, even after my clarification. I don’t know why your wrote a paragraph to point out how the numbers are calculated. I knew this already. It’s really basic stuff.
how things work in the status quo. Not necessarily a good indicator of the potentials of a grid with a different structure. Can we agree on that?
Unless we have a major breakthrough, solar panels and wind turbines are not going to be much more reliable in the future. So no, let’s absolutely rely on the data we have and build on that instead of tossing what we know aside and making a prediction based on wishful thinking.
But if you stop assuming you’re talking to a moron I’m willing to do my part keep the discussion more factual. So let me start by repeating this question:
Have you thought about how you would provide power on those windless winter nights after an overcast day?
If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going, I suggest we tune down the ad hominem and change to a more productive tone. I’m tired of internet discussions working the way they do, but only the participants can change that.
I’d suggest lets focus on the topic of capacity factors first, since I’m under the impression, that that’s the biggest source of confusion/misunderstanding here and one that needs to be cleared for the whole topic to make any sense.
While I couldn’t track down a primary ressource for the graph you provided, I’m assuming it’s based on data from the United States, that is also presented here (admittedly in a much more cumbersome way): https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
You can find capacity factors here: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_07_b (And in the similar table focussing on fossil power)
While that might not be the exact source for the diagram you provided, the numbers come close enough, that I’d say it suffices as a base for discussion.
The PDF containing technical notes explains, how capacity factor is being calculated. See p. 21 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/AppendixC.pdf
Now I haven’t had time to look into the data more, but my main criticism about using that data is, that all it does (and checking the source and methodology here just confimed my view here) is tell you about how things work in the status quo. Not necessarily a good indicator of the potentials of a grid with a different structure. Can we agree on that?
I’d like to leave it here for the time being. I felt like I have to adress the bit about needing energy sources with a lower capacity factor, to go along with renewables, that was very poor wording on my part. But I feel like I’d derail the discussion, so I’ll explain myself later on.
Funny how it’s always completely fine when people themselves go for the ad hominem, but when someone repays them in kind, we really need to tone it down.
You implicated that I was ignorant twice in your comment. Once where I supposedly didn’t understand the graph I provided and the other when you assumed I didn’t know the most basic high school chemistry and tried to mansplain that.
If you keep getting into discussions that go sour, maybe you can try to find the common denominator.
So no, it’s not about whether I intend to keep this discussion going, or factual for that matter. Stick to the facts and don’t assume the other person is a total moron and see where that gets you.
The confusion is entirely on your side. You don’t seem to understand what these numbers mean, even after my clarification. I don’t know why your wrote a paragraph to point out how the numbers are calculated. I knew this already. It’s really basic stuff.
Unless we have a major breakthrough, solar panels and wind turbines are not going to be much more reliable in the future. So no, let’s absolutely rely on the data we have and build on that instead of tossing what we know aside and making a prediction based on wishful thinking.
But if you stop assuming you’re talking to a moron I’m willing to do my part keep the discussion more factual. So let me start by repeating this question: