In which renewable energy saves the world (without that much storage)

If this latest idea is right, it suggests that renewables are more capable of saving the world than I had realised.  

An article at The Conversation argues that their modelling indicates that, rather than worry about building a lot of storage for renewables, just build with a big enough over-capacity instead, and don't use the excess when it's produced.   Sounds questionable, but then again, who knew that adding a metre to an equator-covering rope would raise it 13 cm around the whole world? Not me, so I'm not relying on intuition ever again, or at least, until it suits me.

I would have thought the overcapacity would have to be spread out a fair bit, but they don't even seem to be arguing that.  For example:

A legitimate question to ask is what would be the area required for a full deployment of oversized solar PV. For Minnesota, in the most extreme 100% PV generation scenario assuming oversizing by a factor of two – or doubling the solar needed to meet current demand – this area would amount to 435 square miles, assuming solar panels with state-of-the-art efficiency of 20%. This area represents less than 1% of the state’s cultivated crops and half of the high- and medium-density urbanized space.

Again - sounds a touch too good to be true, but, you know, that rope thing is starting to make me believe anything.

Anyway, let's go back to some of my earlier ideas about how to get along with more solar.  Because if you are going to build to overcapacity, you are going to be wanting to install a lot of extra solar compared to what we have now, and in some places, do you really want to cover up good land with panels?   So:

*  Remember my previous posts about floating solar on water?   Specifically, there seems to be no good reason not to cover large parts of water storage dams (such as Brisbane's Wivenhoe and Somerset dams) with solar panels on plastic floats.   I doubt that they represent any real pollution risk to drinking water, and plastic floats are surely pretty cheap.   Less evaporation from the dams too.

Why is no one in Australia listening to what is a patently good idea??

Remember - I also argued for Snowy 2 to use floating solar panels to pump storage water.  (Although maybe wind there is a better bet?)

* I also have posted before about compulsory State government building codes requiring a minimum amount of solar power and storage - why wouldn't that be a good idea in most of Australia?

In fact, I see that the Greens have adopted such a policy.

And it has now been adopted in California.

This could only help with the "build to overcapacity" idea too, surely?

* If you have to build large solar farms in the country side, I've also posted before (in 2015) about raising them above the ground and spreading them out enough to still be able to use the land underneath for farming or grazing.

* Not sure that I have ever posted about it before, but if you are going to spread out large solar power farms (say, in the middle of Australia where the land is not productive), then you need a good electricity network that is going to reduce losses over transmission distance.  High Voltage Direct Current cables have long been mooted as good for that, but their advance seems to be happening pretty slowly.

Gosh, look at the photo at that link for some real oversized gear.   I'll throw it in here because it reminds me of the ridiculous oversized equipment on Forbidden Planet:

And in conclusion:

With this latest idea, combined with what I've been suggesting over the last few years, it seems I've pretty much solved the world's renewable energy problems, if only people would listen to me!


Thank you.

PS:  I see that a Bill Gates clip from last year of him making a cranky sounding statement that people were kidding themselves if renewables and storage could power the world is doing the rounds.   I suspect he just has settled on nuclear as being essential and won't be budged.   And didn't he mention steel making?

Well, why doesn't he look harder into proposals to make steel either with no coal at all (see Sweden), or even the CSIRO's proposal to make it with biochar as a way to cut down the CO2 by a large amount.

I can envisage some places where renewables are difficult to use on large enough scale (that Russian city in the Arctic circle during winter, for one!).  But just because Bill Gates has what sounds like a sensible hunch, it doesn't always pan out.   Has his "condom of the future" competition had any dramatic effects, for example?  Not that I know of...