I think the report I quoted probably understates hydropotential outside of Turkey. Certainly in Switzerland the future potential had been talked down when in reality there is still considerable room. Climate change is bringing, in general, increased rainfall due to increased evaporation even though some areas are experiencing increased drought.
Some technologies are success stories; e.g. solar panels, deep sea oil, offshore wind, and have proven the sceptics wrong. Other technologies have been much harder to realise due to technological and/or economic limitations ; e.g. nuclear fusion, carbon capture
This is where the bad politics comes in. Hyping up solutions that are not achievable helps no-one.
Seeing how you argue free of facts and purely based on opinion is really scary. You are the perfect example of how deranged the energy transition discussion has become. You have entrapped yourself in the argument that 100% renewable is possible, but cannot deny that is only the case when hydro power is abundant - when it is not in most places in Europe.
On what basis do you think that? You chose to quote this in the first place. This was a study by the hydro power industry. So they underestimate their own potential?
I know that carbon capture is not trivial and expensive. But if the conclusion is that we will need gas-fired, then at some point you need to strip away the carbon. You know, “system cost” - the sum of all necessary expenditures to achieve a functioning clean energy system.
Tedious? Indeed, please do not put words in my mouth.
Not only do you need to understand arguments, you also need to be open to ideas that do not conform to your bias.
Do you actually read the sources you quote?
This is too serious a topic for that to be funny. If Norway can reach over 95%, Denmark around 85% (AFAIK the figures are reliable) today, then I would say achievable is already proven. Not achievable (in the near future for sure, but maybe by the time Elon gets to Mars…) is fusion or economically viable carbon capture.
Even Hydro power is coming under the scrutiny of the greenies because a new study has found:
Wir sehen, dass insgesamt ein sehr starker Rückgang der Biodiversität in den Gewässern passiert, der ist sogar deutlich stärker als der Rückgang der Biodiversität an Land." Prof. Jürgen Geist, Aquatische Systembiologie, TU-München
The bolder the claim the more evidence is required, you provide none at all. Simply because, outside of a few special cases, pretty much all of what’s available gets used already.
Axpo for instance sees a whopping 3% potential available by 2050. With a big caveat that financing is far from a given, building is a challenge, and there will be big environmental consequences. It’s already clear that the same Greens who push for renewables will be the raising hell to object the projects. The situation in the neighboring countries won’t be significantly different.
If you really think this is too serious to be funny, maybe you should stop joking.
Other voices claim that due to climate change hydro could take a whopping reduction of output into the grid.
The rivers dry up and your best hydropowerstation runs dry…
So you would say it is already proven that 85 = 100. Great. So we don’t have to be concerned about where the 15 come from because you rounded it away.
Also, the 85 will have not been available continuously, there will be periods where Denmark exports excess power and other periods where it imports from other markets. System costs …
I have presented evidence. You can choose to accept it or not.
This was not my source, but it actually backs up my arguments: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004221009676#:~:text=The%20consequence%20of%20climate%20change,resource%20available%20for%20hydropower%20production.
It highlights the uncertainty about climate predictions and also the different effects of climate change on countries. The article predicts southern europe getting better for solar and northern Europe getting better for hydro.
Of course there is uncertainty. However supply chains for fossil fuels are probably a greater risk (Germany has a little experience here) than renewables especially as the european grid has inputs from many different renewable sources.
On a personal level, I had contact with Axpo some years ago with regard to Biogas production and I could not work out whose side they are really on - probably their own.
And no, the article does not back up your arguments. It debunked you nonsense claim that hydro has lots of unrealized potential in Switzerland. Which is why I posted it.
Oh no. That problem about actually reading the sources you quote. What you may think it says and what it actually says seem to be two different things. Please can you specify where the “debunking” is.
What you did provide in your first link is one entity’s opinion. The opinion of a journal’s redactors, no less, that’s who authors the atlas your first reference takes the charts from. I mentioned Axpo because their assessment clearly contradicts that of this chart, when in doubt I trust the local one.
Your 2nd link concludes with:
In this work, we have investigated the impacts of climate change and high penetration of wind and solar power in the operation of reservoir hydropower plants in Europe.
Looks like Sweden is being rather angry with Germany due to the fact that they have to deliver so much electricity to Germany that Sweden is being enriched by a Dunkelflaute.
Seems that almost all of Europe is annoyed with Germany at the moment as they are having to supply us with more energy than they can produce themselves and the price for electricity has skyrocketed.
And some on this forum are still astonished that I am pessimistic.
