That is the expected variability? On-shore wind has capacity factors between 25-40% depending on location and size of wind turbine. That it reduces to 11% is expected.
Given that this happened once it is also quickly pushed higher by storage.
How would add nuclear power to this grid mix? Yes, that is over 100% of demand being generated by rooftop solar.
"Expected variability" is nonsense, you can't just say "yeah it doesn't work, that's normal"
> How would add nuclear power to this grid mix? Yes, that is over 100% of demand being generated by rooftop solar.
Absolute nonsense again, Australia has one of the dirtiest electricity generation of the developed world with 65% fossil. Nowhere near the totality of the demand is covered by solar, even if again they have almost no real winter.
> "Expected variability" is nonsense, you can't just say "yeah it doesn't work, that's normal"
Are you saying that hydro electric dams are nonsense because they store an intermittent energy source for later usage?
With renewables lowering the price floor it means that if you can utilize them you have a competetive advantage.
> Absolute nonsense again, Australia has one of the dirtiest electricity generation of the developed world with 65% fossil. Nowhere near the totality of the demand is covered by solar, even if again they have almost no real winter.
This is an australian state. Which often has 100% of its demand either covered by rooftop solar or wind power.
Without trying to brush the example aside, how would you add an inflexible new built nuclear power plant to the mix? How will you force everyone to buy expensive electricity coming from it?
Given that this happened once it is also quickly pushed higher by storage.
How would add nuclear power to this grid mix? Yes, that is over 100% of demand being generated by rooftop solar.
https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=7d&...