Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
* Jared Harris in Chernobyl voice * We're using sub-optimal technology right now.
Obviously that's true, but that's not the counterfactual - we're imagining a energy mix of mostly solar + storage against some other future energy mix and trying to figure out if it's the best option.

Pretty much any form of renewable requires storage capacity since they're all intermittent to one degree or another. Oh, except hydro but we all know the problems that can cause.

The advantage solar has is that it is intermittent on a predictable schedule which can be planned around, whereas the current leading source of renewable energy in the UK - wind - is kinda random
I think that the schedule is nice - ish, after all you do have to take weather into account - but you need a lot more storage for an equivalent solar capacity vs. wind capacity because in a given geographical region, the lows of solar generation (zero) are far lower than your lowest regional wind generation.

Also, per your comment later, storage is not currently envisioned to be useful on a seasonal basis, but more on an hour-to-hour and possibly day-to-day basis. The amount of storage you'd need for seasonal storage is staggering, and would only be possible with something like a massive hydro setup.

I mean, if we're looking at secondary or tertiary costs like materials for construction or foot print we need to do that for all potential sources of power, not just solar. The thing about the costs for solar and other renewable sources is the cost is upfront, not on going (except for occasional replacement and maintenance, also true for fossil fuel and nuclear sources), so once it's paid, it's paid.
Agreed, the full life cycle costs of all options are important here - that's why fossil fuel plants, while often the 'cheapest' option on the surface, are often the worst option when looked at in a holistic manner. I think you underestimate the recurring costs of renewables, though - sure, there's no fuel cost, but there's plenty of maintenance required, and the generation and storage infrastructure will need regular replacement. It's not a panacea.

I suspect that solar and wind (and a few other options) will probably take up the bulk of our 'variable' power demands, along with storage. But baseload power is much better addressed by geothermal, hydro, or fission/fusion. And emergency power is going to be hard to beat good ol' fossil fuels.


(BTW I am well aware that I'm very busily destroying a straw man - your tongue-in-cheek 'solution' was obviously not intended as a energy generation plan, and you have emphasized the need for other sources as well. I'm just trying to discuss the broader complexities of the issues and the fact that there is likely not a one size fits all solution to energy production.)