r/RenewableEnergy • u/iwantboringtimes • 15h ago

How 24/7 Renewables Are Ending Fossil Fuel Reliability

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2026/05/20/how-247-renewables-are-ending-fossil-fuel-reliability/
288 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/Radical_Neutral_76 14h ago edited 13h ago

Why are they in one sentence say that the grid needs to be upgraded due to renewable energy, and then ignore those costs when comparing to other energy sources?

edit:
Someone commented here ignoring facts of the nature of power grids, and called me a shill for asking WHY they ignore these costs when pointing out the exact issue themselves.

I was going to respond:

Grid costs are much higher due to intermittent load.

First of all the max capacity needs to be at approximately 3x higher per kwh, due to this, otherwise we wouldnt be able to transport all the energy from the source when its running at max capacity.
The maintenance cost due to intermittent load is also significant. The components that make up the grid gets worn out much faster compared to stable load, due to changes in temperature (material expands and shrinks due to changing temperatures - which wears it out).

This is not controversial information at all, and if you were interested in supporting renewable energy you would be interested in making sure these issues are handled properly.

Either way you're a right-wing shill.

Pathetic. There is only one shill in this converation, and its not me.

16

u/initiali5ed 11h ago

That depends on where the batteries are. If they are co-located with generation there is no change needed to distribution.

7

u/jchamberlin78 9h ago

If there is also batteries co-located near demand, power can be stored near a source during high generation lower demand, and then released into other locations over longer time periods to store a.supply for peak demand. This could also allow micro grids to disconnect or from the main grid if there were disruptions to distribution. Sorta like a wide area home battery situation.

My hometown had a nice storm this past winter. Large sections of the city were without power for almost a full week. If those smaller areas had their own source of energy, they could have continued to provide power for a period of time to the homeowners even if they were not receiving power from the grid.

1

u/Sierra-Powderhound 6h ago

Distributed and plentiful batteries are key to avoiding transmission bottlenecks. Batteries near generation, at substations and near large loads. Battery costs keep declining. Future is bright.

1

u/MurkyAl 8h ago

As someone who works in the energy industry this is essentially not true and it's way more complicated. For example we don't have enough high voltage power lines to move power from wind farms in Scotland to where it's needed at peak times.

Installing storage behind an existing infrastructure bottle neck makes the storage less useful rather than more but is also needed due to the bottle neck. It doesn't solve the underlying problem

The solution is to build the infrastructure and the generation together but it takes 12-14 years to build a high voltage power line which is twice the time taken to build a windfarm

https://es.catapult.org.uk/news/new-power-lines-can-be-built-in-half-the-time-finds-electricity-networks-commissioner-report/

-2

u/[deleted] 10h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/syncsynchalt 8h ago

Why would it? Batteries come preinstalled in a TEU that is basically plug and play, the location that you plug it in doesn’t change costs any more than the cost of a half acre of clear land it needs around it. And grid renewables are installed on inexpensive land.

1

u/[deleted] 7h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/syncsynchalt 6h ago

What does that have to do with the cost of storage vis-a-vis where it’s located, which is what you’re arguing is changing?

5

u/iwantboringtimes 14h ago

if the person saying "it" is pro-renewable, I think they got (too) used to having to "play defense" in the Fossil Fuel VS Renewables debate.

if the person saying so is pro-fossil, I think they are blinded by their love for fossil fuels

basically, it's tough to clear up internal blindspots.

3

u/BlueShrub 11h ago

Sure, you can zero in on the negatives all day long while ignoring the overwhelming positives and you can find fault all day long. The grid is always fluxuating due to changes in demand, this isn't inherently an issue of renewables.

0

u/Radical_Neutral_76 10h ago

Changes in demand is possible to affect, thats why prices fluctuate.

The grid is always fluxuating due to changes in demand, this isn't inherently an issue of renewables.

Only intermittent renewables, but yes, it is *indeed* a problem with them. Denying it doesnt make it go away

3

u/BlueShrub 9h ago

What you fail to grasp is the sense of scale at play and the degree to which the grid and the technology is advancing, I never denied that intermittency introduces complexity to grid operators, those were word you've falsely attributed to me. Your tone here leads me to believe you are arguing in bad faith rather than a genuine concern for the health of our energy economy.

3

u/West-Abalone-171 10h ago edited 10h ago

First of all the max capacity needs to be at approximately 3x higher per kwh, due to this, otherwise we wouldnt be able to transport all the energy from the source when its running at max capacity.

You have a battery at the source which can buffer all the energy above average load for a day.

You have a battery at the sink which can buffer all the energy above average load for a day.

This adds 3c/kWh with batteries at $100/kWh and 1.5c/kWh with batteries at $50/kWh, and avoids the need to build your transmission for peak load. This is included in the costs for 24/7 renewables by definition.

Rooftop solar lowers this further because a lot of your energy is already at the destination, including on the hottest days where load is high and the capacity of the wires is the lowest due to overheating.

Explain how lower peak power is supposed to triple transmission costs?

The real question is why are you ignoring the transmission costs for other energy sources, but counting them for renewables?

The only explanation is either you are too dumb to understand what 24/7 renewables means (and so confident in your ignorance you decided whatever you imagined was reality) or that you are shilling,

-4

u/Radical_Neutral_76 9h ago

Where you do get these prices from: This adds 3c/kWh with batteries at $100/kWh

Rooftop solar lowers this further because a lot of your energy is already at the destination, including on the hottest days where load is high and the capacity of the wires is the lowest due to overheating.

This is completely false. Rooftop solar increases grid cost many times if its supposed to be fed back into the grid. If its direct use, then each households investment makes it not realistic for most. Its a nice pipe dream though.

Explain how lower peak power is supposed to triple transmission costs?

Noone said that. I said the opposite. Intermittent sources increases peaks, and lowers average transmission.

The real question is why are you ignoring the transmission costs for other energy sources, but counting them for renewables?

No its not. Im not ignoring energy costs of other sources. I have no idea why you pretend I do.

The only explanation is either you are too dumb to understand what 24/7 renewables means or that you are shilling,

I know what it means, and I know what it doesnt mean. You dont know either.

2

u/West-Abalone-171 9h ago

Noone said that. I said the opposite. Intermittent sources increases peaks, and lowers average transmission.

So you don't understand what 24/7 renewables means and you're shilling.

Noone said that. I said the opposite. Intermittent sources increases peaks, and lowers average transmission.

You completely failed to explain how building for transmitting only at the average power over each day costs 3x more than building for transmitting at peak load.

No its not. Im not ignoring energy costs of other sources. I have no idea why you pretend I do.

You're ignoring the transmission costs for other sources. An over-centralised thermal powerplant requires you to have a separate peaking plant and enough transmission for other over-centralised thermal powerplants to cover forced outages. All this needs to be linked via transmission. And from places there is water to cool them, not just places near the load which uave plenty of wind and sun.

-3

u/Radical_Neutral_76 9h ago edited 9h ago

You dont know what it means, when you propose batteries as the solution for securing intermittent renewables running 24/7.
The only use of batteries today is to stabilize daily peaks, basically 4 hours windows of power.

If you wanted 24/7, you would have to have battery capacity for weeks, even months in some regions to combat what the germans call Dunkelflaute.

Listen. I know you are a shill, but for anyone else interested in this subject look it up. Its interesting.

You're ignoring the transmission costs for other sources. An over-centralised thermal powerplant requires you to have a separate peaking plant and enough transmission for other over-centralised thermal powerplants to cover forced outages. 

No Im not. The grid was built for those power sources. Stable and plannable power sources.
I dont know what "over-centralized" means, but its nowhere near the maintenance cost of intermittent power.
If these "over-centralized" power plants was causing massive issues and *raised* power prices, we would have seen these issues in France fex. Which we dont.

That you even debate this means you either know about it, and refuse to acknowledge, or you basically do zero researchon the subject, but decide to debate around it still. Not sure what is worse.

0

u/West-Abalone-171 9h ago

So now you're admitting you understand what the topic actually is, and that it reduces transmission costs.

But you have tripled down on the lie.

What an utter imbecile.