And if you read the studies they require short term peak fossil fuel standbys.
"The real challenge is to supply peaks in demand on calm winter evenings following overcast days. That’s when the peak-load power stations, that is, hydro and gas turbines, make vital contributions by filling gaps in wind and solar generation."
In the UK that translates to gas/diesel standbys which in the case of the latter is horrendously polluting
Now, if you look at all of those studies, they make the assumption that there there is gas/hydro to act as backup. that is a base load.
The NRDC link ~25-50% of the power comes from Gas, which puts out CO2. Then there is biomass, which is also environmentally problematic in its current form. (https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_content...) Granted that does not take into account grid scale efficient storage.
But there is a base load, you can see it in the graphs. They almost exclusively use gas to plug that gap. If you want to reduce carbon output, that has to go.
Now, if I was to be in charge of a country, my route to energy security with minimal environmental impact would be thus:
1) insulation at a massive discount/loan.
2) diverse renewables, but not at any cost, and not on farm land. (UK based, so tidal, solar, wind)
3) small scale nuclear. Molten salt or similar with a negative feedback loop
4) Domestic & industrial power storage/generation incentives. If you can adjust the demands at source it greatly reduces the highs and lows.
Why in the UK is something like nuclear needed? Because if we are to reduce carbon output, we need to heat our homes with electricity instead of gas, that triples the power demand at a stroke. insulation standards of 0.6U or less would reduce this significantly. However its still more power than can be feasibly harvested with rooftop solar/wind/tidal alone.
"The real challenge is to supply peaks in demand on calm winter evenings following overcast days. That’s when the peak-load power stations, that is, hydro and gas turbines, make vital contributions by filling gaps in wind and solar generation."
In the UK that translates to gas/diesel standbys which in the case of the latter is horrendously polluting
Now, if you look at all of those studies, they make the assumption that there there is gas/hydro to act as backup. that is a base load.
The NRDC link ~25-50% of the power comes from Gas, which puts out CO2. Then there is biomass, which is also environmentally problematic in its current form. (https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_content...) Granted that does not take into account grid scale efficient storage.
But there is a base load, you can see it in the graphs. They almost exclusively use gas to plug that gap. If you want to reduce carbon output, that has to go.
Now, if I was to be in charge of a country, my route to energy security with minimal environmental impact would be thus:
1) insulation at a massive discount/loan.
2) diverse renewables, but not at any cost, and not on farm land. (UK based, so tidal, solar, wind)
3) small scale nuclear. Molten salt or similar with a negative feedback loop
4) Domestic & industrial power storage/generation incentives. If you can adjust the demands at source it greatly reduces the highs and lows.
Why in the UK is something like nuclear needed? Because if we are to reduce carbon output, we need to heat our homes with electricity instead of gas, that triples the power demand at a stroke. insulation standards of 0.6U or less would reduce this significantly. However its still more power than can be feasibly harvested with rooftop solar/wind/tidal alone.