ItsNotAboutTheMoney
Well-Known Member
The hourly demands is based on the _output_, so no.So I'm reading through this report and something dawned on me...maybe my thinking is not correct, but this is mostly based on 39 years of hourly energy demand from fossil fuel generation which produces a lot of wasted heat. So these past hourly demands are actually higher than they could be in the future (with more energy from renewables) and therefore these results could be better than suggested? ..........
But in terms of the effect on fossil _energy_ use, it should be outsized.
Fossil generation is lossy, so, if directly displaced, it would reduce energy input by renewable_generation/fossil_efficiency.
Also, because solar and wind EROIs are estimated to be well above 2, if their output can be fed back into energy input for renewables, you effectively have exponential displacement over multiple lifespans.
E.g.
You use 1 unit of fossil energy to feed a 10:1 renewable system.
With the 10 units of renewable energy
- use 1 unit of energy (assuming no improvement in efficiency) to replace the renewable system
- use half (5) units of energy for other uses
- use the other 4 units of energy to build 4 more renewable systems
You now have 5 renewable systems generating 50 units of energy, and displaced 5 other units of energy.
Repeat and each lifespan generates and displaces 5 times the amount of energy.
This is why achieving cost reductions that lead to renewable electricity being the energy of choice for more sectors are so important. Every sector that it's used in can help accelerate the process.