Technology

59772 readers

3162 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

270

South Dakota produced 110% of its electricity demand with just renewables for a year (bsky.app)

submitted 6 days ago by ArtikBanana@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Fascinating new EIA data

South Dakota produced 110% of its electricity demand with just Wind-Water-Solar for the full year Oct 1 '23-Sep 30 '24

77.5% Wind 30.1% Water 2.2% Solar

Also produced 16.8% gas, 11.7% coal

So SD produced 138% of demand, exporting 38%

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/Countries100Pct.pdf

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] tb_@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

But were those renewables able to meet demand 100% of the time with sufficient battery backups?

[–] IcyToes@sh.itjust.works 32 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Well it doesn't matter if it exports the surplus to other states and cuts their fossil fuel usage. It means that 100% of that renewable energy was cut from fossil fuels.

There is always a need to smooth out troughs. That can be through, selling, shifting demand (cheaper tarrifs during surplus), storage or as a last resort bridging gaps with other fuels.

Let's not let perfect get in the way of good. Every tonne of CO2 out the air gives us more time and a little more chance for at risk countries to stay above water.

[–] tb_@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It's certainly good, but I think it'd be better if we had some additional clean way of covering our base load. Like nuclear.

[–] ArtikBanana@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Renewables + storage (batteries, etc.) can be more than enough. And you can get that in a much lower cost, at a much faster time than nuclear.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf

The same person has also published studies and plans for 100% renewables in the USA and in the world.
USA
Grid reliability in the USA with 100% renewables
World

All of which he updates every couple of years.

[–] eleitl@lemm.ee -3 points 6 days ago

It does matter because you have to cover a lacune of 6-8 weeks from fossil sources. Typically these are gas turbine peaker plants at low duty cycle which need to be subsidized.