Also, the hit piece against Simon Micheaux is entirely too emotionally targeted to have any impact on me.
Hi Chris,
That line has haunted me for weeks. You were correct. I have edited it.
But rather than re-read all that there are just 3 main questions I have about Simon Michaux’s work:
But what about the evidence?
-
75% of us live where there is no German winter to need 4 weeks NMC batteries.
25% of us live where HVDC lines could easily pipe in solar from the equator.
Almost anywhere on earth with the budget for it can trade power across vast distances - trading northern wind with southern solar.
Germany is in such a supergrid - the ENTSO-E. Where does Simon Michaux mention that? Ever heard of Geographic Smoothing by the law of large numbers? The bigger the grid - the smaller the storage. Why did Michaux choose a study into a hypothetically isolated German grid when the whole EU is in the much larger Entsi-E? -
What does Michauxs own paper show if we swap his choice of NMC batteries for sodium and OFF river pumped hydro?
-
Where does his paper acknowledge that there are brands of EVERY bulk tech in the Energy Transition that AVOID critical minerals? Wind, solar, EVs, batteries, electric motors, even copper can ALL be substituted. Sure - electronics need Critical Minerals and rare earths. But batteries and EVs do not HAVE to. There are high performance brands that WANT them - but the tech will still work without them.
Michaux avoided the ENTSO supergrid, sodium and off river pumped hydro, and plainer brands. Any evidence as to why?
The reason I care? I’m a climate activist - and young people need hope - not energy sceptics. My peak oil group from 2005 had a suicide. I hold doomerism responsible. Hence the emotion on my blog
I’ve been honest with you. Can you be honest with me about why you think Michaux has an argument?