A lack of density definitely matters in some places. I’ve been to a bunch of countries now, some have plenty of space, some really don’t

Back to energy storage: if you’ve got some brilliant solution - get to it. We’re waiting.

No to storing joules in environmentally questionable batteries. Use the energy immediately to produce useful, necessary stuff like fresh water and hydrogen.

I’m going to preface this response with: I will be consolidating / paraphrasing your responses I quote - I do not intend to misrepresent anything you said - it will simply be to manage post length. I have read your post in its entirety and am responding as such.

Yes, that is one of the ludicrous arguments that I acknowledged OP is making.

Consider that OPs statement used a LOT of the same language and recommendations but was horribly off base. I was re-asserting the fault in his views to remind you that he was - without question - completely wrong. This doesn’t mean that you are. It does mean that you shouldn’t give him a pass because he expressed interest in a solution you support. If anything this is a teaching moment where you confirm that he, is in fact wrong, but this is how x works.

With regard to storage…

I’m glad we see eye to eye on its presence in a working solution. Please understand that this has largely been the contentious point throughout the thread so this is where I focused when you asserted that OP wasn’t wrong in (even a particular) capacity. It needs to be clear so information isn’t misrepresented.

With regard to Demand shaping …

This is my view coupled with some basic knowledge of how things work - with a healthy dose of extrapolation: that is to say this response is opinion and not an area of expertise for me… but is where things logically ended up with this particular subject.

I understand the focus you are taking with demand shaping - but from my perspective I do not think the net result will be as great as you believe it to be… but for tangentially related reasons. Before I get into the meat of that - yes, I wholeheartedly agree that optimizations in any form are a good thing. Many gains in the field of energy generation and storage are measured in small steps so ~2-5% still matters.

With that said:

Generally speaking price/kWh is determined by usage overall at that time… Now factor in that these industrial factories you are moving are contributing to the current price (at their current time slot) - which is lower than where you want to move them.

A couple things to consider:

• Assuming their usage is significant enough to move the needle: (at scale) most factories would then have their workers on a standard workday as well. Remember that 2nd/3rd shift workers are probably sleeping through at least 1 of the “peak usage” periods which in its own way is also offsetting demand. This in all probability would be a dampening effect on the shift that would be expected from the primary “move.”

• Assuming no major effect from the workers changing schedule (which based on my understanding would not be the case) - and indeed a sizable move from the factories proper… you’d still need the factories to be willing to take on the increased energy costs associated with moving into the more expensive energy window. While this is the “ideal” you are looking for: This feels… unlikely. (see utopia comment)

With regard to peaks and troughs:

I believe we both agree that storage is a necessary component of most solar / wind installations. Presently (to my knowledge) most battery systems are used primarily as a “smoothing” buffer for incoming energy as neither sun nor wind are constant resulting in variable returns. Secondarily, they function as a substitute during extended periods on non-generation (nighttime.) Now these battery systems are going to exist regardless what usage is occurring when - they exist to make the solar/wind systems reliable and efficient.

Lets factor in our constants:

• Energy generation: The sunlight isn’t changing nor is the solar installation’s size. Daytime generation + nighttime generation should not change functionally at all here as (to my knowledge.)

• Daily energy: this should not change - the factories continue to use “roughly” the same energy as before.

Functionally this solution isn’t changing how much energy is in the system, nor is it changing energy consumed. It may be changing how much the batteries are cycling… which, sure, would be an environmental impact… but not production. To resurrect my rain example: we haven’t changed the barrel size, the rain amount, or the plants that require said water. We’re just changing when we water them.

Dude. We are already doing exactly that.

(This is loosely referenced knowledge - but it passes the sniff test:)

Making the change you and OP are referring to works in a bubble but not in the way you are envisioning it. Presently at least. A grid, as you observed, is a series of power stations working together to provide the sum of energy required. The grid, as I asserted earlier, is very exacting in its requirements to function (pressure system example.) It stands to reason that the intermittent producer be locked to a rate they can “safely” achieve based on averages and their storage capacities. They will not be the first pick nor the lions share of “reactive energy” provided. We can’t produce more “sunlight” without robbing Peter to pay Paul - a battery dump during the day to assist with reactive energy results in less energy to provide at night. This system is optimized and sized for a set “average” generation during the day with an expected offload at night. (rain example again)

So who picks up the slack for the move to prime hours? You provided that answer:

But ultimately, the solar, nuclear/coal, storage, and steel plants are all on the same grid.

So yes, the shaping could move demand into the peak hours - and then would re-apply stress to the exact producers that the mills were moved originally to relieve. This feels like a non-starter to me: Task failed successfully …at least in our current conditions - which leads us to:

Again: Storage is important, yes. But, demand shifting is far more important.

Absolutely using solar to offset steel mill energy consumption is an outstanding concept - but it requires build outs, regulation changes, and a lot of different parties to agree to make that change. I may have been hyperbolic in my utopia / teleporter examples but the point is: those changes are neither quick nor easy and may as well be the stuff of science fiction for now. I agree its important to phase out legacy producers like coal / oil - I firmly believe nuclear is here to stay until it is replaced by the next “big” producer. Will renewables eventually be our primary source of power? We see examples of it working - so sure. Its possible. But renewables will continue to be a package deal with storage. The technology may change but the storage requirement will remain constant. (This part is, again, aimed at op- not you.)

Final thoughts: I spent far longer on this than I anticipated - but I think your post warranted it. You provided facts to the best of your knowledge and clearly were compelled to state the case for something you believe in. Ultimately - I wouldn’t say we disagree: I think we are both looking at different time horizons. Currently, in the here and now, your solution isn’t readily available nor easily achieved. That said- it is clear that at least some people are seeking what you presented as an eventuality. ~10 years from now it may well be reality. I still believe that you shouldn’t have defended OP’s position as you did. A partial affirmation likely will be received as “Oh, see! I was right- mostly…” and they will carry on; learning nothing.

I do not understand how climate change is analogous to a leaky faucet with respect to anything.