Production always exceeds consumption due to transmission losses.
So, simplified you can produce 120% export 15% and import 5%. That’s net export, and covering 100% of demand. That’s also how they can have a “200 per cent renewable target by 2040.”
If I open Wikipedia what I see is "100% renewable energy refers to an energy system where all energy use is sourced from renewable energy sources." which is completely what I would expect from the definition of "100% renewable energy." What you are talking about seems like meaningless political wordplay.
Batteries for example aren’t actually renewable energy sources. So when a solar or wind powered off grid home uses batteries to store solar energy for later usage is that 100% renewable energy as long as the power is originally from sunlight?
It seems somewhat silly to say such homes are battery powered. The same terminology is used when homes skip the batteries and send power to the electric grid only to use that amount of power later. Sure, they could spend more resources building batteries, but that’s wasteful.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s easy to disagree with the common definitions. However, as long as the definitions used are common and describe the situation you can’t say they are lying.
PS: Fossil fuels are also from sunlight just like wind, so saying their not renewable is really talking about the ability to use them vastly faster than their created. Which fits the batteries / grid as renewable energy storage definition just fine.
Yeah, so why choose deceptive ways to define things?
> Batteries for example aren’t actually renewable energy sources.
They aren’t a source at all. They are just a way to store energy.
> So when a solar or wind powered off grid home uses batteries to store solar energy for later usage is that 100% renewable energy as long as the power is originally from sunlight?
Sure, why not?
> Don’t get me wrong, it’s easy to disagree with the common definitions. However, as long as the definitions used are common and describe the situation you can’t say they are lying.
I don’t know about that. It seems quite hard to disagree with the common definition. It seems very apt. The definition you seem to defend on the other hand seems like meaningless political drivel.
