5 ms·
We vary how much we produce by having over-capacity, and using a portion of that to 'turn up the generators' as needed. If there wasn't enough generating capac
by PuffinBlue 8y ago
We vary how much we produce by having over-capacity, and using a portion of that to 'turn up the generators' as needed.
If there wasn't enough generating capacity in the fossil fuel system it would be equivalent to 'can't make it sunnier'. The flip side to 'can't make it sunnier' is you can add more solar generating capacity (over-capacity) and add mixed generation through wind/solar/tidal. Both options end up at the same place - over-capacity in order to meet peak/daily/yearly loads.
Classic fossil fuel generating stations quite literally sit idle waiting to go, that's the over-capacity. The same thing can be done for renewables (the whole mix, not just solar).
And to answer the inevitable 'but we've always got access to fossil fuels, like at night when the sun doesn't shine'...
Right now we 'store' the electrical energy in fossil fuels (really we release it) and say this system if inherently more stable because we assume access to those fuels is immutable. And we say that the energy 'stored' in the wind or tide or sun is not.
In reality, fossil fuel energy security is a delicate balancing act of just in time logistics and political power plays, for most nations without vast resources or nuclear generating capacity for instance.
Functionally, perceived limitless access to fossil fuels gives the false impression of superiority and conversely give the the perceived absolute need for renewable storage because of the very obvious daily cycle of light/wind/tide.
I simply say that adopting a system of over-capacity like we currently have for fossil fuels and recognising that neither renewable/fossil fuel resource access is certain is a sensible middle ground upon which to build a sensible generating program. Both systems can rely on having more capacity to handle peak loads, both systems have the ability to plan for their faults and both can work without massive grid scale storage.
Adding storage to renewable generation would actually be a huge step up over the current system and would be fantastic. I would love to see such a system work, and I believe it will do anyway through distributed smart grid/EV usage and large grid scale battery storage.
It's just the uncertainties of the current system are hidden from the average user and I'm just saying we're setting a higher bar for renewable use and storage because the access limitation are that bit more obvious on the daily cycle.
- yholio 8y agoSure, but the reverse side of that is the proportional cost increase of solar that has excess capacity. Solar has negligible running costs, it's irrelevant that you use the energy or not, the capital costs will have to be recovered from the price of the fraction of energy that you do use. So you are effectively asking for a 3-5x lower solar cost before it could replace existing sources. Never mind that there are seasons and periods of the day when no amount of excess capacity will cover the demand, there is simply no significant solar energy on continent-wide scales.
- PuffinBlue 8y agoEveryone keeps talking about solar. Probably for the classic 'sun doesn't shine at night' thing. I've repeatedly said to use a mix of renewables, just like a mix of fossil fuels is used, so deficiencies in one is balanced by another. The exact same thing is done in traditional generation. You don't use a nuclear plant t for a TV pickup for instance, you wouldn't use solar for the whole grid. Balancing the way you generate reduces the amount of over-capacity required (and subsequently the cost), exactly as is done now in traditional generation.