8 ms·

It's not a bet or a gamble. It's always a mix. Renewables other than geothermal and solar-thermal + molten salts cannot currently provide base load power. They

by petre 8y ago

It's not a bet or a gamble. It's always a mix. Renewables other than geothermal and solar-thermal + molten salts cannot currently provide base load power. They have something like 0.2..0.5 capacity factor, meaning that 50 to 80% of the operational lifetimes of the power generation facilities are spent idling. Those two that can provide base load power that are very location specific (volcanic area or desert). So rather than mix coal with renewables it's preferable to mix nuclear with renewables since it's much cleaner.

rocqua 8y ago
Hydro can also provide base-load. Especially when used as storage for overproducing intermittent renewables. It is still highly location specific though. Might there be value in efficient energy transport using high voltage DC? There is probably a lot less fluctuation in power supply and usage if you sum up over larger areas (especially east-west, as you average out time-of-day effects)
- petre 8y ago
  Everything else apart from solar is generating AC. You'd need expensive converters and more expensive switching equipment with arc supression in order to transport DC. HVDC is mainly used for underwater cables because it's more efficient to transport DC than AC by cable. We'd probably benefit by interconnecting these cables coming from offshore wind farms and imports with parallel land based HVDC infrastucture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
  - rocqua 8y ago
    I was thinking of cables like NorNed for moving surplusses around. Especially if such a cable runs east-west and can ease some of the temporal effects due to both people's living pattern, and solar intensity.
    - petre 8y ago
      Yes, that's what Renewable electricity superhighways in the Wikipedia link basically refers to. But it's a bit ahead of its time and there are still challenges to overcome and more renewable capacity to be built in order for HVDC ground based networks to be viable economically. I’ m sure we'll see it being built in the next 20 or 30 years.
Krasnol 8y ago
Dispelling the nuclear ‘baseload’ myth: nothing renewables can’t do better! https://reneweconomy.com.au/dispelling-the-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-do-better-94486/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/dispelling-the-nuclear-baseload-...
- gridlockd 8y ago
  Don't read the clearly partisan sources uncritically, they are generally misleading. "The north German states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein are already operating on 100% net renewable energy, mostly wind. The ‘net’ indicates trading with each other and their neighbours. They do not rely on baseload power stations." These rather sparsely populated states combined make up for only 4.5 million of Germany's 83 million population. Germany still supplies 50% of its power with fossil fuels, of which coal makes up 35%. It is also completely misleading to say that these states are 100% "net renewable". They're part of the national grid. Perhaps they're the places where disproportionately many wind turbines are deployed (e.g. on the coast). Think about it, if Germany knew a way to fix the problem of base load, why haven't they implemented it? It couldn't be a problem of financing, they spent a huge amount of money on subsidizing renewables already. "In 2014 the state of South Australia had 39% of annual electricity consumption from renewable energy (33% wind + 6% solar) and, as a result, the state’s base-load coal-fired power stations are being shut down as redundant. For several periods the whole state system has operated reliably on a combination of renewables and gas with only small imports from the neighbouring state of Victoria." Same story, Australia nationally relies on 30% coal to support its base load. To even out peaks from renewables, natural gas is used. The idea that the "base load requirement" is a myth is in itself a myth. If you use the right numbers, they don't add up.
  - Krasnol 8y ago
    > It is also completely misleading to say that these states are 100% "net renewable". They're part of the national grid. Perhaps they're the places where disproportionately many wind turbines are deployed (e.g. on the coast). They are at the coast and it's not misleading since they produce much more and even have to turn off turbines. The nationwide peaks are also impressive: https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2019&month=4&day=22 https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2019&month=... > Think about it, if Germany knew a way to fix the problem of base load, why haven't they implemented it? Because of politics, money and lobbying. There are jobs in the coal industry especially in the east germany where Fascism is getting powerful. You don't want to lose those votes. There are also long running contracts with energy suppliers that force Germany to pay for coal plants who are not producing power at all. Wind turbines have to be turned off because the sparse power lines infrastructure is clogged with dirty power. Adding to that, there is a movement of people who are afraid of power lines nearby...and yes, there are many and they are slowing down the expansion of north-south infrastructure. > Same story, Australia nationally relies on 30% coal to support its base load. Yeah same story, Australia relies on their coal industry. Who wants to tell the voter that they'll cut those jobs and coal is being mined everywhere throughout the continent. > The idea that the "base load requirement" is a myth is in itself a myth. If you use the right numbers, they don't add up. As you have seen, the reasons why renewables are not even further and even more relevant are beyond the technically related reasons. Most of them are political and this is surely no reason to turn back to nuclear. Especially because the growth is there and it's unstoppable: https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&period=annual&year=all https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&...

by petre 8y ago

rocqua 8y ago

Hydro can also provide base-load. Especially when used as storage for overproducing intermittent renewables. It is still highly location specific though. Might there be value in efficient energy transport using high voltage DC? There is probably a lot less fluctuation in power supply and usage if you sum up over larger areas (especially east-west, as you average out time-of-day effects)

petre 8y ago
Everything else apart from solar is generating AC. You'd need expensive converters and more expensive switching equipment with arc supression in order to transport DC. HVDC is mainly used for underwater cables because it's more efficient to transport DC than AC by cable. We'd probably benefit by interconnecting these cables coming from offshore wind farms and imports with parallel land based HVDC infrastucture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
- rocqua 8y ago
  I was thinking of cables like NorNed for moving surplusses around. Especially if such a cable runs east-west and can ease some of the temporal effects due to both people's living pattern, and solar intensity.
  - petre 8y ago
    Yes, that's what Renewable electricity superhighways in the Wikipedia link basically refers to. But it's a bit ahead of its time and there are still challenges to overcome and more renewable capacity to be built in order for HVDC ground based networks to be viable economically. I’ m sure we'll see it being built in the next 20 or 30 years.

Krasnol 8y ago

Dispelling the nuclear ‘baseload’ myth: nothing renewables can’t do better! https://reneweconomy.com.au/dispelling-the-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-do-better-94486/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/dispelling-the-nuclear-baseload-...

gridlockd 8y ago
Don't read the clearly partisan sources uncritically, they are generally misleading. "The north German states of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Schleswig-Holstein are already operating on 100% net renewable energy, mostly wind. The ‘net’ indicates trading with each other and their neighbours. They do not rely on baseload power stations." These rather sparsely populated states combined make up for only 4.5 million of Germany's 83 million population. Germany still supplies 50% of its power with fossil fuels, of which coal makes up 35%. It is also completely misleading to say that these states are 100% "net renewable". They're part of the national grid. Perhaps they're the places where disproportionately many wind turbines are deployed (e.g. on the coast). Think about it, if Germany knew a way to fix the problem of base load, why haven't they implemented it? It couldn't be a problem of financing, they spent a huge amount of money on subsidizing renewables already. "In 2014 the state of South Australia had 39% of annual electricity consumption from renewable energy (33% wind + 6% solar) and, as a result, the state’s base-load coal-fired power stations are being shut down as redundant. For several periods the whole state system has operated reliably on a combination of renewables and gas with only small imports from the neighbouring state of Victoria." Same story, Australia nationally relies on 30% coal to support its base load. To even out peaks from renewables, natural gas is used. The idea that the "base load requirement" is a myth is in itself a myth. If you use the right numbers, they don't add up.
- Krasnol 8y ago
  > It is also completely misleading to say that these states are 100% "net renewable". They're part of the national grid. Perhaps they're the places where disproportionately many wind turbines are deployed (e.g. on the coast). They are at the coast and it's not misleading since they produce much more and even have to turn off turbines. The nationwide peaks are also impressive: https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2019&month=4&day=22 https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2019&month=... > Think about it, if Germany knew a way to fix the problem of base load, why haven't they implemented it? Because of politics, money and lobbying. There are jobs in the coal industry especially in the east germany where Fascism is getting powerful. You don't want to lose those votes. There are also long running contracts with energy suppliers that force Germany to pay for coal plants who are not producing power at all. Wind turbines have to be turned off because the sparse power lines infrastructure is clogged with dirty power. Adding to that, there is a movement of people who are afraid of power lines nearby...and yes, there are many and they are slowing down the expansion of north-south infrastructure. > Same story, Australia nationally relies on 30% coal to support its base load. Yeah same story, Australia relies on their coal industry. Who wants to tell the voter that they'll cut those jobs and coal is being mined everywhere throughout the continent. > The idea that the "base load requirement" is a myth is in itself a myth. If you use the right numbers, they don't add up. As you have seen, the reasons why renewables are not even further and even more relevant are beyond the technically related reasons. Most of them are political and this is surely no reason to turn back to nuclear. Especially because the growth is there and it's unstoppable: https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&period=annual&year=all https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&...