4 ms·

> if you want to go from eg 50% to 100%, then you need MASSIVE storage to guarantee that you have power when you need it. You really dont, you just need to bur

> if you want to go from eg 50% to 100%, then you need MASSIVE storage to guarantee that you have power when you need it. You really dont, you just need to burn fuel to fill in for gaps caused by weather, that become increasingly less frequent the more wind and solar is oversupplied. And oversupply is not a big problem - it can be easily curtailed. The optimal amount of renewables supply to build is over the level where they regularly exceed demand - and that is the stage where big batteries become very economical to build. Carbon neutral fuel-wise, biofuels and electrically generated fuels are very viable future options. Storage doesn't become more of a problem with more wind and solar - it becomes more of an opportunity to further reduce fuel consumption. Storage is not a problem now - economic solutions exist already to build it where it is valuable. Its just not needed much yet.

roenxi 7y ago
> You really don't, you just need to burn fuel to fill in for gaps caused by weather That suggests that we'd need to keep most of the existing infrastructure for power generation and also replicate its capacity with wind and solar plants. That sounds both expensive and inefficient. > Storage is not a problem now - economic solutions exist already to build it where it is valuable. Its just not needed much yet. Nuclear has actually proven that it can work at the scale we need it (~20% of actual power generation from memory). Renewables and storage have not. So this is an argument of hypotheticals vs actuals. The burden of evidence on the hypothetical solution is a bit higher than an assertion that it'll work. The only grid-level storage solutions that actually store energy (not just modulate grid supply short-term) is big hydroelectric dams which are not one size fits all solutions.
- pjc50 7y ago
  The UK is already at over 20% renewable energy over last year, with peaks of over 40% . https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/14/renewable-electricity-overtakes-fossil-fuels-in-uk-for-first-time https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/14/renewable-e... Meanwhile the nuclear power station we started building ten years ago is contributing 0%.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Aren't the UK windfarms sans-storage though? I thought they were reliant on offshore wind being a fairly consistent source.
    - strainer 7y ago
      They're not fairly consistent, its a genuine misunderstanding of the system that they have to be. UK has a bit of nuclear, a lot of gas and biomass plant, some very useful pumped hydro and sizable interconnects to trade electricity with Europe. Everything is adjusted to match generation to demand. Generation is dynamic - Demand is dynamic. There is no panic when demand or generation changes, its handled.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      There's a small amount of pre-existing pumped hydro storage in the system, but mostly it relies on the UK having already built a lot of CCGT plants which can cover the gaps.
- strainer 7y ago
  > That suggests that we'd need to keep most of the existing infrastructure for power generation and also replicate its capacity with wind and solar plants. That sounds both expensive and inefficient. Its efficient to use existing plant for as long as it is useful. The main expense of running most of it is fuel - and the cost of that in legacy terms and in CO2 is slashed by 'replicating' its capacity with wind/solar. Currently when we add wind and solar capacity almost their entire output replaces fuel burn. When in a handful of years wind and solar have replaced 30-40% of demand supply, about 10-20% of their output may possibly be getting rejected. That makes wind/solar maximally 10-20% more expensive than what they would be with full storage and use. Hydro, batteries and long distance transmission is already economically viable in certain situations. Hydrogen synthesis will become increasingly economically viable, with carbon pricing and development. There are technologies existing which are ready to reduce waste supply from wind/solar as it arises. But even without them a potential overhead of 10-20% cost wont stop more wind/solar getting built, because its already currently cheaper than fuel burning -without carbon pricing and has been getting more efficient year on year, with no end in sight. This actual economic performance contrasts with new nuclears promises which are in truth in their final throws, completely outperformed already by the alternatives which have been developed. Investment in Nuclear is no real threat to wind and solar anymore, the arguments seem to persist only to delay overall action on policy transition. New nuclear plants may or may not get built, wind and solar IS getting built and its variable nature will make nuclear supply uneconomic - there's no sense in financing plants on the basis of supplying constant power, when a huge competitor supplies much much cheaper power 75% of the time, and encourages hydro, biofuels and maybe cheap storage to fill in its gaps. Nuclear is not going to be economical for that, and that is the opportunity which is being created by wind and solar manufacturers and installers, as we hash over this outdated debate.
danmaz74 7y ago
Burning fuel to fill the gaps is technically possible; I'd like to see an analysis of costs though. Building and maintaining those plans is expensive even when you don't use them. Who is going to pay for those expenses?

roenxi 7y ago

> You really don't, you just need to burn fuel to fill in for gaps caused by weather That suggests that we'd need to keep most of the existing infrastructure for power generation and also replicate its capacity with wind and solar plants. That sounds both expensive and inefficient. > Storage is not a problem now - economic solutions exist already to build it where it is valuable. Its just not needed much yet. Nuclear has actually proven that it can work at the scale we need it (~20% of actual power generation from memory). Renewables and storage have not. So this is an argument of hypotheticals vs actuals. The burden of evidence on the hypothetical solution is a bit higher than an assertion that it'll work. The only grid-level storage solutions that actually store energy (not just modulate grid supply short-term) is big hydroelectric dams which are not one size fits all solutions.

pjc50 7y ago
The UK is already at over 20% renewable energy over last year, with peaks of over 40% . https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/14/renewable-electricity-overtakes-fossil-fuels-in-uk-for-first-time https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/14/renewable-e... Meanwhile the nuclear power station we started building ten years ago is contributing 0%.
- roenxi 7y ago
  Aren't the UK windfarms sans-storage though? I thought they were reliant on offshore wind being a fairly consistent source.
  - strainer 7y ago
    They're not fairly consistent, its a genuine misunderstanding of the system that they have to be. UK has a bit of nuclear, a lot of gas and biomass plant, some very useful pumped hydro and sizable interconnects to trade electricity with Europe. Everything is adjusted to match generation to demand. Generation is dynamic - Demand is dynamic. There is no panic when demand or generation changes, its handled.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    There's a small amount of pre-existing pumped hydro storage in the system, but mostly it relies on the UK having already built a lot of CCGT plants which can cover the gaps.
strainer 7y ago
> That suggests that we'd need to keep most of the existing infrastructure for power generation and also replicate its capacity with wind and solar plants. That sounds both expensive and inefficient. Its efficient to use existing plant for as long as it is useful. The main expense of running most of it is fuel - and the cost of that in legacy terms and in CO2 is slashed by 'replicating' its capacity with wind/solar. Currently when we add wind and solar capacity almost their entire output replaces fuel burn. When in a handful of years wind and solar have replaced 30-40% of demand supply, about 10-20% of their output may possibly be getting rejected. That makes wind/solar maximally 10-20% more expensive than what they would be with full storage and use. Hydro, batteries and long distance transmission is already economically viable in certain situations. Hydrogen synthesis will become increasingly economically viable, with carbon pricing and development. There are technologies existing which are ready to reduce waste supply from wind/solar as it arises. But even without them a potential overhead of 10-20% cost wont stop more wind/solar getting built, because its already currently cheaper than fuel burning -without carbon pricing and has been getting more efficient year on year, with no end in sight. This actual economic performance contrasts with new nuclears promises which are in truth in their final throws, completely outperformed already by the alternatives which have been developed. Investment in Nuclear is no real threat to wind and solar anymore, the arguments seem to persist only to delay overall action on policy transition. New nuclear plants may or may not get built, wind and solar IS getting built and its variable nature will make nuclear supply uneconomic - there's no sense in financing plants on the basis of supplying constant power, when a huge competitor supplies much much cheaper power 75% of the time, and encourages hydro, biofuels and maybe cheap storage to fill in its gaps. Nuclear is not going to be economical for that, and that is the opportunity which is being created by wind and solar manufacturers and installers, as we hash over this outdated debate.

danmaz74 7y ago

Burning fuel to fill the gaps is technically possible; I'd like to see an analysis of costs though. Building and maintaining those plans is expensive even when you don't use them. Who is going to pay for those expenses?