3 ms·
> If we could handle 62 GW in 2002, then there's no reason that we can't handle 62 GW again in, say, 2042. There is - supply and grid maintenance was scaled do
by lstodd 6y ago
> If we could handle 62 GW in 2002, then there's no reason that we can't handle 62 GW again in, say, 2042.
There is - supply and grid maintenance was scaled down with demand.
The grid certainly can be rebuilt to 2002 state in UK, but this will not be cheap.
The other point that I was making is that any deviation from current patterns, like night demand significantly growing will require significant changes in generation.
- Reason077 6y ago> "The grid certainly can be rebuilt to 2002 state in UK, but this will not be cheap." It doesn't need "rebuilding". The grid, broadly speaking, hasn't changed since 2002. Generation has changed dramatically, but generally the transmission lines that served old power plants do not get removed when the plants close. They're still there, still active, and are often reused (for example, off-shore wind farm built off the coast from closed coal plant). > "The other point that I was making is that any deviation from current patterns, like night demand significantly growing will require significant changes in generation." First you were talking about lines, now you are talking about generation. But it's the same story. Power plants get turned off and curtailed at night because there is less demand. If demand increases at night? Plenty of spare capacity available, they just need to run for longer.