5 ms·
This problem is way overstated, as most fossil fuel and nuclear power can't be easily or efficiently ramped down either. We also have energy storage technologie
by notthemessiah 6y ago
This problem is way overstated, as most fossil fuel and nuclear power can't be easily or efficiently ramped down either. We also have energy storage technologies other than batteries: the most common being pumped-storage hydroelectricity (basically a reversible hydroelectric dam, where we pump water up during excess power usage and use the generators during high demand).
- akira2501 6y ago> being pumped-storage hydroelectricity Which isn't great as far as the "Power Generated" : "Land Used" ratio is concerned.. the same is true of most hydro-electric solutions.
- alacombe 6y agoNeither are solar or wind farms.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoWhat's wrong with wind farms? They literally take no land, you can graze cattle / farm right under them.
- alacombe 6y agoThey decimate bird populations.
- kortilla 6y agoNatural gas absolutely can be ramped up and down and that’s critical to the stability of our grid. Just because there are other fossil fuel plants that can’t doesn’t somehow downplay the critical nature of peaker plants. > We also have energy storage technologies other than batteries: the most common being pumped-storage hydroelectricity These take tons of land and aren’t really anything like reverse hydro electric dams because if you tried to reverse a dam during high production you will be running a river dry and run out of water quickly.
- alacombe 6y ago> as most fossil fuel and nuclear power can't be easily or efficiently ramped down either. Ramping it down is irrelevant, you can always use the extra to process aluminium at cheaper rates, pump water back in reservoir, etc. The ramping up is critical, as you expect the light to turn on when you flick the switch, not 3h later.
- Gibbon1 6y agoEvery time I see hysterical comments (not from you) about how terrible it would be if excess solar and wing power regularly crashed the price of electricity I see and opportunity instead. Seriously regular periods where electric power is 'free' is a serious opportunity. You could smelt aluminum, electrowin iron. Run electric furnaces in mini-mills.
- bigbubba 6y agoI don't think it's that simple. What does your aluminum smelting plant do when the power isn't free, sit there unproductively? Or purchase electricity when it's expensive? Either will cost you money. Maybe you can still come out ahead in either of these cases, but that depends on quite a few factors.
- Gibbon1 6y agoEven if you are running an aluminum smelter 24/7 having periods when the price of electricity goes to zero helps your bottom line a lot. Aluminum is difficult case because the electrolytic cells have to be kept hot. I've saw paper describing electrowinning iron. The process used aqueous sulfate electrolyte. One assume the capital cost of the cells themselves would be minimal.
- bigbubba 6y agoYes but if the average price of the clean energy is sufficiently high, brief periods of free clean energy may not be enough to offset that.
- bigbubba 6y ago> most [...] nuclear power can't be easily or efficiently ramped down either. As you say, most, but naval reactors are very responsive. Responsive reactors can be designed when that property is desired.
- notthemessiah 6y agoSure you can reduce power production, just insert control rods, but that comes at a severe cost to efficiency, costs that at large scale become far more of a concern, especially when nuclear is already nearly prohibitively expensive.
- bigbubba 6y agoIt's not just about control rods. Naval reactors also ramp up fast, which allows you to ramp them down more often without incurring long ramp-up periods. They're very good reactors, and the USN has a better safety record for running reactors than any other organization on the planet.