11 ms·

Well meaning goals resulting in hell keening outcomes.. Baseload should be handled by nuclear. Excess and spikes- should be renewable and storage.

6nf 5y ago
Yup, we still can't do base load on solar or wind power. Unless you're lucky geographically, nuclear is the best option.
- Retric 5y ago
  That’s false. Many solar power plants already include ~“4h” of maximum output via batteries. Currently it’s used for peaking power in the evenings. However, that’s ~50% of their daily output. As grid demand is higher in the day that means at scale they could provide 100% grid power 24/7. Giant 3h system “400 MW of solar energy and store up to 1200 MWh of energy“: https://www.tdworld.com/distributed-energy-resources/energy-storage/article/20973127/la-mayor-approves-largest-solar-and-battery-storage-project-in-the-us https://www.tdworld.com/distributed-energy-resources/energy-... Example of using that for peak demand: https://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/pv-insider/giant-oregon-wind-solar-plant-use-4-hour-battery-peak-shifting https://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/pv-insider/giant-or... To be clear a 4GW PV instillation would be 4GW * 4h or 16GWh. That 4GW produces ~30% of maximum output per day or 4GW * 0.3 * 24h = 28.8GWh per day. 28.8GWh - 16GWh = 12GWh after charging batteries. So for ~10h you get 1.2 GW with surplus charging batteries, and for the other ~14 you get 1.14GW.
  - bamboozled 5y ago
    You have ruffled many feathers…
  - OneTimePetes 5y ago
    If there was as supraconducting pipeline for current, could a solar receiving part of the planet, send power to a part that is already in shade?
    - datameta 5y ago
      Similarly, what is the present feasibility of energy transmission via laser using satellites?
      - ben_w 5y ago
        We’re at the prototypes and proof of concept stage for that sort of thing. Optimistically, it’s just about possible in principle if you don’t mind paying SpaceX to expand by a few orders of magnitude. But I don’t think anyone will be very happy with even one gigawatt of orbital lasers, no matter how much the satellite owner insists (possibly even accurately and with reference to the laws of physics) that it can’t be turned into a death ray. (And if you can use beamed power safely from orbit, with emphasis on safely, why not use the same beamed power horizontally at ground level around the world? Power at night from space implies an orbital-to-ground distance comparable to planetary radius).
        OneTimePetes 5y ago
        Every foil wrapped turd in space is in theory a kinetic impactor by value of location and acceleration. There was a scifi short story, were a system was wrecked, aeons after a war, by what was essentially missed shots. This is what makes the expanse so creepy. Every PDC round not finding a target- finds a target eventually. On the other side of the system, totally not intended, but it finds one. Even thinks doing the marathon with ion-engines can become lethally over time. Voyager is another systems bullet.
    - sasfasaf 5y ago
      Probably not. Super conductors don't really solve any problem because they loose their super conductivity at high B fields; i.e. when they transport large currents. Case in point the highest field magnets are not made w/ superconductors but water cooled copper pipes. So you'd have to transform the electricity to high voltage, low current. But we already do that to pretty much arbitrarily lower Ωlosses on high V lines - the USSR made a transcontinental line back in the sixties with MV (yup, mega volts).
    - 5y ago
  - ElKrist 5y ago
    In the article the batteries max power output is 30 MW It represents less than 10% of the max power output of the plant (380 MW) When I read "The battery section will provide four hours of storage capacity at full discharge" I understand that it will provide 4h x 30MW = 120 MWh of energy. Do you understand it as 4h x 380 MW = 1520 MWh of energy ? [EDIT] From other source [1] it seems my interpretation is the correct one: "The onsite battery storage facility will be capable of providing 30MW of continuous power for four hours." That completely changes the narrative: the total energy the battery storage can deliver by itself is less than what the solar + wind provides at full power in half an hour. Also, this amount of energy will be delivered at a peak power of less than 10% than the peak power of Solar + Wind [1]: https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/wheatridge-renewable-energy-facility-oregon/ https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/wheatridge-renewab...
    - Retric 5y ago
      The first article is an example of what I am talking about, I linked to the second one to make it clear they don’t currently release battery power at night. Anyway, I think it’s reasonable to think in terms of “50 MW of PV solar and 30 MW * 4h of battery storage” + a wind farm because they normally charge batteries from solar via DC to avoid DC>AC>DC losses. But it might be a true hybrid system.
      - ElKrist 5y ago
        If you edited your comment (I did not see first article mentioned), please show it with some kind of flag. Otherwise it can make the thread confusing
  - 6nf 5y ago
    If it rains for a week?
    - Retric 5y ago
      The pithy answer is “That’s why people build them in deserts.” However, electric grids need excess capacity spread across large areas for when demand spikes and stuff breaks. Luckily peak demand doesn’t line up with wide scale rain as AC demand falls. Also, PV unlike concentrated solar does produce power during storms it’s just significantly less than normal.
      - OneTimePetes 5y ago
        Reminder that other "low value energy demand" is easy bufferable - one can easy heat water in a isolated ground tank with excess solar and use that storage in winter.
        MagnumOpus 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storag...
sp332 5y ago
Hydro power is renewable and can handle base load. Until you run out of water, which is what's happening here.
- MagnumOpus 5y ago
  Hydro is the best option next to nuclear (more dangerous as accidents can and do kill thousands but potentially cheaper), but the number of feasible sites is rather limited - mountains with river canyons that are not used otherwise and can be dammed are probably all dammed already and have been for half a century...
mschuster91 5y ago
> Baseload should be handled by nuclear. Nuclear is already a bad idea under normal circumstances, given that no country has a long-term solution for dealing with the waste, molten-salt reactors are vaporware (usually because it turns out molten salts are highly aggressive) and fusion has been "it's ready in a decade!!!" for like, what, half a century now. And that doesn't even take stuff like "who, other than the taxpayer, will foot the bill for tearing the reactors down" or "who, other than the taxpayer, picks up the tab in the case of an accident" and other financial questions. Nuclear is only "cheaper" because these side effects get conveniently ignored! But it is an especially dumb idea in California with its earthquake fault lines. Have two large reactor accidents not proven by now that nuclear fission is extremely unsafe?
- op00to 5y ago
  How many deaths from nuclear accidents? How many deaths from cancer, lung disease, heart disease from pollution from fossil fuel?
  - evgen 5y ago
    Solar has killed more people in California than nuclear energy.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    We need to get away from both fossil and nuclear fuels as soon as possible, neither is acceptable any more. The solutions are pretty clear: solar, wind, tidal/other water potential energy, battery backed storage and gas peaker plants (as these can be retrofitted to burn synthetic gas and are the cleanest technology of fossil energy that we have). And especially: a grid that has enough capacity to distribute power across continents.
    - sasfasaf 5y ago
      " a grid that has enough capacity to distribute power across continents." That's easy to write, but very hard to envision the scale. The grid transports very small fraction of the consumed power over large distances, most of the power gets consumed along the way. But what you are proposing involves transmitting all the power that a far away community consumes several time zones away
wurstfinger 5y ago
Renweables and nuclear don't mix well - it's too inflexible. In fact, the concept of base load generally becomes very unhelpful with an energy sector transitioning towards renewable energy (see e.g. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.184.8972&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.18...). Overbuilding generation capacity, either of renewables or here by peaker gas plants, rather than storage is generally recognised as the most economical way forward.

6nf 5y ago

Yup, we still can't do base load on solar or wind power. Unless you're lucky geographically, nuclear is the best option.

Retric 5y ago
That’s false. Many solar power plants already include ~“4h” of maximum output via batteries. Currently it’s used for peaking power in the evenings. However, that’s ~50% of their daily output. As grid demand is higher in the day that means at scale they could provide 100% grid power 24/7. Giant 3h system “400 MW of solar energy and store up to 1200 MWh of energy“: https://www.tdworld.com/distributed-energy-resources/energy-storage/article/20973127/la-mayor-approves-largest-solar-and-battery-storage-project-in-the-us https://www.tdworld.com/distributed-energy-resources/energy-... Example of using that for peak demand: https://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/pv-insider/giant-oregon-wind-solar-plant-use-4-hour-battery-peak-shifting https://www.reutersevents.com/renewables/pv-insider/giant-or... To be clear a 4GW PV instillation would be 4GW * 4h or 16GWh. That 4GW produces ~30% of maximum output per day or 4GW * 0.3 * 24h = 28.8GWh per day. 28.8GWh - 16GWh = 12GWh after charging batteries. So for ~10h you get 1.2 GW with surplus charging batteries, and for the other ~14 you get 1.14GW.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  You have ruffled many feathers…
- OneTimePetes 5y ago
  If there was as supraconducting pipeline for current, could a solar receiving part of the planet, send power to a part that is already in shade?
  - datameta 5y ago
    Similarly, what is the present feasibility of energy transmission via laser using satellites?
    - ben_w 5y ago
      We’re at the prototypes and proof of concept stage for that sort of thing. Optimistically, it’s just about possible in principle if you don’t mind paying SpaceX to expand by a few orders of magnitude. But I don’t think anyone will be very happy with even one gigawatt of orbital lasers, no matter how much the satellite owner insists (possibly even accurately and with reference to the laws of physics) that it can’t be turned into a death ray. (And if you can use beamed power safely from orbit, with emphasis on safely, why not use the same beamed power horizontally at ground level around the world? Power at night from space implies an orbital-to-ground distance comparable to planetary radius).
      - OneTimePetes 5y ago
        Every foil wrapped turd in space is in theory a kinetic impactor by value of location and acceleration. There was a scifi short story, were a system was wrecked, aeons after a war, by what was essentially missed shots. This is what makes the expanse so creepy. Every PDC round not finding a target- finds a target eventually. On the other side of the system, totally not intended, but it finds one. Even thinks doing the marathon with ion-engines can become lethally over time. Voyager is another systems bullet.
  - sasfasaf 5y ago
    Probably not. Super conductors don't really solve any problem because they loose their super conductivity at high B fields; i.e. when they transport large currents. Case in point the highest field magnets are not made w/ superconductors but water cooled copper pipes. So you'd have to transform the electricity to high voltage, low current. But we already do that to pretty much arbitrarily lower Ωlosses on high V lines - the USSR made a transcontinental line back in the sixties with MV (yup, mega volts).
  - 5y ago
- ElKrist 5y ago
  In the article the batteries max power output is 30 MW It represents less than 10% of the max power output of the plant (380 MW) When I read "The battery section will provide four hours of storage capacity at full discharge" I understand that it will provide 4h x 30MW = 120 MWh of energy. Do you understand it as 4h x 380 MW = 1520 MWh of energy ? [EDIT] From other source [1] it seems my interpretation is the correct one: "The onsite battery storage facility will be capable of providing 30MW of continuous power for four hours." That completely changes the narrative: the total energy the battery storage can deliver by itself is less than what the solar + wind provides at full power in half an hour. Also, this amount of energy will be delivered at a peak power of less than 10% than the peak power of Solar + Wind [1]: https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/wheatridge-renewable-energy-facility-oregon/ https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/wheatridge-renewab...
  - Retric 5y ago
    The first article is an example of what I am talking about, I linked to the second one to make it clear they don’t currently release battery power at night. Anyway, I think it’s reasonable to think in terms of “50 MW of PV solar and 30 MW * 4h of battery storage” + a wind farm because they normally charge batteries from solar via DC to avoid DC>AC>DC losses. But it might be a true hybrid system.
    - ElKrist 5y ago
      If you edited your comment (I did not see first article mentioned), please show it with some kind of flag. Otherwise it can make the thread confusing
- 6nf 5y ago
  If it rains for a week?
  - Retric 5y ago
    The pithy answer is “That’s why people build them in deserts.” However, electric grids need excess capacity spread across large areas for when demand spikes and stuff breaks. Luckily peak demand doesn’t line up with wide scale rain as AC demand falls. Also, PV unlike concentrated solar does produce power during storms it’s just significantly less than normal.
    - OneTimePetes 5y ago
      Reminder that other "low value energy demand" is easy bufferable - one can easy heat water in a isolated ground tank with excess solar and use that storage in winter.
      - MagnumOpus 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storag...

sp332 5y ago

Hydro power is renewable and can handle base load. Until you run out of water, which is what's happening here.

MagnumOpus 5y ago
Hydro is the best option next to nuclear (more dangerous as accidents can and do kill thousands but potentially cheaper), but the number of feasible sites is rather limited - mountains with river canyons that are not used otherwise and can be dammed are probably all dammed already and have been for half a century...

mschuster91 5y ago

> Baseload should be handled by nuclear. Nuclear is already a bad idea under normal circumstances, given that no country has a long-term solution for dealing with the waste, molten-salt reactors are vaporware (usually because it turns out molten salts are highly aggressive) and fusion has been "it's ready in a decade!!!" for like, what, half a century now. And that doesn't even take stuff like "who, other than the taxpayer, will foot the bill for tearing the reactors down" or "who, other than the taxpayer, picks up the tab in the case of an accident" and other financial questions. Nuclear is only "cheaper" because these side effects get conveniently ignored! But it is an especially dumb idea in California with its earthquake fault lines. Have two large reactor accidents not proven by now that nuclear fission is extremely unsafe?

op00to 5y ago
How many deaths from nuclear accidents? How many deaths from cancer, lung disease, heart disease from pollution from fossil fuel?
- evgen 5y ago
  Solar has killed more people in California than nuclear energy.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  We need to get away from both fossil and nuclear fuels as soon as possible, neither is acceptable any more. The solutions are pretty clear: solar, wind, tidal/other water potential energy, battery backed storage and gas peaker plants (as these can be retrofitted to burn synthetic gas and are the cleanest technology of fossil energy that we have). And especially: a grid that has enough capacity to distribute power across continents.
  - sasfasaf 5y ago
    " a grid that has enough capacity to distribute power across continents." That's easy to write, but very hard to envision the scale. The grid transports very small fraction of the consumed power over large distances, most of the power gets consumed along the way. But what you are proposing involves transmitting all the power that a far away community consumes several time zones away

wurstfinger 5y ago

Renweables and nuclear don't mix well - it's too inflexible. In fact, the concept of base load generally becomes very unhelpful with an energy sector transitioning towards renewable energy (see e.g. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.184.8972&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.18...). Overbuilding generation capacity, either of renewables or here by peaker gas plants, rather than storage is generally recognised as the most economical way forward.