3 ms·

It will never cease to amaze me how these kinds of things don't make people consider fossil fuels to be an inherently unreliable tech. Only renewables get that

It will never cease to amaze me how these kinds of things don't make people consider fossil fuels to be an inherently unreliable tech. Only renewables get that rap(*), despite articles like this. Just a week ago there was some article arguing that renewables unreliability was causing an energy crisis in the UK, and that the mature, reliable option was fossil fuels. And yet here we are. * Whoops. Thanks for the correction.

Schiendelman 5y ago
FYI - it’s a “rap,” as in “rap sheet.”
belorn 5y ago
For the last several decades it have been pretty much established that the cheapest way to operate a energy grid is to use renewables as a way to produce absolute cheapest energy when weather conditions is around optimal, and then to use cheap fossil fuels when the weather turns non-optimal and output goes below demand. A grid that only operated on fossil fuels would just be more expensive. People arguing against this setup usually lift nuclear as the contender, as it is not effected by changing weather nor release poisonous emissions into the air. In EU there is also the usual argument of being less dependent on Russia and the middle east for energy. It thus sounds odd that someone would argue in favor of a grid with only fossil fuels, as that would just be more expensive compared to one that combines fossil fuel with renewable with no gained benefits.
- dumbfoundded 5y ago
  I think it will make sense to way over produce on renewables such that non-optimal times still produce enough electricity. And then use the excess of the spikes for either storage or energy intensive operations like aluminum smelting or large scale water desalination.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Or producing storable fuels, such as hydrogen or converting atmospheric CO2 into kerosene.
    - dumbfoundded 5y ago
      I'd count that as storage. As for storage, I see pumped hydro or lithium ion (or maybe liquid metal) batteries as the best bets. We will have to remove CO2 too so maybe the kerosene is another viable pathway.
  - belorn 5y ago
    In order to make storage economical viable in regions that depend on wind power it need to have its costs significant reduced, especially compared to nuclear which is already deemed too expensive. Producing storable hydrogen from ocean wind farm was when I last checked 20-30 times more expensive than natural gas, and a few times more expensive than nuclear. Other storage techniques for wind do not fare much better and has other additional drawbacks, with lithium batteries being prohibitively costly in terms of long term capacity. High energy intensive operations are already somewhat dynamic to changes in the energy grid, but there is a cross point where the cost of shutting down operation in order to wait for better weather is not viable. Large scale water desalination is not that big to my knowledge in EU/UK. At the same time, over production is a hard sell for wind farms operators. It reduces profitability since you then have periods where competition makes the prices goes close or even beyond zero. When Denmark hit 100% capacity we saw a very distinct change in the market where the interest to invest into more wind went drastically down. Wind is still the cheapest way to produce energy but overproduction cuts into that cost advantage, making alternative energy production better investment in comparison.

Schiendelman 5y ago

FYI - it’s a “rap,” as in “rap sheet.”

belorn 5y ago

For the last several decades it have been pretty much established that the cheapest way to operate a energy grid is to use renewables as a way to produce absolute cheapest energy when weather conditions is around optimal, and then to use cheap fossil fuels when the weather turns non-optimal and output goes below demand. A grid that only operated on fossil fuels would just be more expensive. People arguing against this setup usually lift nuclear as the contender, as it is not effected by changing weather nor release poisonous emissions into the air. In EU there is also the usual argument of being less dependent on Russia and the middle east for energy. It thus sounds odd that someone would argue in favor of a grid with only fossil fuels, as that would just be more expensive compared to one that combines fossil fuel with renewable with no gained benefits.

dumbfoundded 5y ago
I think it will make sense to way over produce on renewables such that non-optimal times still produce enough electricity. And then use the excess of the spikes for either storage or energy intensive operations like aluminum smelting or large scale water desalination.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Or producing storable fuels, such as hydrogen or converting atmospheric CO2 into kerosene.
  - dumbfoundded 5y ago
    I'd count that as storage. As for storage, I see pumped hydro or lithium ion (or maybe liquid metal) batteries as the best bets. We will have to remove CO2 too so maybe the kerosene is another viable pathway.
- belorn 5y ago
  In order to make storage economical viable in regions that depend on wind power it need to have its costs significant reduced, especially compared to nuclear which is already deemed too expensive. Producing storable hydrogen from ocean wind farm was when I last checked 20-30 times more expensive than natural gas, and a few times more expensive than nuclear. Other storage techniques for wind do not fare much better and has other additional drawbacks, with lithium batteries being prohibitively costly in terms of long term capacity. High energy intensive operations are already somewhat dynamic to changes in the energy grid, but there is a cross point where the cost of shutting down operation in order to wait for better weather is not viable. Large scale water desalination is not that big to my knowledge in EU/UK. At the same time, over production is a hard sell for wind farms operators. It reduces profitability since you then have periods where competition makes the prices goes close or even beyond zero. When Denmark hit 100% capacity we saw a very distinct change in the market where the interest to invest into more wind went drastically down. Wind is still the cheapest way to produce energy but overproduction cuts into that cost advantage, making alternative energy production better investment in comparison.