4 ms·

I think you’re being glib, but the issue is that you can’t guarantee the alignment of sun and wind to match demand. Sometimes the wind blows at night, yes, but

I think you’re being glib, but the issue is that you can’t guarantee the alignment of sun and wind to match demand. Sometimes the wind blows at night, yes, but sometimes it does not. On a pure renewable grid, no wind at night means rolling brownouts or blackouts. This is particularly problematic during the summer when people want to run AC in order to sleep, and will also be an issue when people move to electric heat in the winter. Long term we’ll use a mix of big grids, over provisioned renewables, and grid level storage to smooth this out, but we’re not there yet. Right now the choice is between a nuclear power plant during these moments, or a natural gas one.

loeg 5y ago
> Right now the choice is between a nuclear power plant during these moments, or a natural gas one. Well, gas and coal. Germany is still ~26% coal in 2021[1]. Edit: Maybe 50% coal if you look at consumption, not just generation, per 'incrudible[2]. [1]: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig3a-share-energy-sources-gross-german-power-production-h12021.png https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... (Lignite is a kind of coal) [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28857398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28857398
- incrudible 5y ago
  Germany is closer to 50% coal if you look at actual demand being fulfilled instead of just production. In the linked image, the grey area is conventionals (mostly coal), the green area is exports of surplus. https://oneinabillionblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/hourly-electricity-data-germany-week-25-2013.png https://oneinabillionblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/hourly...
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  I would expect that in most places this will shift to natural gas, given that natural gas is more economically viable than coal for new plants. But still, both are fossil fuels, so neither option is great.
  - Gwypaas 5y ago
    It's all about the geographical decoupling with local storage and smart consumers to smooth the loads. For example tying the charging of your electric car while it's parked to the current price. Spatial and temporal arbitrage of energy, which nuclear is completely awful at. Or using Swedish, Norwegian hydro and wind together with German, British and Danish wind. These links are on the same scale as nuclear reactors. Germany <-> Norway (2021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NordLink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NordLink UK <-> Norway (2021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Link UK (Scotland) <-> Norway (On hold by Norway, cleared on Scottish side) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorthConnect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorthConnect Denmark <-> Norway (1977) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skagerrak_(power_transmission_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skagerrak_(power_transmission_...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - xyzzyz 5y ago
    No, gas is not more economical everywhere. It is in places which have gas, but most of Europe doesn’t have it — it has coal, though. For most of Europe, betting on gas means putting themselves under Kremlin control for its basic needs.
- fomine3 5y ago
  In this future use case, is coal plant really evil, or acceptable?
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    What future use case? We’re talking about right now. Also, coal emissions kill 100,000 people yearly, 25,000 in Europe alone. Yes, it’s evil.
fulafel 5y ago
We can also use real time price mechanism to match demand with supply intra day, energy intensive loads like water/home heating and ev charging can cheaply (vs cost of batteries connected to grid) buffer many hours without issue.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  In cold and hot places, you cannot easily buffer heating and AC for hours.
  - fulafel 5y ago
    You can if you have decent insulation (which at least cold climates do). In fact people historically have taken advantage of cheaper night time electricity prices to shift heating to night time. Better insulation will become a more attractive investment than in the past.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > In fact people historically have taken advantage of cheaper night time electricity prices to shift heating to night time. Night time is usually when heating is most needed. Shifting AC to night time in hot regions would be more impressive.
      - fulafel 5y ago
        > Night time is usually when heating is most needed. If we are still talking about cold climates where houses are well insulated, it's a more convenient timing but not really needed. If you cut heating for half the night or even more, indoor temp won't drop too much even if outdoor temp is notably lower than day time. It might drop a few degrees as you are sleeping warmly tucked in, but that's not dangerous, and you can still heat your bedroom if you want to avoid even that slight adjustment.
- criley2 5y ago
  A well insulated modern construction can hold a temperature for a long time. Heating and cooling during energy availability and using your insulated building as a thermal battery of sorts is a real thing, and should be I think considered part of the solution here.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
> we’re not there yet. The UK power grid has pumped hydro storage for decades to handle a huge tick in power demand every time the BBC goes to commercial break during a very popular program, as everyone simultaneously goes to make a cup of tea with their several-kilowatt electric kettle. > Right now the choice is between a nuclear power plant during these moments, or a natural gas one. False dilemma. You left out energy storage, of which there are multiple proven technologies. Iron chemistry batteries are looking like the biggest win. Non-toxic, cheap, simple, easily scaled, easy to build and maintain, and the materials needed are bountiful...and there are working production systems right now.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > The UK power grid has pumped hydro storage for decades Pumped hydro is a pretty good choice for grid level storage today, but it has some pretty severe terrain limitations. There’s lots of places that will never use it because the terrain won’t allow it. Of course there’s the issue of the actual numbers. Pumped hydro can store a ton of power in terms of watt hours, but the peak output in watts is very low. UK pumped hydro can produce 2.8GW of power combined. Pretty impressive until you realize that that’s less than some single nuclear plants. Blayais produces 3.6GW, Cattenom produces 5.2GW, etc. etc. A typical modern reactor has a nameplate capacity of 1.3GW or higher; literally adding a single reactor to an existing power plant is equivalent to half of the UK’s pumped hydro capacity. The big advantage of pumped hydro is that you can combine power production with water storage, which is good! But it is not capable of producing enough power to enable a 100% renewable grid, and probably never will. > False dilemma. You left out energy storage, of which there are multiple proven technologies. Huh? I “left out” energy storage? I literally said “grid level storage” in the full sentence, you just cut it out when you quoted me. To reiterate: I didn’t “leave out” energy storage. I do not believe that we have enough energy storage yet to make fossil fuel plants unnecessary, especially as we push to electrify everything (transit, industry, etc.). One day we will be there, but currently we’re woefully short. It’s my assertion that nuclear power is a good way to bridge the gap while we keep building storage, because as of today we’re literally burning fossil fuels when renewables fall short of demand for whatever reason. > Iron chemistry batteries are looking like the biggest win. Non-toxic, cheap, simple, easily scaled, easy to build and maintain, and the materials needed are bountiful...and there are working production systems right now. Sounds great, how many gigawatt hours are installed, or are being installed now, and how much can/will they be able to produce?

loeg 5y ago

> Right now the choice is between a nuclear power plant during these moments, or a natural gas one. Well, gas and coal. Germany is still ~26% coal in 2021[1]. Edit: Maybe 50% coal if you look at consumption, not just generation, per 'incrudible[2]. [1]: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/paragraphs/images/fig3a-share-energy-sources-gross-german-power-production-h12021.png https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g... (Lignite is a kind of coal) [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28857398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28857398

incrudible 5y ago
Germany is closer to 50% coal if you look at actual demand being fulfilled instead of just production. In the linked image, the grey area is conventionals (mostly coal), the green area is exports of surplus. https://oneinabillionblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/hourly-electricity-data-germany-week-25-2013.png https://oneinabillionblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/hourly...
ashtonkem 5y ago
I would expect that in most places this will shift to natural gas, given that natural gas is more economically viable than coal for new plants. But still, both are fossil fuels, so neither option is great.
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  It's all about the geographical decoupling with local storage and smart consumers to smooth the loads. For example tying the charging of your electric car while it's parked to the current price. Spatial and temporal arbitrage of energy, which nuclear is completely awful at. Or using Swedish, Norwegian hydro and wind together with German, British and Danish wind. These links are on the same scale as nuclear reactors. Germany <-> Norway (2021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NordLink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NordLink UK <-> Norway (2021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Link UK (Scotland) <-> Norway (On hold by Norway, cleared on Scottish side) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorthConnect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorthConnect Denmark <-> Norway (1977) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skagerrak_(power_transmission_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skagerrak_(power_transmission_...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  No, gas is not more economical everywhere. It is in places which have gas, but most of Europe doesn’t have it — it has coal, though. For most of Europe, betting on gas means putting themselves under Kremlin control for its basic needs.
fomine3 5y ago
In this future use case, is coal plant really evil, or acceptable?
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  What future use case? We’re talking about right now. Also, coal emissions kill 100,000 people yearly, 25,000 in Europe alone. Yes, it’s evil.

fulafel 5y ago

We can also use real time price mechanism to match demand with supply intra day, energy intensive loads like water/home heating and ev charging can cheaply (vs cost of batteries connected to grid) buffer many hours without issue.

xyzzyz 5y ago
In cold and hot places, you cannot easily buffer heating and AC for hours.
- fulafel 5y ago
  You can if you have decent insulation (which at least cold climates do). In fact people historically have taken advantage of cheaper night time electricity prices to shift heating to night time. Better insulation will become a more attractive investment than in the past.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > In fact people historically have taken advantage of cheaper night time electricity prices to shift heating to night time. Night time is usually when heating is most needed. Shifting AC to night time in hot regions would be more impressive.
    - fulafel 5y ago
      > Night time is usually when heating is most needed. If we are still talking about cold climates where houses are well insulated, it's a more convenient timing but not really needed. If you cut heating for half the night or even more, indoor temp won't drop too much even if outdoor temp is notably lower than day time. It might drop a few degrees as you are sleeping warmly tucked in, but that's not dangerous, and you can still heat your bedroom if you want to avoid even that slight adjustment.
criley2 5y ago
A well insulated modern construction can hold a temperature for a long time. Heating and cooling during energy availability and using your insulated building as a thermal battery of sorts is a real thing, and should be I think considered part of the solution here.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

> we’re not there yet. The UK power grid has pumped hydro storage for decades to handle a huge tick in power demand every time the BBC goes to commercial break during a very popular program, as everyone simultaneously goes to make a cup of tea with their several-kilowatt electric kettle. > Right now the choice is between a nuclear power plant during these moments, or a natural gas one. False dilemma. You left out energy storage, of which there are multiple proven technologies. Iron chemistry batteries are looking like the biggest win. Non-toxic, cheap, simple, easily scaled, easy to build and maintain, and the materials needed are bountiful...and there are working production systems right now.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> The UK power grid has pumped hydro storage for decades Pumped hydro is a pretty good choice for grid level storage today, but it has some pretty severe terrain limitations. There’s lots of places that will never use it because the terrain won’t allow it. Of course there’s the issue of the actual numbers. Pumped hydro can store a ton of power in terms of watt hours, but the peak output in watts is very low. UK pumped hydro can produce 2.8GW of power combined. Pretty impressive until you realize that that’s less than some single nuclear plants. Blayais produces 3.6GW, Cattenom produces 5.2GW, etc. etc. A typical modern reactor has a nameplate capacity of 1.3GW or higher; literally adding a single reactor to an existing power plant is equivalent to half of the UK’s pumped hydro capacity. The big advantage of pumped hydro is that you can combine power production with water storage, which is good! But it is not capable of producing enough power to enable a 100% renewable grid, and probably never will. > False dilemma. You left out energy storage, of which there are multiple proven technologies. Huh? I “left out” energy storage? I literally said “grid level storage” in the full sentence, you just cut it out when you quoted me. To reiterate: I didn’t “leave out” energy storage. I do not believe that we have enough energy storage yet to make fossil fuel plants unnecessary, especially as we push to electrify everything (transit, industry, etc.). One day we will be there, but currently we’re woefully short. It’s my assertion that nuclear power is a good way to bridge the gap while we keep building storage, because as of today we’re literally burning fossil fuels when renewables fall short of demand for whatever reason. > Iron chemistry batteries are looking like the biggest win. Non-toxic, cheap, simple, easily scaled, easy to build and maintain, and the materials needed are bountiful...and there are working production systems right now. Sounds great, how many gigawatt hours are installed, or are being installed now, and how much can/will they be able to produce?