7 ms·

> Yes, god forbid we would enact realistic policies. What's your realistic policy for energy storage that's required for renewables?

jacquesm 5y ago
Offloading the problem to the consumer. If you want power continuity then you will have to provide it yourself. If you want reliable power that will be available but a significant premium over the unreliable version, and there will be a limited supply of that reliable power. Pumped storage where available will help a lot, grid scale battery systems are nowhere near powerful enough to take on a significant fraction of the worlds powersupply so we'll have to make do. Rationing of critical resources has many historical precedents, it's time we realized that power is not infinitely available at will, even though we would very much like it to be that way.
- slowmovintarget 5y ago
  So only the rich get continuous power?
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    It's already like that if you look at it on a country-by-country basis, and rolling blackouts have been a thing for a long time even in developed countries, even if their use is for a different reason. And in combination with an energy budget it's more a matter of whether you need continuity or if you can get by and save some money. I've lived in places where energy delivery was flaky an intermittent and everybody gets by, the only problem is with industrial processes that are hard or even impossible to restart, for everybody else continuity can be optional, especially if there is some possible prediction of when it will be available and when it will not.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > If you want reliable power that will be available but a significant premium over the unreliable version, and there will be a limited supply of that reliable power. Ah yes. What a libertarian view of the world. The rich will get the power while the unfortunate ones won't even be able to refrigerate their food. Medical equipment will fail. People will freeze in winter. Trains will not run. etc. Also. How do you propose to separate reliable and non-reliable energy sources? By building a parallel energy grid? How is this a realistic policy? > Rationing of critical resources has many historical precedents, it's time we realized that power is not infinitely available at will It's not unlimited. However, it's not as scarce and limited as you want to make it.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    It's not libertarian at all, it is simply realistic. Keep in mind that the power grid as it is today is already unreliable, it's just that we've started to think about it as 100% available. But there are many reasons why it can - and often does - fail and we have build our processes around that. Just like we do not need a separate grid for green energy we do not need one for reliable and unreliable sources, case in point: we already use reliable and unreliable sources right now, it's just that we do not bill differently for them. As for medical equipment, refrigeration and trains: it is clear that some consumption will need to be sourced from reliable sources or at least sources with sufficient overlap during generation that their chance of failure is small. Power is not as scarce and unlimited as I believe it well may become in the near future, and if you look at this through a slightly wider lens (developing world vs developed world) then you'll see that in many countries this situation is a reality today, but instead of being billed differently and given a choice the power will simply fail.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > Just like we do not need a separate grid for green energy we do not need one for reliable and unreliable sources, case in point: we already use reliable and unreliable sources right now That really doesn't answer how you would solve your own proposal. Let me quote it again: "If you want power continuity then you will have to provide it yourself. If you want reliable power that will be available but a significant premium over the unreliable version, and there will be a limited supply of that reliable power." So. How are you going to solve that? You either make the entire grid reliable, or you make the entire grid unreliable. There's no "both". The most simple scenario: two neighboring houses on the same grid. One "is paying premium for reliable power continuity". The other is paying cheaply. HOw are you going to provide one with reliable power, and the other one with unreliable on the same grid? > it is clear that some consumption will need to be sourced from reliable sources or at least sources with sufficient overlap during generation that their chance of failure is small. They are on the same grid as everybody else. So you are proposing to build a parallel electrical grid? > you'll see that in many countries this situation is a reality today, but instead of being billed differently and given a choice the power will simply fail. I come from Moldova. It's been reliably the poorest country in Europe for the past 30 years. For the past 20 years it hasn't had any rolling blackouts. The US had rolling blackouts in California in 2000-2001 and in Texas in 2021. Power availability and reliability in the modern world is first and foremost the function of corruption and political will.

jacquesm 5y ago

Offloading the problem to the consumer. If you want power continuity then you will have to provide it yourself. If you want reliable power that will be available but a significant premium over the unreliable version, and there will be a limited supply of that reliable power. Pumped storage where available will help a lot, grid scale battery systems are nowhere near powerful enough to take on a significant fraction of the worlds powersupply so we'll have to make do. Rationing of critical resources has many historical precedents, it's time we realized that power is not infinitely available at will, even though we would very much like it to be that way.

slowmovintarget 5y ago
So only the rich get continuous power?
- jacquesm 5y ago
  It's already like that if you look at it on a country-by-country basis, and rolling blackouts have been a thing for a long time even in developed countries, even if their use is for a different reason. And in combination with an energy budget it's more a matter of whether you need continuity or if you can get by and save some money. I've lived in places where energy delivery was flaky an intermittent and everybody gets by, the only problem is with industrial processes that are hard or even impossible to restart, for everybody else continuity can be optional, especially if there is some possible prediction of when it will be available and when it will not.
dmitriid 5y ago
> If you want reliable power that will be available but a significant premium over the unreliable version, and there will be a limited supply of that reliable power. Ah yes. What a libertarian view of the world. The rich will get the power while the unfortunate ones won't even be able to refrigerate their food. Medical equipment will fail. People will freeze in winter. Trains will not run. etc. Also. How do you propose to separate reliable and non-reliable energy sources? By building a parallel energy grid? How is this a realistic policy? > Rationing of critical resources has many historical precedents, it's time we realized that power is not infinitely available at will It's not unlimited. However, it's not as scarce and limited as you want to make it.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  It's not libertarian at all, it is simply realistic. Keep in mind that the power grid as it is today is already unreliable, it's just that we've started to think about it as 100% available. But there are many reasons why it can - and often does - fail and we have build our processes around that. Just like we do not need a separate grid for green energy we do not need one for reliable and unreliable sources, case in point: we already use reliable and unreliable sources right now, it's just that we do not bill differently for them. As for medical equipment, refrigeration and trains: it is clear that some consumption will need to be sourced from reliable sources or at least sources with sufficient overlap during generation that their chance of failure is small. Power is not as scarce and unlimited as I believe it well may become in the near future, and if you look at this through a slightly wider lens (developing world vs developed world) then you'll see that in many countries this situation is a reality today, but instead of being billed differently and given a choice the power will simply fail.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > Just like we do not need a separate grid for green energy we do not need one for reliable and unreliable sources, case in point: we already use reliable and unreliable sources right now That really doesn't answer how you would solve your own proposal. Let me quote it again: "If you want power continuity then you will have to provide it yourself. If you want reliable power that will be available but a significant premium over the unreliable version, and there will be a limited supply of that reliable power." So. How are you going to solve that? You either make the entire grid reliable, or you make the entire grid unreliable. There's no "both". The most simple scenario: two neighboring houses on the same grid. One "is paying premium for reliable power continuity". The other is paying cheaply. HOw are you going to provide one with reliable power, and the other one with unreliable on the same grid? > it is clear that some consumption will need to be sourced from reliable sources or at least sources with sufficient overlap during generation that their chance of failure is small. They are on the same grid as everybody else. So you are proposing to build a parallel electrical grid? > you'll see that in many countries this situation is a reality today, but instead of being billed differently and given a choice the power will simply fail. I come from Moldova. It's been reliably the poorest country in Europe for the past 30 years. For the past 20 years it hasn't had any rolling blackouts. The US had rolling blackouts in California in 2000-2001 and in Texas in 2021. Power availability and reliability in the modern world is first and foremost the function of corruption and political will.