6 ms·

Produce at double max and use the excess power to remove carbon from the atmosphere?

by dd36 5y ago

saiya-jin 5y ago
or desalinate & clean water, or store the excess for next peak use in ie high & low connected dams, or... that's really a nice problem to have
- 7952 5y ago
  Yes, accept those things are all designed for large scale grid systems.
tempestn 5y ago
The problem with using excess power for things like that (or desalination per sibling comment) is that the infrastructure to do these things is expensive, and it becomes less cost-effective if it's only used part of the time, when the energy is available. The one application I'm aware of that can cost-effectively use excess power of that sort is crypto mining, since there the vast majority of the cost is electricity; the capital cost is relatively low. Unfortunately it's arguable whether it does anything useful besides enriching the producer.
- faeyanpiraat 5y ago
  You mean you can cost effectively use the excess power to produce even more heat?
  - tempestn 5y ago
    Once the power is produced it's going to become heat regardless, so if you're not able to scale down generation you're going to get that heat. But as I said, it's certainly debatable whether there's any value in that type of work.
- moonchrome 5y ago
  >The problem with using excess power for things like that (or desalination per sibling comment) is that the infrastructure to do these things is expensive, and it becomes less cost-effective if it's only used part of the time, when the energy is available. Not if you reverse the grid - instead of providing power to the nodes it takes excess away to scalable workloads. And you have grid access as a backup.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    It's nothing to do with the organization of the grid. Almost any "scalable workload" actually capable of scaling up will have a high $$$ upfront cost for all the machinery / infrastructure involved. If a decarbonation plant costs many millions of dollars to set up, nobody is going to let it sit idle waiting for some excess power. The best use case for smoothing the demand curve IMO is thermal "storage". While production is high, people can crank the AC or heat. That way they don't have to use as much energy when production is lower.
    - tempestn 5y ago
      Yes, that's a good one. Can even be automated to some extent using smart thermostats. Water heating too. Even without the thermal storage element though, there are lots of loads than can be shifted using a financial incentive. Clothes washing and drying is a good one. Electric vehicle charging too. Even if they aren't used to feed back into the grid, just having people charge when power is plentiful will make a big difference as more electric vehicles are added to the system.
      - dandelany 5y ago
        Electric vehicles are really the best option IMO - as long as it’s fully charged in the morning when it’s needed, most drivers won’t care if it charges at 9pm or 3am. I’m less certain about the other things - not many people will eg. put off a load of laundry to a less-convenient time to save 21 cents. And if my partner is too hot because the heater has been running for 30 minutes I really do not want to have a discussion with her about “thermal storage” :)
- PoignardAzur 5y ago
  You could always run Folding@Home or something in that vein.
- blake1 5y ago
  The most obvious use for excess power is surely storing it. In a battery, a flywheel, a gravity storage system, compressed gas—hugely economical.
  - 7952 5y ago
    Yes. But storage is easier at scale using the existing grid. A large battery storage site can take excess power from across the grid and get economy of scale.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  > Unfortunately it's arguable whether it does anything useful besides enriching the producer. I don't see how that goal is problematic given the use of a carbon-neutral energy source. I actually see it as an advantage, something that might help speed the adoption of fusion energy and thus get us off hydrocarbons.

Produce at double max and use the excess power to remove carbon from the atmosphere?

by dd36 5y ago

Produce at double max and use the excess power to remove carbon from the atmosphere?

or desalinate & clean water, or store the excess for next peak use in ie high & low connected dams, or... that's really a nice problem to have

7952 5y ago
Yes, accept those things are all designed for large scale grid systems.

tempestn 5y ago

The problem with using excess power for things like that (or desalination per sibling comment) is that the infrastructure to do these things is expensive, and it becomes less cost-effective if it's only used part of the time, when the energy is available. The one application I'm aware of that can cost-effectively use excess power of that sort is crypto mining, since there the vast majority of the cost is electricity; the capital cost is relatively low. Unfortunately it's arguable whether it does anything useful besides enriching the producer.

faeyanpiraat 5y ago
You mean you can cost effectively use the excess power to produce even more heat?
- tempestn 5y ago
  Once the power is produced it's going to become heat regardless, so if you're not able to scale down generation you're going to get that heat. But as I said, it's certainly debatable whether there's any value in that type of work.
moonchrome 5y ago
>The problem with using excess power for things like that (or desalination per sibling comment) is that the infrastructure to do these things is expensive, and it becomes less cost-effective if it's only used part of the time, when the energy is available. Not if you reverse the grid - instead of providing power to the nodes it takes excess away to scalable workloads. And you have grid access as a backup.
- dahfizz 5y ago
  It's nothing to do with the organization of the grid. Almost any "scalable workload" actually capable of scaling up will have a high $$$ upfront cost for all the machinery / infrastructure involved. If a decarbonation plant costs many millions of dollars to set up, nobody is going to let it sit idle waiting for some excess power. The best use case for smoothing the demand curve IMO is thermal "storage". While production is high, people can crank the AC or heat. That way they don't have to use as much energy when production is lower.
  - tempestn 5y ago
    Yes, that's a good one. Can even be automated to some extent using smart thermostats. Water heating too. Even without the thermal storage element though, there are lots of loads than can be shifted using a financial incentive. Clothes washing and drying is a good one. Electric vehicle charging too. Even if they aren't used to feed back into the grid, just having people charge when power is plentiful will make a big difference as more electric vehicles are added to the system.
    - dandelany 5y ago
      Electric vehicles are really the best option IMO - as long as it’s fully charged in the morning when it’s needed, most drivers won’t care if it charges at 9pm or 3am. I’m less certain about the other things - not many people will eg. put off a load of laundry to a less-convenient time to save 21 cents. And if my partner is too hot because the heater has been running for 30 minutes I really do not want to have a discussion with her about “thermal storage” :)
PoignardAzur 5y ago
You could always run Folding@Home or something in that vein.
blake1 5y ago
The most obvious use for excess power is surely storing it. In a battery, a flywheel, a gravity storage system, compressed gas—hugely economical.
- 7952 5y ago
  Yes. But storage is easier at scale using the existing grid. A large battery storage site can take excess power from across the grid and get economy of scale.
dotancohen 5y ago
> Unfortunately it's arguable whether it does anything useful besides enriching the producer. I don't see how that goal is problematic given the use of a carbon-neutral energy source. I actually see it as an advantage, something that might help speed the adoption of fusion energy and thus get us off hydrocarbons.