5 ms·

> V2G can absolutely make some contribution for very short-term fluctuations (such as for from Nuclear ramp up/down cycles, but the capacity several orders of m

> V2G can absolutely make some contribution for very short-term fluctuations (such as for from Nuclear ramp up/down cycles, but the capacity several orders of magnitude too small to compensate for a few weeks of almost no wind in the North Sea. As noted we know efficient ways to reduce intermittence-induced production variability. If you are interested in all this the very scientific study described by the article I refenced is of interest. Note that other studies deliver similar results, see "How synchronous is wind energy production among European countries?" -- Monforti, Gaetani, Vignati). Those conclusions are sound for other continents, for the US see "Is it always windy somewhere? Occurrence of low-wind-power events over large areas" (Handschy, Rose, Apt), for China see Liu, Xiao Wang, Dai, Qi "Analysis on the hourly spatiotemporal complementarities between China's solar and wind energy resources spreading in a wide area"... > The extreme price fluctuations Yes, the context (economic crisis, energetic transition, international tensions...) isn't keen. I didn't know how hard it hits in Norway. In many Western nations it hits very hard but this is hidden from public sight by throwing public money at the problem (usually by sacrificing usually perceived energy taxes in order to create provisions or even pay for the current high market price), leading to more debt and therefore higher taxes (as usual the taxpayer and consumer will nonetheless pay, and more because the very government has a cost, burning part of taxes). > the reservoirs in the hydro systems are already unusually low Yes (climate...), and the planners have to keep some reserve in order to preserve necessary margins (emergencies and follow-up). > Denmark should expect that at some point soon, Norway will shut down exports until the situation has normalized. A huge grid offers more potential commercial partners, and the probability of an extreme "nobody is able to sell" case gets lower and lower. > What happens to Danmark's electricity market if they are no longer able to import power from Norway and Sweden? There are many factors: how much parties can plan for it in advance, find others sellers, curtail, backup... The composition gives the net result. >> This is mainly a financial matter. A 'cooperation' achieved thru a market > You would be right if Norway were able to coordinate that internally in ways that did not hurt the population. But in Norway, since electricity is used for heating (and it is cold here). That would have to mean a setup where households were able to buy electricity at prices close to the historical prices We can predict a fair part of the parameters, therefore many cases are manageable. Even worst-case scenarios, leading to throwing public money at the problem, are in a way useful because they trigger adequate reactions (innovation...). Ways to cut down a huge part of heating-related needs are known, for example by enhancing thermal isolation or heating buildings in "anti-frost" (no freezing) mode while wearing heated clothing. > But being a full member of the open energy market simply doesn't work for Norway at these price levels. It's kind of being members of an open market for food when your population is starving, even if you're a net exporter. Yes, there always is a limit, even for our ability to counter limits by multiplying ways to cope. Compare various approaches merits is difficult, for example France touted its nuclear fleet as a sure way to be autonomous but now detects corrosion inside pipes, has to temporarily shutdown reactors (load factor now floats around .7) and therefore was recently very happy to import electricity from Germany (which is usually mocked because "wind & solar are intermittent,: Germany needs France"...). Moreover France imports most of its uranium from Kazakhstan (one may imagine Putin's going full LOL ahead upon reading that "France loves not to depend upon other nations"). > The prices of nuclear is caused by political choices. With rational (or only sightly paranoid) regulations, nuclear would be a lot cheaper. Political choices are only part of the problem, and apparently not part of the main ones (there is a very interesting report about the French Flamanville-3 case, named the "rapport Folz", however it's in French I could not find any English version). Not being paranoid probably increases the probability of incident/accidents (contesting this is saying that some safety-related new specifications are totally useless: this is a bold statement), and on the long-term reducing the amount and patent effects of boo-boos, even at a non-negligible cost, may be the best bet when it comes to public opinion. This is not necessarily badly-invested money and time. > there are a lot more pro-nuclear people now, than when I advocated for nuclear 15 years ago. This seems globally true, however the amount of people willing to see a reactor installed in their vicinity rather than wind turbines in the ocean is low and stable. >> A continental mix reduces this need. > Not below "several days" At continental scale several days without a fair part of the baseload and peaks, starting with storage at low charge, with not enough curtailing and backup capacity? I doubt so. > long distance energy transfers are expensive Indeed, however the huge grid is justified whatever the type of source: even going full-nuclear would justify it, for safety (see the current French 'corrosion' case) and to be able to use more sound sources (avoiding production units which burn fossil fuel). As showed this is already launched ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continental_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_grid_of_Continenta... ) and will very be be further developed ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid ). The impact of renewable sources is here limited to dimensions, not the very existence of most lines, therefore the real cost (specific to renewable sources) is limited, and way below many models proposed by nuclear or fossil industries. This limited specific investment will be recouped thanks to a way lower LCOE, as producing electricity thanks to renewable sources is way cheaper than using nuclear (and getting more and more so).

trashtester 4y ago
> Ways to cut down a huge part of heating-related needs are known, for example by enhancing thermal isolation or heating buildings in "anti-frost" (no freezing) mode while wearing heated clothing. Building standards for new buildings are aleady very strict when it comes to isolation. But I don't think you understand the mentality of most Norwegians on this matter. Norway produces electricity at extremely low prices. This is 110% renewable. Most Norwegians don't feel obligated to reduce their quality of life just ot provide cheaper electricity to Denmark, Germany and the UK. If you take commodities where the price difference is the reverse, like meat, (EDIT:) I expect most Danes would be equally reluctant to pay Norwegian prices for beef and pork. In fact, Norway fully intends for people to INCREASE their electricity consumption, even beyond what we currently export. Much of Norway's greenhouse gas emmisions come from petrol/diesel, but currently 2/3 of new cars are electric. This means that ever more electricity is needed domestically. As long as most European countries use natural gas for heating, or rather, as long as natural gas is a cheaper way to heat buildings in countries like Germany than electricity, I predict that it will be hard to have a common electricity market across the North Sea / Skagerak. If electricity is not used for heating, it is kind of a luxery good. But when all you have for heating is electricity, it becomes a fundamental need, similar to food and water (when it's -40 degrees Celsius outside). Many countries in Eastern Europe have winter temperatures almost similarly low, and for those to use electricity for heating, the price also needs to be at similar levels (or lower, since they have less wealth than Norway). For many of those countries, it's hard replace fossil fuels, and if they cannot use Russian gas, they may have to go back to coal (LNG may be too expensive). Hopefully you're right, and they can get affordable prices by using windmills. But for countries like Hungary and Romania to be able to heat their houses with electricity, prices have to be RADICALLY lower than current prices in Germany or Denmark. Obviously, modern nuclear plants are not cheap enough in all places, either. But even if the effect is just that using Nuclear in place of gas for electricity production, that should ensure that (non-Russian) natural gas remains viable for heating purposes througout Europe for the next generation. Or (admittedly a bit unrealistic), one could revise standards for Nuclear production to lower safety standards (in terms of expected deaths per GWh) to a level more similar to competing energy forms.
- natmaka 4y ago

trashtester 4y ago

> Ways to cut down a huge part of heating-related needs are known, for example by enhancing thermal isolation or heating buildings in "anti-frost" (no freezing) mode while wearing heated clothing. Building standards for new buildings are aleady very strict when it comes to isolation. But I don't think you understand the mentality of most Norwegians on this matter. Norway produces electricity at extremely low prices. This is 110% renewable. Most Norwegians don't feel obligated to reduce their quality of life just ot provide cheaper electricity to Denmark, Germany and the UK. If you take commodities where the price difference is the reverse, like meat, (EDIT:) I expect most Danes would be equally reluctant to pay Norwegian prices for beef and pork. In fact, Norway fully intends for people to INCREASE their electricity consumption, even beyond what we currently export. Much of Norway's greenhouse gas emmisions come from petrol/diesel, but currently 2/3 of new cars are electric. This means that ever more electricity is needed domestically. As long as most European countries use natural gas for heating, or rather, as long as natural gas is a cheaper way to heat buildings in countries like Germany than electricity, I predict that it will be hard to have a common electricity market across the North Sea / Skagerak. If electricity is not used for heating, it is kind of a luxery good. But when all you have for heating is electricity, it becomes a fundamental need, similar to food and water (when it's -40 degrees Celsius outside). Many countries in Eastern Europe have winter temperatures almost similarly low, and for those to use electricity for heating, the price also needs to be at similar levels (or lower, since they have less wealth than Norway). For many of those countries, it's hard replace fossil fuels, and if they cannot use Russian gas, they may have to go back to coal (LNG may be too expensive). Hopefully you're right, and they can get affordable prices by using windmills. But for countries like Hungary and Romania to be able to heat their houses with electricity, prices have to be RADICALLY lower than current prices in Germany or Denmark. Obviously, modern nuclear plants are not cheap enough in all places, either. But even if the effect is just that using Nuclear in place of gas for electricity production, that should ensure that (non-Russian) natural gas remains viable for heating purposes througout Europe for the next generation. Or (admittedly a bit unrealistic), one could revise standards for Nuclear production to lower safety standards (in terms of expected deaths per GWh) to a level more similar to competing energy forms.

natmaka 4y ago