4 ms·

Challenge here is too much solar destabilizes the grid and there’s not enough peaker plants/other sources to handle to variation in generation/load. The reason

Challenge here is too much solar destabilizes the grid and there’s not enough peaker plants/other sources to handle to variation in generation/load. The reason residential makes more sense is that it’s consumed at source. I don’t know the power draw needs of supermarkets but I doubt it warrants fully covered parking lots. Residential is better because it decentralizes power generation more and puts more power in the hands of consumers.

ncmncm 4y ago
Strangely, power system engineers are not complaining about destabilized grids. Solar can be turned off instantly if it were ever a problem. In the future all the grids will also have plentiful storage, and be overwhelmingly more stable than today.
- simon_000666 4y ago
  Hmm, it’s anecdotal but I know several grid engineers in the UK and Europe who are employees to deal with exactly that problem and spend most of their time complaining about the instability caused to a grid that needs investment to adjust to the new reality. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj6734 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj6734
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Yes, the grid needs to adapt to changing conditions. Strangely enough, it has engineers who know how to adapt it. Some, you even say you know. "Ooh, a turn is coming up! Who will turn the steering wheel so we don't run off the road?" ... "Oh, we have a driver? Why didn't anybody tell me?
II2II 4y ago
My instinctive response: if the parking lot is too large to generate power that will be consumed at the source, it is yet another reason to consider parking lots as inefficient land use. My second response: if society considers the electric automobile as an acceptable substitute for efficient land use and transportation infrastructure, perhaps we should be mandating this form of in situ power generation for automobiles so that people who make more environmentally sustainable decisions and those who cannot afford an automobile do not end up subsidizing power for those who choose to drive. EDIT, just to be clear: I commented on electric cars since they are a way to consume power at the source.
- simon_000666 4y ago
  True, that’s a good point, I had forgotten about the idea that they could be used to charge a new electric fleet which would require a lot more electricity than the supermarket alone. In that case it makes sense, the supermarket becomes the petrol pump (which it was to an extent anyway). Surely then it’s just a case of time, when the market economics make sense and supermarkets can make money out of it they will do it anyway.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Your first line is a common misconception (though the rest is solid). Solar and wind can switch themselves off very easily, so having too much is never a problem. In fact, having "too much" is generally the cheapest option and something every sane grid is aiming for right now. Once you actually have too much you can start to think of clever things to do with it, but again, that's the step after having "too much" because it's cheaper.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  From an economics perspective, his first point is exactly correct. Solar dumps tons of nearly free energy when it's sunny in summer, but produces much less in the winter, and even less on random bad weather days/weeks. ...and zero after dusk. This has the impact of flooding the market periodically which makes financing the alternative power much more expensive. In that environment, the plants you turn to for such rapid on/off production are burning fossil fuels. You could also do nuclear, but there's no benefit to turning nuclear off, it actually obviates building any solar for day/summer/clearskies-only production. This would all be obviated if batteries were cost-effective, but they aren't yet.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > In that environment, the plants you turn to for such rapid on/off production are burning fossil fuels. This is the exact opposite of the truth. The problem you're vaguely referencing, the so called duck curve, was a problem because fossil fuel plants can't ramp as fast as renewables. One of the many existing solutions to this solved problem was in fact to ask the gas plants to ramp a bit faster, which they actually could do, they'd just never had to before. Still not as fast as renewables though. The real reason we turn the fossil fuel plants off when we can and only turn them on when we really have to is because burning fossil fuels is expensive and polluting. But luckily we can quickly minimize that, and save money, by building lots of renewables. And, as an added bonus, renewables and batteries ability to turn on and off so quickly provides many grid stability benefits that earn them money on top of the electricity they sell.
prawn 4y ago
I would've thought that the average shopping mall is heating/cooling a lot more space (including high ceilings), a lot more often, and often during the day when solar is active and many households are empty? Large businesses run heating, cooling and lighting at times when I, being home, would not bother. I knew someone who owned a small shopping centre and years ago he'd already put solar on the roof and was charging tenants for electricity he was soon-enough getting "for free" (given the installation paid for itself fairly quickly). Here's an example of one in Australia - panels on the shopping centre's roof, and then solar canopies over the parking areas: https://binged.it/3vKGbm5 https://binged.it/3vKGbm5 (Bing Maps since Google Maps has older satellite images for that area)

ncmncm 4y ago

Strangely, power system engineers are not complaining about destabilized grids. Solar can be turned off instantly if it were ever a problem. In the future all the grids will also have plentiful storage, and be overwhelmingly more stable than today.

simon_000666 4y ago
Hmm, it’s anecdotal but I know several grid engineers in the UK and Europe who are employees to deal with exactly that problem and spend most of their time complaining about the instability caused to a grid that needs investment to adjust to the new reality. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj6734 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj6734
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Yes, the grid needs to adapt to changing conditions. Strangely enough, it has engineers who know how to adapt it. Some, you even say you know. "Ooh, a turn is coming up! Who will turn the steering wheel so we don't run off the road?" ... "Oh, we have a driver? Why didn't anybody tell me?

II2II 4y ago

My instinctive response: if the parking lot is too large to generate power that will be consumed at the source, it is yet another reason to consider parking lots as inefficient land use. My second response: if society considers the electric automobile as an acceptable substitute for efficient land use and transportation infrastructure, perhaps we should be mandating this form of in situ power generation for automobiles so that people who make more environmentally sustainable decisions and those who cannot afford an automobile do not end up subsidizing power for those who choose to drive. EDIT, just to be clear: I commented on electric cars since they are a way to consume power at the source.

simon_000666 4y ago
True, that’s a good point, I had forgotten about the idea that they could be used to charge a new electric fleet which would require a lot more electricity than the supermarket alone. In that case it makes sense, the supermarket becomes the petrol pump (which it was to an extent anyway). Surely then it’s just a case of time, when the market economics make sense and supermarkets can make money out of it they will do it anyway.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Your first line is a common misconception (though the rest is solid). Solar and wind can switch themselves off very easily, so having too much is never a problem. In fact, having "too much" is generally the cheapest option and something every sane grid is aiming for right now. Once you actually have too much you can start to think of clever things to do with it, but again, that's the step after having "too much" because it's cheaper.

koheripbal 4y ago
From an economics perspective, his first point is exactly correct. Solar dumps tons of nearly free energy when it's sunny in summer, but produces much less in the winter, and even less on random bad weather days/weeks. ...and zero after dusk. This has the impact of flooding the market periodically which makes financing the alternative power much more expensive. In that environment, the plants you turn to for such rapid on/off production are burning fossil fuels. You could also do nuclear, but there's no benefit to turning nuclear off, it actually obviates building any solar for day/summer/clearskies-only production. This would all be obviated if batteries were cost-effective, but they aren't yet.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  > In that environment, the plants you turn to for such rapid on/off production are burning fossil fuels. This is the exact opposite of the truth. The problem you're vaguely referencing, the so called duck curve, was a problem because fossil fuel plants can't ramp as fast as renewables. One of the many existing solutions to this solved problem was in fact to ask the gas plants to ramp a bit faster, which they actually could do, they'd just never had to before. Still not as fast as renewables though. The real reason we turn the fossil fuel plants off when we can and only turn them on when we really have to is because burning fossil fuels is expensive and polluting. But luckily we can quickly minimize that, and save money, by building lots of renewables. And, as an added bonus, renewables and batteries ability to turn on and off so quickly provides many grid stability benefits that earn them money on top of the electricity they sell.

prawn 4y ago

I would've thought that the average shopping mall is heating/cooling a lot more space (including high ceilings), a lot more often, and often during the day when solar is active and many households are empty? Large businesses run heating, cooling and lighting at times when I, being home, would not bother. I knew someone who owned a small shopping centre and years ago he'd already put solar on the roof and was charging tenants for electricity he was soon-enough getting "for free" (given the installation paid for itself fairly quickly). Here's an example of one in Australia - panels on the shopping centre's roof, and then solar canopies over the parking areas: https://binged.it/3vKGbm5 https://binged.it/3vKGbm5 (Bing Maps since Google Maps has older satellite images for that area)