4 ms·

When I said "more spikey", I meant generally bigger spikes overall. The frequency of spikes is less relevant and not even very related. It is perfectly possible

When I said "more spikey", I meant generally bigger spikes overall. The frequency of spikes is less relevant and not even very related. It is perfectly possible to have BOTH much higher maximum spikes AND greater numbers of relatively tall spikes. (For instance if you compare energy produced by a set of windmill farm to that produced by a group of nuclear plants.)

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
If you mean higher annual peaks, then it's probably easier to say that, because that's exactly what has been motivating the early solar deployments and the early battery deployments. The very high summer peaks correlate well with solar (in many places) and so shaving that peak saves you more than you were spending on solar, even before the price plummeted. Same with batteries replacing expensive gas peaker plants. Overall demand is predicted to rise a little with electrification, but demand was falling in many places anyway, so between that and the tech above for shaving peaks, it's not really a problem. Note it's a common thing for "pro-fossil fuel" advocates to show "peaks" without enough context. Usually what looks like a peak on a daily basis is in fact a drop in the bucket compared with the yearly peak. The famous 'duck curve' is a good example of this, where solar and wind reduced the daily and yearly peak, and then the new lower peak in spring/autumn was pointed at as a "problem". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve > One misconception related to the duck curve is that solar photovoltaic power does not help supply peak demand and therefore cannot replace other power plants. In California, solar output is low at 7 pm when daily demand usually peaks.[20] This fact leads some to believe that solar power cannot reduce the need for other power plants, as they will still be needed at 7 pm when solar power output is low. However, California's annual demand peaks usually occur around 3 pm to 5 pm,[21] when solar power output is still substantial.[20] The reason that California's annual peak tends to be earlier than the daily peak is that California's annual peak usually occurs on hot days with large air conditioning loads, which tend to run more during midday.[22] As a result, solar power does in fact help supply peak demand and therefore can substitute for other sources of power.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > Note it's a common thing for "pro-fossil fuel" advocates to show "peaks" without enough context. Usually what looks like a peak on a daily basis is in fact a drop in the bucket compared with the yearly peak. I'm not pro-fossil, rather the opposite. I'm anti-fossil (GHG in general) fuel, and want us to use all production methods available that allow us to gut GHG emissions, including solar, wind AND nuclear. Eventually (a few hundred years from now, maybe, but eventually) it seems like fusion will be the final source. Also, I'm concerned with replacing ALL sources of fossil fuels, including for heating, most industrial use. And for that to come true, I think we need to have a razor sharp focus on price to make it happen. Lately, even before the current crisis, it seems that prices have been going in the wrong direction while global GHG emissions continue their sharp increase. It seems to me that part of the reason is that many "renewable" proponents are much more more happy to burn a lot of natural gas than to allow nuclear power, and that they're employing a variety of measures to make nuclear seem unattractive, even compared to natural gas. (I've seen some of these messages sponsored by oil companies, some of which seem to want to build expensive offshore wind parks close to where they already have oil platforms.) I'm getting the impression that some costs of wind power, in particular, is being covered over. And I'm particularly thinking of wind power. This involves both the unstable demand, unavailability of storage and things like increased transportation costs not clearly linked to the type of source. So, basically, what I'm looking for is ways to make ALL of solar, wind and nuclear as cheap as possible, with reasonable (and shared) safety and environmental standards. For that to happen, honesty about real costs, accurate prediction models and willingness to remove factors that increase prices unnecessarily (often due to special interest groups) need to be investigated. For now, my impression is that the real LCOE, including transportation, of nuclear could be A LOT lower than what is represented by new European and American plants, both based on historical prices and efforts in Korea and China, while the real LCOE of wind tends to increase sharply when wind power gets to about 20-30% of total energy production. For now, my opinion is that we should continue to invest in solar and wind at the same rate we're currently doing while ALSO work on adjust regulation and the business climate for nuclear to allow the cost to come down at least to Korean levels. Meanwhile, all fossil fuel sources should be taxed at a high enough level to make sure both nuclear and renewable investments have a chance of being profitable (The tax should at least be brought up enough to cover the negative externalities of fossil fuels). If such taxes were made federal (in the US) and collected by the EU (in the EU market), instead of being collected by individual states, one could at least set up the right incentives.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

If you mean higher annual peaks, then it's probably easier to say that, because that's exactly what has been motivating the early solar deployments and the early battery deployments. The very high summer peaks correlate well with solar (in many places) and so shaving that peak saves you more than you were spending on solar, even before the price plummeted. Same with batteries replacing expensive gas peaker plants. Overall demand is predicted to rise a little with electrification, but demand was falling in many places anyway, so between that and the tech above for shaving peaks, it's not really a problem. Note it's a common thing for "pro-fossil fuel" advocates to show "peaks" without enough context. Usually what looks like a peak on a daily basis is in fact a drop in the bucket compared with the yearly peak. The famous 'duck curve' is a good example of this, where solar and wind reduced the daily and yearly peak, and then the new lower peak in spring/autumn was pointed at as a "problem". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve > One misconception related to the duck curve is that solar photovoltaic power does not help supply peak demand and therefore cannot replace other power plants. In California, solar output is low at 7 pm when daily demand usually peaks.[20] This fact leads some to believe that solar power cannot reduce the need for other power plants, as they will still be needed at 7 pm when solar power output is low. However, California's annual demand peaks usually occur around 3 pm to 5 pm,[21] when solar power output is still substantial.[20] The reason that California's annual peak tends to be earlier than the daily peak is that California's annual peak usually occurs on hot days with large air conditioning loads, which tend to run more during midday.[22] As a result, solar power does in fact help supply peak demand and therefore can substitute for other sources of power.

trashtester 4y ago
> Note it's a common thing for "pro-fossil fuel" advocates to show "peaks" without enough context. Usually what looks like a peak on a daily basis is in fact a drop in the bucket compared with the yearly peak. I'm not pro-fossil, rather the opposite. I'm anti-fossil (GHG in general) fuel, and want us to use all production methods available that allow us to gut GHG emissions, including solar, wind AND nuclear. Eventually (a few hundred years from now, maybe, but eventually) it seems like fusion will be the final source. Also, I'm concerned with replacing ALL sources of fossil fuels, including for heating, most industrial use. And for that to come true, I think we need to have a razor sharp focus on price to make it happen. Lately, even before the current crisis, it seems that prices have been going in the wrong direction while global GHG emissions continue their sharp increase. It seems to me that part of the reason is that many "renewable" proponents are much more more happy to burn a lot of natural gas than to allow nuclear power, and that they're employing a variety of measures to make nuclear seem unattractive, even compared to natural gas. (I've seen some of these messages sponsored by oil companies, some of which seem to want to build expensive offshore wind parks close to where they already have oil platforms.) I'm getting the impression that some costs of wind power, in particular, is being covered over. And I'm particularly thinking of wind power. This involves both the unstable demand, unavailability of storage and things like increased transportation costs not clearly linked to the type of source. So, basically, what I'm looking for is ways to make ALL of solar, wind and nuclear as cheap as possible, with reasonable (and shared) safety and environmental standards. For that to happen, honesty about real costs, accurate prediction models and willingness to remove factors that increase prices unnecessarily (often due to special interest groups) need to be investigated. For now, my impression is that the real LCOE, including transportation, of nuclear could be A LOT lower than what is represented by new European and American plants, both based on historical prices and efforts in Korea and China, while the real LCOE of wind tends to increase sharply when wind power gets to about 20-30% of total energy production. For now, my opinion is that we should continue to invest in solar and wind at the same rate we're currently doing while ALSO work on adjust regulation and the business climate for nuclear to allow the cost to come down at least to Korean levels. Meanwhile, all fossil fuel sources should be taxed at a high enough level to make sure both nuclear and renewable investments have a chance of being profitable (The tax should at least be brought up enough to cover the negative externalities of fossil fuels). If such taxes were made federal (in the US) and collected by the EU (in the EU market), instead of being collected by individual states, one could at least set up the right incentives.