7 ms·
You cannot build a grid out of solar and wind alone.
by u320 4y ago
You cannot build a grid out of solar and wind alone.
- zardo 4y agoYou also need transformers and batteries and power lines.
- ncmncm 4y agoMost storage won't be batteries.
- salty_biscuits 4y agoThen don't do it. Grids are expensive. Microgrids and storage seem like a winning plan.
- u320 4y agoMicrogrids and storage cost way more than any method of generating power we are currently using. Please stop using buzzwords and look at the actual numbers.
- ben_w 4y agoAt grid scale, batteries were about the same cost as a functionally equivalent fission reactor last time I looked (a few years ago). Despite which, batteries are one of the more expensive ways to store energy at scale.
- u320 4y agoI don't know where you looked then because batteries are not anywhere near low cost enough to be deployed at grid scale at the amounts required to run a grid of wind and solar. Even in a sunny climate with reliable solar output, if you assume that there is a 10% chance that in any year you will have a 10 day period of cloud cover and 50% lower solar output and your entire grid cost goes up by 5x! The math for storage is BRUTAL.
- ben_w 4y agoOnly 50%? That’s a small enough reduction that the cheapest solution is double the PV.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoyou're ignoring how big grids can get. there has never been a day where the entire US was cloudy at the same time.
- snovv_crash 4y agoBut then you need to massively upgrade the transmission capabilities. There's no free lunch here.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoIt's not a free lunch, but it's a lot cheaper than not doing anything about climate change.
- snovv_crash 4y agoI don't think anyone was arguing that, it's more that geographic distribution of solar panels and windmills isn't a silver bullet and there's a reason solar and wind need expensive storage.
- salty_biscuits 4y agoI worked for years in a business providing support services for maintaining the distribution network to rural areas. The distribution network was run at a loss by the government. Please look at the numbers and stop reactively responding.
- ben_w 4y agoYou can. It probably isn’t a great idea due to global geopolitics, but the physics is sound and the price isn’t unreasonable.
- u320 4y agoNobody has done it. Nobody has put forth a credible theoretical model on how to do it. If you believe otherwise please show how it can be done. With details. Things like frequency regulation, reactive power and all that stuff that makes the grid work. And include the economic calculations. The burden of proof is on you.
- ben_w 4y ago> Nobody has done it So? > Nobody has put forth a credible theoretical model on how to do it. HVDC global grid, mentioned loads of times on this forum. 60% antipodal loss with existing components that were optimised for much shorter connections, but even that loss is fine given how cheap optimally placed PV is. Cost about a trillion USD (ok) and a few decades of current global aluminium and copper production (meh), but that’s still absolutely in the realm of the “we could afford it, shame about the politics”.
- ncmncm 4y ago> The burden of proof is on you. It is, in fact, not. And, you are no reliable judge of it. Your assessment will have exactly zero effect on how the transition to renewables plays out. Either we transition to renewables fast enough, or global civilization collapses first. Nobody can say which.
- bryanlarsen 4y agoA 100% renewable power grid is possible and inexpensive. Here's how to do it: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262545044/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262545044/
- idiotsecant 4y agoThis is absolutely not true. My day job is designing control systems for renewable generation so I certainly don't have a bias against renewables - the opposite in fact. The fact remains that the physics of a grid powered only by distributed non-dispatchable wind and solar resources simply does.not.work. full stop without massive investments in storage and transmission upgrades. The physics isn't even debatable - it's simple. You only have to look at the very limited transmission infrastructure that currently exists and understand the simple fact that the power grid is a zero sum game. Power in = Power out or very bad things happen that lead to power out = 0. Zero sum generation + aging transmission = not enough power where you need it, when you need it if you get rid of traditional baseload sources. It's good to champion renewable generation, storage, and transmission upgrades. It's necessary infrastructure for the economic and actual health of our nation. It is not going to be inexpensive by any definition of the term. It's going to be monumentally expensive even if it's completely necessary.
- rcarr 4y agoI honestly think this is one area which should be nationalised rather than left to the private sector. Yes, the investment will be massive, on the trillions scale. But: a) Once it's done, you're pretty much self sufficient energy wise. Sure, you may need the raw materials from other countries to make panels, turbines and batteries. But once you've achieved a 100% renewable clean energy grid, you're getting a fairly decent lifespan out of everything so you're not going to be as subjected to the whims of the market like most of Europe is experiencing with gas. The market should generally be more stable. b) Once your citizens have free energy, they have a massive chunk of disposable cash they were once spending energy. They will spend that or invest it: and both general spending and investing are taxed at higher rates than fuel spending (5% VAT on fuel spending in UK compared to 20% general VAT rate). Yes that is a massive loan for the government to put on the books, but they will probably get it back much quicker than expected.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]