4 ms·
Then don't do it. Grids are expensive. Microgrids and storage seem like a winning plan.
by salty_biscuits 4y ago
Then 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.