3 ms·

> These days, the cost of generating electricity from such sources (wind/solar) is roughly on par with that of fossil fuels. I've never seen a cost analysis th

> These days, the cost of generating electricity from such sources (wind/solar) is roughly on par with that of fossil fuels. I've never seen a cost analysis that takes into account the unreliability of sources that rely on sun or wind. I don't know exactly how a proper model would account for these factors, but surely ignoring the unreliability isn't the right answer.

Ensorceled 4y ago
This is only an issue once we stop having electricity sources that can be turned on reasonably quickly when wind or sun is under producing (such as natural gas and, to some extent, hydro electric). Since wind/solar is still a small part of the overall contribution, there is no need to model unreliability. Ideally this would BECOME an issue in the future.
- crackercrews 4y ago
  Ask the western US if it is an issue right now. If you don't hear back it's because their power is out.
  - Ensorceled 4y ago
    I didn't realize California etc. had hit the level of dependency on solar/wind where this could be a factor. Good on them.
    - crackercrews 4y ago
      The people who lost power and couldn't cool themselves down in 100 degree weather might not agree with your congratulations from afar. They might also not like that their energy costs are dramatically higher than even in neighboring states. But if it makes you feel better, I guess that makes it all good, right?
      - Ensorceled 4y ago
        I was being sarcastic. California gets 17% of their electricity from solar and 8% wind, but their current issues are during a sunny heat wave so solar should be going like gangbusters.
        crackercrews 4y ago
        As noted elsewhere, solar peak is at noon and usage peak is hours later. Wind power happens whenever the wind blows. The problem is that they have taken other more reliable sources offline. If the 25% you reference were more reliable they wouldn't have to warn people about power usage just in case it got cloudy or wasn't breezy enough. I read that they had to turn off a desalination plant because of the power crunch. That makes their drought even worse. Doesn't sound like winning to me.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        Turning off desalination plant if it is easy to turn on-and-off seems like one of the smart use cases. Just need to have it to have overprovisioned size so that it can stock pile water when power is available at reasonable rates. And that really isn't a complex thing, we have been doing it for millenia now.
smileysteve 4y ago
Do you demand with downtime for coal, for fixing the shoot? The scrubber? The ash removal? Or for hydro? With dam work? Generator replacement (explosion at Hoover dam this year) Or nuclear, for fuel rod changeouts? While solar has more nightly downtime at non-peak demand, both wind and solar are often configured in volumes and geo distributions that reduce maintenance outage (a function of lower output per unit)
- crackercrews 4y ago
  All of these examples sound like they can be scheduled. You cannot schedule the sun and wind. You can predict the sun of course and it's nice that it sometimes lines up with peak usage.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
What do you mean by unreliability? One of the reasons that solar projects are so easy to finance is because of their predictability and the fact they can be accurately predicted to correlate with peak demand periods years in the future. You only hit problems when you are no longer burning fossil fuels and so have no more to turn off. And that's a good problem to have.
- crackercrews 4y ago
  > What do you mean by unreliability? I'm referring to the fact that the wind is not reliable or even predictable. The sun is more predictable, but weather can greatly affect solar power generation. It is nice that the sun is up during part of daily peak demand and is strongest during the season when AC is heavily used. But IIRC peak demand happens several hours after solar panels are generating peak energy. > You only hit problems when you are no longer burning fossil fuels and so have no more to turn off. And that's a good problem to have. The point is that if you are looking at the cost of building a solar or wind farm you have to account for the fact that you cannot shut down another power source one-for-one. If you have to pay for the new source and keep the old source online then the new source is by definition not the same price as the old source.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    > But IIRC peak demand happens several hours after solar panels are generating peak energy. No, peak 'net demand' happens later, because solar has reduced the actual demand peak. This is like saying "eating food just made my hunger peak later" > If you have to pay for the new source and keep the old source online then the new source is by definition not the same price as the old source. Yes, but the old source likely has high fuel costs, so when you stop burning the fuel, you not only save carbon and pollution, you save money. This isn't particularly complicated.
    - crackercrews 4y ago
      Your first claim seems plausible, but apparently is wrong. Peak demand appears to be after noon all over. In some places it's several hours after. [1] Your second point doesn't make any sense because the cost of fuel is already factored into the original analysis that supposedly equates the cost of renewable and non-renewable energy generation. If you want to mention that cost again, then I would mention again that supply crunches raise the cost of construction of solar and wind farms. All of these costs were already accounted for so it doesn't make sense to bring them up again. 1: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915

Ensorceled 4y ago

This is only an issue once we stop having electricity sources that can be turned on reasonably quickly when wind or sun is under producing (such as natural gas and, to some extent, hydro electric). Since wind/solar is still a small part of the overall contribution, there is no need to model unreliability. Ideally this would BECOME an issue in the future.

crackercrews 4y ago
Ask the western US if it is an issue right now. If you don't hear back it's because their power is out.
- Ensorceled 4y ago
  I didn't realize California etc. had hit the level of dependency on solar/wind where this could be a factor. Good on them.
  - crackercrews 4y ago
    The people who lost power and couldn't cool themselves down in 100 degree weather might not agree with your congratulations from afar. They might also not like that their energy costs are dramatically higher than even in neighboring states. But if it makes you feel better, I guess that makes it all good, right?
    - Ensorceled 4y ago
      I was being sarcastic. California gets 17% of their electricity from solar and 8% wind, but their current issues are during a sunny heat wave so solar should be going like gangbusters.
      - crackercrews 4y ago
        As noted elsewhere, solar peak is at noon and usage peak is hours later. Wind power happens whenever the wind blows. The problem is that they have taken other more reliable sources offline. If the 25% you reference were more reliable they wouldn't have to warn people about power usage just in case it got cloudy or wasn't breezy enough. I read that they had to turn off a desalination plant because of the power crunch. That makes their drought even worse. Doesn't sound like winning to me.
        Ekaros 4y ago
        Turning off desalination plant if it is easy to turn on-and-off seems like one of the smart use cases. Just need to have it to have overprovisioned size so that it can stock pile water when power is available at reasonable rates. And that really isn't a complex thing, we have been doing it for millenia now.

smileysteve 4y ago

Do you demand with downtime for coal, for fixing the shoot? The scrubber? The ash removal? Or for hydro? With dam work? Generator replacement (explosion at Hoover dam this year) Or nuclear, for fuel rod changeouts? While solar has more nightly downtime at non-peak demand, both wind and solar are often configured in volumes and geo distributions that reduce maintenance outage (a function of lower output per unit)

crackercrews 4y ago
All of these examples sound like they can be scheduled. You cannot schedule the sun and wind. You can predict the sun of course and it's nice that it sometimes lines up with peak usage.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

What do you mean by unreliability? One of the reasons that solar projects are so easy to finance is because of their predictability and the fact they can be accurately predicted to correlate with peak demand periods years in the future. You only hit problems when you are no longer burning fossil fuels and so have no more to turn off. And that's a good problem to have.

crackercrews 4y ago
> What do you mean by unreliability? I'm referring to the fact that the wind is not reliable or even predictable. The sun is more predictable, but weather can greatly affect solar power generation. It is nice that the sun is up during part of daily peak demand and is strongest during the season when AC is heavily used. But IIRC peak demand happens several hours after solar panels are generating peak energy. > You only hit problems when you are no longer burning fossil fuels and so have no more to turn off. And that's a good problem to have. The point is that if you are looking at the cost of building a solar or wind farm you have to account for the fact that you cannot shut down another power source one-for-one. If you have to pay for the new source and keep the old source online then the new source is by definition not the same price as the old source.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  > But IIRC peak demand happens several hours after solar panels are generating peak energy. No, peak 'net demand' happens later, because solar has reduced the actual demand peak. This is like saying "eating food just made my hunger peak later" > If you have to pay for the new source and keep the old source online then the new source is by definition not the same price as the old source. Yes, but the old source likely has high fuel costs, so when you stop burning the fuel, you not only save carbon and pollution, you save money. This isn't particularly complicated.
  - crackercrews 4y ago
    Your first claim seems plausible, but apparently is wrong. Peak demand appears to be after noon all over. In some places it's several hours after. [1] Your second point doesn't make any sense because the cost of fuel is already factored into the original analysis that supposedly equates the cost of renewable and non-renewable energy generation. If you want to mention that cost again, then I would mention again that supply crunches raise the cost of construction of solar and wind farms. All of these costs were already accounted for so it doesn't make sense to bring them up again. 1: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915