6 ms·

Lets say 24 hours of the US's electrical demand.

by HyperSane 4y ago

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
I heard recently of a study that found 2-4 hours is sufficient along with an interconnected grid.
- HyperSane 4y ago
  I wouldn't be willing to bet my economy on that.
- lazide 4y ago
  That’s BS. For several reasons. 1) grid connections fail sometimes. Do you want people freezing to death in NY when the Texas interconnect goes down for a day or two, or vice versa? 2) regional storms (Florida hurricanes, NY ice storms, etc), periodically take out large swathes of grid and would take out grid interconnections too. Currently, the scope of the impact of these things is quite limited because everyone also has regional capacity. But if you’re in a giant storm, you’d be super screwed and the whole region would be blacked out for awhile, because renewables also are impacted by these storms - far more than a gas turbine, for instance. And that’s not even counting demand spikes and the like due to weather issues (longer than usual hot or cold, etc.)
  - wumpus 4y ago
    > Do you want people freezing to death Have you ever had a useful discussion after accusing the other side of wanting to kill people?
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      It is a legitimate risk of your proposal.
      - wumpus 4y ago
        Did you reply to the correct comment? I didn't propose anything.
      - bigfudge 4y ago
        Nuclear power plants also have a low probability catastrophic failure mode. If it was a risk we’d engineer to mitigate it.
        lazide 4y ago
        The referenced plan was to explicitly not do so. And ‘happens every decade or so in the US’ is a lot more frequent than meltdowns, and not very far down the tail as far as such things go.
    - lazide 4y ago
      Where is the accusation exactly? I was pointing out the real risks involved, and asking them if they were ok with them. Statistically, such a plan would result in that outcome pretty quickly. Personally I just assumed they had no idea, not that they didn’t care.
      - wumpus 4y ago
        Roughly 0% of experts behind more renewables and storage agree with you. But maybe you don't realize that, given that you'd driven them away with this style of argument.
        lazide 4y ago
        Really, 100% of experts think we need only a few hours of storage and reserve if we connect all the grids? Cites appreciated! I currently see zero.
        wumpus 4y ago
        No, no one said that but you.
        lazide 4y ago
        It was literally the comment I originally replied to.
        wumpus 4y ago
        You replied to > I heard recently of a study that found 2-4 hours is sufficient along with an interconnected grid. That, literally, is not the same as: > Really, 100% of experts think we need only a few hours of storage and reserve if we connect all the grids? Again, you're not going to have a good conversation if you keep on doing this.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
pfdietz 4y ago
The hydrogen storage facility at Delta Utah has enough space in the salt formation for 100 caverns, each storing 150 GWh of energy. That's about 30 hours worth (well, maybe less, if that 150 GWh is before conversion to electrical energy, but still this is just one location.)
- HyperSane 4y ago
  1) That doesn't actually exist yet. 2) You would need a huge number of generators to actually generate enough electricity to power the entire US.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Combined cycle power plants cost about $1/W; simple cycle, about $0.50/W. Combustion turbines are cheap. A nuclear plant, $10/W. We could back up the entire damned grid with these things at a cost small compared to the cost of powering that grid with nuclear power plants. As for "not actually existing yet", that's not anything close to a valid argument. Also, hydrogen storage doesn't require anything new -- all the component technologies exist, they just have to be integrated. This is the easiest and surest kind of innovation. It would be nice if higher demand drive electrolysers down their experience curve some more, I will admit. Cheaper is always nice.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      "We could back up the entire damned grid with these things at a cost small compared to the cost of powering that grid with nuclear power plants." I really want this to be true, I just don't think it is.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        How hard is it to compare the numbers "1" and "10"?
        Godel_unicode 4y ago

Lets say 24 hours of the US's electrical demand.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago

I heard recently of a study that found 2-4 hours is sufficient along with an interconnected grid.

HyperSane 4y ago
I wouldn't be willing to bet my economy on that.
lazide 4y ago
That’s BS. For several reasons. 1) grid connections fail sometimes. Do you want people freezing to death in NY when the Texas interconnect goes down for a day or two, or vice versa? 2) regional storms (Florida hurricanes, NY ice storms, etc), periodically take out large swathes of grid and would take out grid interconnections too. Currently, the scope of the impact of these things is quite limited because everyone also has regional capacity. But if you’re in a giant storm, you’d be super screwed and the whole region would be blacked out for awhile, because renewables also are impacted by these storms - far more than a gas turbine, for instance. And that’s not even counting demand spikes and the like due to weather issues (longer than usual hot or cold, etc.)
- wumpus 4y ago
  > Do you want people freezing to death Have you ever had a useful discussion after accusing the other side of wanting to kill people?
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    It is a legitimate risk of your proposal.
    - wumpus 4y ago
      Did you reply to the correct comment? I didn't propose anything.
    - bigfudge 4y ago
      Nuclear power plants also have a low probability catastrophic failure mode. If it was a risk we’d engineer to mitigate it.
      - lazide 4y ago
        The referenced plan was to explicitly not do so. And ‘happens every decade or so in the US’ is a lot more frequent than meltdowns, and not very far down the tail as far as such things go.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Where is the accusation exactly? I was pointing out the real risks involved, and asking them if they were ok with them. Statistically, such a plan would result in that outcome pretty quickly. Personally I just assumed they had no idea, not that they didn’t care.
    - wumpus 4y ago
      Roughly 0% of experts behind more renewables and storage agree with you. But maybe you don't realize that, given that you'd driven them away with this style of argument.
      - lazide 4y ago
        Really, 100% of experts think we need only a few hours of storage and reserve if we connect all the grids? Cites appreciated! I currently see zero.
        wumpus 4y ago
        No, no one said that but you.
        lazide 4y ago
        It was literally the comment I originally replied to.
        wumpus 4y ago
        You replied to > I heard recently of a study that found 2-4 hours is sufficient along with an interconnected grid. That, literally, is not the same as: > Really, 100% of experts think we need only a few hours of storage and reserve if we connect all the grids? Again, you're not going to have a good conversation if you keep on doing this.
        Dylan16807 4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago

The hydrogen storage facility at Delta Utah has enough space in the salt formation for 100 caverns, each storing 150 GWh of energy. That's about 30 hours worth (well, maybe less, if that 150 GWh is before conversion to electrical energy, but still this is just one location.)

HyperSane 4y ago
1) That doesn't actually exist yet. 2) You would need a huge number of generators to actually generate enough electricity to power the entire US.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Combined cycle power plants cost about $1/W; simple cycle, about $0.50/W. Combustion turbines are cheap. A nuclear plant, $10/W. We could back up the entire damned grid with these things at a cost small compared to the cost of powering that grid with nuclear power plants. As for "not actually existing yet", that's not anything close to a valid argument. Also, hydrogen storage doesn't require anything new -- all the component technologies exist, they just have to be integrated. This is the easiest and surest kind of innovation. It would be nice if higher demand drive electrolysers down their experience curve some more, I will admit. Cheaper is always nice.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    "We could back up the entire damned grid with these things at a cost small compared to the cost of powering that grid with nuclear power plants." I really want this to be true, I just don't think it is.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      How hard is it to compare the numbers "1" and "10"?
      - Godel_unicode 4y ago