3 ms·

If the lowest demand for electricity in a year is x watts and you have generators that run constantly to supply x watts then you don't need "flexibility". I don

If the lowest demand for electricity in a year is x watts and you have generators that run constantly to supply x watts then you don't need "flexibility". I don't get why this is such a hard concept to understand.

pfdietz 4y ago
I didn't say you needed flexibility. What I said was that inflexibility is a negative in a power source. It makes the output from the source less valuable per unit of energy than if the source could economically operate at lower capacity factor.
- HyperSane 4y ago
  " I said was that inflexibility is a negative in a power source." Not if they are generating base load. This is why base load is an important concept.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    It's a negative because it forces the plant to be operated in base load mode. The grid operator would prefer something that could be economically operated in a more flexible way. As an example: the combination of wind/solar/storage that could be used to provide the equivalent of a nuclear power plant's output could ALSO be used to provide some flexibility, by altering when the storage is charged and discharged. This flexibility would allow it to generate more value for the same number of kWh provided to the grid.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
      You basically seem to be arguing that wind/solar/storage solves the problem created by wind/solar/storage. The variability of wind and solar is actually a HUGE problem. It makes managing the grid much harder and required a large amount of idle generating capacity as backup. This is why proponents love to argue against the very fundamental concept of base load.
      - pencilguin 4y ago
        Wind/solar/storage does, in fact, solve the power problem. Period. Variability is in fact a trivial problem solved by storage and transportable backup. Even NG suffices as backup. Even coal suffices as backup. In the future, ammonia will take up that role.
        dmitriid 4y ago
        Too bad that this trivial problem literally has no solution, right? We literally have no solution to grid scale power storage. Thank god someone on HN knows it's trivial.
        HyperSane 4y ago
        HyperSane 4y ago
        This is completely wrong, wind and solar variability is a HUGE problem that we do not currently have the storage technology to mitigate. The assumption that we do is starting to feel like a religion.
        ben_w 4y ago
        Technology != Infrastructure We have the tech (you're almost certainly already using it), we have not deployed it at sufficient scale yet. But we are building the factories to make the batteries, and the mines to feed the factories, as fast as we can raise money to do so. I'm not sure what's happening with hydrogen (apparently it's much cheaper than batteries?); but regardless, that technology predates all forms of generating electricity more complex than the etymological origin of the word (ἤλεκτρον, amber) — "rubbing things together" was the only option when Deimand and van Troostwijk charged their Leyden jar back in 1789 and demonstrated electrolysis.
        pencilguin 4y ago
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
  Only if inflexible and flexible are the same cost. If an inflexible source is cheaper, then it may better a fit as a high capacity factor supplier to meet constant demand. We first need to agree on the problems and the solution, using levelised costs for lifetime of plant, and safe disposal, preferably using real examples, but theoretical best case examples are also worth discussing. I'm inclined to believe there is no best pasta sauce, only best pasta sauces. One size does not, in face, fit all.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Only if inflexible and flexible are the same cost. You must be misreading the comment or something. They didn't say it's the only factor, they said it's a negative. It's a negative no matter how the costs align.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
      Restating the point without additional explanation an argument does not make. In what world is it reasonable to implement unrequired, unnecessary, and costly, features and call that a net positive in all cases under all circumstances.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        You're comparing entire solutions. That's not what they were talking about. They were talking about individual features. Also, some sources are more flexible by their very nature and get the flexibility for free. But more generally, lacking flexibility is a negative by itself. It's an acceptable negative if adding flexibility would cost more than the benefit, but it's still a negative.
        HyperSane 4y ago
        "But more generally, lacking flexibility is a negative by itself." Not for baseload generation.

pfdietz 4y ago

I didn't say you needed flexibility. What I said was that inflexibility is a negative in a power source. It makes the output from the source less valuable per unit of energy than if the source could economically operate at lower capacity factor.

HyperSane 4y ago
" I said was that inflexibility is a negative in a power source." Not if they are generating base load. This is why base load is an important concept.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  It's a negative because it forces the plant to be operated in base load mode. The grid operator would prefer something that could be economically operated in a more flexible way. As an example: the combination of wind/solar/storage that could be used to provide the equivalent of a nuclear power plant's output could ALSO be used to provide some flexibility, by altering when the storage is charged and discharged. This flexibility would allow it to generate more value for the same number of kWh provided to the grid.
  - HyperSane 4y ago
    You basically seem to be arguing that wind/solar/storage solves the problem created by wind/solar/storage. The variability of wind and solar is actually a HUGE problem. It makes managing the grid much harder and required a large amount of idle generating capacity as backup. This is why proponents love to argue against the very fundamental concept of base load.
    - pencilguin 4y ago
      Wind/solar/storage does, in fact, solve the power problem. Period. Variability is in fact a trivial problem solved by storage and transportable backup. Even NG suffices as backup. Even coal suffices as backup. In the future, ammonia will take up that role.
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        Too bad that this trivial problem literally has no solution, right? We literally have no solution to grid scale power storage. Thank god someone on HN knows it's trivial.
        HyperSane 4y ago
      - HyperSane 4y ago
        This is completely wrong, wind and solar variability is a HUGE problem that we do not currently have the storage technology to mitigate. The assumption that we do is starting to feel like a religion.
        ben_w 4y ago
        Technology != Infrastructure We have the tech (you're almost certainly already using it), we have not deployed it at sufficient scale yet. But we are building the factories to make the batteries, and the mines to feed the factories, as fast as we can raise money to do so. I'm not sure what's happening with hydrogen (apparently it's much cheaper than batteries?); but regardless, that technology predates all forms of generating electricity more complex than the etymological origin of the word (ἤλεκτρον, amber) — "rubbing things together" was the only option when Deimand and van Troostwijk charged their Leyden jar back in 1789 and demonstrated electrolysis.
        pencilguin 4y ago
TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
Only if inflexible and flexible are the same cost. If an inflexible source is cheaper, then it may better a fit as a high capacity factor supplier to meet constant demand. We first need to agree on the problems and the solution, using levelised costs for lifetime of plant, and safe disposal, preferably using real examples, but theoretical best case examples are also worth discussing. I'm inclined to believe there is no best pasta sauce, only best pasta sauces. One size does not, in face, fit all.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Only if inflexible and flexible are the same cost. You must be misreading the comment or something. They didn't say it's the only factor, they said it's a negative. It's a negative no matter how the costs align.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
    Restating the point without additional explanation an argument does not make. In what world is it reasonable to implement unrequired, unnecessary, and costly, features and call that a net positive in all cases under all circumstances.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      You're comparing entire solutions. That's not what they were talking about. They were talking about individual features. Also, some sources are more flexible by their very nature and get the flexibility for free. But more generally, lacking flexibility is a negative by itself. It's an acceptable negative if adding flexibility would cost more than the benefit, but it's still a negative.
      - HyperSane 4y ago
        "But more generally, lacking flexibility is a negative by itself." Not for baseload generation.