4 ms·

" 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
        Right: storage is mostly 19th-century tech, battery chemistries and catalysts excepted, that only needs building out. But we need not feed the trolls.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        Focusing on the mere existence of technology is basically "let them eat cake". It's fine to say "the factories need to be built", as long as they can be built at a manageable price. But price is a huge factor that cannot be ignored, and it's high enough in this situation to make the word "trivial" incorrect.
        ben_w 4y ago
        I am sympathetic to both of you regarding the word "trivial". No new problems need to be solved, so in that sense it is trivial. It costs a lot of money in absolute terms, so in that sense it is not trivial. The cost (for global battery based storage, the most expensive serious storage option) is in the order of 6 months global supply of crude oil to turn rocks into batteries (i.e. the dumbest possible limit on the cost of recycling), those batteries last at least three years even using the worst cycle-count estimates I've seen and throwing the batteries away at 70% of initial peak capacity, that's trivial. Opening new mines and factories, even if the new mines provide new work for workers currently in fossil fuels, may be a significant geopolitical and economic shift, so in that sense it isn't trivial. And so on. For hydrogen, it's "build a tank that only leaks a little bit". (We'd probably be better off adding some carbon to that hydrogen, but I have no idea if anyone is working on that at sufficient scale even though the tech is over a century old).

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
        Right: storage is mostly 19th-century tech, battery chemistries and catalysts excepted, that only needs building out. But we need not feed the trolls.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        Focusing on the mere existence of technology is basically "let them eat cake". It's fine to say "the factories need to be built", as long as they can be built at a manageable price. But price is a huge factor that cannot be ignored, and it's high enough in this situation to make the word "trivial" incorrect.
        ben_w 4y ago
        I am sympathetic to both of you regarding the word "trivial". No new problems need to be solved, so in that sense it is trivial. It costs a lot of money in absolute terms, so in that sense it is not trivial. The cost (for global battery based storage, the most expensive serious storage option) is in the order of 6 months global supply of crude oil to turn rocks into batteries (i.e. the dumbest possible limit on the cost of recycling), those batteries last at least three years even using the worst cycle-count estimates I've seen and throwing the batteries away at 70% of initial peak capacity, that's trivial. Opening new mines and factories, even if the new mines provide new work for workers currently in fossil fuels, may be a significant geopolitical and economic shift, so in that sense it isn't trivial. And so on. For hydrogen, it's "build a tank that only leaks a little bit". (We'd probably be better off adding some carbon to that hydrogen, but I have no idea if anyone is working on that at sufficient scale even though the tech is over a century old).