5 ms·

No need to think only within your own state borders. Germany has lots of wind farms and not much pump storage potential as well, they just send their surplus en

No need to think only within your own state borders. Germany has lots of wind farms and not much pump storage potential as well, they just send their surplus energy south to Austria for storage. Kansas could easily do the same with Colorado - ofc they would have to build more facilities first (afaik).

exabrial 4y ago
We export power all over the Southwest Power Pool actually! SPP even trades with ERCOT when we can and help them out if they're short. Kansas is quite green, with about 65% coming from renewables (Mainly wind, then nuclear), but we're too far north for Solar to be {wildly profitable|cost effective}, and wind doesn't blow all the time. Given our climate, with temps as low as -32f in the winter, and 105f in the summer, that unfortunately means we can't rely on renewables 100%. The only practical choice is coal and gas, which isn't my preference, but that's where we're at. I'd love to have a second nuclear plant somewhere in the state. Ironically Colorado is a very hard partner to trade with. The major consumer (Denver) is in the center of the state. The entire eastern half is an empty plain and the western half of Kansas is a slightly less empty plain. From population center Kansas City to Denver is about 600miles, make energy trade a little impractical. They make a ton of their own wind energy on their open plain, and they were late adopters; they learned a lot from Kansas's expensive mistakes on wind power.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > but we're too far north for Solar to be {wildly profitable|cost effective} If land is not overly expensive, then vertical bifacial solar can be quite viable. With snow or a light non-vegetated surface you should expect around 15% capacity factor in the worst month at 40 degrees and it will be skewed heavily towards morning/evening and slightly toward cloudy days compared to monofacial. Doesn't get rid of the fossil fuels on its own, but should be cheap enough to displace most coal that remains after wind at a significant profit.

exabrial 4y ago

We export power all over the Southwest Power Pool actually! SPP even trades with ERCOT when we can and help them out if they're short. Kansas is quite green, with about 65% coming from renewables (Mainly wind, then nuclear), but we're too far north for Solar to be {wildly profitable|cost effective}, and wind doesn't blow all the time. Given our climate, with temps as low as -32f in the winter, and 105f in the summer, that unfortunately means we can't rely on renewables 100%. The only practical choice is coal and gas, which isn't my preference, but that's where we're at. I'd love to have a second nuclear plant somewhere in the state. Ironically Colorado is a very hard partner to trade with. The major consumer (Denver) is in the center of the state. The entire eastern half is an empty plain and the western half of Kansas is a slightly less empty plain. From population center Kansas City to Denver is about 600miles, make energy trade a little impractical. They make a ton of their own wind energy on their open plain, and they were late adopters; they learned a lot from Kansas's expensive mistakes on wind power.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> but we're too far north for Solar to be {wildly profitable|cost effective} If land is not overly expensive, then vertical bifacial solar can be quite viable. With snow or a light non-vegetated surface you should expect around 15% capacity factor in the worst month at 40 degrees and it will be skewed heavily towards morning/evening and slightly toward cloudy days compared to monofacial. Doesn't get rid of the fossil fuels on its own, but should be cheap enough to displace most coal that remains after wind at a significant profit.