4 ms·

Hydro makes even more sense to complement renewables. The storage and grid infrastructure is already there for the few times in a day when there is no wind or s

Hydro makes even more sense to complement renewables. The storage and grid infrastructure is already there for the few times in a day when there is no wind or sun.

TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
> The storage and grid infrastructure is already there for the few times in a day when there is no wind or sun. Sorry, no. In Europe we are talking about months without sun and wind, usually December, January, February, when day is short (8 hours for central Europe) and night have 16 hours. Wind won't cut it at that time, so only power plants, which are usually running at that time are either coal, natural gas or nuclear ones. Additionally there is also lack of water through winter, because surprisingly it is frozen in soil and does not move through rivers. So hydro is useless during winter as well.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Hydro and Wind are both at peak production in winter for europe and nicely counterbalance solar: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20210416-1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/d...
  - TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
    Spring. When there is a thaw. But that's in March and Europeans are considering formal winter up to the ~20th of March, when astronomical spring starts, so you are misreading the data. However you need that energy in January and February, when there is no hydro going, because everything is frozen.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Everywhere south of 48 degrees has a decent amount of solar resource nearby with at least 5% CF (enough to beat nuclear in price) in January. Using bifacials or tilting the panels a little twice a year pushes this up to around 8%. Very few people live north of that and most of them are either within easy transmission range of an even better solar site or already have at least two of wind, hydro (which they use in winter), and nuclear covering most of their energy.

Hydro makes even more sense to complement renewables. The storage and grid infrastructure is already there for the few times in a day when there is no wind or sun.

TheLoafOfBread 4y ago

> The storage and grid infrastructure is already there for the few times in a day when there is no wind or sun. Sorry, no. In Europe we are talking about months without sun and wind, usually December, January, February, when day is short (8 hours for central Europe) and night have 16 hours. Wind won't cut it at that time, so only power plants, which are usually running at that time are either coal, natural gas or nuclear ones. Additionally there is also lack of water through winter, because surprisingly it is frozen in soil and does not move through rivers. So hydro is useless during winter as well.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Hydro and Wind are both at peak production in winter for europe and nicely counterbalance solar: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20210416-1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/d...
- TheLoafOfBread 4y ago
  Spring. When there is a thaw. But that's in March and Europeans are considering formal winter up to the ~20th of March, when astronomical spring starts, so you are misreading the data. However you need that energy in January and February, when there is no hydro going, because everything is frozen.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Everywhere south of 48 degrees has a decent amount of solar resource nearby with at least 5% CF (enough to beat nuclear in price) in January. Using bifacials or tilting the panels a little twice a year pushes this up to around 8%. Very few people live north of that and most of them are either within easy transmission range of an even better solar site or already have at least two of wind, hydro (which they use in winter), and nuclear covering most of their energy.