5 ms·

There is nothing wrong with running a backup generator when mains power is down. Solar alone obviously can't happen, most places. Solar + wind + hydro + (somet

There is nothing wrong with running a backup generator when mains power is down. Solar alone obviously can't happen, most places. Solar + wind + hydro + (sometimes) geo + (even) old nukes + storage + xmission line + backup combined-cycle gas turbines will, instead. Backup gas turbines will burn NG at first, synthetic ammonia or hydrogen later. Getting 100% off-grid is not a goal worth the extra cost, for most. For anyone without access, or with unreliable mains, a backup generator is just prudent. Batteries, if you have any overbuild, mean you spend on mains or run your generator less often. At utility scale, with regional-grid tie-in, calculations come out differently. Maybe the gas turbine runs part of most weeks, this decade, rather than once or twice in winter like your backup generator. Wind and transmission line complement solar. Battery cost is radically less than 2 years ago, and still falling. If you haven't checked lately, prepare for a surprise.

robomartin 4y ago
> Solar alone obviously can't happen, most places. Exactly my point. Yet, beyond that, the analysis shows you have to have 100% backup rated at 100% the required peak power output. That's the conundrum. For every deliverable GW of of solar you have have a GW of backup. And so my question is simple: How does that make any sense at all? Let's make sure we don't engage in a hand-wavy arguments though. Wind: Regional, seasonal and varies throughout the day Hydro: Not available everywhere, highly seasonal. Check out this chart [0]. Hydro is susceptible to water availability. Hoover Dam lost 33% of it's output capacity for this reason --about 600 MW. Geothermal: Sounds great. Only 0.4% of US utility scale generation Old Nukes: 20% of US power generation. We have over 80 of them. Only three of them in the west [1] (which is astounding) Transmission Lines: They are only good for about 300 miles. Power is relatively local. Hoover Dam feeding Los Angeles is about 250 miles straight line. Combined Cycle Gas turbines: About 20% of US capacity. None west of Texas. Anyhow, the point is that it is easy to list all of this power generation options and lose sight that they are not available everywhere and adding capacity is nearly impossible. In fact, if you look at the maps showing distribution of the above power sources in the US it isn't too hard to conclude that the west coast is not in good shape at all. Here's the kicker: I haven't even introduced the reality that 100% conversion to electric powered vehicles will require the US to double it's power generation capacity. This is monumental. Conceptually, it means we have to fully duplicate our existing generation and transmission infrastructure. Frankly, I don't know how we make that happen. Please don't say solar. Once again, nuclear keeps coming back as a source that is impossible to ignore. We need so much power to support electric vehicles that we would need to build 1200 new 1 GW class nuclear power plants. This is impossible. Clearly a hybrid system will be required. Again, no, solar can't do it. It can be a part of it, but it just can't rise up to the occasion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Monthly_Hydro_Power_Generation.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power_in_the_Uni... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#/media/File:NRC_plant_locations_Oct_2021.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...
- defrost 4y ago
  > Transmission Lines: They are only good for about 300 miles. Say what now? Are you trapped in the 1950s or something? > Most HVDC links use voltages between 100 kV and 800 kV. However, a 1,100 kV link in China was completed in 2019 over a distance of 3,300 km (2,100 mi) with a power capacity of 12 GW [1]. I realise the USofA is stuck with a lot of old infrastructure that they've only recently barely started to upgrade .. but better things are possible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
  - robomartin 4y ago
    > Say what now? Are you trapped in the 1950s or something No. Reality. Where in the US do we have a power transmission line that goes significantly farther than 300 miles? Also, if I had to guess, I would not be surprised if the super high voltages required to go farther are so dangerous to people, wildlife and the environment that they will never be build in the US or Europe. China doesn’t care about such things.
    - defrost 4y ago
      > they will never be build in the US or Europe. Here's a map of HVDC projects in Europe, some of which have been about since the 1930s [1]. Canada has several long distance HVDC lines (eg: [2] "recorded on the list of IEEE Milestones in electrical engineering") while the US to date mainly uses HVDC to interconnect existing AC grids (eg: [3]) although there are significant proposals for long distance HVDC to share renewable energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_River_DC_Transmission_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_River_DC_Transmission_S... [3] https://ethw.org/Milestones:Virginia_Smith_High-Voltage_Direct-Current_Converter_Station,_1988 https://ethw.org/Milestones:Virginia_Smith_High-Voltage_Dire... > the super high voltages required to go farther are so dangerous to people, wildlife and the environment This is another of your blindly inaccurate unresearched guesses? Can you back this up with reference to the past 50 years of HVDC in Europe and demostrate DANGER!! at levels significant over AC transmission?

robomartin 4y ago

> Solar alone obviously can't happen, most places. Exactly my point. Yet, beyond that, the analysis shows you have to have 100% backup rated at 100% the required peak power output. That's the conundrum. For every deliverable GW of of solar you have have a GW of backup. And so my question is simple: How does that make any sense at all? Let's make sure we don't engage in a hand-wavy arguments though. Wind: Regional, seasonal and varies throughout the day Hydro: Not available everywhere, highly seasonal. Check out this chart [0]. Hydro is susceptible to water availability. Hoover Dam lost 33% of it's output capacity for this reason --about 600 MW. Geothermal: Sounds great. Only 0.4% of US utility scale generation Old Nukes: 20% of US power generation. We have over 80 of them. Only three of them in the west [1] (which is astounding) Transmission Lines: They are only good for about 300 miles. Power is relatively local. Hoover Dam feeding Los Angeles is about 250 miles straight line. Combined Cycle Gas turbines: About 20% of US capacity. None west of Texas. Anyhow, the point is that it is easy to list all of this power generation options and lose sight that they are not available everywhere and adding capacity is nearly impossible. In fact, if you look at the maps showing distribution of the above power sources in the US it isn't too hard to conclude that the west coast is not in good shape at all. Here's the kicker: I haven't even introduced the reality that 100% conversion to electric powered vehicles will require the US to double it's power generation capacity. This is monumental. Conceptually, it means we have to fully duplicate our existing generation and transmission infrastructure. Frankly, I don't know how we make that happen. Please don't say solar. Once again, nuclear keeps coming back as a source that is impossible to ignore. We need so much power to support electric vehicles that we would need to build 1200 new 1 GW class nuclear power plants. This is impossible. Clearly a hybrid system will be required. Again, no, solar can't do it. It can be a part of it, but it just can't rise up to the occasion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Monthly_Hydro_Power_Generation.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power_in_the_Uni... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#/media/File:NRC_plant_locations_Oct_2021.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...

defrost 4y ago
> Transmission Lines: They are only good for about 300 miles. Say what now? Are you trapped in the 1950s or something? > Most HVDC links use voltages between 100 kV and 800 kV. However, a 1,100 kV link in China was completed in 2019 over a distance of 3,300 km (2,100 mi) with a power capacity of 12 GW [1]. I realise the USofA is stuck with a lot of old infrastructure that they've only recently barely started to upgrade .. but better things are possible. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
- robomartin 4y ago
  > Say what now? Are you trapped in the 1950s or something No. Reality. Where in the US do we have a power transmission line that goes significantly farther than 300 miles? Also, if I had to guess, I would not be surprised if the super high voltages required to go farther are so dangerous to people, wildlife and the environment that they will never be build in the US or Europe. China doesn’t care about such things.
  - defrost 4y ago
    > they will never be build in the US or Europe. Here's a map of HVDC projects in Europe, some of which have been about since the 1930s [1]. Canada has several long distance HVDC lines (eg: [2] "recorded on the list of IEEE Milestones in electrical engineering") while the US to date mainly uses HVDC to interconnect existing AC grids (eg: [3]) although there are significant proposals for long distance HVDC to share renewable energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_River_DC_Transmission_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_River_DC_Transmission_S... [3] https://ethw.org/Milestones:Virginia_Smith_High-Voltage_Direct-Current_Converter_Station,_1988 https://ethw.org/Milestones:Virginia_Smith_High-Voltage_Dire... > the super high voltages required to go farther are so dangerous to people, wildlife and the environment This is another of your blindly inaccurate unresearched guesses? Can you back this up with reference to the past 50 years of HVDC in Europe and demostrate DANGER!! at levels significant over AC transmission?