5 ms·

I semi-regularly talk to people that plan the European power grid, yes. At the core of extension and development studies is still an optimal power flow, which i

I semi-regularly talk to people that plan the European power grid, yes. At the core of extension and development studies is still an optimal power flow, which is an economic optimization. Stability (which has many meanings here) is usually studied as a second step. Security of Supply is yet another issue. Anyway, if you can use storage to lower you nuclear costs by 5% overall, would it not be used? If your comment is not about viability of large scale storage, then what is it about? Storage is dispatchable, and an economically optimal 100% renewables grid will have a peak capacity far above actual peak demand, meaning it's typically curtailed (or you run electrolysers which again can beade dispatchable and grid-forming as loads) which again means you have plenty of ability to react. Resilience research tends to favor decentralized solutions as well. Look at how Puerto Rico is being rebuilt.

pyrale 3y ago
> I semi-regularly talk to people that plan the European power grid, yes. Hard to know which group of people you talk to. This kind of work happens at many different levels, for many different reasons. TSO investment decisions are not made by the same people than power production investment decisions. There is some coordination, but no centralized decision-making. To the best of my knowledge of at least one major European TSO, investment decisions are not taken at european level. And while there is strong european coordination in grid management, it is still cooperation and not an unified decision process. Any europe-level investment advice would have to be evaluated and selected by the TSO to become effective. Also the further you go from the field, the more likely studies are to consider spherical cows. Still useful, but not the full picture. > Anyway, if you can use storage to lower you nuclear costs by 5% overall, would it not be used? Of course it would, and we do use reversible dams to optimize costs. My point is that: 1) that's a whole-production optimization, and the trigger for that optimization is increasingly renewables rather than optimizing for nuclear production stability 2) the difference between paying 5% more and having to cut consumers from the grid is massive. for any TSO trying to save money is a goal, but curtailing consumption is an absolute failure criterion, second only to damaging the grid itself. > Resilience research tends to favor decentralized solutions as well. I might be biased by my personal experience, but when it comes to a power grid, planning ahead of time is much more valuable than decentralization. There is a difference between avoiding concentration of material, something which can be handled with central oversignt, and decentralization, which creates a coordination cost and sometimes loss of information (which is the case when small renewable production is connected to the distribution network rather than the transport network).
- Certhas 3y ago
  The TSOs coordinate in ENTSOE, they are not responsible for actual energy production. But they are responsible for many aspects of system stability, and ENTSOE also coordinates security of supply studies. How to make sure that everything that is needed in order to have sufficient production capacity in all scenarios is also built is not in the responsibility of TSOs. Of course when we consider how to develop flexibility and system service markets we are exactly talking about making sure that everything that is needed _is_ built. Not through centralized planning but by making sure we have a market where we pay for people to provide what is needed. The big questions, like energy only vs capacity markets, are directly about making sure the necessary investments are made, no matter what technology options are backing them up. You don't need central planning, but you need ESM studies to guide your market designs and long term political decisions (i.e. do we need a hydrogen grid). And the fact that right now we don't have a market (or other incentives/regulations) for virtual inertia is a real problem worrying TSOs (much more so than the hypothetical issue of under-supply in 10-20 years that you raise for which the basic organisational mechanisms are in place). > 2) the difference between paying 5% more and having to cut consumers from the grid is massive. for any TSO trying to save money is a goal, but curtailing consumption is an absolute failure criterion, second only to damaging the grid itself. Of course, but what is your point? That renewables require massive storage to ensure supply at all time? Yes. That's obvious. But, as every study and common sense shows, it turns out massive storage is also helpful for a nuclear grid, especially once we get into electrifying the heat sector (an important point you have not acknowledged at all). Finally security of supply studies also assume that conventional generators sometimes fail for unpredictable reasons. In Texas it wasn't the renewables, it was the gas system freezing over that almost fucked up the grid. I still don't get what your initial complaint was about. The point I made was pretty explicitly: "Renewables require massive storage to solve the fact that they are not dispatchable. But actually so does nuclear for completely different, economic reasons." What was it that you object to in that statement? What are you "debunking"? Finally: As to the idea that energy systems are optimized for reliability first, and that renewables threaten this somehow: Germany had an average of 12 outage minutes in 2020 on 49% renewables. US: 280 outage minutes on 23%. Germany outage minutes have been trending down as well last I checked, with the general explanation I have heard being that the focus on renewables has forced people to coordinate better, and check their grids more thoroughly than they did before.

pyrale 3y ago

> I semi-regularly talk to people that plan the European power grid, yes. Hard to know which group of people you talk to. This kind of work happens at many different levels, for many different reasons. TSO investment decisions are not made by the same people than power production investment decisions. There is some coordination, but no centralized decision-making. To the best of my knowledge of at least one major European TSO, investment decisions are not taken at european level. And while there is strong european coordination in grid management, it is still cooperation and not an unified decision process. Any europe-level investment advice would have to be evaluated and selected by the TSO to become effective. Also the further you go from the field, the more likely studies are to consider spherical cows. Still useful, but not the full picture. > Anyway, if you can use storage to lower you nuclear costs by 5% overall, would it not be used? Of course it would, and we do use reversible dams to optimize costs. My point is that: 1) that's a whole-production optimization, and the trigger for that optimization is increasingly renewables rather than optimizing for nuclear production stability 2) the difference between paying 5% more and having to cut consumers from the grid is massive. for any TSO trying to save money is a goal, but curtailing consumption is an absolute failure criterion, second only to damaging the grid itself. > Resilience research tends to favor decentralized solutions as well. I might be biased by my personal experience, but when it comes to a power grid, planning ahead of time is much more valuable than decentralization. There is a difference between avoiding concentration of material, something which can be handled with central oversignt, and decentralization, which creates a coordination cost and sometimes loss of information (which is the case when small renewable production is connected to the distribution network rather than the transport network).

Certhas 3y ago
The TSOs coordinate in ENTSOE, they are not responsible for actual energy production. But they are responsible for many aspects of system stability, and ENTSOE also coordinates security of supply studies. How to make sure that everything that is needed in order to have sufficient production capacity in all scenarios is also built is not in the responsibility of TSOs. Of course when we consider how to develop flexibility and system service markets we are exactly talking about making sure that everything that is needed _is_ built. Not through centralized planning but by making sure we have a market where we pay for people to provide what is needed. The big questions, like energy only vs capacity markets, are directly about making sure the necessary investments are made, no matter what technology options are backing them up. You don't need central planning, but you need ESM studies to guide your market designs and long term political decisions (i.e. do we need a hydrogen grid). And the fact that right now we don't have a market (or other incentives/regulations) for virtual inertia is a real problem worrying TSOs (much more so than the hypothetical issue of under-supply in 10-20 years that you raise for which the basic organisational mechanisms are in place). > 2) the difference between paying 5% more and having to cut consumers from the grid is massive. for any TSO trying to save money is a goal, but curtailing consumption is an absolute failure criterion, second only to damaging the grid itself. Of course, but what is your point? That renewables require massive storage to ensure supply at all time? Yes. That's obvious. But, as every study and common sense shows, it turns out massive storage is also helpful for a nuclear grid, especially once we get into electrifying the heat sector (an important point you have not acknowledged at all). Finally security of supply studies also assume that conventional generators sometimes fail for unpredictable reasons. In Texas it wasn't the renewables, it was the gas system freezing over that almost fucked up the grid. I still don't get what your initial complaint was about. The point I made was pretty explicitly: "Renewables require massive storage to solve the fact that they are not dispatchable. But actually so does nuclear for completely different, economic reasons." What was it that you object to in that statement? What are you "debunking"? Finally: As to the idea that energy systems are optimized for reliability first, and that renewables threaten this somehow: Germany had an average of 12 outage minutes in 2020 on 49% renewables. US: 280 outage minutes on 23%. Germany outage minutes have been trending down as well last I checked, with the general explanation I have heard being that the focus on renewables has forced people to coordinate better, and check their grids more thoroughly than they did before.