4 ms·

> Once you convert heating systems to electric to stop burning fossil fuels, what do you do during winter when it's cold, the days are short and it's cloudy and

> Once you convert heating systems to electric to stop burning fossil fuels, what do you do during winter when it's cold, the days are short and it's cloudy and calm for a week? Keep some amount of fossil backup for emergencies, and interconnect (eg, with HVDC). The US for instance is huge, and the chances of wind not blowing anywhere in it are essentially zero. If say, Washington is suddenly devoid of sun and wind, there's a lot of places around it could buy power from. And be the seller when the reverse happens.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Keep some amount of fossil backup for emergencies This is the "keep maintaining the existing natural gas plants even though they're hardly ever used" which is unreasonably expensive. > interconnect (eg, with HVDC). The US for instance is huge, and the chances of wind not blowing anywhere in it are essentially zero. Weather is regional. You could very easily have calm air in an entire region of the country for an extended period of time. Even if you had long-distance transmission, where do you get the capacity? The generators in another party of the country still have to satisfy the same load they normally do. And the generators in another part of the country would be a different kind -- you would use a higher proportion of solar in the US southwest and a higher proportion of wind in the midwest. If it's calm in winter in the midwest, you need power for heating at night and solar generators in the Mojave with short winter days aren't going to do it. And the reverse when there isn't enough generation for the air conditioning load in the south in the summer. To actually do this you would have to massively overbuild generating capacity of the type opposite what that region is suited for, specifically to satisfy the demand in another part of the country on rare occasions, and build and maintain thousands of miles of HVDC lines that are hardly ever used. With enough redundancy that you don't shut off power to half the country if a truck veers off the highway and crashes into one. This is supposed to be the cheapest option?
- dale_glass 3y ago
  > This is the "keep maintaining the existing natural gas plants even though they're hardly ever used" which is unreasonably expensive. Not all of them. A small fraction. > Weather is regional. You could very easily have calm air in an entire region of the country for an extended period of time. Even if you had long-distance transmission, where do you get the capacity? From other regions with different weather patterns. > And the generators in another part of the country would be a different kind -- you would use a higher proportion of solar in the US southwest and a higher proportion of wind in the midwest. Exactly, you build in each place what it's best suited for. > If it's calm in winter in the midwest, you need power for heating at night and solar generators in the Mojave with short winter days aren't going to do it. So you pull from the rest of the country as well. That's what a national grid is for. Every place ends up with some capacity to overproduce, so when a given region has 50% of what it needs, it pulls 10% from 5 places each. > To actually do this you would have to massively overbuild generating capacity of the type opposite what that region is suited for Why opposite? > This is supposed to be the cheapest option? Sure. Renewables are cheaper than nuclear. So overbuilding solar and wind is still cost competitive. At this point solar is less than half the price of nuclear. Which means if you thought nuclear is a good idea, then overbuilding solar still saves you money.
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >Weather is regional. You could very easily have calm air in an entire region of the country for an extended period of time. Even if you had long-distance transmission, where do you get the capacity? You use the gas or battery storage that you have created locally close to where you are. Since it's cheap even at small scale. People with solar panels and some modern EV's with V2G can already go 24/7 (for a day or so anyway). I think you underestimate the power in small scale in large numbers. Solar power in Germany increased by the equivalent of one nuclear reactor in just one year. By comparison, the latest nuclear reactor built in Europe took 14 years. It seems overwhelmingly likely that local battery storage will develop similarly, meaning that nations will get several TWh of storage from companies and individuals adding batteries to their homes and businesses. Modern EV's can power a home for at least 24 hours already. >To actually do this you would have to massively overbuild generating capacity of the type opposite what that region is suited for, Certainly not - every region has their own storage and can overprovision whatever makes the most sense where they are. edit: typo

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Keep some amount of fossil backup for emergencies This is the "keep maintaining the existing natural gas plants even though they're hardly ever used" which is unreasonably expensive. > interconnect (eg, with HVDC). The US for instance is huge, and the chances of wind not blowing anywhere in it are essentially zero. Weather is regional. You could very easily have calm air in an entire region of the country for an extended period of time. Even if you had long-distance transmission, where do you get the capacity? The generators in another party of the country still have to satisfy the same load they normally do. And the generators in another part of the country would be a different kind -- you would use a higher proportion of solar in the US southwest and a higher proportion of wind in the midwest. If it's calm in winter in the midwest, you need power for heating at night and solar generators in the Mojave with short winter days aren't going to do it. And the reverse when there isn't enough generation for the air conditioning load in the south in the summer. To actually do this you would have to massively overbuild generating capacity of the type opposite what that region is suited for, specifically to satisfy the demand in another part of the country on rare occasions, and build and maintain thousands of miles of HVDC lines that are hardly ever used. With enough redundancy that you don't shut off power to half the country if a truck veers off the highway and crashes into one. This is supposed to be the cheapest option?

dale_glass 3y ago
> This is the "keep maintaining the existing natural gas plants even though they're hardly ever used" which is unreasonably expensive. Not all of them. A small fraction. > Weather is regional. You could very easily have calm air in an entire region of the country for an extended period of time. Even if you had long-distance transmission, where do you get the capacity? From other regions with different weather patterns. > And the generators in another part of the country would be a different kind -- you would use a higher proportion of solar in the US southwest and a higher proportion of wind in the midwest. Exactly, you build in each place what it's best suited for. > If it's calm in winter in the midwest, you need power for heating at night and solar generators in the Mojave with short winter days aren't going to do it. So you pull from the rest of the country as well. That's what a national grid is for. Every place ends up with some capacity to overproduce, so when a given region has 50% of what it needs, it pulls 10% from 5 places each. > To actually do this you would have to massively overbuild generating capacity of the type opposite what that region is suited for Why opposite? > This is supposed to be the cheapest option? Sure. Renewables are cheaper than nuclear. So overbuilding solar and wind is still cost competitive. At this point solar is less than half the price of nuclear. Which means if you thought nuclear is a good idea, then overbuilding solar still saves you money.
Kon5ole 3y ago
>Weather is regional. You could very easily have calm air in an entire region of the country for an extended period of time. Even if you had long-distance transmission, where do you get the capacity? You use the gas or battery storage that you have created locally close to where you are. Since it's cheap even at small scale. People with solar panels and some modern EV's with V2G can already go 24/7 (for a day or so anyway). I think you underestimate the power in small scale in large numbers. Solar power in Germany increased by the equivalent of one nuclear reactor in just one year. By comparison, the latest nuclear reactor built in Europe took 14 years. It seems overwhelmingly likely that local battery storage will develop similarly, meaning that nations will get several TWh of storage from companies and individuals adding batteries to their homes and businesses. Modern EV's can power a home for at least 24 hours already. >To actually do this you would have to massively overbuild generating capacity of the type opposite what that region is suited for, Certainly not - every region has their own storage and can overprovision whatever makes the most sense where they are. edit: typo