3 ms·
Except we need to use electricity for heating and the availability of solar inversely correlates with demand for heating and wind isn’t really able to make up f
by YmiYugy 3y ago
Except we need to use electricity for heating and the availability of solar inversely correlates with demand for heating and wind isn’t really able to make up for it.
Because the effect is seasonal neighboring regions can’t really help each other. So yew either need to build an incredible amount of transport capacity over a really long distance or come up with some kind of storage solution. Doing both on scale is unimaginably expensive.
Yes, nuclear power isn’t able to adjust as quickly as renewables or coal/gas, but if required it can add reduce about 10 percentage points per minute.
This isn’t done because of the economics. Fixed costs are much higher.
- _aavaa_ 3y agoSolar energy is not zero in the winter months, it’s just reduced. Whether solar remains viable in the winter months is an economic question regarding the final price after overbuilding. Wind being unable to work in to winter is an assertion that will need some backing up. Unimaginably expensive is not accurate description. A) hydro is an already existing solution that can work as storage. B) HVDC lines are unimaginably expensive compared to what? Nuclear, while dependable is not exactly cheap either.
- hotpotamus 3y agoThere is actually an inverse correlation between summer and winter in the northern and southern hemispheres. I wonder what the engineering issues with that scale of power transmission are, and if they're any worse than the political issues.