3 ms·
> Seems to me that as the energy mix moves more towards renewable, to the extent that the renewable-skeptics’ prediction that variability is an issue comes true
by hwillis 3y ago
> Seems to me that as the energy mix moves more towards renewable, to the extent that the renewable-skeptics’ prediction that variability is an issue comes true, then we would have to build gas peaker plants and start charging more for electricity at peak times.
There are a lot of different types of variability. You're talking about sudden short-term variance in supply, which is easy to deal with- just build more renewables. Bad weather doesn't cover up entire states except for extreme events, and you can just turn it off when it isn't needed. You can build a lot of overcapacity if the alternative is to pay peaker plant rates.
Increased variance like I interpret most people talking about it is those extreme weather events not necessarily hurricanes, but things like a week of no wind or heavy clouds happening to cover every panel in a distribution area. The fear being that you would still need gas plants or huge batteries to run for that one week a year, at extreme cost. The variance averages out most of the time, but not all the time.
Virtual batteries work with the former, but not the latter.
> In response to this increased market rate delta it would become more viable to invest in dynamic pricing and load shedding/deferring tech.
It's definitely not a tech problem. It's an incentives problem. The tech was always incredibly simple, and it does literally exist already- you can buy internet-connected thermostats. All you need to do is connect Nest to your local electricity distribution company and tell it how many degrees colder/warmer you will tolerate per $ saved. 45% of a house's energy use is in controlling the temperature of air and water (and that's not counting the fridge, which is another 7%).
It's as much on the suppliers as it is on consumers, IMO. Electrical distributors are some of the laziest, worst-run companies in the country. Half of them can't even do billing right; I know dozens of people who have been double charged or never charged or charged for their neighbor- nobody wants to read their electrical bill, so nobody cares. The average US household spends ~$2450 on electricity annually, and the amount you can save for how complicated it is is just below that mental threshold.
I don't see it getting better without legislation. Most obviously, a push for subsidized smart meters that don't use 1930s tech to measure electricity. Then a standardized (extensible) API and/or reporting requirement, so that devices can know the current price of electricity. A standard for transmitting that info over the house circuits themselves, if you're feeling fancy. Direct-to-consumer subsidies from grid authorities for things like ancillary services, power factor correction, and frequency stabilization.
- theptip 3y ago> You're talking about sudden short-term variance in supply, which is easy to deal with- just build more renewables. Easy as in simple, but I think this dramatically skews the price viability. If I need 2x overcapacity then the price to the consumer is 2x per MW of base capacity, and it’s no longer viable to use solar over gas. > It's definitely not a tech problem I disagree. I’m aware of some existing options, my claim is that with a bigger delta, more options become viable to research and implement. For example there was a thread recently where we discussed modulating energy usage in aluminum smelting, which requires a new design for the furnace to keep the temperatures stable. (This tech already exists, but AFAICT it’s not cost-effective to deploy widely.) There are lots of industrial processes which could conceivably modulate their power consumption, but it’s not currently cost-effective to even design these improvements at current levels of peak premium. Tech is downstream of incentives, is what I am saying, and price signals can be a good incentive; many claim that 100% renewable is not viable because of the cost of closing that last 1% of daily variability, I am hypothesizing that the system as a whole could, with appropriate price signals, build the tech to make the demand curve much more mutable. This gets at seasonal variability; if we have a week with lower energy production, then the peak-premium goes up, and maybe we turn off the marginal industrial, residential, and commercial consumers.
- bluGill 3y agoYou need most of that over capacity anyway. They still keep generators from the 1920s operational just in case a storm cuts off one town from the grid, turn on those generators and let the linemen fix it a week later
- theptip 3y agoI’d like to see numbers backing up this assertion, because everything I have seen suggests the opposite at grid scale. Sure, remote towns will have backups, but the major metro areas do not run at substantial overcapacity ratios. (Else, peakers would not be a thing.)
- 3y ago