4 ms·

> I am still very confused how power will be generated cleanly on cloudy, no-wind days with solar and wind. You are making it harder by adding that "cleanly" r

by cesarb 3y ago

> I am still very confused how power will be generated cleanly on cloudy, no-wind days with solar and wind. You are making it harder by adding that "cleanly" requirement, because the simple answer is going to be "natural gas". Unlike coal or nuclear, natural gas power plants are fast to start and stop (hydroelectric is even faster, but depends on favorable geography), so they can be left powered down (using no fuel) until they're necessary; and both overbuilding wind and solar, and spreading them over a wider area, can reduce the amount of time where that natural gas (or hydroelectric) backup is necessary. By requiring a perfect solution (100% clean), you are excluding the 90% solution which is already possible, and which can be incrementally enhanced to get closer and closer to that 100% goal (by adding more wind and solar, by strengthening the interconnections so the generation is spread over a wider area, by sprinkling a bit of storage like batteries or reversible hydroelectric, and even by dynamically reducing consumption when there's a generation shortage).

bobthepanda 3y ago
Reversible hydro is actually pretty possible in much of the world, particularly the US, because all you need is something bowl-shaped at a high elevation. Pumped hydro for the most part needs storage measured in hours or days, and something like the size of Lake Mead behind Hoover Dam is overkill. It's also more advantageous than regular hydro, because it does not need to be in the path of flowing water, so you avoid issues with silting up, lack of suitable locations, it's much less environmentally destructive, etc.
StillBored 3y ago
funded by backdoor taxes if texas is any indication. Prop 7 passed, which is basically just shifting the cost of grid reliability from the energy companies to the tax payers. So now you get to pay top dollar for the energy which is 50%+ carbon sources, while also paying to keep the plants operating from the general budget. Its like a wet dream for those energy traders. https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_Proposition_7,_Creation_of_State_Energy_Fund_Amendment_(2023) https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_Proposition_7,_Creation_of_Sta...
camel_gopher 3y ago
The problem with this 90% solution is that the more renewables are added, the more natural gas capacity is required to cover the capacity. Good problem for the natural gas industry. Going clean with nuclear isn’t cheap right now, and it shouldn’t be. It wasn’t at the start of renewables when solar was expensive. Cheap, reliable, clean; pick two.
- cesarb 3y ago
  > The problem with this 90% solution is that the more renewables are added, the more natural gas capacity is required to cover the capacity. That can be the case only if the demand also increases. If the demand stays the same, adding more wind and solar can only decrease how much the natural gas power plants are used, and the required capacity (that is, how much they can produce at full power) either stays the same or decreases (if the newly added wind and solar are non-correlated enough to reduce the chance of all of them "going dark" at the same time).
  - kragen 3y ago
    or if existing plants shut down, for example coal and nuclear plants they are in fact shutting down in many cases because they can't compete with renewables, and the result is that more grid-scale storage or peaker capacity (or demand response!) is needed but this is a good kind of problem to have, if you replace 900 megawatts (produced) of coal with 400 megawatts (produced, not nameplate) of solar and 500 megawatts of gas, you've still cut carbon emissions by two thirds, and lowered electricity prices at the same time
- pasttense01 3y ago
  There already is a massive amount of natural gas generating capacity. But if this capacity is used one tenth as much as it is currently used it will only use one tenth as much natural gas and will last much longer.
natmaka 3y ago
Indeed, and EV's batteries will become more and more significant ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid ), as will the clean backup provided by green hydrogen (obtained thanks to electricity overproduced by renewables, then fed to turbo-alternators during periods of insufficient production).

by cesarb 3y ago

bobthepanda 3y ago

Reversible hydro is actually pretty possible in much of the world, particularly the US, because all you need is something bowl-shaped at a high elevation. Pumped hydro for the most part needs storage measured in hours or days, and something like the size of Lake Mead behind Hoover Dam is overkill. It's also more advantageous than regular hydro, because it does not need to be in the path of flowing water, so you avoid issues with silting up, lack of suitable locations, it's much less environmentally destructive, etc.

StillBored 3y ago

funded by backdoor taxes if texas is any indication. Prop 7 passed, which is basically just shifting the cost of grid reliability from the energy companies to the tax payers. So now you get to pay top dollar for the energy which is 50%+ carbon sources, while also paying to keep the plants operating from the general budget. Its like a wet dream for those energy traders. https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_Proposition_7,_Creation_of_State_Energy_Fund_Amendment_(2023) https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_Proposition_7,_Creation_of_Sta...

camel_gopher 3y ago

The problem with this 90% solution is that the more renewables are added, the more natural gas capacity is required to cover the capacity. Good problem for the natural gas industry. Going clean with nuclear isn’t cheap right now, and it shouldn’t be. It wasn’t at the start of renewables when solar was expensive. Cheap, reliable, clean; pick two.

cesarb 3y ago
> The problem with this 90% solution is that the more renewables are added, the more natural gas capacity is required to cover the capacity. That can be the case only if the demand also increases. If the demand stays the same, adding more wind and solar can only decrease how much the natural gas power plants are used, and the required capacity (that is, how much they can produce at full power) either stays the same or decreases (if the newly added wind and solar are non-correlated enough to reduce the chance of all of them "going dark" at the same time).
- kragen 3y ago
  or if existing plants shut down, for example coal and nuclear plants they are in fact shutting down in many cases because they can't compete with renewables, and the result is that more grid-scale storage or peaker capacity (or demand response!) is needed but this is a good kind of problem to have, if you replace 900 megawatts (produced) of coal with 400 megawatts (produced, not nameplate) of solar and 500 megawatts of gas, you've still cut carbon emissions by two thirds, and lowered electricity prices at the same time
pasttense01 3y ago
There already is a massive amount of natural gas generating capacity. But if this capacity is used one tenth as much as it is currently used it will only use one tenth as much natural gas and will last much longer.

natmaka 3y ago

Indeed, and EV's batteries will become more and more significant ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid ), as will the clean backup provided by green hydrogen (obtained thanks to electricity overproduced by renewables, then fed to turbo-alternators during periods of insufficient production).