4 ms·

> It will be several decades before a combination of renewable overcapacity and energy storage can meet any increase in demand for electricity. In the mean time

> It will be several decades before a combination of renewable overcapacity and energy storage can meet any increase in demand for electricity. In the mean time, anything that causes an increase in demand, such as electric cars, will be met with an equal amount of additional coal or natural gas supply. There's a lot wrong with this comment, but this bit especially is just made up nonsense. According to [1] 39.7% of USA energy generation on average is already either renewables or nuclear, and as other commenters have pointed out even if it was 100% coal including transmission losses it would still be more efficient than petrol in an ICE. And saying that all additional power production built in the US grid will be 100% coal or natural gas for the next two decades is a bizarre claim. [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...

goodSteveramos 3y ago
>And saying that all additional power production built in the US grid will be 100% coal or natural gas for the next two decades is a bizarre claim. The electricity grid has something called a Capacity Factor. Capacity is the ability to produce power measured in Watts. The Capactiy Factor is the fraction of capacity which is actually producing that power at any instant in time. Power demand and supply must be almost exactly in sync at all times to maintain grid stability. This is achieved by turning on and off coal and natural gas power stations, which can be done relatively quickly, to ramp up and ramp down production as demand fluctuates. Capacity must always greatly exceed typical demand so that unusually high demand can be met. Nuclear, wind, solar and hydroelectric power plants always produce whatever power they can independent of demand. This is for a diverse set of safety and environmental reasons. Only fossil fuel plants can "load follow" to meet changes in demand. Like I stated in my original comment, all load following in the US is done with fossil fuels, and that will be the case for many years or several decades to come. Increases in capacity will mostly come from carbon free sources, but until those sources can load follow, either by dumping unused energy in off-peak hours or by storing that energy until it is needed, all load following will be done with fossil fuels. This means additional demand is going to be met entirely with fossil fuels for a long time to come. I hope that helps you understand the concept of marginal demand better.
- p1necone 3y ago
  I'm confused - you posted on a thread about EVs, the problem here is a long term ramp up of demand over the span of years or decades as more and more people swap their ICE vehicles for EVs. This is a problem to be solved by the building out of more power production capacity over the long term. Dealing with short term load spikes with existing infrastructure is a different problem that isn't really relevant in this context. Power demand from EV charging is pretty predictable too - the bulk of it happens overnight when demand is usually lowest from everything else.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    >Dealing with short term load spikes with existing infrastructure is a different problem that isn't really relevant in this context. EVs sold today are going to be charged on the grid we have today. if that makes their carbon footprint barely better than gas and slightly worse than a hybrid it means our subsidies would be better used to increase carbon free electricity generation and increase hybrid sales. Once EVs have smaller carbon footprints then it will make sense to subsidize them. If you don't care about the short term then yes. The long term solution is full carbon free electricity and EVs
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  EVs are actually a nearly ideal load for load-scheduling to match net grid draw to times of overcapacity. If anything, they have the potential to vastly improve grid stability, which would otherwise become a concern as an increasing amount of power is supplied by fluctuating renewables.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    Adding the charging demand, some of which will inevitably occur at peak-demand, is not going to improve the stability of the grid compared to a gas car that never places any load on the grid at all. EVs will only improve grid stability if owners chose to feed the grid during peak demand.

goodSteveramos 3y ago

>And saying that all additional power production built in the US grid will be 100% coal or natural gas for the next two decades is a bizarre claim. The electricity grid has something called a Capacity Factor. Capacity is the ability to produce power measured in Watts. The Capactiy Factor is the fraction of capacity which is actually producing that power at any instant in time. Power demand and supply must be almost exactly in sync at all times to maintain grid stability. This is achieved by turning on and off coal and natural gas power stations, which can be done relatively quickly, to ramp up and ramp down production as demand fluctuates. Capacity must always greatly exceed typical demand so that unusually high demand can be met. Nuclear, wind, solar and hydroelectric power plants always produce whatever power they can independent of demand. This is for a diverse set of safety and environmental reasons. Only fossil fuel plants can "load follow" to meet changes in demand. Like I stated in my original comment, all load following in the US is done with fossil fuels, and that will be the case for many years or several decades to come. Increases in capacity will mostly come from carbon free sources, but until those sources can load follow, either by dumping unused energy in off-peak hours or by storing that energy until it is needed, all load following will be done with fossil fuels. This means additional demand is going to be met entirely with fossil fuels for a long time to come. I hope that helps you understand the concept of marginal demand better.

p1necone 3y ago
I'm confused - you posted on a thread about EVs, the problem here is a long term ramp up of demand over the span of years or decades as more and more people swap their ICE vehicles for EVs. This is a problem to be solved by the building out of more power production capacity over the long term. Dealing with short term load spikes with existing infrastructure is a different problem that isn't really relevant in this context. Power demand from EV charging is pretty predictable too - the bulk of it happens overnight when demand is usually lowest from everything else.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  >Dealing with short term load spikes with existing infrastructure is a different problem that isn't really relevant in this context. EVs sold today are going to be charged on the grid we have today. if that makes their carbon footprint barely better than gas and slightly worse than a hybrid it means our subsidies would be better used to increase carbon free electricity generation and increase hybrid sales. Once EVs have smaller carbon footprints then it will make sense to subsidize them. If you don't care about the short term then yes. The long term solution is full carbon free electricity and EVs
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
EVs are actually a nearly ideal load for load-scheduling to match net grid draw to times of overcapacity. If anything, they have the potential to vastly improve grid stability, which would otherwise become a concern as an increasing amount of power is supplied by fluctuating renewables.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  Adding the charging demand, some of which will inevitably occur at peak-demand, is not going to improve the stability of the grid compared to a gas car that never places any load on the grid at all. EVs will only improve grid stability if owners chose to feed the grid during peak demand.