4 ms·

While dunkelflaute is a problem, they are as rare as events where a nuclear power plant has to stop production for an unexpected reason. In both case, nuclear

by cauch 3y ago

While dunkelflaute is a problem, they are as rare as events where a nuclear power plant has to stop production for an unexpected reason. In both case, nuclear or not, when building a network, you will need to build some redundancies and flexibility. A lot of the problems of renewables have an equivalent in the nuclear plants (for example, even with nuclear, batteries are needed because nuclear starts to be more expensive if they have to turn on and off to follow the demand, so it's cheaper to build battery).

7thaccount 3y ago
All true, but what most of the renewables advocates are advocating for is a system purely of wind, solar, geothermal, and batteries...and to do it as quickly as possible. They're more concerned with a potential climate catastrophe than one where energy becomes far more scarce and demand curtailment the norm. The problem with the latter is if we're not careful and get rid of all of our traditional generation too fast we would have deindustrialization and mass human suffering as well. I'm not being hyperbolic either. Stable electricity is the bedrock of our society and as plant operators move into other roles and generators are moth-balled, going back can't be done at the drop of a hat. This is a big topic right now. Both views are important. We need to decarbonize, but we have to do it without leading to other major issues.
- cauch 3y ago
  Not sure I get the point as I don't know any plans where energy distributors and providers are not strongly involved, and these actors will be strongly impacted by unstable networks. So, obviously, stability has a very high importance in their mind. And yet, they choose strategies like the one in the Netherlands. For example, the initial conversation was about Netherlands and negative costs. People who are creating the situation in that country put grid stability very high in their priorities (because it would be catastrophic for them), and still ended up with the situation that currently exists. So, the initial analysis was not far off, and arguing that we should not only look at negative cost is a fair point, but it is incorrect to imply that looking further than negative cost will change the strategy in Netherlands: the strategy in Netherlands is both compatible with "looking at the negative cost" and "looking at network stability".
  - 7thaccount 3y ago
    Germany got rid of their nuke plants and bet billions on solar in a non-sunny country. They were already in a tough spot before losing Russian natural gas and are now having to heavily subsidize industry due to skyrocketing energy costs. A lot of groups in the US are trying to do the same and only a few regulators (e.g. NERC) see the danger. I'm guessing the Netherlands has similar groups that are not looking at the big picture and these groups are influential. Again... decarbonization needs to happen, but we need to think about how.
    - cauch 3y ago
      You are guessing ... Ok, so, once again, you are just some random dude "having an opinion" with nothing more than prejudices on the subject. There is a lot of things to say about the mistakes of Germany. And a lot about the mistakes of France, who painted themselves in a corner and is nowadays mentioned as an example to not follow when deploying nuclear. If you apply your own logic, it means that wind and solar is out of question because of Germany, and it means that nuclear is out of question because of France. (edit: just to be clear, my point is that it is ridiculous to say that the problem of France demonstrates that nuclear is not an option. I'm not saying wing+solar is better than nuclear. I'm just saying that the "Germany argument" is hypocritical, because if you really think it's valid, then you should also be against nuclear) This ridiculous idea that "a few people on the internet" are the ones in charge of managing the network is just laughable. You are saying "a lot of groups in the US are trying the same". So, what are they doing: they are going to the electricity network owners and are saying "can you give it to me one sec, I don't have any qualifications, but I just want to play with it"? If in US something is changed in the network, it is the results of advanced studies done by very advanced experts. Some expert groups may disagree on strategies, but pretending that idiots who are not even understanding what is happening in Germany will just be able to change things is just ridiculous. More realistically, the tensions you are talking about are from difference of opinions of two EXPERT groups, but you are just being intellectually dishonest by saying "their idea looks a bit like Germany, so obviously, they are idiots who haven't thought about it". As you say, decarbonisation needs to happen but we need to think about how. You are not part of the group "thinking about how" if each time you see a plan that superficially looks like Germany, you conclude it can only be "not thought about how".
mpweiher 3y ago
> dunkelflaute is a problem, they are as rare as events No. They are actually much more frequent than renewable-advocates claim. > events where a nuclear power plant has to stop production for an unexpected reason. That turns out not to be the case, well-managed nuclear power has a capacity factor of well over 90%. But you're missing a much more important point: unforeseen events at nuclear power plants are independent and uncorrelated. So maybe 1 plant goes down, the others continue to operate unaffected. A Dunkelflfaute knocks out all your power over a large area.
- cauch 3y ago
  What do you mean? We currently have solar and wind generation deployed. We can SEE the graphs, see by ourselves where it happens. Where are these "more frequent" events that you say are somehow hidden by renewable-advocates? And why the company that have solar and wind AND are also strongly invested in nuclear and other generation are helping them hiding them? As for the well-management and the area: a "well-managed" central is not worth much if so far the majority of the centrals are not reaching that level, and nuclear centrals are too expensive to be build to be redundant, so when one central goes down, it's a big chunk of the generation that is missing, and cannot be covered by the central next door because the electricity of the central next door is already used to satisfy the demand the next door. If you use the central next door to fill up the gap, who is going to fill up the gap in the demand next door? Funnily, if we go deeper in the question, people always end up explaining that of course they will install redundancies and flexibility (either by battery, by demand response, ...), shooting themselves in the foot because it itself mitigates a lot any problem created by dunkelflaute.
  - Gibbon1 3y ago
    It's not Germany but I always trot out California's electric supply This is a high quality display of current and past supply. You can see everyday you get a huge slug of energy from solar. You go through history and you can see a few days a month in the winter when the output drops by 50%. Also notable is California exports power during the day and batteries are providing a lot of power during the morning and early evening. https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html This gives the mix over the last 12 years. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-electrical-energy-generation https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo... The amount of hydro varies a lot. But it seems solar and wind are slowly depressing the demand for import and nat gas sources. It's an interesting compare to Germany. California never went in on nukes and hasn't forced existing plants to close. Wasn't dependent on Russian gas for power and chemical feedstocks. California continued to build out solar while Germany stopped. Bonus German dependency on baseload imports from Frances aging nuclear reactors. Feels like Germany has an excess of black chickens coming home to roost. Also notable, that hippy progressive unicorns and rainbow state of Texas has about the same amount renewables as California. Which says the Accounts books tell them the same story.

by cauch 3y ago

7thaccount 3y ago

All true, but what most of the renewables advocates are advocating for is a system purely of wind, solar, geothermal, and batteries...and to do it as quickly as possible. They're more concerned with a potential climate catastrophe than one where energy becomes far more scarce and demand curtailment the norm. The problem with the latter is if we're not careful and get rid of all of our traditional generation too fast we would have deindustrialization and mass human suffering as well. I'm not being hyperbolic either. Stable electricity is the bedrock of our society and as plant operators move into other roles and generators are moth-balled, going back can't be done at the drop of a hat. This is a big topic right now. Both views are important. We need to decarbonize, but we have to do it without leading to other major issues.

cauch 3y ago
Not sure I get the point as I don't know any plans where energy distributors and providers are not strongly involved, and these actors will be strongly impacted by unstable networks. So, obviously, stability has a very high importance in their mind. And yet, they choose strategies like the one in the Netherlands. For example, the initial conversation was about Netherlands and negative costs. People who are creating the situation in that country put grid stability very high in their priorities (because it would be catastrophic for them), and still ended up with the situation that currently exists. So, the initial analysis was not far off, and arguing that we should not only look at negative cost is a fair point, but it is incorrect to imply that looking further than negative cost will change the strategy in Netherlands: the strategy in Netherlands is both compatible with "looking at the negative cost" and "looking at network stability".
- 7thaccount 3y ago
  Germany got rid of their nuke plants and bet billions on solar in a non-sunny country. They were already in a tough spot before losing Russian natural gas and are now having to heavily subsidize industry due to skyrocketing energy costs. A lot of groups in the US are trying to do the same and only a few regulators (e.g. NERC) see the danger. I'm guessing the Netherlands has similar groups that are not looking at the big picture and these groups are influential. Again... decarbonization needs to happen, but we need to think about how.
  - cauch 3y ago
    You are guessing ... Ok, so, once again, you are just some random dude "having an opinion" with nothing more than prejudices on the subject. There is a lot of things to say about the mistakes of Germany. And a lot about the mistakes of France, who painted themselves in a corner and is nowadays mentioned as an example to not follow when deploying nuclear. If you apply your own logic, it means that wind and solar is out of question because of Germany, and it means that nuclear is out of question because of France. (edit: just to be clear, my point is that it is ridiculous to say that the problem of France demonstrates that nuclear is not an option. I'm not saying wing+solar is better than nuclear. I'm just saying that the "Germany argument" is hypocritical, because if you really think it's valid, then you should also be against nuclear) This ridiculous idea that "a few people on the internet" are the ones in charge of managing the network is just laughable. You are saying "a lot of groups in the US are trying the same". So, what are they doing: they are going to the electricity network owners and are saying "can you give it to me one sec, I don't have any qualifications, but I just want to play with it"? If in US something is changed in the network, it is the results of advanced studies done by very advanced experts. Some expert groups may disagree on strategies, but pretending that idiots who are not even understanding what is happening in Germany will just be able to change things is just ridiculous. More realistically, the tensions you are talking about are from difference of opinions of two EXPERT groups, but you are just being intellectually dishonest by saying "their idea looks a bit like Germany, so obviously, they are idiots who haven't thought about it". As you say, decarbonisation needs to happen but we need to think about how. You are not part of the group "thinking about how" if each time you see a plan that superficially looks like Germany, you conclude it can only be "not thought about how".

mpweiher 3y ago

> dunkelflaute is a problem, they are as rare as events No. They are actually much more frequent than renewable-advocates claim. > events where a nuclear power plant has to stop production for an unexpected reason. That turns out not to be the case, well-managed nuclear power has a capacity factor of well over 90%. But you're missing a much more important point: unforeseen events at nuclear power plants are independent and uncorrelated. So maybe 1 plant goes down, the others continue to operate unaffected. A Dunkelflfaute knocks out all your power over a large area.

cauch 3y ago
What do you mean? We currently have solar and wind generation deployed. We can SEE the graphs, see by ourselves where it happens. Where are these "more frequent" events that you say are somehow hidden by renewable-advocates? And why the company that have solar and wind AND are also strongly invested in nuclear and other generation are helping them hiding them? As for the well-management and the area: a "well-managed" central is not worth much if so far the majority of the centrals are not reaching that level, and nuclear centrals are too expensive to be build to be redundant, so when one central goes down, it's a big chunk of the generation that is missing, and cannot be covered by the central next door because the electricity of the central next door is already used to satisfy the demand the next door. If you use the central next door to fill up the gap, who is going to fill up the gap in the demand next door? Funnily, if we go deeper in the question, people always end up explaining that of course they will install redundancies and flexibility (either by battery, by demand response, ...), shooting themselves in the foot because it itself mitigates a lot any problem created by dunkelflaute.
- Gibbon1 3y ago
  It's not Germany but I always trot out California's electric supply This is a high quality display of current and past supply. You can see everyday you get a huge slug of energy from solar. You go through history and you can see a few days a month in the winter when the output drops by 50%. Also notable is California exports power during the day and batteries are providing a lot of power during the morning and early evening. https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html This gives the mix over the last 12 years. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-electrical-energy-generation https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo... The amount of hydro varies a lot. But it seems solar and wind are slowly depressing the demand for import and nat gas sources. It's an interesting compare to Germany. California never went in on nukes and hasn't forced existing plants to close. Wasn't dependent on Russian gas for power and chemical feedstocks. California continued to build out solar while Germany stopped. Bonus German dependency on baseload imports from Frances aging nuclear reactors. Feels like Germany has an excess of black chickens coming home to roost. Also notable, that hippy progressive unicorns and rainbow state of Texas has about the same amount renewables as California. Which says the Accounts books tell them the same story.