3 ms·
> and only need to balance between them infrequently I think it's exactly the opposite. There will frequently be a need to balance them. With wind and solar i
by adrianmonk 3y ago
> and only need to balance between them infrequently
I think it's exactly the opposite. There will frequently be a need to balance them.
With wind and solar in the mix, generation will fluctuate with the weather. In a given area, it could be cloudy one day and sunny the next. Or windy one day but not the next. And consumption won't be correlated with that, so that creates an extra source of mismatches between demand and consumption within each area.
Transmission is one way to solve that. You could also solve it with storage (within every area), but that's probably less efficient and/or more expensive.
- stavros 3y agoIt's easier for me to bring you some food when you're running out than to bring you food every single meal.
- notahacker 3y agoSure, but you need the same road to get there regardless of how many hours a week it gets used.
- hackerlight 3y agoIt's a trade off. More transmission lines means less overbuilding and less storage. Really it's an optimization problem that will be solved on a case by case basis given geography and so on.
- callalex 3y agoFor infrastructure it’s the opposite. You have to buy a food truck big enough to feed everyone on the worst day of the year. And at that point you may as well use it every day because you already paid for it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]