5 ms·

"Base load" doesn't really enter into it: you just need storage to make renewables make sense by supplying when generation doesn't meet demand and recharging wh

"Base load" doesn't really enter into it: you just need storage to make renewables make sense by supplying when generation doesn't meet demand and recharging when demand is less than supply. (or, if you have a cheap "base load" you use storage to even out the peaks and troughs in the same way). Base load is just a somewhat arbitrary line drawn across the lowest point of demand, it's not an actual requirement of the grid like supply and demand always matching.

pfdietz 2y ago
Base load was a useful concept when steady output power plants with high capital cost produced energy at the lowest cost. It then made sense to use them as much as possible -- to handle the "base load" -- and cover the rest with more expensive to operate but lower capital cost sources. But that's no longer the world we live in. The lowest cost energy is now from intermittent sources, and the optimal grid design will look very different.
- Animats 2y ago
  Right. Primary power sources will be solar, wind, and batteries. What we need now are peaking plants with low capital cost and high output. High operating cost when running is acceptable because they won't be running much. They're backup generators. Currently, gas turbines can do that, but not much else does. Nuclear, fission or fusion, is the opposite. It's all fixed cost. A higher fixed cost than solar or wind.
  - belorn 2y ago
    Gas turbines can not do that if we include the cost of pollution. Currently we do not have anything that has low capital cost, high operating cost, overall cheap, and carbon free. Natural gas just trade pollution, a problem for the future, in return for cheaper energy price today.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Gas turbines burning e-fuels like hydrogen. No net CO2 emission.
- gd1 2y ago
  [dead]
7thaccount 2y ago
There will be times when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Storage can come to the rescue if this is a few hours, but over much longer time periods will be a problem. It's rare, but not unheard of. Gas will be part of the solution for many years to come.
- fasa99 2y ago
  Yes. On the super long term - wind doesn't blow, sun doesn't shine, oil doesn't flow, coal doesn't mine. Then the feasibility of nucular is a no brainer. That's all that's left besides renewables, nucular fishin. And when we run of of nucular fishin, and that day will come too... Fusion will be all that's left of the non-renewables. And it will be used surely, provided it's a net-positive delta energy.
- Retric 2y ago
  > over much longer time periods It’s not clear there would be much longer time periods. Build enough low carbon generation to guarantee a surplus every day and you have a surplus every day. Anyone claiming we need days worth of storage is inherently making an argument that days worth of storage is cheaper than simply building more generation and generation is really cheap while batteries aren’t.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    We can get hard numbers on the storage required using this simulation/optimization site: https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ I often point to this, but it's such a fun and useful site I'll do it again. What you get is typically (it depends on where you are) producing steady output from solar + wind requires some hours of batteries (typically much less than a day) and usually a fairly large backup of hydrogen (particularly far from the equator). The hydrogen gets burned in combined cycle plants with a mediocre round trip efficiency; most of the stored energy goes through batteries and back again at high round trip efficiency. So, yes, one does need days worth of storage, but it's not batteries, it's a rainy day hydrogen account where storage capacity is very cheap.
  - nox101 2y ago

pfdietz 2y ago

Base load was a useful concept when steady output power plants with high capital cost produced energy at the lowest cost. It then made sense to use them as much as possible -- to handle the "base load" -- and cover the rest with more expensive to operate but lower capital cost sources. But that's no longer the world we live in. The lowest cost energy is now from intermittent sources, and the optimal grid design will look very different.

Animats 2y ago
Right. Primary power sources will be solar, wind, and batteries. What we need now are peaking plants with low capital cost and high output. High operating cost when running is acceptable because they won't be running much. They're backup generators. Currently, gas turbines can do that, but not much else does. Nuclear, fission or fusion, is the opposite. It's all fixed cost. A higher fixed cost than solar or wind.
- belorn 2y ago
  Gas turbines can not do that if we include the cost of pollution. Currently we do not have anything that has low capital cost, high operating cost, overall cheap, and carbon free. Natural gas just trade pollution, a problem for the future, in return for cheaper energy price today.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Gas turbines burning e-fuels like hydrogen. No net CO2 emission.
gd1 2y ago
[dead]

7thaccount 2y ago

There will be times when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Storage can come to the rescue if this is a few hours, but over much longer time periods will be a problem. It's rare, but not unheard of. Gas will be part of the solution for many years to come.

fasa99 2y ago
Yes. On the super long term - wind doesn't blow, sun doesn't shine, oil doesn't flow, coal doesn't mine. Then the feasibility of nucular is a no brainer. That's all that's left besides renewables, nucular fishin. And when we run of of nucular fishin, and that day will come too... Fusion will be all that's left of the non-renewables. And it will be used surely, provided it's a net-positive delta energy.
Retric 2y ago
> over much longer time periods It’s not clear there would be much longer time periods. Build enough low carbon generation to guarantee a surplus every day and you have a surplus every day. Anyone claiming we need days worth of storage is inherently making an argument that days worth of storage is cheaper than simply building more generation and generation is really cheap while batteries aren’t.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  We can get hard numbers on the storage required using this simulation/optimization site: https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ I often point to this, but it's such a fun and useful site I'll do it again. What you get is typically (it depends on where you are) producing steady output from solar + wind requires some hours of batteries (typically much less than a day) and usually a fairly large backup of hydrogen (particularly far from the equator). The hydrogen gets burned in combined cycle plants with a mediocre round trip efficiency; most of the stored energy goes through batteries and back again at high round trip efficiency. So, yes, one does need days worth of storage, but it's not batteries, it's a rainy day hydrogen account where storage capacity is very cheap.
- nox101 2y ago