4 ms·

Fission stans in shambles. https://observablehq.com/@jwb/caiso-battery-discharge-history https://observablehq.com/@jwb/caiso-battery-discharge-histor...

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
It's weird that you're talking about fission when the thing the batteries are really replacing is natural gas peaker plants. Peak shaving (i.e. the thing storage is best at) is essentially the opposite of baseload. It gets you over the hump where the demand peak is after sunset but you don't want to have a 100% nuclear grid overbuilt to meet the peak demand that occurs when solar generation is zero, and you also want to stop using natural gas. You still need something to generate power when the load is back to baseline and the peak shaving batteries are dry but it's 8 more hours until sunrise. Especially if we're going to electrify heating loads that currently use fossil fuels, which are higher at night and higher during the part of the year when solar generation is lowest.
- jeffbee 2y ago
  "Baseload" doesn't exist. It can't hurt you. The sum of a bunch of intermittent sources is sufficient.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    "Baseload" clearly exists. There is a minimum load on the grid that it never falls below, which can be satisfied by constant-output generation methods that aren't as well suited to varying output, but also don't vary output and so can't don't create a shortfall when low output periods in variable sources last for longer than the usual amount of time or coincide with high demand. > The sum of a bunch of intermittent sources is sufficient. That only works if the intermittent sources are independent. In winter, solar output is going to be lower during the day than in summer, zero at night, you will have more hours of night, and heating load is both higher in winter and higher at night. There aren't going to be panels on one solar farm where this is the case and others that produce more, it will be true for the entire hemisphere for the entire season. You're then left relying on wind if you don't want to use nuclear, but wind costs more than solar, and now you're lacking independence again. Weather is regional. There will be days when it's still and cold across a thousand square miles. Even batteries that could hypothetically take the load for a night are not going to have anything left by the end of a week of that, so you either need baseload generation methods or some currently unproven/uneconomical ultra high capacity long-term storage system or the week when that happens the power will go out and people will freeze.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210 https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-in... https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/MarkBaseloadFallacyANZSEE.pdf https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/pub... https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-better/ https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothi...
      - goodSteveramos 2y ago
        > we found that the total annualised cost (including capital, operation, maintenance and fuel where relevant) of the least-cost renewable energy system is $7-10 billion per year higher than that of the “efficient” fossil scenario. For comparison, the subsidies to the production and use of all fossil fuels in Australia are at least $10 billion per year. So, if governments shifted the fossil subsidies to renewable electricity, we could easily pay for the latter’s additional costs. They are claiming that a 100% renewable system would be CHEAPER than a fossil fuel system. If that doesn’t stink like some grade A bullshit to you I have nothing more to add.
        ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        That's an Australian academic in 2013 making that claim, and fair play to him, the official Australian cost estimates in 2024 say: > ‘Firming costs’ is a term often used to describe the investments needed to make variable renewables a reliable source of electricity for our power system. In the GenCost report our preferred term is ‘integration costs’. > Integration costs include investments in storage, peaking generation, transmission and system security devices such as synchronous condensers. Modelling determines the most cost-effective combination of these investments. > ... renewables were still found to have the lowest cost range of any new build technology. > For more detail go to the GenCost 2023-24 report section 5.2.1 Framework for calculating variable renewable integration costs on page 65. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/gencost https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/gen...
  - goodSteveramos 2y ago
    “Storage” doesn’t exist. The choice is between nuclear, fossil fuels, and frequent blackouts.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

It's weird that you're talking about fission when the thing the batteries are really replacing is natural gas peaker plants. Peak shaving (i.e. the thing storage is best at) is essentially the opposite of baseload. It gets you over the hump where the demand peak is after sunset but you don't want to have a 100% nuclear grid overbuilt to meet the peak demand that occurs when solar generation is zero, and you also want to stop using natural gas. You still need something to generate power when the load is back to baseline and the peak shaving batteries are dry but it's 8 more hours until sunrise. Especially if we're going to electrify heating loads that currently use fossil fuels, which are higher at night and higher during the part of the year when solar generation is lowest.

jeffbee 2y ago
"Baseload" doesn't exist. It can't hurt you. The sum of a bunch of intermittent sources is sufficient.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  "Baseload" clearly exists. There is a minimum load on the grid that it never falls below, which can be satisfied by constant-output generation methods that aren't as well suited to varying output, but also don't vary output and so can't don't create a shortfall when low output periods in variable sources last for longer than the usual amount of time or coincide with high demand. > The sum of a bunch of intermittent sources is sufficient. That only works if the intermittent sources are independent. In winter, solar output is going to be lower during the day than in summer, zero at night, you will have more hours of night, and heating load is both higher in winter and higher at night. There aren't going to be panels on one solar farm where this is the case and others that produce more, it will be true for the entire hemisphere for the entire season. You're then left relying on wind if you don't want to use nuclear, but wind costs more than solar, and now you're lacking independence again. Weather is regional. There will be days when it's still and cold across a thousand square miles. Even batteries that could hypothetically take the load for a night are not going to have anything left by the end of a week of that, so you either need baseload generation methods or some currently unproven/uneconomical ultra high capacity long-term storage system or the week when that happens the power will go out and people will freeze.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210 https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-in... https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/MarkBaseloadFallacyANZSEE.pdf https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/pub... https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothing-renewables-cant-better/ https://energypost.eu/dispelling-nuclear-baseload-myth-nothi...
    - goodSteveramos 2y ago
      > we found that the total annualised cost (including capital, operation, maintenance and fuel where relevant) of the least-cost renewable energy system is $7-10 billion per year higher than that of the “efficient” fossil scenario. For comparison, the subsidies to the production and use of all fossil fuels in Australia are at least $10 billion per year. So, if governments shifted the fossil subsidies to renewable electricity, we could easily pay for the latter’s additional costs. They are claiming that a 100% renewable system would be CHEAPER than a fossil fuel system. If that doesn’t stink like some grade A bullshit to you I have nothing more to add.
      - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
        That's an Australian academic in 2013 making that claim, and fair play to him, the official Australian cost estimates in 2024 say: > ‘Firming costs’ is a term often used to describe the investments needed to make variable renewables a reliable source of electricity for our power system. In the GenCost report our preferred term is ‘integration costs’. > Integration costs include investments in storage, peaking generation, transmission and system security devices such as synchronous condensers. Modelling determines the most cost-effective combination of these investments. > ... renewables were still found to have the lowest cost range of any new build technology. > For more detail go to the GenCost 2023-24 report section 5.2.1 Framework for calculating variable renewable integration costs on page 65. https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/gencost https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/gen...
- goodSteveramos 2y ago
  “Storage” doesn’t exist. The choice is between nuclear, fossil fuels, and frequent blackouts.