3 ms·

Here are some useful graphs showing how electricty demand varies by region, month and time of day [1]. As expected, California peaks in July because there's mo

by cletus 2y ago

Here are some useful graphs showing how electricty demand varies by region, month and time of day [1]. As expected, California peaks in July because there's more demand for cooling than heating. But what's a little surprising is that July is peak demand for every region. There are many reasons why solar is so attractive as a power source, including: 1. It's the only form of power with direct electricty generation. There's no heating water to turn a turbine; 2. Solar basically has no moving parts. You can point panels towards the Sun to increase efficiency but the panel itself and transmission has no moving parts; 3. Solar panels continue to massively reduce in price and increase in efficiency and it's not clear where this ends; 4. Obviously solar generates its pwower when the Sun is shining. This conincides with when most power is usedk. Adding solar to the power generation mix reduces the peak load required to generate from other sources; 5. Solar installations can be really small, including on individual houses, reducing the transmission capacity required for last-mile and regional power transport. Batteries are just one method to store excess power for variable (renewable) energy sources. Another is carbon sequestration to create fuel directly, called Carbon Capture and Storage ("CCS") [2]. This isn't economic yet. But it may have applications in, say, cold climates where battery performance noticeably degrades. Solar power is the future. [1]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 [2]: https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/why-carbon-capture-storage-cost-remains-high https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/why-carbon-capture-s...

candiddevmike 2y ago
> But what's a little surprising is that July is peak demand for every region. Majority of homes use natural gas for heating in the winter. If they used electric heat instead, the difference would be enormous.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  More to the point, we want them to use electricity for heat instead. Heat pumps are quite efficient and natural gas emits CO2. But contrary to air conditioning load, heating load is inverse to sunlight, so we need a way to supply that electricity at night.
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    Heat pumps are so efficient that you can take the gas you were going to burn in homes to heat them, burn it in generators (losing about 50%), send it across long wires (losing a few percent more) and still come out ahead. If you only need to do that at night, you're another 2x ahead. If you then remember that wind, hydro, nuclear and (the main subject of this discussion) batteries exist, further reducing the times you need to use this displaced gas, it's an overwhelming win. Examples like this is why electrification becomes more important than decarbonizing the last few percent of grid electricity, if the goal is to reduce carbon emisions and/or money.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > Heat pumps are so efficient that you can take the gas you were going to burn in homes to heat them, burn it in generators (losing about 50%), send it across long wires (losing a few percent more) and still come out ahead. Coming out ahead by a few percent still means you need to displace the large majority of the current heating load with some form of electrical generation that can reliably supply a large amount of power at night. > If you only need to do that at night, you're another 2x ahead. You're not, because the significant majority of heating load is at night, because it's colder at night. Also, the night is longer than the day in the coldest parts of winter, and that's the time you need to spec the grid to be able to handle. That doesn't mean we shouldn't electrify heating, but it means we're probably better off generating that electricity with nuclear, which is reliable and generates power at all times, than trying to somehow use solar to supply nighttime power in winter.
dralley 2y ago
> 1. It's the only form of power with direct electricty generation. There's no heating water to turn a turbine; > 2. Solar basically has no moving parts. You can point panels towards the Sun to increase efficiency but the panel itself and transmission has no moving parts; This is kind of it's own problem, the fact that both solar and wind don't have moving parts that are directly connected to the grid and rotate at grid frequency necessitates a lot of other equipment to bring frequency stability back. Some old power plants are being converted into synchronous condensers - the turbines replaced with giant flywheels - for this reason.

by cletus 2y ago

candiddevmike 2y ago

> But what's a little surprising is that July is peak demand for every region. Majority of homes use natural gas for heating in the winter. If they used electric heat instead, the difference would be enormous.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
More to the point, we want them to use electricity for heat instead. Heat pumps are quite efficient and natural gas emits CO2. But contrary to air conditioning load, heating load is inverse to sunlight, so we need a way to supply that electricity at night.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  Heat pumps are so efficient that you can take the gas you were going to burn in homes to heat them, burn it in generators (losing about 50%), send it across long wires (losing a few percent more) and still come out ahead. If you only need to do that at night, you're another 2x ahead. If you then remember that wind, hydro, nuclear and (the main subject of this discussion) batteries exist, further reducing the times you need to use this displaced gas, it's an overwhelming win. Examples like this is why electrification becomes more important than decarbonizing the last few percent of grid electricity, if the goal is to reduce carbon emisions and/or money.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Heat pumps are so efficient that you can take the gas you were going to burn in homes to heat them, burn it in generators (losing about 50%), send it across long wires (losing a few percent more) and still come out ahead. Coming out ahead by a few percent still means you need to displace the large majority of the current heating load with some form of electrical generation that can reliably supply a large amount of power at night. > If you only need to do that at night, you're another 2x ahead. You're not, because the significant majority of heating load is at night, because it's colder at night. Also, the night is longer than the day in the coldest parts of winter, and that's the time you need to spec the grid to be able to handle. That doesn't mean we shouldn't electrify heating, but it means we're probably better off generating that electricity with nuclear, which is reliable and generates power at all times, than trying to somehow use solar to supply nighttime power in winter.

dralley 2y ago

> 1. It's the only form of power with direct electricty generation. There's no heating water to turn a turbine; > 2. Solar basically has no moving parts. You can point panels towards the Sun to increase efficiency but the panel itself and transmission has no moving parts; This is kind of it's own problem, the fact that both solar and wind don't have moving parts that are directly connected to the grid and rotate at grid frequency necessitates a lot of other equipment to bring frequency stability back. Some old power plants are being converted into synchronous condensers - the turbines replaced with giant flywheels - for this reason.