5 ms·

And yet sometimes I wonder. In the Uk you need most of your energy in the cold dark winter. So if you require enough non solar renewables to get you through the

And yet sometimes I wonder. In the Uk you need most of your energy in the cold dark winter. So if you require enough non solar renewables to get you through the winter with net zero and those renewables are still available in the summer time are large scale solar not a bit redundant? Sunnier countries that have high electricity demand for air conditioning during the sunny periods would seem to have a better match mind.

mr_toad 1y ago
The UK might to think nuclear, if only so that it isn’t totally reliant on a foreign power for its nuclear deterrent.
- tim333 1y ago
  We have a few reactors and used to make bombs, the first tested in 1952. It's been a bit outsourced to the US these days though which might end up changing.
pydry 1y ago
It's usually windy when it's dark and cold and vice versa. You should be wondering about the combination of solar + wind energy + short term storage + long term storage.
- zozbot234 1y ago
  > It's usually windy when it's dark and cold and vice versa. Usually, but not always. You can have many days or weeks, e.g. in mid-winter of overcast weather and very little wind. This is a real problem for renewable energy sources, they're not comprehensively viable unless supplemented by alternatives like gas peakers or perhaps nuclear.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Or geographic interconnection. There hasn't been an hour in the past 30 years where there was no wind or sun somewhere in Europe.
    - sapiogram 1y ago
      Winter nights are long and dark everywhere in Europe, wind speeds definitely correlate somewhat, and transmission losses exist. Unless you're planning to massively overbuild wind power, you do need alternative power sources capable of satisfying almost all your power demand for shorter periods.
      - ben_w 1y ago
        The length of winter nights in Europe vary from 14.3[0] hours to 52 days[1]. Transmission losses are subject to engineering, and can be as low as you're willing to spend money to get them — as in, if the world all suddenly (magically and unrealistically) decided to be friends, you could put a girdle around the world with only 1 Ω resistance using existing manufacturing capacity[2]. [0] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=Tarifa+Spain+sunrise+21+Dec+to+Tarifa+Spain+sunset+21+Dec https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=Tarifa+Spain+sunrise+21... [1] https://www.finavia.fi/en/newsroom/2023/what-polar-night-experience-unique-darkness-finnish-lapland https://www.finavia.fi/en/newsroom/2023/what-polar-night-exp... [2] ~ 12 months global aluminium production, but you could do it
  - pydry 1y ago
    Maybe look at some data before FUDding. This model posits 97% carbon free generation in Australia with 5 hours of storage using actual real world weather data: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... >You can have many days or weeks Maybe cite actual data. >alternatives like gas peakers or perhaps nuclear. Nuclear isnt a peaker. Or rather, it can theoretically be used as a peaker but burning literal $100 notes may be more cost effective in the long run than using it as a peaker. Batteries and pumped storage are cost effective peakers. I find it's better when modeling renewable energy generation scenarios to try not to pretend they dont exist.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - zozbot234 1y ago
      Pumped storage is cost effective but it's also built out, there's little if any scope for growth. Battery storage is entirely speculative so far. Whilst nuclear is a proven baseload source that can provide enough power for the most critical needs even when renewables aren't producing.
      - pydry 1y ago
        >Pumped storage is cost effective but it's also built out, there's little if any scope for growth You're confusing pumped storage with river dams. The geography for pumped storage is abundant, river dams not so much. >Battery storage is entirely speculative so far. In 2012 maybe. These days grid level battery plants are deployed routinely. >Whilst nuclear is a proven baseload source At 5x the cost per kwh, according to lazard. Baseload also means "requires peakers". That means gas or...batteries. When french nuclear plants go down for maintenance the country chews through ungodly amounts of gas. Some of their plants have capacity factors of like ~80% - not much better than high performing wind farms.
      - jeffbee 1y ago
        > Battery storage is entirely speculative so far. Battery systems installed in the last 5 years in America are 15 times more powerful than all the fission reactors built in the same time. Meanwhile, US reactor capacity is now lower than it was in 1990. One of these power sources is "speculative" and the other is a rapidly-growing, practical and economical way to store and distribute energy.
- sapiogram 1y ago
  That's a weak correlation at best. What about when it's still weather in winter? It's not unusual at all.
  - pydry 1y ago
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... Thats the question this guy asked, using actual weather data to power his models instead of carbon industry fluff. Unfortunately the instinctive skeptical reaction to this is not "here's an alternative model and alternative data" but "here's even more FUD".
    - sapiogram 1y ago
      I appreciate the link, but Australia is an almost entirely tropical/subtropical country, with Sidney being as far from the equator as Northern Africa. I don't believe that analysis can tell you anything about Northern Europe. This means that solar power output is much more seasonal, and most critically, power consumption in Northern Europe is highest during the winter months. I expect this is not the case for Australia.
ZeroGravitas 1y ago
The UK plans are mostly wind e.g. from the latest carbon budget: > Low-carbon supply: by 2040, our Balanced Pathway sees offshore wind grow six-fold from 15 GW of capacity in 2023 to 88 GW by 2040. Onshore wind capacity doubles to 32 GW by 2040 and solar capacity increases to 82 GW And once you multiply by capacity factor the solar and onshore wind are about equal so solar will be less than a third of modern renewables. Plus UK wind peaks in the winter.
- Gibbon1 1y ago
  I think Scotland is already a net exporter of electricity due to wind.
itishappy 1y ago
To be honest, peaker plants that sit offline for most of the year but can spin up in unfavorable conditions seems like an ideal application for fossil fuels. They're basically grid-scale emergency generators. Building an oversized battery farm that can store 3 weeks of energy and gets used once every other year probably won't make economic sense anytime soon.

mr_toad 1y ago

The UK might to think nuclear, if only so that it isn’t totally reliant on a foreign power for its nuclear deterrent.

tim333 1y ago
We have a few reactors and used to make bombs, the first tested in 1952. It's been a bit outsourced to the US these days though which might end up changing.

pydry 1y ago

It's usually windy when it's dark and cold and vice versa. You should be wondering about the combination of solar + wind energy + short term storage + long term storage.

zozbot234 1y ago
> It's usually windy when it's dark and cold and vice versa. Usually, but not always. You can have many days or weeks, e.g. in mid-winter of overcast weather and very little wind. This is a real problem for renewable energy sources, they're not comprehensively viable unless supplemented by alternatives like gas peakers or perhaps nuclear.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Or geographic interconnection. There hasn't been an hour in the past 30 years where there was no wind or sun somewhere in Europe.
  - sapiogram 1y ago
    Winter nights are long and dark everywhere in Europe, wind speeds definitely correlate somewhat, and transmission losses exist. Unless you're planning to massively overbuild wind power, you do need alternative power sources capable of satisfying almost all your power demand for shorter periods.
    - ben_w 1y ago
      The length of winter nights in Europe vary from 14.3[0] hours to 52 days[1]. Transmission losses are subject to engineering, and can be as low as you're willing to spend money to get them — as in, if the world all suddenly (magically and unrealistically) decided to be friends, you could put a girdle around the world with only 1 Ω resistance using existing manufacturing capacity[2]. [0] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=Tarifa+Spain+sunrise+21+Dec+to+Tarifa+Spain+sunset+21+Dec https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=Tarifa+Spain+sunrise+21... [1] https://www.finavia.fi/en/newsroom/2023/what-polar-night-experience-unique-darkness-finnish-lapland https://www.finavia.fi/en/newsroom/2023/what-polar-night-exp... [2] ~ 12 months global aluminium production, but you could do it
- pydry 1y ago
  Maybe look at some data before FUDding. This model posits 97% carbon free generation in Australia with 5 hours of storage using actual real world weather data: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... >You can have many days or weeks Maybe cite actual data. >alternatives like gas peakers or perhaps nuclear. Nuclear isnt a peaker. Or rather, it can theoretically be used as a peaker but burning literal $100 notes may be more cost effective in the long run than using it as a peaker. Batteries and pumped storage are cost effective peakers. I find it's better when modeling renewable energy generation scenarios to try not to pretend they dont exist.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - zozbot234 1y ago
    Pumped storage is cost effective but it's also built out, there's little if any scope for growth. Battery storage is entirely speculative so far. Whilst nuclear is a proven baseload source that can provide enough power for the most critical needs even when renewables aren't producing.
    - pydry 1y ago
      >Pumped storage is cost effective but it's also built out, there's little if any scope for growth You're confusing pumped storage with river dams. The geography for pumped storage is abundant, river dams not so much. >Battery storage is entirely speculative so far. In 2012 maybe. These days grid level battery plants are deployed routinely. >Whilst nuclear is a proven baseload source At 5x the cost per kwh, according to lazard. Baseload also means "requires peakers". That means gas or...batteries. When french nuclear plants go down for maintenance the country chews through ungodly amounts of gas. Some of their plants have capacity factors of like ~80% - not much better than high performing wind farms.
    - jeffbee 1y ago
      > Battery storage is entirely speculative so far. Battery systems installed in the last 5 years in America are 15 times more powerful than all the fission reactors built in the same time. Meanwhile, US reactor capacity is now lower than it was in 1990. One of these power sources is "speculative" and the other is a rapidly-growing, practical and economical way to store and distribute energy.
sapiogram 1y ago
That's a weak correlation at best. What about when it's still weather in winter? It's not unusual at all.
- pydry 1y ago
  https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-g... Thats the question this guy asked, using actual weather data to power his models instead of carbon industry fluff. Unfortunately the instinctive skeptical reaction to this is not "here's an alternative model and alternative data" but "here's even more FUD".
  - sapiogram 1y ago
    I appreciate the link, but Australia is an almost entirely tropical/subtropical country, with Sidney being as far from the equator as Northern Africa. I don't believe that analysis can tell you anything about Northern Europe. This means that solar power output is much more seasonal, and most critically, power consumption in Northern Europe is highest during the winter months. I expect this is not the case for Australia.

ZeroGravitas 1y ago

The UK plans are mostly wind e.g. from the latest carbon budget: > Low-carbon supply: by 2040, our Balanced Pathway sees offshore wind grow six-fold from 15 GW of capacity in 2023 to 88 GW by 2040. Onshore wind capacity doubles to 32 GW by 2040 and solar capacity increases to 82 GW And once you multiply by capacity factor the solar and onshore wind are about equal so solar will be less than a third of modern renewables. Plus UK wind peaks in the winter.

Gibbon1 1y ago
I think Scotland is already a net exporter of electricity due to wind.

itishappy 1y ago

To be honest, peaker plants that sit offline for most of the year but can spin up in unfavorable conditions seems like an ideal application for fossil fuels. They're basically grid-scale emergency generators. Building an oversized battery farm that can store 3 weeks of energy and gets used once every other year probably won't make economic sense anytime soon.