3 ms·
It's true that the grid has to balance its own generation, but that happens today - the frequency of the mains changes constantly, and it's the grid controllers
by timthorn 13y ago
It's true that the grid has to balance its own generation, but that happens today - the frequency of the mains changes constantly, and it's the grid controllers' job to bring on supply as required. There are some storage options - pumped hydro for example - but I absolutely take your point that the grid is designed for a classically understood demand/supply environment.
Certainly there is a risk that all these intermittent renewables will end up causing the most dirty of generators to be spun up more often, in the least efficient usage pattern.
The dream has to be a proper demand response system, with electric cars being a key sink for excess generation.
The work of David MacKay at Cambridge University is excellent on this topic: http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/
- pdonis 13y agothe grid has to balance its own generation, but that happens today Yes, but today (i.e., without individual homeowners putting power back into the grid) the grid's control system can assume that the load is always positive except at a finite and fairly small number of known points, the grid's generators, which are controlled by the grid itself. When individual users can put power back into the grid, the load can become negative at any arbitrary location in the grid, without warning. That greatly complicates the control problem. The dream has to be a proper demand response system, with electric cars being a key sink for excess generation. Yes, and who's going to pay for that? (Not the electric cars, but the improvements in the grid that allow it to make use of them as storage.) An obvious solution is to charge the people who are creating the problem by making their connection with the grid two-way instead of one-way.