Those unreliable renewables A few weeks ago, I went sailing with a couple of friends. It was a beautiful day, winds were blowing steadily from the shore at about 20 knots (that’s about 23 mph or 37 kph for those who are unfamiliar with nautical measurements). The weather forecast was clear and sunny with a chance of thunderstorms in the late afternoon. Wind and solar under those conditions would have been generating a steady supply of electricity, wind at around 70% of its design capacity and solar close to 100%.
That's what I came up with also. Without nuclear only a very few places with a lot geothermal can do it. If you add enough nuclear to make it viable (50%), you are still forced to do Power-to-X, because nuclear doesn't fluctuate well, and wind just does whatever it does. You still have periods with very high excess power being produced. But the wind is very expensive when you figure in the conversion/storage costs. Solar depends, but it still doesn't increase grid stability.
Adding in high surge power demands for electrically-fueled transport and heat makes the entire situation less stable.
Over the long run, any society which tries to do this will experience outright poverty. Growth declines sharply, necessities become much more expensive, and an ever-higher portion of the population sees a declining living standard.
Interesting thoughts thank you. A few random thoughts as I read it.
Perfection is the enemy of improvement, 90% renewable with fossil fuel backup for abnormal years would be a massive improvement.
Short term fluctuations are somewhat predictable, to some extent its a management issue.
Geographic diversification matters - that requires a good grid network. The storm your boat was in was localised. International networks help (Norway and France)
In your example wind was curtailed a lot (cost money, didn't make it) if it was used for Hydrogen production it is "free". Hydrogen can be stored as ammonia.
Why don't gas plants store gas? I presume it's uneconomic.
If Nuclear is the answer why have the French had so many recent problems?
Have you read David Osmond on the renew website? It was in Australia, but with solar and wind doing the vast majority of the lifting it looked possible to generate reliable, cheap power there.
"Frequent stops and starts also shorten the life of the power plant increasing costs." I think you mean continuous cycling? They don't actually stop and start coal plants as it takes a long time to start a coal plant. Different though with combined cycle power plants where it is shut down.
That's what I came up with also. Without nuclear only a very few places with a lot geothermal can do it. If you add enough nuclear to make it viable (50%), you are still forced to do Power-to-X, because nuclear doesn't fluctuate well, and wind just does whatever it does. You still have periods with very high excess power being produced. But the wind is very expensive when you figure in the conversion/storage costs. Solar depends, but it still doesn't increase grid stability.
Adding in high surge power demands for electrically-fueled transport and heat makes the entire situation less stable.
Over the long run, any society which tries to do this will experience outright poverty. Growth declines sharply, necessities become much more expensive, and an ever-higher portion of the population sees a declining living standard.
Interesting thoughts thank you. A few random thoughts as I read it.
Perfection is the enemy of improvement, 90% renewable with fossil fuel backup for abnormal years would be a massive improvement.
Short term fluctuations are somewhat predictable, to some extent its a management issue.
Geographic diversification matters - that requires a good grid network. The storm your boat was in was localised. International networks help (Norway and France)
In your example wind was curtailed a lot (cost money, didn't make it) if it was used for Hydrogen production it is "free". Hydrogen can be stored as ammonia.
Why don't gas plants store gas? I presume it's uneconomic.
If Nuclear is the answer why have the French had so many recent problems?
Have you read David Osmond on the renew website? It was in Australia, but with solar and wind doing the vast majority of the lifting it looked possible to generate reliable, cheap power there.
Great article.
"Frequent stops and starts also shorten the life of the power plant increasing costs." I think you mean continuous cycling? They don't actually stop and start coal plants as it takes a long time to start a coal plant. Different though with combined cycle power plants where it is shut down.