Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by derriz 1803 days ago
> The world needs a way to convert renewable energy into constant energy.

Not really or at least that represents a gross simplification of the situation.

Electricity demand is anything but constant - peak to trough intraday consumption can vary by up to a factor of 5. Grid engineering is all about matching lots of different sources with different generation characteristics with a varying (but quite predictable) demand curve.

All generation sources are intermittent - they are just intermittent in different ways. Solar and wind have well known limitations in this regard but at least the variation in output is predictable - particular solar, wind is typically accurately predictable up to a few weeks horizon.

The intermittency associated with thermal plants may be less in some ways but it has the disadvantage is that it is largely not predictable. For example, the average US coal plant will be unavailable for generation 15% of the time - so roughly 1 hour down for every 6 hours generating. Most of this 1 hour downtime is unscheduled/forced which is unpredictable. It's a myth that having a 1GW of fossil fuel generation capacity means you can reliability meet a peak demand of 1GW.

Also nuclear and coal are NOT good at load following - they operate most efficiently when producing the constant design output. Ramping up/down coal or nuclear output quickly is often not at all possible or is possible - depending on plant design - but with a large loss in efficiency and increased plant stresses and wear and tear.

Grid engineers have been maintaining this balancing act between unreliable generation and fluctuating demand for ever. In the past the focus was on coping with the intermittency caused by the failure modes of thermal plants. Increasingly now they are coping with the variable output of solar and wind generation but seem to be managing this - a bunch of European countries source more than 40% of their electricity from solar or wind and none required utility scale li-ion or have experienced increased grid instability.

The same tools are used to handle wind and solar intermittency as are used to handle thermal plant failure or inability to ramp up/down quickly - some hydro storage, backup idling natural gas plants, grid interconnections, etc.

Fundamentally the renewables revolution is happening quietly in the background is driven by simple economics. Coal and nuclear are just too expensive by a factor of 2 or 3 and natural gas, on-shore wind and utility scale solar are just so cheap in comparison. It's cheaper now to build a load of wind (or solar) and some backup natural gas generation - typically with a capacity factor of only 10% or so - than it is to meet demand with thermal fossil fuels. This is because wind and solar are capital intensive while NG plants are cheap to build but expensive to operate due to fuel costs. This combo (idling natural gas and wind and/or solar) is in the process of displacing everything else. 90% of the new generation capacity added in the US last year was of this nature. And a similar proportion is observed globally.

Meanwhile you have endless arguments about why wind and solar "cannot work" in fora, while all around the world it clearly IS working and analysis suggests it requires no technology breakthrough to get to 60%-70% carbon-free generation - many grids are well along this journey (40% to 50%) and none of the doomsday scenarios of massive load shedding, black-outs, etc. have occurred.

1 comments

My utility solar cost average 50% over regular electricity $ for 2 years.

Texas suffered a doomsday scenario last winter, power demand far exceeding renewables ability under prolonged bad weather. California has frequent rolling blackouts; bizarrely, solar roofs are disallowed to supply the homes they cover.

Where in the world do you live out of interest? There must be some unusual local conditions that would cause that price discrepancy because I've followed the electricity prices in a number of European countries as they've increased their reliance on wind turbines and have seen no obvious kinks in the plots of prices as wind has contributed more and more. Certainly wholesale electricity prices - where I've followed them - are at a historic low at the moment but there is a lot on the demand side that could be causing this.

The Texas story actually reinforces one of my points - thermal fossil fuel plants are unreliable also as the failure of thermal plants caused a far greater loss in capacity than that lost by renewables.

California's electricity has been a mess for decades before the recent growth in solar and wind so I'm not sure how you can claim a causal relationship between what's happening now in California and the expansion of wind and solar.

Regarding domestic roof-top solar PV - I currently don't see it having any role to play in the march towards carbon-free energy - the cost per KWh is just too high and in many countries is only made viable by large government grants and feed-in tariff guarantees which effectively allow a domestic installation to exploit the grid like a giant infinite and free battery. Utility scale solar is completely different - it costs about 1/5 of the price per KWh compared to roof-top domestic PV and in many markets is now competing and beating conventional thermal generation on price without government support.

The main cause of Texas's blackouts were the grid losing about 70% of their natural gas power (and not having good inter-connects with the rest of the US). Also, it is a great example of where the ability to pre-heat a ton of water would have been really useful. If they had the ability to do so, it would have greatly reduced the demands on the grid when the storm hit, which would have prevented the problem in the first place.