More Confirmation Of The Infeasibility Of A Fully Wind/Solar/Storage Electricity System – Watts Up With That?

(post is archived)

[–] • 1 pt

Nuclear. Why can't people see that we are inches away from practically unlimited energy the second we decide we actually want it.

link

[–] • 1 pt

The energy agenda of the liberal fascists is a fantasy. It has nothing to do with reality. It cannot be achieved, because it doesn't make any practical sense.

link

[–] • 1 pt

Agreed

What could be feasible, but NOT desirable, is to have a baseline of quick starting gas turbines to power the grid on "low solar/wind"

but that is not desirable because you would need appliances that are instructed to be turned off when there is not enough generation capacity.

so, it is either nuclear or hope that this is true http://www.rossilivecat.com/

NOTE: I am just hoping that it is true, I have not idea if it will be

link

[–] • 1 pt

(edited )

Texas's power grid was actually pretty smart and could solve the problem. It's only problem is it had one unneeded flaw added that fucked everything up.

It's very important for a power grid to operate very close to its target voltage and frequency, but within that window you can use the remaining variation of either the voltage or frequency as a price signal (they will relate). Let's say there is more load on the system than supply. That will bog down mechanical generators on the grid and cause they to operate (mechanically) at a lower frequency. The frequency on the grid dropping by a tenth of a hertz means more systems need to come online, so you increase the exchange price to motivate more power to be generated. While you can signal that via a service on a network, grid peers can also calculate the changes in price because they all can read the same frequency as everyone else on the line. Why this is relevant is that consumer devices can be aware of prices also without being attached to a network. This could include car chargers and power walls that want to consume power when it is cheap. The advantage is instant signalling of an appropriate price to keep the grid stable.

Why did that not work in Texas. Three parts. One is that they price capped it instead of letting the economics play out. The second it hit that price cap is when everything properly failed. The second side is obviously the ice. Would the whole thing have collapsed because of that no matter what incentive there was to produce power? The third is that their grid didn't allow outside power. With the incentive system they had in place, if they allowed out of state power, then out of state providers could have done what they had to to juice their system.

The point I'm making though is a system where devices turn themselves off isn't that hard to imagine. You'd have to price electricity high enough that people would bother though. That's the unattractive part. Enough people with smart thermostats that keep the house at 70 when energy is cheap and 75 when it isn't might be enough. Water heaters also can target cheaper electricity.

Texas's power grid was actually pretty smart and could solve the problem. It's only problem is it had one unneeded flaw added that fucked everything up. It's very important for a power grid to operate very close to its target voltage and frequency, but within that window you can use the remaining variation of either the voltage or frequency as a price signal (they will relate). Let's say there is more load on the system than supply. That will bog down mechanical generators on the grid and cause they to operate (mechanically) at a lower frequency. The frequency on the grid dropping by a tenth of a hertz means more systems need to come online, so you increase the exchange price to motivate more power to be generated. While you can signal that via a service on a network, grid peers can also calculate the changes in price because they all can read the same frequency as everyone else on the line. Why this is relevant is that consumer devices can be aware of prices also without being attached to a network. This could include car chargers and power walls that want to consume power when it is cheap. The advantage is instant signalling of an appropriate price to keep the grid stable. Why did that not work in Texas. Three parts. One is that they price capped it instead of letting the economics play out. The second it hit that price cap is when everything properly failed. The second side is obviously the ice. Would the whole thing have collapsed because of that no matter what incentive there was to produce power? The third is that their grid didn't allow outside power. With the incentive system they had in place, if they allowed out of state power, then out of state providers could have done what they had to to juice their system. The point I'm making though is a system where devices turn themselves off isn't that hard to imagine. You'd have to price electricity high enough that people would bother though. That's the unattractive part. Enough people with smart thermostats that keep the house at 70 when energy is cheap and 75 when it isn't might be enough. Water heaters also can target cheaper electricity.

parent
link