Wind turbines shut down when needed most..

[4WD]

We're paying for it in Georgia.

Started out as a good idea. Our bills keep going up for nuclear plant construction cost recovery.

No doubt - we’ll see how the small nuke business goes next …
In the mean time - more CCS projects to make GTG cleaner …

 

[SC Maintenance]

Clearly you don't understand...it is not "exchanged", or "put in" to "take out" later.

To help explain, here's Australia on September 16th...

All of the people "putting in" had far too much supply, and so the volume of renewables (solar and wind) between the solid red line and the dotted red line were curtailed (that means turned off) to manage the grid.

Then right about dinner time, there WAS no solar, either roof top or industrial...requiring gas, hydro, batteries and overwhelmingly coal to meet the evening peak.

It's a simple to grasp concept, however people on this site resort to simplistic put in/take out descriptions of what they would like to think they are signalling about their virtue.

Yes, but the other side acts as if Nuclear can do peak load. My limited understanding is it only really runs at base load, maybe some minor variations. So you still need ability to deliver peak. Coal has the same issue.

In places like California and Texas, Solar and Wind do peak at part of the time of peak demand. Problem is of course sun goes down, wind dies down, but its still hot inside

So you still need gas or hydro or storage to deliver that peak demand when there is no sun. Then you get in the scenario of places like California pays more than market rates for people to put solar panels on their roof - which leads to other imbalances.

Its sort of amazing anything works really. Both camps have blinders on much of the time.

 

[andrew_j]

What do you think would be the primary consumer of electricity in this scenario with broad electrification? Heat pumps fall back to resistive in this scenario, which drives up load and heat pumps are being pushed as a replacement for gas heat, I know, I have one.

Again did a blackout or brownout occur?

 

[KrisZ]

Yes, but the other side acts as if Nuclear can do peak load. My limited understanding is it only really runs at base load, maybe some minor variations. So you still need ability to deliver peak. Coal has the same issue.

In places like California and Texas, Solar and Wind do peak at part of the time of peak demand. Problem is of course sun goes down, wind dies down, but its still hot inside

So you still need gas or hydro or storage to deliver that peak demand when there is no sun. Then you get in the scenario of places like California pays more than market rates for people to put solar panels on their roof - which leads to other imbalances.

Its sort of amazing anything works really. Both camps have blinders on much of the time.

No they don't. But it seems one side has very short memory it seems.
Before the proliferation of the green energy the power grids were very stable and the loads were predictable with very few instances of blackouts or brownouts.

 

[Shannow]

Yes, but the other side acts as if Nuclear can do peak load. My limited understanding is it only really runs at base load, maybe some minor variations. So you still need ability to deliver peak. Coal has the same issue.

In places like California and Texas, Solar and Wind do peak at part of the time of peak demand. Problem is of course sun goes down, wind dies down, but its still hot inside

So you still need gas or hydro or storage to deliver that peak demand when there is no sun. Then you get in the scenario of places like California pays more than market rates for people to put solar panels on their roof - which leads to other imbalances.

Its sort of amazing anything works really. Both camps have blinders on much of the time.

If you have a look at the September 16th curves I posted, you can see that you are incorrect on a few spots there...

Peak WAS delivered by coal, gas, hydro...AEMO, the energy market operator require Coal to be available for the afternoon peaks, to provide that peak load when required.

You understanding is the inverse...the challenge for coal is to get out of the market when the sun is up...I know one coal plant that can swing from 150MW to over 700 twice a day every day to help with working around the intermittents, and reduce the gross excesses during the day...that's contrary to what certain pundits waffle about, but it's true.

Grid needs a mix, and it needs (expensive) storage, but it needs capacity that it can "schedule" up or down.

 

[OVERKILL]

Yes, but the other side acts as if Nuclear can do peak load.

Nuclear can load follow, where permitted. Both France and Germany (RIP) use/used that operating mode.

You'd never do just peaking with a nuke, it would be economically moronic, because peakers run for such short durations. Now, if you were doing maneuvers, but ramping down and then back up to match peaks, they can do that just fine, but that does negatively impact the per kWh price a bit. We messed around a bit with reactor+steam bypass maneuvers, which enabled huge swings in output, at Bruce, back in the 80's and 90's, but got away from doing that because the CNSC wasn't a fan of the constantly varying reactor power levels. Current maneuvers are done by just using steam bypass (at Bruce).

 

[ZZman]

That is why you have numerous power sources. Coal/Gas is good for back up when needed.

Of course add nuclear as well

 

[SC Maintenance]

No they don't. But it seems one side has very short memory it seems.
Before the proliferation of the green energy the power grids were very stable and the loads were predictable with very few instances of blackouts or brownouts.

Peaker plants have existed long before gas or renewables. The first power plants were hydro, which are some of the best at varying output - open or close the valve. Also every year the base vs peak gets further out of whack. 40 years ago they might have run all year and only passed there base capacity a few times a year.

I have no horse in the race / don't have a side. I like all forms of energy. Wind / solar adds redundancy to the system - if used correctly, in places where the wind or sun is consistent.

 

[KrisZ]

Wind / solar adds redundancy to the system - if used correctly, in places where the wind or sun is consistent.

I don’t think you understand what redundancy actually means when implemented in a system.

 

[Burt]

I posted link above. Takes time to read it.

The article alleges the PUC softened vague conceptual proposals, not that it weakened existing regulations. The article perpetuates the myth that Ercot is exempt from federal regulations relating to reliability. Ercot is subject to the Bulk Utility Power Act of 1968 where FERC does have jurisdiction that it largely delegates to the North American Reliability Council. You can look it up. Don’t believe everything you read in the papers.

The problem is regulations are written by looking in the rear view mirror, not anticipating the future.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I don’t think you understand what redundancy actually means when implemented in a system.

Well why don't you educate me?

What is redundancy to you? Have 2 nat gas turbines instead of 1? What happens when your Nat gas supply runs out?

I actually understand redundancy very, very well, on a professional level - and using two very different technologies that can accomplish the same goals, is a much higher level of redundancy than two of the same thing. Of course the key is they need to be implemented properly.

 

[4WD]

Well why don't you educate me?

What is redundancy to you? Have 2 nat gas turbines instead of 1? What happens when your Nat gas supply runs out?

I actually understand redundancy very, very well, on a professional level - and using two very different technologies that can accomplish the same goals, is a much higher level of redundancy than two of the same thing. Of course the key is they need to be implemented properly.

This all sounds more like energy diversification - take my normal 1 hour trip to the bay. I pass in this order:
Wind farm, 6 GTG plant, solar farm, nuke plant, and wind farm …

 

[KrisZ]

Well why don't you educate me?

What is redundancy to you? Have 2 nat gas turbines instead of 1? What happens when your Nat gas supply runs out?

I actually understand redundancy very, very well, on a professional level - and using two very different technologies that can accomplish the same goals, is a much higher level of redundancy than two of the same thing. Of course the key is they need to be implemented properly.

Redundancy means that one source can do the job of the other and vice versa when one of them fails.

Wind and solar categorically cannot do base load, and are not predictable enough for any reliable power, so they provide zero redundancy.

That is why natural gas peakers are so popular and numerous.

 

[SC Maintenance]

This all sounds more like energy diversification - take my normal 1 hour trip to the bay. I pass in this order:
Wind farm, 6 GTG plant, solar farm, nuke plant, and wind farm …

If there all required to be running to meet demand, then there is no redundancy - only diversity.

If some are "extra" during normal times, then its some level of redundant.

Differencing technologies within the redundancy is a higher level than 2 of the same thing. Its known a dis-similar, because different technologies generally don't fail for the same reasons.

 

[dnewton3]

This has run its course.
I have had to delete a slew of posts with political undertones.
Enough.
Locked.