Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Bob Nudd
Jul 24, 2007

Gee whiz doc!

WarpedNaba posted:

One of the issues that you have to consider is the centralised power supply that most areas of the world contend with. A decentralised network of power suppliers could reduce more consumption via bypassed transmission loss than any measure I can think of (off the top of my head).

I'd be careful with this line of reasoning: in most power systems, total transmission and distribution losses run around 7%. That's really not a killer. If you want to get power from solar PV or wind, you need to find really good sites with the best resources to get the economics even close to sane. When it comes to renewables, industrial-scale facilities in the right locations is the way to go. If people want to feel warm and fuzzy about saving the planet, they should plant a vegetable garden or something. If we're serious about renewables, we need economies of scale.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bob Nudd
Jul 24, 2007

Gee whiz doc!

Anosmoman posted:

The problem is the battery. Renewables would be a lot more viable if we could just store the energy in a practical and economical way. It doesn't matter if wind mills become 50% cheaper or solar panels 100% more efficient - as long as we don't have The Battery their use will not go beyond supplemental generation.

Why not? It seems people have a total phobia about spending money on generation plant that will be only used occasionally, but sinking money into storage for the exact same purpose is okay. In any study I've seen, the former option is economically preferable, even if that runs against intuition.

Bob Nudd
Jul 24, 2007

Gee whiz doc!

Aureon posted:

Because solar outage has a very high correlation. 0.4 uptime, with high correlation, get problematic quickly when it's your main workhorse.

We'd have to have full power needs on Solar only, full power needs on Wind only, and we'd STILL need backup.

Oh I understand it's a problem, and I used to think that storage is the heir apparent as a solution. After looking into it, though, it turns out that procuring more flexible generation is nearly always a cheaper solution than some magical giant battery. That's just the way the numbers run: I'll dig out a few papers if people would be interested.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply