Surur t1_jaoft0s wrote
Reply to comment by x16x0r in Electric world that kicks out fossil fuels will cost less than combustion economy. 30TW of wind and solar PV will take 0.2% of earth's surface. by DisasterousGiraffe
But when it comes to stabilising the grid, those disadvantages are irrelevant.
Scoobz1961 t1_jar3q79 wrote
>when it comes to stabilising the grid, those disadvantages are irrelevant.
Run that by me again? The stabilizing happens by charging/discharging those batteries. If you discharge the whole capacity of the battery, it will not stabilize anything. So how do you reckon that the capacity is irrelevant to grid stabilization?
Also to claim that cost is irrelevant to anything, ever, is just the dumbest thing. Cost is the ever present all important enabler. If the battery is not economically viable, it wont be there to stabilize the grid in the first place.
Surur t1_jar95zw wrote
I am talking about voltage stabilization lol.
Scoobz1961 t1_jarbfga wrote
First off, you should have said so then. Second, why are you talking about Voltage stabilization when the frequency stability is the more pressing issue? Finally Voltage stability is tied to electricity demand/production just like frequency stability. The way you stabilize both the frequency nad Voltage on the gird level is by controlling the generation.
Unless you are talking about Voltage stability at local levels of end consumers. Which again, why would you do that? Then it is question of the actual wires.
Do you even know what you are talking about?
Surur t1_jardrbd wrote
> KVARs
I am talking about it because OP was talking about KVARs.
Now next time read the whole thread if you are missing context.
Scoobz1961 t1_jarha7p wrote
VAR is a unit of reactive power as opposed to Apparent and Real power. You want to limit the reactive power as much as you can during transmission, to minimize natural loses.
How should I know that when you replied to somebody else who did not talk about reactive power. But alright, while this topic is not very important, you are still wrong on the price. Which is not a big deal, but just so its clear.
Jesus, time wasted because you couldnt provide simple information. You could have cleared this misunderstanding right away.
Surur t1_jarhtin wrote
a) you inserted yourself into the conversation without knowing the context.
b) you need a much smaller battery for reactive power than powering the grid for hours on end.
Stop wasting your own time lol.
x16x0r t1_jaogyjz wrote
They're made to help the grid during peak hours (4-8 PM), not the entire night. Take a look at the chart.. It charges most of the day and outputs all of it's capacity by 8-9PM with peaks at most 3000 MW.
Surur t1_jaoiv86 wrote
I am talking about voltage regulation, not supplying amps.
x16x0r t1_jaojai0 wrote
I'm talking about energy production, not voltage regulation. As more people own EV's and charge them at night, what do you think will be used at midnight for energy?
Surur t1_jaojg44 wrote
> what do you think will be used at midnight for energy?
Not much energy as we will be sleeping?
If you are talking about charging cars, you would know they typically charge in the evening, not night, and that if our energy is mainly generated in the day, we could easily incentivise charging in the day also (e.g. by requiring chargers at parking spots).
x16x0r t1_jaojnu1 wrote
People charge their EV's after midnight for better TOU rates. Just look at the graph and tell me batteries can supply energy for EV's after midnight.
>you would know they typically charge in the evening, not night
I don't know about you, but in California utility rates are at least double during the evening compared to off peak hours (after midnight).
Surur t1_jaonsfw wrote
> People charge their EV's after midnight for better TOU rates.
And that will obviously follow the availability of energy. If electricity is scarce at midnight then it will be expensive, and if it's most abundant in the day the incentive time will change.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments