Submitted by F1NNTORIO t3_zmisk3 in Futurology
YawnTractor_1756 t1_j0dc6g6 wrote
Reply to comment by ThePowderhorn in 5 second toaster and kettle by F1NNTORIO
All renewables require a DC-AC conversion. And we would need tons of them. And they use rare metals.
Broadly conversion also means voltage transformation. If you want to run more current (because we make more electricity, because we need more electricity, because we charge cars and shift from cooking with gas to electric etc etc) then you either need more wires (and more towers, and transformers) or you need better wires and better transformers.
There is additional problem with maintaining electric frequency. Currently it is done via fossil generators, nuclear is not suitable for that purpose because of how it's generation is used. Renewables are expensive at that. In future of renewable energy it has to be done with storage. If storage is used for it then storage would not just be a 'backup battery' now, it would become a grid forming part, with added requirements.
I googled a good article about that, here: https://www.greentechmedia.com/squared/dispatches-from-the-grid-edge/solving-the-renewable-powered-grids-inertia-problem-with-advanced-inverters
ThePowderhorn t1_j0ddzp1 wrote
Thanks for the link! Usually I have a distance excuse to not do further research, but given that I get my power from Austin Energy, learning more should be rather doable.
Tree-farmer2 t1_j0eh3u3 wrote
Why isn't nuclear suitable?
YawnTractor_1756 t1_j0gw63q wrote
Because its production is very stable. You cannot crank it up or down on demand fast.
Tree-farmer2 t1_j0i6lc8 wrote
Isn't that the same for coal though?
[deleted] t1_j0ub7vu wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments