Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tjcanno t1_je4dn7u wrote

We need to add batteries. Lots of batteries to store power when generation exceeds demand, to draw from when demand exceeds supply. Need batteries to really make system as available as coal.

6

londons_explorer t1_je4l8q4 wrote

Batteries... or transmission (get power from another place 1000 miles away where it is windy right now) or hydro (store up water and use it only when other sources fail), or smart EV's (which charge only when there is spare power in the grid, and perhaps put some power into the grid at times of peak demand), or Heat reservoirs (heat peoples homes with heat pumps when there is spare power, and have big tanks full of a liquid that can store hotness or coolness for release into the home later when desired.

We can use one or all these solutions. We'll probably end up using a mix, decided by market forces.

10

mrpenchant t1_je4y5m5 wrote

>We can use one or all these solutions.

Wrong on saying we can use only one of them. Batteries and transmission are both a must. Because of the intermittent nature if we want to continue increasing renewable production we must have batteries. And if we want to do this in a remotely sensible way, we need transmission to move electricity from where it is most efficiently and economically generated to the cities where people are.

By the way, your hydro and heat reservoirs both are just non-traditional batteries.

And only charging EVs when there is excess power is a good way to kill off EVs. I know I would never buy one if that was the case because I don't plan on getting stuck somewhere because no charging was considered a valid option. Economic incentives about when to charge are already being done and are perfectly valid on the other hand.

−2

danielravennest t1_je6p5er wrote

> We need to add batteries.

Funny thing, that. New US storage increased from 4.9 to 8.9 GW over the past 12 months. Old storage is pumped hydro, which stayed the same at 23 GW

1