The climate change debate continues.

[octave]

4 minutes ago, Siso said:

Contribute to the grid by supplying power to it but don't really contribute to the cost of it if you export enough to cover off what you draw. Someone has to pay for it and unfortunately that will be people who can't afford it, renters and industry. The grid is getting larger as well that needs to built and maintained by these people.

I am not quite clear what you are saying here, but here is my understanding of it.    During the day I am using my own electricity.  My excess is sold to the grid for a tiny 8 cents a kWh, which they resell for 30ish cents a kWh.  I appreciate that I am using the network; however, I would expect that the large disparity between the price they by my KWh and the price they resell takes into account the cost of the network of this transaction.

[facthunter]

That Spanish incident was a special case. Synchronisation of a multitude of sources is difficult  Community  batteries are a Better idea by far. In a Lot of Places a grid Connection would not be necessary A Grid is a weakness and costly with any form of Power and the More centralised and LARGE the worse it is Baseload power is an outdated concept, used a lot by those who wish to confuse the Issues.  In all these Matters. FACTS will speak for themselves  (if allowed).Nev

[octave]

18 minutes ago, Siso said:

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

It helps to stabilise the grid for everybody.

Inverters don't contribute to the grid.

Batteries help the grid because they smooth out peaks in consumption. There is a huge peak around the time people get home from work and cook dinner. Those people with their own batteries are helping by not contributing to this peak, and those who sell a portion of their stored electricity back to the grid are reducing the need to ramp up power stations or peaker plants.

 

Most of the world is moving in this direction; can they all be wrong?

[facthunter]

China is Probably doing the Sensible and Responsible thing more effectively than Most. Rent seekers in Corrupted Capitalist Places put a Brake on it to maintain their Profits They don't want competition which is what makes capitalism efficient and keeps costs down.   Nev

[octave]

43 minutes ago, Siso said:

Inverters don't contribute to the grid.

I am by no means an expert in this, however, everything I read suggests that home batteries that are part of a VPP can help maintain grid frequency.

 

Understanding the Types of Grid Support the Battery Provides

When a home battery joins a VPP, it can play very different roles depending on what the grid needs. Some of the most common use cases today are described as follows. 

Frequency Regulation

The electric grid must keep its alternating-current frequency within tight limits (in AU, around 50 Hz). If demand suddenly rises or a generator trips, frequency may drop. A battery participating in frequency regulation can respond almost instant, charging or discharging quickly to restore balance. Frequency regulation often commands relatively high compensation per unit of energy or service provided. 

Demand Response (DR) via Storage

Demand response in AU/NZ refers to any action that reduces net demand on the grid during tight supply conditions or high-price periods, either by curtailing or shifting flexible loads, or by using behind-the-meter resources such as batteries so a site draws less electricity from the grid when called upon. 

Depending on the programs, homeowners get predictable compensation for simply being available, or the payment to homeowners in DR-type programs is typically linked to how much energy is saved or how much load power is reduced.

 

https://www.franklinwh.com/au/blog/how-virtual-power-plants-are-changing-home-battery-use

[facthunter]

There's Phase Balancing considerations also Lot's of Lost efficiency Possible there.. We have only just begun this Journey . Remember we used to have Horses and Carts or walk and only the very Rich had Cars . Now they are regarded as essential. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

China is Probably doing the Sensible and Responsible thing more effectively than Most. Rent seekers in Corrupted Capitalist Places put a Brake on it to maintain their Profits They don't want competition which is what makes capitalism efficient and keeps costs down.   Nev

 

That is one of the advantages of a communist country - the govenment sets the agenda and people either comply or not, and there are real consequences for not complying. Of course, for it to work, there has to be a benevolent central control, etc, I am not saying it is the best way by any means, but capitalism in its purest form is no better, either. Which is why he have interventions. And one of those interventions is to get the market off its arse and move to more sustainable energy sources, yet leave the incentives of captialism in place to let the private sector take its place. 

 

Whether one likes it or not, technological progress will move things forward. Intial investments and costs are high, but the long term benefits are massive. 

 

 

What each country/region has to do is work out the best mix for their circumstances. 

 

In some cases, that will be fossil fuel (though I struggle to think of aplace that would not be able to use renewables at least in some of the mix). 

 

In other places, nuclear would be a good option for the majority of the power. 

 

In other places, renewables between "intermittents" and base load (or moree accurately, "constants") is a good alternative. 

 

In Australia's case, the mix of hydro, nuclear, and wind is an achievable. The cost of wind is only marginally more expensive than solar, and much cheaper than nuclear. Existing coal plants cost a touch more than new offshore wind, which still has to amortise.  Just google it as I can't be bothered reposting what has already been posted here (I think by Octave). 

 

Australia has enough renewable "intermittent" capacity to use with capcitors (aka batteries) to smooth match supply and demand. It will take a while to get there; Rome wasn't built in a day. 

 

I haven't looked into it yet, but I am guessing the question will be, grid-wise, how to match what may well be different distribution models. It does not make sense (though resistance alone) to distribute electrons many miles when you have distributed generation and hopefully storage. This will (or should) be the consumer/residential/light commerical model. It owuld make sense to have a lot of micro-grids , interconnected to manage demand and supply should one microgrid have an issue, iuf this is not already in place.

 

But a lot of heavy usage industry is a long way from major centres - mines, smelters (but, not refineries for some reason). These use massive amounts of electrons, so what is the answer? Naturally, there can be local renewables and storage, but they will need some backup/topup. They will have their own microgrid, but will probably rely one feed ins from ither area. Even if these were, say gas fired generators, the result will be a hell of a lot less CO2 and cost than remaining on fossil or going nuclear. 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

6 minutes ago, facthunter said:

There's Phase Balancing considerations also Lot's of Lost efficiency Possible there.. We have only just begun this Journey . Remember we used to have Horses and Carts or walk and only the very Rich had Cars . Now they are regarded as essential. Nev

And the same with almost any other technology.

• Calculators, then computers
• Emulsion film, now digital
• B&W TVs, then Colour
• Landlines and mobile phones (OK, Australia stuffed that one up - ironic given wi-fi is an Australian invention). 

 

Should we have stopped with each of the older technology - my dog, think of the cost of rolling out all those mobile towers and satellites. 

Sadly, aeroplanes seems to be the outllier. 🙂

 

Edited 59 minutes ago by Jerry_Atrick

[facthunter]

Flights are cheaper than is sustainable. . Make the Most of it if that's your thing. The Main purpose is to Appreciate where you Left. No one's interested to know where you've been or see your selfies. Lots of Places are ruined by Tourists especially from BIG UGLY Monster Cruise ships.. Nev

[octave]

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Flights are cheaper than is sustainable.

 

 

You are not wrong there. I  booked a flight from Avalon to Adelaide return for $108. There was an even cheaper option, one way for $44. I did book this before the fuel crisis, though.  This is obscenely cheap.

[octave]

22 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

hould we have stopped with each of the older technology - my dog, think of the cost of rolling out all those mobile towers and satellites. 

Indeed. I think back to the early eighties, when my most sophisticated means of communication was the humble telephone. A call interstate had to wait till Sunday evening, when it would be less expensive. If someone had told me that one day everyone would have a phone in their pocket that was also a powerful computer I would have had trouble believing them. Likewise, the idea that the majority of the world would be connected by this internet thingy would have seemed absurd.

 

Technological development has not suddenly stopped.  The rapid development of telecommunications systems over the last 20 to 30 years is an indicator of what is possible. There is no reason that the power grid we have today is the endpoint of technological development. It is all too easy to believe everything that can be done has been done.