←back to thread

Scientist exposes anti-wind groups as oil-funded, now they want to silence him

(electrek.co)
542 points xbmcuser | 3 comments | 27 Aug 25 06:49 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
testhest ◴[27 Aug 25 10:16 UTC] No.45037600[source]▶
Wind is only useful up to a point, once it gets above 20% of generation capacity ensuing grid stability becomes expensive either through huge price swings or grid level energy storage.
replies(7): >>45037646 #>>45037677 #>>45037723 #>>45037921 #>>45038541 #>>45039186 #>>45040106 #
DrScientist ◴[27 Aug 25 10:31 UTC] No.45037723[source]▶
Sure you need baseload/storage as part of the mix - however where do you get the 20% figure from?

For the past year in the UK the average is ~30% generation from wind. https://grid.iamkate.com/

So seems it's possible. Swings in generation are dealt with via inter-country interconnects, pumped storage and gas turbine generation. Nuclear adds a steady base.

replies(2): >>45037804 #>>45038096 #
Moldoteck ◴[27 Aug 25 11:22 UTC] No.45038096[source]▶
The argument was about the cost, UK having highest prices on the continent (depending how you count subsidies for others) but 20% seems too low anyway. Normal plants are still fine at 60% cf
replies(1): >>45038269 #
plantain ◴[27 Aug 25 11:39 UTC] No.45038269[source]▶
The UK has insane prices because of their refusal to do regional pricing to accommodate grid constraints. They'd rather pay wind farms to park their turbines, than to segment their grid pricing (i.e. make energy prices cheaper where there is a surplus of wind generation).

The UK's prices are a political choice due to the mapping of voters over the energy generation distribution.

replies(3): >>45038315 #>>45038654 #>>45038681 #
Moldoteck ◴[27 Aug 25 11:45 UTC] No.45038315[source]▶
Isn't regional pricing dangerous for industry if it's concentrated in wrong areas and moving it isn't easy?
replies(1): >>45038422 #
AndrewDucker ◴[27 Aug 25 11:56 UTC] No.45038422[source]▶
It means that the industry has to actually follow economics, and build supply where the demand is.
replies(2): >>45038764 #>>45046325 #
1. Moldoteck ◴[27 Aug 25 12:32 UTC] No.45038764[source]▶
But it followed economics. What you are saying is that now you want to screw it, because moving industry/trained labor to other areas isn't a plug and play option- it's a huge investment which could lead to closures
replies(1): >>45038977 #
2. AndrewDucker ◴[27 Aug 25 12:53 UTC] No.45038977[source]▶
The government, by saying that there was a single zone, despite the electricity not actually working that way (because interconnectors don't have infinite capacity), were defying economics.

By breaking the country in to zones, where the electricity that's bought can actually reach the users they then apply the actual economics of the system properly, and encourage suppliers to build where the demand can be satisfied by them.

replies(1): >>45039138 #
3. Moldoteck ◴[27 Aug 25 13:07 UTC] No.45039138[source]▶
But in the past it made sense to have a single zone- prices were similar. So industry developed where possible. Now what you ask is that due to the ren generation, the pricing should change, so that industry that was formed long before current ren push needs to restructure/move to more advantageous locations because otherwise it'll use competitiveness. If you are fine with such development and it's consequences, you could ask for such reforms.

Situation is very similar in Germany - most industry is concentrated in the south while most productive wind in the north. In the past it didn't matter since prices were similar with coal. But now, since you can't magically create wind in low wind/unproductive areas, the options are either split zones and kill part of industry, which Germany doesn't want, or to keep a single zone and build expensive transmission like sudlink.